Raise the Hammer

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?

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

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

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.

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

Average density per hectare:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.