Canadian Redistribution - Provincial and Municipal

[Hatman 🍁]

Ok, let's start with re-drawing the boundaries in the suburbans hubs. First off, Orleans/Cumberland.

Here is the current map:



1 = Orleans
2 = Innes
19 (number not on map) = Cumberland

Blackburn Hamlet is that subdivision under the 2.

As you can see, the current map has some rather awkward boundaries, especially between Orleans and Cumberland. These boundaries date back from the 1990s, when the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Council began directly electing its councillors. They follow the municipal council boundaries used at the time (e.g. Cumberland Ward was made up of Bilberry and Heritage Wards on Cumberland city council).

Anyway, if we remove Blackburn Hamlet (as I propose), this will have severe domino affects in the rest of Orleans/Cumberland, giving us a chance to fix this awkwardness.

First off, let's focus on what's left of Innes Ward. Without Blackburn Hamlet, it's underpopulated, with just 34k people. We can either expand north or east into the rest of Orleans; I think it makes sense to move north to remove that awkward panhandle from the Orleans Ward. This gives us an additional ~11,100 people for a total of 45,200. Good! Let's rename this ward Orleans West, as it now extends all the way up to the Ottawa River, far from Innes Road. I suspect this ward's population might grow a lot in the south with Bradley Hill Estates and Chapel Hill South developments. With foresight, it might be prudent to exclude these areas from the ward, but let's keep them in for now.

OK, with its northwest panhandle now gone, Orleans Ward has shrunk to 37,200 people. Too small! We need to take some territory from Cumberland Ward. The most obvious thing to do is to straighten that eastern boundary to follow Innes Road rather than cut through the neighbourhoods of southeastern Orleans. This would add about 13,100 people, bringing us to ~50,300 people. Too much! So, why not take off that southeastern panhandle and give it to Cumberland? That's ~2900 people, which would make our total 47,400 - just under the 10% threshold. With Innes now called Orleans West, we should probably re-name this ward Orleans East.

And that population transfer leaves Cumberland Ward at 40,200, with plenty of room to grow, as this ward has most of the east's new developments.

One last note about Cumberland. You will see that it is mostly rural. Well, during the last redistribution, the rural Cumberland population didn't mind being lumped with suburban parts of Orleans. Perhaps better than the alternative of being lumped with far-off Osgoode as it was on regional council. Despite Cumberland and Osgoode both being rural, Cumberland is fairly Francophone, while Osgoode is very Anglophone.

And so, here is my proposed map (very similar to Krago's)

[Hatman 🍁]

Now for the south end, where I'm proposing the addition of a new ward.

Here is what it looks like now:



3 = Barrhaven
22 = Gloucester-South Nepean

Bells Corners is in the top left of the map (not 23).

This is an older map, so it doesn't show a lot of the newer developments south of the Jock River and in some other parts of the ward.

Anyway, let's start with what to do with Bells Corners. We can add it to Barrhaven Ward, but that makes the ward's population over 72,000.  If we lob off the newer developments south of the Jock River (at least 13,500 people) and some territory in the east, we can get the population down to a reasonable number. Because of all of the developments, it's hard to guess exactly the estimated population, but I think this would put us at around 41,000 people. With the addition of Bells Corners to this ward, I suggest renaming it to Barrhaven-Bell ("Bell" coming from the old "Bell-South Nepean" ward.)

Next, we take a look at the other ward in the south end; the awkwardly named, and awkwardly shaped Gloucester-South Nepean. I would've been very opposed to the creation of this ward during the last redistribution, but here we are. We could lump off the far-away developments in the east, but there is no where for them to go (neighbouring Gloucester-Southgate is too big as it is). But if we lump off everyone west of Woodroffe (~13000 people) we get down to 40,000, with room for more developments. Despite the bad name, the changes don't necessitate a name change per se.

So, what are we left with? Somewhere in the 41-42K range living in the newer developments south of the Jock River, plus some parts north of it that used to be in the other wards. You will also note that I have straightened the southern boundary of the ward. The original ward boundary followed the urban growth boundary, which is why its weird like that. However, that area is beginning to be developed and has crossed over the line, so it makes sense to alter the boundary down to Barnsdale Rd.
This ward I would call Jockvale, as that's the name of a now-replaced village in the area and because the ward traverses the Jock River.

Map:

[Hatman 🍁]

Wow!  Let me guess, your boss was out of town today.

Just watching the Raptors game and getting re-jiggy with it.  Please let me know if these four wards are an improvement on my original proposal.

O.K. So how long does it take to get a picture approved?

Slow work day. I too was watching the Raptors, so just checking in now (also, a bit hungover from said watching )

This map is pretty good, I'd say! The only issue is it deviates too much from the current map.

One improvement I might offer is moving the Riverside apartments from Capital Ward to Alta Vista. The result is a transfer of about 4,000 people. It always bothered me how that bit was in Capital Ward. I know from reading past reports that the justification was that those apartments are separated from the rest of the neighbourhood (Riverview Park) by train tracks, which don't really have any crossing points. (At the time, there was an illegal crossing so people could shop at the Alta Vista shopping centre, and so people like me could access the Transitway from the other side.  CN has since built large ditches to prevent such crossings ) Anyway, there is now a legitimate crossing of the train tracks at the new Hospital link, so you can now justify the area's connection to the rest of Riverview Park. There is also the fact that the area is technically within the borders of the Riverview Park Community Association, though I suspect few in the area go to any meetings.

[Hatman 🍁]

Krago's Proposed Ottawa Ward Map - Now with Option 2!

Interesting. What I'd really like to see is a 23 ward map that preserves the three rural wards. Now that would be a challenge.

Oh, and it's Knoxdale (not Knoxville).

[Hatman 🍁]

Krago's Proposed Ottawa Ward Map - Now with Option 2!

Interesting. What I'd really like to see is a 23 ward map that preserves the three rural wards. Now that would be a challenge.

Oh, and it's Knoxdale (not Knoxville).

Fixed.  And check out the new Vanier/Rockcliffe configuration.

More aesthetically pleasing (compact wards), but demographically horrendous. You've divided the francophone populations and having Rockcliffe Park/New Edinburgh and Lower Town in the same ward seems... offensive (though they were in the same ward briefly from 1980 to 1994). Of course, Rideau-Rockcliffe Ward's current boundaries lump wealthy Rockcliffe Park with poorer Overbrook, so no matter how you divide the area, you're going to have to have a ward with a large wealth disparity. I suppose if you wanted to have a ward for rich people, you could create a wealthy ward that extends from New Edinburgh into Beacon Hill, but that would be a bit messy.

Oh, and I oppose "Byward-Rockcliffe" as the ward name. The Byward market is literally named after By Ward, a ward that existed until 1972 (and the name lived on until 1994 with the "By-Rideau" name.  Rideau-Rockcliffe would be a good name for this ward (even though it's very different from the current ward with this name).

[Hatman 🍁]

ok, slow day again this morning, so let's move on to Ottawa's western suburban hub, Kanata/Stittsville.



4 = Kanata North
6 = Stittsville
23 = Kanata South

Since the last redistribution, there was a secret shift in Stittsville's boundaries. I noticed it last year, and couldn't find anything official about its change, but I think it happened before the 2014 election. Basically, Stittsville annexed a bunch of territory where there are some new homes from Rideau-Goulbourn Ward. Makes sense. Fun fact about Stittsville Ward; it was originally called "Stittsville-Kanata West" as some of its geographic territory covered Kanata, but I don't think anyone actually lived in the Kanata part (at the time; they certainly do now, but since they're in new homes, does it really count, as Kanata hasn't existed as a municipality since 2000?)

Anyway, Stittsville getting its own ward was a bit bizarre, considering it was well under populated and even its projected future population had it being under populated (and it still is). Considering this, and the fact that it's projected to still grow a lot, I don't think it will actually change its boundaries. However, I'd personally like to see it get within 10% of our quotient (right now it's 13.5% too small), so I'm proposing lobbing off some territory from neighbouring Kanata South, which is overpopulated. First, I'm going to lob off the Bridlewood Trails subdivision (pop. ~1200). This is a new subdivision which appears on the map as being part of Kanata, but is in an area that was just outside Kanata's city limits in Goulbourn Township (which is where Stittsville is/was). So, I'm using that as justification for lobbing it off. Next, I'm going to remove all of the subdivisions west of Terry Fox Dr, which makes for a good physical boundary, as it's the major road in the area. This area is home to about 800 people. Next, I'm going to move the southern boundary of the ward to Flewellyn Road. This makes Bridlewood Trails' incorporation into the ward look better on the map, and allows for further growth in Stittsville (and adds some older estates which are sort of 'suburban' that are just south of the ward). This adds about 250 people, removing them from Rideau-Goulbourn Ward. These additions bring the ward's population up to 39,600 - just within the quotient and with room to spare. With the new additions, I propose renaming the ward Stittsville-Kanata West.

The removal of 2000 people from Kanata South to Stittsville was not enough to bring the ward's population to within 10% of the quotient. Kanata North however is underpopulated, so all we have to do is transfer the area north of Katimavik Rd to Kanata North. This area is home to about 2300 people. The existing boundary between Kanata South and Kanata North is the Queensway (a freeway), which makes for a good physical boundary, but we have to make the shift to balance populations. This brings the population of Kanata South down to 45,800 - just under the quotient. The ward has more or less filled up with houses, with no areas to grow, so this is fine; while Kanata North's population now goes up to 40,200 (under the quotient), but has a lot of room to grow. This is all very ideal going into the future.

New map:

[Hatman 🍁]

Now that we've dealt with the suburban wards, we now have the fairly easy task of making minor adjustments to the wards within the Greenbelt. Going down our ward list, the first one outside the quotient is Gloucester-Southgate, which is 10.03% over the quotient. So, we don't have to do much to get it to a reasonable size.

Here is the map of the current boundaries:

(Source: City of Ottawa)

So, we have to remove a few people from the ward. We have a few options, as there are a few subdivisions that are separated from the core population of the ward. I've boiled them down to 4.

- Heatherington: This area in the north part of the ward has a population of 4900 and is separated from the rest of the ward by railway tracks and has more in common with the Heron Gate neighbourhood to its north (both areas are socio-economically deprived and have a large immigrant population). This would bring the ward down to a population of 42,600, very close to the quotient.

- Cedardale: This area in the west part of the ward has a population of 300 and is separated from the rest of the ward by the Airport. This shift would bring the ward population down to 47,200 (9.3% above the quotient).

- Kempark: This area in the south part of the ward has a population of 250 and is separated from the rest of the ward by the greenbelt. This bring's the ward population to 47,250 (9.5% above quotient)

- Mer Blue: This is a swamp/conservation area on the rest side of the ward which is home to just 25 people. It's separated from the rest of the ward by the 417 expressway. Removing this makes sense, but is not enough to reduce the ward's population to below the quotient. Actually, this gives me a good idea; we could also remove all of the rural parts of this ward. The remaining rural parts of the ward in the south and east are home to about 100 people (125 including Mer Bleue). This gets us to about 47,400 or 9.7% over the quotient.

Given these options, I think I like #4 the best. The neighbouring inner greenbelt wards (Alta Vista and River) are over the quotient (River is over 10%), so moving Heatherington or Cedardale would make those wards even more over the quotient. We could put Kempark into Gloucester-South Nepean, but Kempark is actually an older suburban village and so is demographically different than the rest of the newer homes in Gloucester-South Nepean. But, if we remove the rural parts, we remove a community of interest that does not belong in an inner-green belt ward, and we can add to the populations of the under populated rural wards. I propose moving all the rural parts of the ward to Osgoode (including Mer Bleue). While the 417 makes for a good physical boundary, it actually bifurcates the village of Ramsayville, which should be in one ward.

Here is the proposed boundary shift:

[Hatman 🍁]

ok, next on the list is Rideau-Vanier. The City's population estimate for this ward is 49,632- which is much larger than the Census population (41,649). What's going on here? Are the condos going up that fast? Does the ward have that many homeless people? I'm not exactly sure. But if it does have nearly 50,000 people, it's much too large. However, 41.5k would be perfect.

Here's a map:


Source: City of Ottawa

Anyway, we're using the city's estimates, so this ward will need to shrink. Now, at present the ward combines traditionally working class, and Francophone neighbourhoods east of downtown. It's eastern section is Vanier, which was its own city until 2000. At first glance it seems like it would make the most sense to carve this area up as a solution to reducing the ward's population. But I'd rather not cut up Vanier, one of the city's most culturally significant neighbourhoods. But no matter what we do, we're going to have to cut up one of the city's important neighbourhoods, as every neighbourhood in the ward I would say is important.

There are three wards that bound Rideau-Vanier; Rideau-Rockcliffe which encircles Vanier on the east, Somerset on the west, and Capital which shares a small border between the Canal and the Rideau River on the south. Out of these three wards, Capital has the smallest population and is below 10% of the quotient, so could use some territory.

The most important community in the ward is the francophone community. The decision to lump Vanier with the historically Francophone Lowertown neighbourhood and the bilingual University of Ottawa (and its student ghetto, Sandy Hill) was not accidental when this ward was formed. Sandy Hill is not as Francophone as the rest of the ward, and is the neighbourhood which bounds Capital Ward.  While I hate to cut up Sandy Hill, I think it makes the most sense to give some of it to Capital Ward.


(Map of % French as Mother tongue, made using censusmapper.ca)

If you're going to cut up Sandy Hill, it makes the most sense to use Laurier. Looking at a map of the francophone populations, the area north of Laurier appears more french than the area south. Sandy Hill south of Laurier has about 6500 people (depending on where the ward's estimate vs. census discrepancy is, which I assume is more likely in the ByWard market or Lowertown, not Sandy Hill). Giving this area to Capital Ward gives Rideau-Vanier a population of about 43,100 and Capital Ward 44,800. Both are close to the quotient. 

So, here is the new map:

[Hatman 🍁]

ok, the last ward we have to deal with is River Ward. With 48,566 people it is 12.5% above the quotient.

Map:

Source: City of Ottawa

River is a really weird ward, made up of the left overs other wards didn't have the capacity for. It lumps very different neighbourhoods together which are separated by the Rideau River, railroads and an entire farm (Central Experimental Farm).

Looking at the map, the most obvious place to cut from the ward is the little pan handle in the east, Ellwood.  Ellwood has about 2800 people. It can either join Gloucester-Southgate to the south or Alta Vista to the north. Gloucester-Southgate if you will recall, is just under the 10% cutoff of the quotient, so not a good idea. And adding it to Alta Vista will also put that ward over the 10% mark. Hmm... anything else we can do?

We can't move anything in the south because adding it to neighbouring Gloucester-Southgate is a non stater. We'll have to look elsewhere. Moving anything in the middle of the ward would make it too skinny. Hmm.. Howabout something in the northwest corner? This area appears to be one neighbourhood, but is in fact two; the older much larger Carlington and the newer Central Park subdivision (which includes a bunch of streets named after places in New York, including a Trump Street. Sad!). Carlington is much too big to remove, and would isolate Central Park. But we can remove Central Park.

Central Park's population of 3900 is much larger than Ellwood, but neighbouring Knoxdale-Merivale is under populated (8.6% below the quotient), so can handle a new neighbourhood. It can also go to College Ward (now slightly below the quotient, thanks to the removal of Bells Corners). I'm going to put it in Knoxdale-Merivale, as it's smaller.

So, that leaves River with a new population of 44,700 and Knoxdale-Merivale with a population of 44,400.

New map:

[Hatman 🍁]

Controversial!

I don't like the name "Renfrew" for that riding. The riding's current name is terrible (I would go with "Renfrew-Algonquin" myself), but tacking on anything to it would make it worse. I wonder if a completely new name would be popular: "Upper Ottawa Valley"?.

I'd probably keep the Kanata-Carleton name instead of re-naming it Kanata-Bell. And I'd drop the "South" from Leeds-Grenville-South Lanark. 

[Hatman 🍁]

Controversial!

I don't like the name "Renfrew" for that riding. The riding's current name is terrible (I would go with "Renfrew-Algonquin" myself), but tacking on anything to it would make it worse. I wonder if a completely new name would be popular: "Upper Ottawa Valley"?.

The trouble with "Renfrew-Algonquin" is that the heart (or most "developed" part) of Algonquin Park is in Nipissing-Timiskaming--though one could always annex that into the riding, unless that made things too geographically unmanageable.  (Maybe "Renfrew-Madawaska-Pembroke" as an alternative?)

I'd probably keep the Kanata-Carleton name instead of re-naming it Kanata-Bell. And I'd drop the "South" from Leeds-Grenville-South Lanark. 

Or invert it to Leeds-Grenville-Lanark South, kind of like Northumberland-Peterborough South.  (Which is a deceiving name, as the "Peterborough South" is P'boro *County*, not the city)

Algonquin Park isn't really developed at all. The only municipality in Nipissing District in the riding is South Algonquin, hence why I'd rather have Algonquin in the name than "Nipissing".

Northumberland-Peterborough South is also a dumb name. Not sure why they changed it from the originally planned "Northumberland-Pine Ridge". I suppose the "South" was needed to differentiate it from the city in someway. Not really a problem with Lanark (although there is a small village in the county also called Lanark).

[Hatman 🍁]

You need a name for the new Leeds-Grenville riding (Leeds-Grenville-Frontenac is the obvious choice).

Barrhaven doesn't work as a name, because a lot of the riding (everything north of Fallowfield) doesn't live in Barrhaven (Orleans is a bit different, as only about 10% live outside of Orleans). "Nepean South" would be a better name. Also, why just "Kanata". Most of the geographical part of the riding is outside of Kanata. Looks like most of the rural area is in what used to be Huntley Twp, so why not go with "Kanata-Huntley"?

[Hatman 🍁]

If I were making rules for riding names, one of them would be that any part of the riding that makes up at least 10% of the riding's population should be represented in the riding's name. If that makes things messy, then the riding needs to adopt very broad, all-encompassing name.

[Hatman 🍁]

I think with the BQ has the balance of power there is no way they will let the government reduce the number of seats in Quebec. I mean, even the NDP was able to convince the Tories to give seats to Quebec in the last redistribution.

[Hatman 🍁]

Is it possible to get a Subject renamed?

Yes, just edit the subject line in the first post.

[Hatman 🍁]

No appetite to increase council size? smh.

I think Calgary's wards are second only to Toronto's in terms of population size. Edmonton must not be far behind.

[Hatman 🍁]

not a big fan of that Barrie split.

[Hatman 🍁]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/new-ward-boundaries-proposed-for-edmonton-ahead-of-2021-election/wcm/4c694988-2d44-4413-94ed-4f9d98b1be75/amp/

http://daveberta.ca/2020/05/new-ward-boundaries-could-shake-up-edmontons-2021-election/

https://albertapolitics.ca/2020/05/guest-post-by-john-ashton-dont-let-inner-city-ward-7s-needs-be-forgotten-in-edmontons-new-ward-map/

Upset that they're not considering adding a seat or two, or more.

[Hatman 🍁]

Ottawa's ward boundary review options report is out. I had no idea they were taking feedback from public on this, and there was even a survey on it. >-( Oh well, plenty of time to participate going forward. Apparently, more people wanted to increase the size of council than decrease! I doubt Ford will let us get away with increasing council size. There are five options in the report, two status quo (23 wards), one  that decreases to 17 wards, and two that increase (24 and 25). All of the maps are terrible, gerrymandered monstrosities. I explained earlier in this thread how a 24 map would be best and how it would have the least affect on the current ward boundaries. Anyway, here is the report: https://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/cache/2/e2ekqhmi0gcwyjw3dsb022uv/64527106262020093259974.PDF

[Hatman 🍁]

A bit off topic, but Ksituan also has a DeviantArt with some cool stuff - a lot of it fictional, but RL maps of all Canadian things political as well.

His map of Alberta truly is a work of art.

[Hatman 🍁]

Edmonton’s Indigenous Ward Naming Knowledge Committee has released its recommendations on municipal Ward names for the 2021 election: https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/city_organization/indigenous-ward-naming-knowledge-committee.aspx. City council will debate the report on Sept. 21.

Cool idea. It's going to be fun for locals to try and pronounce some these, though. Especially Ward 10.

[Hatman 🍁]

Guelph Council composition report recommends eight full-time councillors, one per ward

I know what I'm doing this weekend.

What a catch-22. I oppose reducing the size of councils, but support having one councillor per ward.

[Hatman 🍁]

General question on redistribution. I've been reading many people want to get out of city to go to suburbs or more rural place because there is more space for families when you have to stay home and now more people work from home so less need to be near downtown.

There is a census coming. Is it possible there is a population shift that could have some effects for the next redistribution? Or is the effect if it exists very small and doesn't matter. There is also less immigration and I think for federal purposes they take into account everyone even if not voters.

The next census is only next May. Do you think there's going to be a lot of people moving before then?

[Hatman 🍁]

Decent job. I know how difficult dividing Guelph's south end is. I split it up nearly the exact same way when I made an 8 seat Wellington County map (from an ongoing project I'm doing of a 508 seat Ontario Legislative Assembly, maintaining county borders)

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm reminded of when the NS NDP got rid of the protected franco ridings and the African riding, and people got upset. Not saying they lost the election because of that, but these kinds of things can be unpopular. Best to sneakily increase the size of the legislature by adding seats in the Lower Mainland.