Population and Housing

[jamincan]

Your true Hamilton CMA seems to be incorrect: The city itself has 563,000 and the CMA was 747,000 - which include Burlington and Grimsby.  At this time, we can't take out Stoney Creek, Dundas, Ancaster, etc., as they are part of The Hammer now.

Burlington is only part of The Hammer for political CMA data only. Burlington is part of Halton Region for planning and policy. The population  of Burlington inflates the importance and CMA population of Hamilton and is  therefore imply a paper inclusion. There is no reason to include Burlington in the Hamilton data except it makes the "CMA" seem to be larger and important.

MY point is it is time to change the CMA to reflect a reality that Hamilton is not what the CMA purports to tell. Propping up CMA Hamilton is last century. StatsCan didn't decide the areas, politicians did.  Just change the data to reflect 21stC realities that Hamilton is not what politicians want everyone to believe. CMA fairy tales.

This is patently false. The criteria for inclusion in a CMA are well-defined and are not even remotely political except in so much as where municipal boundaries lie.

Some data:
Employed labour force in Burlington: 95,975
Residents of Burlington working in Hamilton + Grimsby: 8,655 + 165 = 8,820
Residents of Hamilton + Grimsby working in Burlington: 24,505 + 1,345 = 25,850
Total interchange: 34,670 (36.1% of Burlington employed labour force)

This means Burlington would be included under Rule 7 - Merging adjacent CMAs and CAs of the CMA definition. I'm pretty sure it was originally included due to other rules (Reverse Commuting certainly, which was only 25% of employed labour force in the past - now changed to 50%), but it certainly would remain under the current Rule 7. For historical comparability, Statistics Canada will keep a CSD that no longer meets criteria in a CMA for one census period so in theory the earliest that you might see Burlington removed is 2026 if it doesn't qualify in the 2021 Census.

In theory a CSD could meet the criteria to be included in two CMAs, but I don't believe Burlington yet meets any of the rules for inclusion in the Toronto CMA. You're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[ijmorlan]

Burlington is only part of The Hammer for political CMA data only. Burlington is part of Halton Region for planning and policy. The population  of Burlington inflates the importance and CMA population of Hamilton and is  therefore imply a paper inclusion. There is no reason to include Burlington in the Hamilton data except it makes the "CMA" seem to be larger and important.

MY point is it is time to change the CMA to reflect a reality that Hamilton is not what the CMA purports to tell. Propping up CMA Hamilton is last century. StatsCan didn't decide the areas, politicians did.  Just change the data to reflect 21stC realities that Hamilton is not what politicians want everyone to believe. CMA fairy tales.

This is patently false. The criteria for inclusion in a CMA are well-defined and are not even remotely political except in so much as where municipal boundaries lie.

I don’t really have a position on this, but I have to point out that MacBerry said that “StatsCan didn't decide the areas, politicians did”.

You then said the criteria are “not even remotely political except in so much as where municipal boundaries lie”.

But who drew the municipal boundaries? It sounds like you are both agreeing and disagreeing with MacBerry in the same sentence.

[jamincan]

The boundaries of a CMA are not political boundaries except in so much as they follow municipal boundaries. In determining boundaries, they include all of Burlington, or none of it. They would not include just one part of Burlington. Politicians do therefore influence things in that they determine municipal boundaries. The amalgamation of the RMOC by Mike Harris, for example, meant that the entire area is now included in the Ottawa CMA. The decision not to do the same in KW means that there are townships that aren't included in the Kitchener CMA that otherwise would be if the Region were amalgamated.

In this case, however, Macberry is talking about the decision to put City of Burlington in the Hamilton CMA instead of the Toronto CMA. Politicians determined the boundaries of the City of Burlington, but they did not make the decision to put it in the Hamilton CMA. That was determined by the criteria set out by Statistics Canada.

[MacBerry]

Burlington is only part of The Hammer for political CMA data only. Burlington is part of Halton Region for planning and policy. The population  of Burlington inflates the importance and CMA population of Hamilton and is  therefore imply a paper inclusion. There is no reason to include Burlington in the Hamilton data except it makes the "CMA" seem to be larger and important.

MY point is it is time to change the CMA to reflect a reality that Hamilton is not what the CMA purports to tell. Propping up CMA Hamilton is last century. StatsCan didn't decide the areas, politicians did.  Just change the data to reflect 21stC realities that Hamilton is not what politicians want everyone to believe. CMA fairy tales.

This is patently false. The criteria for inclusion in a CMA are well-defined and are not even remotely political except in so much as where municipal boundaries lie.

Some data:
Employed labour force in Burlington: 95,975
Residents of Burlington working in Hamilton + Grimsby: 8,655 + 165 = 8,820
Residents of Hamilton + Grimsby working in Burlington: 24,505 + 1,345 = 25,850
Total interchange: 34,670 (36.1% of Burlington employed labour force)

This means Burlington would be included under Rule 7 - Merging adjacent CMAs and CAs of the CMA definition. I'm pretty sure it was originally included due to other rules (Reverse Commuting certainly, which was only 25% of employed labour force in the past - now changed to 50%), but it certainly would remain under the current Rule 7. For historical comparability, Statistics Canada will keep a CSD that no longer meets criteria in a CMA for one census period so in theory the earliest that you might see Burlington removed is 2026 if it doesn't qualify in the 2021 Census.

In theory a CSD could meet the criteria to be included in two CMAs, but I don't believe Burlington yet meets any of the rules for inclusion in the Toronto CMA. You're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Good information ... that noise is my brain thinking 

[tomh009]

Burlington is only part of The Hammer for political CMA data only. Burlington is part of Halton Region for planning and policy. The population  of Burlington inflates the importance and CMA population of Hamilton and is  therefore imply a paper inclusion. There is no reason to include Burlington in the Hamilton data except it makes the "CMA" seem to be larger and important.

MY point is it is time to change the CMA to reflect a reality that Hamilton is not what the CMA purports to tell. Propping up CMA Hamilton is last century. StatsCan didn't decide the areas, politicians did.  Just change the data to reflect 21stC realities that Hamilton is not what politicians want everyone to believe. CMA fairy tales.

This is patently false. The criteria for inclusion in a CMA are well-defined and are not even remotely political except in so much as where municipal boundaries lie.

Some data:
Employed labour force in Burlington: 95,975
Residents of Burlington working in Hamilton + Grimsby: 8,655 + 165 = 8,820
Residents of Hamilton + Grimsby working in Burlington: 24,505 + 1,345 = 25,850
Total interchange: 34,670 (36.1% of Burlington employed labour force)

Picking nits here, but those 8,820 people are not employed in Burlington so I don't think they should be included when calculating a percentage of Burlington-employed labour. Or else they should at least be added to the denominator as well.

Otherwise, imagine community A with 500 jobs and 1000 residents. 250 residents work locally but another 750 work in Community B. And 250 Community B residents work in Community A. Now the total interchange is 1000, or 200% of the Community A-employed labour force. Does that make sense as an interchange percentage?

[jamincan]

You're numbers aren't correct.

Employed labour force in Community A: 1000
Community A working in Community B: 750
Community B working in Community A: 250
Total interchange: 1000 (100% of Community A employed labour force)

I'm not really sure what's unreasonable about that, and yes, it could be greater than 100%. All it's doing is couching the number of people commuting between two communities in terms of the smaller communities employed labour force. As an example, the old City of Toronto would have a value massively greater than 100% as far more people commute into downtown to work than live there.

Edit to be clear: this isn't some calculation I made up, it's what Statistics Canada uses to determine whether a CA should be merged with an adjacent CMA.

[westwardloo]

You're numbers aren't correct.

Employed labour force in Community A: 1000
Community A working in Community B: 750
Community B working in Community A: 250
Total interchange: 1000 (100% of Community A employed labour force)

I'm not really sure what's unreasonable about that, and yes, it could be greater than 100%. All it's doing is couching the number of people commuting between two communities in terms of the smaller communities employed labour force. As an example, the old City of Toronto would have a value massively greater than 100% as far more people commute into downtown to work than live there.

Edit to be clear: this isn't some calculation I made up, it's what Statistics Canada uses to determine whether a CA should be merged with an adjacent CMA.

Just out of curiosity does any one know these numbers in regards to K-W-C and Guelph. Would be interesting to see how closely connected Waterloo region and Guelph are?

[jamincan]

Commuting from Guelph to...:
Guelph: 41,495
Cambridge: 2,370
Kitchener: 2,010
Mississauga: 1,870
Guelph/Eramosa: 1,525
Waterloo: 1,460
Toronto: 1,430
Puslinch: 1,110

Commuting to Guelph from...:
Guelph: 41,495
Kitchener: 5,690
Cambridge: 4,270
Centre Wellington: 2,990
Guelph/Eramosa: 2,175
Hamilton: 1,505
Waterloo: 1,485
Puslinch: 1,020

[westwardloo]

So If I am correct in my math currently the relation between the Guelph CMA to K-W-C CMA is:

Employed Labour force in Guelph: 71,070
Residents of Guelph working in Kitchener + Waterloo + Cambridge: 2,010 + 1,460 + 2,370
Residents of Kitchener+Waterloo+Cambridge working in Guelph: 5,690 + 1,485 + 4,270
Total Interchange: 17,285 (24.3% of Guelph's employed labour force)

Do you think this number will rise over the next decade especially with all day 2 way go. Or do you think it will decline as more people live in Guelph and commute to Toronto for work?

[jamincan]

It's hard to say, really. More and more people are moving out of Toronto due to being priced out of the real estate market there, so I wouldn't be surprised to see it drop even if the number of people commuting between Guelph and KW grows.

That said, it should be noted that Guelph and KW will never be merged into a single CMA. Statistics Canada preserves CMAs in order to keep data historically comparable. Even if population were to drop below 100k, or the commuting levels were enough to merge them, they would maintain them as separate areas.

[jeffster]

Not Tri-City related, but Pharrel Williams working on a project in Toronto for some affordable housing:

https://globalnews.ca/news/6426737/toron...-williams/

Would be good to see if we could capture something like this too. Though to be honest, I am surprised at who's doing this, as Pharrel is not Canadian yet decided to help out anyway. New found respect for this excellent man.

[dtkmelissa]

(If this kind of thing isn't allowed moderators, please remove.) I just wanted to share about an event tomorrow night with the Waterloo Region Yes In My BackYard group. I am part of this group and this will be our first of what we hope to be regular meetings where we can chat about ways to encourage more affordable housing options throughout our city. The meetings are open to anyone interested. https://www.facebook.com/events/762560547557645/

[Spokes]

Thanks for posting this Melissa!

[Bytor]

StatsCan didn't decide the areas, politicians did.

No.


Statscan uses the municipalities as fixed by the province and then decides the metropolitan areas on commuter traffic. So if Brampton is included in the Hamilton CMA, that means a large number of people commute from Brampton to Hamilton for work.

"To be included in the CMA or CA, other adjacent municipalities must have a high degree of integration with the core, as measured by commuting flows derived from previous census place of work data."

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/92-1...ef-eng.htm

[MacBerry]

StatsCan didn't decide the areas, politicians did.

No.


Statscan uses the municipalities as fixed by the province and then decides the metropolitan areas on commuter traffic. So if Brampton is included in the Hamilton CMA, that means a large number of people commute from Brampton to Hamilton for work.

"To be included in the CMA or CA, other adjacent municipalities must have a high degree of integration with the core, as measured by commuting flows derived from previous census place of work data."

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/92-1...ef-eng.htm

Really???  they can do what they want:

"[b]4. Spatial contiguity rule:[/b] 
CSDs that do not meet a commuting flow threshold may be included in a CMA or CA, and CSDs that do meet a commuting flow threshold may be excluded from a CMA or CA"

Get out of StatsCan Jail card