Canada is a big country with relatively few people. But most Canadians live within a hundred kilometres of the Canada-U.S. border. That’s probably why almost every new housing project today meets the resistance of existing residents who are afraid of increasing population density in their relatively low density neighbourhoods.

If our physical vision enabled us to look out beyond the mountains that surround us, we would be giving our heads a shake before we complain about population density in this country. The vastness of our unpopulated northern geography almost defies the imagination of most urban dwellers.

The statistics tell the real story though. Canada ranks as one of the least populated countries in the world. With an average density of 34 people per thousand hectares, we are near the very bottom of the list of global nations. Only countries like Greenland, Australia, Mongolia, Iceland, Botswana and Namibia have fewer people per hectare.

Moreover, we can rightly claim to be the bread basket of the world. Canada has one of the highest ratios of arable land to population in the world. We have more than 1.5 hectares of arable land per capita. Compare that with, say, Japan where the rate is only 0.03 hectares of arable land per capita, or China, where the statistics are only slightly better at 0.1 hectares per capita.

These statistics are really telling when it comes to the debate over urban densities — a debate that is playing out in city halls across the Lower Mainland weekly.

As infill development in the suburbs remains one of the only smart options to accommodate what seems like insatiable local growth, existing residents rally to oppose change, largely motivated by fear of the unknown.

One known is that we have a long way to go before we will start to see the kind of densities in our suburbs that make other places in the world economically efficient, socially healthy and innovatively human places.

Urban densities in North America don’t even compare with many other global cities. For example, the population density in the Greater Vancouver Regional District is less than 23 persons per hectare. Taipei‘s population density is more than four times that at 93.5 persons per hectare. The population density in Manila in the Philippines is 410 persons per hectare.

Let’s look at cities we might consider more livable than Taipei or Manila. London‘s population density is 47 persons per hectare and Paris‘ density is 244 persons per hectare, while San Francisco‘s population density is close to 65 persons per hectare.

There are some other not so smart options to accommodate growth in the Lower Mainland. One of them is known as sprawl–the unchecked expansion of urban boundaries that will reduce that enviable statistic that puts Canada out front of most other nations — arable land per capita.

Growing smarter means embracing the notion of concentrating population and activity in an urban area, creating vibrant, diverse and exciting places where there is a range of people, buildings, public spaces, facilities, services and choices.

The New Zealand government’s Ministry of Environment recently undertook a study called The Value of Urban Design.

That study looked specifically at the role density plays in good urban design. It concluded that urban design that promotes a higher density of buildings and public spaces in conjunction with other conditions, such as mixed use, good building design and adequate open space can:

– deliver savings on land, infrastructure and energy;

– reduce the economic costs associated with time spent traveling;

– help concentrate knowledge and innovative activity in the core of the city;

– promote social connectedness and vitality;

– help encourage greater physical activity, with consequent health benefits;

– help conserve green spaces, in conjunction with certain kinds of urban development;

– reduce run-off from vehicles to water, and overall emissions to air/atmosphere (although air emissions may be more locally concentrated).

These are just a few of the benefits of higher density development.

Ironically, many of them address is a positive way the very same fears that motivate people to oppose higher density development.

Bob Ransford is a public affairs consultant with COUNTERPOINT Communications Inc. He is a former real estate developer and a Director of the Urban Development Institute- Pacific Region. Contact him at: [email protected]

© The Vancouver Sun 2005