By the Numbers

leave a comment »

Vancouver’s 22 Local Areas Over Time

The heart of this posting is the table below. Calculations from base numbers increase perspective. The first point of interest is what has been happening to Norquay (Renfrew-Collingwood and Kensington-Cedar Cottage), and how these two areas that include Norquay compare with the rest of Vancouver. Discussion will center on Renfrew-Collingwood, because the bulk of “Norquay” lies east of Nanaimo Street. It still needs to be borne in mind that the smallish Kensington-Cedar Cottage portion

         Abuts 2300 Kingsway, the two acres now occupied by 337 new dwelling units
         Incorporates 2339 Kingsway, a site now occupied by 94 dwelling units
          (17 townhouses, 27 penthouses, 50 condos on floors 2-3, 12 commercial units)
         Anticipates 2220 Kingsway which has announced 404 dwelling units

This effort exemplifies the kind of analysis that City of Vancouver (CoV) should be presenting to residents of Norquay. But CoV seems to prefer decontextualization, the arrogance of unsubstantiated assertion, misrepresenting normal maintenance as significant improvement, and sequestering the data that it does possess.

Key to Columns Below:

A = Hectares  |  B = Population 2006  |  C = Population 2011  |  D = % Change 2006-2011
E = Persons per Hectare 2011  |  F = Population 1971  |  G = % Change 1971-2011

Neighborhood A B C D E F G
Arbutus Ridge 369 16,144 15,908 -1.46 43.1 12,870 23.61
Downtown 375 43,417 54,690 25.96 145.8 6,585 730.52
Dunbar-Southlands 861 21,478 21,754 1.29 25.3 19,635 10.79
Fairview 333 29,294 31,432 7.30 94.4 16,070 95.59
Grandview-Woodland 448 28,206 27,297 -3.22 60.9 26,740 2.08
Hastings-Sunrise 812 33,127 33,992 2.61 41.9 28,530 19.14
Kensington-Cedar Cottage 723 44,664 47,471 6.28 65.7 34,105 39.19
Kerrisdale 632 14,618 14,732 0.78 23.3 13,410 9.86
Killarney 677 27,178 28,458 4.71 42.0 11,575 145.86
Kitsilano 551 40,597 41,371 1.91 75.1 33,910 22.00
Marpole 561 23,783 23,832 0.21 42.5 17,700 34.64
Mount Pleasant 364 23,616 26,400 11.79 72.5 19,970 32.20
Oakridge 401 12,726 12,443 -2.22 31.0 10,670 16.62
Renfrew-Collingwood 820 48,885 50,495 3.29 61.6 29,850 69.16
Riley Park 492 21,815 21,794 -0.10 44.3 20,165 8.08
Shaughnessy 447 8,896 8,807 -1.00 19.7 10,370 -15.07
South Cambie 217 7,070 7,682 8.66 35.4 6,940 10.69
Strathcona/DTES 384 11,925 12,170 2.05 31.7 11,545 5.41
Sunset 627 35,231 36,286 2.99 57.9 24,355 48.99
Victoria-Fraserview 532 29,196 30,711 5.19 57.7 22,145 38.68
West End 204 44,556 44,543 -0.03 218.3 37,515 18.73
West Point Grey 455 12,990 12,803 -1.44 28.1 11,870 7.86
Vancouver 11,467 579,412 605,071 4.43 52.8 426,525 41.86

Vancouver = 11,467 = Actual Sum + Stanley Park − Musqueam Lands in Dunbar-Southlands
11,285 = Sum of 22 Local Areas in Column A


Residents of Norquay have repeatedly been told that we have to do our part in accommodating the growth of Vancouver. The figure that leaps out of the table above is that Renfrew-Collingwood has, over the past forty years, experienced a population increase of almost 70%. Among Vancouver’s 22 neighborhoods, that puts us in fourth place — after Downtown, Killarney, and Fairview. In terms of persons per hectare, Renfrew-Collingwood at 61.6 stands seventh.

The obvious question is why an already dense area of Vancouver was targeted for mass rezoning and further acceleration of growth — and was forced into this situation despite clear majority opposition. We still don’t know the answer, and never expect to. Welcome to Vancouver.

At 820 hectares, Renfrew-Collingwood is the second largest neighborhood in Vancouver. In absolute terms, therefore, it is doing even more than numbers suggest, since ratios and rankings are only relative.

What is most disturbing is that CoV has paid only lip service to amenities and public benefits. Developer megaprojects have already rolled into Norquay, and new ones loom on the horizon. The assurance provided in the 2004 community vision was this —

Vision participants wanted the impacts which might be associated with new housing to be addressed. They did not want additional people to reduce the level of service existing residents enjoy with parks and other community facilities. … As a result, each proposal for a new housing type has been made conditional … on an increase in community facilities and programs needed to serve any population growth generated by the new housing type.  (p. 30)

Less than ten years later, it looks like CoV was lying through its teeth. Almost everything touted as benefit on
Panel 12 at the January 2013 Norquay open houses amounts to nothing more than routine maintenance and replacement. [The foregoing panel, and all panels cited below can be viewed on this pdf of Panels 10-18.] The one clear new contribution, 37 daycare spaces at 2300 Kingsway, is tucked away out of sight and benefits very few people.

The nastiest scam that CoV has run in Norquay is to let residents think they may experience an increase in their land value from being mass rezoned for even greater density. Indeed, they may do so in absolute terms, while losing out in relative terms. If clear enhancement of land value were the case, investors in Shaughnessy would be clambering to have the same thing done to their neighborhood. For sure they are not. It is hard not to notice that, over the past forty years, Shaughnessy is the only Vancouver neighborhood that has actually decreased its density, and that gap is not a small figure. Only short-sighted greed would induce anyone to think that further crowding and increased vehicle traffic would provide them relative increase in value. In Vancouver, the RS zoning designation is the gold standard. And CoV makes sure there is less of it every year.

CoV admits the following on Panel 13:

        None of the community facilities [in the general area] are located within Norquay Plan boundaries

In other words, the Norquay sub-area of Renfrew-Collingwood has remained an amenity desert, even while Norquay has absorbed forty years of disproportionate population growth. CoV mouths off about wanting to create a walkable neighborhood, yet thinks it is acceptable to point to surrounding facilities as something provided.

When the possibilities for funding new facilities gets looked at on Panel 16, all the Norquay community can see for the future is continued poverty, and extension of the lie that population growth will mean corresponding increase in facilities and services.

If CoV wants to have any credibility with Norquay, it has to start with quantitative assessment over time of what has been happening to Norquay — and what is now being unleashed. Small bright pictures of renovated general-area facilities convey no information about growth in capacity to serve population: increases in functional square footages, increases in staffing, increases in programming.

Specific mentions on Panel 13 of Collingwood Library and Cedar Cottage Neighbourhood House suggest that the same old bottle of snake oil is being uncorked again. Replacements are nothing new. Far worse, CoV is suggesting that it might be willing to extract these facilities from the nearby locations that presently enjoy their proximity. Shifting around existing facilities amounts to nothing more than an ugly shell game.

Increase in benefit and amenity for Norquay needs to be quantified, and quantified just as clearly as the the upped FSRs and increased heights that primarily motivate the “planning” behind mass rezoning. Norquay has already more than done its share as a dumping ground for population density that has never yet seen any reward.

CoV needs to own up to this situation and find a capital funding of perhaps $30 to $50 million to put a decent new community facility on the 2400 Motel site that it already owns. At this stage, a mealy-mouthed scraping of the pan for a few tidbits just does not cut it. Surely the half-a-square-mile of Norquay and its 10,000 or so residents (order of magnitude only) deserve a fragment of the $150 million plus that CoV lavished on the Olympic Village, an area miniscule by comparison and already within walking distance of so much downtown amenity.


End Note:  The numbers in the table are derived from Vancouver census materials found at This is information that CoV has darkwebbed by leaving it behind during the 2012 migration to a new web site. It is possible that this information will be liquidated if it proves inconvenient. If you find that this link suddenly no longer works, feel free to contact Eye on Norquay for its own preservation archive.


Written by eyeonnorquay

17 February 2013 at 12:30 am

Posted in Context

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s