Politics

Hamilton Ward Demographics, 2006 Data

By RTH Staff
Published July 21, 2011

Posted for reference. You can also view an earlier table using 2001 Statistics Canada information.

Hamilton Ward Demographics
Ward Area (acres) Area (ha) Area % of Total Pop. Pop. % of Total Dwellings Dwellings % of Total Density (per acre) Density per ha People per Dwelling
1 3,759.00 1,521.21 1.3% 30,080 6.0% 13,615 7.0% 8.0 19.8 2.2
2 1,635.74 661.96 0.6% 37,815 7.5% 19,430 10.0% 23.1 57.1 1.9
3 3,570.92 1,445.10 1.3% 39,910 7.9% 16,725 8.6% 11.2 27.6 2.4
4 4,088.88 1,654.71 1.5% 35,635 7.1% 14,825 7.6% 8.7 21.5 2.4
5 5,134.81 2,077.98 1.8% 38,965 7.7% 15,660 8.0% 7.6 18.8 2.5
6 3,950.87 1,598.86 1.4% 40,645 8.1% 15,800 8.1% 10.3 25.4 2.6
7 4,315.35 1,746.36 1.5% 58,395 11.6% 21,095 10.8% 13.5 33.4 2.8
8 4,291.87 1,736.86 1.5% 48,400 9.6% 16,945 8.7% 11.3 27.9 2.9
9 4,774.21 1,932.05 1.7% 26,695 5.3% 9,590 4.9% 5.6 13.8 2.8
10 3,053.09 1,235.54 1.1% 24,975 4.9% 8,585 4.4% 8.2 20.2 2.9
11 67,850.17 27,457.99 24.3% 25,900 5.1% 9,285 4.8% 0.4 0.9 2.8
12 27,245.40 11,025.82 9.8% 31,040 6.2% 10,065 5.2% 1.1 2.8 3.1
13 6,290.52 2,545.68 2.3% 24,695 4.9% 9,365 4.8% 3.9 9.7 2.6
14 102,405.00 41,441.83 36.7% 15,920 3.2% 5,410 2.8% 0.2 0.4 2.9
15 36,798.66 14,891.89 13.2% 25,490 5.1% 8,375 4.3% 0.7 1.7 3.0
Total 279,164.49 112,973.86 100.0% 504,560 100.0% 194,770 100.0% 1.8 4.5 2.6
Total City 30,747.44 12,443.05 11.0% 329,845 65.4% 134,095 68.8% 10.7 26.5 2.5
Total Suburbs 248,417.05 100,530.81 89.0% 174,715 34.6% 60,675 31.2% 0.7 1.7 2.9
Avg City 3,843.43 1,555.38 1.4% 41,231 8.2% 16,762 8.6% 10.7 26.5 2.5
Avg Suburbs 35,488.15 14,361.54 12.7% 24,959 4.9% 8,668 4.5% 0.7 1.7 2.9

Notes

37 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted July 21, 2011 at 13:58:18

Holy crap, we need to split up Ward 7!

Can you explain how you arrived at 0.2% and 1.8% for average areas of the wards?

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 21, 2011 at 14:04:30 in reply to Comment 66727

That's the average area percent of total. So the average suburban ward is 1.8% of the total area of the city, and the average urban ward is 0.2% of the total area of the city.

Permalink | Context

By John Neary (registered) | Posted July 21, 2011 at 14:17:38 in reply to Comment 66728

I think your math is off, Ryan. I get 1.38% and 12.71%.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 21, 2011 at 14:42:00 in reply to Comment 66729

You're quite right. Fixed.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted July 21, 2011 at 14:35:59

Ryan,

I know this may sound pedantic, but Canada officially converted to the metric system in the mid 1970s (with some resistance and exceptions) and it would be simpler if RTH also standardized on Canada's official system. This has already caused some confusion as people try to convert between various measures of population density, distances etc.

Could you please quote areas as ha and population densities as people/ha. This is the usual standard for urban population densities internationally and it is easy to convert these to densities per square km, if necessary (1 ha = 0.01 square km, so simply multiply the /ha figure by 100 to get /km^2). Another common measure of urban density is m^2 per person, which is also easy to get from the ha data.

It is also pretty easy to visualize a hectare as it is 100m squared (and road distances are measured in metres or kilometres). I doubt that many RTH readers could easily visualize an acre (how many feet or yards on a side?), or know the various subdivisions of length and area measures in the imperial system (rods, perches, chains, roods, furlongs etc.)

Nicholas p.s. 1 acre = 0.404685642 ha

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 21, 2011 at 14:50:22 in reply to Comment 66730

Thanks. I compromised and put density in both hectares and acres (for people who suspect metrickery).

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2011-07-21 14:50:34

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted July 21, 2011 at 14:46:06

Ward 7 is the second most dense ward in the city? Who knew?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Unbalanced? (anonymous) | Posted July 21, 2011 at 15:09:36

So effectively, if you live in Ward 14, your vote is nearly 4 times more important than the vote of somebody living in Ward 7.

Or, put another way:

In Ward 7, you have to share your representative with 58,000+ people, where in Ward 14, you only have to share them with 16,000 or so.

Seems a tad unbalanced.

Permalink | Context

By drb (registered) - website | Posted July 21, 2011 at 15:35:06 in reply to Comment 66736

Even more unbalanced, both reps votes have equal weight at council.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 21, 2011 at 15:16:17

Average density per hectare:

Wards 1-5 combined = 28.96
Wards 6-8 combined = 28.90

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 21, 2011 at 15:26:36 in reply to Comment 66737

Bear in mind that wards 1-5 share their residential surface area with a lot of industrial, office and commercial uses as well. Wards 6-8 have approximately the same density of residents, but considerably fewer other uses competing for the same surface.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2011-07-21 15:27:44

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 21, 2011 at 15:37:55 in reply to Comment 66739

True. Stelco alone is the size of the core. I know it probably compromises the accuracy of those ward measures, but it'd be valuable to the bigger picture to have an appended row that incorporated that variable. It's definitely not a small bump, and the extrapolation won't stop with me.

That said, 6-8's population (147,440) is larger than 1-4 (143,440) and politically active to boot.

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 21, 2011 at 15:26:33 in reply to Comment 66737

Actually, that's just a quick and dirty using the "Density per ha" column.

Adding the ward populations and dividing them by the area in hectares...

Wards 1-5 combined = 24.78
Wards 6-8 combined = 29.01

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted July 21, 2011 at 16:40:06

Ward 7 doesn't surprise me, mainly because of the Mohawk Rd. Apartment complexes, LINC area townhousing and Concession area apartment complexes.

The core issue is Wards 1, 3 and 4. They need density comparable to Ward 2 or at least in the 15 per A range for an LRT B-Line to work out, at least that's the way I see it, I'm sure many here will disagree. Ward 5 could use some more too, but it's kind of a special case given it's size, the beach strip and how much empty mountain development is present.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2011-07-21 16:45:24

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted July 21, 2011 at 22:34:15 in reply to Comment 66746

keep in mind also that Hamilton's largest employment nodes are along the B-Line corridor, or close to it: McMaster, downtown, Bayfront Industrial zone. The Mountain densities are probably not as comparable to Wards 1-4 if we were able to take away industrial land, commercial land, office land and add in all of Ward 3's illegal quadplexes. (don't you dare open a backpackers hostel though) Ok, sorry. Cheap shot there. My point is, the density numbers aren't overly accurate due to the massive amounts of lower city land dedicated to uses other than residential.

Let us also remember (and by 'us' I mean 'the mayor') that the plans call for potentially 4 other LRT lines in the future if the first line is a success (which it will be along the B-line): Waterdown, Rymal, Mohawk and Upper James. I know that won't earn votes in the next election, but it is important to note that LRT is by no means going to be some exclusive lower city amusement ride. It will be a city wide network that will literally change the way this city develops and functions....if we can get someone in power with enough vision to bring it to pass.

Comment edited by jason on 2011-07-21 22:35:01

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 21, 2011 at 21:41:56 in reply to Comment 66746

Remember that LRT will attract significant increases in density along the B-Line corridor, particularly if it is combined with a secondary plan that eliminates most of the bureaucratic obstacles to infill development.

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted July 22, 2011 at 14:21:20 in reply to Comment 66754

You just gave one of the reasons as why it would not necessarily attract density, especially how long Hamilton has faced the problem of bureaucratic red tape for developers.

I'll give you another reason why it might not, not enough existing density to make LRT financially feasible in the mid-term and thus keeping developers away for long-term developments/intensification. If there is a consideration to stop or cut back the service or if it is poorly implemented, it is reasonable to assume issues might arise, given the city's current finances.

The other reason that Mr. Jelly touched on is a lack of major nodes along the corridor. The entire strip from the Eastgate area to Wellington St has only two to three conceivable major nodes, the Gage Park/Ivor Wynne Area, Ottawa St (which while nice, still has a ways to go) and maybe Center Mall (although everyone I talk to seems to avoid that big box, cars only monstrosity like the plague.)

It's the area in Ward 3 around Wellington, Wentworth, Sherman and Gage that is the cause for concern. It lacks density and conceivable attractions for people to go to. What I would honestly like to see in an article that states seriously "potential reasons LRT could fail in Hamilton, and how to avoid them" article.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2011-07-22 14:26:08

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 22, 2011 at 15:00:42 in reply to Comment 66804

You just gave one of the reasons as why it would not necessarily attract density, especially how long Hamilton has faced the problem of bureaucratic red tape for developers.

Actually, the new Official Plan fixes a lot of the regulatory issues, but it won't take effect until all the OMB appeals have been heard. That should take 2 to 5 years, which means it would be complete before LRT would be ready to start.

Beyond that, staff have been meeting with developers to understand the barriers to investment and were working on an intensification study on the B-Line toward an investment-friendly Secondary Plan before Chris Murray unilaterally suspended their work.

Staff presented the study to the Planning and Economic Development committee a couple of weeks ago, which prompted Councillors Clark and Collins to complain that they feel they are being "backed into a corner" on LRT - even though it was Council that directed staff to make LRT a planning priority.

The biggest "potential reason LRT could fail in Hamilton" is that we don't seem to have the leadership on Council to see it through to completion.

Permalink | Context

By DanJelly (registered) | Posted July 21, 2011 at 19:16:11 in reply to Comment 66746

When you consider the amount of transit activity related to the University/Hospital, I'd say Ward 1 holds its own.

Density isn't everything. Ward 1's density is affected by the amount of green space (parks, cemeteries, the RBG), as well as the 403 that cuts through the Ward.

We need to start thinking about transit as a system of nodes. McMaster, University Plaza, King and Dundurn, are all examples of major and minor nodes that draw people from other parts of the City into (or through) Ward 1. It's not just about who lives along the route.

Comment edited by DanJelly on 2011-07-21 19:17:29

Permalink | Context

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2011 at 09:38:21 in reply to Comment 66751

It's like you've stumbled upon an amazing system of nodes and corridors for Hamilton...what a concept! If only our "leaders" were aware of this!

;-)


http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/81E38F84-D751-4364-93B7-C8D3D4D23F1E/0/Final_Growth_Report_May2006R.pdf

http://www.hamilton.ca/nodesandcorridors

Permalink | Context

By Sigma Cub (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2011 at 10:55:26 in reply to Comment 66785

I wonder if Querulous Bill Kelly is familiar with that report?

http://www.hamiltoncatch.org/archives/articles/art_0506/art_050623wissenz.htm

http://www.hamiltoncatch.org/archives/articles/art_0608/art_060815development.htm

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 22, 2011 at 09:40:40 in reply to Comment 66785

It seems pretty clear, given recent events, that our top city leaders pay only selective attention to their own staff reports.

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2011 at 09:18:30 in reply to Comment 66751

Re: Volume of transit activity

True. And as has been said before, integrating a new service affords the city the needed opportunity to renegotiate Mac's transit agreement, which currently offers 8-month HSR service at less than 1/5 market value. (The four routes discussed in the B-Line corridor may have daily traffic in the 25K-30K range, but if thousands of riders are loss leaders, that has to impact the CBA.)

Re: Density

True. Political influence is not always related to population density. Voter engagement is also key. Wards 6-8 have owned the podium for the last two civic elections, while 1 & 4 have boasted average turnout, and 2 & 3 have lagged the field. The disparity is stark – and of course mayoral candidates, even ones with roots in lower-city politics, inevitably pay attention to those kind of numbers – if you could secure every vote in the top three wards, you could ignore the other 80% of the city and still be mayor.

WARD: 3-TERM AVG / 2010 / 2006 / 2003

07: 15,375 / 15,669 / 13,908 / 16,547
08: 14,666 / 14,707 / 14,051 / 15,239
06: 11,544 / 11,950 / 10,639 / 12,044
05: 10,050 / 10,275 / 9,135 / 10,740
11: 8,951 / 10,471 / 7,738 / 8,644
01: 8,676 / 8,279 / 8,060 / 9,690
12: 8,667 / 10,163 / 8,575 / 7,262
04: 8,475 / 8,236 / 7,940 / 9,249
10: 8,416 / 8,557 / 7,705 / 8,985
09: 7,207 / 7,620 / 6,665 / 7,335
02: 6,927 / 7,580 / 5,991 / 7,210
13: 6,891 / 8,289 / 7,768 / 4,615
03: 6,796 / 7,134 / 6,139 / 7,116
15: 6,152 / 6,442 / 6,216 / 5,798

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2011 at 09:43:11 in reply to Comment 66779

Note/Correction: Ward 14 was factored out because of the 2010 acclamation; In the process, Ward 14's 2003 turnout over-wrote Ward 13. Ward 11 has been factored out because of 2003 acclamation. An amended table follows:

WARD: 3-TERM AVG / 2010 / 2006 / 2003

07: 15,375 / 15,669 / 13,908 / 16,547
08: 14,666 / 14,707 / 14,051 / 15,239
06: 11,544 / 11,950 / 10,639 / 12,044
05: 10,050 / 10,275 / 9,135 / 10,740
12: 9,127 / 10,163 / 8,575 / 8,644
01: 8,676 / 8,279 / 8,060 / 9,690
04: 8,475 / 8,236 / 7,940 / 9,249
10: 8,416 / 8,557 / 7,705 / 8,985
13: 7,773 / 8,289 / 7,768 / 7,262
09: 7,207 / 7,620 / 6,665 / 7,335
02: 6,927 / 7,580 / 5,991 / 7,210
03: 6,796 / 7,134 / 6,139 / 7,116
15: 6,152 / 6,442 / 6,216 / 5,798

Permalink | Context

By Sigma Cub (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2011 at 10:49:37 in reply to Comment 66787

BTW, the representatives of the top voting wards seem to make up the vast majority of the Public Works Committee. Not sure if it's always been that way.

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2011 at 09:37:28 in reply to Comment 66779

Note/Correction: Ward 14 was factored out because of the 2010 acclamation. In the process, Ward 14's 2003 turnout over-wrote Ward 13. An amended table follows:

WARD: 3-TERM AVG / 2010 / 2006 / 2003

07: 15,375 / 15,669 / 13,908 / 16,547
08: 14,666 / 14,707 / 14,051 / 15,239
06: 11,544 / 11,950 / 10,639 / 12,044
05: 10,050 / 10,275 / 9,135 / 10,740
11: 8,951 / 10,471 / 7,738 / 8,644
01: 8,676 / 8,279 / 8,060 / 9,690
12: 8,667 / 10,163 / 8,575 / 7,262
04: 8,475 / 8,236 / 7,940 / 9,249
10: 8,416 / 8,557 / 7,705 / 8,985
13: 7,773 / 8,289 / 7,768 / 7,262
09: 7,207 / 7,620 / 6,665 / 7,335
02: 6,927 / 7,580 / 5,991 / 7,210
03: 6,796 / 7,134 / 6,139 / 7,116
15: 6,152 / 6,442 / 6,216 / 5,798

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted July 22, 2011 at 13:10:56

The donut hole is growing. Obviously infill needs to pick up some speed. This also over the first 5 Years of Places to Grow, it will be interesting to see this years stats, and if the lower city continues to lose population.

Ward    +/- Residents
1              -1624
2               -534
3               -959
4              -1098
5               -318
6               +116
7              +2061
8              +1891
9              +1946
10              +406
11             +5346
12             +5743
13              +301
14              +598
15              +828

Comment edited by TreyS on 2011-07-22 13:12:46

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2012 at 17:24:25 in reply to Comment 66795

The donut hole is apparently still growing.

Looking at populations of federal ridings, Hamilton Centre population fell by 1,116 residents (down 0.9%) between 2006 and 2011. It’s the only such drop in the city.

Hamilton East Stoney Creek population grew by 1,287 residents (up 1.1%). Hamilton Mountain population grew by 2,857 residents (up 2.3%). Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale grew by 4,513 residents (up 4.0%); and Niagara West-Glanbrook grew by 11,110 (up 10%).

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/hlt-fst/pd-pl/Table-Tableau.cfm?LANG=Eng&T=501&SR=101&S=1&O=A&RPP=25&PR=0&CMA=0

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted September 23, 2011 at 15:36:37 in reply to Comment 66795

You can also divvy the finding into ready thirds:

Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (net losses) = - 4,533 residents total
Wards 6, 10, 13, 14, 15 (gain in hundreds) = + 2,249 residents total
Wards 7-9, 11, 12 (gain in thousands) = + 17,387 residents total

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted September 23, 2011 at 11:28:23 in reply to Comment 66795

There's apparently a parallel donut of vanished dwellings, 2001-2006:

Ward +/- Dwellings
1 -1,626
2 -1,346
3 -1,301
4 -596
5 +181
6 +60
7 +501
8 +500
9 +704
10 +291
11 +1,871
12 +1,571
13 +49
14 +93
15 +35

Would be interesting to see a ward-specific map of jobs added during the same period.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted July 22, 2011 at 13:12:09

Ryan I don't know why I can't make columns with hard returns?

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 22, 2011 at 14:21:00 in reply to Comment 66796

Prepend each line with four spaces and it should display as preformatted text.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted July 22, 2011 at 19:15:19

Density may not be everything for LRT's success, but a population decline/increase will be a factor. All the Wards the LRT will pass through are losing population, so in that case also losing density.

Since the lower City is considered Wards 1 2 3 4 5, The part of Hamilton that we consider urban (lower city) is losing population like Buffalo. The suburbs and Mountain (and Burlington and Grimsby when counted in our Metro Census) are the reason why Hamilton on paper is growing.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted July 22, 2011 at 19:39:03

Project these numbers forward (since this has been the trend for some time now) and the Wards that will be home to LRT in 2021 (when it gets built, best case scenario in 10 years) will have the lowest populations, only Fruitland (tiny ward 10) and the two rural Flamboro wards of 14 and 15 will have fewer populations than Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

If anyone wants I will try to post my projections in columns. But if you're wondering I simply took the population gain/loss from 2001 to 2006 and multiplied it by 3 for the next 3 StatsCan censuses in 2011, 2016, 2021. Which 2021 is also what kind of timeframe we're looking at for an LRT. I hate to even think about how old I will be in 2021, but perhaps the next generation will benefit. Hamilton took 50 years to build the Redhill and that's in a city that loves roads, so I wonder if 50 years is not the actual timeframe for LRT. Since we've been kicking this can around since the 70s, 2020 will be about right -- 50 years.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted February 12, 2012 at 20:10:35

Residents in 2006 vs Residents in 2011?

TRACT 5370063.00 (James to Wellington, Cannon to North Rails)
3,182 > 3,381 (+6.3 or 199 residents added)

TRACT 5370064.00 (James to Queen, York to North Rails)
1,821 to 1,658 (-9.0% or 163 residents lost)

TRACT 5370036.00 (James to Wellington, King to South Rails)
2,542 to 3,243 (+27.6% or 701 residents added)

TRACT 5370037.00 (James to Queen, King to Hunter)
2,586 to 2,464 (-4.7% or 122 residents lost)

TRACT 5370048.00 (James to Queen, Cannon to King)
1,761 to 1,858 (+5.5% or 97 residents added)

TRACT 5370049.00 (James to Wellington, Cannon to King)
2,597 to 2,473 (-4.8% or 124 residents lost)

Based on the above numbers, it appears that net population growth in downtown Hamilton, 2006-2011, averaged 118 residents per year, which is pretty much unchanged since the 2001-2006 sample. That achievement was made possible by explosive population growth in Tract 5370036.00, which lays claim to 70% of population growth in downtown Hamilton during the last five years (my guess is that it'd have something to do with units added via the Foster Building and the Terraces on King during this period).

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TreyS (registered) | Posted February 12, 2012 at 22:03:47

I'd like you to post Ward by Ward census, not census tracts. From 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2011. And show me how how Wards 1,2,3,4,5 are not consistently losing populations. You can pick and chose a few census tracks whereby one apartment building makes a % difference. Wards, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are losing population. There are a few people around town that claim we can;t compare our proposed LRT to Buffalo's failed LRT because Buffalo was/is losing population. We are also.

LRT needs to have a stronger argument than that. If we get called on it, Buffalo's argument will sink us. It has to go back to the Places to Grow Act. Apparently Hamilton, which was identified as a Places to Grow, specifically the lower city, is losing population. How so? I though we were a growth area? What's wrong? No Jobs? Poverty? Crime? No schools? No development? So how is it wrong that the PanAm Stadium gets built in an area that needs all that?? And cannot be considered 'city building'. It absolutely is City building.

It's convenient to pick a few census tracks, but the LRT decision makers are going to look at Wards, population trends as a whole. Not a few select CTs. Look at those CT numbers and clearly downtown is in a state of at best status quo. The world grew to 7 billion, Canada grew % more than any G8, but Hamilton?.... a void. Hamilton is situated in the heartland of the fastest growing G8 Nation, but barely makes growth. What's wrong? We actually grew less than the national average, and provincial average. not only that, the core of our city, the lower city, SHRUNK.

Something is clearly wrong in Dodge.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted February 13, 2012 at 13:17:09

A more comprehensive treatment is up at:
http://raisethehammer.org/article/1541/2011_census_population_data_by_ward

My interest was simply in dedicated areas, which is why I dodn't go whole-hog.

For all the bold talk about downtown resurgence -- and I love downtown more than most -- what the numbers suggest is that we've been in a holding pattern since amalgamation.

There's a pinhole in the lower city balloon.


Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds