Calgary Metropolitan Region Board
Land Use Committee Meeting Agenda
May 10, 2018, 9:00 AM
Mount Royal University, Roderick Mah Centre for Continuous Learning
Room EC2010
The purpose of this meeting is to convene, discuss and make decisions regarding recommendations to be made to the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board.
1. Call to Order Sheard
2. Chair’s Opening Remarks Sheard
3. Adoption of Agenda All To adopt and/or revise today’s agenda
4. Review and Approve Minutes All For Decision To review and approve minutes from April 6, 2018
5. Land Use Plan and Servicing Plan Topic Grouping Tipman/Graves (Attachment) To discuss how the requirements of the Regulation for Growth and Servicing Plans can be grouped
6. Population and Employment Projections (Attachment) All For Decision To review and approve the work plan for population and employment projections
7. Interim REF Administrative Principles (Attachment) All For Decision To review and approve Interim REF Principles and Objectives developed by TAG
8. In-Camera (Pursuant to ss.23 and 24 FOIP) All
Interim REF Application Review Process Options Tipman To discuss various options for the Interim REF process developed through TAG workshops
Return to Public Session
9. Next Meeting: Thursday, June 7, 2018
10.Adjournment Sheard
Land Use Committee Members:
Mayor Peter Brown Mayor Craig Snodgrass Councillor Gian-Carlo Carra Mayor Bill Robertson Mayor Marshall Chalmers Reeve Greg Boehlke Mayor Jeff Genung Councillor Tom Ikert Reeve Larry Spilak
Christopher Sheard, Committee Chair Dale Beesley, GOA Representative
Upcoming Meetings:
Land Use Committee Thursday June 7th 9:00 AM Mount Royal University Centre for Continuous Learning, Room EC2010 Board Meetings Friday May 25th – 9:00 AM WinSport Friday June 22nd – 9:00 AM Mount Royal, Room EC2010
Minutes of the meeting of the Land Use Committee of the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board held at Mount Royal University on Thursday April 6, 2018 Delegates in Attendance: Mayor Peter Brown – City of Airdrie Councillor Gian-Carlo Carra – City of Calgary Councillor Laurie Bold – City of Chestermere Mayor Jeff Genung – Town of Cochrane Councillor Suzanne Oel – MD of Foothills Mayor Craig Snodgrass – Town of High River Mayor Bill Robertson – Town of Okotoks Reeve Greg Boehlke – Rocky View County Councillor Tom Ikert – Wheatland County
Dale Beeseley – ADM Municipal Affairs
CMRB Administration: Chris Sheard, Chair Jordon Copping, Chief Officer Liisa Tipman, Project Manager–Land Use
1. Call to Order Called to order at 9:00 AM.
2. Chair’s Opening Remarks Chair Sheard opened the meeting and welcomed members and staff.
3. Approval of Agenda
Moved by Mayor Brown, Seconded by Mayor Snodgrass, accepted by Chair.
Motion: That the Calgary Metropolitan Region Land Use Committee approve the agenda of this meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. Terms of Reference Discussion: • Voting structure • Question regarding conservation of floodway lands being included in the Terms of Reference as a separate line item • Proposal to add a new “e. – policies regarding floodway lands"
Page 1 of 4
Moved by Councillor Ikert, Seconded by Mayor Snodgrass, accepted by Chair.
Motion: That the Calgary Metropolitan Region Land Use Committee approve the Terms of Reference as presented, adding “(e) policies regarding flood prone areas” under Scope/Contents of the Growth Plan.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. Update from TAG
An update from TAG was given including:
• April 13 TAG meeting to begin fulsome work of IGP. • REF process principles.
6. In-camera session began at 9:26 AM. In-camera session ended at 12:06 PM.
7. Directions from Land Use Committee to CMRB Administration:
General Direction • Direct CMRB Administration to plan a schedule for LUC meetings in a way that groups related topics. • Direct CMRB Administration to invite Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board (EMRB) to present at a Land Use Committee meeting. Direction on fulfilling the requirements of the Terms of Reference – Land Use Committee (a) Population and Employment Projections • Direct CMRB Administration to provide the Land Use Committee with recommended options for including population and employment projections into the Growth Plan (i.e. timeline for the Growth Plan, if a timeline is required, increments for presenting population and employment projections, and so on). Administration will: o Consider the requirement for expert advice and provide recommendations on retaining expert advice, if required; o Develop projections that are incremental. • Discussion about population and employment projections will occur on a community by community basis to ensure the needs of each member municipality are met.
Page 2 of 4
(b) The identification of the following (i) Growth Areas • Direct CMRB Administration to create a regional map that identifies the existing growth areas of the 10 member municipalities. • Discussion about the regional map will occur at the Land Use Committee to ensure the needs of each member municipality are met. (ii) Land Supply for residential commercial and industrial purposes • Direct CMRB Administration to create a regional map of existing land supply. • Discussion about a regional map will occur at the Land Use Committee and will include discussion of land use typologies and best planning practices relating to community form and function. (iii) Agricultural lands • Direct CMRB Administration to map agriculture soils in the Region. • Discussion about agriculture and how to best incorporate agriculture into the Growth Plan will occur at the Land Use Committee. (iv) Density of development • Defer consideration of density of development. (v) Development and location of infrastructure • Direct CMRB Administration to provide the Land Use Committee with a summary of existing and planned infrastructure. (vi) corridors for recreation, transportation, energy transmission, utilities and intermunicipal transit • Direct CMRB Administration to provide the Land Use Committee with a summary of existing and planned corridors for recreation, transportation, energy transmission, utilities and intermunicipal transit. (c) Policies regarding the planning for corridors for recreation, transportation, energy transmission, utilities and intermunicipal transit • Discussion about policies related to these corridors and mapping of these corridors will occur at the Land Use Committee. (d) Policies regarding environmentally sensitive areas • Direct CMRB Administration to catalogue provincial and federal environmental policies/regulations that apply to development in the Region. (e) Policies regarding flood prone areas • None
Page 3 of 4
(f) Policies regarding the coordination of infrastructure planning and development among the participating municipalities • None (g) Policies that address new settlement areas • Direct CMRB Administration to define “new settlement area” and present options to the Land Use Committee for consideration o Develop a catalogue of the current policies/frameworks/criteria for the development of new settlement areas within member municipalities o Consideration should be made for the diversity of rural and urban developments (i.e. larger urban, smaller urban, country residential, etc.) o The definition of “new settlement area” may include new greenfield areas within urban municipalities
12.Adjournment
Moved by Mayor Robertson, Seconded by Councillor Carra, accepted by Chair.
Motion: That the Calgary Metropolitan Region Land Use Committee adjourn the April 6 2018 meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
______
CMRB Chair, Christopher Sheard
Page 4 of 4
`
Agenda Item 5 Submitted to Land Use Committee Purpose Recommendation to the Land Use Committee Subject Population and Employment Projections Meeting Date May 10, 2018
For Decision That the Land Use Committee APPROVE a recommendation for CMRB Administration to undertake population and employment projections
Background • In 2012, the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) updated its employment forecasts for the Calgary region • In 2017, the CRP updated its population forecasts for the Calgary region • The CRP undertook consultation and engagement with regional partners to establish population and employment projections • The CMRB Regulation requires the CMRB to undertake population and employment projections • CMRB Administration and TAG have discussed updating the Calgary Regional Partnership population and employment forecasts to reflect the boundaries of the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board, to incorporate the 2016 census information, and to reflect current economic conditions in the Region o CMRB population projections would be regional and by municipality; employment projections would be by region only o TAG will work with CMRB Administration to ensure the projections reflect the interests of member municipalities • CMRB Administration requests Land Use Committee approval to undertake an update of the Calgary Regional Partnership’s population and employment projections incorporated TAG and LUC inputs
Attachments • “A Context for Change Management in the Calgary Regional Partnership Area” (Urban Futures, 2012) • “Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings” (Urban Futures, 2017)
Page 1 of 4 Agenda Item 5 May 10, 2018 `
1. Introduction
The goal of the regional planning process is to identify how we will meet the needs of the Calgary Region, as defined by the Board, today and into the future. Population and employment projections can be used to coordinate anticipated growth with the levels of land supply and servicing needed to fulfill the aspirations of the CMRB.
2. Linking Land Use and Servicing
Population and employment projections are the foundation of both the Growth Plan and the Servicing Plan. They are an important way of coordinating the goals and growth of the Region with the realities of providing the necessary regional services to support growth. For example, if a member municipality is expected to grow by 10,000 people, the Growth Plan and Servicing Plan can anticipate where regional transportation and intermunicipal transit services might be needed to support that growth. The necessary level of service – how success is defined - would be determined by the Board and its Committees. Population Projections
Population projections are a key foundation of regional planning. Because services are generally described on a per-capita basis, it is important to have both regional and municipal population projections to support the regional planning process.
• At the regional scale, population projections help us to consider the relationship between population growth, land use, and the overall levels of servicing that would be required to support projected growth. • At the municipal scale, these population projections help us to understand the general rates of growth and scale of regional services needed by each municipality. Employment Projections
Employment projections help us to understand the general types of employment that a region might need to accommodate over time. Often, employment projections are used to generate population forecasts because the rate of job growth and the rate of population growth are linked.
• At a regional scale, employment projections support the identification of the general types of employment lands the Region will need to plan for and service. • CMRB Administration and TAG do not recommend breaking down employment forecasts by individual municipalities. A municipal employment forecast is not descriptive enough in terms of the location and growth of specific employment areas to be a useful planning tool at a regional scale. For example, services such as regional roads and intermunicipal transit are not effectively planned through municipal-wide employment projections.
Page 2 of 4 Agenda Item 5 May 10, 2018 `
For this reason, CMRB Administration is recommending planning for employment growth in ways that better link regional land use and servicing considerations. This approach would consider the locations of concentrated areas of employment (i.e. downtowns, significant community cores, large employment/industrial areas, etc), how these areas are currently growing and how these areas are currently serviced. The levels of regional services the region may consider for concentrated employment areas will be determined by the Board as part of future discussions.
3. Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) Projections
The Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) published population and employment projections. These projections were completed by Urban Futures, and they identify population and employment to the year 2076. A significant consultation program with member municipalities was completed as part of developing the population and employment forecasts.
• In 2012, the CRP published regional employment projections in a report entitled “A Context for Change Management in the Calgary Regional Partnership Area” which is included in this report as Appendix 1. • In 2017, the CRP published regional and municipal population projects in a report entitled “Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings” which is included in this report as Appendix 2.
Population projections include both a regional projection and projections for each municipality within the Calgary metropolitan area. Some member municipalities continue to use CRP forecasts for their internal planning purposes. Other municipalities have internal capacity to generate their own forecasts on a more frequent and ongoing basis.
CRP employment forecasts are provided on a region-wide basis only. They are not provided on a municipal basis due to the perception that the region was “capping” employment growth for individual municipalities and projecting a more prosperous future for some municipalities over others.
CMRB Administration has discussed the CRP population and employment projections with TAG. TAG discussions indicate that CRP population projections are generally well- regarded but should be updated to consider the following: • to reflect the boundaries and members of the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board, • to incorporate the 2016 census information, • to reflect current economic conditions in the Region and the associated effect on population and employment growth, • any other matters as identified by TAG and LUC.
Page 3 of 4 Agenda Item 5 May 10, 2018 `
4. CMRB Administration Recommendations
1. CMRB Administration requests authorization to update the CRP population and employment projections. This would include: • Updating population projections by region and by municipality. • Updating employment projections by region. CMRB Administration would engage a consultant to complete these tasks.
2. As identified by TAG, the CRP population and employment projections should be updated to: • Reflect the boundaries of the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board, • Incorporate the 2016 census information, • Reflect current economic conditions in the Region as their associated effect on population and employment growth, • Other as determined during future collaborations with TAG and LUC.
3. To adopt an approach to employment projections which identifies concentrated areas of employment rather than undertaking municipal-wide employment. This approach is intended to better link Growth Plan and Servicing Plan considerations and to focus on building success for these areas. The details of how to best approach this type of analysis will be the subject of future discussions with TAG and LUC.
Page 4 of 4 Agenda Item 5 May 10, 2018
A Context for Change Management in the Calgary Regional Partnership Area
Future Population, Housing, Labour Force, and Employment
thousands
FEBRUARY 2012
URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
A Context for Change Management in the Calgary Regional Partnership Area
Future Population, Housing, Labour Force, and Employment
Prepared for:
Reproduction of this report in whole or in part without permission of the Calgary Regional Partnership is prohibited. The information contained in this report has been compiled from sources believed to be reliable but the accuracy of the information is not guaranteed. E&OE
Page 2 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 2
I Introduction 4
II The Dimensions of Demographic Change 6 1 The National and Provincial Context for the Region ...... 6 2 The Calgary Regional Partnership Region ...... 11
III The Implications of Demographic Change for Housing in the Region 21 1 The Age Specific Pattern of Housing Demand ...... 21 2 Projected Housing Occupancy Demand ...... 28
IV Work and Workers in the Region 31 1 Your Labour Force: Workers in the Region ...... 31 2 The Economy: Work in the Region ...... 34
i URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
A Context for Change Management Calgary Regional Partnership Area – February 2012 Update Future Population, Housing, Labour Force, and Employment
Executive Summary
The future of the Calgary Region will increasingly be shaped by its external context, due to its open metropolitan economy and strong reliance on migration. From a demographic perspective, the patterns of projected population growth and change in Canada, and in its provinces and regions, will determine the degree to which the Calgary Region will have a pool of migrants (both domestic and international) to contribute to its future population. As such, changes at the national and provincial levels are important in considering the regional patterns of demographic and economic change.
Canada
Over the next 65 years the Canadian population is projected to grow by 50 percent (17.3 million additional residents), going from 34.5 million today (2011) to 51.8 million by 2076. Given the declining contribution of natural increase due to an aging population, the annual rate of growth in Canada’s population would decline slowly over time, from one percent in 2011 into the neighbourhood of 0.4 percent by the end of the projection period. It is worth noting that this represents a relatively conservative outlook for population growth over the coming decades when considered against historical changes. More specifically, the decade following the birth of the baby boomers saw annual population growth rates that were in the range of 1.3 percent, with the decade closing out the last century seeing rates in the range of 1.1 percent. Each of the coming decades would see this rate decline, even in light of immigration increasing into the range of 330,000 people per year.
Alberta
Recognizing the national context of change over the coming 65 years, historical trends (both long‐term and more recent) point towards a relatively stable total fertility rate, minimal increases in life expectancy, and increasing net inter‐provincial and international migration for the province of Alberta in the coming years. These trends, along with the aging of the province’s existing population, would see Alberta grow from 3.8 million people today (2011) to 7.6 million by 2076, representing a doubling of the provincial population. As at the national level, the provincial population will grow larger, but it will do so at a slowing rate: population growth rates are projected to fall below one percent annually over the longer‐term of the projection period.
Calgary Region
Echoing the provincial‐ and national‐level trends, the projection of population growth and change for the Calgary Region over the next six and a half decades shows a regional population that both grows larger, albeit at a slowing annual rate, and changes significantly with respect to its age composition. Despite the fact that the Region is projected grow more slowly than it has in the past, changes in the composition of its population will be much more dramatic than those experienced historically.
The greatest change will come to the 65 to 74 age group, with 238,500 additional people by 2076. Next would be the 225,400‐person growth in the under‐15 age group, driven by the stabilization of fertility rates and the younger age profile that typically characterizes migration. Following this would be the 206,000‐person increase in the 55 to 64 age group and the 199,000‐person increase in the 75 to 84 group. As evidenced by these numbers, it is the aging of today’s population that will frame tomorrow’s demographic changes. Of today’s
Page 2 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e population, 93 percent would still be alive in 2026 (and would be 15 years older), 58 percent would still be alive by 2056 (and would be 45 years older); and almost one‐third (29 percent) would be with us by the end of the projection period (and would 65 years older than they are today).
Housing Occupancy
Over the next 65 years, the 114 percent growth in population (1.6 million more people) would be accompanied by a 126 percent increase in the occupied dwelling stock necessary to accommodate it (691,460 additional units). The strong lifecycle pattern of housing occupancy, characterized by high rates in the older age groups, will combine with rapid growth of these older age groups to see total housing occupancy demand grow faster than total population. The housing stock in the Region would still be marked by a predominance of single detached units, as they are projected to see the largest absolute increase (270,700 units) between 2011 and 2076. That said, there will be a slow but inevitable shift towards other dwelling forms as the Region continues to diversify its housing stock. Other forms of ground oriented housing (such as duplexes and row homes) are expected to grow faster than single detached, increasing by 158 percent (167,680 occupied units), as are the number of apartments, projected to grow by 221 percent (253,080 units) between 2011 and 2065.
Labour Force & Employment
Another dimension on which the Region’s changing demography will have a significant impact is the size and composition of the Region’s labour force and, by extension, its economy. While recognizing the complexity of the interconnections inherent between demographic and economic change, for purposes of this analysis each of the two components were considered independently before bringing the supply of workers and the demand for them (employment) into resolution.
On the labour force side, trends in age specific labour force participation and changes in the regional population are expected to see the regional labour force grow by 86 percent by 2076. Over the next decade growth would average 1.7 percent per year, which is more moderate than the 2.7 percent growth seen in the decade leading up to 2011. On the employment side, considering historical changes in regional employment against the backdrop of broader changes in the provincial economy, total employment in the Calgary Region is projected to grow from 2011’s 797,067 jobs to just under 1.5 million by 2076 (equivalent to 87 percent growth over the coming 65 years). Employment and labour force growth of this magnitude would see the regional unemployment rate fall in the short‐term (to under four percent) before increasing back into a range that remains within the bounds of the Region’s historical experience.
Industry Sectors
The most rapidly‐growing industry sector in the Calgary Region over the next 65 years would be Business Services, with the number of people working in this sector growing by 127 percent (adding 148,400 jobs) between 2011 and 2076. The Construction sector would be the second‐fastest growing industry sector, as it is projected to grow by 111 percent, adding 86,000 jobs. The Transportation, Communications and Utilities sector and Personal Services would also grow faster than total employment (at 102 percent and 91 percent, respectively).
Occupation Sectors
The most rapidly‐growing occupation sector in the Calgary Region is projected to be Natural and Applied Sciences (110 percent growth). However, in considering the link between occupations and land uses, of more significance is the absolute number of jobs added within each sector. While jobs in the Natural and Applied Sciences sector would experience a high rate of growth, the greatest absolute increase in employment would
Page 3 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
be in the Sales and Services sector (150,800 additional jobs versus 94,500 in Natural and Applied Sciences). In fact, 22 percent of the total increase in employment in the Calgary Region is projected to be in Sales and Services occupations, resulting in a significant increase in the demand for commercial and retail land uses and locations.
To the extent that occupations Unique to the Primary and Manufacturing sectors are equated with the use of industrial land, the addition of more than 35,000 jobs in these sectors will have implications for industrially‐ zoned land. The land demand issues facing the Region will also be shaped by the fact that 42 percent of the growth in regional employment (288,100 jobs) will be in Management Occupations, Business Services, and Natural and Applied Sciences, which place a greater emphasis on commercial real estate, and specifically on office uses.
Page 4 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
I Introduction
This report is an update to a document produced by Urban Futures for the Calgary Regional Partnership in 2007, which presented a series of demographic and economic projections for the Calgary Regional Partnership Area (herein referred to as the “Calgary Region”), for the period spanning 2011 to 2076. As a starting point, it is useful to consider the definition and scale of the study area. The economic and demographic heart of Southern Alberta, the Calgary Region had a population of 1,357,667residents in 2011 (according to the Census), thirty‐ seven percent of Alberta’s total population of 3,645,257 people. The area encompasses communities from Banff in the west to Hussar in the east, and from Olds in the north to Nanton in the south. Functionally, the Region is tied together by access to, and the intersection of, Highways One and Two. Definitionally, it comprises local administrative areas that are fully or partially within the direct catchment area of this regional transportation hub. Administratively, it also closely corresponds to the participants in the Calgary Regional Partnership.
The population of the Calgary Region grew by 36 percent in the decade leading up to 2011, from 1.05 million residents in 2001 to its 1.4 million today1. This compares to an increase of only 24 percent for the province as a whole over this period, and only 17 percent throughout the rest of the province, outside of the Calgary Region. As a result, the Region’s share of Alberta’s population has increased from 34 percent in 2001 to 37 percent in 2011. It is important to note here that while the Calgary Regional Partnership region, as defined by its member municipalities, may have changed since 2007, this report utilizes the same geographic bounds for the CRP as the 2008 report in order to allow direct comparison between the two projection series.
In the following pages the research into the Calgary Region’s changing economy and demography has been segmented into three distinct steps. The first focuses on the macro‐level demographic and economic factors that are expected to drive change nationally, provincially, and within the Region over the coming decades. The second considers the housing implications of the projected pattern of demographic change in the Calgary Region, while the third step focuses on projected economic changes and the implications for future employment in the Calgary Region, described by both industry and occupation classification.
Before presenting any data, it is important to place the projections presented in this report into an analytical framework. As a starting point, any statements about the future (be they forecasts, projections, or estimates) are conditional statements, in that they are descriptions of what will prevail in the future if the conditions on which the projections are predicated prevail. The projections presented throughout this report are referred to as “trend‐based” projections. The approach used to develop these projections involves building on a foundation of empirically‐observed, long‐run historical trends, with these trends extended into the future in a manner that acknowledges both the long‐run patterns they demonstrate, as well as more recent evidence that may indicate future shifts from these long‐run patterns. It is the modification of long‐run trends in light of recent evidence that results in the projections being trend‐based rather than simply trend projections. At the simplest level, such adjustments are dictated by logic: if long‐term trends in the postponement of births that have been experienced in the Calgary Region continued into the future, at some point there would be no births, so the historical long‐run trend in postponement needed to be modified in order to develop a reasonable projection of future population.
1 Note that all population numbers, unless stated as being directly from the Census, have been adjusted for a net Census undercount.
Page 5 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
II The Dimensions of Demographic Change
1 The National and Provincial Context for the Region
The future of the Calgary Region will increasingly be shaped by its external context, due to its open metropolitan economy and a strong reliance on migration. Demographically, the patterns of projected population growth and change in Canada, and its provinces and regions, will determine the degree to which the Calgary Region will have a pool of migrants (both domestic and international) to contribute to its future population. As a prelude to the projections for the Region, then, it is essential to define the anticipated demographic context for it, namely, the province of Alberta and Canada.
Directions of Growth and Change in Canada
Over the past forty years Canada’s population has grown from just under 22.0 million residents (in 1971) to almost 34.5 million today (in 2011). Additions to the population over this period averaged just over 310,000 people per year, achieving an average annual growth rate of 1.1 percent. Historically, population growth in Canada has been cyclical, experiencing no less than six reversals in the direction of growth over the last forty years. Rates declined through the late‐1970s, and again through the mid‐1980s after a slight increase in 1980, before increasing significantly to 1.8 percent through the late‐1980s. Since this peak, which was characterized by high levels of immigration to Canada, growth has slowed somewhat; rates have remained fairly steady since 2006, averaging 1.1 percent between the two most recent Census counts.
Considering population growth rates, however, masks the degree to which the national population has changed over the past forty years. The past four decades saw the post‐World War II baby boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1965) age through a series of major life milestones: completing school, entering the labour force, purchasing a home, and for many, beginning a family. By 2011 the bulk of Canada’s boomers were over the age of 45, with many of them now looking towards life’s next major milestones: paying off the mortgage, the kids finally moving out, and retirement.
Figure 1 Figure 1 shows the broad context of the significant change in Canada’s population since the early 70’s, specifically, the growth of the 46 to 65 year old age group as a result of the aging of the baby boom generation. While attention commonly focuses on the large bulge created by the baby boom at age 49 — representing Canada’s most typical resident—Figure 1 also illustrates the dramatic decline in the number of younger people that followed the boomers. There are, in fact, ten percent fewer children aged ten and under in Canada today than there
Page 6 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
were in 1971; this represents an almost half a million person decline (467,500 people) in this age group over the last forty years.
The slowing rate of growth in the Canadian population also masks the reality that the factors contributing to population growth have changed significantly over the past four decades. Specifically, declining fertility has seen immigration play a much larger role in growth in recent years, a trend that will certainly continue as a large proportion of the Canadian population has aged out of the high‐fertility stages of the lifecycle.
Along with the inevitable process of aging, factors contributing to our changing national population are usually grouped into two broad categories: natural increase (the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths) and net immigration (the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants, plus changes in the number of non‐permanent residents and Canadians living abroad). Natural increase has historically contributed more people, on average, to Canada’s population growth than net immigration. Between 1971 and 1991 net immigration added an average of 115,000 new residents annually to Canada’s population, while natural increase added an average of almost 195,000. From 1991 onwards, however, the contribution of natural increase began to decline, adding an average of only 135,000 people between 1991 and 2011 versus net immigration that added an average of 187,000 people over the same period. By 2011 net immigration added just over 212,000 people to Canada’s population, while the contribution of natural increase was 145,000 people.
As Figure 2 shows, immigration is projected to become even an more predominant factor in Canada’s changing population landscape over the coming decades, increasing from 262,100 immigrants today (2011) to just over 300,000 annually over the next two decades, and further to 330,000 annual immigrants by 2040. This projection would see Figure 2 immigration increase from 0.76 percent of the Canadian population today to 0.82 percent over the next decade, before dropping back down into the range of 0.61 percent by the end of the projection period—a pattern of change partially driven by the impacts of the boom generation aging out of the working‐aged portion of the lifecycle and into retirement. More specifically, the relative contribution of immigration to population growth will begin to decline after 2040, as the baby boom generation will have already aged out of the working stage of the lifecycle. As such, the magnitude of immigration flows will have trended back down to 0.68 percent of the population by 2056, equating to 325,000 immigrants in that year. By the end of the projection period (2076), immigration will account for approximately 314,000 annual additions to the national population.
Recognizing that for every 1,000 immigrants who have come to Canada since 1971, 205 people emigrated from Canada to other countries, net immigration to Canada is expected to increase from 212,400 today to 262,150 Page 7 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
by 2032 before dropping slightly to 252,150 by 2056 and further to 232,800 by the end of the projection period.
Given that Canada has a below‐replacement‐level birth rate (a woman in Canada today typically has only 1.6 children over the course of her life, with the replacement level being 2.1 kids), and an ever‐increasing number of deaths (as more Canadians age into the higher mortality stages of the lifecycle), trends in these rates would see the contribution of natural increase to population growth continue to decline, becoming natural decrease by 2039 when the number of deaths is projected to exceed the number of births (Figure 2). More specifically, natural increase added an average of 165,600 people to the population annually between 1971 and 2011, and is projected to add an average of 81,700 per year until it falls to zero in 2039. From that point onwards, natural decrease will take people away from Canada’s population—slowly at first, but increasing over the projection period. By 2076 natural decrease will account for a 50,200 person loss each year from the Canadian population.
In other words, even with robust immigration, the annual number of deaths is projected to eventually exceed the number of births in Canada. From 2039 onwards population growth in Canada would therefore be driven solely by immigration. Given that the most typical person immigrating to Canada is in their late 20s, the process of growth through immigration will help to slow the aging of Canada’s population. It will not, however, stop it: when it comes to aging, the country’s 10 million baby boomers will easily overshadow the role played by both net immigration flows and births over the coming decades.
Trends in the components of natural increase and net immigration, when combined with the aging of Canada’s current population, results in a projection of Canada’s population growing from 34.5 million residents today (2011) to 39.8 by 2026, 47.7 million by 2056, and 51.8 million by 2076. Over the next sixty‐five years the Canadian population is expected to grow by 50 percent, or 17.3 million residents. Given the declining contribution of natural increase, the annual rate of growth in Canada’s population would decline slowly over time, from one percent in 2011 into the neighbourhood of 0.4 percent by the end of the projection period. This outlook paints a relatively conservative picture of population growth for the coming decades in Canada when compared to its history. The decade following the birth of the baby boomers saw annual population growth rates were in the range of 1.3 percent, with the decade closing out the last century seeing rates in the range of 1.1 percent. Each of the coming decades would see this rate decline, even in light of record levels of net immigration.
While growth in Canada’s total population is expected to continue to slow, changes in its composition will be much more dramatic (Figure 3). Total population growth of 50 percent over the next 65 years would include the 65‐plus population growing by 175 percent (8.7 million additional people) while the under‐65 population would increase by only 29 percent (8.6 million people).
If we consider the a future population age profile for Canada under a no‐migration scenario (Figure 3), we see that, in the absence of immigration and emigration, all age groups under the age of 65 would decline in absolute number. If immigration and emigration flows were absent, the working‐age population in Canada would fall by 33 percent, or 9.5 million people, between 2011 and 2076. As a result, any growth in these age groups will be singularly due to the presence of net immigration over the coming years. This frames the magnitude of Canada’s demographic opportunities and challenges in the coming years, which will be underscored by an older population growing much faster than its younger counterpart.
Compositional changes such as these will result in significant transitions in Canada over the coming decades, ones that will need to be addressed for the sake of the ongoing health of our economy and national and provincial social programs. The extent of demographic change that is anticipated on the national level points towards pressure for changes on a wide range of issues, such as health care and pensions, and, on a more basic level, to longer walk signals at crosswalks or larger print in newspapers. Page 8 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e Figure 3
The Implications for Alberta
Recognizing the national context of population change over the coming 65 years as a starting point, the next step in developing projections for the Calgary Region was a projection for the province of Alberta. In addition to the impacts of Canada‐level immigration, the implications of inter‐provincial migration, natural increase, and aging, on Alberta’s population were considered over the coming 65 years. This provincial demographic outlook provides a mechanism to ensure that the projections for the Calgary Region are consistent with those for the province as a whole, which in turn, are consistent with the national outlook.
Over the past forty years, the rate of population growth in Alberta has generally exceeded that of Canada, averaging 2.1 percent annually (versus 1.1 percent nationally), and has generally moved in tandem with provincial economic cycles and the flow of migrants in and out of the province. For example, Figure 4 shows that annual growth rates rose substantially through the late‐1970s as Alberta’s economy expanded rapidly, and then fell dramatically through the early‐1980s, to a low of zero growth in 1984 as economic activity in the province contracted through this period.
Following this period, Figure 4 population growth again respected economic growth cycles, increasing to almost 1.2 percent in 1985/1986. The late‐1980s represented another period of expansion, with population growth in the range of 2.1 percent during the early‐1990s being driven by economic restructuring in both Alberta and Ontario, and the influence of the political (and economic) restructuring in Asia.
In 2001, annual population growth fell to 1.7 percent, followed by a small rise to 1.9 percent in 2002 and then a dip to 1.4 percent by 2004. Strong Page 9 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
growth in the provincial economy in the post‐2001 period pushed population growth rates back above two percent per year, reaching 3.0 percent by 2006. More recently, from this 2006 peak, growth rates have trended significantly downwards, from 2.7 percent in 2007, to 2.2 percent in 2008, and further to 1.3 percent by 2010 and back up to 1.6 percent in 2011. This pattern was again influenced by changing economic circumstance as Alberta’s GDP growth went from almost six percent growth in 2006 to a contraction of two percent in 2009 as a result of the global credit crisis, before bumping back up to just over three percent in 2010.
As at the national level, historical trends (both long‐term and more recent) point towards a relatively stable total fertility rate, small increases in life expectancy, and increasing net inter‐provincial and international migration for the province in the coming years. These trends, along with the aging of the province’s existing population, would see the province grow from 3.8 million people today (2011) to 4.7 million by 2026, 6.5 million by 2056, and further to 7.6 million by 2076, representing a doubling of the provincial population over the projection period (Figure 4). On average, an estimated 58,000 net new residents would be added to the provincial population each year, higher than the 52,000 that were added annually over the past four decades.
Regarding the components of change, annual additions from net immigration are expected to fall slightly from recent highs towards historical averages. From current levels in the range of 22,000 people annually (which Figure 5 was almost double the 12,000 average seen over the past two decades), net immigration would fall to 17,400 people annually by 2026 and further to 14,500 by 2076, driven by the declining annual number of immigrants expected at the national level (Figure 5).
Domestic migration is expected to remain relatively constant over the projection period. After seeing more people moving to other provinces in 2009 (a loss of 3,114 people), net inter‐ provincial migration moved back towards a gain of 13,000 people annually in both 2010 and 2011. This is expected to increase further over the course of the projection period, to 17,900 by 2026 and to 18,400 people by 2076, as the Alberta economy attracts a significant proportion of its workforce from across Canada.
With roughly a quarter of Alberta’s population currently between the ages of 46 and 65, the coming six‐and‐a‐ half decades will mirror the national picture with respect to the impact of aging, with a substantial increase in the size of the province’s older population. That being said, the youthful composition of migration to the province will have a significant effect on the composition of its population overall, with Alberta’s younger population projected to expand much more rapidly than what is expected at the national level.
Figure 6 shows that all age groups in the province are expected to grow significantly over the course of the projection period. Given its relatively small base in 2011, the 85‐plus population would see the largest relative Page 10 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
Figure 6 increase of any age group, growing by 602 percent over the coming sixty‐five years, adding 320,600 people. The 75 to 84, 65 to 74, and 55 to 64 age groups would also experience significant change, growing by 338 percent (449,000 additional people), 235 percent (524,200 people), and 109 percent (460,200 people), respectively.
With respect to the younger segments of Alberta’s population, the 45 to 54 group would grow by 59 percent (versus just 18 percent nationally), while the 35 to 44 and 25 to 34 groups would grow by 72 percent and 55 percent, respectively (versus only 33 and 26 percent nationally). Differences in growth between Alberta and Canada as a whole would also be seen in the youngest age groups: the 15 to 24 group is projected to grow by 67 percent provincially compared to 18 percent nationally, while the 88 percent growth projected for the under‐15 group compares to only 37 percent nationally.
2 The Calgary Regional Partnership Region
Demography ‐ The People in the Region
Over the past two‐and‐a‐half decades, the Calgary Region’s population has grown steadily, increasing from 763,000 people in 1986, to 937,000 residents by 1996, and then passing the one million mark in 2000 (Figure 7). By 2011, the Region’s population was 1,407,621. (Note again that the 2011 Census population count for the Calgary Region was 1,357,677 residents, 3.7 percent less than the current estimated total population for that year. The reason for the difference is that a small proportion of the population is “missed” during Census enumeration—a phenomenon called the Census undercount).
Echoing the provincial landscape of change, annual growth in the Calgary Region has demonstrated a great deal of variance historically, ranging from highs of 3.7 percent to lows of 0.9 percent, driven primarily by relative and changing economic circumstances. Periods of relatively slow population growth regionally were seen in the mid‐1980s, early‐1990s, and again in the early‐2000s. While the pattern of peaks and troughs follows the provincial situation closely, the swings have been more muted regionally: for example, the low of 0.2 percent growth the province saw in 1987 was marked by 0.9 percent growth in the Calgary Region; while 2003 saw the province grow by only 1.8 percent, the Calgary Region grew by 2.3 percent. The recent drop in growth rates seen at the provincial level has been only mildly felt within the Calgary Region itself, with growth averaging 2.9 percent annually between 2008 and 2010, versus 1.9 percent provincially.
Similar to what was seen both nationally and provincially, growth in the Region’s population has been accompanied by significant changes to its age composition. Over the past two decades, the Region’s age profile has been dominated by the aging of the baby boom generation (Figure 8). In 1986, 41 percent of the Region’s population was between the ages of 21 and 40, with the most typical resident in the Region being in their mid‐ Page 11 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e Figure 7 20s. By 2011, this cohort— together with international and domestic migrants— accounted for 25 percent of the Region’s population, spanning the ages of 46 and 65. Although the most typical baby boomer has now aged into their early 50s, the most typical resident of the Calgary Region in 2011 was 29 years old, a function of the high level of 20‐somethings migrating into the Region for education and labour force related opportunities.
Interestingly, while migration has had an impact on the number of younger people in the Region, it has also played a role in the growing size of Figure 8 older cohorts. For example, in 1986 there were 18,500 26‐ year‐olds in the Region; twenty‐five years later, these people had aged into their early‐50s. With almost 22,000 people of this age living in the Region, the growth of the older population has not solely been due to the effect of the aging of the base population, but the combined effect of mobility which has brought more people of all ages to the Region.
While the overall population of the Calgary Region grew by 94 percent over the last 25 years, there has been significant variance in the growth rates of certain age cohorts. Today, there are 34 percent more 26 year olds than there were in 1986 but 209 percent more 80 year olds. Similarly, the 80‐plus population in the region has grown by 253 percent over the last 25 years, while the ten and under population has only grown by 55 percent.
Contrasting the 1986 and 2011 age profiles reveals somewhat of a demographic golden era for the Region, with the overwhelming majority of the population moving through the high labour force participation stage of the lifecycle up to 2011 – paying their taxes, and contributing to health care and pension plans. At the same Page 12 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e time, relatively few people were in the older age groups – those who typically draw on RRSPs, pensions, and the health care system. In the future, however, due to the inevitable process of aging, this pattern of change in the Region’s population will see the post‐War baby boom generation enter the older age cohorts. Soon, most boomers will be in the empty‐nester and retirement stages of life; stages typically characterized by lower labour force participation rates and a greater utilization of social services. Given these inevitable demographic shifts, ensuring there is an adequate supply of younger workers in the coming years will increasingly mean depending on migration from both international and domestic sources. Managing these changes will necessitate careful monitoring of the changing demand for activity locations, transportation, and social programs, and the changing supply of tax dollars and labour to meet the demands that population growth and change will bring to the Region.
Biological Factors Shaping Calgary Region’s Future Population
As discussed above, the single most important biological factor shaping the composition of the Region’s current population was the sheer number of births that occurred in Canada over the 1946 to 1965 period. The second important biological factor shaping population change has been the dramatic declines seen in age specific mortality rates. In the coming years, continued declines in mortality rates will impact the Region’s population, specifically in how they affect the baby boom generation as they ensure long and increasing life expectancies for this cohort.
For example, people between the ages of 46 and 65 (the age range of the baby boomers today) can expect to enjoy, at current mortality rates, an average life expectancy of between 80 and 83 years, and hence will be around for another 20 to 40 years. Just as it has over the past fifty years, the continued upward shift of the Region’s age profile (because of aging), will bias not only the shape of the age profile over the coming decades, but will also change the very fundamental drivers of demand and supply for public and private goods and services in the Region. Only in the much longer‐term—when the baby boom generation has completely passed on—will this influence diminish, returning the Calgary Region (and the rest of Canada) to a situation wherein there is a closer balance between the influence of mortality and natality on the age profile, and size, of the population.
Natality. The age specific birth rate refers to the percentage of women in an age group who gave birth during a given year. There is a strong lifecycle pattern to age specific birth rates, as there is a higher probability that a woman will give birth to a child at certain points in her life, and a lower probability at other points. In the Calgary Region, the age specific birth rate increases from the 0.2 percent of women 15 years of age who will have a child in a given year to a peak of 14.1 percent of women aged 30, before dropping back to under three percent for women over the age of 40 (Figure 9). The highest age specific birth rates in the Calgary Region in 2010 were for women between the ages of 27 and 33, where between 9.9 percent and 14.1 percent of the women had a child during the year.
Adding up the probabilities of a women giving birth to a child, across all age groups, reveals the average number of children that would be born to a woman during her lifetime at prevailing fertility rates. Currently, this average number for the Calgary Region is 1.74 children. In a biological context, for a population to grow and become younger, the average number of births per woman has to be above 2.1 (so more young people are added to the population than there are older people taken away due to mortality). Below the 2.1 level, the number of young people added to the population would be less than the number of older people (i.e. mom and dad), and hence the population grows older, and over the long run, declines.
Page 13 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e Figure 9 One must consider an added dimension to natality in the Calgary Region: namely, that a large share of the Region’s population has already aged out of the child‐bearing stage of the lifecycle. This fact is in part balanced by the increasing propensity of women in the 30‐plus age group to have children. This postponement phenomenon has resulted in significant increases in fertility rates for these older age groups— significant enough to offset the dramatic declines in rates for women under the age of 30. As a point of comparison, between 2001 and 2011 the total fertility rate in the Calgary Region increased by ten percent, going from 1.58 children per woman to 1.74, and peaking in 2008 at a rate of 1.85; over this ten‐year period, the largest relative increase in fertility was seen in the 30‐year old age group (a 45 percent increase).
While acknowledging that long‐run trends point to a continuing decline in fertility rates in the younger age groups and increases in the older ones, more recently, the pace of decline and shifting has slowed. Furthermore, given the relative stabilization in natality rates seen in recent years, the total fertility rate is not expected to change dramatically in the coming years. The continuation of postponement is expected to continue, offsetting further declines in the younger groups; as well, the changes in total fertility that can be Figure 10 expected for each group will be more conservative than those seen in the past. By 2041 the total fertility rate is expected to stabilize in the range of 1.7 children per woman and remain at this level until the end of the projection period.
Mortality. Thus far, the baby boom generation has lived much of their lives in blissful ignorance of their own mortality: except for the first year of life, baby boomers have remained in the stage of the lifecycle where age specific mortality rates are relatively low (Figure 10; note that age specific mortality Page 14 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
rates have been expressed on a logarithmic scale). Further, they have seen various factors—such as improvements in medical technology, medical care, workplace safety, and lifestyles—significantly increase overall life expectancy over the course of their lifetimes.
Over the past century, the reality of mortality rates increasing with age has been offset by another reality, that of declining age specific mortality rates – hence, the increase in life expectancies. While early in the century the big gains in life expectancy were a result of reductions in infant mortality, in the post‐war period the big gains have been the result of reducing mortality rates for adults. For example, at the provincial level the life expectancy of a 65‐year‐old male has increased by 4.4 years since the early‐1950s, from 78.9 years to the current 83.3 years (a 5.6 percent increase).
In the future, medical technology will help to continue to reduce age specific mortality rates, and hence increase life expectancy. These increases, however, will be subject to the laws of diminishing returns over time, as the high impact, easy, and cheap breakthroughs have already occurred. Relative to history, future medical advancements will have a smaller impact on life expectancies and will require significantly more resources to achieve them. As a result, while we can anticipate a continued decline in age specific mortality rates, the changes will not be as large, or as rapid, as has been experienced in the past. Over the projection period it is expected that falling mortality rates will lead to gains in life expectancy at birth of roughly 7.9 years for males and 5.7 years for females. This translates to between a 0.9‐year gain (for females) and a 1.2‐year gain (for males) per decade over the projection period, compared to 2.1 and 2.0 years per decade historically.
Mobility and Migration to the Region
Migration is typically something undertaken by young adults—people migrate primarily for lifestyle, employment, and education opportunities. Historical data show that from the age of 30 onwards, the percentage of people who change places of residence each year declines, making the profile of the population who change places of residence significantly younger than that of a region’s resident population. As each component of migration is considered independently in the modeling process, each will be outlined briefly before the projections for each are presented.
Intra‐provincial migration. Since 1996 an average of 1,300 more people per year moved to the Calgary Region from other parts of Alberta than left it for other parts of the province; Figure 11 shows how this movement Figure 11 was distributed across the age groups. While the Calgary Region experienced a net loss of intra‐provincial migrants in the under‐13 age group, in the 32 to 39 group, and in the 46 to 72 group, net migration was positive for all other age groups, with the peak in net intra‐provincial mobility seen for those aged 26 and 27 years. (Note that Figures 11 to 13 describe the age profile of migration flows in percentages and not the number of migrants comprising each flow.)
Page 15 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
Three main factors drive this pattern of movement within the province. The first is that young adults come to the Calgary Region for the opportunities offered by the concentration of post‐secondary educational institutions, the scale and diversity of its labour market, and its metropolitan social and cultural life. Secondly, young families leave the Calgary Region for less urban settings, reflected in the net loss of both children and people in their thirties. Finally, early‐ and pre‐retirees in their 50s to 70s move as “equity refugees”; these people may relocate to other parts of the province in order to benefit from the capital appreciation of their primary residences.
Inter‐provincial migration. Similar to the intra‐provincial profile, much of the inter‐provincial in‐migration stream to the Calgary Region is made up of labour force migrants. On average, since 1996, the Region has Figure 12 picked up 11,500 people each year from inter‐provincial migration (Figure 12). Interestingly, the age profile of both in‐migrants and out‐ migrants is relatively balanced in the older age groups; the only net losses to other provinces were seen for people aged 53 to 59, though these were, on average, quite minor.
The profile of younger inter‐ provincial migrants again reflects the high degree of mobility enjoyed by, and required of, young adults. Over 40 percent of inter‐ provincial in‐migrants to the Calgary Region between 1996 Figure 13 and 2009 were between the ages of 18 and 30 (similarly, this group accounted for 34 percent of all out‐migrants), while this age group accounted for only 20 percent of the Region’s base population.
International migration. As with the other migration flows discussed above, the profile of international migrants is significantly younger than that of the Region’s resident population (Figure 13). Thirty percent of the immigrants to the Region during the 1996 to 2009 period were between the Page 16 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
ages of 18 and 30 (again, compared to 20 percent of the base population). Similarly, the under‐18 age group accounted for 23 percent of the immigration stream, and only 21 percent of the resident population. Not surprisingly, the older population is under‐represented in the immigration stream compared to the base population, with those aged 32 and up accounting for only 40 percent of the immigration stream despite making up 57 percent of the resident population.
Changing one’s community of residence—be it within a province, between provinces, or between countries—is a challenging and difficult process; this is emphasized by the fact that the age profiles of the migrant populations are, in general, significantly younger than that of the resident population. As a result, migration is most often undertaken by young adults, who are naturally more adventurous; even if they are not, they often must be in order to find work or education‐related opportunities. It is important to note, however, that the age profiles of the immigrant (and to a lesser degree, emigrant) populations are slightly older than those of domestic migrants. International migration, in particular, is a much more serious and exacting process, one that requires more resources than domestic migration, as well as the ability to fulfill entry requirements regarding skills or education. These factors combine to make the immigrant and emigrant populations, while still younger than the resident population, slightly older than the domestic flow of migrants.
Future Migration Levels
Given the predominant role that migration has, and will continue to, play in demographic change in the Calgary Region, projections of both the level and composition of future migratory flows will have a significant impact on the composition and size of the Region’s population. In order to reflect the level of immigration from the national level and inter‐provincial migration to Alberta from other provinces, each component of migration is, from a modeling perspective, considered independently. For example, the projection of immigrants is based on the expected number of immigrants moving to the province as a whole, which reflects the national context for immigration in the coming years, and historical trends in the Calgary region’s share of these immigrants. A similar approach is taken to determine future levels of inter‐provincial migration to the Region. In terms of the composition of these flows, as migration – both international and domestic – has historically been, and will continue to be, an activity primarily engaged in by young adults, the future composition of each flow is projected to retain the character of averages which have prevailed in the Region over the past decade.
Intra‐provincial Migration. The Calgary Region has historically gained population from the movement of people within the province of Alberta (intra‐provincial migration): between 1986 and 2011 an annual average of 1,800 more people moved to the Calgary Region from other parts of the province than left from it. Since a peak 1987, when 4,750 more people came to the Region from the rest of Alberta, net intra‐provincial migration declined continuously to 1990 when a net gain of only 390 people was seen. This low point was followed by an addition of almost 3,500 net migrants by 1995, before falling back to just under 500 people in 2003. This was then followed by a rare reversal in the intra‐provincial migration patterns: a net loss of 170 people was seen in 2005, and 1,400 people in 2006. More recent data show that the pattern has returned to historical norms, with 1,600 more people moving to the Calgary region than left it for other parts of the province in 2011.
As the past five years represent a trough in the region’s level of intra‐provincial migration, the average level of migration over the past decade represents a better empirical base for projections as it encompasses a period over which the province experienced what might be characterized as a full economic cycle. Considering longer‐ term migratory patterns, intra‐provincial migration is expected to stabilize within the range of 1,550 people being added to the Region’s population, on a net basis, per year over the long‐run (Figure 14).
Page 17 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e Figure 14 Inter‐provincial migration. As indicated above, when considering inter‐provincial migration, it is important to acknowledge broader provincial context, as it is integral to explaining why people move between provinces. As far as Alberta is concerned, we must acknowledge the relative stabilization of population change and economic activity in the neighbouring provinces of BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba as well as tougher times for Ontario, Quebec and much of Atlantic Canada. While short‐term economic conditions and the implications of a strong Canadian dollar for the province of Ontario and Quebec may continue to influence the flow of labour force migrants westward, these provinces will not be an increasing source of in‐migrants for the Calgary Region over the longer term, as their economies recover and begin to deal with the challenges of their own aging labour force.
The projected level of inter‐provincial migration expected at the provincial level (as outlined above) was used along with trends in the Calgary Region’s historical share of these migrants to project future levels of inter‐ provincial migration to the region. Over the past decade an average of 43 percent of the province’s inter‐ provincial migrants settled in the Calgary Region. This is slightly higher than the 41 percent captured over the previous decade (1991 to 2000), but lower than the more recent highs of 45 percent. Over the coming decades, the Region is expected to see its share of the province’s inter‐provincial migrants fall from current highs towards 41 percent by 2020. From this point onwards the Region’s share is expected to continue to decline slowly (falling to 35 percent by 2076) as other parts of the province (both metropolitan and more rural) continue to diversify local economies and capture a greater share of migration. Combining the provincial outlook with the Region’s projected share of the province’s total would see net inter‐provincial migration fall from today’s peak of 9,800 to 8,600 by 2026, 6,900 by 2056, and to just under 5,700 people annually by the end of the projection period (Figure 14). This long‐term annual average of just over 7,400 net inter‐provincial migrants is slightly higher than the 7,200 seen annually over the past twenty five years.
International migration. Similar to inter‐provincial migration, the projection of international migration considers immigration trends at the national and provincial levels to determine future levels of immigration to the Region. As a starting point, annual immigration to Canada has ranged between 0.63 percent and 0.82 percent of the country’s existing population over the last decade, and as indicated earlier, the national projection assumes that immigration to Canada move back towards 0.82 percent of the country’s population over the next decade from 0.76 today (2010). While just matching the 2001 share of 0.82 percent (255,600 immigrants), the total number of immigrants would reach upwards of 330,000 immigrants annually by late 2030 to reflect the context of our aging labour force.
On the basis of Canada and Alberta achieving their expected levels of immigration, it has been assumed that the proportion of international migrants moving into the Calgary Region will trend slightly downward from the Page 18 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
45 percent seen in 2011 to 42 percent by 2016, 40 percent by 2026, and 38 percent by the end of the projection period, a change driven by the diversification of economies throughout the rest of the province and a slight decline in the historical predominance of the Calgary region as the destination for new immigrants to the province. With a declining share, immigration to the Calgary Region will fall over the coming years, from recent highs which have been in the range of 23,000 people per year, to 14,300 by 2026, 13,500 by 2056, and stabilizing in the range of 12,600 by the end of the projection period (Figure 14).
Offsetting this international inflow will be emigration, or, people moving from the region to other countries. It is assumed that emigration from the Calgary Region will trend towards 0.32 percent of total population—a level that has been experienced over the past decade and will be reached again by the beginning of next decade. The result of this is projected emigration levels increasing from 2011’s 5,250 people into the range of 9,650 per year by 2076.
The net result of these assumptions (net international migration), would see the contribution of international migration to the region fall back to lower levels than current historical highs. Projected net immigration to the Calgary Region, including changes in the number of non‐permanent residents, is projected to fall from 2011’s 14,300 to 8,600 by 2026, 5,300 by 2056, and further to 3,100 by 2076.
Biology, Mobility, and the Calgary Region’s Future Population
By combining the projected levels and composition of migration to and from the Calgary Region with natural increase and the inevitable process of aging, a projection of population growth and change in the Region for the next six and a half decades is achieved. This projection shows a regional population that grows larger, albeit at a slowing annual rate, and changes significantly with respect to its composition. Similar to the national and provincial contexts, while the Region is projected to grow more slowly than it has in the past, changes in the composition of its population will be much more dramatic in the coming decades than have been seen historically.
Over the next six and half decades, the Calgary Region’s population would grow from its 2011 base of 1.4 million residents, to 1.9 million by 2026, 2.7 million by 2056, and to just over 3.0 million by 2076 (Figure 15). Figure 15 On average, the Region would add 24,700 new residents each year as it grows by an average of 1.2 percent per annum.
The current annual growth rate of 2.9 percent would represent a high point for growth in the Region in the coming years, as the pace of growth is projected to decline, falling to 1.6 percent by 2026, further to 0.8 percent in 2056, and to 0.5 percent by the end of the projection period. Although the projected growth rate is expected to fall below one percent by 2049, the average annual net additions to the population Page 19 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
over the next sixty‐five years is expected to be in the range of 24,700 people per year, only slightly below the 26,600 person annual average that has characterized the past twenty‐five years.
The greatest absolute and relative growth in the Region is projected to be in the older age groups. As the Region makes up a significant share of Alberta’s total population, the pattern of change shown in Figure 16 resembles that expected at the provincial level. In terms of relative growth over the projection period, an 853 percent increase in the number of people aged 85‐plus is anticipated, in addition to a 455 percent increase in the number of residents aged 75 to 84 and a 315 percent increase in the 65 to 74 age group. Conversely, the under‐15 age group is projected to see an 88 percent increase, the 15 to 24 group a 79 percent increase, and the 25 to 34 group a 55 percent increase (it is worth noting that these compare to a 112 percent increase to the Region’s total population by the end of the projection period).
On an absolute basis, the greatest increase will be the 238,500 additional people in the 65 to 74 year old age group. Next largest would be the 225,400‐person growth in the under‐15 age group (this corresponds to the stabilization of fertility rates and the younger age profile that typically characterizes migration). Following this would be the 206,000‐person increase in the 55 to 64 age group and a 199,000‐person increase in the 75 to 84 group. As evidenced by these Figure 16 numbers, it is the aging of today’s population that will frame tomorrow’s demographic change. Of today’s population, 93 percent would still be alive in 2026 (and would be 15 years older); 58 percent would still be alive by 2056 (and 45 years older); and 29 percent would be alive by the end of the projection period in 2076 (and 65 years older).
With projected growth of 588,400 people aged 65 and older over the next 65 years, all of whom are under the age of 65 today, and an increase of 790,500 people aged 15 to 64, the Region can count itself fortunate that future growth in its working‐aged population is projected to exceed that of its retiring population. This is not the case for other regions in Canada. The impacts of these changes will be explored in more detail in the following section, with a specific focus on the working‐aged segment of the Region’s population.
Page 20 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
III The Implications of Demographic Change for Housing in the Region
This section of the report focuses on the relationship between population and housing. As such, it relies on an occupancy‐based definition of housing demand. More specifically, total housing occupancy demand is the number of private dwelling units (excluding institutional and collective dwellings) that are required to house the permanent residents within a given region—in this case, the Calgary Region. As occupancy demand is equated with residents’ occupancy of dwelling units at a certain point in time, it excludes vacant dwellings.
A change in housing demand over a period of time is the change in the number of dwelling units that are permanently occupied by residents of the Calgary Region. This change will be a net change, calculated by subtracting the number of occupied residences at one point in time from the number of occupied residences at an earlier point in time. While seemingly intuitive, it is an important distinction, as change in occupancy demand over a period of time may not necessarily be the same as the number of dwelling units constructed during that period. For example, growth in occupancy demand can be met not only by new construction, but also by households occupying units that existed at the beginning of the period but were vacant. To the extent that an inventory of vacant units is reduced over the time period, occupancy demand can grow faster than new construction; to the extent that this inventory increases over the time period, construction will exceed occupancy demand. Further, conversion of units from and to non‐residential uses can alter the supply of residential accommodation without necessarily being reflected in construction or demolition data. In this vein, construction may include replacement units (new units constructed to replace units demolished or converted to other uses) that do not represent net additions to the housing stock. Similarly, construction of secondary residences that are occupied only part‐time during the year would be counted as new construction (but are not part of resident occupancy demand), just as secondary suites added to the dwelling stock may not show up as new construction but would certainly represent a dwelling unit that would fulfill occupancy demand.
1 The Age Specific Pattern of Housing Demand
For the purposes of the projections presented herein, the necessary link between housing occupancy and the age composition of the population is derived through the percentage of people in each age group who are considered “household maintainers”. In the Census questionnaire that is used to gather data on housing (among many other things), each group of people living together in a private dwelling unit (a household) is asked to indicate the age (and other attributes) of the household member they consider to be primarily responsible for the financial support of the household. This person is referred to as the (primary) household maintainer. Dividing the total number of people of a specific age who are household maintainers by the total number of people in that age group in the population determines the household maintainer rate for that particular age group. This age specific data can also be linked to other attributes of the household such as the structure type (apartment, row house, or single detached), the tenure (owned or rented), the household composition (family or non‐family), or mobility status (recently moved or did not move).
We can use the 2006 Census data (the most recent available) to provide a snapshot of age specific housing occupancy in the Calgary Region. The data show that only two percent of people between the ages of 15 and 19 are household maintainers; most people in this age group (and all of those under the age of 15), are living in households maintained by someone else, usually their parents (Figure 17). Compared to those aged 15 to 19, a greater percentage of people in the 20 to 24 age group have left their parental homes to establish their own households, with 22 percent of the people in this age group identified as household maintainers. This significant increase continues as people age into older age groups: more specifically, the greatest increase is seen in the jump from 22 percent of 20 to 24 year olds who are household maintainers to 42 percent of their 25 to 29 year old counterparts being identified as household maintainers. In all of the 30‐plus age groups more than half of people are household maintainers, with the percentage increasing to 62 percent in the 75 to 79 age group. Rates decline slightly for the 85 and older age group (to 51 percent), an age where there is a shift
Page 21 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
from maintaining one’s own household to living either in a private household maintained by someone else (such as other family members), or some form of seniors’ accommodation (institutional or collective care facility), the latter of which is not considered to be private accommodation.
The strong lifecycle pattern of household maintainer rates has significant implications for future housing demand. Consider the example of 1,000 people in the 15 to 19 age group: in 2006 there would be only 20 Figure 17 households maintained by these 1,000 people. Only five years later, when these 1,000 people had aged into the 20 to 24 age group, they would maintain 220 households, and, five years after that they would maintain 420 units as they aged into the 25 to 29 year old age group. Over a ten‐year period, then, the occupancy demand from the same 1,000 people would increase 20 times, from 20 units to 420. This dramatic increase in demand actually characterized housing markets throughout Canada in the late‐1960s and 1970s as the post‐war baby boom generation moved out of their parents’ homes and into their own housing. Similarly, as the bulk of our population ages into the oldest age group (85‐plus) in the coming years it is likely that the demand for private accommodation within this cohort will slow, or even decline.
Age and Structure Type Specific Maintainer Rates
The great diversity of housing types in which people live generally fall into two major structural types, ground oriented and apartment. The most typical ground oriented dwelling is a single detached house, with its front door opening onto a lawn, its rear door opening onto a yard, side yards separating it from other dwellings, and only one group of people—one household—living within it. The essence of this form of dwelling is living at ground level, with doors and windows that open out onto yards.
There are other dwelling types that, as with the single detached house, have direct access to yards, but have no side yard between dwellings. This type of housing is referred to as attached, or in Census terms other ground oriented. They include the side‐by‐side duplex (referred to in the Census tabulation as semi‐detached), where dwelling units are on the ground floor with doors and windows that open onto yards on three sides, but where the fourth side is attached to another unit (or a non‐residential building in what is referred to as single attached unit in the Census). This category also includes row houses, where the dwelling units are attached to other units on both sides, but maintain access to a yard or street. Moveable and mobile homes are also generally included in this category, even though they are structurally more similar to single detached units.
Distinct from these ground oriented housing types are apartments, or private dwellings that are not only attached on each side, but also stacked one on top of the other. As a result of being stacked, individual dwelling units do not generally have direct access to the street or to a yard, but rather share a common access Page 22 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
to the yard and street with other units. The typical examples of apartment dwellings are in multi‐unit buildings of five or more storeys (high‐rise buildings) and in buildings of less than five storeys (low‐rise buildings). In both cases, the defining features are many units in one building, units attached to other units—not only on two sides but above and below—unit entrances by way of shared corridors, and no direct access to yards.
There are two additional structure types that, depending upon design, may be considered to be either ground oriented or apartment units. The first is the up/down duplex, a two‐unit structure with units stacked one on top of the other but each with direct access to the yard or street. The second is a detached house with an extra suite in it. In both cases, as the units are stacked, they do have the general characteristics of apartments; as they usually have direct access to the yard and street, though, they have much in common with ground oriented units. (Note that if there are more than two units arranged vertically in a house, for example, a house with a suite in the basement, one on the main floor and one on the top floor, the dwelling is classified by Statistics Canada as an apartment building of less than five storeys.)
Given the broad spectrum of housing types, for the purposes of this report, three structure types have been defined which generally correspond to both different locational criteria and land use requirements: 1) the traditional single detached house; 2) other ground oriented (attached ground oriented units plus up/down duplex and detached houses with suites); and 3) apartments (units in building of both five or more, and less than five, storeys). While these three groupings are treated as separate types, it is important to note that there is a continuum of consumer preferences that connects them at their margins. For example, a household realistically seeking a single detached unit may, because of budgetary or locational factors, have to consider alternatives to this most preferred form of dwelling. The closest acceptable alternative form in terms of living experience would likely be a side‐by‐side duplex or row house, but not an apartment in a high‐rise building. Similarly, given price or availability, a household seeking accommodation in a side‐by‐side duplex may, on the margin, find itself residing in a low‐rise apartment building. Recent trends in housing design have further blurred the boundaries, but not the core characteristics, between these three major structure types.
Figure 18 A distinct lifecycle pattern of household maintainer rates is also seen for each of these three structure types (Figure 18). As with many other regions in Canada, a person in the Calgary Region is generally more likely to maintain a single detached home than any other structure type. From ages 30 to 79, a greater share of individuals maintain single detached dwellings than any other form of dwelling, a pattern that generally coincides with the family‐rearing and empty‐ nester stages of the lifecycle. That said, a person is more likely to be the maintainer of an apartment household in the under‐25 and 85‐plus age groups, choices driven by financial, lifestyle, and/or physical constraints.
Page 23 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
The 30 to 34 age group marks an important transition in this lifecycle pattern. From the 15 to 19 age group to the 25 to 29 age group, the share of people maintaining an apartment household increases, and exceeds that of single detached or other ground oriented units. However, for the 30 to 34 age group the apartment maintainer rate is lower than that for single detached housing and begins a decline that continues to the early retirement stage of the lifecycle. The 50 to 54 age group marks a second transition, where single detached rates begin to decline and both other ground oriented and apartment rates being to increase. By the 75 to 79 age group rates for other ground oriented accommodation peak (at 12 percent), while, by the age of 85 apartment maintainer rates once again exceed those for single detached accommodation. For this oldest age group, the rates for both single detached and other ground oriented dwellings decline, with households either transitioning into apartment buildings or care facilities and hospitals (the latter two being forms of non‐private accommodation).
The pattern of age and structure type specific maintainer rates represents what might be called the behavioural component of the housing market as it describes the way in which households, given their resources and the constraints of prices and availability, accommodate themselves within the Region’s housing stock. As with the other behavioural variables, age specific household maintainer rates have changed over time in the Region, and are projected to continue changing as a result of continued urbanization of the Calgary Region and changing behaviour with respect of family formation, labour force participation, education and the environment.
Past and Projected Changes in Household Maintainer Rates
As a village grows to a town, a town to a city, and a city to metropolis, it both grows and changes in character. By extension, this process brings about changes in housing choices and demand. From a housing perspective, growth occurs in two directions: out and up. The “out” is the most commonly perceived dimension of urban growth, with the boundaries of urbanized areas expanding as additional housing is added to the edges of regions to accommodate new families.
Two forces ensure that along with the “out” comes the “up”. The first is a by‐product of the outward growth: as the expanse of the urbanized area increases, an increasing premium is attached to locations that are readily accessible to major employment concentrations, which are typically found in the central part of the urban area. Over time the accessibility advantage of these sites will be capitalized into higher land values. In urban land economics this is typically referred to as a declining land value gradient from the most to the least accessible sites.
Efficiency of resource utilization means that as the value of a site increases due to its accessibility, it will also become more intensively used, so that the higher costs of the site can be spread over more users. Therefore, accompanying the declining land value gradient is a declining density gradient from the most accessible sites to the least accessible. Thus, as urban regions grow, a residential development pattern has generally emerged whereby emphasis is placed on apartments being located on highly‐accessible sites (typically the core of a region), compact forms of ground oriented housing in areas of moderate accessibility, and single detached housing in areas furthest from the most accessible sites. This general pattern has led to apartments and attached ground oriented housing accounting for an increasing share of the housing stock in most urbanizing regions. The change in housing occupancy patterns reflects the increasing cost of accessibility in growing urban regions. Land use policies, transportation infrastructure, and geographical constraints have combined with this general pattern to determine the specific character for urban regions throughout Canada.
The second factor that changes the housing mix in an urban region as it grows also stems from economics, but in this case it is the actual economic structure of the region that affects occupancy demand. As the population in a region grows, economic activity (in terms of the distribution of employment across industry and occupational sectors) becomes more diverse. As this occurs, the population‐serving components of Page 24 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e employment grow both absolutely and in their share of total employment. This diversification brings with it the requirement for a wider range of skills and talents, and hence for a greater diversity in the workforce. This, in turn, ushers in a greater diversity to the region’s population—specifically with respect to an emphasis on what might be called urban lifestyles, which ultimately leads to a greater diversity, and density, of housing types. Thus, urban growth also contributes to the land value and density gradients through a more diverse consumer population and a more diverse demand for housing. This drives the housing market towards an increase in the share of apartments and attached ground oriented housing, reducing the prominence of single detached units.
As an increasingly urban population is the driver for this shift in housing mix, it is necessary to look to the historical data for the Calgary Region to see the emergence of this pattern. In the 1960s and 1970s, when the population of the Calgary Region was growing significantly, single detached units accounted for only 47 percent of housing starts, even though they accounted for 65 percent of the housing stock in the 1960s and 55 percent in the 1970s. Apartments and attached ground oriented housing, therefore, accounted for a disproportionate share (53 percent) of the housing starts during this period of expansion. The deep recession of the 1980s and slow recovery in the early‐1990s resulted in slow population growth and housing development throughout the Region at that time. During this period single detached homes averaged 71 percent of the (relatively few) housing starts, compared to their 53 percent share of the housing stock. Without urban expansion and economic diversification, there was little pressure (or opportunity) to develop a significant number of other forms of housing. With renewed growth since 1996, the effects of land pricing and diversification are again being shown: single detached’s share of all housing starts dropped to 63 percent, a level roughly proportionate to its 60 percent share of the housing stock. Since 2001, single detached starts have fallen to an average of 60 percent of all starts, while apartment starts have averaged 24 percent (the highest share over a ten‐year period since the late‐1980s). This pattern of housing development was matched by changes in age and structure type specific maintainer rates up to 2006 (the most recent year for which data are available), with the propensity to maintain single detached households generally declining and those for apartments and other ground oriented generally increasing.
Turning to the future, and recognizing the large stock of single detached housing that exists today, the Region is projected to remain predominantly single detached in nature. However, continued population growth will support shifts at the margin towards other forms of housing as a result of accessibility, land values, and increased diversification of consumers. Additionally, the same high real energy prices that support the Region’s economy will also contribute to increasing transportation costs, and hence reinforce (again at the margin) the role that accessibility cost and land value will play in shifting housing occupancy patterns. The extent to which this is expressed in land use will depend in part on these economic factors, but also the degree to which land use policy provides for flexibility.
To estimate how economic change and local policy may direct housing behaviour in the Calgary Region in the coming years, we can examine patterns that prevail in larger regions where the effects of increasing urban scale have already been realized. The Vancouver and Toronto Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) provide two such examples. In terms of overall patterns of household maintainer rates, there are only small differences among the three regions with respect to total household maintainer rates. This general correspondence in behaviour (specifically, the consistency in the percentage of people who maintain their own household among these, otherwise quite different, regions) indicates that the fundamental principle underlying household maintainer rates are the core preferences for living arrangements. In other words, what differs between these three regions is not the “who” as it pertains to living arrangements, but rather the “what” as it relates to structure types.
With a population of 1.2 million residents in 2006 (the most recent year for which we have comparable data on occupied dwellings and household maintainers for regions in Canada), the Calgary Region was only slightly larger than the Vancouver CMA was in 1976. In that year, 57 percent of the housing stock in the Vancouver CMA was in single detached homes, a share not significantly different from the 61 percent that prevailed in the Page 25 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e Figure 19 Calgary Region in 2006. Similarly, age specific single detached maintainer rates in the Vancouver CMA in 1976 were essentially the same as those that prevailed in Calgary in 2006 (Figure 19). More specifically, 41 percent of the residents between the ages of 35 and 44 in Vancouver in 1976 maintained a single detached home (versus 36 percent in the Calgary Region in 2006), 40 percent of the 45 to 54 population (versus 42 percent), and 37 percent of the 55 to 64 population (versus 39 percent).
With a population of just over two million people by 2006 (a number that the Calgary Region is projected to attain by 2029), the share of single detached homes in the Vancouver CMA had fallen to 35 percent of the housing stock. Recognizing that the Vancouver Region has its own unique land constraints (in particular mountains and ocean), it is useful to also consider the Toronto CMA, which has less imposing physical constraints on urban development. In 1976, with a population of just under three million people (a population that the Calgary Region is projected to attain by the end of the projection period), single detached units accounted for only 40 percent of Toronto’s housing stock.
Comparing the 2006 age specific single detached maintainer rates for the Calgary Region with those for the Toronto and Vancouver CMAs provides some indication as to the extent to which maintainer rates may change in the Region (again, at the margin). Increasing accessibility costs and increasingly urban lifestyles will result in a shift in these propensities in the Calgary Region, gradually but inevitably, towards the levels observed in larger metropolitan regions as the Calgary Region passes through the same population thresholds. In particular, age specific single detached household maintainer rates are expected decline from their current levels in the 30 to 40 percent range towards the 20 to 30 percent range as the Calgary Region’s population grows toward that of the Vancouver and Toronto CMAs, with maintainer rates for more compact forms of housing increasing proportionately. Local conditions and policies will certainly influence the pace at which this change occurs, but the realities of urban living will determine the overall direction of change.
To provide specific estimates of the levels that might be attained in the Calgary Region, the historical relationship between population size and housing mix for other Canadian metropolitan regions was used as a benchmark. This was then adjusted for the more modest land supply constraints that apply in the Calgary Region, as compared to Canada’s larger metropolitan regions. It also needs to be acknowledged that these larger regions attained their current housing mix in an era of relatively cheap transportation and energy costs, factors that do not necessarily prevail today.
Page 26 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e Figure 20 Considering Calgary’s unique land use context and the patterns of change for other metropolitan regions results in a projection of single detached maintainer rates in the Region that would be in the range of 20 percent below their 2006 level by the end of the projection period (Figure 20). These declines would still see single detached rates remain substantially above the rates that currently prevail in the Vancouver and Toronto CMAs (in the range of 40 percent higher). The biggest reductions would be in the younger market entrant age groups, with single detached maintainer rates falling for example, by a third, from 28 percent to 19 percent for the 30 to 34 age group. The reductions are not expected to be as significant for the older age groups, who have more resources to pursue a greater range of housing choices. For example, the decline in the single detached maintainer rate for the 60 to 64 age group would be seven percent, from 38 percent of the age group maintaining this type of accommodation in 2006 to 31 percent in 2076. Smaller changes are expected for the older age groups as these households would acquire single detached housing early in the projection period before accessibility (and price) constraints changed the market. Additionally, long and increasing disability‐free life expectancies will allow many to stay in this form of housing for longer periods of time than they may have in the past.
The decline in single detached age specific maintainer rates would be offset by increases in the propensity to Figure 21 maintain both other ground oriented and apartment units. The increase in other ground oriented households would be driven by both the push of affordability and the pull of lifestyle choice for urban ground oriented accommodation. As with single detached units, the greatest relative changes (in this case, increases) are expected to be in the market‐ entry stages of the lifecycle (reflecting the shift from single detached), with more modest relative increases in the older age groups (Figure 21). The end result would be maintainer rates for other ground oriented types of Page 27 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
accommodation that are up to 20 percent higher by 2076, but still below the rates that currently prevail in the Vancouver or Toronto regions.
Figure 22 The increase in apartment maintainer rates would be greatest in the middle of the market (between the ages of 30 and 64), reflecting the changing structure of the Calgary Region’s economy and demography, and an increasing emphasis on urban lifestyles (Figure 22). In the 45 to 49 age group, for example, the propensity to maintain a household living in an apartment would almost double, from six to eleven percent over the next seventy years. While in the current context of the Region this may seem a dramatic change, the current apartment maintainer rate for Toronto and Vancouver for this age group is in the 17 percent range, three times the rate currently seen in the Calgary Region and 50 percent higher than the projected 2076 rate.
Note that in combination, total maintainer rates for the 30‐plus population in the Calgary Region in 2076 are projected to generally remain in the same range as they are today. The exceptions are the total maintainer rates for the under‐30 population, which are projected to continue to decline from current levels to those that currently prevail in the two other metropolitan regions. Current rates in the under‐30 population in Calgary reflect the very high levels of net in‐migration of young adults to the Region, people who do not have the option of remaining in the parental home as they enter the work force or continue post‐secondary education. As the high level of inter‐provincial migration ebbs, a smaller percentage of the young workforce will be migrants, and hence the maintainer rates in these age groups are expected to fall as the subsequent generations of new workers would increasingly have the opportunity to remain in their parental home.
2 Projected Housing Occupancy Demand
The strong lifecycle pattern of housing occupancy (characterized by high rates in the older age groups) will combine with rapid growth of these older age groups to see total housing occupancy demand grow faster than the Region’s population as a whole. Over the next 65 years, the 114 percent growth in population (1.6 million more people) would be associated with a 126 percent increase (691,460 units) in the occupied dwelling stock (Figure 23). This growth in the housing stock would still be marked by a predominance of single detached units: between 2011 and 2076, single detached units are projected to see the largest absolute increase, at 270,700 units. These additional single detached units would double the number of occupied single detached units in the Calgary Region.
Compared to this 83 percent increase in the single detached stock would be the 158 percent increase in other forms of ground oriented housing (167,680 occupied units), and the 221 percent increase (253,080 units) in the number of apartments in the region. Page 28 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
Figure 23 While both the relative and absolute growth in the number of apartments would be significant, the change in the housing stock brought about by these additions would be gradual. Over the next decade, single detached additions would continue to account for their current 50 percent‐plus share of growth in occupancy demand, before declining after 2020, the Figure 24 combined result of the aging of the region’s population and increased urbanization, both in terms of lifestyles and accessibility costs (Figure 24). Midway through the projection period the single detached share of total net additional units would fall into the range one‐third (just below the current level in the Toronto CMA). As the Region’s population pushes towards three million, single detached additions would fall below the 20 percent share level, just below the share currently seen in the Vancouver CMA.
Even with the significant shift in age specific maintainer rates from single detached towards other forms of ground oriented housing and apartments, by 2076 the Calgary Region would still be predominately characterized by single Figure 24 detached units. Of the total housing stock of 1.25 million units in 2076 (691,460 more occupied units than in 2011, a 126 percent increase), just under 50 percent would be single detached (compared to 60 percent today). Other forms of ground oriented accommodation would account for 22 percent (up from 19 percent today), while apartments would account for 30 percent (21 percent today). Note that, even with a population of almost three million people in 2076, the Calgary Region would be much more of a single detached region than either Vancouver or Toronto are today.
Page 29 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
While the projection presented above describes gradual changes over time, the reality of housing market development and local policy shifts is that there will be many more bumps and shifts along the way. Changes in the market will also be characterized by the further blurring of boundaries between all ground oriented forms of housing, as single detached units may be added on small lots or may incorporate secondary forms of accommodation within them. Recognizing these issues, it will be scale, market, and environment that will gradually, but inevitably, shift the Region towards more compact forms of housing.
Page 30 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
IV Work and Workers in the Region
1 Your Labour Force: Workers in the Region
The processes of demographic and economic change are deeply interconnected in the cycles of production and consumption within an economy. In one part of the cycle, the residents, as consumers, provide much of the demand through their purchases (as well as those made on their behalf via expenditures of tax revenues). This, in turn, provides income for both public and private sector suppliers of goods and services. The other portion of regional demand is provided by residents of other regions who purchase goods and services that are produced within the region. These factors, combined, form the region’s economic base. The other part of the cycle is the residents as providers of human resources and capital, forming the labour supply‐side of the region’s economy. The remainder of regional supply is provided by residents of other regions selling goods and services to this region’s residents, creating the region’s import sector. The inter‐connectedness of supply and demand in the economic cycle means that, in addition to macroeconomic factors shaping the supply of local goods and services, the region’s economy is directly affected by changes in the character of the region’s population through the size and productivity of the people available to work in the labour force.
While recognizing the complexity of the interconnections inherent between demographic and economic change, for purposes of this analysis each of the two components were considered individually before bringing the supply of workers and the demand for them (employment) into resolution. This resolution is one area where a significant paradigm change will be seen in the coming years: the record high level of births during the 1938 to 1967 period ensured a very large supply of labour, relative to the size of the population. With the first of the war babies now in their mid‐seventies, and the first post‐war babies celebrating their 65th birthdays, finding employees to replace retirees will become an increasingly important factor in any employer’s recruitment strategy.
This section considers the future size of the Calgary Region’s labour force, given the role of labour force participation (the percentage of the population active in the labour force) and the nature and magnitude of demographic change presented in the previous section. The following sections consider the potential demand for their services (employment), before presenting the final resolution between these dimensions of the regional economy and demography.
Historical Patterns of Changing Labour Force Participation
Age specific labour force participation rates—the percentage of people in a given age group who are active in the labour force (employed full‐time or part‐time, or unemployed and actively seeking work)—demonstrate a strong lifecycle pattern for both males and females (Figures 25 and 26). Current rates reflect that labour force participation for males has increased from a low of 63 percent in the labour force entry stage of the lifecycle (15 to 19 age group), to reach the relatively uniform rate of 95 to 98 percent through the 25 to 54 prime working years. From this prime working stage, participation rates decline, first to 64 percent in the 60 to 64 age group (reflecting early retirement), further to 23 percent in the 65 to 69 age group, and to ten percent for the 70‐plus age group. (There is likely a continued decline for the older population segments within the 70‐plus age group, but published data provide only the average for all ages within the group.)
Page 31 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e Figure 25 Female labour force participation follows this general age‐specific pattern, falling in the range of 55 percent in the younger age groups and peaking at a lower 78 to 88 percent range between the 25 to 54 age cohorts. The rate spread of approximately ten percentage points between males and females roughly corresponds to the ten to 14 percent of women in their late‐20s and early‐30s who have a child each year. The gap between male and female participation rates widens during the retirement stage of the lifecycle, to a 24 percent spread in the 55 to 59 age group (where 64 percent of women and 88 percent of the men are active in the labour force), and to 33 percent in the 60 to 64 age group.
In contrast to the female rates, the history of male labour force participation over the past three decades has been one of falling participation in every age group under the age of 70. Strong declines in the young adult male groups have been the result of increased post‐secondary attendance rates. It has been only over the most recent past that increases to male rates have been seen, with most of the increases being seen in the 55‐ plus age groups. Female labour force participation has historically been characterized by increases for all age groups. Figure 26 With respect to looking forward, the overwhelming trend in long‐term male labour force participation rates would point to a continued slow decline in the rates. Certainly, one could postulate that this trend may characterize the future. However, given tightening labour markets provincially and nationally and long and increasing life expectancies, there is ample evidence to suggest that a change in this pattern will occur. A more reasonable scenario for future male labour force participation would be to see increased participation rates Page 32 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
for most age groups over the coming decades, specifically in the older age groups which have already begun to see slight increases.
Given, in part, the significant labour market opportunities that currently exist, as well as the financial necessity to work longer due to further increases in both male and female life expectancy, a reversal in historical trends is projected, as males begin to work longer and bring male participation rates back to levels seen during the mid‐1970s. Rates for the 55‐plus age groups are expected to exceed this historical context as this segment of the population has the opportunity (or, for some, the necessity) to work beyond traditional retirement milestones.
In the case of females, historical trends in participation (compounded by trends towards lower birth rates and the postponement of childbearing), point toward increasing participation rates—slightly in the younger age groups, and more substantially in the older ones. This results in female participation rates that would be in the range of 80 to 91 percent through the 40 to 54 age groups, and in the neighbourhood of 67 percent in the 55 to 59 age group by 2076. While this would represent significant increases, female labour force participation is still expected to be lower than male participation in all but the youngest age group.
Population, Participation, and Projected Labour Force
The trend based population projection for the Calgary Region indicates growth of approximately 1.6 million more residents over the next sixty‐five years. This more‐than‐doubling of the Region’s population would see annual growth rates in the 0.5 percent to 2.9 percent range, with the most significant growth being in the 65‐ plus age groups, the result of the aging of the Region’s demographic wedge (currently aged 46 to 65) into successively older age groups. While increasing male and female labour force participation are expected, the lifecycle pattern of labour force participation declining through these older age groups suggests that these increases will only partially offset the loss of labour supply as the baby boom generation ages into retirement.
In order to model the impact of demographic change on the Region’s labour force, the projected male and female population in each age group over the coming six‐and‐a‐half decades was matched to the Figure 27 corresponding projection of labour force participation rates by age and sex. Summing the results produces the total projected labour force in the Calgary Region given both changing demography and changing behaviour with respect to participation in the labour force (Figure 27).
Total labour force growth in the Calgary Region is expected to average 1.7 percent per year over the next decade, more moderate than the 2.7 percent growth seen in the decade leading up to 2011. Note that while relatively high levels of net migration to the Region were seen in the years Page 33 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e leading up to 2011, by 2021 net migration is projected to fall by 20 percent as a result of, among other things, growth in neighbouring provincial economies and growing competition for migrants.
Over the medium‐ and longer‐terms, as the post ‐war baby boom generation ages fully into the 65‐plus age group (the so‐called retirement stage of the lifecycle), the Region’s labour force would grow more slowly, in spite of increasing participation rates and robust levels of net migration. By 2039, the annual rate of growth in the Region’s labour force growth is projected to dip below one percent, falling further to 0.3 percent 2076.
In the context of this research, the pattern of labour force growth driven by changing demography will have significant implications for employment growth in the Calgary Region. To the extent that there will always be some level of unemployment due to structural adjustments, educational pursuits, and labour force mobility, one can anticipate that employment growth in the region will be limited to the rate of growth in the labour force. By extension, given the relationship between the labour force and population change, employment growth may be limited to the rate of anticipated population growth expected in the region. The next sections consider how the economic context might affect change within the Calgary Region.
2 The Economy: Work in the Region
The methodological approach used in the projection of employment was to extend the historical relationship between annual employment in the Calgary Region and real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the province of Alberta. Employment projections based on their historical relationship to annual real GDP will generally indicate the direction of employment change in the Region, while also capturing any structural changes related to issues of both changing productivity or participation in the workforce that have been experienced historically. In adopting this methodological approach, the projection is developed around two fundamental assumptions. First, changes in the historical relationship between employment and real GDP (such as significant changes in productivity) will be representative of shifts in the future, and second, the input projection of real GDP will generally represent the employment‐generating capacity of economic growth over the coming six‐and‐a‐half decades. While this methodology is neither causal nor revolutionary its overwhelming strength is that there are enough historical data available to permit a strong assessment of correlation between how employment in the region has changed along with the provincial economy.
Changes in Economic Activity and Employment
Over the past two‐and‐a‐half decades, employment in the Region has grown by 109 percent, from a base of 379,600 in 1987 to an estimated 797,100 in 2011 (Figure 28). Over the same period, Alberta’s real GDP grew by 133 percent, from $84.2 billion (in 2002 dollars) in 1987 to $196.4 billion by 2011. When compared to provincial population growth of 55 percent (from 2.4 million in 1987 to 3.8 million in 2011), a significant increase in real per capita GDP is evident. When compared to employment growth, increases in output per worker are seen as well, demonstrating increasing efficiencies in the relationship between people and jobs.
Although growth in real GDP over the 1987 to 2011 period has been substantial, it has by no means been steady. There have been approximately seven major reversals in the direction of annual real GDP growth rates over the past two‐and‐a‐half‐ decades, with cycles lasting approximately four to six years. The highest real GDP growth rate recorded in Alberta was the 9.8 percent in 1985, while the lowest was the 3.3 percent contraction in 1982; 2009’s two percent contraction stands as the most dramatic one‐year decline in the value of economic activity in the province since the early 1980’s.
Page 34 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e Figure 28 As indicated, projecting future employment for the region relies on the historical relationship between regional employment and real provincial GDP. In looking at this correlation back to 1987, the relationship between employment and GDP is clearly illustrated in the comparison of the model predicted and actual employment (Figure 29). In 2010 (the most recent data point), the model predicted employment for the Region of 772,297 jobs is below the actual total employment of 777,771. The differences between actual and estimated employment historically warrant a few comments.
First, actual employment in any one year may embody a short‐term high or low point for the economy. In future years, it would be expected that employment would grow (or contract) at rates that would see total employment move back towards long‐run projected values.
Figure 29 Second, if a decline in economic activity was severe enough to pull employment down beyond where it would be under more normal economic conditions (such as 2008/09), then including this data point within the historical data series (upon which the projected employment is based) will bias the model towards lower‐ than‐average employment levels during normal periods. The opposite is also true when short‐term economic activity exceeds what would be expected under more normal conditions (such as the 8.7 percent growth in GDP in 1988). From a modeling perspective, it is important to have both instances
Page 35 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
represented within the historical database; the 1987 to 2010 period embodies both periods in Alberta’s economic history.
Third, the fundamental relationship between real GDP and employment within a particular sector of the economy may fundamentally change; to the extent that such a shift has occurred, the long‐run historical time series will not fully describe the relationship in the short‐term. However, to the degree that these changes continue in future years, model predicted employment would move to accommodate the new relationship. In this context, while shorter‐term data might better represent the direction and magnitude of emerging trends, until there is a long‐enough period covered by “emerging trend” data, it will not be possible to identify whether these data merely represent short‐term speed bumps or fundamental paradigm shifts in the relationship between employment and economic productivity.
As future real GDP forms the dependent variable in the mathematics of this projection methodology, it is necessary to establish a long‐run projection of real GDP for Alberta. The Ministry of Finance, through its economic update and outlook, provides short‐term estimates of economic activity in the province. Current assessments anticipate growth in Alberta’s economy in the range of 3.1 to 3.3 percent annually for the years 2011 to 2014. However, beyond this short‐term assessment, few projections of economic activity exist.
Over the longer‐term, the fact that much of GDP consists of factors that are population‐dependent (for example, consumption, government spending, and imports) implies that the slower population growth projected for Alberta in the coming years could contribute to a slowing in the annual rate of growth in provincial economic activity. Along with slower overall population growth there is also increasing concern over the impact of an aging population on economic output Canada‐wide; more specifically, aging provincial and regional workforces across Canada have the potential to slow the rate of national economic growth significantly in the coming years. Over longer periods of time, the ability of any economy to expand will be determined by growth in the available workforce, with any growth in excess of this base level accomplished by increasing productivity of those workers.
This suggests two things for Alberta’s (and Canada’s) economy. First, long‐term growth in real GDP may not continue at rates consistent with recent history, and second, that the relationship between GDP and Figure 30 employment observed in the past may change, moving in the direction of fewer jobs per unit increase in GDP (i.e. increases in productivity which are in excess of those seen in the historical database). Other factors that could contribute to a slowing in real GDP growth include Alberta’s dependency upon commodities and the accompanying exposure not only to fluctuations in commodity prices, but increasingly, to competition from other countries and other substitutes to, in particular, oil and gas.
Considering this broad range of factors, a trend line was fitted Page 36 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
to the historical pattern of economic growth, which would indicate a slowing in the rate of economic growth in the coming years (Figure 30). This mirrors directions of change expected for the province’s population and its labour force. More specifically, Alberta’s real GDP growth is projected to slow from the current 3.3 percent level, to 1.4 percent by 2026, one percent by 2056 and to just below one percent by the end of the projection period. This scenario would result in provincial real GDP growing from an estimated $189.9 billion in 2010 to $419.2 billion by 2076, a 120 percent increase over the next sixty‐five years. Relative to the past three decades when the province’s economy expanded at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent, the coming three decades would see it grow by an average of 1.7 percent annually.
Given the historical relationship between provincial GDP and regional employment, this assessment of future provincial economic output would result in total employment in the Calgary Region growing from 2011’s 797,067 jobs to just over one million in 2026, 1.4 million by 2056, and just under 1.5 million by the end of the projection period. Regional employment would therefore grow by 87 percent over the coming 65 years (Figure 32). Employment growing more slowly than the provincial economy again illustrates the contribution that productivity will have in the coming years.
To close the circle of employment, labour force and population, projected employment was compared to the projected size of the available labour force each year to ensure consistency among the economic and demographic projections.
Explicitly calculating the number of people unemployed in the Region (total labour force minus total employment) and then relating this back to the size of the labour force, shows the Region’s unemployment rate declining in the short‐term, from the 5.7 percent in 2011 to a low point in the range of 3.2 percent by Figure 31 2018, and remaining between four and five percent for the duration of the projection period (Figure 31). After increasing to 6.7 percent from historic lows of 3.2 percent in 2006 and 2007 as a result of global economic challenges, the unemployment rate in the Region is expected to fall back thousands towards these historical lows over the next five to seven years before stabilizing in the range of four to five percent.
The unemployment rate remaining within the bounds of historical experience illustrates consistency between the demographic and economic projections for the Region, reflecting the impact of slower labour force growth that is anticipated over the coming decades. It is important to note here that if long‐run economic growth is expected to be more robust than anticipated within this projection (which it certainly could be), three aspects of this projection series could change. First, a larger Regional population could be realized to accommodate the additional number of jobs that would be expected due to more significant economic growth in the province. Second, more rapid economic growth could also potentially be accommodated through increased labour force participation (note that this projection already considers Page 37 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e relatively robust increases in age specific participation rates). Finally, additional growth in economic activity could be accommodated through increasing productivity of the region’s labour force. Given the correlative approach used to generate the employment projections, this would imply increases in productivity that are well in excess of the gains that are represented within the historical database.
Employment by Sector
The projection of employment for the Calgary Region would be distributed across a wide range of economic activities, measured in terms of outputs (the products and services that will be produced by these workers) and processes (what activities are required to produce these outputs). In the context of employment, economic outputs are usually equated with industry sectors while the processes are equated with the occupation classification of the workers involved in the production of goods and services. Employment by industry sector therefore focuses on what a firm or organization that a person works for produces. For example, employment related to the production of furniture, fixtures, food, or clothing being in the manufacturing industry, and those producing the services of selling groceries and clothing are in the retailing industry. In contrast, employment by occupation classification focuses on the specific tasks that workers perform, rather than on the output of the firm that they work for. For example, within the manufacturing industry, while many people would carry out tasks of directly fabricating the furniture, fixtures, or clothing, others would work in the human resources, information technology, or accounting departments, with these jobs defined as business, finance and administrative occupations.
Traditionally, regional economic analysis has focused on the structure of the regional economy as described by industry sector. However, from a planning and development perspective, considering the land using implications of changes in employment has become increasingly important and has shifted some focus towards employment by occupation classification. The importance of this distinction is further illustrated by the fact that the land use requirements of someone working in the marketing and sales department of a manufacturing firm differs considerably from those of someone working on the production floor: marketing (as well as human resources, clerical roles, and management) generally requires office space and is often found in office locations, while production‐oriented employment requires manufacturing space and locations and is seen in more industrial areas.
The same correlative approach used to generate total employment was used in the preparation of the industry and occupational projections for the Calgary Region. This involved measuring the pattern of change demonstrated in annual employment for specific industry and occupation sectors over the past 24 years relative to provincial real GDP. As indicated in the overview of approach to projecting total employment, this approach not only accounts for the absolute level of employment in each industry or occupation sector (i.e. the number of jobs), but also the shifts in the overall industrial or occupational composition of the Regional economy, and gains in productivity that were representative of a particular sector.
Employment by Industry Sector
Relative to the 110 percent growth in total employment in the Calgary Region since 1987 (growth of almost 420,000 jobs), the two most rapidly‐growing industry sectors have been Construction (270 percent growth) and Business Services (217 percent). The greatest absolute growth was in the Business Services sector as it grew from just under 37,000 jobs to over 117,000 (80,200 additional jobs). This sector represented almost one‐ fifth of all employment growth in the Region over this period (Figure 32).
Two other industry sectors saw above average growth over this period: employment in the Health sector grew by 134 percent and added just over 43,000 jobs; while Personal Services grew by 113 percent (65,000 new jobs). All other sectors grew more slowly than total employment: Education by 102 percent; Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate by 94 percent; Transportation, Communication, and Utilities by 100 percent; Page 38 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
Manufacturing by 82 percent; Trade by 79 percent; Primary by 39 percent; and Public Administration by 22 percent.
Differing growth rates for these sectors shifted the industrial composition of the Region’s economy somewhat, with an increasing share of employment in firms providing services compared to those producing things: the Figure 32 share of Regional employment in Primary and Manufacturing industries dropped from 17 percent in 1987 to 13 percent by 2011, while the share in the Commercial Services (Business and Personal Services, and Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) increased from 32 to 36 percent.
Using the same correlative approach as was used for the projections of total employment, the most rapidly‐growing industry sector in the Region over the next 65 years would be Business Services, with the number of people working in this sector growing by 127 percent (adding 148,400 jobs; Figure 33), compared to the Figure 33 projected total employment growth of 87 percent. The Construction sector would be the second‐fastest growing industry sector as it is projected to grow by 111 percent, adding 86,000 jobs. The Transportation, Communications and Utilities (TCU) sector and Personal Services would also grow faster than total employment (at 102 and 91 percent respectively) over the projection period.
Growth rates close to the regional average of 87 percent are expected for the Manufacturing and Health sectors (86 and 84 percent respectively), with all of the Page 39 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
remaining sectors growing well below the regional average. The net result of these sectoral differences would be a continuation of the historical shift of the region’s economic activities towards the service based sectors: total employment in Primary and Manufacturing industries would fall from 13 percent in 2011 to 12 percent by 2076, while the share in the Commercial Services would increase from 36 to 40 percent.
Employment by Occupation Sector
When considered by occupation classification (in other words, employment grouped by what workers do on a day‐to‐day basis), a similar pattern is seen as in industry sectors with employment growth more focused Figure 34 towards the service‐based aspects of the Region’s economy. Again, relative to the 110 percent growth in total employment since 1987, the most rapidly‐growing occupations in the Calgary Region were those in Natural and Applied Sciences (which includes occupations in areas such as computer and information technology services), which increased by 159 percent (adding almost 52,500 jobs).
In terms of absolute growth, Sales and Service occupations increased the most, adding 91,900 jobs—22 percent of all jobs added in the Region since 1987. Growth in Business, Finance and Administration occupations (73,500), Trades (55,000, including occupations related to Construction), and occupations in Natural and Applied Sciences (52,500) combined to accounted for 43 percent of employment growth in the Calgary Region over this period (Figure 34).
At this point, an important note needs to be made about Occupations Unique to Primary Industry. Given increased oil and gas exploration in Alberta, occupations specific to this sector experienced relatively rapid growth up to 1987, with employment in this sector peaking at almost 28,000 jobs in 2007 (a 148 percent increase over 1987; beginning in 2008 however, annual employment has fallen back down into the range of 18,000 jobs). This being said, given the metropolitan context for the Calgary Region’s economy, and the nature of occupations that would be unique to primary sector activity (the actual extraction or processing of oil and gas and not the accounting (Business Services) or research and development (Natural and Applied Sciences), the employment increases that were experienced represented a relatively small share of total employment growth between 1987 and 2011, accounting for just over 12,000 jobs out of a total increase of almost 420,000.
Combining historical occupational trends with provincial GDP shows the most rapidly‐growing occupational sector in the Region is expected to be in Natural and Applied Sciences (110 percent growth, Figure 35). However, what is more significant from a land use perspective is not the relative growth but the absolute number of jobs added within each occupational sector. While occupations in the Natural and Applied Sciences
Page 40 URBAN FUTURES S t r a t e g i c R e s e a r c h t o M a n a g e C h a n g e
sector would demonstrate a high rate of growth, the greatest absolute increase in jobs would be in the Sales and Services sector (150,800 additional jobs versus 94,500).
To the extent that occupations Unique to the Primary and manufacturing sectors are equated with use of industrial land, the addition of more than 35,000 jobs in these sectors will have implications for industrially Figure 35 zoned land. The land demand issues facing the Region will also be shaped by the fact that 42 percent (288,100 jobs) of the growth in the region’s employment will be in Management, Business Services, and Natural and Applied Sciences occupations, all of which place a much greater emphasis on commercial real estate, and specifically on office formats. A further 22 percent of the increase in employment will be the result of the 150,800‐ job increase in Sales and Services occupations, resulting in a significant increase in demand for commercial and retail land uses and locations. Significant increases would also be seen in the Health, Social, Cultural and Government Services occupations, with an additional 107,300 people working in these occupations generating demand for population‐serving commercial and institutional land uses.
Finally, there are the occupations for which there is a relatively low direct demand for land uses: those being the Transportation and Equipment Operators (occupations which tend to be not location‐specific, but rather rely on the use of Region’s transportation infrastructure) and Construction and Trades occupations where the land use requirement tends to be tied to changes in the urban landscape rather than fixed locations. Combined, these sectors would account for 16 percent of the Region’s total growth in employment by 2076, or a total of 111,700 additional jobs.
Page 41 Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Calgary Regional Partnership
Prepared for
by
Final Report Revised 23 August 2017
Reproduction of this report in whole or in part without permission of the Calgary Regional Partnership is prohibited. Brief ex- tracts for review purposes may be made with due acknowledgment of the source. The information contained in this report has been compiled from sources believed to be reliable but the accuracy of the information is not guaranteed. E&OE
Table of Contents
Introduction & Overview 1
I Population Projections: Urban Futures’ Existing Regional Outlook 2
II Alberta’s Changing Economic & Demographic Context 4
III Population Projections: The CRP’s Municipal Outlook 13 The Projections 13 Document Review 14 Municipal Member Meetings 15 Workshop Outcomes 15
IV Appendix 17 A-1 Municipal Population Projection Summary 17 A-2 Municipal Population Projections 18
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page i Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017
Introduction & Overview
At the root of long‐range regional planning is the requirement to make evidence‐based assessments about the future, be they related to the structure of the economy, the dynamics of housing supply and demand, or a growing and changing population. These forward‐looking evaluations, in turn, assist in the planning for the wide range of services, infrastructure projects, and amenities that will be required to ensure a vibrant and sustainable future for a region’s residents, businesses, and visitors.
By way of developing long‐range projections (to 2076) for both the region and its municipal members, the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) has established the foundation for effective planning. Building on this, the next step was to evaluate the existing projections both on their own merit (that is, as per the framework used to arrive at the projections) and in the context of a changing economic and socio- demographic environment in Alberta generally, and in the Calgary Region more specifically.
To assist in this evaluation, Urban Futures was retained by the CRP to a) confirm the existing regional projections (developed by Urban Futures in 2012) and b) build consensus among the region’s municipal members for the regional and municipal-level projections.
The CRP has developed population projections for the following municipalities:
• Airdrie • Banff • Black Diamond • Calgary • Canmore • Chestermere • Cochrane • Crossfield • High River • Irricana • Nanton • Okotoks • Redwood Meadows • Strathmore • Turner Valley • Bighorn • Foothills • Rocky View • Wheatland
This report represents a summary review of the steps taken, and the outcomes achieved, as part of this process, and it consists of four sections. Section I (page 2) provides a description of the approach used to develop the existing regional projections, while Section II (page 4) presents recent trends in a range of economic and socio-demographic indicators as a means of describing the changing context for the regional outlook that serves as the foundation for developing the municipal projections. Section III (page 13) both presents the municipal population projections and describes the process used to develop them. Section IV (page 17) is a technical appendix that includes a summary roll-up of the municipal population projections, as well as total population charts for each municipality.
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 1 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 I Population Projections: Urban Futures’ Existing Regional Outlook
Prior to developing the municipal-level projections, the CRP commissioned Urban Futures to develop a series of provincial- and regional-level projections of population, labour force, employment, and housing occupancy demand. The original projections were developed by Urban Futures in 2008 (with a base year of 2006) and were then updated in 2012 (with a base year of 2011).
The population projections presented as part of the 2012 update—in a report titled “A Context for Change Management in the Calgary Regional Partnership Area”—were developed using a geographically-nested cohort survival modelling framework. This established and widely-used framework accounts for the processes of fertility, mortality, aging, and migration to and from the region.
The regional projections were formally contextualized within trends expected for the province of Alberta and Canada as a whole. This geographically‐nested dimension of the modelling approach ensured consistency among each geographic level of the projections.
As part of the 2012 projection series, natural Components of Population Change, CRP Area increase (the annual difference between births 1986 - 2011 Actual; 2012 - 2076 Projected and deaths) was projected to be the main driver to 25,000 Net Inter. Mig. population growth in the Calgary Region between 20,000 2011 and 2053, averaging 10,800 additions to the Net Intl Mig. 15,000 region over that period (and an average of 5,210 Natural Increase annually thereafter). Between 2054 and 2076, net 10,000 interprovincial migration was expected to become 5,000 the main driver, adding 6,320 people annually over this two-decade span. While robust in the years 0 Net Intra. Mig. leading up to 2011, net international migration was -5,000 expected to moderate between 2011 and 2018, -10,000 before continuing a steady slowing-down out to 2076. Over the 2011 to 2076 period, net international -15,000 migration was projected to add 6,870 people to the
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042 2046 2050 2054 2058 2062 2066 2070 2074 region annually. Net intraprovincial migration, which oscillated between a net outflow and a net inflow between 1986 and 2011, was expected to be a relatively minor contributor to population growth in the Calgary Region, adding an average of 1,570 people each year between 2011 and 2076.
Considering these trends in migration (to and from all destinations and origins), fertility (births), and mortality (deaths), combined with a 2011 base population of 1.41 million residents, the Calgary Region was projected to grow to 3.02 million residents by 2076—a 1.61 million-person, 114 percent, increase over a 65-year time horizon. While representing significant growth over the whole of the period, the annual rate of population change was expected to slow over time, from 3.8 percent in 2011 to 0.5 percent by 2076. On average, the projection was for the region to grow by an average of 1.2 percent per year (adding an average of 24,770 people annually).
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 2 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 Having established this baseline population Total Population, CRP Area projection for the region, the next step for the 1986 - 2011 Actual; 2012 - 2076 Projected millions CRP was to determine where within the region the 3.02 2.86 additional 1.61 million residents could reasonably be 2.67 accommodated over a 65-year time frame. 2.45 2.18 Before considering the municipal population 3.8% 1.89 3.3% projections specifically (which is done in Section 1.41 III), it is useful to consider how the economic and 1.05 socio-demographic landscape in both Alberta and in the Calgary Region has changed since the above- 0.74 described regional projections were developed Annual Growth Rate (again, in 2012, with a 2011 base year). In turn, this 0.9% provides context for not only the process of long- range forecasting—as conditions can change rapidly,
1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 2038 2042 2046 2050 2054 2058 2062 2066 2070 2074 unexpectedly, and in such a way as to alter the long- run growth path of population—but also the existing regional population projection itself, which, as noted above, has been used as a benchmark from which to allocate future population growth down to a municipal level to 2076.
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 3 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 II Alberta’s Changing Economic & Demographic Context
Much has changed since Urban Futures developed the latest set of projections of population, labour force, employment, and housing demand for the Calgary Region in 2012. While robust economic and population growth was experienced between 2011 and 2014, a dramatically altered price environment governing the energy sector since then has more recently put downward pressure on a range of economic and demographic dimensions, including employment, wages, migration, and population growth.
In light of this, the purpose of this section is to describe the changing economic and socio-demographic climate in Alberta and in the Calgary Region—and specifically how current conditions compare to when the most recent regional population projections were produced for the Calgary Region—as it is these recent changes that will inform future iterations of the development of regional and municipal population projections for, and within, the CRP area.
Oil Prices
It is clear that the impetus to the recent decline in economic activity across the province of Alberta has been the precipitous drop in the price of oil, which in turn has failed to recover since beginning to tumble midway through 2014.
Compared to when the current set of regional population projections were produced (with a base year of 2011), when the price of a barrel of WTI1 oil was $89.74 (USD; June 2011) and the price of a barrel of WCS2 oil was $63.42 (USD), prices have since fallen. More specifically, the price of WTI oil was $30.62 (USD) per barrel in January 2016, while the price of a barrel of WCS oil was $16.30 (USD).
Real GDP (Alberta) Real Gross Domestic Product, Alberta $320.1 While real gross domestic product (GDP) rose $279.7 consistently and robustly between 2011 and 2014— $250.5 $231.2 going from $279.7 billion to $320.1 billion over billions $192.0 three years—the decline in, and now persistently $160.1 low, oil prices has resulted in a real GDP estimate for 2015 that is 1.5 percent below 2014, thus reflecting 5.6% 6.3% 6.4% 4.8% recessionary conditions across the province. For the full year 2016, it is currently expected that the -1.1% province will see its economy contract once again, with real provincial GDP declining by a further 1.1 Annual Growth Rate -1.5% percent from 2015’s estimated level. -5.5% 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016f Source: Provincial Economic Acccounts, Statistics Canada 2015e
1 WTI: West Texas Intermediate, an industry-standard classification of crude oil originating in Texas. 2 WCS: Western Canadian Select, or discounted heavy oil produced in Western Canada for the US market,
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 4 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 Investment (Alberta) Gross Fixed Capital Formation, Alberta Non-residential structures, machinery, & equipment Gross fixed capital investment in non-residential $75.1 structures, machinery, and equipment in Alberta experienced tremendous year-over-year growth $58.1 $58.0 beginning in the early-2000s, reaching a high of $58.1 billion in 2008. Following a drop-off during the Great Recession of 2009, investment rebounded $38.7 strongly, matching 2008’s level by 2011 (when the $30.4 $24.4 current population projections were developed), billions before continuing to rise to 2013. By 2014, gross fixed $16.2 capital formation in Alberta reached $75.1 billion— an all-time high—although it is likely that the values for 2015 and 2016 will be significantly lower than this once the data have been made available. 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source: Provincial Economic Acccounts, Statistics Canada
Exports (Alberta) International Merchandise Exports, Alberta billions $ After reaching an all-time high (to-date) of $110.0 billion in international merchandise exports in 2008, Agriculture $26 Alberta saw its export value dip to $69.8 billion in $26
$24 2009, before incrementally rising to $93.1 billion by $23
$24 2011 and further to $121.3 billion in 2014. In 2015, $26
$24 this value dropped by 24 percent, to $92.1 billion, $22 $23 $22 Oil & Gas
$20 due solely to a 31 percent decrease in the value of $21 $89 $17
$19 oil and gas exports (going from $89 billion in 2014 $20 $79 $74 $18 $66 $64
$61 to $61 billion in 2015). Broadly-speaking, all other $54 $53 $52 $14 $52 $13 $46 $12
$12 exports remained consistent in their value between $11 $41 $38 $35 $33 $29 2014 and 2015. Compared to 2011, 2015’s export $17 $18 $16 $16
$13 Utils & Manu. value was down by one percent. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: Industry Canada With the price of oil remaining low into the first few months of 2016—where it is expected to remain for the foreseeable future—it is likely that the value of full-year 2016 international merchandise exports from the province will be consistent with (or slightly lower than) what was seen in 2015.
Employment (Alberta)
Generally-speaking, province-wide employment has grown consistently since 2011; however, by midway through 2014, total employment in Alberta had plateaued in the neighbourhood of 2.30 million jobs, and more recently (through the end of 2014 and into early 2015) actually declined to 2.28 million jobs due largely to the energy sector contraction. That said, when compared to 2011’s 2.08 million jobs, Alberta has experienced a ten percent expansion in its jobs base since then. Going forward it is expected that the employment level in Alberta will remain stagnant, if not contracting further in the short-term.
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 5 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 Unemployment Rate (Alberta)
Following a prolonged period characterized by province-wide labour market tightening—which saw Alberta’s unemployment rate fall from 7.3 percent at the end of 2009 to 5.9 percent in 2011 and further into the neighbourhood of 4.5 percent through 2013, the province’s unemployment rate has been steadily increased since midway through 2014, reaching 7.9 percent in early 2016. This pattern of change is consistent with the trend seen in provincial employment, with a relatively steady labour force competing for a decreasing number of jobs more recently. Unless the province experiences some labour-related out-migration, Alberta’s unemployment rate could continue to climb slightly in the near- term, even further above the level seen when the previous provincial and regional population projections were developed by Urban Futures.
Employment Insurance (Alberta)
A stark manifestation of the recent economic downturn in Alberta is the change in the number of employment insurance (EI) beneficiaries in the province. After peaking at 71,100 recipients in August 2009, the number of EI beneficiaries declined sharply, falling to 45,260 at the beginning of 2011, and then reaching a trough of 27,470 midway through 2012. After remaining stable for the next two years, the number of EI beneficiaries rose steeply in the latter-half of 2014, reaching 63,590 by the end of 2015. This was 40 percent higher than the level seen in 2011, with the increase in the current number of EI beneficiaries now beginning to slow.
Average Weekly Earnings (Alberta)
Another sign of the province’s labour market weakening is the recent change in average weekly earnings (data that, obviously, pertain to those who are still employed). After a decade of consistent growth, average weekly earnings in Alberta peaked midway through 2014, and have declined thereafter. Compared to 2011’s $1,043/week earnings, average weekly earnings stood at $1,111 by the end of 2014 (a seven percent increase). This was, however, down five percent from the high reached in 2014.
This is an expected consequence associated with a weakening labour market characterized by declining employment and a rising unemployment rate. That said, due to the existence of contracts, collectively-
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 6 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 bargained wage agreements, and the relative ease with which unemployed and underemployed residents are able to pursue employment opportunities in other provinces, earnings tend to be “downward-sticky” (that is, they are resistant to significant and/or prolonged declines); as such, they are not expected to fall much further from their current level.
Retail Trade (Alberta)
The value of retail transactions is a strong current indicator of economic activity. In Alberta, monthly retail trade was valued at $5.1 billion at the beginning of 2011, after which point it continued its upward trajectory that began in 2009 to a high of $6.7 billion in August 2014. A sharp drop-off was seen towards the end of 2014, and after a short-lived, modest recovery, retails sales dipped further to $6.1 billion by the end of 2015. While down over the recent period, it is worth noting that these most recent monthly retail sales are 20 percent higher than the level that prevailed during the previous update to the provincial and regional population projections. Total Population, Alberta 1995 - 2015 4.20 Total Population (Alberta) 3.73 3.32 Despite the economic challenges being faced by millions 3.00 the province of Alberta, its population continues 2.73 to exhibit relatively robust growth, rising from 3.79 million residents in 2011 to 4.20 million in 2015. That 3.0% 3.1% being said, the rate of population growth has more recently slowed: after rising from 1.5 percent growth in 2011 to a peak of 3.1 percent in 2013, 2014 and 1.3% 1.8% 2015 saw increasingly slow growth of 2.8 percent Annual Growth Rate 1.5% and 1.8 percent, respectively. 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: Demographic Estimates Compendium, Statistics Canada
Population Change, Alberta Population Additions (Alberta) 1996 - 2015 118,567 While useful in its own right, the rate of population 99,723 growth can belie the actual magnitude of population additions. For Alberta, the relatively high growth
80,863 rates seen during the 2012 to 2014 period were 69,218 accompanied by robust annual population additions,
57,618 peaking at 118,567 in 2013. With an increasingly 51,506 53,481 slowing rate of growth observed into 2015, the most 40,614 recent additions number 80,863, which are still 40 percent above the additions made in 2011. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: Demographic Estimates Compendium, Statistics Canada Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 7 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 Migration (Alberta) Net Migration, Alberta 1996 - 2015 The trend in population additions in the province 80,000 closely follows the direction and magnitude of change 60,000 in migration flows. With that in mind, it is no surprise Net Migration that accompanying the incremental increases in 40,000 annual population additions during the 2010 to 2014 period was net migration that increased from 22,490 20,000 Net Domestic in 2010 to 35,150 in 2011 and further to 71,190 in 2014. This upward trend was the result of increasing 0 NPR Change net flows of domestic migrants, international Net Immigration migrants, and non-permanent residents. However, -20,000 as economic conditions worsened beginning in -40,000 2014, a slowing was seen in both net domestic and international migration flows, while the number 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: Demographic Estimates Compendium, Statistics Canada of non-permanent residents in Alberta declined between 2014 and 2015. Despite these changes, the most recent level of migration to the province (63,090) is robust in comparison to what was seen four years earlier, with total provincial net migration in 2015 remaining 79 percent above that of 2011.
Treasury Board Projections (Alberta) Treasury Board Population Projections, Alberta 2011 - 2041 millions As noted in the introduction to this section, one of 7.0 the reasons for considering recent trends in this 6.0 6.20 collection of economic and socio-demographic 5.59 indicators is to assess how future projections 5.0 2015-based developed for Alberta (and for the Calgary Region) 4.0 might be shaped by sharp and unexpected turns of 2012-based events. Interestingly, despite the recent downturn 3.0 in virtually all economic and demographic indicators 2.0 for the province, the most recent Alberta Treasury Board population projections for the province as a 1.0 whole are higher than those developed at the time 0.0 of Urban Futures’ most recent projections (in 2012). This is largely because Alberta experienced robust 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 Source: Alberta Treasury Board & Finance economic expansion between 2011 and 2014, with the recent downturn (described by data through 2015) leaving the province ahead of where it was in 2011 in most instances. With a stronger base from which to develop a population outlook, then, the Treasury Board currently anticipates there being 6.20 million people living in Alberta by 2041, compared to 5.59 million as per the 2012-based projection (having adjusted the projections so they have a common starting point).
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 8 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 Total Population (Calgary CMA) Total Population, Calgary CMA 1995 - 2015 1.44 Trends in total population in the Calgary Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) closely follow that of the 1.24 province, with the region experiencing continued 1.09 growth in population over the recent past. From a millions 0.95 3.8% 2011 base of 1.26 million residents, the Calgary CMA 0.82 3.4% grew to 1.44 million people by 2015. Growth ebbed and flowed over this brief period of time, with an 2.1% increasing pace of growth characterizing the 2011 2.4% to 2013 years (to a peak of 3.8 percent growth), and Annual Growth Rate 1.7% then slowing growth thereafter (to 2.4 percent in 2015, which was higher than 2011’s 2.0 percent). 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: Demographic Estimates Compendium, Statistics Canada
Population Additions (Calgary CMA) Population Change, Calgary CMA 1996 - 2015 50,321 The incremental additions to the regional population followed in step with the change in the pace of growth, with there being a peak of 50,321 people 36,447 added to the Calgary CMA in 2013, which was 31,780 33,789 more than double the 24,302 additions in 2011. Accompanying the slowing rate of growth into 2015 24,302 was a smaller number of additions, with 2015 adding 20,964
17,423 33,789 people to the regional population. That said, this was 39 percent more than in 2011. 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: Demographic Estimates Compendium, Statistics Canada
Labour Market Summary (Calgary CMA) Labour Market Summary, Calgary CMA 2001 - 2015 Since dipping slightly in 2010, the labour force and 871 total employment in the Calgary CMA has grown 766 Labour Force 761 consistently each year. Since 2011, the regional labour 816 thousands force expanded from 766,000 people to 871,000 721 710 591 (14 percent growth), while employment grew from 721,000 to 816,000 jobs (13 percent growth). With
564 Employment the labour force growing marginally faster than 6.8% 6.4% employment, the regional unemployment rate 4.6% necessarily rose over this period, from 5.9 percent 4.7% in 2011 to 6.4 percent in 2015 (in between it actually dipped as low as 4.7 percent in 2012). Of note is 3.2% Unemp. Rate that despite the economic headwinds faced by the province in the last couple of years, employment in
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 the Calgary CMA has continued to grow. Source: Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 9 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 Vacancy Rates (Calgary CMA) Row / Apartment Vacancy Rates, Calgary CMA 1995 - 2015 The region’s housing market is beginning to 6.0% show signs of slowing down across a number of 5.0% dimensions. For starters, the Calgary CMA’s vacancy rate for purpose-built row and apartment dwellings 4.0% is nearing a two-decade high set in 2009 during the Great Recession. While the rental market tightened 3.0% as the Albertan economy recovered beginning in 2010—with the vacancy rate averaging 2.0 percent 2.0% in 2011 and 1.0 percent in 2013, it has shot up in the last two years, reaching 5.1 percent in 2015. 1.0%
0.0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: CMHC Average Rent (Calgary CMA)
The recent uptick in rental vacancy rates has, not Row / Apartment Average Rent, Calgary CMA surprisingly, impacted average monthly rents 1995 - 2015 in purpose-built row and apartment dwellings. $1,400 While monthly rent averaged $987 in 2011, it $1,219 $1,200 rose over the following years as the vacancy rate $987 declined (indicating a relative shortage in rental $1,000 accommodation in the region at that time). However, $800 with the recent spike in the vacancy rate, average monthly rent has stagnated, with both 2014 and $600 2015 seeing average monthly rent of $1,219. That $400 said, despite the markedly higher vacancy rate in 2015 versus 2011, average monthly rent is up by 24 $200 percent over the same period. $0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: CMHC Housing Starts (Calgary CMA)
As the province (and region) dug out of the 2009 Housing Starts, SAAR, Calgary CMA recessionary hole, annual housing starts activity January 1995 - February 2016 became evermore robust into 2014, when 28,524 40,000 homes were started (at a seasonally-adjusted annual 35,000 rate, or SAAR). While below the 37,063 starts seen midway through 2008, the peak in starts in 2014 was 30,000 more than five times the 5,287 starts observed in 25,000 2011, the base year for Urban Futures’ most recent 20,000 regional population projections. Since that recent peak, starts activity has slowed to its lowest level 15,000 since the end of 2011, reaching 7,042 SAAR starts 10,000 at the beginning of 2016. Even so, this relatively 5,000 low level was 33 percent higher than in 2011. Looking ahead, it is likely that starts activity will 0 slow further over the balance of the year, especially
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 should migration continue to slow (or become a net Source: CMHC outflow).
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 10 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 Completed & Unoccupied Housing (Calgary Completed & Unoccupied Housing, Calgary CMA CMA) January 1995 - February 2016 1,800 While starts have been slowing, the number of 1,600 completed and unoccupied homes has been steadily 1,400 increasing since midway through 2014. By early 2016 1,200 the inventory of completed and unoccupied homes 1,000 in the Calgary CMA stood at 856 which, while much higher than the 399 from mid-2014, was 22 percent 800 lower than then 1,092 registered in 2011. 600 400 200 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: CMHC
Residential Sales Prices (Calgary CMA) Average Residential Sales Price, Calgary CMA January 1995 - February 2016 $900,000 60% The trend in average residential sales prices mirrors $787,500 that seen in the pattern of completed and unoccupied 50% $675,000 housing. More specifically, with the region 40% $562,500 experiencing robust economic and demographic $450,000 30% growth leading up to 2009, average sales prices $337,500 20% jumped upwards as the number of completed $225,000 10% and unoccupied homes plummeted. During the $112,500 immediate aftermath of 2009’s recession, as growth $0 0% was present but somewhat moderate, prices rose -$112,500 Ann. -10% -$225,000Rate steadily, if not dramatically, while the number of -20% -$337,500of completed and unoccupied homes returned to an -$450,000Change -30% equilibrium level. Since 2011, average residential sales prices have continued to increase, although 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: CREB they have come down slightly since peaking in 2015. By early 2016, the average residential sales price in the Calgary CMA was $778,546, down four percent from the peak of $807,297 in early-2015, but still 44 percent above the $542,376 recorded in 2011.
Summary of Indicators
Generally-speaking, the primary economic and demographic indicators for Alberta and the Calgary Region have been trending in a negative direction in recent years. That being said, most remain above their respective 2011 levels. This is largely due to the robust run-up in Alberta’s economic activity between 2011 and 2014, which in turn fortified the province’s—and the Calgary Region’s—demographic base, and it is the primary reason why the Alberta Treasury Board’s most recent provincial population projections (with a 2015 base) are more optimistic than the outlook developed in 2012.
While it is reasonable to assume that an update to Urban Futures’ base provincial and regional population projections that are used as the foundation for developing the landscape of municipal outlooks within the CRP Area would result in an adjustment to the year 2076 (or earlier) figures, such an adjustment would likely have a marginal impact on the long-run level and spatial distribution of population throughout the region.
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 11 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 That being said, while the currently-used regional population projections are useful as a starting point for developing a series of municipal-level projections, it is recommended that the provincial and regional projections be updated upon the release of the full suite of 2016 Census data, which is expected to be available beginning in February 2017. These data will not only provide a new base from which to develop the near-term and longer-term outlooks, they will encapsulate the recent economic—and by extension, demographic—transformations currently taking place throughout the province).
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 12 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 III Population Projections: The CRP’s Municipal Outlook
Total Population, Calgary Regional Partnership The Projections 2011 ‐ 2076 3.29 As shown in Section II, Urban Futures’ 2012-based population projections provided a foundation for 2.85 considering changes within the region. While the 2.42 current regional projection being utilized by the CRP does not precisely match that of Urban Futures, millions 1.97 it is similar—as it is derived from the 2012-based outlook—with the Calgary Region projected to grow 1.32 from 1.32 million residents in 2011 to 3.29 million by 2076. This represents a 1.97 million-person, 149 percent increase over 65 years, for an average Annual Growth Rate 2.5% annual rate of growth of 1.4 percent (approximately 0.9% 30,200 people per year). By the end of the projection period the region would be growing at a rate of 1.1
2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076 percent annually. This current regional projection Total Population Growth, Calgary Regional Partnership represents the go-forward control total when 2011 ‐ 2076 considering future municipal population totals, with the sum of the municipal projections equalling the Wheatland 8,229 Rocky View 73,539 projected population for the region as a whole each Foothills 33,485 year to 2076. Bighorn 1,552 Turner Valley 7,868 Strathmore 25,931 Within the region, the city of Calgary is expected to Redwood Meadows 0 Okotoks 59,941 add the greatest number of people of any of the 19 Nanton 3,738 municipalities, at 1.45 million people. This would Irricana 3,241 High River 26,000 account for almost three-quarters (74 percent) of Crossfield 5,047 total regional growth to 2076. Cochrane 50,420 Chestermere 60,176 Canmore 17,712 The municipality with the second-largest absolute Calgary 1.45 million growth projected for its population would be Airdrie, Black Diamond 7,677 Banff 2,416 at 125,436 people, representing 6.4 percent of total Airdrie 125,436 CRP-wide growth. Rounding out the top five growers are Rocky View (73,539 additions; 3.7 percent of Share of Regional Population Growth total growth), Chestermere (60,176; 3.1 percent), 2011 ‐ 2076 and Okotoks (59,941; 3.1 percent). The remaining 14 Strathmore Foothills 1.3% municipalities would account for the remaining ten 0.4% Okotoks 1.7% percent of total regional population growth (193,320 3.1% 0.1% Nanton people). Turner 0.2% Bighorn 3.7% Rocky View 0.2% Valley High River 1.3% Irricana In relative terms, the fastest-growing municipality 0.3% would be Chestermere, whose population is Crossfield 0.4% Wheatland projected to quintuple in size (growth of 406 Cochrane 2.6% Black Diamond percent). This would be followed by Turner Valley
Canmore Banff and Black Diamond (363 percent and 324 percent, respectively), Airdrie (295 percent), and Cochrane 6.4% Airdrie Chestermere 3.1% (287 percent). These high rates of growth are 0.4% partly a function of what are generally small base- 0.1% Calgary = 74% 0.9% year populations; conversely, the region’s largest
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 13 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 municipality (Calgary) is projected to achieve a Total Population Growth, Calgary Regional Partnership relatively slower growth rate of 132 percent between 2011 ‐ 2076 2011 and 2076, due mainly to the comparatively Wheatland 99% Rocky View 202% large size of its base-year population. Foothills 158% Bighorn 116% In arriving at these projections, a number of steps Turner Valley 363% Strathmore 211% were taken by both the CRP and Urban Futures to Redwood Meadows 0% ensure that the collection of municipal outlooks a) Okotoks 245% Nanton 175% generally reflected established growth plans and Irricana 279% capacity estimates and b) were supported by a High River 201% Crossfield 177% consensus among municipal members of the CRP. Cochrane 287% These steps are summarized next. Chestermere 406% Canmore 144% Calgary 132% Black Diamond 324% Banff 32% Airdrie 295%
Document Review
As part of its objective of confirming the CRP’s municipal-level population projections, Urban Futures undertook a document review that sought to ensure that there was consistency between the CRP’s projections and the relevant Municipal Development Plans and Growth Plans/Strategies produced by the region’s municipalities.
More specifically, Urban Futures reviewed the following documents with a view of reconciling the population projections and/or capacities identified in these documents (if any) with the outlooks produced by the CRP:
• Airdrie City Plan (2014) • Airdrie Comprehensive Growth Strategy (2011) • Banff Community Plan (2009) • Black Diamond Municipal Development Plan (2001) • Calgary Municipal Development Plan (2009) • Calgary Metropolitan Plan (2014) • Canmore Municipal Development Plan (2016) • Chestermere Municipal Development Plan (2009) • Cochrane Growth Management Strategy (2013) • Cochrane Municipal Development Plan (2008) • Crossfield Municipal Development Plan (2010) • High River Municipal Development Plan (2013) & Growth Management Strategy (2013) • Town of Irricana Growth Study (2008) • Irricana Municipal Development Plan (2009) • Municipal District of Bighorn Municipal Development Plan (2012) • Foothills Municipal Development Plan (2010) • Foothills Growth Management Strategy (2013) • Nanton Municipal Development Plan (2009) • Okotoks Municipal Development Plan (2012) • Town of Okotoks Growth Study and Financial Assessment (2014) • Rocky View Growth Management Strategy (2009)
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 14 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 • Rocky View County Plan (2013) ` • Strathmore Municipal Development Plan (2014) • Turner Valley Municipal Development Plan (2013) • Wheatland County Municipal Development Plan (2013)
Urban Futures found that any population growth targets, expectations, and/or capacities expressed in these reports were generally reflected in the CRP’s suite of municipal population projections. This was the case for two reasons: one, CRP staff used these reports as a starting point for developing the municipal population projections; and two, the initially-developed projections were then vetted by staff from several member municipalities during meetings with CRP staff. An overview of these meetings is presented next.
Municipal Member Meetings
In 2015, CRP staff attempted to meet with municipalities in the region to discuss the population projection work. As part of this process, the CRP met with staff from the following municipalities (meeting date in parentheses):
• Turner Valley (26 May 2015) • Canmore (9 June 2015) • Cochrane (9 June 2015) • Airdrie (17 June 2015) • Strathmore (17 June 2015) • Okotoks (21 June 2015) • High River (22 June 2015) • Chestermere (9 July 2015) • Calgary (ongoing)
As the initial set of projections were partly derived from existing plans, there was a general consensus among municipal planning staff about the long-run municipal-level population expectations being adopted by the CRP.
Workshop Outcomes
On April 4th, 2016, the CRP hosted a workshop at the Cochrane RancheHouse with staff from a number of member municipalities. Ryan Berlin, from Urban Futures, facilitated the workshop.
The workshop had a number of objectives. As a starting point, it was necessary to update workshop attendees on the array of background work that had been completed to-date as part of the process to develop the regional and municipal population projections, including the development of Urban Futures’ population projections in 2008 and 2012, and the subsequent efforts made by CRP staff to step down from the regional outlook to develop a suite of spatial projections within the CRP Area.
Another objective of the workshop was to present an update to a range of economic and socio-demographic indicators in Alberta and in the Calgary Region (refer to Section II for a summary of this). The purpose of this was twofold. First, this market review was intended to show that while long-range forecasting is a challenging task unto itself, it is made all the more complex by rapid and unforeseen changes to the factors that inform the projections. (As a corollary to this, the importance of updating the projections on a regular basis was emphasized.) Second, the review showed that while many key economic and demographic indicators have recently been trending in a negative direction, these recent changes have come on the heels of a rapid expansion in the province’s economy generally—and energy sector, specifically—and its
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 15 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 population during the 2011 to 2014 period. As such, while there exists a degree of pessimism in regards to the near-term prospects for Alberta’s economy, the province is, in many regards, more well-suited to address the current economic crisis than it would have been three years prior.
Following this, the workshop transitioned into a facilitated group discussion, with the goal of achieving consensus regarding the current municipal population projections. After confirming with staff from each municipality that attended, it was agreed that consensus had been achieved.
The draft projections were also circulated to each municipality’s administration and CAO for review. Comments received at that time were incorporated into the projections.
A second workshop was then convened on June 28th, 2016 at the Cochrane RancheHouse. It was again facilitated by Ryan Berlin and attended by staff from a number of member municipalities. The purpose of this workshop was to provide attending staff the opportunity to contribute final comments on the municipal-level population projections, as well as to confirm the most recent municipal Census counts that served as the foundation for the projections.
The regional and municipal population totals included in the Appendix (A-1 and A-2) reflect the most recent Census counts as well as the vetted projections to 2076.
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 16 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 IV Appendix
A-1 Municipal Population Projection Summary Annual Average 0% 0.0% 2011‐76 Growth 0 7,677 324% 2.2% 2,416 32% 0.4% 3,2413,738 279% 175% 2.1% 1.6% 5,047 177% 1.6% 7,8681,552 363% 116% 2.4% 1.2% 8,229 99% 1.1% 17,712 144% 1.4% 60,176 406% 2.5% 26,000 201% 1.7% 50,420 287% 2.1% 59,94125,931 245% 211% 1.9% 1.8% 33,48573,539 158% 202% 1.5% 1.7% 125,436 295% 2.1% 1,452,707 132% 1.3% Absolute Relative 1,965,115 149% 1.4% 2,549,540 3,285,706 2011 ‐ 2076 Total Population Growth, CRP Municipalities 2,373 2,893 3,933 4,586 5,159 6,789 8,420 10,050 7,584 9,487 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 8,285 9,770 12,739 14,855 16,711 16,645 16,580 16,514 1,1622,132 1,608 2,745 2,500 3,970 3,600 4,629 4,200 5,207 4,268 5,428 4,335 5,649 4,403 5,870 1,341 1,429 1,605 1,872 2,105 2,368 2,630 2,893 2,167 2,836 4,173 4,866 5,474 6,994 8,515 10,035 2,853 3,132 4,200 5,500 6,700 7,100 7,500 7,900 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 42,564 61,84212,288 95,000 13,722 112,000 16,589 130,000 19,800 142,667 29,053 155,333 29,369 168,000 29,684 30,000 17,580 25,122 39,810 46,422 52,222 57,481 62,741 68,000 12,920 16,526 23,737 27,680 31,138 33,732 36,326 38,920 24,511 29,559 40,697 46,938 58,000 66,817 75,635 84,452 36,461 40,248 47,556 55,000 65,000 80,000 95,000 110,000 21,258 23,477 27,916 32,553 36,620 42,661 48,702 54,743 14,824 19,715 30,276 47,415 55,000 61,667 68,333 75,000 12,305 13,594 16,828 25,459 28,639 31,838 35,037 38,236 1,096,833 1,235,171 1,432,925 1,656,248 1,879,571 2,102,894 2,326,217 1,320,591 1,514,023 1,815,604 2,120,573 2,421,949 2,709,868 2,997,787 Banff Airdrie Calgary Nanton Irricana Bighorn Okotoks Foothills Canmore Cochrane Crossfield High River Wheatland Strathmore Rocky View Chestermere Turner Valley Total ‐ CRP Black Diamond Municipality 2011 2016 2026 2036 2046 2056 2066 2076 Redwood Meadows
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 17 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 A-2 Municipal Population Projections
Total Population, Airdrie 2011 ‐ 2076 168,000 149,000 130,000
103,500
8.0%
42,564 Annual Growth Rate
0.8% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Total Population, Banff 2011 ‐ 2076
10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
7,584
7.9%
Annual Growth Rate 0.0% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Total Population, Black Diamond 2011 ‐ 2076
10,050
7,605
5,159 4,260
2,373 3.6% Annual Growth Rate 1.6% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 18 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 Total Population, Calgary 2011 ‐ 2076
2.55 2.21 1.88
millions 1.54
1.10
Annual Growth Rate 2.0% 0.9% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Total Population, Canmore 2011 ‐ 2076
29,053 29,527 30,000
18,195
12,288
Annual Growth Rate 1.2% 0.1% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Total Population, Chestermere 2011 ‐ 2076 75,000
65,000
55,000
38,846 9.4%
14,824 Annual Growth Rate
0.9% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 19 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 Total Population, Cochrane 2011 ‐ 2076
68,000 60,111 52,222
43,116 17,580 6.7%
Annual Growth Rate
0.8% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Total Population, Crossfield 2011 ‐ 2076
7,900 7,300 6,700
4,850
2,853
Annual Growth Rate
1.9% 0.5% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Total Population, High River 2011 ‐ 2076
38,920 35,029 31,138
25,709
12,920 6.3%
Annual Growth Rate
0.7% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 20 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 Total Population, Irricana 2011 ‐ 2076
4,403 4,200 4,302
3,050
1,162
Annual Growth Rate 1.0% 0.2% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Total Population, Nanton 2011 ‐ 2076
5,870 5,539 5,207
4,300
2,132
3.0% Annual Growth Rate
0.4% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Total Population, Okotoks 2011 ‐ 2076 84,452
71,226 16.0% 58,000
43,818
24,511
Annual Growth Rate
1.1% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 21 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 Total Population, Redwood Meadows 2011 ‐ 2076
1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150
0.0% Annual Growth Rate 0.0% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Total Population, Strathmore 2011 ‐ 2076
38,236 33,438 28,639
21,144
12,305
3.5% Annual Growth Rate 0.8% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Total Population, Turner Valley 2011 ‐ 2076
10,035
7,755
5,474 4,520 2,167 3.9% Annual Growth Rate 1.5% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 22 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 Total Population, Bighorn 2011 ‐ 2076
2,893
2,499
2,105 1,739
1,341
Annual Growth Rate 0.7% 0.9% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Total Population, Foothills 2011 ‐ 2076 54,743
45,682
36,620 30,235
21,258
3.8% Annual Growth Rate 1.1% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Total Population, Rocky View 2011 ‐ 2076 110,000
87,500
65,000
51,278
36,461
Annual Growth Rate 1.1% 1.4% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 23 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 Total Population, Wheatland 2011 ‐ 2076 16,711 16,613 16,514
13,797
8,285
Annual Growth Rate 1.0% ‐0.04% 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 2061 2066 2071 2076
Population Projections: Confirmation of Findings Page 24 Calgary Regional Partnership 23 August 2017 Topic Grouping for Growth and Servicing Plans
Growth Plan Intermunicipal Servicing Plan 1. Population and Employment • Underlying assumption for Growth Plan and Servicing Plan
2. Identification of the development 3. Current Servicing Agreements, and location of infrastructure Assets, Capacities and Policies 4. Growth Areas (Land Use) 5. Growth Areas (Servicing) • Places where people live • Places where people live i. Identification of growth i. Identification of growth areas and land supply areas and service (Mixed use supply communities) ii. Identification of density ii. Identification of density to design servicing of development requirements iii. Policies that address iii. Policies that address new settlement areas new settlement areas iv. Policies that address iv. Policies that address intensification of intensification (possible existing settlement service areas upgrades/capital v. Specific actions by investments) participating v. Specific actions by municipalities to be participating taken to implement the municipalities to be Growth Plan vi. taken to implement the • Places where people don’t live Servicing Plan (major employment areas) • Places where people don’t live i. Identification of growth (major employment areas) areas and land supply i. Identification of growth ii. Policies that address areas and service new settlement areas supply iii. Policies that address ii. Policies that address intensification of new settlement areas existing settlement iii. Policies that address areas intensification iv. Specific actions by iv. Specific actions by participating participating municipalities to be municipalities to be taken to implement the taken to implement the Growth Plan Servicing Plan
6. Corridors • Identification of corridors for recreation, transportation, energy transmission, utilities and intermunicipal transit • Policies for planning corridors for recreation, transportation, energy transmission, utilities and intermunicipal transit • Specific actions by participating municipalities to be taken to implement the Growth Plan and/or Servicing Plan
7. Coordination of Infrastructure Planning • Policies regarding coordinating infrastructure planning and development amongst participating municipalities • Specific actions by participating municipalities to be taken to implement the Growth Plan and/or Servicing Plan
8. Environmental Areas • Policies regarding flood prone areas • Policies regarding environmentally sensitive areas • Specific actions by participating municipalities to be taken to implement the Growth and Servicing Plan
9. Agriculture lands • Identification of agricultural lands • Policies regarding the conservation of agricultural lands • Specific actions by participating municipalities to be taken to implement the Growth Plan
10.Recreation • Policies regarding recreation servicing
`
Agenda Item 7 Submitted to Land Use Committee Purpose For Information to the Land Use Committee Subject DRAFT Interim Regional Evaluation Framework (REF) Application Review Processes Meeting Date May 10, 2018
For Discussion That the Land Use Committee RECEIVE FOR DISCUSSION the DRAFT Interim Regional Evaluation Framework (REF) Application Review Processes
Background • On March 23, 2018 and April 27, 2018 CMRB Administration held workshops with the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) • The purpose of the workshops was to develop the INTERIM PROCESS by which statutory plans and plan amendments will be submitted to the CMRB for technical review and Board approval • Four (4) DRAFT Interim REF processes were developed as a result of workshop discussions: o Two (2) of the Interim REF process options focus on who determines which statutory plans and plan amendments are regionally significant and at what point in the process regional significance is determined o Two (2) of the Interim REF process options focus on how applications are approved by the Board • CMRB Administration seeks feedback from the Land Use Committee on the DRAFT options
Attachments • Four (4) DRAFT Interim REF Application Review Process Options
Page 1 of 10 Agenda Item7 May 10, 2018 `
1. What is Interim REF?
Once in place, the Interim Regional Evaluation Framework (Interim REF) will provide the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board with the means to evaluate regionally significant statutory plans and statutory plan amendments. The primary goal of Interim REF is to ensure local statutory plans are consistent with long-term regional goals and interests as defined by the member municipalities.
The Interim REF includes three (3) aspects: the criteria which will determine which plans are regionally significant, the process through which the CMRB will review and approve statutory plans and statutory plan amendments and the objective and clear criteria against which the CMRB will judge plans.
• Regional goals and interests will be expressed through Growth Plan or Interim Growth Plan and the Servicing Plan. • An additional set of criteria will be developed to determine which statutory and statutory plan amendments are regionally significant.
CMRB Administration and TAG are currently working together on options for the Interim REF PROCESS. This process needs to be in place to facilitate the review and approval of regionally significant statutory plans. The criteria for reviewing regional plans and for determining regional significance will be the subject of future TAG and LUC workshops. These criteria are being informed through the Interim Growth Plan planning process.
2. REF Requirements of the CMRB Regulation
The requirements of REF are outlined in Section 12(1-6) of the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board Regulation.
Section 12(1) is presented in its entirety below:
12(1) The Board shall prepare and submit to the Minister a Regional Evaluation Framework containing
(a) criteria to be used to determine whether a statutory plan must be submitted for approval under section 13(1),
(b) procedures for submitting statutory plans for approval under section 13(1), and
(c) the criteria and procedures to be followed by the Board for the objective evaluation and approval of statutory plans in relation to the Growth Plan and the Servicing Plan. (2) The Minister may, by order, approve, reject or amend a Framework.
Page 2 of 10 Agenda Item7 May 10, 2018 `
(3) The Framework has no effect until it is approved by the Minister.
(4) If the Board fails to provide a Framework, the Minister may, by order, establish a Framework.
(5) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), if the Minister establishes or approves a Framework, the Minister shall provide a copy of it to each participating municipality.
(6) The Framework is not a regulation within the meaning of the Regulations Act.
Summary of TAG Workshops
2.1.1. Workshop #1 (March 23, 2018)
A workshop was held with TAG on March 23, 2018. Two (2) key workshop questions were discussed:
1. What are the objectives of the Interim REF? How should we define success?
2. How should we answer the “who, what, when, where and why” of the Interim REF process?
A range of existing regional decision-making processes were reviewed from Ontario, British Columbia and Edmonton. During the workshop, TAG agreed that the current Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board (EMRB) REF process was a preferred starting point for the Interim CMRB REF process.
The benefits of the EMRB REF process compared to other processes reviewed from across Canada were: 1. It’s expediency. 2. It’s simplicity. 3. The prominent role of technical experts in making recommendations to the Board.
Page 3 of 10 Agenda Item7 May 10, 2018 `
Figure 1 – Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board REF Process
Page 4 of 10 Agenda Item7 May 10, 2018 `
TAG suggested potential options/changes to the EMRB REF process including: • a preapplication option, • a discussion about when regional significance is determined and ways to provide “off-ramps” for certain kinds of statutory plans or plan amendments that are not regionally significant, • an option for TAG application review of applications in addition to a 3rd party consultant review.
2.1.2. Workshop #2 (April 27, 2018)
A second workshop was held with TAG on April 27, 2018. Using the input provided by TAG at Workshop #1, CMRB Administration presented a number of DRAFT REF process options for discussion. TAG reviewed each of the DRAFT Interim REF options against the DRAFT Objectives and Criteria. TAG discussed changes, refinements and other options. The outcomes of the REF process are the subject of discussion at the Land Use Committee.
The outcomes of the workshop, including two (2) different options for each part of the Interim REF application review process options, are included below.
• Option 1A and 1B show two different ways regional significance can be determined. In Option 1A, regional significance is determined by individual municipalities using an agreed-upon set of criteria. In Option 1B, regional significance is determined by CMRB Administration using an agreed-upon set of criteria. • Option 2A and 2B show two different processes for approving or refusing applications. In Option 2A, the Board votes on all applications. In Option 2B, applications are deemed approved after a review period unless the recommendation of approval by CMRB Administration is challenged by a Board member. All applications recommended for refusal by CMRB Administration go directly to a vote of the Board.
CMRB Administration prefers the following options:
• Option 1A – that each individual municipality determines regional significance using set criteria prior to submitting a REF application (Option 1A). • Option 2B – that applications are deemed approved by the Board after an application review period.
3. CMRB Administration Request of the Committee
CMRB Administration is seeking feedback from the members of the Land Use Committee to inform future discussions with TAG as the Interim REF processes are refined and a preferred Interim REF process is selected.
There are two fundamental topics on which we request guidance:
Page 5 of 10 Agenda Item7 May 10, 2018 `
1. Who determines which statutory plans and plan amendments are regionally significant and at what point in the process regional significance is determined? 2. How applications are approved by the Board.
Page 6 of 10 Agenda Item7 May 10, 2018 `
Figure 2 – DRAFT Interim REF Process Option 1A
Page 7 of 10 Agenda Item7 May 10, 2018 `
Figure 3 – Interim REF Process Option 1B
Page 8 of 10 Agenda Item7 May 10, 2018 `
Figure 4 - Interim REF Option 2A
Page 9 of 10 Agenda Item7 May 10, 2018 `
Figure 5 - Interim REF Option 2B
Page 10 of 10 Agenda Item7 May 10, 2018