Raise the Hammer
Posted for reference. You can also view a more recent table using 2006 Statistics Canada information.
| Ward | Area 2 | Area % of Total | Population | Pop. % of Total | Dwellings | Dwellings % of Total | Pop. Density 3 | People/Dwelling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3,759 | 1.35% | 31,704 | 6.48% | 15,241 | 7.86% | 8.43 | 2.08 |
| 2 | 1,636 | 0.59% | 38,349 | 7.84% | 20,776 | 10.72% | 23.44 | 1.85 |
| 3 | 3,571 | 1.28% | 40,869 | 8.35% | 18,026 | 9.30% | 11.44 | 2.27 |
| 4 | 4,089 | 1.46% | 36,733 | 7.50% | 15,421 | 7.96% | 8.98 | 2.38 |
| 5 | 5,135 | 1.84% | 39,283 | 8.03% | 15,479 | 7.99% | 7.65 | 2.54 |
| 6 | 3,951 | 1.42% | 40,529 | 8.28% | 15,740 | 8.12% | 10.26 | 2.57 |
| 7 | 4,315 | 1.55% | 56,334 | 11.51% | 20,594 | 10.63% | 13.06 | 2.74 |
| 8 | 4,292 | 1.54% | 46,509 | 9.50% | 16,445 | 8.49% | 10.84 | 2.83 |
| 9 | 4,774 | 1.71% | 24,349 | 4.97% | 8,886 | 4.59% | 5.10 | 2.74 |
| 10 | 3,053 | 1.09% | 24,569 | 5.02% | 8,294 | 4.28% | 8.05 | 2.96 |
| 11 | 67,850 | 24.30% | 20,554 | 4.20% | 7,414 | 3.83% | 0.30 | 2.77 |
| 12 | 27,245 | 9.76% | 25,297 | 5.17% | 8,494 | 4.38% | 0.93 | 2.98 |
| 13 | 6,291 | 2.25% | 24,394 | 4.98% | 9,316 | 4.81% | 3.88 | 2.62 |
| 14 | 102,405 | 36.68% | 15,322 | 3.13% | 5,317 | 2.74% | 0.15 | 2.88 |
| 15 | 36,799 | 13.18% | 24,662 | 5.04% | 8,340 | 4.30% | 0.67 | 2.96 |
| Total | 279,165 | 100.00% | 489,457 | 100.00% | 193,783 | 100.00% | 1.75 | 2.53 |
| Total Urban | 44,866 | 16.07% | 403,622 | 82.46% | 164,218 | 84.74% | 9.00 | 2.46 |
| Total Rural | 234,299 | 83.93% | 85,835 | 17.54% | 29,565 | 15.26% | 0.37 | 2.90 |
| Avg Urban | 4,079 | 1.46% | 36,693 | 7.50% | 14,929 | 7.70% | 9.00 | 2.46 |
| Avg Rural | 58,575 | 20.98% | 21,459 | 4.38% | 7,391 | 3.81% | 0.37 | 2.90 |
By Hopeful (registered) | Posted November 26, 2008 at 23:52:56
Nicely done. Thanks. I put together my own version of something like this last year, using data from the City's website, to show someone how under-represented "old City" voters were in Hamilton politics today. I'd love to see this taken further. Any chance you could calculate relative City tax burdens by ward or, better yet, by average household income, in the wards? I suspect this would show who all is "paying their share" and, perhaps, highlight some hypocrisies from suburbanites' complaining they're paying more than they should (if it didn't, I would apologize to them for my prejudice). Cheers ;=).
By jason (registered) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 11:38:13
you don't need to worry about apologizing for anything. Lol A table showing the taxes generated by each ward would be awesome. You can be sure that if such data showed the suburbs are being ripped off they would have released the info many years ago. I've seen some of the numbers (but not the entire city) and understand completely why suburban councilors haven't bothered to crunch them and release them to the public. Hopefully someone will.
By Nord Blanc (anonymous) | Posted May 26, 2011 at 15:57:47
So Wards 6/7/8 contain 29% of the city's population, while Wards 1/2/3/4 contain 30%? Would be interesting to see a comparative economic/sales study of Lime Ridge Mall vs. Downtown Hamilton.
By Nord Blanc (anonymous) | Posted May 26, 2011 at 16:05:15
Population density stacks up more favourably than I would have imagined.
Wards 1-4 = average 13.07 per acre
Wards 6-8 = average 11.38 per acre
By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted May 26, 2011 at 16:58:37 in reply to Comment 64047
Look at the map and you'll feel differently.
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?gl=ca&...
Ward 1 contains half of Cootes Paradise and the Chedoke course, and a sliver of industrial area. Wards 3 and 4 are industrial for almost half of their surface area.
Meanwhile, wards 6-8 area almost completely developed as residential area.
That density per-acre would look completely different if we could get the amount of acreage devoted specifically to residential plots.
You must be logged in to comment.
There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?