Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Decline and growth in great Canadian cities : an analysis of changing population distribution in the… Tinney, Jonathan 2004

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2004-0664.pdf [ 8.32MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0091692.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0091692-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0091692-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0091692-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0091692-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0091692-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0091692-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0091692-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0091692.ris

Full Text

DECLINE AND GROWTH IN GREAT CANADIAN CITIES: An Analysis of Changing Population Distribution in the Greater Toronto Region from 1991 to 2001 BY JONATHAN TINNEY B.A (Honours), Queen's University, 2002 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS (PLANNING) In THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 2004 © Jonathan Tinney, 2004 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Library Authorization In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. I* /cn /-zoos Name of Author (please print) Date (dd/mm/yyyy) Title of Thesis: Q)JuSX^<& Cx^-h G?vrovcAV I V \ b"Tg-QL-V~ Qfr^/vO-dIOon & 4" t •€*&'' h a ^ W - T C X / O ^ V V Q \|2ec^o^ - 6 ^ ^ \ ^ \ d-o 1nm\. Degree: ^ g S . W b O r r W K CvPlo^ty;^ Year: 0 .00 4 artmentof (_£>V\*^\\*V\\ C V M ^ ^ O A O < , \ \ ^ I < U \ V ^ . C University of British Columbia \ N <] Depart ent The Vancouver, BC Canada grad.ubc.ca/forms/?formlD=THS page 1 of 1 last updated: 20-Jul-04 Abstract The macro-growth of Canada's cities has been well documented in the media and in scholarly journals in recent years. What has not been discussed to the same degree however, is the pattern that emerges across individual regions when growth is mapped at a smaller scale. By looking at population and density changes at the micro-scale, this analysis looks to capture the distribution of population change that occurred within the borders of Canada's largest metropolitan region over the 1990s. Through the use of census tract-level data for the Toronto CMA collected by Statistics Canada during the years 1991 and 2001 this analysis looks to provide a detailed snapshot of the geography of population changes in the Greater Toronto Area during the 1990s, and document changes in the overall form of Toronto's urban structure. The findings of this report show that urban development has tended toward increasing levels of diffusion and decentralization. This poses a number of distinct challenges to regional planning in the region, most notably in terms of the implementation of the Ontario government's Places to Grow plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe Area. II Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4 2.1 Research Rationale 4 2.2 Defining the Methodology 7 2.3 Why Toronto? 9 2.4 A Brief History of Development in Greater Toronto 10 3.0 THEORIES OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 15 3.1 A Persistent Question 15 3.2 The Chicago School of Social Ecology 16 3.3 Chicago School Models of Urban Development 17 3.4 More Recent Theories of Urban Structure 22 3.5 The Centrists 23 3.6 The Decentrists 26 4.0 EMERGING PATTERNS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 31 4.1 From Observation to Theory 31 4.2 Emerging Trends in the US 32 4.3 Emerging Trends in Canada 36 5.0 RESEARCH FINDINGS 39 5.1 Patterns of Population Growth and Decline 39 5.2 More or Less Dense? 44 5.3 Finding the Centre 50 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 54 6.1 Implications for Theory 54 6.2 Implications for Planning Policy in the GTA 55 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 58 8.0 APPENDIX 64 iii List of Maps and Tables Map 1: Study Area (Greater Toronto CMA) 3 Map 2: Population Change by Census Tract 1991 -2001 42 Map 3: Dwelling Unit Change by Census Tract 1991 -2001 46 Map 4: Population Density Change by Census Tract 1991 -2001 47 Map 5: Change in Avg. household by Census Tract 1991-2001 49 Table 1: Population Growth by Regional Sub-Area 40 Table 2: Where the Growth Went in the Region 41 Table 3: Average Change in Household Size City vs. Suburb '91 -2001 48 Table 4: Decreasing Average Household Size in Town Centres 50 Table 5: Population Centrality Ratio: City vs. Suburb (Pop/Ha) 51 Table 6: Employment Growth: City vs. Suburb 52 Table 7: Employment Centrality Ratio: Centre vs. CMA (Jobs/Ha) 52 IV Chapter 1 1.0 Introduction Toronto, it has been said, is like "Vienna surrounded by Phoenix"; a reference made to the starkly different urban forms that have emerged in the Toronto region over the past 200 years. Toronto's dense urban core, with its numerous Edwardian and Victorian buildings is literally surrounded by the cul-de-sacs and ranch homes of the post-war era, and the freeways and sprawling monster homes of the late 20 t h century. Currently, the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is the third fastest growing region in North America. The area already generates nearly two-thirds of Ontario's gross domestic product and is expected to grow by four million people and two million jobs in the next three decades (GHK, 2002). This rapid population growth however, has actually been outpaced by the growth of land use over the past 30 years. Between 1967 and 1999, population in the GTA increased 190 percent, while the amount of urbanized land in the region increased by some 360 percent. In order to meet anticipated future population demand, residential building projects will consume some 1,000 square kilometres of the surrounding countryside, an area double the size of the current City of Toronto, by 2031 (Ibid., 2002). Recent change in the political power structure within both the province of Ontario and many of the region's municipalities have begun to shift the policy emphasis toward dealing with the externalities associated with Toronto's growth in the shorter rather than the longer term. A recent plan released by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal entitled Places to Grow: Better Choices, Brighter Future seeks to limit growth to 26 key urban areas over the next 30 years. The report provides policy directions aimed at the creation of a plan that would direct regional population growth into areas such as the Toronto waterfront, North York Centre, Scarborough Town Centre and Yonge-Eglinton Centre, as well as into the downtown areas of neighbouring 1 municipalities (15 so-called "emerging urban centres" such as Markham, Vaughan and Newmarket) in an attempt to redistribute population growth into a number of central areas around the region, stem sprawl and create a "more livable and sustainable urban region" (MPIR, 2004). A laudable goal to be certain, but actions such as these require a detailed understanding of previous growth within the region. What we see at the edges of Toronto we call sprawl, but what is sprawl? Is it simply the by-product of weak planning or might it be part of a larger trend in North American urban development that is moving away from the centralized cities of the past and toward some future form of diffuse and decentralized urban agglomeration? This is an important question to answer as governments and public agencies attempt to rein in urban expansion in the GTA. If, as some recent literature suggests, cities no longer grow in the compact, rational manner that they did up until the 1950s, and a postmodern form of urbanism is emerging, it is critical that policy responses be adapted to meet the new challenges that this creates. But first, one must determine if these new types of decentralized and disjointed urbanism are occurring or if the sprawling suburban development that has occurred over the past several decades simply masks a different form of centralized metropolis. The Greater Toronto Area stretches across much of south-central Ontario, crossing a number of jurisdictions and encompassing numerous municipalities and regional governments. For the purposes of this study, the Toronto CMA will refer to the Statistics Canada definition which includes the new amalgamated city of Toronto (encompassing the former suburbs of York, North York, East York, Scarborough and Etobicoke) as well as the Durham, Halton, York and Peel regions (See Map 1 for more details). By mapping population changes across the Toronto CMA at the census tract level, an assessment of population change, density change and relative centrality patterns will be undertaken to allow for a 2 determination of the overall pattern of growth and/or decline across the region. The outcome will determine whether or not the new growth occurring in the GTA between 1991 and 2001 fits with the traditional, centralized structural models of urban development, or whether it better matches with the disjointed, disparate and postmodern urbanism observed by researchers in recent years. MAP 1: STUDY AREA (GREATER TORONTO CMA) Above: Map of the area of study showing the amalgamated City of Toronto (inclusive of the former inner-ring suburbs), as well as the four suburban regions that surround the city. Overall, the purpose of this inquiry is to analyze the growth in and around the Toronto region throughout the 1990s and assess the form of development that is emerging. Is the urban structure of Toronto becoming more or less diffuse? Is the tendency toward centralization breaking down in the region? It is these questions that provide the basis for inquiry in this analysis and will provide some insight in the form that the Greater Toronto Area will take in years to come. Chapter 2 2.0 Research Methodology 2.1 RESEARCH RATIONALE This paper uses census data collected by Statistics Canada during the years 1991 and 2001 to provide a detailed spatial snapshot of the population changes in the Greater Toronto Area during the 1990s. The reason for this choice is twofold: First, a review of the literature suggests that the late 1990s represent a time of distinct shifts in urban development in North America. As will be discussed below, this decade represents an era when the eroding importance of the central city began to accelerate, as the make-up of North America's suburbs became increasingly diversified. It was also during this period that the lines between central city and suburb became increasingly blurred and hard to define, providing a strong impetus for research and study. Second, largely in response to this blurring of urban forms, urban policy during the 1990s tended toward encouraging a form of recentralization within the metropolis through a number of strategies such as, downtown revitalization, the creation of town centre nodes within the region or through New Urbanist plans to create central places within suburban greenfield developments (see GVRD, 1996; Orfield, 2002; Bunting, 2003 etc.). This led to a situation where two competing trends dominated urban development over the last decade; a decentralizing trend within the urban development market, and a recentralizing preference among urban decision-makers. The outcome of this decade-long tug-of-war has only recently been studied and discussed in any depth and the real pattern of urban growth over this period is not yet entirely understood. As the goal of this paper is to determine that pattern within the Greater Toronto Area, the research methodology utilized for this analysis must capture a scale that showcases both centralizing and decentralizing 4 forces, while simultaneously determining which force seems to be dominant. The goal here is to provide some direction to policy, based on a clearer understanding of the emerging form of metropolitan structure in the GTA. As stated in the introduction, the Province of Ontario (MPIR, 2004) has created a new regional plan to govern urban development in the Greater Toronto Region. The goal of this plan is to shape growth in the region into designated growth areas creating a poly-nuclear region of urban centres. How well this plan works depends a great deal on an understanding of the nature of urban structure in the region. It is to that end that this analysis looks to determine the relative trend toward or away from centralization in the region. That the overall population of almost all of Canada's census metropolitan areas increased over the 1990s is not a new fact, and that the population of the Toronto CMA increased over that same period should be even less surprising. What is more interesting however is the pattern that emerges across the region when that growth is mapped at a smaller scale. By looking at the city at such a scale, this analysis is able to capture the exact population change that occurred within the city's borders over the decade, and its distribution at the neighbourhood level. Toward that end, this analysis uses census data on changes in population, dwelling units, and family structure at the census tract level, as well as census subdivision-level employment numbers to determine both the extent and the geography of growth and decline across the metropolitan region. Census tracts are among the smallest geographic entities for which Statistics Canada tabulates census data. Using consistent tract definitions harmonized to reflect 1991 census tract boundaries, the findings of this paper were determined by tabulating population and demographic changes in each tract between 1991 and 2001. Please note that throughout this survey, the word "neighbourhood" is used interchangeably wi th "census tract" as they are roughly analogous to one another. 5 This scope of inquiry is not a new one. For example, studies from as early as the 1940s and 1950s examined census tract population change patterns by their proximity to the city center (Thompson, 1947). However, the issue of neighbourhood population change retains its relevance and deserves scrutiny for fiscal, social, economic, and political reasons. Neighbourhood population growth can raise local property values, attract commercial development and create job growth, all of which can improve city-wide fiscal conditions. On the other hand, neighbourhood population decline may suggest disinvestment in a given neighbourhood and may result in negative impacts on neighbourhood quality (Scarfidi, 1998). This is increasingly important given that a number of negative externalities have been directly correlated with more diffuse forms of urban development. These externalities include such things as: traffic congestion (Black 1996; Downs, 1999), environmental contamination (Sierra Club, 1998), income segregation of neighbourhoods (Downs, 1998), the mismatch between jobs and housing (Orfield, 1997), local fiscal disparities (Burchell et. al., 1998), and civic alienation (Popenoe, 1979). More broadly, those concerned about the overall population trajectory of cities should be interested in whether all types of neighbourhoods contributed to city growth or shared in city decline. Further and more pressing to this paper, neighbourhood-level analysis of population change (when performed in conjunction with an analysis of other economic and demographic data) can provide insight into the overall pattern of development emerging within the metropolis, especially as it relates to the relative centralization or decentralization of the region. Two cities that experience similar levels of overall population growth may differ greatly in the distribution of where that growth took place, leading to the emergence of a vastly different metropolitan form. One city may experience downtown revitalization and growth while losing population in neighborhoods on its struggling suburban fringe; another may undergo a "hollowing out" with population loss in the city center 6 but growth in outlying neighborhoods. Determining the pattern of growth emerging within a given urban region can provide valuable insight into past policies and inform new policies aimed at effectively managing the growth of a given urban region for the positive benefit of its populace. Current planning methods are, to varying degrees, based on a rational assumption of urban development. Modern land use planning presupposes that growth can be controlled and shaped through the use of a number of regulatory 'levers' that are based on a rational understanding of urban development. However, if a new form of urban structure is emerging, it becomes increasingly important that the patterns and drivers of this new structure are acknowledged in order to allow for the creation of new levers that facilitate effective planning of the urban realm. 2.2 DEFINING THE METHODOLOGY What is meant by terms such as deconcentration or centralization within the context of metropolitan development? The concept behind both these terms (and many more) is often discussed but seldom defined despite its direct relationship to such oft-debated issues such as failing urban downtowns and suburban sprawl. Galster et. al. (2002) in their paper "Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an Elusive Concept" try to quantify and operationalize the measurement of urban diffusion or sprawl in a manner that can be used by urban decision-makers. They define sprawl as: ...a pattern of land use in an urban area that exhibits low levels of some combination of eight distinct dimensions: density, continuity, concentration, clustering, centrality, nuclearity, mixed uses, and proximity. (Galster et al, 2002) While comprehensive, this definition and the subsequent criteria that it defines are not without overlap and are beyond the scale of this inquiry. However, this definition does provide a good starting point to the 7 creation of a methodology that can be used to define the changing level of urban diffusion within the Toronto region and help to ascertain whether the trend of urban development in Toronto leans toward or away from increasing concentration. Unlike the -analysis done by Galster this paper will not attempt to empirically compare different metropolitan regions and determine whether each is more or less diffuse in its form in relation to the other. This assessment instead looks to compare one metropolitan region over time and assess changes in the distribution of urban development throughout the 1990s. For the purposes of this analysis, the criteria used by Galster et. al will be modified into three aggregate tendencies emphasizing changing population, density and the tendency to centralize, at a scale more appropriate to the purposes of this inquiry. By observing patterns of population change, density change and relative centrality over a ten year period, the trend of urban development in Toronto over that period can be generally determined. Simply put, is it becoming more or less diffuse? The three observed tendencies used to answer this question can be defined more specifically as: Population Change. This criterion looks specifically at the general pattern of population change across the metropolis. Which areas (as defined by census tracts) are increasing in population? Which are declining? Is population growth exhibiting centralizing tendencies, such as congregating in defined growth areas? Density Change. This criterion, much like population change above is concerned with the changing pattern of population/dwelling density across the region and how it applies to overall urban concentration. Is density increasing or decreasing generally across the region? To what extent is the pattern of density correlating with areas of development concentration in the region? 8 Relative Centrality. This term refers to employment and population density ratios between city and suburb. This provides a general index that takes into account both population and density to establish whether the central city (which in this case takes into account policy-defined growth nodes) is gaining or losing ground in proportional terms to the outlying areas. Is the city increasing or decreasing its importance relative to the suburbs? Is the tendency of growth in the region focused on central places or is there another more scattered target for regional growth? 2.3 WHY TORONTO? Toronto provides an ideal Canadian case study for the analysis of urban growth dynamics in the 1990s. As will be explained in greater detail in later sections, Toronto represents a large, rapidly growing urban agglomeration, with few natural boundaries to impede or shape its growth. Its age and employment structure favour a central city, while simultaneous market forces and the lack of regional governance (that includes the outer suburban growth areas) has allowed for the same form of decentralized growth observed elsewhere in North America. This tension between the Toronto that existed at the turn of the 19th century and the Toronto that emerged at the turn of the 20 t h century makes this region an interesting area of study. To better understand the spatial patterns of growth and decline within the Toronto region, the metropolis was divided into three "rings" based upon existing or historical political division, and relative age of development, as well as their relative distance from the city's central business district (CBD). While these tract groups do not form perfect concentric rings (because the region is not circular), for ease of description, we refer to the groups as "Central City", "Inner Ring" and "Outer Ring." These three areas roughly parallel the old city core of Toronto (Central City); the now-amalgamated post-war suburbs of Scarborough, Etobicoke, York, North York, and East York (Inner Ring); and newer suburban centres outside the amalgamated city in York, Peel, Halton, 9 and Durham Regions (Outer Ring). These rings form a rough guide that generally follows the era in which each section developed, with the 19th century Central City at the core, the post-war suburbs in the Inner-Ring, and the post-1970s outer suburbs making up the Outer Ring. 2.4 A BRIEF HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT IN GREATER TORONTO Toronto, like many other towns in the central part of this country started as a "planned" community sometime in the 1790s. Its sheltered port, access to the rural hinterland and proximity to the US border made it an attractive place for settlement by migrating United Empire Loyalists who moved north after the American Revolution. The growth of this new settlement occurred haphazardly in fringe developments and was plagued by number of social problems - notably poor sanitation and housing conditions. Overall growth was uneven, characterized by frequent booms and busts. The city's population reached 10,000 in 1835, 30,000 in 1850, and 500,000 by 1915 (Municipality of Metro Toronto, 1993). THE EARLY 20 t h CENTURY The turn of the century witnessed a pace of growth that could only be called frenetic, and with it came a number of sporadic efforts to address the social consequences of that growth. This was also the city's first foray into the creation of formal "plans". These plans tended to replicate the predominant city-building ideals of the time, most notably the "city beautiful" and "city monumental" movements. None of these plans were ever implemented, however they did work to foster a legacy of knowledge and local organization that would build a foundation for the more robust planning efforts of the post-war period (Ibid, 1993). THE POST-WAR ERA As population growth in the region accelerated in the post-war era, the frameworks available for regulating land use and urban development were increasingly strained. The pressure became evident in the rising costs of servicing fringe developments, decaying infrastructure, increased traffic congestion and a shortage of housing that drove many beyond the city's borders looking for suitable options. 10 Very quickly, the need for new forms of legislative and regulatory tools to respond to the city's hectic growth was realized. As early as 1946, the province passed a new and relatively progressive Planning Act that encouraged municipalities to develop official plans for their respective communities. At about the same time, the City of Toronto produced a plan that encompassed the entire region, laying the groundwork for a 30-year trajectory of growth (Ibid., 1993). THE METRO EXPERIMENT Despite a flurry of activity over the next several years, few public sector decisions made during that period have had any observable effect on Toronto's growth - save for one. In 1953 the provincial government created the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. This act, perhaps one of the most important in Toronto's history, combined the City of Toronto and 12 local municipalities (reduced to six in 1966) into a two-tier government structure for the entire region. It divided functions between the two-tiers and even allowed Metro to exert some planning control on those lands beyond its official borders. While the Metro experiment has both its proponents and critics (see Lemon, 1996; Frisken et. al., 1997) there is little doubt that it provided a workable model by which to effectively manage a growing urban region. Through its economies of scale, Metro was able to provide the region with new infrastructure, transportation options while growing the commercial tax-base of the region. It was also able to act as a very strong centralizing force, restraining the growth of new suburbs on its urban fringe, contributing to a more compact urban form. During the 1960s a number of reports (most notably the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Transportation Study (MTARTS), The Toronto Centred Region (TCR), and the Central Ontario Lakeshore Urban Complex (COLUC)) argued the case for a set of regionalized plans. The overall thrust to all of these plans was one of decentralization and reconcentration of urban growth within the surrounding regions in the form of several suburban nodes. The hope was the creation of a "constellation of downtowns" across the region, however the idea was 11 shelved (it was resurrected in the 1980s, though on a much smaller scale, and led to the creation of both the North York and Scarborough Town Centres). According to Larry Bourne, the reasons for its failure are threefold. First, the region was already too fragmented to adequately adopt a regional plan. Second, market development pressures were too strong. And third, a lack of political will within the provincial government caused by opposition to the many vested interests against to all or parts of the plan (Bourne, 1999). Driven by a new wave of immigration, and a rise in the average household size of the so-called "baby-boom" generation, the population of the GTA grew from 2.1 million in 1961, to 2.9 million in 1971 and 3.4 million in 1981. During this period, residential development in the suburbs boomed mostly in the manner of low-density, American-style bedroom communities. At the same time, the pace of redevelopment of the downtown core accelerated. As metropolitan growth continued in this manner through the 60s and into the 70s, the connection between work and home was uncoupled and pressures increased to further revise regulatory structures away from rigid, regionalist frameworks and allow more autonomy to the rapidly growing suburbs. At the same time, the growth in political power of ratepayer organizations in middle and upper-class neighbourhoods in the inner-city - galvanized by success in halting a number of proposed expressway developments - encouraged a reemphasis on the central city among urban Toronto's decision-makers. According to Bourne (1999), this confluence of local sentiment and public pressure in suburban and downtown areas seemed to contribute to a shift away from regionally-based thinking and political action. At the same time, Metro lost its planning authority in areas outside its political boundaries at precisely the same time as jobs and population were spilling over Metro's borders. With regulatory constraints removed the outer-suburbs boomed. Efforts to bring these outlying areas under the Metro umbrella during the 12 1970s were wholly unsuccessful, and instead the provincial government chose to create four new two-tiered regional governments in these suburban regions (now referred to as the 905, in reference to this region's area code). This opened these areas up to full-scale development, with no need for coordination or harmonization with the other regions. The result was to fragment the regulation of development, the provision of public service delivery and the collection of taxation revenues and set the stage for a more dispersed, lower-density, internally competitive, and auto-dependent region (Ibid., 1999). THE 1980S ONWARD In the two decades since, a number of new plans and strategies have been brought forth though few have been implemented. In fact the 1980s could be seen as a lost decade, as during this period little or no investment was made in public transit, housing production slowed and the region's municipal governments faced decreasing levels of provincial and federal subsidy. Booming local economic growth however, caused a region-wide building boom which resurrected plans for nodal development across the region and saw the creation of several regional town centres within the central city and the suburbs. At the same time, the outward drive of suburban growth continued unabated as the cost of housing and commercial space increased and residents and businesses were compelled to look for real estate outside the central city. It was during this period that the balance of jobs in the region began to tip toward the suburbs just as the population balance had some 20 years before. The 1990s began with a deep recession that highlighted the weaknesses in the Toronto region's finance and export manufacturing economy. This economic restructuring helped to usher in a fiscally conservative provincial government in 1995 that relied on the sprawling outer suburbs of the city as its political base. Unexpectedly in 1998, Metro Toronto and its six area municipalities were amalgamated by the province into a new single-tier city of Toronto, despite considerable local opposition. 13 This represented a reorientation of the political geography in the region that worked to weaken the culture of regulation that had existed within the provincial government's municipally-related activities. According to Bourne (1999) this began a move toward what he calls "a new down-sized planning system," one that would divest even further from the regionalist philosophy espoused in the 1950s and 60s that helped to maintain the centralizing forces at play in the Toronto metropolis and would instead foster a more fragmented, divergent and competitive urban region. Bourne describes this new planning regime as: ...more modest, more decentralized, and more flexible and permissive in application; it also became more privatized. This new culture, driven by deregulation, is akin to a "corporate" model of planning; supported by a neo-conservative philosophy of "leave-it-to-the-market" (Ibid., 1999) What we have seen in the preceding section is a snapshot of the history of urban growth in Toronto and the planning regimes that have tried to shape it. What is apparent is the slow progression away from a dense, compact, centralized region. Despite a great deal of lip service being paid to refocusing and recentralizing the region, fragmented jurisdictions and contradictory regulatory systems have worked to undermine that work, leaving the market to determine the growth of the city for at least the last few decades. 14 Chapter 3 3.0 Theories of Urban Development 3.1 A PERSISTENT QUESTION As cities have evolved over time, so to have the theories that attempt to describe, explain and predict urban growth and development. Since their earliest manifestations, the physical geography of human settlements have been shaped through a process of mediation between political, social and economic systems; or more basically, a negotiation between how space is governed and how it is ultimately used. Urban analysis emerged from the discipline of epidemiology (Park, 1926). It is here that knowledge of the physical and social make-up of the city was thought to be of extreme importance in order to predict and ultimately to prevent the spread of diseases that flourished within certain parts of the city. The ultimate goal here, was to gain an understanding of the process that urban places went through over time, with the implicit belief that understanding would lead to control of these processes and ultimately to greater human health and well-being. But as cities grew larger and more complex, the study of that growth also began to grow and diversify. What began as an analysis of cause and effect to determine the proper distribution of land uses within small defined areas has grown to become a multi-causal study of intricate, over-lapping dynamics that fuel and shape the growth of whole metropolitan city-regions. The study of adjacent uses has become a study of adjacent people - a much more difficult and varied problem. Numerous methods have been employed to map out the current and future development of North America's burgeoning metropolitan regions. In the early days urbanists observed patterns of housing settlement, employment relationships, goods transactions, social sorting, and transportation network development in the hope that one or a combination of these factors would provide some insight into the manner in which cities developed. Over time a host of micro-theories 15 emerged dealing with one or a few facets of the city's development, however few macro-level theories of urban structure emerged. It was not until the early part of the 20 t h century that a school of thought began to emerge out of the University of Chicago which this theoretical hole. 3.2 THE CHICAGO SCHOOL OF SOCIAL ECOLOGY By far, one of the most valuable and persistent models used to describe the dynamics of urban interactions and metropolitan development was developed in the 1920s by sociologists at the University of Chicago. Researchers such as Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, Homer Hoyt and Roderick McKenzie, developed an approach to urban analysis which borrowed concepts and ideas from the field of ecology, and applied them to studying the human relationship with its physical and social environment; a field of study they deemed, human ecology. Through the use of language that included many basic ecological concepts used to describe social groupings and processes like community, invasion, succession, adaptation, dominance, disturbance and competition, human ecology advanced the idea that cities are "the outward manifestation of processes of spatial competition and adaptation by social groups which correspond to the ecological struggle for environmental adaptation found in nature" (Park, 1926). In its earliest versions, human ecology viewed the urban development process as producing and maintaining equilibrium. This equilibrium resulted from a struggle for survival of different communities where the most powerful actors occupied the best locations in the city, while the rest occupied the remaining space in strict hierarchical pattern. This played itself out most often in an urban structure that expressed the dominant needs of industry and capital, followed by the fulfillment of the needs of other members of the population (Miron, 1993). The Chicago School theorists based their theories on the city around them. At the time Chicago was an ideal testing ground for observation of the social and economic patterns of metropolitan growth. During the 16 early 1900s Chicago was growing rapidly spreading out from the shores of Lake Michigan onto a flat and relatively featureless prairie. Its relative youth in physical terms, thanks to a devastating fire, meant that Chicago had few remnants of the previous medieval or mercantile city forms as the bulk of the region has been built after 1871 (Flanagan, 1993). Around Chicago there existed few major geographical features to impede or shape the city's growth save for the great lake to the east. This was coupled with the fact that the era in which the city began to expand in earnest coincided with the era in which the streetcar and later the automobile began to allow for much greater personal mobility of urban residents. All this allowed the Chicago School theorists to study a city that removed many of the barriers to residential and industrial placement that had existed before. This allowed the population of Chicago, more so than in many cities before it, to distribute itself in a manner that reflected the social and economic drivers of urban development. It was these drivers that the researchers at the University of Chicago wanted to study (Ibid., 1993). 3.3 CHICAGO SCHOOL MODELS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT What came out of the Chicago School's observations of the city were a number of now iconic models of urban development. The most cited was proposed in the early 1920s, by Robert E. Park and Ernest Burgess. This model stressed the centrality of the central business district and suggested that land uses and their social make-up were directly determined by their relative distance from that centre. According to Park: Within the area bounded on one hand by the central business district and on the other by the suburbs, the city tends to form a series of concentric circles. These different regions, located at different relative distances from the centre are characterized by different degrees of population mobility, social class and relative land values (Park, 1926). Park and Burgess elaborated at length on the characteristics of each of their "concentric rings", defining them and identifying their uses in 17 relation to the characteristics and uses of the preceding ring. As stated, at the centre of the model lies the Central Business District. It is here that the vast majority of economic activity is both generated and controlled. This area is taken to be the primary employment location and therefore the primary trip generator for the region. For the purpose of the model the centre itself is thought to be largely devoid of a resident population. Just beyond the boundaries of the CBD sits the Zone of Transition. This area is seen as being held speculatively for future CBD growth and therefore allowed to deteriorate and assume the character of a slum. According to Park this is, "an area of casual and transient population, of missions and lost souls" (Ibid., 1923). This zone represents the refuge for those with little or no residential mobility and was seen by Park and Burgess not as a necessarily problematic area within the city, but rather one that met the needs of a distinct subset of the urban population. On the edge of the transitional slums were areas already in the process of being submerged. This so-called Zone of Workingmen's Homes stands between the blight of the inner-city and the relatively more stable outer residential areas. This zone is characterized by the prevalence of rooming house areas for bohemians and transient workers, and while residential in character, there existed a certain level of population instability providing a "way-station" role as residents moved up or down in their social and economic status (Burgess, 1925). The two outermost zones of the central city consisted of what Park calls the Apartment House Zone and the Zone of Better Residences. The former, as its title suggests, is made up of apartment houses, small homes and family businesses. Park refers to these regions as an area populated by "small families and delicatessen shops." (Ibid., 1926). The area beyond this zone consists of larger apartments and single family dwellings populated by residents who for the most part, own their homes and raise families. The difference between these two regions lies in their relative household incomes. The apartment house zone refers to the stable, long-term working-class neighbourhoods of most large cities 18 of this era. The zone of better residences on the other hand, ranges from middle-class residents to the wealthy. It is within this zone that most cities see the creation of persistent enclaves of the urban elite. Just outside the central city one finds what Park refers to as the Commuter Zone. This ring defines the periphery of the city and is made up of industrial and residential suburbs; much less dense and urban in character than the central city. This ring exhibits social characteristics similar to those in the zone of better residences with residents ranging from middle to upper-class. Beyond this ring extends expanses of farmland and forest, interspersed with a number of dormitory towns and satellite cities whose economies are directed toward the metropolis but exist in relative autonomy from the larger metropolitan structure. This model produces a conceptual geography that sees urban density decrease and relative income increase as one moves out from the centre. This concept is illustrated more clearly in the illustration to the left. If this model seems simplistic, it was intentionally so. The concentric rings model was meant as a necessary abstraction that was to be more realistically defined in its application in other urban areas. According to Park (1926): The typical urban community is actually more complicated than this description indicates and there are characteristic variations for different types and sizes of cities. The main point however, is that everywhere the community tends to conform to some pattern, and this pattern invariably turns out to be a constellation of typical urban areas, all of which can be geographically located and spatially defined. Park and Burgess placed a great deal of emphasis on geographic placement as a determinant of the social status of the population and as an antecedent to the form of change areas in the city would experience over the course of their growth. Their thinking was that as cities grew and changed representative bands of social and economic status would widen while still maintaining their relative distance from 19 the central core. The importance of mobility in the urban population can not really be overstated in this analysis. The Chicago School researchers argued that as mobility improved it became a natural measure of social change and social disorganization because social change almost always involves some incidental change of position in space. Their theories argued that in the aggregate, physical mobility would naturally produce distinct patterns of social organization in urban space. Among those refining the works of Burgess and Park were scholars such as Homer Hoyt (also of the Chicago School) who, influenced by the rise of neo-classical economics, represented the class geographies as a series of ever-widening wedges, originating in the CBD and extending outward along the linear axis of transit corridors. Hoyt saw within the city a continuous and homogenous sectoral zone of the wealthy cutting across all the concentric rings, to establish the presence of the rich in every zone, from the core to the periphery. Similar but shorter wedges formed by lower-income groups also edged out from the centre but never quite reached the "bourgeois Utopias" of the suburbs (Hoyt, 1933): Others such as Roderick McKenzie (1933) developed a multiple nuclei theory of urban land use in an effort to overcome some of the restrictive assumptions of the previous two theoretical schemes that assumed only one central place within a given urban agglomeration. McKenzie's model drew on his observation that urban land uses are most often organized around particular nodes or pre-existing centres of activity, rather than around one singular central area. The number and functions of these nuclei differed from city to city, however he argued that their existence can be attributed to three variables: the need for specialized facilities by certain activities, agglomeration economies, and agglomeration diseconomies. McKenzie's multiple nuclei theory asserts that, "...as industrial societies become more complex and wide-ranging in their organizational scale, the social composition of city districts changes as a function of this 20 increasing social differentiation" (McKenzie, 1933). He goes on to argue that as urban regions grow, the attractive agglomeration forces of the central area can just as easily become repulsive forces to firms whose reliance on the central city is weaker. These firms are then likely to relocate to locations more amenable to their activities. It then stands to reason that other similar or related firms would also be attracted to such a site creating agglomeration economies in areas outside the CBD. And as the jobs go - McKenzie argues - so too do the workers, fracturing Park and Burgess' theory into a number of agglomerations with a natural division of labour between each of these new central places. Ringing each of these central nodes, McKenzie argues, is a version of the concentric rings of social division, wrought in miniature. Despite differing levels of complexity, all the models developed by the Chicago School's scholars are based upon a number of simple tenets. All are confidently based upon the presumption of a dominant urban centre that contained factories, jobs, government offices, corporate headquarters, etc., and populated by simplified individuals devoid of gender, ethnicity or race. The actions of the population were governed only by a trade-off between locational rent (what would be paid to locate ones residence or a business firm in a particular place) and the cost (both in time and money) of the daily journey to work. This simplicity is often seen as a negative as a number of critics have taken aim at the works of Burgess, Park, Hoyt and McKenzie for their mechanistic view of social processes. However, what is most remarkable about these models has been their success in describing, with some accuracy, many characteristic features of the organization of the metropolis. There was and may still be some degree to which almost every city space is organized around a dominant centre in a series of concentric zones, radial sectors, and specialized enclaves. The number of zones, and how clearly they can be defined differs significantly over time and place, but the overall surface patterning has been a remarkably regular feature of the spatiality of urban life for many years. However, as evidence emerges suggesting an altogether different form of development emerging, there is some debate about the applicability 21 of the Chicago School models on this new metropolis and even more debate about the models that might replace them. 3.4 MORE RECENT THEORIES OF URBAN STRUCTURE Since the 1970s there has been a sea change in the form and pattern of urban space from that which had come before. The classic city-space observed and described by the Chicago School did not disappear, but its formerly well-defined and highly centralized structure began to disintegrate in a number of different ways. Through a number of broad macro-processes such as the rise of global city systems (Friedmann, 1986; Short and Kim, 1999), an increasing globalized division of labour (Castells, 1989; Hall, 1998; Chase-Dunn, 1982), the changing industrial base and new economy shifts of urban regions (Hutton, 1998; Yeates, 1999), and shifting inner-city demographics (Ley, 1985; Bourne and Ley, 1993) a still emerging form of disassociative development within North American urban regions is now being observed and attributed to the sequential and selective decentralization of factories, residences, offices, warehouses, retail stores, public services, and other urban activities brought about by these new global processes. What we are seeing is a systematic stretching of the established concentric zones of the Fordist city, outward into a sprawling and increasingly haphazard process of suburbanization. This has also made the existing zones much less homogenous than they once were. Cities have become increasingly fragmented, not only in terms of residential land use but also in patterns of population growth, local governance, social class, and ethnicity. While most scholars agree that we are in the midst of a change in the manner in which we build cities, a key divide has emerged in the literature conceptualizing the new metropolitan form. One side argues that the pattern of decentralized commerce is still influenced, to varying degrees, by traditional urban forces that shaped the old metropolis. These "centrists", the most prominent of which have been the likes of Christopher Leinberger, Richard Shearmur, Michael Charron and Joel Garreau, argue that metropolitan structure is simply going through a 22 process of reorganization that is leading to a new pattern of central places. Conversely, the opposing voices or the "decentrists" among them, Robert Fishman, Edward Soja, Michael Dear, Stephen Flusty and Robert Lang see a bigger break with the past and emphasize the forces that have worked to pull the old metropolis apart. They suggest that the social and economic stratification of the Chicago School has broken down and that urban space is now subject to a broader and more diverse plurality of uses and requirements than cities have seen in the memorable past. 3.5 THE CENTRISTS Probably the most well-known of those writers within the group referred to here as "centrists" is Joel Garreau. His book Edge C/fy(1991) outlined what he described as the breakdown of the central city as the primary force in city development and argued that a recentralization was occurring in a new form of development he called "edge cities" spread throughout the urban periphery. In defining the edge city, Garreau was very specific. According to his estimates, in order to qualify as an edge city, a suburban agglomeration must include at least five million square feet of office space, 600,000 square feet of retail space and that the population within the area must increase every morning and decrease in the evening (meaning the area has more jobs than homes) (Garreau, 1991). What Garreau is describing is the creation of a traditional downtown in an untraditional location. He describes it thusly: Today we have moved our means of creating wealth, the essence of urbanism - our jobs - out to where most of us lived and shopped for two generations. This has led to the rise of the edge city... By the most functional urban standard - tall buildings, bright lights, office space that represent white-collar jobs, shopping, entertainment, hospitals etc. even population - each Edge City is larger than downtown Portland. Already two-thirds of office space in the country are in Edge Cities and 80 percent of them have materialized in the last decade" (Ibid., 1991). 23 Garreau argues that superficially, this process may be seen as, "the rise of the suburb" (Ibid., 1991). However, the term "suburb" inevitably suggests the affluent and restricted "bedroom communities" that first took shape around the turn of the century on the edge of the 19th-century metropolis. Its traditional meaning refers to a retreat from urban life, defined by the single-family house on its own landscaped grounds. This allowed for the traditional suburb to remain an elite enclave, completely dependent on the central city for jobs and essential services. Since the early 1970s, however, the relationship between the urban core and the suburban periphery has undergone a startling transformation - especially during the past two decades. Where suburbia was once an exclusive refuge for a small elite, US Census figures quoted by Garreau, show that 45 percent of the American population is now "suburban" up from only 23 percent in 1950; about one third remain in the central cities. Even more dramatic has been the exodus of commerce and industry from the central cities. By 1980, 38 percent of the nation's workers commuted to their jobs from suburb-to-suburb, while only half as many made the stereotypical suburb-to-city trek (Ibid., 1991). During the last two decades, the urban peripheries have even outpaced the cores in that last bastion of downtown economic clout, office employment. More than 57 percent of US office space is now located outside the central cities (Ibid., 1991). The landscaped office parks and research centers that dot the outlying highways and interstates have become home to the most advanced high-technology laboratories and factories; the national centers of business creativity and growth (Ibid., 1991). What Garreau is cataloguing is a redistribution of growth within the metropolis along the lines expressed in the first half of the 20 t h century by McKenzie in his multi-nodal model of urban development. Garreau observes the growth of numerous suburban job clusters and concludes 24 that a constellation of dense agglomerations is being created throughout the outlying portions of North America's metropolitan regions. Other theorists such as Christopher C. Leinberger follow this line of thinking one step further. Leinberger views the recentralization observed by Garreau as the creation of numerous "urban villages" spread throughout urban areas. His assertion is based on his belief that North Americans actually prefer cities but they do not want the congested and often unsafe environment that comes with traditional urbanism. So equipped with automobiles, information and communication technologies and driven by high inner-city land prices and a new decentralized employment structure, residents have remade their urban world to reflect their desire for urban amenities, this time in a more appealing and lower-density suburban setting (Leinberger, 1996). In Leinberger's view the 21 s t century metropolis only looks less centralized than its predecessors, having retained a network of smaller central places loosely held together within the broader metropolitan fabric. Within this array of urban villages we see increasing centralization of services, jobs and population (Ibid., 1996). More recently, the Chicago School models have begun to reemerge. Researchers such as Shearmur and Charron (2004) have argued that within Canadian cities at least, there exists a much clearer centralizing tendency than previously thought. Using Montreal as their case study, Shearmur and Charron utilized a quantitative analysis based on assumptions derived from the Chicago School models and subjected them to humanist/aesthetic, Marxist, and postmodern critiques. Their findings suggest the continued applicability of the Chicago School model, and a continued trend toward centralization and a form of social and physical structure that parallels the models created by the Chicago School members and later proponents. Their conclusions assert that despite some fundamental structural changes occurring in the development of Canadian cities, "the postmodern claim that the spatial 25 development of urban areas is not structured by at least some general processes, is inaccurate" (Ibid., 2004). 3.6 THE DECENTRISTS There are however a number of theorists and scholars who disagree with Garreau, Leinberger and Shearmur and Charron's description of the current trend of urban restructuring. Those such as Robert Lang, Edward Soja Michael Dear, Stephen Flusty and Robert Fishman argue that the new metropolis is inherently less organized than the old and is subject to forces of reorganization that are more diffuse and individualized than those in the past. This has created a resolutely more complex urban form marked by its lower-densities, lack of clear boundaries, juxtapositions and pluralities. The views of these researchers stand in stark contrast to the views of the centrists. Robert Lang specifically, down-plays the recentralization argument of Garreau and Leinberger, arguing that while edge cities and urban villages do exist they are much less prevalent than suggested, and in fact the bulk of the growth occurring in the US is taking the form of sprawling, decentralized, unbounded "edgeless cities" (Lang, 2003). According to Lang, an edgeless city is defined as a highly dispersed office cluster, lacking clear boundaries, and containing less than five million square feet of office space (as compared to an "edge city," which has recognized borders and contains at least five million square feet). Nationwide, 38 percent of office space was found in traditional downtown areas, while 37 percent was found in edgeless locations in 1999. Less than 20 percent of all office space in the US is found in Edge Cities (Ibid., 2003). In his study of more than 13 metropolitan areas in the US, Lang found only one (Dallas) where the square footage of office space in edge cities exceeded that of edgeless city locations. And in no area did the rate of growth of edge city office development outpace that of the edgeless locations (Ibid., 2003). 26 Lang's empirical findings follow a host of theoretical research that points to a reimagining of urban space by an increasingly diverse and disparate citizenry. Beginning in the late 1980s a number of urban theorists and researchers based in southern California began experimenting with new urban structural models. Much like the social ecologists of the Chicago School, the members of the so-called Los Angeles School based their observations on the form of urbanity emerging along the Pacific Rim, viewing it as a potential archetype of late 20 t h century urban structure. Theorist Edward Soja - a prominent member of the LA School - argues that the idea of physical space is being created, changed and destroyed through individuals' mental images and use of that urban space. Soja analyzes new emerging urban morphologies - what he calls the "postmetropolis" - by arguing that the city is now being defined through a new dialogue that is deconstructing and reconstructing our "lived spaces" through a redefinition of the "urban imaginary"; a concept defined as the way we mentally map out our urban "realities" and how we "think about, experience, evaluate, and decide to act in the places, spaces, and communities in which we live" (Soja 2000:25). Soja's argument is important as it identifies the disparate forces acting on urban areas in the late 20 t h century. He highlights the increasingly fractured nature of space as it has become less of a void within which social forces act out their existence, and more a clear construction of those forces personalized by the individual actors themselves. Soja's position however, suffers from an overly deconstructionist view that fails to put his fractured, personalized metropolis back together again into some form of conceptual framework that describes the forces acting upon the city. Following the same line of thinking as Soja, fellow LA Schoolers Dear and Flusty (1998:64) assert that the Chicago School model is fast reaching the end of its usefulness. Stating that, "cities no longer develop as concentrated loci of population and economic activity, but as fragmented parcels," Dear and Flusty argue that a new form of 27 postmodern urbanism has emerged where adjacencies and distance play a much smaller role in the development of cities, and where citizens increasingly have a greater affinity and connection to far flung areas of the globe than they do to their own neighbourhoods. Urban land uses are defined by the needs of global capital rather than the needs of local residents creating a disjointed and fractured form of urban structure. Dear and Flusty describe this process as "Keno Capitalism", best described in there own words, as a model where: ... capital touches down, as if by chance on a parcel of land, ignoring the opportunities on intervening lots, thus sparking the development process. The relationship between development of one parcel and non-development of another is a disjointed, seemingly unrelated affair. While not a truly random process, it is evident that the traditional, centre-driven agglomeration economies that have driven urban development in the past no longer apply. Conventional city or 'Chicago-style' development is sacrificed in favour of a non-contiguous collage of parcelized, consumption-oriented landscapes devoid of conventional centres yet wired into electronic propinquity and nominally unified by mythologies of the disinformation superhighway... The consequent urban aggregation is characterized by acute fragmentation and specialization - a partitioned gaming board subject to perverse laws and peculiarly discrete, disjointed urban outcomes. (Dear and Flusty, 1998:66) The shortcoming in Dear and Flusty's argument, and one they admit to quite openly, is that they only begin a conversation on the meaning and future implications of a post-modern urbanism without taking a normative stand. How does a "Keno Capitalism" model aid in predicting and shaping urban structure within the postmodern context? The simple answer is that it doesn't, at least not beyond offering a better understanding of some of the processes involved. It is left to other theorists to find more detailed and definable patterns within these new urban forms. In terms of the analysis here, one of the more persuasive of these theorists is Robert Fishman. He, like Dear and Flusty as well as Soja, asserts that concepts developed to describe regional processes based on traditional patterns of urbanization are 28 becoming increasingly irrelevant and can no longer be judged by the standards of the old metropolis, in part because the new suburban form "lacks any definable borders, centre or periphery, or clear distinctions between residential, industrial, and commercial forms."(Fishman, R., 1990:34) Where Garreau and Leinberger see a form of latent spatial order, Fishman (who provides some precursor to Dear and Flusty's "keno capitalism") sees only, "a hopeless jumble of housing, industry, commerce and even agricultural uses." And yet - in a step beyond that taken by Soja, Dear or Flusty - Fishman sees, "that the new city has a characteristic structure" (Ibid., 1987:126), in spite of the disarray that typifies suburbia. While Fishman's idea of structure is not the empirical spatial pattern of land use that is most often referred to by urban geographers and planners, he does provide a conceptual organizing principle to the forces that shape new urban growth, thus filling in the gaps in other similar analyses. Fishman argues that a region's focal point is no longer found at its geographical centre, nor has it been redistributed among several peripheral centres as would be described by theories defined by activities centered on work and home exclusively. Fishman's hypothesis suggests that urban form is linked to three "household networks" that relate to activities made not only to fulfill productive requirements, but also personal contacts and consumptive desires. Each network entails a separate set of destination points and uses of space. Fishman notes that "the pattern formed by these destinations forms the 'city' for that particular family or individual." More importantly, these networks overlap despite being in most ways unrelated to one another. Correspondingly, each network possesses its own "spatial logic". Fishman uses a comparison of shopping malls (consumption) and primary schools (production) to demonstrate his point. The location of a primary school is based on the local distribution of a school age population, while the siting of malls involves a calculus of road access, population density and income. That these two very different sets of 29 locational logic are likely to produce a varied and uneven urban form should not be surprising (Ibid., 1990). In aggregate terms, the diverse requirements of household networks add up to a region characterized by the unconnected "juxtaposition and interpenetration" of different types of space. The school may very well wind up next to the shopping mall, but because of their spatial relationship to the household differs significantly, they do not have to. To Fishman, when commerce decentralizes from the core of a region or even a satellite city, it is not likely to be reconstituted in new multi-centered, higher-density settings. The urban form that results will more likely than not be more chaotic than the ordered polycentric structure described by the centrists (Fishman, R., 1990). 30 Chapter 4 4.0 Emerging Patterns of Urban Development 4.1 FROM OBSERVATION TO THEORY The study of urban form and development is not a new area of research. And much like other fields in the social or natural sciences, the conceptualization of the various theories that provide a framework for future analysis are most often created in lockstep with a host of empirical and experiential research. It is not necessary to summarize all of the research that informed the many theories and models outlined in the previous chapter, however it is important to touch on a few emerging patterns of urban growth that have been observed in the North American urban system more recently. During the 1970s and 80s, a resurgence in the study of regional development dynamics within North America, and particularly in the US, began to occur. Large-scale industrial restructuring, shifts in urban housing and transportation patterns and increasingly fractured systems of urban governance have led to a decline in the importance of the central city, and an increasingly parasitic relationship between regions within the metropolis. By the late 1980s and early 90s, new forms of demographic modeling and mapping allowed academics and policy-makers to better understand the geographic and social patterns of urban development, writing a new chapter in the continuing research on North America's changing and evolving metropolitan regions. One of the seminal works to come out of this style of research was Myron Orfield's 1997 book. Metropolises. Orfield's work provided a comprehensive historical view of regional development during the 1980s. Using census data and these new mapping techniques, Orfield explored the changes in metropolitan social and physical development through the previous decade. His findings suggested that that the now 31 established post-1970 pattern of urban development (inner-city decline coupled with strong suburban growth) was now itself becoming less defined -and more complex. Orfield's observations - based upon an empirical analysis of changes observed in the Minneapolis/St. Paul region - suggest that the long held belief in the affluent, powerful, white suburb may be giving way to a more diverse spatial reality of socially and economically vulnerable regions within America's metropolitan system (Orfield, 1997). Since these findings were released, urban researchers have made numerous additions to Orfield's initial observations. These studies - the most recent based on the 2000 US census - have tended to add support to Orfield's early hypothesis with new data and analysis techniques that offer an increasingly refined vision of the changing urban character. Some of these recent studies have suggested some form of city "comeback" or "urban renaissance" within several of the nation's city regions - and have been met by a great deal of excitement among urban policymakers and the media. Many others however, suggest a more complicated and somewhat more sobering story. The next section will briefly highlight several of these broad trends. 4.2 EMERGING TRENDS IN THE US Despite a flurry of media and policy hype, the "urban comeback" (defined as growth in those cities that had experienced marked decline in the 1980s) occurred in only five of the 100 largest US cities: Denver, Chicago, Memphis, Atlanta, and Yonkers. An analysis of the figures by Alan Berube (2003), suggests that the story of urban "recovery" over the past decade does not capture the diversity of large city experience in the 1990s, and fails to place cities within the metropolitan context. By his assessment, growth across the urban system was quite uneven. Further, of the 100 largest cities in the country, more than a quarter saw stagnant or shrinking populations in the urban core (Ibid., 2003). Overall, evidence indicated that an urban renaissance tended to be more of the exception than the rule. Of the 100 cities surveyed, 83 followed the same path (growth, decline, or no change) in the 1990s as 32 they did in the 1980s. Of the 20 cities that saw their populations dip in the 1990s, the rate of loss was seven percent, roughly the same as in the 1980s. Interestingly, of the 62 cities that saw growth in their urban core populations in the 1990s, growth was actually four percent higher as a whole in the 1980s (Ibid., 2003). Central city growth or decline notwithstanding, decentralization was the dominant trend in the 1990s as all the cities surveyed experienced suburban growth that far outpaced growth in their central cities. On average, central city growth in the US was 10 percent over the decade, while suburban growth rang in at more than double that at 21 percent (Berube, 2003). DOWNTOWN REBOUND "Downtown is back!" seemed to be the common observation throughout the late 1990s. Numerous news stories showed the upward march of condo towers and loft conversions in the US downtown's (those areas containing and immediately surrounding the Central Business District) and proclaimed the return of downtown living. These rather breathless pronouncements aside, research conducted by Sohmer and Lang (2003) show that while optimism is warranted, the actual scale of the so-called downtown rebound is more modest than first thought. Among a sample of 24 cities, Sohmer and Lang found that 18 saw increases in their downtown populations. America's downtown story tends to be a countertrend to what is occurring in the rest of the urban US. As most central cities, have lost ground proportionally to their suburbs, the majority of downtowns are gaining in their proportional share of the metropolitan population. Of those cities that saw downtown growth, Sohmer and Lang observed increases between 69 percent (Houston) and 2.9 percent (Detroit) (Ibid., 2003). However, given the scant populations that existed in many of the downtowns observed at the beginning of the 90s, the actual numbers of new downtown residents are relatively small. The trend toward downtown living is still more a rivulet than a river in comparison to population growth in the metropolitan area as a whole. Overall, the 33 observed increases in downtown's share of the metro population ranged between 0.3 and 0.1 percent (Sohmer and Lang, 2003). PATCHWORK CITIES While the majority of urban areas are growing, the pattern of that growth, at least in the US example, is getting more complex. According to Berube and Forman (2003), even though 72 percent of large cities grew over the 1990s, only 55 percent of neighborhoods (as defined by census tracts) added population. At the same time, growing neighborhoods grew almost three times as fast (a 22 percent increase) as total city population (which grew eight percent). While growing cities were primarily made up of growing neighborhoods, nine such cities actually saw a majority of their neighborhoods decline in population. By contrast, all 20 cities that lost population overall had more declining than growing neighborhoods (Ibid., 2003). SUBURBS: GROWTH AND DECLINE The typical image of metropolitan growth and decline is simplistic: central cities lose population and suburbs continually gain, often at city expense. The view of suburbs themselves is often equally simplistic. However, suburbs are no longer monolithic communities free from the central city problems, despite continued reference to "the suburbs" as a single entity or at most, group of homogeneous jurisdictions. Analysis carried out by Lucy and Phillips (2003) reveals that suburbs are in fact highly diverse and contrary to popular perception, not all suburbs are growing. While many newly developing suburbs did experience rapid growth in people and jobs in the US during the 1990s, many older suburbs experienced central-city like challenges, including aging infrastructure, inadequate housing stock, deteriorating schools and commercial corridors and population decline (Ibid., 2003). Suburban population grew over the decade in absolute terms by 14 percent however, this growth was highly uneven. Lucy and Phillips 34 (2003) studied 2,586 suburban jurisdictions in the 35 largest metropolitan regions in the US and found that only 63 percent of suburbs grew while fully 37 percent decreased in population or remained stable. The researchers observed population declines as high as 39 percent in some rust belt cities. Further, declining suburbs were not simply those geographically close to the central city, but were rather found throughout the metropolitan region. This suggests a much more fractured and diffuse geography of urban development than previously thought. HOUSEHOLD GROWTH VS. POPULATION GROWTH Just as the traditional view of metropolitan population growth is being redefined, so to is the household make-up of the region. Recent studies have found that on the whole US suburbs are becoming more urban, in that they exhibit higher numbers of small households such as singles, childless couples and the elderly. At the same time, US central cities and downtowns are becoming more suburban in that there are marked increases in the number of households with children. (Frey and Berube, 2003). During the 1990s central city populations grew at a much higher rate than was represented by the increase in the number of households. This suggests that urban populations are exhibiting higher rates of growth in household size than in the past. At the same time, suburbs now contain more small households (small households such as singles, childless couples and the elderly) than married households with children (Ibid., 2003). EMPLOYMENT SPRAWL In 2001, a report done for the Brookings Institution by Glaeser, et. al. (2001) assessed the prevalence and rate of employment sprawl within the US. Glaeser, found that across the largest 100 metropolitan areas, on average, only 22 percent of people work within three miles of the city center. Over a third (35 percent) of people work more than ten miles from the city center (Ibid., 2001). 35 Employment decentralization is thought to be a harbinger of increasing levels of population deconcentration and a major contributor to inner-city and suburban decline. Job sprawl is not a function of the age of a metropolitan area. Importantly, there is no statistically significant correlation between age of the major city in the metropolitan area and job decentralization. This fact belies the view that high-density cities exist solely because they are old, and they will eventually all be replaced by sprawl (Glaeser, et. al., 2001). 4.3 EMERGING TRENDS IN CANADA Given the plethora of data and research available on urban development patterns in the US, one can be forgiven for spending a seemingly inordinate amount of time discussing the observations and analysis carried out on US cities. As is often the case though, reviewing trends emerging in the US offers only a partial view of what is happening in the Canadian context. A study carried out by Condon (2004) showed that the form of development in Canadian and US cities during the first half of the 20 t h century was essentially the same. Since that period, Canadian and US cities have taken divergent paths due to differing levels of expressway construction and different views on land and jurisdictional rights. More recently however, evidence of changes in Canadian city form has caused some to re-examine the assertion that Canadian cities were distinctly different than their US counterparts. In a major study on changing metropolitan form, Bourne (1989) put forward the general term 'dispersion' to characterize a decentralized form of urban development across Canada. However, Bourne observed sufficient strength in the centrally based population density profiles to conclude that centralization remained the dominant trend among the subset of regions he examined. Bourne's research suggests that while growth at the urban edge is undeniable, there is a strong centralizing tendency in Canadian cities that focuses growth toward the CBD or toward suburban concentration areas. 36 However, in a follow-up to this research, Bourne altered his view and found a much different pattern of development in Canada's cities. According to Bourne and Olivet (1995) intra-urban contours of population density and population redistribution are becoming increasingly complex and less rationally defined. Their study, undertaken using data from the 1991 census suggested that the continued high levels of suburbanization at the margins represent a much less centralized form of urban development. Bourne and Olivet observed a band of population decline within the older suburbs of Canada's larger cities during the late 70s and early 80s. Their analysis saw this band grow into the early 90s to encompass many of the newer suburban developments and it was the opinion of the researchers that this band of decline was exhibiting itself in a much more complex and discontinuous pattern than previously had been observed in the Canadian urban system (Bourne and Olivet, 1995). Since then, considerable evidence has been put forth that suggest that trends toward decentralization, widely documented in the US (Lang, 2003; Lang & Simmons, 2003; Lucy, 2003; Soja, 2000) are, to a lesser degree, mirrored within Canadian metropolitan areas as well. These more recent analyses have identified urbanization trends in the late 80s and early 90s that point to a rapid movement toward a much more dispersed urban form, bringing Canadian agglomerations closer to the US norm. In his study of Kitchener, Ontario Pierre Filion (1999) found that the emerging urban form in Canadian metropolitan areas exhibited a relative and sometimes absolute weakening of the CBD, erratic density patterns, and a clear predominance of scattering rather than poly-nuclearity in expanding low-density suburban areas. Filion, along with Bunting and Priston (2000) found in a later study that looked at Canada's five largest metropolitan regions that, "the most pervasive trend seen across Canadian metropolitan regions as a whole has been one of decentralization and relative decline in the central city." 37 According to their report, the most widely recognized reasons for decentralization relate to suburbanization and the attractiveness of open space and privacy, of lower densities and lower real estate costs and increased auto accessibility perceived to accompany relocation to the suburbs by businesses and residents alike (Bunting, et. al., 2000). Another recent study however, refutes these findings. Research carried out by Coffey and Shearmur (2002) looked at higher-order service employment in the Montreal region between 1981 and 1996. Like other studies, they observed a relative weakening of the CBD in relation to the surrounding regions. What differed in their study was the form of employment growth in those suburban areas. Coffey and Shearmur found that suburban growth tended very strongly toward a poly-nuclear structure rather than a generally dispersed pattern as was found in many of the studies cited above. Overall, the trend in growth patterns within both the Canadian and US urban system is not easily observed. The findings of Bourne, Olivet and Filion point to the beginnings of late twentieth century US style urban forms emerging in Canada, while the work of Coffey and Shearmur point to a persistent centralizing tendency in Canadian cities. It is unlikely that a consensus on whether North American cities are becoming increasingly diffuse or are simply reconcentrating in a new manner, will be reached any time in the near future. What is sure however, is that this period of change provides an exciting and viable area of inquiry for urban researchers. 38 Chapter 5 5.0 Research Findings 5.1 PATTERNS OF POPULATION GROWTH AND DECLINE Since it overtook Montreal in the late 1950s, Toronto has been Canada's most populous and economically powerful urban region. Its diversified and robust economy offers the region the benefit of steady levels of inter-provincial and inter-urban migration from areas across the country and its increasingly multicultural outlook makes it a destination of choice for newly landed immigrants and refugees (Statistics Canada, 2001b). Through the 1990s Toronto was second only to Calgary in overall CMA growth in percentage terms. But in absolute terms, roughly the total population of Calgary was added to the GTA over the decade (Ibid, 2001b). It's not surprising then that the 1990s saw the emergence of population as a major issue among both residents and urban policy-makers. A Canada NewsFile search of the region's newspapers through the 1990s shows a five-fold increase in the mention of issues such as traffic congestion and housing affordability over the previous decade. Though admittedly a rough guide, it can be argued that negative coverage of traffic and housing issues can act as a barometer measuring public opinion on urban growth. A number of questions naturally emerge from this path of inquiry, such as: How much growth occurred? Where did all that growth go? What areas grew fastest and what areas if any, saw population decline? Overall, the three sub-regions of the CMA grew in absolute terms over the 1990s. Table 1 summarizes aggregate census data for the Toronto CMA, highlighting the percentage change in each area. The central city, roughly analogous to the old city of Toronto saw an increase of approximately seven percent over the decade making it by far the slowest growing sub-region. The inner-ring of the city (made up of the older suburbs of Etobicoke, North York, East York, York and Scarborough) grew at a rate of roughly 10 percent, while the outer ring 39 suburbs, the so-called 905 belt of the GTA, grew at an overall rate of more than 35 percent over 1991 populations. T A B L E 1 : POPULATION GROWTH BY REGIONAL SUB-AREA ; : v 2 0 0 l | / : ; 1991-2001 % Change . c A n j | p ; C h g ^ CENTRAL 634826 679560 44734 7.05% • 0.7% INNER-RING 1631898 1795519 163621 10.03% 1.0% OUTER-RING '. 1631078 2210836 579758 35.54% 3 . 1 % Source: Statistics Canada 2001b Also in Table 1 is a breakdown of the average annual increase observed in the central and inner-ring sub-regions. While it is true that population in the central city and older suburbs is increasing - on a yearly basis, it is not increasing very rapidly at all. On average, the central sub-region increased by 0.7% per year (a rate of growth lower than that experienced by Saskatoon's central city during the same period). In real terms, this translates to only an approximately 4000 additional residents per year added to a central city population of some 635,000 during the 1990s. This suggests that the supposed condo boom and the "return to downtown living" (Toronto Star, June 4, 1999) in the city may have been a more localized phenomenon than first thought, at least in terms of its population effects. Table 2 highlights the breakdown of where new growth went in the region over the course of the decade. According to census figures, the new amalgamated City of Toronto comprised of both the inner-ring suburbs and the central area - which combined, equalled 58 percent of the 1991 regional population - acquired just more than a quarter of the new growth into the region (26.5 percent), while the outer-ring suburbs were able to gain 73.6 percent of that growth on a base which comprised less than 42 percent of the 1991 population. More striking is the change in the share of population within the metropolitan region over the decade. As stated, in 1991 the central and inner-ring of the CMA accounted for 58 percent of the regional population, by 2001, that had dropped to 52 percent. Over the same 40 period the outer-ring suburbs were able to increase their share of the regional population by more than six percent. At this rate, by 2005 the new amalgamated city of Toronto will have dropped below 50 percent of the regional population. T A B L E 2: WHERE THE GROWTH WENT IN THE REGION A s % ^ f j 9 | i p p ^ CENTRAL 44734 5.7% 16.3% . 14.5% INNER-RING 163621 20.8% 41.9% 38.3% OUTER RING 579758 73.6% 41.9% 47.0% Source: Statistics Canada 2001b Admittedly, the figures expressed above represent rather broad, macro-level data, but already a trend toward increasing population dispersion across the urban region is emerging within the data. Map 1 below, details the changes in population within each of Toronto's 810 census tracts. Initial observations suggest that the pattern of growth in the Toronto region appears to be moving away from the relatively centralized arrangement observed throughout the city's history toward a more diffuse and less centralized structure. Fully one quarter of the GTA's census tracts saw decline over the decade, and the geographic positioning of this decline is not easily understood. Unexpectedly, fully half of those tracts that saw decline were in the outer ring suburbs long established as the area of growth, rather than decline in North America's urban regions. Those tracts that saw decline in the inner-ring and central area showed little or no pattern to their geography (in terms of contiguous tracts creating zones of decline). Analysis of urban growth in the 70s and 80s (Quillian, 1999; Scafidi, 1998) saw clear patterns of decline in inner-cities regions that fit together in definable zones of population decrease. Observations here show areas of decline in a much more diffuse manner, with areas of decline occurring in traditional growth regions suggesting a form of population growth that is less easily defined than previous patterns of change. 41 MAP 2: POPULATION CHANGE BY CENSUS TRACT 1991-2001 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001b. Despite a high number of declining tracts, three quarters of the census tracts in The GTA grew over the 1990s. However, similar to the areas of decline, areas of growth exhibited very little in the way of immediately observable geographical pattern. As expected the majority of those tracts that saw high levels of growth (top two quartiles) were in the outer-ring of the region. This is understandable considering that outer-ring tracts tend to have lower initial populations, therefore percentage increases tend to be larger. Even here however, the expected pattern of growth does not seem to be emerging. Areas of contiguous tracts exhibiting high population growth are occurring in areas away from historical development areas such as highway corridors and transit stations. Previous analyses of population growth in the Toronto region (Statistics Canada, 1983) showed growth along transportation corridors such as subway lines, along the Yonge Street corridor and along the many expressways in the region. Growth in the 1990s does not seem to have occurred in the same manner. 42 High growth tracts are observed in the central part of the city, which has led some to believe in a form of downtown renaissance similar to that observed in some US cities by Sohmer and Lang (2003). The reality, much like the US data is that while population seems to be increasing in Toronto's central area and especially the downtown there exists a lot of variation in population growth. High growth has been observed in a number of downtown census tracts (registering increases as high as 150 percent), however, much like greenfield suburban tracts, most of this growth has occurred in areas previously used for industrial uses that had not previously been home to significant residential populations, therefore the rate of increase is inflated due to relatively low initial population within the tract. Further, those census tracts showing high percentage increases over the decade stand cheek-by-jowl with tracts showing decreases as high as 30 percent over the same period. This level of variation is shared by the outer-ring which showed similar levels of growth and decline co-existing not just in urbanized tracts of outer-ring cities like Mississauga or Markham, but in the greenfield development areas that have for the past three decades shown growth almost across the board. It appears that there has been a trend in Toronto's metropolitan region toward less definable or rational patterns of growth through the 1990s. There is a need for more empirical analysis to assess the rationality of the patterning, or lack thereof, of population growth in the GTA. An assessment of statistical correlation carried out on the regional data finds similar results to these initial observations. Correlating relative growth or decline to two other variables - distance from established central places and relative growth or decline in adjacent tracts - two relative measures of the likelihood of population to congregate in definable locales in the region was established. By looking at the likelihood - in terms of statistical correlation - of a tract to exhibit population growth over the period based on its relative distance from an established growth area (the central city, suburban downtowns, suburban job centres, subway stations and prominent highway interchanges) it is possible to estimate the relative "gravity" of 43 that growth area in terms of concentrating population. An assessment of this type scored an R2 range of between 0.0987 to 0.1296 (highest for Markham City Centre and lowest for the highway 401 and 427 interchange). These values suggest a low correlation. This means that statistically, only 10 and 13 percent of the growth that occurs in a particular census tract can be attributed to its distance from a historical growth area. In terms of statistical significance, this level of correlation suggests that while there may be some relationship between census tract growth and nearby growth areas, that the relationship is weak at best. However, this does not tell the entire story. Just because growth is not attributable to distance from a historical growth area, that does not mean that patterns may not be emerging that are creating new growth areas. For this reason a correlation test was performed on the likelihood of growth and/or decline to be affected by the relative population change in adjacent census tracts. This analysis would work to test for clumps of contiguous growth or decline suggesting a reformation of population distribution into new patterns of concentration. This test delivered an R2 value of 0.0441; suggesting that population change are negligibly attributable to adjacent changes. Population growth in the GTA is exhibiting a much more diffuse and complex pattern than it has in the past. A 1991 study conducted by Bourne and Olivet that looked at growth during the 1981 to 1991 period found that population growth in the region tended toward more recognizable patterns. In that study, population grew in the regional town centres as well as along the suburban fringe, with some localized development along some major transportation corridors and in former industrial areas in the central city. It would appear that growth during the 1991 to 2001 period has moved away from that pattern and instead seems to be occurring in a much less familiar manner. 5.2 MORE OR LESS DENSE? By all empirical measures, the city of Toronto is dense. Despite being considered anecdotally as Canada's worst offender for sprawl, Toronto 44 exhibits similar CMA residential density to Montreal's and has fully 40 percent more people per hectare than Vancouver and 424 percent more per hectare than Calgary (GHK, 2002; GVRD, 2003; City of Calgary, 2002 respectively). Thanks to its relatively long history and high levels of growth during the turn of the century when streetcars were still the major mode of transportation, Toronto has been able to hang onto its relatively dense inner core. However, outside the inner city there are r signs that things may be changing. While still maintaining one of the highest metropolitan densities of any CMA in North America, Toronto's growth over the 1990s has exhibited a number of indicators which suggest that the new pattern of growth is much less likely to follow the existing patterns of urban density and organization that it once did. The previous section dealt generally with the localization of population growth, and established that the old patterns of growth have shifted toward a form that is more diffuse and less easily defined. This section uses density, a clear indicator of population centralization, to measure relative patterns of centralization or decentralization across the region. Simply put: Is the general trend of urban development moving toward increasing or decreasing densities over time? The short answer is: that it depends on how you measure and map density across the region. Density as a planning concept is most often measured in terms of housing units per area of land (units per acre for example) and is mapped through a numerical assessment of those units or through the study of aerial photos that examine concentrations of built form (GHK Canada, 2002; Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, 1993). This form of inquiry is useful in that it helps to determine the built form the city is taking over time and the amount of land taken up by new housing growth. However, housing units or dwellings per acre tend to not be ideal indicators of population density generally. Dwellings tend to stay after their builders have left and can be occupied in many different ways. During times of economic growth they can provide a rough measure of increasing population concentration, but in times of demographic shift, they tend not to offer as acceptable a measure of 45 the patterns in which people are concentrating themselves in parts of the city. In the 1980s Toronto's inner-ring suburbs experienced marked population declines thanks to a demographic "thinning out" as the largely family-oriented residential area saw children leave home and average household size drop from an average of 2.5 to 2.1. During this period the numbers of dwellings in the area however, changed very little (Bourne and Olivet, 1995). What this explanation is meant to convey is that dwelling units are not an adequate measure for studying population centralization. However, recent assessments of metropolitan densification carried out in the Toronto region have made estimates of density based solely on aerial photographs that show only housing intensification. These assessments tend to highlight regional patterns similar to Map 3 below. MAP 3: DWELLING UNIT CHANGE BY CENSUS TRACT 1991 -2001 Source: Statistics Canada 2001b In this map changes in the number of dwelling units per hectare over the 1990s were mapped in order to observe the pattern of unit density 46 change. Here we see extremely high levels of increasing density in the outer-ring as well as sub-regional concentration nodes of increasing density occurring in areas such as the downtown waterfront and the west end, North York Town Centre, Scarborough Town Centre, Markham City Centre, and central Mississauga. Inferences from maps such as this suggest that increasing unit density means increasing population density, however a number of demographic shifts and internal changes in the Toronto region have led to real density changes that exhibit very different characteristics. In contrast, Map 4 highlights the changes in population per hectare over the same period. Note the different pattern of change. This map examines where people are concentrating rather than where housing units concentrate and gives us a much more diffuse and less definable pattern of change. MAP 4: POPULATION DENSITY CHANGE BY CENSUS TRACT 1991-2001 Source: Statistics Canada 2001b Unlike Map 3 which shows only varying levels of density increase, Map 3 shows a number of areas of decreasing density, a phenomenon that 4 7 like population decline occurred in almost one quarter (193) of the regions 810 census tracts. While the region as a whole increased in average density by approximately four persons per hectare over the 1990s, some census tracts saw density decline by as many as 18 people per hectare. Paradoxically, other tracts saw double digit increases in dwelling units while at the same time seeing decreases in population of as many as 12 people per hectare. Why is there such a marked difference between surveys of urban concentration taken using dwelling units and population? One reason is the region's changing average household size. On average, where we see concentrations of new dwellings, we are often seeing simultaneous decreases in average housing size, causing the apparent concentration effect to be decreased. TABLE 3: AVERAGE CHANGE IN HOUSEHOLD SIZE CITY VS. SUBURB '91-2001. DOWNTOWN • -0.8 CENTRAL CITY -0.1 INNER-RING 0.1 OUTER-RING . - . -03 CMA AVERAGE 0.0 Source: Statistics Canada 2001b Table 3 highlights the macro-level changes in household size in the Toronto region. Overall there was very little change in average household at the regional level. Sub-regionally we see some decrease in the downtown area, mimicking findings in US, as stated in previous sections of this paper. Surprisingly, we also see some decrease in the outer-ring areas suggesting a slight shift, in the traditional make-up of the city's outer suburbs. There is also a slight increase observed in the inner-ring suburbs, more than likely harkening a return of families to the regions neighbourhoods after the demographic thinning experienced here in the 1980s. Map 5 highlights the geography of the changes; however, overall, this higher-level analysis of household size across the region offers little or no surprising new information. 48 MAP 5: CHANGE IN AVG. HOUSEHOLD BY CENSUS TRACT 1991 -2001 Source: Statistics Canada 2001b A closer look at the data however, reveals some interesting results. What is more striking about the difference between density maps based on dwellings and population is the lack of density increases centered near traditional growth nodes that appear in the former but not in the latter. By looking at household size changes in some of the traditional growth areas it is evident that increases in dwelling units in these areas have occurred simultaneously with corresponding decreases in average housing size. Table 4 offers detail on the change in housing size in the census tracts that make up two of the Toronto region's traditional suburban growth areas: North York Centre and Scarborough Town Centre. In the map that details changes in dwelling density, nodes of increasing density were observed around these two areas that were not observed in the population density map. Below we see that on average the household size in these areas decreased, minimizing the population effects of the dwelling unit gain in these areas. 49 T A B L E 4: DECREASING AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE IN TOWN CENTRES . NORTH YORK CENTRE SCARBOROUGH TOWN CENTRE b-.Census-TractsT. Household Change • ,f!"Gensus Tracts :. • 'HbuseholrJ Change 299 -0.1 363.03 -0.2 300 0.1 368 0.1 306 -0.2 378.02 -0.1 . 307 -0.2 378.07 0.0 308.01 0.1 Source: Statistics Canada 2001b Overall we see that what was thought to be a centralizing pattern of density increases across the region that saw the creation of regional growth nodes in the 1970s and 80s, failed to or was less prevalent in the 1990s. When population is mapped, the pattern of density change is much more random and diffuse than previously thought based on dwelling density mapping. Based on this data, the regional trend appears to be toward increasing diffusion over the 1990s rather than increasing concentration. 5.3 FINDING THE CENTRE The indicators used in the previous sections are, at least to some degree quite straightforward. Analysis of population and density are often used indicators in the planning profession and are well understood by most of the general public. These indicators tended toward the descriptive, trying to determine patterns across the metropolis. In this section however, the emphasis is more on relationships, drawing from the previous sections and going one step further to determine the relative concentration relationship between population and employment in central places vs. outlying areas. Central places are defined as traditional areas of growth. In the case of population these refer to the central city and the policy-defined suburban town centre growth sites in the region. In terms of employment these refer to Toronto's downtown, the regional town centres and the historical employment districts defined by each municipality. A centrality ratio for these areas was determined by combining the respective (population or employment) 50 density in the traditional growth area with that of the rest of the CMA. Ratios from 1991 and 2001 were then compared and a gauge of the centralizing tendency of growth into these traditional growth areas was determined. This method of measuring centralizing tendencies was developed by Galster, et. al. (2002) for use in measuring sprawl. In this case it works in much the same manner, measuring the relative tendency of both jobs and people in the Toronto CMA, to either sprawl or centralize. In the case of population, as shown in Table 5 (and hinted at in the previous sections) the change in the ratio of central city and growth node population density to that of the rest of the CMA decreased over the 1990s. This means that while average density in both areas increased over the period, density in the central area grew at a slower rate than it did in the outlying areas. T A B L E 5: POPULATION CENTRALITY RATIO: CITY VS. SUBURB (POP/HA) " •• " ' ! , v ' " ' ; ••' -• 1991 ' " v & •' '2opi _••  :y/ CENTRAL CITY & GROWTH NODES 65.7 70.3 REST OF C M A 5.6 6.9 CONCENTRATION RATIO 11.7 10.2 Source: Statistics Canada 2001b This could be construed as a minor accomplishment; interpreted as an urbanization of the suburbs. However, these areas exhibit extremely low population densities (as evidenced in Table 5) of between 5.5 and 6.9 person per hectare. These average densities would need to be much higher in order for this decrease in concentration ratio to be interpreted as a positive thing. In fact, what this ratio suggests is that relative to the rest of the CMA, the central places in the Toronto region (in terms of population) are became less important in terms of their ability to consolidate growth and in turn the region became less centralized over the 1990s. 51 Employment figures suggest that the same decentralizing trend is occurring in the labour market as well. Employment growth in the 1990s (as shown in Table 6) tended toward areas outside the traditional employment centres defined by the region's municipalities. More than 60 percent of new jobs created over the decade occurred in non-traditional locales. While some of these new job areas may in time become major employment centres in the region, currently, the high rate of job growth outside traditional employment areas suggests a move toward decreasing rather than increasing employment concentration. T A B L E 6: EMPLOYMENT GROWTH: CITY VS. SUBURB New J o b s (1991-2001) % o f E m p l o y m e n t G r o w t h EMPLOYMENT CENTRES 301,426 39.4 REST OF C M A 464,074 60.6 Source: Statistics Canada 2001b Further evidence of decentralization exists when a sample of employment densities is taken throughout the decade. In Table 7 below, the change in employment density ratios for the central city and employment centres is contrasted with that of the rest of the CMA over the 1990s. T A B L E 7: EMPLOYMENT CENTRALITY RATIO: CENTRE VS. CMA (JOBS/HA) y. y 1991 r £ > ;200t,;.'^.: CENTRAL CITY & EMPLOYMENT CENTRES 79.3 80.1 REST OF C M A 10.6 14.0 CONCENTRATION RATIO 7.5 5.7 Source: Statistics Canada 2001b What is observed is similar in direction, but greater in scale to what was observed above with the measure of population centrality. Over the 1990s, Toronto saw the disparity between job density in employment centres and other areas of the region decrease. This suggests that proportionally more jobs are being created in the rest of the CMA than are being created in traditional job centres. Just as in the measure of 5 2 population centrality, this suggests that employment in the region is becoming less centralized over time. Overall, the findings of this section and the two sections that preceded it suggest that the pattern of development observed in the Toronto region over the 1990s was one better described by the decentrists thinkers such as Fishman, Dear, Fusty and Soja than by centrists such as Leinberger, Shearmur or Garreau. There exists within Toronto's recent development a new force that channels growth into areas not easily described by models of Park and Burgess; a force that is more diffuse and much less likely to correspond with other urban activities and form the agglomerations observed in the early part of this century. The nature of this new set of forces in not yet known, but it is certain that their direction in terms of forming urban space and their interaction with urban policy will help to shape the North American metropolis for some time to come. 53 Chapter 6 6.0 Conclusions 6.1 IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY In late 2002 and early 2003, a discussion occurred in the pages of the journal City & Community between a number of urban scholars (Dear, 2002; Abbott, 2002; Beauregard, 2003; Brenner, 2003). The focus of this debate revolved around the assertion that Los Angeles and the form of urban structure that was emerging there were archetypical of early 21st-century urbanism across North America. What came out of this debate was very little. Very quickly discourse devolved into harsh criticism over whether or not the city of Los Angeles and the researchers who studied it were worthy of having a school of thought all their own within the canon of urban studies research. While there was some poignant discussion about how well the Los Angeles experience transferred to other cities in the North America, much of this was lost in the overall debate. The inferences that can be drawn from the analysis presented here have some direct applicability to the debate that went on in the pages of City & Community. The findings here support the assertion - whether it be in the form of Dear and Flusty's "Keno Capitalism" model, or Soja's urban imaginary, or even the disjointed overlapping household networks hypothesized by Fishman - that a new form of postmodern urbanism is emerging in North America, and not just within the confines of southern California. Today's urban theorists are trapped in a debate about the changing nature of North American cities and the very validity of the LA School model. This debate has so far been a descriptive one that has failed to undertake any normative discussion about how cities should work in the future given this new structural reality. 54 But, just as the Chicago School models began as intentionally simplistic pictorial representations and stewarded a broader study of human relationships and social organization, so too must today's urban theories help explain these schizophrenic urban development patterns and integrate them with contemporary notions of sustainability and livability. It is the hope of the author that the current analysis can in some small way add to the argument being made that the form of urban development that emerged in the last quarter of the 20 t h century represents a marked shift away from the rational, centrist models that had come before. 6.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING POLICY IN THE GTA Current planning methods are, to varying degrees based on a rational assumption of urban development. Growth management plans, housing models and the creation of regional town centres all presuppose that growth will occur in an understandable way. However, if a new form of urban structure is emerging, it becomes increasingly important that the patterns and outcomes of this new structure are understood in order to allow for the adequate planning and regulation of the urban realm. In Toronto's case, a new planning regime for the region is about to come into effect. This represents the possibility of a major step forward for the region; a step toward a regional level of governance where an effective one has never really existed. The provincial Places to Grow Strategy is tasked with redirecting new regional growth into mixed-use regional growth zones, moderating the jobs-housing balance throughout the region, and increasing residential intensity. The strategy has identified five objectives that will govern planning in the region. These include: strategies that will compel urban development to take on more intense, compact forms; regulatory regimes that will direct growth toward identified priority urban centres; land regulation that will maintain future growth areas for better 55 management of the future supply of developable land; economic development strategies to maintain and increase the region's economic strength; and a set of guidelines aimed at maintaining the character of small towns and rural areas. Overall, the goal will work to reverse the direction of urban development that has occurred in the region over the last three decades. However, at least two of these objectives could become more difficult to achieve given the findings presented in this analysis. The first objective, that of promoting residential intensification and more compact forms of development, is likely to be much more difficult to achieve given that findings here suggest that the trend in the development of the region has been a move away from, residential intensification (MPIR, 2004). It should be noted that of the 810 census tracts in the GTA, this analysis found that fully one quarter of them decreased in both overall population and relative density over the 1990s, with declines of this type observed throughout the region. Increasing residential intensity, while certainly a path toward the creation of a more sustainable region may not coincide with the more diffuse and disconnected urbanism that appears to be emerging in the GTA. The second objective highlighted by the Places to Grow Strategy deals with directing new growth into traditional and policy-defined growth centres. The plan identifies 11 priority urban centres as well as 15 emerging urban centres which are to provide the central focus for the region's growth. Given that the analysis here showed that the bulk of regional growth occurred outside these traditional growth centres, and that these centres were weakly correlated with population growth and increasing urban density, meeting this objective in the future is likely to be a significant challenge. Case in point: two of the priority urban centres identified by the strategy are North York and Scarborough Town centres. These areas have been the focus of policies aimed at creating regional centres for many years (Bourne, 1999; Sewell, 1993). Given that the evidence presented here provides little evidence of population 56 concentration or increasing urban density around these areas, it is unlikely that one more policy initiative is going to have significantly different results. A more detailed assessment of emerging forms of urbanism in the GTA is required in order to adequately match policy to the realities of the region's urban structure. Without a clear understanding of the trajectory of urban development within the region coupled with a set of policies that responds directly to that reality, attempts to forge a more compact and sustainable urban region will be significantly more difficult. Further, evidence here suggests that Toronto is seeing a significant break from the historical forms of urban development. The form of urban structure emerging in the region is likely to be increasingly diffuse and decentralized and will require a different set of planning tools to understand and direct growth into the future. These new forms of urbanism are creating a new playing field upon which the old rules no longer apply. Rather than lamenting that fact, it will become increasingly important for planners and decision-makers to understand the new urban reality so that adequate strategies and policies can be created that work with, rather than against the new drivers of urban development. 57 7.0 Bibliography Abbott, A. (2002) "Los Angeles and the Chicago School: A Comment on Michael Dear" City & Community}^) pp. 33. Beauregard, R. (2003) "City of Superlatives" City & Community!^) pp. 183. Berube, A. (2003) "Gaining but Losing Ground: Population Change in Large Cities and their Suburbs." In Katz, B and Lang, R. E. (eds.) Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Results from the Census 2000, Volume One. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Berube, A. and Forman, B. (2003) "Patchwork Cities: Patterns of Urban Population Growth in the 1990s." In Katz, B and Lang, R. E. (eds.) Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Results from the Census 2000, Volume One. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Black, T. (1996) "The Economics of Sprawl" Urban Land55(3): pp. 6-52. Bourne, L. S. (1989) "Are new urban forms emerging? Empirical tests for Canadian urban areas" Canadian Geographer33(1): pp.312-328. Bourne, L. S. and Olivet, A. E. (1995) New Urban and Regional Geographies in Canada: 1986-91 and Beyond. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies. Bourne, L. S. (1999) Designing a Metropolitan Region: The Lessons and Lost Opportunities of the Toronto Experience. World Bank: Found at http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/ urbancitymgt/toronto/assets /t-bourne-mod01.pdf Bourne, L. S. and Ley D. F. (1993) The Changing Social Geography of the Canadian City. Montreal and Kingston: McGill - Queen's University Press. Brenner, N. (2003) "Stereotypes, Archetypes, and Prototypes: Three Uses of Superlatives in Contemporary Urban Studies" City & Community 2(3): pp. 205. Bunting, T. (2003) "Decentralization or Recentralization? A Question of Household versus Population Enumeration, Canadian Metropolitan Areas 1971-1996." Environment and Planning A, 36(1): 127-147. Bunting, T., Filion, P. and Priston, H. (2000) "Changing Patterns of Residential Centrality: Population and Household Shift in Large Canadian CM As, 1971-1996" Cahiers de Geographie du Quebec. 58 44(123) pp. 341-361. Found at: www.ggr.ulaval. ca/cgq/textes/vo_44/no_123/05%20Filion.pdf Burchell, R. et. al. (1998) Costs ofSprawl - Revisited. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Burgess, E. (1925) "The growth of the city." In Park, R., Burgess, E., and McKenzie, R. (eds), The City, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Castells, M . (1989) The Informational City. London: Blackwell Publishing. Chase-Dunn, C. (1982) "World division of labor and the development of city systems." Comparative Research 9(3): pp. 3-9. City of Calgary (2002) Growth in the 1990s found www.city. calgary.ca/publications/a_34543-4545.asp. City of Toronto (2002) Official Plan for the City of Toronto. Retrieved March 11, 2004 from http://www.city.toronto. on.ca/torontoplan/. City of Toronto Urban Development Services (2000) GTA Population and Employment Projections to 2031. Toronto: City of Toronto. Condon, P. (2004) Canadian Cities American Cities: Our Differences are the Same. A Report Prepared for the Funders Network. Found at: http://www.fundersnetwork.org/usr_doc/Patrick_Condon_Primer.pdf. Dear, M. (2002) "Los Angeles and the Chicago School: Invitation to a Debate" City & Community'1(1): pp. 5 Dear, M . and Flusty, S. (1998) "Postmodern Urbanism" Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88(1): pp. 50-72. Downs, A. (1998) "How America's Cities are Growing: The Big Picture" Brookings Review 16(4): pp. 8-12. Downs, A. (1999) "Some Realities about Sprawl and Urban Decline" Housing Policy Debate'10(4): pp. 955-74. Evenden, L.J. and Walker, G.E. (1993) "From Periphery to Centre: The Changing Geography of the Suburbs." In L. S. Bourne and D. F. Ley (eds.) The Changing Social Geography of the Canadian City. Montreal and Kingston: McGill - Queen's University Press. Filion, P. (1996) "Metropolitan Planning Objectives and Implementation Constraints: Planning in a Post-FordisVPost-Modern Age." Environment and Planning A, 28(1): 1637-1660. Filion, P., Bunting, T. and Warriner, K. (1999) "The Entrenchment of Urban Dispersion: Residential Preferences and Location Patterns in the Dispersed City". Urban Studies36(8): 1317-1347. 59 Fishman, R. (1987) Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. New York: Basic Books. — Fishman, R. (1990) "America's New City: Megalopolis Unbound." Wilson Quarterly 14(1): 24-45. — Fishman, R. (2000) "The American Metropolis at Centuries End: Past, Present and Future Influences." Housing and Policy Debate 11(1): 199-213. s Flanagan, W. (1993) Urban Ecology and its Critics. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Frey W. H. and Berube, A. (2003) "City Families and Suburban Singles: An Emerging Household Story." In Katz, B and Lang, R. E. (eds.) Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Results from the Census 2000, Volume One. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Frisken, F. et. al. (1997) Governance and Social Well-Being in the Toronto Area: Past Achievements and Future Challenges. Research Paper 193, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto. Friedmann, J. (1986) "The World City Hypothesis." Development and Change M0): pp. 69-84. Garreau, J. (1991) Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. Toronto: Doubleday. Glaeser, E., Kahn, M. , and Chu, C. (2001) Job Sprawl: Employment Location in US Metropolitan Areas. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Centre on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Galster, G. et al (2002) "Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an Elusive Concept," Housing Policy Debate 12(4): 681-718 Found at: http://www.Fanniemae foundation.org/programs/hpd/v12i4-index.shtml. GHK Canada (2002) Growing Together: Prospects for Renewal in the Toronto Region. Found at: http://www.city. toronto.on.ca/moraine/ pdf/2002summary.pdf. Greater Toronto Coordinating Committee (2000) Final Draft Report of the GTA Steering Committee on Population and Employment Forecasts for the Greater Toronto Area: A Report to the Greater Toronto Coordinating Committee. Toronto: Greater Toronto Coordinating Committee. Greater Vancouver Regional District (2003) Population Density in Greater Vancouver 1991-2001 found at: www.gvrd.bc.ca/publications/ file.asp?ID = 677 60 Greater Vancouver Regional District (1996) Livable Region Strategic Plan found at www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/lrsp.htm. Hall, P. (1998) "Globalization and the world of cities." In F. Lo and Y. Yeung (eds.) Globalization and the World of Large Cities. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Hoyt, H. (1933) One Hundred Years of Land Values in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hutton, T. (1998) The Transformation of Canada's Pacific Metropolis: A Study of Vancouver Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Kremarik, Frances (2000) "Urban Development," Canadian Social Trends 11(59): 18-23. Lang, R. E. (2003) Edgeless Cities: Exploring the Elusive Metropolis. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Lang, R. E. and Simmons, P. A. (2003) "'Boomburbs': The Emergence of Large, Fast-Growing Suburban Cities." In Katz, B and Lang, R. E. (eds.) Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Results from the Census 2000, Volume One. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Leinberger, C. B. (1990) "The Changing Location of Development and Investment Opportunity." Urban Land54(5): 31-36 — Leingberger, C. B. (1996) "Metropolitan Development Trends of the Late 1990s: Social and Environmental Implications." In H. L. Diamond and P. F. Noonan (eds.) Land Use in America. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Lemon, J. (1996) Liberal Dreams and Nature's Limits: Great Cities of North America since 1600. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Ley, D. (1985) Gentrification in Canadian inner cities: Patterns, Analysis, Impacts and Policy. Ottawa: Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Lucy, W. H. and Phillips, D. L. (2003) "Suburbs: Patterns of Growth and Decline." In Katz, B and Lang, R. E. (eds.) Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Results from the Census 2000, Volume One. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. McKenzie, Roderick D., (1933) "The Rise of Metropolitan Communities." In: R. McKenzie and A. Hawley (eds.) Roderick D. McKenzie on Human Ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 61 Mercer J, (1999) "North American cities: the micro-geography," in F. W. Boal and S.A. Royle (eds.) North America: A Geographical Mosaic. London: Arnold. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (1993) Metropolitan Toronto: The Changing Context, 1953-1993. Toronto: Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal (2004) Places to Grow: Better Choices, Brighter Future found at: http://www.placestogrow.pir. gov.on.ca/scripts/index.asp. Ministry of Transportation Ontario (1996) Labour Force Commuting Patterns. Toronto: Government of Ontario. Miron, J. R. (1993) "Demography, Living Arrangement and Residential Geography." In L. S. Bourne and D. F. Ley (eds.) The Changing Social Geography of the Canadian City. Montreal and Kingston: McGill -Queen's University Press. Moore, E. G. (1993) "Migration, Mobility, and Population Redistribution." In L. S. Bourne and D. F. Ley (eds.) The Changing Social Geography of the Canadian City. Montreal and Kingston: McGill -Queen's University Press. Morenoff, J. and Sampson, R. J. (1997) "Violent Crime and the Spatial Dynamics of Neighbourhood Transition: Chicago, 1970-1990." Social Forces 76: pp. 31-64. Orfield, M. (1997) Metropolises: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Orfield, M . (2002) American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Park, R. E. (1926) "The Urban Community as a Spatial Pattern and a Moral Order." In E. W. Burgess (ed.) The Urban Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Popenoe, D. (1979) "Urban Sprawl: Some Neglected Sociology" Sociology and Social Research 31 (2): pp.181-88. Quillian, L.(1999) "Migration Patterns and the Growth of High-Poverty Neighbourhoods, 1970-1990." American Journal of Sociology, 105(1): pp. 1-37. Reddick, R. (1954) "Population Growth and Distribution in Central Cities, 1940-1950." American SociologicalReview2\(X): 38-43. 62 Scafidi, B. P., Schill, M . H., Wachter, S. M. , and Culhane, D. P. (1998) "An Economic Analysis of Housing Abandonment." Journal of Housing Economics. 7(4): pp. 287-303. Sewell, J. (1993) The Shape of the City: Toronto Struggles with Modern Planning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Shearmur, R. and Charron, M . (2004) "From Chicago to L.A. and Back Again: A Chicago-Inspired Quantitative Analysis of Income Distribution in Montreal", Professional Geographer 56(1): pp. 109-126. Shearmur, R. and Coffey, W. (2002) "Agglomeration and Dispersion of High-order Service Employment in the Montreal Metropolitan Region, 1981-1996" Urban Studies390): pp. 359-378. Short, J. R. and Kim, Y. (1999) Globalization and the City. New York: Longmans. Sierra Club (1998) Sprawl: The Dark Side of the American Dream. Found at http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/ report98/what.html. Sohmer, R. R. and Lang, R.E. (2003) "Downtown Rebound." In Katz, B and Lang, R. E. (eds.) Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Results from the Census 2000, Volume One. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Soja, E. W. (2000) Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Statistics Canada (1983) Urban Population Growth: Data from the 1981 Census. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Statistics Canada (2001) Labour Force Survey, 2001. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Statistics Canada (1931) Census Data Analyzer. Accessed through the University of Toronto. Available at: http://dc1. chass. utoronto.ca/census. Statistics Canada (1961b) Census Data Analyzer. Accessed through the University of Toronto. Available at: http://dc1 .chass.utoronto.ca/census. Statistics Canada (2001b) Census Data Analyzer. Accessed through the University of Toronto. Available at: http://dc1 .chass.utoronto.ca/census. Thompson, W. (1947) Population: The Growth of Metropolitan Districts in the United States, 1900-1940. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census. Yeates, M . (1997) The North American City (5th ed.). New York: Longmans. 63 8.0 Appendix 64 APPENDIX: Census Tract Data and Calculations (Greater Toronto CMA) p 1 jTract Area {Total Tract Population and Change : Total Occupied Dwellings [Average Hsehld Size Density (Population per Hectare) " I No. Sq Km 2001 1991 Chng %Chng QT 2001 1991 Chng % Chng QT 2001 1991 Chng 1991 2001 Chng %Chng QT j Total t 6902.74 C Z 46828S7 3893046 789851 20.29% L ~~4 1634755 1366695 268060 20.29% * u 2.9 0.0 6.595 7.933, 1.338 20.29% •" 2 . 1 6.1 626 618 ..: 8.0 ••• 1.29% 240 215 25.0 11.63% 3 ' 25 1 .-2 9 - • -0.4 1.013 1.026 0.01 1.29% 2 5 3.16 658 592 =' 66.0 .11.15% 3 255 245 10.0 4.08% 2 26 24 02 1.873 2.082 0.21 11.15% 3 4 0.34 •'• 7417 -7050 367.0 5.21% 2 3525 3395 130.0 3.83% 2 20 2.0 00 207.353 218.147 10.79 5.21% 2 £ 0.38 5438 ,.' ' 5087 . • 351.0 :.'" i 6.90% ' 3 2545 2140 405.0 18.93% 4 . 21 22 -0.1 133.868 143.105 9.24 6.90% 3 7.01 0.2 . 3786 ; . 3545 ' 241.0 ' • 6.80% 3 1735 1695 40.0 2.36% 2 20 ' 1.8 0.2 177.250 189.300 12.05 6.80% 3 7.02 0.43 . ' 5941 . . 5325 . .--.616.0 H.57% 3 2665 2485 180.0 7.24% 3 22 20 0.2 123.837 138.163 14.33 11.57% 3 . i 2.13 •• 1692 1336 366.0 / 26.65% 4 870 640 230.0 35.94% 4 1 9 2 0 -0.1 6.272 7.944 1.67 26.65% 4 1C 091 •9527 ' ' -6715 ; • 2812.0 ' 41.88% 4 4725 2625 2100.0 80.00% 4 20 i 2.4 - -0.4 73.791 104.692 30.90 41.88% 4 11 0.98 2081 - i 836 ! 1245.0 148.92% 4 1155 395 760.0 192.41% 4 1 7 20 -03 8.531 21.235 12.70 148.92% 4 12 1.11 2995 ' , 1955 ' 1040.0 53.20% 4 1805 1040 765.0 73.56% 4 1 7 '-"',1 8 -01 17.613 26.982 9.37 53.20% 4 ' 13 0.76 •6365 ' 4573 ' .1792.0 '39.19% ' ' 4 3785 2760 1025.0 37.14% 4 . 1 7 1 7 00 60.171 83.750 23.58 39.19% 4 ' 14 0.47 516 •-. 304 - ' 212.0 69 74% 4 270 175 95.0 54.29% 4 1 8 '••17 01 6.468 10.979 4.51 69.74% 4 • 15 0.28 2468 1364 *' 1104.0 -.' - 80.94% 4 1470 770 700.0 9091% 4 1 7 •17 00 48.714 88.143 39.43 8094% 4 ie 0.67 . . 2632 1133 1399.0 ' 123.48% - ~ 4 1460 455 10O5.0 220.88% 4 1 6 . 1 8 , --0 2 16.910 37.791 20.88 123.48% 4 17 1.33 6427 ' . 4671 . 1756.0 37.59% ' 4 3520 2435 1085.0 44.56% 4 , . 18 i 1 8 0.0 35.120 48.323 13.20 37.59% 4 18 0.35 1770 1822 -62.0 -285% 1 730 695 35.0 5.04% 2 ' ,23 ' 25 -02 52.057 50.571 -1.49 -2.85% 1 1S 0.25 3738 3209 ;•• 529.0 16.48% 3 1360 1060 300.0 28.30% 4 ' 26 27 -0.1 128.360 149.520 21.16 16.48% 3 21 0.88 • ' •. 5235 .. 5199 .— • *'36.0 0.69% 2 2690 2525 165.0 6.53% 3 T >-1 9 2 0 -0.1 59.080 59.489 0.41 069% 2 •-"•'22 0.55 3838 3857 , -19.0 > - -0.49% 1 1560 1530 30.0 1.96% 1 - 24 .' - 25 -01 70.127 69.782 -0.35 -049% 1 23 0.68 3249 '3176 73.0 2.30% 2 1290 1245 45.0 3.61% 2 .25 25 0.0 46.706 47.779 1.07 2.30% 2 • • 24 0.71 . 6643 - 6632 ' ' 11.0 0,17% 2 3015 2865 1500 5.24% 2 22 22 00 93.408 93.563 0.15 017% 1 ; ,.-25 0.53 . . 3297 3308 -. -11.0 -0.33% 1 1580 1495 85.0 5.69% 2 20 2.2 -02 62.415 62.208 -0.21 -0.33% 1 'iilze 0.78 6986 6602 ' " 384.0 • "5.82% 2 2725 2415 3100 12.84% 3 '25 1 27 -0.2 84.641 89.564 4.92 5.82% 2 «#,27 0.4S ' 5153 • " 4747 ;' 406.0 •: 8.55% 3 1840 1610 230.0 14.29% 3 '27 :' 2.9 -02 96.878 105.163 8.29 8.55% 3 '«illt28 0.67 \.:„5575 4868 i»j-.707.0 V/V14.S2K X . 3 2235 1700 535.0 31.47% 4 TV 25 -*m*2i - v-0.2 72.657 83.209 10.55 14.52% 3 ' :-2S 0.68 6810 • 6806 '•' 4.0 0.06% 2 2530 2365 165.0 6.98% 3 '2 6 ••"27 ' -0.1 100.088 100.147 0.06 006% 1 • ;psc 0.38 4413 '3963 '450.0 ' 11.36% 3 1415 1250 165.0 13.20% 3 3.0 ' 3.0 0.0 104.289 116.132 11.84 11.36% 3 < 31 0.26 6868 ' 6652 216.0 3.25% 2 2525 2510 15.0 0.60% 1 2.7 . 25 - 0.2 255.846 264.154 8.31 3.25% 2 32 0.42 5413 5020 393.0 7.83% 3 2715 2255 460.0 20.40% 4 16 -.' 16 00 119.524 128.881 9.36 7.83% 3 33 0.32 5143 4716 427.0 - 9.05% 3 2765 2600 165.0 6.35% 3 • 1 8 --17 0 1 147.375 160.719 13.34 9.05% 3 34 0.53 7046 • •• 4629 ' 2417.0 52.21% 4 3635 2260 1375.0 60.84% 4 - 1 8 1 7 •0.1 87.340 132.943 45.60 52.21% 4 36 0.66 ..4277 ' ,3322 .-. 955.0 V 28.75% 4 2300 1715 585.0, 34.11% 4 1 7 - , 1 7 0.0 50.333 64.803 14.47 28.75% 4 36 0.38 . 4347 ' : 3712 '.. 635.0 ; . 17.11% 4 2345 1805 540.0 29.92% 4 1.8 ' ,-2.0 -0.2 97.684 114.395 16.71 17.11% 4 37 0.46 '•• 4768 •.. , 4539 • ->V229.0 " 5.05% 2 2000 1805 195.0 10.80% 3 " ,-2.3 'M-2.2 •.- 0.1 98.674 103.652 4.98 5.05% 2 38 0.36 3619 '. 3504 ' 115.0 •3.28% 2 1475 1115 360.0 32.29% 4 24 2 9 , -0.5 97.333 100.528 3.19 3.28% 2 • 3S 0.32 4359 •i .4233 126.0 . >298% - 2 1655 1565 90.0 5.75% 2 " 26 . - 27 -0.1 132.281 136.219 3.94 2.98% 2 4C 0.37 4970 4992 --22.0 ' -0.44% 1 1760 1575 185.0 11.75% 3 ,*28 3.0 •-02 134.919 134.324 -0.59 -044% 1 •' 41 0.32 3438 .-.-.:-' 3875 ' -437:0 •> .-11:28% ?>• 1 1210 1140 70.0 6.14% 3 .'28 •,'.i.--3 4 -0.6 121.094 107.438 -13.66 -11.28% 1 42 0.49 .5021 •••5623 ' •• ' 6^02.0 -•' -10.71% 1 1915 1765 150.0 8.50% 3 1 26 •*f"i3 0 -04 114.755 102.469 -12.29 -10.71% 1 43 0.55 3995 •4341 •346.0 - • - -7.97% I -1 1405 1305 100.0 7.66% 3 28 4*1 3.2 • . -04 78.927 72.636 -6.29 -7.97% 1 44 0.49 5574 '. 5811 .' -237.0 -. -4.38% ..• 1 2035 1910 125.0 6.54% 3 27 3.0 . " -03 118.592 113.755 -4.84 -4.08% 1 • 45 0.29 3863 " 'V'4261 -398.0 -. .'.19:34% " 1 1385 1415 -30.0 -2.12% 1 .•27 ' '30 -0.3 146.931 133.207 -13.72 -9.34% 1 •• 46 0.42 : 4080 4149 ; 5 . -S9.0 - -1.66% . 1 1375 1210 165.0 13.64% 3 30 V - '3 4 -04 98.786 97.143 -1.64 -1.66% 1 ' 47 1.02 ' ' "-12939 •/' : 7851 5088.0 64.81% y 4 5470 3050 2420.0 79.34% 4 -2.4 .«r. 2.5 -01 76.971 126.853 49.88 64.81% 4 48 0.34 '"•3938 : 3783 155.0 4:10% .'- 2 1655 1545 110.0 7.12% 3 . i-2 3 •SH2 4 -0.1 111.265 115.824 4.56 4.10% 2 • -• 4S 0.46 ' .3407 • -3731 -324.0 « t-8.68% 1 1460 1465 -5.0 -0.34% 1 *•• 2.1 •-<"¥. 22 -0.1 81.109 74.065 -7.04 -8.68% 1 "' 50.01 1.29 ••: . 5884 A-5584 " 30O.0 •V -• 5.37% ••, 2 2900 2710 190.0 7.01% 3 ,«,'. 2.0 •ftf.2.0 v . . o o 43.287 45.612 2.33 5.37% 2 50.02 2.47 -.-'5186 .;..5145 ""i 40.0 .- '-. .078% 2 2375 2280 95.0 4.17% 2 , 22 5J.V22 . - \ 0.0 20.830 20.992 0.16 0.78% 2 ' -.-.51 0.68 '-•'5651 -'••5572 !"Hie .-79.0 1.42% -,'2 2645 2485 160.0 6.44% 3 2 1 > t l "£ 22 ' •' • -0.1 81.941 83.103 1.16 1.42% 2 55 0.5 3840 3906 r ;.- •.• -66.0 ' .i-,.-1.69% "'- 1 1620 1540 80.0 5.19% 2 2 4 '2.5 .-0.1 78.120 76.800 -1.32 -1.69% 1 .< :"' 63 0.68 • • 5918 i-.''-*: 5411 '607.0 :'-y «:9.37% " 3 2065 1610 455.0 28.26% 4 29 -.- -03 79.574 87.029 7.46 9.37% 3 • 54 0.7 6775 =.? ' 6869 '-94.0 V.<f>1.37% ->• 1 2865 2640 225.0 8.52% 3 23 ff-25 - ,-0.2 98.129 96.786 -1.34 -1.37% 1 •'"66 0.27 2950, -;~ -3242 -232.0 -9.01% 1 1240 1185 55.0 4.64% 2 .2 4 f ".2.7 • -03 120.074 109.259 -10.81 -9.01% 1 56 0.51 • 5144 ••- 6068 -•'t,.-924.0 -15.23% 1 1870 1900 -30.0 -1.58% 1 27 3 2 ' --05 118.980 100.863 -18.12 -15.23% 1 57 0.27 2455 ' 'J 2646 . -191.0 -7.22% 1 1070 975 95.0 9.74% 3 • ',2.2 " " 25 - 4 3 98.000 90.926 -7.07 -7.22% 1 58 0.39 4193 ' 4390 ' -197.0 '-4.49% 1 1935 1695 240.0 14.16% 3 i ' 2.1 I . 2.5 , . -0.4 112.564 107.513 -5.05 -4.49% 1 5S 0.37 3531 ' ... 3807 I r-276.0 -7.25% 1 1390 1270 120.0 9.45% 3 24 29 -05 102.892 95.432 -7.46 -7.25% 1 6C 027 2238 ' 2300 -62.0 -270% 1 1115 1090 25.0 2.29% 2 20 - 20 0.0 85.185 82.889 -2.30 -2.70% 1 • S i • E S S •BHD • K B • E S BK33 • • X •KEE • B S E WME£ B l 61 0.76 1205 ' ','1127 - : 78 0 • 6 92% 3 495 495 0.0 0.00% 1 P.' -1.6 • '•" 1.6 ¥0.0 14.829 15.855 1.03 6.92% 3 62 0.7 9261 .7853 '. -. 1408 0 17 93% .* 4 5270 4440 830.0 18.69% 4 1 8 '•• . -1.7 4!f.'-:'0.1 112.186 132.300 20.11 17.93% 4 63.01 0.32 - ' 6846 6212 • 634 0 • 10 21% • 3 4590 4395 195.0 4.44% 2 1 5 >,-ri:3 0.2 194.125 213.938 19.81 10.21% 3 .63 02 0.23 5494 '4441 ' '10530 23 71% '4 3725 2935 790.0 26.92% 4 -: . 1.5 i'S.1.3 - . . 02 193.087 238.870 45.78 23.71% 4 64 0.19 2341 1 ' 1784 • 557 0 31 22% 4 1435 1195 240.0 20.08% 4 ' 1.6 : - 1 : 3 r .:.*'.:,; 0.3 93.895 123.211 29.32 31.22% 4 66 0.23 >.'!25 *• 13765 •'" 2460 0 •17 87% 4 7015 6970 45.0 0.65% 1 - •; 2.3 U-*2.0 *,.*-*0.3 598.478 705.435 106.96 17.87% 4 66 0.33 . 6965 . 7162 - -197 0 • ' -2 75% 3910 3765 145.0 3.85% 2 16 •: 1.7 a-V;<l.1 217.030 211.061 -5.97 -2.75% 1 67 0.65 1429 -. 1836 / -407 0 -' -2217% 690 770 -80.0 -10.39% 1 >. 2.1 r> 2.2 •i ; -0.1 28.246 21.985 -6.26 -22.17% 1 68 0.42 •2183 • -2671 -•»•-' -388 0 •,--15 09% • 1 1115 1145 -30.0 -2.62% 1 2.0 2.2 .?«-0.2 61.214 51.976 -9.24 -15.09% 1 6E 0.86 5776 . ; 5913 • r-137 0 ' -2 32% 2080 1950 130.0 6.67% 3 -:,;*.;25 : 2.7 :-'*-.-0.2 68.756 67.163 -1.59 -2.32% 1 7C 0.44 3440 3618 •* -178 0 • , -4 92% 1690 1675 15.0 0.90% 1 ' • 1.9 ' 2.0 v • ---0.1 82.227 78.182 -4.05 -4.92% 1 71 0.46 3253 3457 .'-204 0 .-• -5 90% 1280 1285 -5.0 -0.39% 1 . , 2.5 /-.'-•'2.7 -0.2 75.152 70.717 -4.43 -5.90% 1 . 72 0.95 • 8129 • .8250 • - -121 0 * • -147% 3095 3010 85.0 2.82% 2 •'2.6 2.7 . . - -0.1 86.842 85.568 -1.27 -1.47% 1 73 0.35 3213 2785 428 0 '. 15 37% 3 1070 920 150.0 16.30% 3 3.0 V- 3.0 0.0 79.571 91.800 12.23 15.37% 3 •74 0.4 4504 V 4154 , a-' 350 0 . "8 43% 3 1645 1445 200.0 13.84% 3 2.7 .a- 2.7 -' .0.0 103.850 112.600 8.75 8.43% 3 75 O.E - 4467 ,'4346 121 0 < ,'2 78% 2 1785 1660 125.0 7.53% 3 :,5-2.'8 2.5 AS? " 0.0 86.920 89.340 2.42 2.78% 2 76 0.46 4323 3861 -. 462 0 - 11 97% 3 1850 1565 285.0 18.21% 4 •-.••02.3 '-.-'sC!.'2.5 ••• --' 10.2 83.935 93.978 10.04 11.97% 3 77 0.61 4439 4425 • ?140 " 0 32% 2 1795 1755 40.0 2.28% 2 ~'-;-\Z.5 ".'2.5 • '• -0.0 72.541 72.770 0.23 0.32% 1 78 0.77 6319 • ' 5878 ' 441 0 ' , 7 50% .' 3 2880 2505 375.0 14.97% 3 '• "21 2.2 - -0.1 76.338 82.065 5.73 7.50% 3 79 1.01 5763 * , 5375 " v 388 0 • " 7 22% * 3 2350 2090 260.0 12.44% 3 2.4 -i3»;2.5 1 -0.1 53.218 57.059 3.84 7.22% 3 8C 0.87 8193 . ' 7 0 4 8 -' 1145 0 '..'16 25% ' 3 3385 3080 305.0 9.90% 3 '-•.V 2.4 *: 2.2 02 81.011 94.172 13.16 16.25% 3 81 0.36 ' 3078 '•*- -3181 -1030 • ' --3 24% 1 1120 1070 50.0 4.67% 2 I=r' 2.7 ".;' 3.0 •" .-0.3 88.361 85.500 -2.86 -3.24% 1 82 0.31 2806 • 2842 -36 0 -1 27% 1 1015 1000 15.0 1.50% 1 27 - J 2.7 0.0 91.677 90.516 -1.16 -1.27% 1 - 83 0.45 4181 • 4083 ..' " '98 0 ,- , 2 40% . . 2 1830 1710 120.0 7.02% 3 " •'•',-•23 '•• 24 ,:.:::--:---o.i 90.733 92.911 2.18 2.40% 2 84 0.42 376-t " .'.3712 ft!.-149 0 1.32%  1525 1390 135.0 9.71% 3 . i'^ 2.4 2.5 •r?s-o.i 88.381 89.548 1.17 1.32% 2 85 0.47 •3BBK4035 • 3968 • 67.0 1 69% 2 2105 2120 -15.0 -0.71% 1 - > ' 1.9 1.8 • -0.1 84.426 85.851 1.43 1.69% 2 . if ..86 1.12 2749 ....^2890 ti!i'a141 0 •• 38% . . . .1 955 935 20.0 2.14% 2 jx£fe,29 3.0 . . .. -0.1 25.804 24.545 -1.26 -4.88% 1 " 87 i.e '4602 T - -.-460, T- W l 0 7**;roo2% 2245 2180 65.0 2.98% 2 '.'' '2.0 roR'O.O 28.756 28.763 0.01 0.02% 1 88 0.23 2058 1890 >-.• -168.0 • . '889% ' 3 1085 1015 70.0 6.90% 3 ' '..'..1:7 1.7 * -10.0 82.174 89.478 7.30 8.89% 3 89 0.33 1673 '• 1378 .295 0 - .2141% •4 1050 815 235.0 28.83% 4 1.6 1.7 '. -0.1 41.758 50.697 8.94 21.41% 4 90 0.39 -• 3494 2893 - " 601 0 ' '-,20.77% '.'• 4 2025 1505 520.0 34.55% 4 -'-'*, 1.6 ":. -1.7 - .': - -0.1 74.179 89.590 15.41 20.77% 4 91.01 0.51 5757 . '5269 ? 488 0 "•" 926% 3 3105 2705 400.0 14.79% 3 1.6 . 1.7 '•^Ptti-0.1 103.314 112.882 9.57 9.26% 3 91.02 0.33 3332 . 3211 K-'. 121.0 ':•:;;!'3 77% . 2 1865 1770 95.0 5.37% 2 Ti*r.6 1 6 .0.0 97.303 100.970 3.67 3.77% 2 92 0.63 • 6861 W*7211 V ,^-350 0 -•••.V-4 85% * • 1 3735 3600 135.0 3.75% 2 -' r«1.'8 1.8 s»-SPo.o 114.460 108.905 -5.56 -4.85% 1 93 0.62 5572 '.'-'-*6169 ".?'?-5970 '.•> i9 68% '* 1 2110 2110 0.0 0.00% 1 * ' :*'24 2" 99.500 89.871 -9.63 -9.68% 1 '94 0.64 5380 .* '5792 -412.0 *> -711% \ 1 1925 1750 175.0 10.00% 3 • • 2.8 .3.2 .:,'.:*-K-0.4 90.500 84.063 -6.44 -7.11% 1 95 0.32 • 3592 3784 »:-192:0 '•.-! *-5.07% ' 1 1295 1170 125.0 10.68% 3 28 32 118.250 112.250 -6.00 -5.07% 1 96 0.55 - '5749 , •-.' 5625 V '1:124 0 •a... 2 _% 2 1955 1750 205.0 11.71% 3 r-*/29 32 102.273 104.527 2.25 2.20% 2 97.01 0.38 " ., .4925 ' -4836 -;.5->'89 0 •. 1 84% 2 1565 1430 135.0 9.44% 3 *VJC3..1 3-*B3.2 '? -0.1 127.263 129.605 2.34 1.84% 2 97 02 O.E "> 5651 •5451 " 200 0 •JT 3 67% 2 2045 1860 185.0 9.95% 3 •~.'»2.8 2.9 -01 109.020 113.020 4.00 3.67% 2 98 0.72 - '-7092 5813 >«iM279 0 -'.•22.00% 4 2495 1850 645.0 34.86% 4 • . 28 • 3.0 5-0.2 80.736 98.500 17.76 22.00% 4 9S 0.58 . -- 6291 • ,5758 •' ;.533 0 F . 9 26% 3 3145 2845 300.0 10.54% 3 i. -'2.0 .3S2:o *» i-- o.o 99.276 108.466 9.19 9.26% 3 10C 0.2S 2060 •.-1720 340.0 19-77% ' 4 830 665 165.0 24.81% 4 2.4 ::•; -;,s.--o:i 59.310 71.034 11.72 19.77% 4 101 0.43 •->. 3346 .-»« -J3098 --S*2« 0 '. vv:aoi% 3 1415 1255 160.0 12.75% 3 2 4 72.047 77.814 5.77 8.01% 3 -102 0.47 9127 "•>"•.'• 8390 .'•«i?-.'737.0 • «*"8 78% .-> 3 4840 4840 0.0 0.00% 1 1.9 1.7 t-sy^o.2 178.511 194.191 15.68 8.78% 3 s- 103 0.83 5780 1 if5702 *-*W8.0 ** ...1 37% 2 2435 2510 -75.0 -2.99% 1 2.3 22 WW • 0.1 68.699 69.639 0.94 1.37% 2 ,-, , 104 0.74 5289 ST 4^ -22 0 •' . - -0.41% • 2105 2025 80.0 3.95% 2 : •" 2.5 71.770 71.473 -0.30 -0.41% 1 • 105 0.55 . 4675 .4853 '#«>~178 0 V'-"-3.67% 1 1830 1780 50.0 2.81% 2 r :• . 2.7 if - ' K-0.2 88.236 85.000 -3.24 -3.67% 1 106 1.38 2072 *- -."1974 *,«98 0 T-* .4.96% 2 670 650 20.0 3.08% 2 . : ' -3.1 3.0 ~. !"£0.1 14.304 15.014 0.71 4.96% 2 107 0.73 . . 4899 < 1-4887 .--¥-• #12 0 •ft-: 0 25% 2 1490 1450 40.0 2.76% 2 3.4 • - 66.945 67.110 0.16 0.25% 1 108 0.74 *SHBBZi78 6656 >**122 0 1:83% : 2375 2335 40.0 1.71% 1 7 • •: -5 '.#0.2 89.946 91.595 1.65 1.83% 2 • 109 0.62 •4448 ->3905 .-.«?.^543 0 T,<'13 91% 3 1420 1185 235.0 19.83% 4 -• • 32 •,-:i-.;K-0:i 62.984 71.742 8.76 13.91% 3 . 11C 0.55 mmsm -•'".' 4217 TSWJ-72 0 o*f X-1 71% - V-.1 1400 1290 110.0 8.53% 3 v?.:?-.'3.0 3.2 >*»*'•: S0.2 76.673 75.364 -1.31 -1.71% 1 111 0.46 :*.m . .'•I- M920 i VW8 0 JXi? 0.96% 2 925 825 100.0 12.12% 3 31 3.5 ^ --•T'-0.3 63.478 64.087 0.61 0.96% 2 -112 O.E -. ,'i';5702 •-S7 •S»f«18S0 CSK -3 14% • 1805 1735 70.0 4.03% 2 :>• •3.4 •j»'«-s.-0.3 117.740 114.040 -3.70 -3.14% 1 --'»113 0.38 "•' '2958 a* "¥3027 "P*:-69 0 tJ\y-2 28% * 1 1110 1100 10.0 0.91% 1 2.7 r »'»:>» 0.0 79.658 77.842 -1.82 -2.28% 1 114 0.62 " K'5533 5692 •»Kfe159 0 5SBy*-2.79% ... , 1 2455 2345 110.0 4.69% 2 2.2 <».'-2.4 -'. 91.806 89.242 -2.56 -2.79% 1 115 0.37 4953 r i :-' J4999 .Vtv~-'46 0 -0 92% •• 1 1795 1465 330.0 22.53% 4 •W2.7 3.2 .!^ 0.5 135.108 133.865 -1.24 -0.92% 1 116 0.68 4281 *^ *4156 125.0 t-^301% ,* 2 1645 1490 155.0 10.40% 3 ' ' "fis-Z3 2.4 -01 61.118 62.956 1.84 3.01% 2 117 0.39 • 1866 '••••1617 '.' ' 249 0 1540% 3 910 705 205.0 29.08% 4 :: .--si • \. 22 '•"-. -0.1 41.462 47.846 6.38 15.40% 3 p [Tract Area Total Tract Population and Change J Total Occupied Dwellings Average Hsehld Size Density (Population per Hectare) 'I No. Sq Km 2001 1991 Chng % Chng QT 2001 1991 Chng % Chng QT 2001 1991 Chng 1991 2001 Chng '/•Chng QT | Total ! 5902.74 j 4682B97 3893046 789851 20.29% I 4^ 1(34755 1366695 268060 20.29% * ' 2.9 H E 0.0 6.595 7.933 1.338 20.29% • i • 11£ 067 -.- .,2927 '•.2867 :'-. ,600 ,. -' ,2.09% .!..,_. 2 1330 1280 50.0 3.91% 2 2.2 '-^ B:=' 2 2 • 0 0 42.791 43.687 0.90 2.09% 2 >" 119 0.85 4602 -' "4164 - 438.0 -.0,52% "- - 3 2385 2115 270.0 12.77% 3 *19 1 8 0 1 48.988 54.141 5.15 10.52% 3 120 0.26 ' 1469 .^ 1467 2.0 • * '0.-.14% - 2 745 690 55.0 7.97% 3 20 — 20 - 0 0 56.423 56.500 0.08 0.14% 1 -121 0.2 2046 •-• ',1684 '-' y : 362.0 -• 21.50% T-4 1045 920 125.0 13.59% 3 18 1 : 1 7 . 0 1 56,133 68.200 12.07 21.50% 4 -"122 0.53 - ' ,5007 •.?-, ,4868 -> ' 139.0 '- 2 86% 2 2960 2880 80.0 2.78% 2 1 7 1 7 , 0 0 91.849 94.472 2.62 2.86% 2 • 123 0.07 ..•.'.2248 ••.' 2126 • --' 122.0 "5.74% . 2 1490 1455 35.0 2.41% 2 1 5 1 s 0 0 303.714 321.143 17.43 5.74% 2 124 0.51 '-' 5182 i- i 4471 - 7.11.0 ; -15.90% '-: " 3 3375 2975 400.0 13.45% 3 1 5 15 0 0 87.667 101.608 13.94 15.90% 3 125 1.14 .4542 ,:. - 4650 - ' ', -8.0 -0-3% "-:--" 2 1605 1580 25.0 1.58% 1 28 . 29 - 0 1 39.912 39.842 -0.07 -0.18% 1 " ,126 1.46 ,', •"• 3933 - ''3768 - "5.-.165.0 " ,4.38% -.'" 2 1710 1715 -5.0 -0.29% 1 23 • ' 22 0 1 25,986 27.124 1.14 4.38% 2 '.--'.127 0.74 Z* 4992 4651 M«' 341.0 '. - -7-33% 3 2280 2170 110.0 5.07% 2 2.2 20 . 0 2 62.851 67.459 4.61 7.33% 3 128.01 0.43 "'8078 . 5881 • •> -2197.0 £37:36% 4 4765 3780 985.0 26.06% 4 •»17 15 > 0 2 136.767 187.860 51.09 37.36% 4 128,02 0.52 '5728 4700 -.. 1C28 0 '-',.* 21.87% 4 3275 2825 450.0 15.93% 3 • 1 7 16 - - 0 1 90.385 110.154 19.77 21.87% 4 ' -:. 12S 0.93 4843 •: '..'4720 ;-. 123 3 i- '2.61% % 2 2225 2140 85.0 3.97% 2 , 22 22 v fc 0 0 50.753 52.075 1.32 261% 2 . '' 130 1.28 >S3717 » ,';.: 3804 ' ' -87 D ' -i-2.29% - ' 1 1380 1365 15.0 1.10% 1 2.7 ... 27 ' - 0 0 29.719 29.039 -0.68 -229% 1 S-."131 1.05 .'. * - 5310 ' "5085 ' ! -226.0 >-•": 4.'42% :,".!:*'' 2 2390 2160 230.0 10.65% 3 22 22 0 0 48.429 50571 2.14 4.42% 2 132 0.93 .T=-.,5531 ., n-4942 : - "',589.0 ' -.11.92% 3 2050 2025 25.0 1.23% 1 27 24 N .03 53.140 59.473 6.33 11.92% 3 -'133 0.67 ••' ' 6757 •'•'•V 6244 • -513.0 8 22% --: 3 3400 3400 0.0 0.00% 1 1 9 1 7 02 93.194 100.851 7.66 8.22% 3 134 0.42 • •-,',2750 > 2733 --. 17.0 * "--0.62% 2 1040 1030 100 0.97% 1 » 27 ' 27 ' 0 0 65.071 65.476 0.40 062% 2 F,' '135 0.72 --5473 ,' "5287 186.0 - .:-3:62% 2 2980 2900 80.0 2.76% 2 1 8 17 . 01 73.431 76.014 2.58 3.52% 2 ' >'-136 04 .-9030 : «-**'7685 ' :1345.0 -.:17.50% 4 6085 5680 405.0 7.13% 3 1 5 12 V 0.3 192.125 225.750 33.63 17.50% 4 -V ;137 0.91 i.v6275 i.'-i 6180 ~ . '95.0 1.54% - 2 3325 3200 125.0 3.91% 2 1 9 1 8 ' '-.01 67.912 68.956 1.04 1.54% 2 ' •'- 138 0.96 '• -3212 •3002 1 "-210.0 - -^7:00% ".3 1175 1040 135.0 12.98% 3 27 •% - 29 -02 31.271 33.458 2.19 7.00% 3 13S 1.28 - ' 6165 5985 " 1800 V- 3.01% - : 2 2475 2465 10.0 0.41% 1 . 25 2 4 01 46.758 48.164 1.41 3.01% 2 "140 0.58 •2540 '-" »'2515 S' ~?.25.0 , •: 0.99% . -.' 2 790 775 15.0 1.94% 1 32 32 •;,".f, 0 0 43.362 43.793 0.43 0.99% 2 141.01 0.55 -" S3952 '. - .3876 ':' -'.' :.'76.0 4 " 1.96% •••2 1605 1610 -5.0 -0.31% 1 - -25 . -'. 24 0 i 70473 71.855 1.38 1.96% 2 141.02 0.68 .',',,4534 . ..' .4289 '.. 245.0 * *:,571% 2 1675 1665 10.0 0.60% 1 27 25 ' 0 2 63.074 66.676 3.60 5.71% 2 ..U142 1.04 ,-Aifcs3544S A«e4L5076 .,isi369.0 ....v.7.27.% 2275 2065 210.0 10.17% 3 . _~»'2 4 .:n,-;:....2 2 48.808 52.356 3.55 7.27% 3 150 1.07 "'"'•3955 " -""^ -3939 ' ,ur16.0 0.41% 2 1530 1525 5.0 0.33% 1 '2.6 25 36.813 36.963 0.15 041% 2 151 0.64 3948 '" :-3889 '"",-.-.r59,0 1 52% 2 1545 1520 25.0 1.64% 1 2.6 1%.. 25 — 0 1 60.766 61.688 0.92 1.52% 2 152 0.85 ..-'-4514 •i;4639 1^25.0 •, -2.69% - ." 1 1785 1740 45.0 2.59% 2 25 -27 -02 54.576 53.106 -1.47 -2.69% 1 153 0.97 " - 4922 . -.4604 ,318.0 : 6.91% , 3 1630 1535 95.0 6.19% 3 30 30 0 0 47.464 50.742 3.28 6.91% 3 " '154 2.1 • 6006 -•- 5911 \ :->;95:o - .1.61% 2 2715 2655 60.0 2.26% 2 2.2 ." '22 . .p . 0 0 28.148 28.600 0.45 1.61% 2 155 0.78 - .3386 - -'-:'- .3259 ',-126.0 . :.,'<*3.87% 2 1175 1155 20.0 1.73% 1 29 27 02 41.782 43.397 1.62 3.87% 2 156 01 0.5S .-"6251 ,-- --.6438 <: -187 0 --**-. -22.90% : : : ,-«'1 2215 2290 -75.0 -3.28% 1 ,'28 27 " " - 0 1 109.119 105.949 -3.17 -2.90% 1 156 02 0.59 : -' "*»2808 -2986 ' -178.0 • -5:96% 1020 1065 -45.0 -4.23% 1 2.8 WJS-2 7 /» > " 0 1 50.610 47.593 -3.02 -5.96% 1 - 157 0.46 .,;,i*i.2738 r • .2759 ---.•••f-21.0 -?#0 . '76% '• ^ l 955 1010 -55.0 -5.45% 1 2.9 ,*:*r'2 7 • 02 59.978 59.522 -0.46 -0.76% 1 "158 0.64 •r-./»*2688 * '2203 •--?485.0 m>:22.02% 4 1040 910 130.0 14.29% 3 2 : : i V 2 4 " " M 0 1 34.422 42.000 7.58 22.02% 4 ',159 1.06 '. ' 6440 .Ci-^8044 J ,0 4 :-2% 2 2790 2715 75.0 2.76% 2 "1 - .3 0 - '3.0 >,4\ 0 0 75.887 79.623 3.74 4.92% 2 .'16C 0.73 \j.'3546 > *ft,;3191 r-».S355.0 11:13% 3 1130 1030 100.0 9.71% 3 •• 31 30 t».-0 1 43.712 48.575 4.86 11.13% 3 - 161 0.82 • ',7447 - -':e*«7211 •-4K-236S) 2 2525 2425 100.0 4.12% 2 : 2.9 30 -.-~ftO 1 87.939 90.817 2.88 3.27% 2 .-162 0.57 ,--'5828 -*i-55157 •'- 671.0 : 13.01% .- 3 1945 1965 -20.0 -1.02% 1 2.8 2.5 -, «* 03 90.474 102.246 11.77 13.01% 3 "163 0.46 ¥-4869 :.=><: 5088 :*':;-219.0 .-."," "-4.-30% - A-l 1745 1790 -45.0 -2.51% 1 •'28 - 27 :• 0.1 110.609 105.848 -4.76 -4.30% 1 ' 164 0.63 i:6852 '" "(7.180 '•!TV-328.0 «;?»"-4:57,% 1 2535 2510 25.0 1.00% 1 -"2-7 t»*>2 7 j ' O O 113.968 108.762 -5.21 -4.57% 1 * J165 0.48 . f,:«'4601 S--SS4438 f. S-,^ 163.0 •i' "t3!67% *?!-2 2000 1965 35.0 1.78% 1 23 « - f 2 2 " - a ' O i 92.458 95.854 3.40 3.67% 2 v 166 0.78 ~»i"'.4080 '.-4C08 .. .0 . 1.80% 2 1625 1665 -40.0 -2.40% 1 2.5 -*--««"• 2 4 f,r i 0 1 51.385 52.308 0.92 1.80% 2 167 01 0.14 ,«,'«J2801 ,^ 3031 ' -230.0 -7.59% - ' . 1 1700 1875 -175.0 -9.33% 1 1.5 •:SMI 1 5 - - ! ' 0 0 216.500 200071 -16.43 -7.59% 1 167 02 0£ :-',-6038 ' »5298 ' .740.0 '""t"i-,13.97,% 3 2930 2760 170.0 6.16% 3 1 - H 8 v " " V 0 3 88.300 100.633 12.33 13.97% 3 .•168 0.56 :V:i"5775 :• .*'->5615 •160.0 r<«-2.85% 2 2480 2360 120.0 5.08% 2 23 24 ' V - 0 1 100.268 103.125 2.86 2.85% 2 169 01 0.38 ., -.'^ ,.'3424 i-<S»:3245 .'.1790 3S3"5':52% 2 1340 1270 70.0 5.51% 2 25 r * 26 - 0 0 86.395 90.105 4.71 5.52% 2 169 02 0.44 -J{ft*i7087 J:-W5805 :*4*;.1282.0 «Si-22.CI8% . '. ' 4 3025 2905 120.0 4.13% 2 2.3 s . '«*>20 *,„'t, <03 131.932 161.068 29.14 22.08% 4 ',170 1.02 :-'ia*i3322 '. '"3316 « 6 0 ,|;1BP,0.-18% 2 1185 1180 5.0 0.42% 1 ...12 8 27 ,"W.W 0 1 32.610 32.569 0.06 0.18% 1 '-171 061 :': "ii8<4428 .69 ;%'i1,159:o 35.45% 4 1470 1105 365.0 33.03% 4 -•---»'2.8 f- 2 7 t ' t01 53.590 72.590 19.00 35.45% 4 - < 172 1.21 •" '.:s-2803 • '.'« **>27.10 S.--t«93.0 3.43% 2 1115 1150 -35.0 -3.04% 1 i i ' 2.4 7 s - 0 1 22.397 23.165 0.77 3.43% 2 • '173 oe --'?» 3712 *i *:**t3628 at,S*84.o "2.32% 2 1355 1350 5.0 0.37% 1 1, 'i"2 7 V 27 , r ~ 0 0 60.467 61.867 1.40 2.32% 2 '-.'174 1.05 -SS3;6522 iHS-2017'0 • 44.77,% 4 2245 1695 550.0 32.46% 4 25 - i 42.905 62.114 19.21 44.77% 4 175 01 0.79 - .-I67 s4019 ^ '#1948:0 48.47% 4 2280 1880 400.0 21.28% 4 2 0 6 50.873 75.532 24.66 48.47% 4 175 02 0.71 -. :':.'6908 ,«SSv813.0 13.34% 3 3380 3255 125.0 3.84% 2 • 18 J 0 2 85.845 97.296 11.45 13.34% 3 • 176 1.01 <„-'4590 •*,->jT4339 J-.-S:'- 251.0 - ; -5:78% 2 1625 1615 10.0 0.62% 1 •2.8 2.5 -" 0 3 42.960 45.446 2.49 5.78% 2 ' 180 0.61 , !7125 5878 ;;*;1247.0 . 21.21% 4 2785 2665 130.0 4.90% 2 25 « • 22 - *. , 03 96.361 116.803 20.44 21.21% 4 181.01 0.58 - ". 4793 .' 4686 . '---107,0 ." -2.28% 2 1920 1810 11O0 6.08% 2 25 25 • - 0 0 80.793 82.638 1.84 2.28% 2 CO CT , • jTractArea [Total Tract Population and Change - jTotal Occupied Dwelings -A^verage Hsehld Size Density (Population per Hectare) •• I No. Sq Km 2001 1991 Chng % Chng QT 2001 1991 Chng % Chng QT 2001 1991 Chng 1991 2001 Chng %Chng QT | Total } 5982.74 | 4682897 3893046 789851 2059% * | 1634755 1366695 268060 20.29% 4 29 0.0, 6.595 | 7.933 1.338 20.29% i •*18i»02 0.59 - "-'3884 3579 , ' ' 305:0 •35*18 52% ^ .-Sv»3 1645 1535 110.0 7.17% 3 2 3 <r>22 01 60.661 65.831 5.17 8.52% 3 ; » 8 2 0.76 5435 •s •» 5503 t ' -68 0 *Vfr-1 24% •?< 1 2220 2065 155.0 7.51% 3 \ •"*2 4 V." 2 7 if.. -0 3 72.408 71.513 -0.89 -1.24% 1 WK183 0.95 " -6844 •>.. -6838 6.0 «J.'0 09% HV2 2525 2540 -15.0 -0.59% 1 ,27 «"*»2 7 t" , 00 71.979 72.042 0.06 0.09% 1 -IH 84.01 0.47 •r-"»5094 '•35 299!0 .' ' 4% "* t 2 2155 2025 130.0 6.42% 3 ' 24 - 24 00 102.021 108.383 6.36 6.24% 2 184.02 0.56 -.#3951 . '>r3872 4'-...79 0 •«W7204% -2 1640 1620 20.0 1.23% 1 ' 24 2 4 00 69.143 70.554 1.41 2.04% 2 ,185.01 0.4S #57597 * J6736 8610 1T-12 78% 3 3395 3175 220.0 6.93% 3 •*-2 2 • f 20 • ' 02 137.469 155.041 17.57 12.78% 3 185.02 1.22 - • -.»4868 . 4455 " " ' 413 0 V* 927% •;.-3 2105 2110 -5.0 -0.24% 1 3 V 22j 2.0 0.2 36.516 39.902 3.39 9.27% 3 ;«iae 1.87 •1 £2039 1914 1250 V .'6 53% *^^.3 875 850 25.0 2.94% 2 • " • 23 ' 22 H!r • 01 10.235 10.904 0.67 6.53% 3 •5MB87 1.1S .. V3174 -•74 i '200 0 '*•.*- 6 72% *vg 3 1350 1285 65.0 5.06% 2 *M 23 iW'2 2 01 24.992 26.672 1.68 6.72% 3 .1SS188 0.55 "»-.'•; 2012 : 1^843 169.0 «<B*«- 9 17% "TE 3 810 715 95.0 13.29% 3 K«25 • '.".<2.5 f. 00 33.509 36.582 3.07 9.17% 3 .Ssf 189 1.24 * - 6323 5686 » 637 0 S*.V1120% "•s?*t3 2280 2225 55.0 2.47% 2 ,fe,2 6 V>«2,4 < '.02 45.855 50.992 5.14 11.20% 3 #190:01 0.4 -*• «" 9082 7593 «-< 1489 0 SSf**f19 61% 4 3570 3480 90.0 2.59% 2 ->S 25 ' •* ' 22 1.''- .'0 3 189.825 227.050 37.23 19.61% 4 i190:02 0.58 • V*,' 4862 ,"41,14 748:0 WSW18 18% -»JTi4 2025 1830 195.0 10.66% 3 M3K2 4 ' 22 O 0 2 70.931 83.828 12.90 18.18% 4 -tjiiiai 0.83 *><H 4298 . * '4199 •> • 990 2 36% S36'2 1785 1700 85.0 5.00% 2 .'«t>!2 4 2.5 -01 50.590 51.783 1.19 2.36% 2 W192 0.92 * * «• 708 • 1 .t?590 V ; -1180 2*-20 00% 375 345 30.0 8.70% 3 ' 5 *1 9 i+,(-1 7 02 6.413 7.696 1.28 20.00% 4 19,15193 1.37 -t2545 '".ii 388 0 M 15 25% ,S, 3 1055 1045 10.0 0.96% 1 28 • ; -f2 4 0 4 18.577 21.409 2.83 15.25% 3 3*6194 3.09 " '-16681 •*" 12312 'J 4369 0 • .35 49% 3 f " 4 6395 5965 430.0 7.21% 3 < 26 "T'-2 0 06 39.845 53.984 14.14 35.49% 4 !.«195 1.33 3 6035 • ,:;5399 636 0 - . - '11 78% .3 2610 2465 145.0 5.88% 2 •' -' 2 3 ' 22 1 '01 40.594 45.376 4.78 11.78% 3 • 9 6 1.48 J - 7447 -**7185 i '.262 0 & W ' - - 3 66% . * 2 3050 3025 25.0 0.83% 1 hi r'2 4 2 4 0 0 48.547 50.318 1.77 3.65% 2 •1SS20C 0.68 ' \ -.7195 , '.6219 ' „ i 3 *VS*15 69% ' .-'.'3 3715 3305 410.0 12.41% 3 .1"; , 1 9 18 , ',01 91.456 105.809 14.35 15.69% 3 :~9>i-201 0.74 4275 ..' " 3612 • 663:0 IC-.-»18 36% 4 1980 1625 355.0 21.85% 4 •*."<> 21 ."~t 22 -01 48.811 57.770 8.96 18.36% 4 •• *pm 0.33 '- ''1656 " ' 1674 • -180 <=5B~*-1 08% -1 635 635 0.0 0.00% 1 -•.W-.2 6 25 01 50.727 50.182 -0.55 -1.08% 1 ::»-.t203 0.59 3307 - F3182 125:0 ,',«»• 3 93% -*-2 1485 1415 70.0 4.95% 2 00 53.932 56.051 2.12 3.93% 2 J3t204 0.75 • T 4770 . ; 4913 -143!0 •v:'-'-29i% 1 2220 2180 40.0 1.83% 1 , :*-2i '< 2 2 >f -,.«-01 65.507 63.600 -1.91 -2.91% 1 206.01 1.13 . r'4158 •t4242 f'-84 0 '*''. .'.93% (.-*' 1 1860 1780 80.0 4.49% 2 -«ei"2 2 2.2 '!• •.' 0.0 37.540 36.796 -0.74 -1.98% 1 '"206.02 1.09 ''>6224 •••5846 378 0 • 647% 3 2700 2585 115.0 4.45% 2 .-11SV2 3 2.2 S*rf«t- 0 1 53.633 57.101 3.47 6.47% 3 •8MK07 0.67 2523 , :-.i6i '„••,. -193:0 StU-A 11% 4^sgl 995 1050 -55.0 -5.24% 1 4 * 2 * 5 . ..;!! 2.5 . 0 0 40.537 37.657 -2.88 -7.11% 1 S1H08 1.29 V*f ."3841 " ' i.1935 1906:0 ;«ST9850% 1655 755 900.0 119.21% 4 . '«*23 --'AT.2 5 -"- r ' -02 15.000 29.775 14.78 98.50% 4 «.20£ 0.7 ' .-2963 •;2847 116:0 *K~t~. 4 07% 1355 1300 55.0 4.23% 2 .*?S22 22 v.. y. 0 0 40.671 42.329 1.66 4.07% 2 (SSi2'1C 3.79 • •} 4804 i --^2642 • •i. > 2162 0 .",C 81 83% &^ =r:4 2140 990 1150.0 116.16% 4 •lofil 2<1 ' -2.5 \t* -04 6.971 12.675 5.70 81.83% 4 :*»2.i:i 3.26 ~6501 6677 4--J-176 0 •S=-1<-264% .-JH'1 2445 2415 30.0 1.24% 1 1"r2 7 » 127 0.0 20.482 19.942 -0.54 -2.64% 1 •smssa 1.68 -^ T5617 < (56458 • 159:0 »SM&'291% JSP 2 2110 2035 75.0 3.69% 2 -'"<- 2 6 "*.-' -2 7 . -0.1 32.488 33.435 0.95 2.91% 2 4B-213 7.95 ~V> 3801 •-to TP »691 0 W2222% W 4 1470 1140 330.0 28.95% 4 «r<?«E2 4 : '2.5 ss»,'>-0 1 3.912 4.781 0.87 22.22% 4 W214 2.83 Cl "55^ 2926 *V2875 ; - 51:0 s r c 1 77% « * 2 1105 1045 60.0 5.74% 2 ,2*826 •2.7 -0 1 10.159 10.339 0.18 1.77% 2 « ' » 6 2.62 -"V8W6048 J 27. 621 :o B8W11*44% » 3 2455 2055 400.0 19.46% 4 ? M 2 4 ' -25 ««•«-. to 1 20.714 23.084 2.37 11.44% 3 'S4W216 1.9S 5077 106'0 « r J213% W 2 2060 2030 30.0 1.48% 1 -TS9RI2S : --ys«r*o.i 24.980 25.513 0.53 2.13% 2 «W2:i7 1.2 'MTS6393 '"•6079 '• 314:0 ^•5117% !*J»2 2840 2810 30.0 1.07% 1 >3»-t22 Iimf?2!2 W'Ji, 00 50.658 53.275 2.62 5.17% 2 :>mm 0.68 •-*<5ff-2364 --,-j4 : • .' 230 C 'S«10>78% • 975 890 85.0 9.55% 3 as*-2.4 . - 2 4 * ' 0.0 31.382 34.765 3.38 10.78% 3 3»§§21S 1.36 •*43992 ••12 ':o 5S7-; 0.50% 1P*T2 1640 1625 15.0 0.92% 1 ff* -1 . 'J-24 29.206 29.353 0.15 0.50% 2 **II22C i ; •SiS.3912 3915 ^S-0.08% 9W.2 1565 1560 5.0 0.32% 1 :;r«2.5 Hk»2!5 a r -soo 30.115 30.092 -0.02 -0.08% 1 *221».1 1.62 , 6233 .'6283 -;c:o J(«0:80% ?%S.1 2705 2665 40.0 1.50% 1 • :**2 3 '•2 4 -0.1 38.784 38.475 -0.31 -0.80% 1 !«22,1!02 0.78 • ^ ' 4256 ~U 479B 3BW2.'68» ?^3 1585 1575 10.0 0.63% 1 '#>'•,'2 7 •2-4 03 48.423 54.564 6.14 12.68% 3 1822201 1.31 - V5256 . • 4984 272:0 MS' 5 46% r S " 2 1935 1885 50.0 2.65% 2 ^^g2 7 25 :.-r>'. 0 2 38.046 40.122 2.08 5.46% 2 4*22202 1.22 r ' -^5198 • '4940 2Sc:0 . f ! 1805 1795 10.0 0.56% 1 :rj?2 7 •"25 %«• " 02 40.492 42.607 2.11 5.22% 2 T«S223 1.74 :5.>«3566 •-. if • 35:0 wmome W 2 1275 1265 10.0 0.79% 1 "•S»2 8 . •'2'7 *K * 0.1 20.293 20.494 0.20 0.99% 2 • 2 2 4 1.05 >*S1697 #§i*1522 ' 175.0 !«ai5o% W»3 565 550 15.0 2.73% 2 **--3.0 ..*12 7 WHJ,'03 14.495 16.162 1.67 11.50% 3 JSW225 1.23 «3f10684 y» **-V1818!0 9K\ 20.51% i': 4 4830 4645 185.0 3.98% 2 W 22 .-4*1'8 S-rW>0 4 72.081 86.862 14.78 20.51% 4 «Hf226 0.96 .."W2759 MHF2681 ••173X1 •At : '•• 1 »W»2 1030 1000 30.0 3.00% 2 SW.27 W2-7 y •. 0.0 27.927 28.740 0.81 2.91% 2 THB227 0.49 •' M829 ?.'. -114.0 tSft-6 23J4- « * 1 635 640 -5.0 -0.78% 1 l W 2 7 .; 29 •f. 37.327 35.000 -2.33 -6.23% 1 MB 228 0.81 -S312476 • I2052 •J'W 424:0 S8B20:66%' 1025 870 155.0 17.82% 4 naffi-2-4 • • :• 4 xv.-. . 0 0 25.333 30.568 5.23 20.66% 4 » 2 2 9 0.32 • 4IIS1216 ,/<1152 ? 64.0 mmssete 1 « 8 S 2 390 385 5.0 1.30% 1 IW2S 3 0 --0 2 36.000 38.000 2.00 5.56% 2 #230:01 1.44 T44 •• •: S1828 1160 3^ B6»35% *»S#3 805 770 35.0 4.55% 2 .•8SKT2.4 ' "2.4 4>V 0 0 12.694 13.500 0.81 6.35% 3 #230.02 0.98 «i*-»5804 . '::-5230 574:0 S»-" 10.98% ffi'3 2325 2305 20.0 0.87% 1 ? «!%•- i 0.3 53.367 59.224 5.86 10.98% 3 SBB231 3.03 "'«S:6750 ' 'j.67,15 35.0 :>• 52% ,<*-T2 2665 2630 35.0 1.33% 1 ;m. 2.5 25 ssuiixoo 22.162 22.277 0.12 0.52% 2 ! t « 3 2 2.04 . A X 3954 ' - 59 S...0 »VK67% -Tfc2 1320 1310 10.0 0.76% 1 3fiS3.0 • .'3.0 i*-1 •" 0 0 19.064 19.382 0.32 1.67% 2 •V .233 2.09 ' "ft 5247 3"«S5139 ' 108.0 i^Baio% » 2 1965 1965 0.0 0.00% 1 ".5B27 •'•'!*;2'5 '«'••'- :o.2 24.589 25.105 0.52 2.10% 2 :1W234 2.13 - .,54356 " •iv:4478 -122.0 f^E2J72%i t f rU 1535 1530 5.0 0.33% 1 •',*-S&2.8 •-•: -iC:2 9 ismv-To 1 21.023 20.451 -0.57 -2.72% 1 C23K01 1.38 i 2622 f*S2606 - ; fK 16.0 M O i t K «. >2 910 885 25.0 2.82% 2 ' W5 2 9 1 -H29 Kl 0 0 18.884 19.000 0.12 0.61% 2 235.02 1.06 •I-5667 • 5613 '.S'-rMM '««o:96% l*>'2 2020 1990 30.0 1.51% 1 <MY- 28 . * 2 7 * 0.1 52.953 53.462 0.51 0.96% 2 23K01 0.98 .-6487 t 6151 -i'..:.'336.0 1tjr<":5r46% T 2 2530 2480 50.0 2.02% 2 -XT '26 'V-2 5 01 62.765 66.194 3.43 5.46% 2 p Tract Area Total Tract Population and Change Total Occupied Dwellings 'Average Hsehld Size Density (Population per Hectare) 'I No. Sq Km 2001 1991 Chng %Chng QT 2001 1991 Chng % Chng QT 2001 1991 Chng 1991 2001 Chng %Chng QT | Total I 5902.74 [ 4682897 3893046 789851 20.29% * 1634755 1366695 268060 20.29% 4 L _ • 2.9, 0.0 | 6.595 7.933 1.338 20.29% i 236.02 3.96 6032 . 6112 • -800 ' -1 31% 1 2080 2055 25.0 1.22% 1 .. 29 ' 29 *l 0.0 15.434 15.232 -0.20 -1.31% 1 237.01 1.18 • 6792 6510 , •• 282 0 , ' 4 33% 2 2105 2055 600 2.43% 2 32 32 0.0 55.169 57.559 2.39 4.33% 237.02 0.96 2876 -• 3024 -148.0 ' -4.89% 1 1010 1005 5.0 0.50% 1 28 • 30 -02 31.500 29.958 -1.54 -4.89% 1 237.03 1.04 5693 5096 597 0 1172% 3 2145 2295 -1500 -6.64% 1 25 22 • 03 49.000 54.740 5.74 11.72% ' '238.01 1.04 3219 3421 -202 0 . -5.90% 1 1235 1245 -10.0 -0.80% 1 26 27 ,-01 32.894 30.962 -1.94 -5.90% 1 238.02 0.99 • 5322 '" 5144 178 0 ' 346% 2 2020 2005 15.0 0.75% 1 ' 26 25 01 51.960 53.758 1.80 3.46% 239 2.53 6728 . 6145 583.0 949% 3 2440 2320 120.0 5.17% 2 28 25 - 0.3 24289 26.593 2.30 9.49% 240.01 1.27 3346 3415 -69 0 -202% 1 1220 1150 70.0 6.09% 2 27 30 -0.3 26.890 26.346 -0.54 -2.02% 1 240.02 1.04 5573 5219 354.0 6 78% 3 2605 2415 190.0 7.87% 3 21 22 -0.1 50.183 53.587 3.40 6.78% 241 1.0S 2745 3031 -286 0 -9 44% 1 990 1070 -800 -7.48% 1 28 27 01 27.807 25.183 -2.62 -9.44% 1 242 o.e 1581 1280 301 0 23.52% 4 585 435 150.0 34.48% 4 27 29 • ' • -02 21.333 26.350 5.02 23.52% 243.01 0.31 ' 7109 6111 998.0 ' 16.33% 3 2200 2170 30.0 1.38% 1 32 2 7 , 05 197.129 229.323 32.19 16.33% 243.02 1.21 3475 (3783 -308.0 • -8.14% 1 1300 1280 20.0 1.56% 1 2.7 29 -02 31.264 28.719 -2.55 -8.14% 1 244.01 1.44 ' 3600 3877 • -277 0 -7 14% 1 1220 1255 -35.0 -2.79% 1 3.0 30 00 26.924 25.000 -1.92 -7.14% 1 244.02 1.42 6150 5965 185 0 • "3 10% 2 1925 1885 40.0 2.12% 2 32 32 0.0 42.007 43.310 1.30 3.10% 2 •:? 246 1.42 7089 •' >6959 130.0 187% 2 2635 2575 60.0 2.33% 2 , 27 27 0.0 49.007 49.923 0.92 1.87% 2 ' '246 1.07 3656 • 3636 20.0 0.55% 2 1260 1235 25.0 2.02% 2 ' 26 , -27 -0.1 33.981 34.168 0.19 0.65% 2 247 20.64 13417 7938 5479 0 , ' 69.02% 4 3700 2405 1295.0 53.85% 4 36 30 0.6 3.846 6.500 2.65 69.02% 4 248.01 2.( -'.-' 10350 • 8973 1377.0 -"• 1535% 3 2850 2330 520.0 22.32% 4 36 ' 3.7 -0.1 34.512 39.808 5.30 15.35% 3 248.02 1.21 6203 5640 563.0 <• '9.98% 3 1740 1680 60.0 3.57% 2 3.5 32 03 46.612 51.264 4.65 9.98% 3 248.03 3.75 2883 2805 78 0 • 2.78% 2 775 705 70.0 9.93% 3 37 40 -0.3 7.480 7.688 0.21 2.78% 2 249.01 0.83 4960 4974 -24 0 -0 48% 1 1265 1170 95.0 8.12% 3 39 . 41 -02 59.928 59.639 -0.29 -0.48% 1 249.02 1.34 9261 7610 1651 0 2170% 4 2445 2310 135.0 5.84% 2 ' 38 ' 32 06 66.791 69.112 12.32 21.70% 4 .249.03 2.96 6936 5173 763.0 14.75% 3 1580 1390 190.0 13.67% 3 37 37 00 17.476 20.064 2.58 14.75% 3 260.01 1.38 5378 4871 507.0 1041% 3 1600 1395 105.0 7.53% 3 34 32 02 35.297 38.971 3.67 10.41% 3 25002 1.92 .5006 4900 106.0 2.16% 2 1730 1600 130.0 8.13% 3 - 2.9 30 -01 25.521 26.073 0.55 2.16% 2 ,,25003 1.14 13363 - 10519 • 2844.0 ;,.-^ 27.04% 4 4165 3430 735.0 21.43% 4 V - .3 2 . ,,3 0 .j. . 02 92.272 117.219 24.95 27.04% 4 260.01 0.75 7200 6206 994 0 " 16.02% 3 2415 2215 200.0 9.03% 3 . '30 27 0.3 82.747 96.000 13.25 16.02% 3 260.02 0.42 8435 7426 1009 0 13.59% 3 2780 2755 25.0 0.91% 1 3.0 ' ' 2.7 03 176.810 200.833 24.02 13.59% 3 260.03 1,26 7035 6455 680.0 - 8.99% 3 2550 2505 45.0 1.80% 1 28 2.5 • 0.3 51.230 55.833 4.60 8.99% 3 261 1.89 5035 4495 540 0 12 01% 3 2005 1860 145.0 7.80% 3 2.S 24 01 23.783 26.640 2.86 12.01% 3 262.01 0.68 5286 . 4250 . 1036.0 , 24.38% 4 2410 2060 350.0 16.99% 4 22 20 02 62.500 77.735 15.24 24.38% 4 .262.02 2.15 6396 "•5895 501.0 - 8 50% 3 2485 2415 70.0 2.90% 2 26 24 0.2 27.419 29.749 2.33 8.50% 3 263.01 2.24 5334 •"-6107 2227.0 36 47% ' 4 4375 3255 1120.0 34.41% 4 - -19 1 7 0.2 27.263 37.205 9.94 36.47% 4 263 02 2.01 2393 ' -2286 .107 0 4.68% 2 1000 930 70.0 7.53% 3 ' 23 01 11.373 11.905 0.53 4.68% 2 264 3.46 1386 .1555 -169.0 ' -10 87% 1 415 430 -15.0 -3.49% 1 32 '"34 .-0.2 4.494 4.006 -0.49 -10.87% 1 • ,265 2.68 3812 •3053 759.0 24 86% 4 1015 815 200.0 24.54% 4 ; , 2 9 2.9 . 3 11.392 14.224 2.83 24.86% 4 266 2.76 3060 2912 148.0 ' 5.08% 2 1030 945 85.0 8.99% 3 3.0 3.0 . .* 0 0 10.551 11.087 0.54 5.08% 2 . 267 2.72 6325 ' 6824 -499.0 "• - -7.31% 1 2080 2065 15.0 0.73% 1 3.0 3.2 -02 25.088 23.254 -1.83 -7.31% 1 i 268 3.02 5962 ' . •' 5923 39.0 ' • 0 66% 2 2615 2455 160.0 6.52% 3 22 ' 24 -0.2 19.613 19.742 0.13 066% 2 '•• " 26S 2.43 8203 '5998 2205 0 ' 36.76% ' 4 2950 2360 590.0 25.00% 4 28 • 25 0.3 24.683 33.757 9.07 36.76% 4 2^70.01 1.13 5033 •' -4725 308.0 6.52% 3 1855 1810 45.0 2.49% 2 -' 27 .-'-• 2 5 .0.2 41.814 44.540 2.73 6.52% 3 r 270.02 0.77 4246 4027 218.0 , 5 41% • 2 1610 1550 60.0 3.87% 2 * 26 25 0.1 52.299 55.130 2.83 5.41% 2 271.01 0.89 2471 2488 -17 0 , -0 68% 1 890 890 0.0 0.00% 1 . .28 27 01 27.955 27.764 -0.19 -0.68% 1 271.02 0.71 4454 • 4284 ' 170 0 ' -3.97% 2 1720 1700 20.0 1.18% 1 . 2.6 2.5 01 60.338 62.732 2.39 3.97% 2 272.01 0.46 6297 • 5578 719 0 •- 1289% ' 3 2375 2235 140.0 6.26% 3 26 2.5 \ 01 121.261 136.891 15.63 12.89% 3 272.02 1 ' 5120 4982 138.0 277% 2 1770 1685 85.0 5.04% 2 • 29 29 > ' 0.0 49.820 51.200 1.38 2.77% 2 273.01 3.17 4139 ' 4256 ' -117 0 " - -275% 1 1295 1275 20.0 1.57% 1 3.2 3.2 • 00 13.426 13.057 -0.37 -2.75% 1 1273.02 1.28 4394 , "4424 ,-30.0 .' -0,68% ' 1 1505 1490 15.0 1.01% 1 2.9 ' 30 ]" ' . --0.1 34.563 34.328 -0.23 -0.68% 1 274.01 1.52 5106 . 4726 380.0 '.. ,8 04% ' 3 1755 1700 55.0 3.24% 2 29 27 '0.2 31.092 33.592 2.50 8.04% 3 •274.02 1.32 3729 • 2916 813.0 - 27 88% ' ' 4 1525 1265 260.0 20.55% 4 24 „ - 22 ' 0.2 22.091 28.250 6.16 27.88% 4 275 1.96 , £353 • 5088 ' 2650 ' 5.21% 2 2380 2265 115.0 5.08% 2 22 2.2 00 25.959 27.311 1.35 5.21% 2 276.01 1.22 6122 5218 '904.0 ' "17 32% 4 2680 2420 2600 10.74% 3 22 20 0.2 42.770 50.180 7.41 17.32% 4 276.02 1.28 5818 • 5088 •730.0 • '14 35% 3 2310 2280 30.0 1.32% 1 25 .. 22 03 39.750 45.453 5.70 14.35% 3 277 1.02 4172 ' *• 3865 • 307.0 • " 7.94% • 3 1245 1225 20.0 1.63% 1 • 33 3.0 03 37.892 40.902 3.01 7.94% 3 _".-.' 278 1.36 , 7154 5979 1175 0 • • 19.65% 4 2730 2390 340.0 14.23% 3 2.6 2.5 01 43.963 52.603 8.64 19.65% 4 • 279.01 1.19 4139 4024 116.0 286% 2 1515 1440 75.0 5.21% 2 * 27 2.7 i. ', 0 0 33.815 34.782 0.97 2.86% 2 279.02 1.58 6388 6952 -564.0 -8.11% 1 2520 2290 230.0 10.04% 3 •' 24 2.9 ' - -05 44.000 40.430 -3.57 -8.11% 1 • 280 2.14 724C 7210 - 30.0 , 0.42% 2 2705 2685 20.0 0.74% 1 ' ' 2.7 2.7 00 33.692 33.832 0.14 0.42% 2 281 1.37 9942 7983 1959.0 24:54% 4 3180 2765 415.0 15.01% 3 31 29 0.2 58.270 72.569 14.30 24.54% 4 o jTotal Tract Population and Change j jTotal Occupied Dwelings 201 191 | Average Hsohld Size 201 191 j Density (Population per Hectare) 191 201 Chng Total | 5902.74 | 4682897 3893041 739:51 20.29% _4 1S34755 1366695 268060 20.29% I Hi 2 -? 0.0 | 6.595 7.933 1.338 20.29% - A ^•'282 2.2 3859 -W '^3541 '-- "318.0 ->-™-8.98% 3 1265 1115 150.0 13.45% 3 30 • • - .<. 16.095 17.541 1.45 8.98% 3 283.01 0.93 . 5468 r4356 f' 1112.0 •I. 25.53% 4 1865 1440 425.0 29.51% 4 t'2 8 29 ••'-01 46.839 58.796 11.96 25.53% 4 •*283.02 1.16 •V4520 • '-4824 .".;;-304.o -.'•-« -6.30% - '. 1 1645 1555 90.0 5.79% 2 .2.8 30 41.586 38.966 -2.62 -6.30% 1 • 284 1.4 -« 7031 " i A 6822 -. • 209.0 '">3.06% .J»„ 2 2420 2160 260.0 12.04% 3 2.9 --• 30 -01 48.729 50.221 1.49 3.06% 2 • 285 1.1 '"P'3104 : 3463 "i S359.0 -,,,'-10.37% •-. ,1 1125 1180 -55.0 -4.66% 1 28 29 *• -01 31.482 28.218 -3.26 -10.37% 1 •"- 286 3.16 !90 -.: >',3282 ....'8 0 * - 0.24% • ""- 2 1070 1045 25.0 2.39% 2 •31 •. 30 . - 01 10.386 10.411 0.03 0.24% 1 287.01 1.09 - 6409 5374 . 1035.0 .- A>>19.26% '••- . 4 2625 2190 435.0 19.86% 4 24 24 00 49.303 58.798 9.50 19.26% 4 287.02 1.09 • 6499 : .-»6068 r 431.0 W't 7.10% -" 3 2180 2140 40.0 1.87% 1 26 25 01 57.790 61.895 4.10 7.10% 3 ,.•288 2.63 -7610 .'.-:• 6804 806.0 . - 11.85% . 3 2905 2730 175.0 6.41% 3 26 * 25 01 25.871 28.935 3.06 11.85% 3 28S 1.33 . 4527 • -X'4500 27.0 0.60% 2 1590 1520 70.0 4.61% 2 . 28 " t.. 3 0 -O 2 33.835 34.038 0.20 0.60% 2 •  29C 1.33 3934 3663 281.0 7 69% 3 1520 1485 35.0 2.36% 2 ' - 26 .#i-2 5 01 27.466 29.579 2.11 7.69% 3 291.01 0.94 3^750 ,- .3766 '•--16.0 V-.-- -0.42% - -1 1405 1380 25.0 1.81% 1 2*7 ' * 27 '00 40.064 39.894 -0.17 -0.42% 1 '291.02 1.15 - •.4931 ',i*'»?;'4689 242.0 . &:16% 2 1935 1765 170.0 9.63% 3 -25 *25 00 40.774 42.878 2.10 5.16% 2 292 3.77 • •: 6509 -.t •'-',•; 6363 •1460 ... '"--229% - 2 2230 2265 -35.0 -1.55% 1 . -2 9 27 02 16.878 17.265 0.39 2.29% 2 •IP 293 2 ." 4405 < -. i 4623 ««•' -218.0 .„'«'-4r72% ". V. 1 1440 1430 10.0 0.70% 1 ' - 31 . . 32 -01 23.115 22.025 -1.09 -4.72% 1 •-.'•294.01 0.86 '4576 '•>:v,.'*4544 -.-' ,'*32.0 -5,;ji0.70% .,-'•':*'2 1535 1530 5.0 0.33% 1 £3 0 - ,30 '-0 0 52.837 53.209 0.37 0.70% 2 : 294.02 1.02 -•4600 "".V874699 '. --'>99.0 "»-*-211% r.-. 1 1385 1375 10.0 0.73% 1 . 33 3.4 ~-01 46.069 45.098 -0.97 -2.11% 1 :!-»295 1.09 -- 5614 i- • "6641 : -27.C "*> n-0,'48% •'•;.. -1 1975 1975 0.0 0.00% 1 * 28 -5 H2 7 ; 01 51.752 51.505 -0.25 -0.48% 1 >• 296 4.63 408 '- -,'-672 -264.0 .-' -39.29% ':•" .'1 155 160 -5.0 -3.13% 1 * 26 ; *• .32 -0.6 1.451 0.881 -0.57 -39.29% 1 -297.01 1.14 5355 " - .4861 S r t 494.0 _-'t'10.-16% ..' 3 2330 2295 35.0 1.53% 1 -•• * 2 3 •> - 20 " . 03 42.640 46.974 4.33 10.16% 3 .297.02 1.51 5841 ,l>4694 , a 1147.0 •-•£- 24.44% : : ' 4 2215 1890 325.0 17.20% 4 26 '*t 2 5 . . 01 31.086 38.682 7.60 24.44% 4 * •••298 2.2S 4307 :, '•3824 483.0 V ' 12.63% '..;':'•" 3 1545 1540 5.0 0.32% 1 - -28 * "25 ' * 03 16.699 18.808 2.11 12.63% 3 »•». 299 3.06 - '7436 6805 631.0 ' .9.27% A .3 2960 2815 145.0 5.15% 2 25 - 24 01 22.239 24.301 2.06 9.27% 3 '•• 300 1.06 * 2917 '2840 :^ 77.0 ->?' -2.71% 2 1270 1295 -25.0 -1.93% 1 ?*> 2 2 -01 26.792 27.519 0.73 2.71% 2 301 01 0.91 • 2964 ** "if 2820 ';•' 144.0 > 5.11% ...... 2 1070 1055 15.0 1.42% 1 28 M: 2 7 . . . 0 1 30.989 32.571 1.58 5.11% 2 301.02 1.71 8737 i . *7149 -1583.0 . .^-2221% :' 4 2920 2900 20.0 0.69% 1 30 t -25 05 41.807 51.094 9.29 22.21% 4 . 302.01 1.24 *. 6606 . • .V6892 .Vi>r286.0 -4 15% S"'.':1 2325 2240 85.0 3.79% 2 2.8 Jr„i 30 ..asSi.-0 2 55.581 53.274 -2.31 -4.15% 1 '*30202 1.1 """•6375 T-'?T-'6427 J -62.0 »>0.'81% - -:- ^ 2005 1955 50.0 2.56% 2 - 32 ""f* 32 0 0 58.427 57.955 -0.47 -0.81% 1 302.03 0.7 4016 :' .'S3855 161.0 4.18% 2 1170 985 185.0 18.78% 4 3.4 •"T39 - -05 55.071 57.371 2.30 4.18% 2 ' 303 1.05 5751 "--.'•;•'5118 -Vs- 633.0 !•'• 112.37% 3 1895 1865 30.0 1.61% 1 '. >»3 0 27 -.'-' ."-> 0 3 48.743 54.771 6.03 12.37% 3 304 01 0.25 4887 " -'4210 r-*.™. 677,0 " '^ 16.08% :' ' 3 1625 1600 25.0 1.56% 1 '- 30 -• -2 5 - ' 05 168.400 195.480 27.08 16.08% 3 304.02 1.21 . .3871 ' ,S*/4003 \i' -132.0 -3.30% fi'i" 1 1260 1240 20.0 1.61% 1 •29 30 -01 33.083 31.992 -1.09 -3.30% 1 .*304:03 0.97 3^212 ,-. YA3296 » A-84.0 r - ,?2.55% •'"' •:. 1 980 980 0.0 0.00% 1 33 3 4 - , -01 33.979 33.113 -0.87 -2.55% 1 «304:04 0.24 ' . 3598 '*" V 42869 ' i«729:0 •-.•*.« 25.41% vg-;.'4 1395 1390 5.0 0.36% 1 It ft- -2.0 •A?' '06 119.542 149.917 30.38 25.41% 4 X4.0S 0.69 -$.-f'2951 ¥.3*3044 - ,0 .*'- "-3.06% 1085 1065 20.0 1.88% 1 » „2.7 AS- *27 W '-oo 44.116 42.768 -1.35 -3.06% 1 S304.06 0.75 - *-"5916 *'.*r;-.5ai5 !*'.#,ioi:o v a-1?74% 2 2085 2035 50.0 2.46% 2 -* :-2.8 2.7 •"*«.01 77.533 78.880 1.35 1.74% 2 <V?ii305 4.14 • .^9192 *«««8992 Mftt200.0 2 22% 2 3410 3365 45.0 1.34% 1 , "-2 7 V ! 25 *, i«S0 2 21.720 22.203 0.48 2.22% 2 ft>?306 2.29 .- 8322 7570 752 0 ?? .s.9.93% 3 2620 2495 125.0 5.01% 2 32 .•••3 0 H 42 33.057 36.341 3.28 9.93% 3 W'307 1.7 -15757 r"S-J8188 -° W569.0 ,-'"»92.44% •* 6600 3765 2835.0 75.30% 4 -,2'4 •<f«~ -2 2 • V. -02 48.165 92.688 44.52 92.44% 4 -2308.01 1.46 ' • 7241 5f 59 * *T1582.0 • .'1<27.96% '• 3415 2720 695.0 25.55% 4 2.1 S V 2 . 0 : % 01 38.760 49.596 10.84 27.96% 4 -308.02 1.45 ' "4161 :-- ':.;*4202 .*S4i:o .OJf-0.98% * 1 1560 1530 30.0 1.96% 1 • "2 7 &*'*27 i 0 0 28.979 28.697 -0.28 -0.98% 1 •.i'Srt309 0.75 5970 ." ' 5731 .' 239.0 ."4:17% 2 2305 2330 -25.0 -1.07% 1 : = 2 £ 0 2 76.413 79.600 3.19 4.17% 2 * 310.01 1.41 < -3060 -S"*y3161 -101.0 ' .,13:20% -.- -'.'1 1155 1155 0.0 0.00% 1 26 * * 27 f~ 41 22.418 21.702 -0.72 -3.20% 1 31002 2.14 ,-.*4997 •H'j^ 4971 ».-«V26.0 -•' '-;m.52% .-=.;T2 1855 1850 5.0 0.27% 1 27 "it* '27 —j»00 23.229 23.350 0.12 0.52% 2 *I31,I:01 10.53 "T>i10537 «:••.?-'8438 *«K2099.0 •  !»S24.88% :.:.r4 4060 3685 375.0 10.18% 3 , k2 6 2.2 i,f 04 8.013 10.007 1.99 24.88% 4 S31.1-.02 0.89 ,••-.6105 ""*-*iS5843 MBK262.0 #'.i.',4.'48% fer 2 2170 2095 75.0 3.58% 2 <2 8 ^^ i^27 s*.<*0 1 65.652 68.596 2.94 4.48% 2 iff31t:03 O.E <>.2714 '. "2838 -124.0 Jft4:37% f' 1 870 865 5.0 0.58% 1 ' 3.1 < 32 •A-'V-O 1 35.475 33.925 -1.55 -4.37% 1 fS31i:04 0.96 ' S.7092 .„* --.:"7239 C 'T-147..0 ?:'«-2.03% ;-'1 2100 2125 -25.0 -1.18% 1 v ,"3 4 S«*"'3 4 .-—.TOO 75.406 73.875 -1.53 -2.03% 1 IT312.01 1.08 ' 1,7333 ?• -*«7485 -150.0 ?jS»»--2.00% <i---'*-1 2460 2410 50.0 2.07% 2 X*",3 0 «•*. -3 0 •l-i^-oo 69.306 67.917 -1.39 -2.00% 1 -31202 0.52 **i4065 ?-'%'ih4016 «3»49S) ~ - »' 1!22% 2 1090 1070 20.0 1.87% 1 ••"-•3.7 Aw.3 7 fp» >,"00 77.231 78.173 0.94 1.22% 2 31203 1.£ K6740 -SS6608 :132 0 » ' ' >2.'00% : 2050 2065 -15.0 -0.73% 1 3.3 #•332 i.Bs**. 01 44.053 44.933 0.88 2.00% 2 312.04 0.73 •.;,V6507 1 -4«S6761 S-'-,1254:0 i*-t-'-,3!76% 1720 1695 25.0 1.47% 1 •• • / 36 3 7 -*C-01 92.616 89.137 -3.48 -3.76% 1 s 312.05 0.35 - - *~'4445 5fW4315 - "0 0 Si'.J*3:0.1,% «-:-t 2 1340 1325 15.0 1.13% 1 ~*% "t 3 3 ' i " 3 2 * . I" 0.1 123.286 127.000 3.71 3.01% 2 •JSS313 2.84 5615 >.j3K5557 ,F'.J*P58.0 s- J.;:I.04% . 1785 1745 40.0 2.29% 2 ., 31 W '32 J1 -01 19.567 19.771 0.20 1.04% 2 314.01 0.42 -tMi.5272 ' -» '.Sc5248 3 'S.S24.0 ano:46% 1575 1575 0.0 0.00% 1 . t- 33 32 01 124.952 125.524 0.57 0.46% 2 .314.02 1.09 • <=f,3819 ,=;-3?«f.3508 K t*«311.0 • -*!f8.'87% 3 1105 930 175.0 18.82% 4 3.5 ~. K ,3 7 ' -02 32.183 35.037 2.85 8.87% 3 315.01 ' 1.48 * '.3479 t;*t*3701 : :*222.0 , »&^ 6.00% '-,:.' :1 1080 1015 65.0 6.40% 3 32 »^»»35 -0 3 25.007 23.507 -1.50 -6.00% 1 "315.02 0.43 '• ''3741 »#-«f,3268 473.0 jji14;47% 3 1080 995 85.0 8.54% 3 35 ''1...3.2 -0 3 76.000 87.000 11.00 14.47% 3 <<315.03 5.99 . -"5303 j . '-ji«4918 ' .385.0 .-*.';,' :,7.83% '-.' 3 1565 1375 190.0 13.82% 3 34 *, 35 f ' -01 8.210 8.853 0.64 7.83% 3 316.01 1.82 411C . .-.->. 4349 . .-239.0 ';. -5.50% - .'-1 1175 1160 15.0 1.29% 1 35 37 i-0 2 23.896 22.582 -1.31 -5.50% 1 CT IjTJractarea | jTotal Tract Population and Change ~ ~ | [Total Occupied Dwellings j W a g e HseHd Size |pcreity (Population per Hectare) No. Total Sq Km 5902.74 201 4682857 191 389304S Chng 789851 Vo Chng 2029% QT 4 201 1634755 191 1366695 Chng 268060 % Chng 2029% QT 4 201 2.9 191 2.9 Chng 0.0 191 6.595 201 7.933, Chng 1.338 %Chng 20.29% QT 316 02 0.81 -ST -8675 8454 V 221 :o 2 61% ,.; -.2 2445 2470 -25.0 -1.01% 1 -3^3 5 •• 553'4 -i^&oi 104.370 107.099 2.73 2.61% 2 316J03 0.39 "~- 6557 •'*••' .5363 «MH.1»."0 ••22126% • 4 1965 1960 5.0 0.26% 1 - W2'7 • 0.6 137.513 168.128 30.62 22.26% 4 31604 0.46 5018 ti'. ,;5059 -41 :o «MEo:si% 1 1705 1680 25.0 1.49% 1 • *S*30 it* ;,0 0 109.978 109.087 -0.89 -0.81% 1 31701 1.22 * 8036 V. .-' 7641 •' • 395 0 «BF5.:17% 3050 2975 75.0 2.52% 2 J «,2 6 •0 1 62.631 65.869 3.24 5.17% 2 31702 0.44 r , : \ 6824 •*> ?• - 6746 1WS78.0 «MilS1'6% • 2 3275 3315 -40.0 -1.21% 1 .--"2-1 r<20 ;-i '01 153.318 155.091 1.77 1.16% 2 31703 1.21 - 3756 4083 <MK327i'0 mmavm mmi 1155 1190 -35.0 -2.94% 1 >'-*3 3 V» '*3 4 ;• -01 33.744 31.041 -2.70 -8.01% 1 :«lr318 1.S •, ' . 6348 5604 744:0 V.:. ' 13.28% WB63 2360 2085 275.0 13.19% 3 • * * ; « 7 •IW27 ».f 0 0 29.495 33.411 3.92 13.28% 3 -W319 1.2 •- 4063 3912 W » 5 t t > » 3 86% 2 1475 1430 45.0 3.15% 2 -f<$2 7 •••2.7 ft 0 0 32.600 33.858 1.26 3.86% 2 320 01 0.74 v 4532 * , 4485 a » » 7 . : o mmmem 1645 1710 -65.0 -3.80% 1 •~*r2 7 1.:2 5 .... ','0 2 60.608 61.243 0.64 1.05% 2 320.02 0.85 •• * 5566 V '."5236 •W330.0 ! » ;6 ;30% : « 3 2045 2025 20.0 0.99% 1 M*2.7 „ '«/2 5 0 2 61.600 65.482 3.88 6.30% 3 311321 2.47 "> 7804 •f, ,- - 7779 25:0 MH0:32% SI112 2685 2620 65.0 2.48% 2 •JS*2 9 -"'2 9 t'VOO 31.494 31.595 0.10 032% 2 «H322 1.61 .7616 -. '. 5266 «II2350:0 • 44.63% •aula 2985 1995 990.0 49.62% 4 3f;f 2 4 ,*,24 m • *'o 0 32.708 47.304 14.60 44.63% 4 323.01 1.04 •- ',*Jl3795 5 3373 -...' ; 422:0 a » : 3 1615 1470 145.0 9.86% 3 *'«|i%2 3 '*J*2 2 -' *VJ0 1 32.433 36.490 4.06 12.51% 3 :323:02 1.85 •• 5905 r**p 6132 «JB§227>0 w m m * i # » i 1835 1785 500 2.80% 2 "y ~3 0 ••*« -0 1 33.146 31.919 -1.23 -3.70% 1 324.01 1.18 - •>. : 3838 .:. 3955 mmmo 1«1S2:96%' 1120 1100 20.0 1.82% 1 :,34 ' # ' 3 5 <A • -0 1 33.517 32.525 -0.99 -2.96% 1 .324 02 1.89 •,-v„-6713 6785 amsii06% M K 1 2110 2075 35.0 1.69% 1 • ' "*3,2 0.0 35.899 35.519 -0.38 -1.06% 1 324.03 2.17 «*- *"4ii:i -J3681 430:0 1695 1500 195.0 13.00% 3 .'VT2 4 .-i>2 5 J. -01 16.963 18.945 1.98 11.68% 3 ~324.04 1.2S i* •> " 7590 CS-'B7489 HHKlOlSO ; 1.35% » S » 2 2875 2530 345.0 13.64% 3 '"T.2 6 "'iZ9 - -0.3 58.054 58.837 0.78 1.35% 2 •Sf«133C 2 19 ' - 4497 •V. ••, •• 4728 -231 :o '•• -4.89% s m i 1710 1770 -60.0 -3.39% 1 i*12 6 f3l-2 7 «01 21.589 20534 -1.05 -4.89% 1 5331tQ1 1.52 ,\.% 5780 455:0 8.54% 2200 1765 435.0 24.65% 4 *#*2 6 H29 1--0 3 35.033 38.026 2.99 8.54% 3 331.05 1.57 T ' 9332 7211 2121:0 ,i.t29.41% •-. 2990 2415 575.0 23.81% 4 -*"9.31 •"•P3 0 I-.01 45.930 59.439 13.51 29.41% 4 •?lf332 1.53 ' 7697 .«•-- >-. 6530 ;i% 1167.0 f.,rr.1787% 4 2720 2445 275.0 11.25% 3 r. - ^ J 42.680 50.307 7.63 17.87% 4 5*333 2.41 .' ' 4833 . •- ."4137 s*.. 696.0 16.82% ', A 4 1625 1435 1900 13.24% 3 ." 'W2 9 -'2.9 .- 0 0 17.166 20054 2.89 16.82% 4 mm 2.35 3562 •'* '-'3505 57:0 5 1.63% SS '-2 1295 1310 -15.0 -1.15% 1 •?*»*2 7 2 14.915 15.157 0.24 1.63% 2 4III335 2.25 »" 6620 '•*>' 6133 A3T.0 -: 7.94% •* • 3 2655 2550 105.0 4.12% 2 •S2 5 '•:2.4 • 0 1 27.258 29.422 2.16 7.94% 3 .33336 1.63 ; 6877 -~iC .6430 »;<f-447:0 :v*"t6.95% >*. 3 2405 2250 155.0 6.89% 3 -? .2 8 •-".27 -roi 39.448 42.190 2.74 6.95% 3 .3*337 0.81 3122 KH...S3056 S£<jfi,66:0 . .216% rj&»2 1210 1110 100.0 9.01% 3 ~ i * 2 4 :. ,.-^ 2.5 iiA-t'-O 1 37.728 38.543 0.81 2.16% 2 "*RI33S 1.65 5995 *" '5877. '"' ' 118f0 " 2 01% 2670 2585 85.0 3.29% 2 '^22 • *-?*2 2 3 35.618 36.333 0.72 2.01% 2 >«339 1.82 * ' 6663 . 6136 t * 527* * 8.59% : # ' ~,3 3065 2770 295.0 10.65% 3 • -.!•"* 2 2 ,'2.2 3 33.714 36.610 2.90 8.59% 3 "HH3KC 1.28 • .6572 r- ' 5202 :1370.0 t->:«26:34% 4 2425 2185 240.0 10.98% 3 .VW2 7 • '.'2,4 ' 03 40.641 51.344 10.70 26.34% 4 341.01 1.08 .'9496 -- * -8109 1387,0 Wf.,17i10% --.J3*4 3570 3495 75.0 2.15% 2 ^*gj2 7 -*?»2 2 >t-rW0 6 75.083 87.926 12.84 17.10% 4 «341!02 0.78 -V .4247 i -.f 3903 '344,0 «f!w 8 81% • 1670 1585 85.0 5.36% 2 T4JW25 *'••*• 2 5 >»• -oo 50.038 54.449 4.41 8.81% 3 342 1.23 •J- ;3795 3712 t' 83:0 SiV- 2.24% :• 1235 1275 -40.0 -3.14% 1 A31 ' 3J2 9 1 - #,0 2 30.179 30.854 0.67 2.24% .2 3*343 1.1 •*;-.-*> 4247 «* <• "4077. » i « 7 o : o 4.17.% •: 1500 1435 65.0 4.53% 2 •8T2 8 ->27 , 0 1 37.064 38.609 1.55 4.17% 2 -*»344 1.28 *V '8917 •-'. .. -7655 •! 1262:0 f 16 4954 .>.:•• 3 3720 3225 495.0 15.35% 3 • » 2 : 4 '*2"4 :'s;.o.o 59.805 69.664 9.86 16.49% 3 ' * 3 4 5 0.79 .•>'< 3615 17 980 L : 2.79% - - .. 1155 1125 30.0 2.67% 2 " • ^ 3 1 ...?3'0 f'O'l 44.519 45.759 1.24 2.79% 2 346.01 1.51 TV.5149 -".:•' 4558 :.'.-• 591 0 • 12.97%' K 3 1640 1615 25.0 1.55% 1 • V W 1 • • :'27 : M0 4 30.185 34.099 3.91 12.97% 3 »346i02 0.4 .*T' > 5304 Tl ,f5238 i; . 5 66!0 1 26% 2 1915 1865 50.0 2.68% 2 M 2 8 ,':2 7, , 0 1 130.950 132.600 1.65 1.26% 2 m a n 1.E --i ,«t1037 •V> <-'1033 SRiSMO '->•;« 0-39% ; 315 310 5.0 1.61% 1 •'W31 -73I0 ,-01 6.887 6.913 0.03 0.39% 2 « 3 4 8 2.; 4336 sSr*«4198 S*»--1-38'.0 ' .-3% 2 1400 1365 35.0 2.56% 2 '.W»2.8 -•!2 5 03 18.252 18.852 0.60 3.29% 2 349 0.88 •r'6058 5308 W750:0 %*#.<.14:.13% = 2300 2230 70.0 3.14% 2 i » » 2 6 nr«62'4 02 60.318 68.841 8.52 14.13% 3 •jmm 3.35 - 5381 4506 *• 875:0 ft:i,19,42% 2015 1545 470.0 30.42% 4 •i-W2 6 ...J*2'9 -03 13.451 16.063 2.61 19.42% 4 :||»351 1.54 • !v -;8227 ' -.- C 7440 ~r:o ^»10:68% • 3090 3035 55.0 1.81% 1 JSS2.7 • .-.,'.2 4 .,'0 3 48.312 53.422 5.11 10.58% 3 •,,l«t352 1.12 •rt- ^4567 -4104 46310 »i ' 11.28% : 1620 1555 65.0 4.18% 2 • K 2 5 • VO 3 36.643 40.777 4.13 11.28% 3 .353.01 1.04 7805 7109 •; • 696:o » E - 9.79% . ;. 3 2645 2510 135.0 5.38% 2 ',:'«S-3.0 HkW2r7j '., 3 68.356 75.048 6.69 9.79% 3 1353102 1.22 5106 ..• '4846 260,0 £' 5.37,% 1660 1595 65.0 4.08% 2 - .':,'.3'0 ^ W0S1 39.721 41.852 2.13 5.37% 2 : 354 1.33 • 5280 Sv .v -'4938 4 . ' 342:o S 6.93% . 3 1740 1635 105.0 6.42% 3 JBCT29 - .^ 0 0 37.128 39.699 2.57 6.93% 3 •S|355,'01 1.08 1* --9310 '8223 '. r 13 22% 3 3305 3125 180.0 5.76% 2 '•M:2 8 •,;w.5 >03 76.139 86.204 10.06 13.22% 3 3355:02 1.11 -' -t-5613 5282 "331'0 -• 1 • 6 27.% : 1915 1815 100.0 5.51% 2 W 2 9 W2 '9 5'! ' • 0:0 47.586 50.568 2.98 6.27% 3 SB356 1.56 4721 P ••• • 4526 -.19510 4 31% : 1545 1430 115.0 8.04% 3 :'KffiJ29 .••43'0 -0 1 29.013 30.263 1.25 4.31% 2 §35701 1.05 (. ' ,!*6946 •:= 5-52 V f 1194:0 - . "6% 4 2350 2200 150.0 6.82% 3 £©9*3 0 40H2-5 ;• '-06 54.781 66.152 11.37 20.76% 4 ,-t357i02 1.11 '.• -I*: 5490 SPS»5083 (t*:!--407!0 F \ ! 8.0:1% 1730 1680 50.0 2.98% 2 45.793 49.459 3.67 8.01% 3 £358:01 1.12 »..e'.r^ -3640 3600 r 40:0 -1% 2 1115 1075 40.0 3.72% 2 •••*»3 2 »*f312 00 32.143 32.500 0.36 1.11% 2 i^ 58:02 062 t-t: t?4602 ' • 4083 \ 519:0 BSSK12.7,1% :• 1880 1775 105.0 5.92% 2 mm-2.2 !*0 2 65.855 74.226 8.37 12.71% 3 358.03 1.1 "~f -i?5453 4950 *• 503:0 m;io.'.i6% 2080 1945 135.0 6.94% 3 -JV ' • : • <V0.0 45.000 49.573 4.57 10.16% 3 -amiss 2.23 -•W. 5.-7524 '. - .• • 6628 -•• 896:0 OS 13 52% 2585 2350 235.0 10.00% 3 » 2 9 • 27 , VO 2 29.722 33.740 4.02 13.52% 3 «HI360 4.52 5488 5084 404B SB*"-7495% ': 1675 1630 45.0 2.76% 2 •»3:i •'.':3:0 0 .1 11.248 12.142 0.89 7.95% 3 •36R01 2.94 t < ! 6110 5670 M 440.0 7.76% •- 1760 1560 200.0 12.82% 3 ••SSV3.3 • -36 .-0 2 19.286 20.782 1.50 7.76% 3 :36:i!02 2.45 ?>•',<•,. 6528 ;•-' 4469 Tr? 12059.0 ' • 46 07% 4 2060 1275 785.0 61.57% 4 "•«*?3 2 • •••'3:5 ::'-0 3 18.241 26.645 8.40 46.07% 4 -.36701 2.Z - : 6189 5128 !«.-7.1061.0 v: ;2o.69% ' • 4 1950 1585 365.0 23.03% 4 **i*3 2 -.-C3 2 0.0 20.512 24.756 4.24 20.69% 4 pact Area [Total Trad Population and Change Total Occupied Dwellings 'Average HseWd Size Density (Population per Hectare) I No. Sq Km 201 191 Chng "A Chng QT 201 191 Chng "A Chng QT 201 191 Chng 191 201 Chng •AChng QT | Total i 5902.74 | 4682897 3893046 789851 2059% | 1634755 1386695 268060 20.29% 4 | • 2.9 2.9 0.0 i 6.595 7.933 1.338 • 20.29% • i 362.02 1.91 5448 3823 ••'" 1625.0 •42.51% 4 1480 1030 450.0 43.69% 4 3.7 37 0.0 20.016 28.524 8.51 42.51% 4 362.03 3.22 7400 •6893 507.0 ' 7.36% . -3 2010 1800 210.0 11.67% 3 37 37 • 0.0 21.407 22.981 1.57 7.36% 3 •362.04 1.38 4840 - 4447 .393.0 8.84% 3 1640 1505 135.0 8.97% 3 30 30 0.0 32.225 35.072 2.85 8.84% 3 363.01 1.57 8228 7517 711.0 9.46% 3 2605 2555 50.0 1.96% 1 32 29 0.3 47.879 52.408 4.53 9.46% 3 363.02 1.19 3435 3422 13.0 0.38% . 2 1085 1100 -15.0 -1.36% 1 32 30 0.2 28.756 28.866 0.11 0.38% 2 363.03 3.1 9968 4945 5023.0 101.58% 4 3865 1910 1955.0 102.36% 4 26 25 0.1 15.952 32.155 16.20 101.58% 4 < 364.01 2.91 6272 5692 580 0 10 19% 3 1945 1700 245.0 14.41% 3 31 3.2 -0.1 19.560 21.553 1.99 10.19% 3 > 364.02 0.74 3049 2935 114.0 - 3.88% • 2 980 910 70.0 7.69% 3 3.0 • 30 0.0 39.662 41.203 1.54 3.88% 2 S- 365 1.56 6422 5622 800.0 ' 14.23% 3 2020 1865 155.0 8.31% 3 3.2 30 0.2 36.038 41.167 5.13 14.23% 3 * 366 1.3S 6107 5738 369.0 • 6.43% 3 2010 1995 15.0 0.75% 1 3.0 29 0.1 41.281 43.935 2.65 6.43% 3 367.01 0.75 4838 4258 580.0 '.! ' 13.62% • 3 1355 1280 75.0 5.86% 2 36 32 0.4 56.773 64.507 7.73 13.62% 3 '367.02 1.04 3470 3586 -116.0 -3.23% 1 1150 1155 -5.0 -0.43% 1 3.0 30 0.0 34.481 33.365 -1.12 -3.23% 1 . 368 2.45 5444 4405 1039.0 23.59% 4 2060 1540 520.0 33.77% 4 25 25 0.0 17.980 22.220 4.24 23.59% 4 36{ 2.45 7134 6674 460.0 6 89% 3 2300 2260 40.0 1.77% 1 30 29 0.1 27.241 29.118 1.88 6.89% 3 370.01 1.75 9023 6293 2730.0 43.38% 4 3100 2600 500.0 19.23% 4 29 24 0.5 35.960 51.560 15.60 43.38% 4 370.02 2.28 4817 3077 • 1740.0 56.55% 4 1595 940 655.0 69.68% 4 29 30 -0.1 13.496 21.127 7.63 56.55% 4 r 370.03 0.85 3900 .3824 .76.0 .1.99% .--' 2 1335 1320 15.0 1.14% 1 29 29 0.0 44.988 45.882 0.89 1.99% 2 SB 371 3.71 6983 6858 125.0 1.82% . 2 2405 2370 35.0 1.48% 1 28 27 0.1 18.485 18.822 0.34 1.82% 2 #>372 1.32 4081 3981 100.0 2.61% 2 1390 1335 55.0 4.12% 2 29 30 -0.1 30.159 30.917 0.76 2.51% 2 m 373 0.96 5038 4586 452.0 9 86% 3 1830 1750 80.0 4.57% 2 28 - 25 0.3 47.771 52.479 4.71 9.86% 3 ,374.01 1.2 4193 3942 251.0 6 37% 3 1465 1415 50.0 3.53% 2 29 27 0.2 32.850 34.942 2.09 6.37% 3 ,374.02 0.81 3296 '3471 -175.0 -5.04% 1 1010 1005 5.0 0.50% 1 33 34 -0.1 42.852 40.691 -2.16 -5.04% 1 1374.03 0.81 4389 3990 399.0 10.00% 3 1685 1620 65.0 4.01% 2 26 24 0.2 49.259 54.185 4.93 10.00% 3 S375.01 0.95 6337 6021 316.0 5.25% 2 2550 2480 70.0 2.82% 2 • 25 ,24 0.1 63.379 66.705 3.33 5.25% 2 ,375.02 0.61 1720 1777 -57.0 -3.21% 1 635 625 10.0 1.60% 1 27 27 0.0 29.131 28.197 -0.93 -3.21% 1 375.03 0.81 5499 • 4903 596.0 - 12 16% 3 1890 1860 30.0 1.61% 1 29 25 0.4 60.531 67.889 7.36 12.16% 3 375.04 0.92 .. . 5764 „ -.5519 _.t,.,245 0 •-.,.s ,4.44% ...... 2 1630 1575 55.0 3.49% 2 .-».A3 5 «v. .3 5 . . . • 0.0 59.989 62.652 2.66 4.44% 2 "375.05 1.13 6567 6307 260.0 4.12% 2 2505 2395 110.0 4.59% 2 .- 26 ' ' '25 0.1 55.814 58.115 2.30 4.12% 2 f 376.01 1.04 5614 5172 442.0 8.55% 3 1605 1520 85.0 5.59% 2 35 34 0.1 49.731 53.981 4.25 8.55% 3 376.02 0.86 5628 , 4931 697.0 14.14% 3 1575 1535 40.0 2.61% 2 3.6 3.2 0.4 57.337 65.442 8.10 14.14% 3 376.03 1.37 8740 8225 515.0 6.26% 3 2705 2615 90.0 3.44% 2 3.2 3.0 0.2 60.036 63.796 3.76 6.26% 2 376.04 1.19 5661 5148 513.0 9 97% 3 1630 1515 115.0 7.59% 3 33 32 0.1 43.261 47.571 4.31 9.97% 3 !».376.05 1.28 ' 5752 4637 1115.0 - 24.05% ' 4 1730 1125 605.0 53.78% 4 3 3 40 -0.7 36.227 44.938 8.71 24.05% 4 ': 376.07 1.2 7372 3959 ' 3413.0 86.21% 4 2645 1620 1025.0 63.27% 4 27 2.2 0.5 32.992 61.433 28.44 86.21% 4 376.08 0.88 6955 • 6364 • 591.0 , 9.29% 3 2115 2060 55.0 2.67% 2 - 33 r 30 , -0.3 72.318 79.034 6.72 9.29% 3 •:376.0S O.E 5052 4749 - -' 303.0 - 6.38% . -• 3 1565 1475 90.0 6.10% 2 32 - 32 0.0 59.363 63.150 3.79 6.38% 3 : 376.1 1.25 7964 ' 7673 291.0 3.79% 2 2365 2295 70.0 3.05% 2 3.4 ; '• 3.2 • ' 0.2 61.384 63.712 2.33 3.79% 2 377.01 2.07 6576 - 5932 644.0 - 10.86% 3 2060 1885 175.0 9.28% 3 32 3.0 0.2 28.657 31.768 3.11 10.86% 3 I377.02 1.91 4634 ' 4559 76.0 , 1.65% - 2 1370 1305 65.0 4.98% 2 3 4 35 -0.1 23.869 24.262 0.39 1.65% 2 377.03 0.65 2921 ". 2855 66.0 '2.31% 2 870 810 60.0 7.41% 3 3.4 3.5 •0.1 43.923 44.938 1.02 2.31% 2 •377.04 0.88 6577 6233 344.0 .-• 5.52% ' 2 1630 1515 115.0 7.59% 3 r 4.0 - 4.0 0.0 70.830 74.739 3.91 5.52% 2 377.05 1.28 8657 6307 ' 2360.0 . 37.26% 4 2320 1675 645.0 38.51% 4 37 -•' 3 7 00 49.273 67.633 18.36 37.26% 4 378.01 4.06 8396 6800 - 1596.0 ' 23.47% 4 2395 1770 625.0 35.31% 4 35 ' 37 -02 16.749 20.680 3.93 23.47% 4 •378.02 1.06 - 3294 3247 47.0 1.45% ' 2 915 875 40.0 4.57% 2 36 3.7 • -01 30.632 31.075 0.44 1.45% 2 '*378.03 2.24 7267 - ' 5696 - -1571.0 27.58% 4 2010 1515 495.0 32.67% 4 • • 36 37 -01 25.429 32.442 7.01 27.58% 4 >'378.04 1.29 5630 • 4985 ..' 645.0 . 1294% 3 1485 1365 120.0 8.79% 3 '. 38 '•• 36 03 38.643 43.643 5.00 12.94% 3 378.05 0.72 • 4535 4367 • -168.0 3.85% 2 1220 1165 55.0 4.72% 2 '•- 3.7 - 3.7 0 0 60.653 62.986 2.33 3.85% 2 -378.06 1.76 5503 - 5019 ,.: 484 0 •'- 9.64% ' 3 1375 1295 80.0 6.18% 3 • 4.0 3.9 01 28.517 31.267 2.75 9.64% 3 378.07 2.81 •7266 , - '6993 '••'.- 273.0 '3.90% , 2 2270 2205 65.0 2.95% 2 ', 3 2 ' 30 -0.2 24.886 25.858 0.97 3.90% 2 378.08 0.89 6766 6513 253.0 • -'-3.88% 2 1875 1805 70.0 3.88% 2 '3.6 35 01 73.180 76.022 2.84 3.88% 2 <SJ378.1 28.72 8262 .' 6233 ' ' 2019.0 . -32.39% -. 4 2040 1505 535.0 35.55% 4 4.0 4,0 00 2.170 2.873 0.70 32.39% 4 -5378.11 0.95 4741 -4349 •" 392.0 .-' ' 9 01% • • 3 1330 1315 15.0 1.14% 1 ' 36 -. 32 - 04 45.779 49.905 4.13 9.01% 3 378.'2 0.79 5581 ' "5139 ' ' 442.0 - 8.60% 3 1735 1475 260.0 17.63% 4 • 32 , 35 -03 65.051 70.646 5.59 8.60% 3 378.-3 1.11 10773 8327 • 2446.0 - 29.37% . 4 2835 2080 755.0 36.30% 4 , 3.8 • 40 -02 75.018 97.054 22.04 29.37% 4 378.14 0.93 4154 ' 3772 382.0 10.13% .' 3 1170 1075 95.0 8.84% 3 " ,3.6 - *'\35 01 40.559 44.667 4.11 10.13% 3 -. 378.15 1.33 9496 ' 9079 417.0 4.59% 2 2525 2460 65.0 2.64% 2 ' 38 • 37 01 68.263 71.398 3.14 4.59% 2 378.9 4.58 .- 8674 7759 915.0 11.79% 3 2465 2365 100.0 4.23% 2 y • 3.5 " ,- 32 03 16.941 18.939 2.00 11.79% 3 400 01 30.33 5779 771 - 5008.0 649.55% • 4 1785 255 1530.0 600.00% 4 3.2 3.0 02 0.254 1.905 1.65 649.55% 4 400.02 1.68 6679 6850 -171.0 ' -250% 1 1880 1830 50.0 2.73% 2 36 37 -0 1 40.774 39.756 -1.02 -2.50% 1 ,400.03 OS 3269 3062 207.0 6 76% 3 935 825 110.0 13.33% 3 35 37 -02 38.275 40.863 2.59 6.76% 3 Tract Area [Total Tract Pop illation and Changs Total Occupied Dwellings % 'Average Hsehld Size Density (Population per Hectare). l No. Sq Km 201 191 Chng % Chng QT 201 191 Chng % Chng QT 201 191 Chng 191 201 Chng %Chng QT [ Total [ 5902.74 —• 1366695 268060 2029%1 2.9 2.9 0.0 6.595 » • 7.933 .... 1-«8J j 20.29% • ' 2 400.04 3.31 1982 2055 73.0 -3.65% 1 740 720 20.0 278% 2 27 2.7 0.0 6.208 5.988 -0.22 -3.55% 1 40005 4.38 9129 4457 4672.0 104.82% 4 2725 1300 1425.0 109.62% 4 3.4 3.4 0.0 10.176 20.842 1067 104.82% 4 400.06 0.95 3314 3529 -215.0 -6.09% 1 1025 1005 20.0 1.99% 1 3.2 3.5 ' --0,3 37.147 34.884 -2.26 -6.09% 1 400.07 1.57 3536 3832 -296.0 -7.72% 1 1180 1150 30.0 2.61% 2 29 3.2 -0.3 24.408 22.522 -1.89 -7.72% 1 400.08 1.75 2705 2539 166.0 6.54% 3 1275 1065 210.0 19.72% 4 21 2.4 -0.3 14.509 15.457 0.95 6.54% 3 400.09 2.33 10453 3846 66070 171.79% 4 2430 880 1550.0 176.14% 4 4.3 4.4 .-0.1 16.506 44.863 28.36 17179% 4 400.1 0.89 7646 6166 1480.0 24.00% 4 1780 1425 355.0 24.91% 4 . 4.3 4.2 - 0.1 69.281 85.910 16.63 24.00% 4 400.11 1.68 5026 1818 3208.0 176.46% 4 1215 430 785.0 182.56% 4 4.1 4.1 0.0 10.821 29.917 19.10 176.46% 4 400.12 1.72 7642 7311 331.0 4.53% 2 2165 2010 155.0 7.71% 3 3.6 3.5 0.0 42.506 44.430 1.92 4.53% 2 401.01 5 8546 5623 2923.0 51.98% 4 2190 1295 895.0 69.11% 4 3.8 4.1 -0,3 11.246 17.092 5.85 51.98% 4 401.02 3.48 11212 7859 3353,0 42.66% 4 3270 2310 960.0 41.56% 4 3.4 . 3.4 • 0.0 22.583 32.218 9.64 42.66% 4 401.03 7.86 7494 4780 2714.0 56.78% 4 1950 1200 750.0 62.50% 4 3.8 4.0 • -0.2 6.081 9.534 3.45 56.78% 4 401.04 0.73 3631 3691 -60.0 -1.63% 1 970 915 55.0 6.01% 2 3.7 4.0 . -03 50.562 49.740 -0.82 -1.63% 1 401.06 1.75 5396 4318 1078.0 24.97% 4 1460 1150 310.0 26.96% 4 3.7 3.7 0.0 24.674 30.834 6.16 24.97% 4 401.07 1.76 4342 4450 -10K0 -2.43% 1 1455 1425 30.0 2.11% 2 2.9 3.0 -0.1 25.284 24.670 -0.61 -243% 1 401.08 1.44 3605 3781 -176.0 -4.65% 1 1065 1050 15.0 1.43% 1 3.4 3.5 -0.1 26.257 25.035 -1.22 -4.65% 1 401.09 2.; 6723 5380 1343.0 24.96% 4 1775 1325 450.0 33.96% 4 3.8 4.0 -0.2 24.455 30.559 6.10 24.96% 4 401.1 4.08 4953 4512 441.0 9.77% 3 1310 1175 135.0 11.49% 3 3.8 3.7 0.1 11.059 12.140 1.08 977% 3 401.11 1.12 6603 4360 2243:0 51.44% 4 1565 1060 505.0 47.64% 4 4.2 . 4.0 . 0.2 38.929 58.955 20.03 51.44% 4 401.12 1.1 6375 3786 2589.0 68.38% 4 1490 880 610.0 69.32% 4 4.3 4.3 0.0 34.418 57.955 23.54 68.38% 4 401.13 0.99 6353 5630 723.0 12.84% 3 1535 1385 150.0 1083% 3 4.1 4.0 0.1 56.869 64.172 7.30 12.84% 3 402.01 1.99 2764 2778 -14.0 -0.50% 1 850 830 20.0 2.41% 2 3.2 3.2 0.0 13.960 13.889 -0.07 -0.50% 1 402.02 1.7 3192 3098 94.0 3,03% 2 1115 1090 25.0 2.29% 2 28 2.7 0.1 18.224 18.776 0.55 3.03% 2 40203 1.54 3110 3251 -141.0 -4.34% 1 1220 1200 20.0 1.67% 1 24 2.5 -0.1 21.110 20.195 -0.92 -4.34% 1 402.04 2.85 5483 5351 132.0 247% 2 1810 1565 245.0 15.65% 3 3,0 3.4 -0.4 18.775 19.239 0.46 2.47% 2 402.05 1.42 2142 2282 -140.0 -6.13% 1 635 615 20.0 3.25% 2 3,4 3.7 -0.3 16.070 15.085 -0.99 -6.13% 1 402.06 1.£ 6299 6263 - . 36.0 0.57% 2 2425 2370 55.0 2.32% 2 . 2.6 2.5 . . 0.1 34.794 34.994 0.20 0.57% 2 402.07 1.27 2263 2461 -198.0 -8.05% 1 755 775 -20.0 -2.58% 1 3.0 3.2 -0.2 19.378 17.819 -1.56 -8.05% 1 402.08 1.7S 7161 6746 415.0 6.15% 2 2235 1995 240.0 12.03% 3 3.2 3.4 -0.2 37.687 40.006 2.32 6.15% 2 402.09 1.f 3742 3867 -125.0 -3.23% 1 1485 1465 20.0 1.37% 1 25 2.5 0.0 25.780 24.947 -0.83 -3.23% 1 402.1 1.03 3296 3421 -125.0 -3.65% 1 1100 1085 15.0 1.38% 1 3.0 3.2 -0.2 33.214 32.000 -1.21 -3.65% 1 402.11 7.37 7425 6256 1169.0 18.69% 4 2105 1475 630.0 42.71% 4 3.5 4.1 -0.6 8.488 10.075 1.59 18.69% 4 403 97.13 19340 3619 15721.0 434.40% 4 5740 1110 4630.0 417.12% 4 3.4 3.2 0.2 0.373 1.991 1.62 434.40% 4 410.01 2.53 12918 8833 4085.0 46.25% 4 4355 2525 1830.0 72.48% 4 3.0 3.5 -0.5 34.913 51.059 16.15 46.25% 4 410.02 0.78 4705 4075 630.0 • 15.46% 3 1355 1035 3200 30.92% 4 3.5 3.9 -0.4 52.244 60.321 8.08 15.46% 3 410.03 1.8S 7555 6451 1104.0 17.11% 4 2250 1835 415.0 22.62% 4 3.4 3.5 -0.1 34.132 39.974 5.84 17.11% 4 410.04 0.78 4198 4478 -280.0 -6.25% 1 1155 1155 0.0 0.00% 1 3.6 3.9 -0.3 57.410 53.821 -3.59 -6.25% 1 410.05 4.4 6163 5100 1063.0 20.84% 4 1700 1415 285.0 20.14% 4 3.6 3.5 0.1 11.591 14.007 2.42 20.84% 4 410.06 4.37 9606 3785 5821.0 153.79% 4 3010 1305 1705.0 130.65% 4 3.2 2.9 0.3 8.661 21.982 13.32 153.79% 4 410.07 0.88 4038 3924 114.0 291% 2 1025 965 60.0 6.22% 3 3.9 4.0 -0.1 44.591 45.886 1.30 2.91% 2 410.08 1.92 8705 7948 757.0 9.52% 3 2370 2110 260.0 12.32% 3 3.7 3.7 0.0 41.396 45.339 3.94 9.52% 3 411.01 1.86 5140 4837 303.0 6.26% 3 1355 1245 110.0 8.84% 3 3.8 3.9 -0.1 26.005 27.634 1.63 6.26% 2 411.02 82.66 8923 2260 6663.0 294.82% 4 2650 580 2070.0 356.90% 4 3.4 37 -0.3 0.273 1.079 0.81 294.82% 4 411.03 6.36 9899 3784 6115.0 161.60% 4 2935 1145 1790.0 156.33% 4 3.4 3.2 0.2 5.950 15.564 9.61 161.60% 4 411.04 1.£ 5848 5394 454.0 8.42% 3 1500 1415 85.0 6.01% 2 3.9 3.7 0.2 35.960 38.987 3.03 8.42% 3 411.05 6.97 20635 2829 17806.0 629.41% 4 5885 745 5140.0 689.93% 4 3.5 3.7 -0.2 4.059 29.605 25.55 629.41% 4 412.01 4.34 5394 5616 -221.0 -3.94% 1 1640 1510 130.0 8.61% 3 3.3 3.7 -0.4 12.938 12.429 -051 -3.94% 1 412.02 6.1 6434 4832 1602.0 33.15% 4 2245 1540 705.0 45.78% 4 2.9 3.0 -0.1 7.921 10.548 2.63 33.15% 4 41203 6.66 8743 4194 4549.0 108.46% 4 2330 1060 1270.0 119.81% 4 3.7 3.9 -0.2 6.297 13.128 6.83 108.46% 4 412.04 6.93 5186 5082 104.0 2,05% 2 1380 1215 165.0 13.58% 3 3.8 4,1 -0.3 7.333 7.483 0.15 2.05% 2 412.05 3£ 8693 5979 2714.0 45.39% 4 2455 1475 980.0 66.44% 4 3.5 4.0 -0.6 16.608 24.147 7.54 45.39% 4 412.06 1.05 4046 4463 -417.0 -9.34% 1 1135 1135 0.0 0.00% 1 3.6 3.9 -0.3 42.505 38.533 -3.97 -9.34% 1 412.07 21.12 19711 5399 143120 265.09% 4 5815 1335 4480.0 335.58% 4 3.4 4.0 -0.6 2.556 9.333 6.78 265.09% 4 41208 0.93 2432 3256 -824:0 -25.31% 1 735 770 -35.0 -4.55% 1 3.3 4.1 -0.8 35.011 26.151 -8.86 -25.31% 1 4120S 28.95 9132 5529 3603.0 65.17% 4 2495 1360 1135.0 83.46% 4 3.7 4.0 -0.3 1.910 3.154 1.24 65.17% 4 413 76.91 3918 3312 606.0 18.30% 4 1175 985 190.0 19.29% 4 3.2 3.2 0.0 0431 0.509 0.08 18.30% 4 420.01 9.83 19327 9786 9541.0 97.50% 4 5505 2570 2935.0 114.20% 4 3.5 3.7 -0.2 9.955 19.661 9.71 97.50% 4 420.02 ' 1.47 8203 6599 1604.0 24.31% 4 3380 2670 710.0 26.59% 4 2.4 2,4 0.0 44.891 55.803 1091 24.31% 4 420,03 2.3 6232 4923 1309.0 26.59% 4 2175 1785 390.0 21.85% 4 2.9 2.7 0.2 21.404 27.096 5.69 26.59% 4 420.04 6.04 10178 6395 3783.0 59.16% 4 2475 1485 9900 66.67% 4 4.1 .4.3 -0.2 10.588 16.851 6.26 59.16% 4 CT : Tract Area Total Tract Population and Change Total Occupied Dwellings •; Average Hsehld Size Density (Population per Hectare) I No. Sq Km 201 191 Chng % Chng QT 201 191 Chng % Chng QT 201 191 Chng 191 201 Chng •AChng QT | . Total I 5902.74 . 4682897 3393046 789851 20.29% 4 I . 1634755 1366695 268060 20.29% 2.9 2.9 0.0 6.595 _____ 1.338 20.29% ' i 421.01 6697 6407 290.0 4.53% 2 1985 1805 180.0 9.97% 3 3.4 3.5 •0.1 14.495 15.152 0.66 4.53% 2 421.02 1.73 7757 7442 315.0 4.23% 2 2810 2685 125.0 4.66% 2 .28 27 0:1 43.017 44.838 1.82 4.23% 2 421.03 2.62 8402 6738 1664.0 24.70% 4 2690 2090 600.0 28.71% 4 • 3.1 . •'. 3.2 -0.-1 25.718 32.069 6.35 24.70% 4 422.01 7.83 17011 4823 12188.0 25271% 4 5585 2065 3520.0 170.46% 4 3.0 . . 2.2 0.8 6.160 21.725 15.57 252.71% 4 42202 1.87 5285 4747 538.0 11.33% 3 1900 1595 305.0 19.12% 4 2.8 3.0 -0.2 25.385 28.262 2.88 11.33% 3 423.01 1.74 3883 3904 -21.0 -0.54% 1 1295 1255 40.0 3.19% 2 29 3.0 -0.1 22.437 22.316 -0.12 -0.54% 1 423.02 2.65 7143 6249 894.0 14.31% 3 2310 2015 295.0 14.64% 3 3.1 3.0 0.1 23.581 26.955 3.37 14.31% 3 424.01 8.02 18987 4543 14444.0 317.94% 4 5130 1230 3900.0 317.07% 4 3.7 3.7 0.0 5.665 23.675 18.01 317.94% 4 424.02 41.27 4218 1832 2386.0 130.24% 4 1300 560 740.0 132.14% 4 3,2 3.0 0.2 0.444 1.022 0.58 130.24% 4 424.03 9.1 8707 5754 2953.0 51.32% 4 2810 1745 1065.0 61.03% 4 3.1 3.2 -0.1 6.323 9.568 3.25 51.32% 4 430.01 7.16 7733 6035 1698.0 28.14% 4 2525 1880 645.0 34.31% 4 3.1 3.2 -0.1 8.429 10.800 2.37 28.14% 4 430.02 16.22 3848 3497 351.0 10.04% 3 1535 1330 205.0 15.41% 3 2.4 2.5 -0.1 2156 2.372 0.22 10.04% 3 431.01 48.79 4173 3626 547.0 15.09% 3 1425 1160 265.0 22.84% 4 29 3.0 -0.1 0.743 0.855 0.11 15.09% 3 431.02 134.57 6254 5199 1055.0 20.29% 4 1980 1675 305.0 18.21% 4 3.1 • , 3.0 0.1 0.386 0.465 0.08 20.29% 4 440 22.35 5429 2640 2789.0 105.64% 4 1805 935 870.0 93.05% 4 29 . 2.7 0.2 1.181 2.429 1.25 105.64% 4 441.01 7.59 12833 8725 4108.0 4708% 4 3795 2635 1160.0 44.02% 4 3.4 3.2 0.2 11.495 16.908 5.41 47.08% 4 441.02 1.55 4635 4811 -176.0 -3.66% 1 1725 1675 50.0 2.99% 2 , 26 2.7 -0.1 31.039 29.903 -1.14 -3.66% 1 44201 12.46 7633 3961 3672.0 92.70% 4 2600 1245 1355.0 108.84% 4 29 3.0 -0.1 3.179 6.126 2.95 92.70% 442.02 1.6 . 4037 4411 -374.0 -8.48% 1 1480 1480 0.0 0.00% 1 :. 2 7 3.0 -0.3 27.569 25.231 -2.34 -8.48% 1 44203 4.05 5600 5012 588.0 11.73% 3 1575 1435 140.0 9.76% 3 3.5 3.5 0.0 12.375 13.827 1.45 11.73% 460.01 11.09 16288 5128 11160.0 217.63% 4 5010 1495 3515.0 235.12% 4 3.3 3.4 -0.1 4.624 14.687 10.06 217.63% 450.02 1.45 3054 3158 -104.0 -3.29% 1 1150 1130 20.0 1.77% 1 25 2.7 -0.2 21.779 21.062 -0.72 -3.29% 1 451.01 1.03 2411 2493 -82.0 -3.29% 1 890 865 25.0 2.89% 2 26 2.7 -0.1 24.204 23.408 -0.80 -3.29% 1 451.02 1.99 5280 4532 748.0 16.50% 4 2230 1815 415.0 22.87% 4 23 2.4 -0.1 22.774 26.533 3.76 16.50% 451,03 2.53 7602 5193 2409.0 46.39% 4 2365 1600 765.0 47.81% 4 3.2 3.2 0.0 20.526 30.047 9.52 46.39% 451.04 7.93 9964 3850 6114.0 158.81% 4 2940 1010 1930.0 191.09% 4 3.4 3.5 -0.1 4.855 12.565 7.71 158.81% 452.01 1.42 3718 3728 -10.0 -0.27% 1 1200 1125 75.0 6.67% 3 3.0 3.0 0.0 26.254 26.183 -0.07 -0.27% 1 452.02 1.47 . 5420 5634 -214.0 -3.80% 1 1895 1840 55.0 2.99% 2 28 . 3.0 -0.2 38.327 36.871 -1.46 -3.80% 1 452.03 3.71 6029 5511 518.0 9.40% 3 1930 1645 285.0 17.33% 4 3.1 3.2 -0.1 14.854 16.251 1.40 9.40% 3 462.04 5.47 6022 6247 -225.0 -3.60% . 1 1700 1655 45.0 2.72% 2 3:5 . 3.7 . -0.2 11.420 11.009 -0.41 -3.60% 1 455 127.14 5951 4722 1229.0 26.03% 4 1945 1515 430.0 28.38% 4 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.371 0.468 0.10 26.03% 4 456.01 61.86 4797 4390 407.0 9.27% 3 1510 1310 200.0 15.27% 3 3.1 - 3.2 -0.1 0.710 0.775 0.07 9.27% 3 456.02 18.26 5304 4931 373.0 7.56% 3 1665 1465 200.0 13.65% 3 3.1 3.2 -0.1 2.700 2.905 0.20 7.56% 3 456.03 37.8 4503 4324 179.0 4.14% 2 1390 1285 105.0 8.17% 3 3.2 3.2 0.0 1.144 1.191 0.05 4.14% 2 460.01 25.97 4886 5055 -169.0 -3.34% . 1 1575 1560 15.0 0.96% 1 3.1 3.2 -0.1 1.946 1.881 -0.07 -3.34% 1 460.02 113.69 3633 3604 29.0 0.80% 2 1175 1140 35.0 3.07% 2 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.317 0.320 0.00 0.80% 2 461.01 16.51 3472 3161 311.0 9.84% 3 1085 1000 85.0 8.50% 3 32 3.2 0.0 1.915 2.103 0.19 9.84% 3 461.02 176.88 6542 6195 347.0 5.60% 2 2220 2010 210.0 10.45% 3 29 3.0 -0.1 0.350 0.370 0.02 5.60% 2 47C 33.81 2767 2298 469.0 20.41% 4 1005 800 205.0 25.63% 4 27 2.9 -0.2 0.680 0.818 0.14 20.41% 4 471 171.21 3568 3303 265.0 8.02% 3 1145 1085 60.0 5.53% 2 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.193 0.208 0.02 8.02% 3 472 10.18 4511 3539 972.0 27.47% 4 1585 1200 385.0 32.08% 4 28 2.9 -0.1 3.476 4.431 0.95 27.47% 4 473 9.04 15714 10174 5540.0 54.45% 4 5215 3515 1700.0 48.36% 4 3.0 2.9 0.1 11.254 17.383 6.13 54.45% 4 474 31.93 4141 3152 989.0 31.38% 4 1535 1115 420.0 37.67% 4 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.987 1.297 0.31 31.38% 4 475 13.17 . 6366 5481 885.0 16.16% 3 2440 2060 380.0 18.45% 4 25 '.. 2.5 0.0 4.162 4.834 0.67 16.15% 3 476 32.92 2469 1949 520.0 26.68% 4 960 740 220.0 29.73% 4 26 ". 2.5 0.1 0.592 0.750 0.16 26.68% 4 480 7.02 7967 7120 847.0 11.90% 3 2645 2285 360.0 15.75% 3 3.0 3.0 0.0 10.142 11.349 1.21 11.90% 3 481 7.01 9113 5794 3319.0 57.28% 4 2815 1800 1015.0 56.39% 4 3.2 3.2 0.0 8.265 13.000 4.73 57.28% 4 482 187 5148 3913 1235.0 31.56% 4 1665 1200 465.0 38.75% 4 3.1 3.2 -0.1 0.209 0.275 0.07 31.56% 4 483 75.12 7764 6770 994.0 14.68% 3 2680 2170 510.0 23.50% 4 29 3.0 -0.1 0.901 1.034 0.13 14.68% 3 484 183.83 8696 6937 1759.0 25.36% 4 3100 2255 845.0 37.47% 4 28 3.0 -0.2 0.377 0.473 0.10 25.36% 4 485 15.23 9681 7407 2274.0 30.70% 4 3495 2670 825.0 30.90% 4 28 2.7 0.1 4.863 6.357 1.49 30.70% 4 500.01 0.82 3774 3820 -46.0 -1.20% 1 1570 1565 5.0 0.32% 1 24 2.4 0.0 46.585 46.024 -0.56 -1.20% 1 500.02 3.13 5060 4856 204.0 4.20% 2 2135 1855 280.0 15.09% 3 2.4 2.5 -0.1 15.514 16.166 0.65 4.20% 2 501.01 8.83 6785 5855 -70.0 -1.20% 1 2255 2160 95.0 4.40% 2 25 2.7 -0.2 6.631 6.552 -0.08 -1.20% 1 501.02 3.9S 7361 6254 1107.0 17.70% 4 2405 1925 480.0 24.94% 4 3.1 3.2 -0.1 15.674 18.449 2.77 17.70% 4 502.01 1.16 6176 6044 131,0 217% - 2 1970 1875 95.0 5.07% 2 ' 3.1 ;' 3.2 • • -0.1 52.103 53.233 1.13 2.17% 2 502.02 0.6S . 2733 2902 -169.0 -5.82% 1 940 925 15.0 1.62% 1 2.7 2.9 -0.2 42.058 39.609 -2.45 -5.82% 1 503 1.7 5519 5443 76.0 1.40% 2 1870 1740 130.0 7.47% 3 . 3.0 3.0 0.0 32.018 32.465 0.45 1.40% 2 504 1.38 3431 3581 -150.0 -4.19% 1 1205 1180 25.0 2.12% 2 . 2.8 3.0 -0.2 25.949 24.862 -1.09 -4.19% 1 505.01 2.78 4784 4754 30.0 0.63% 2 1450 1380 70.0 5.07% 2 3.3 3.4 -0.1 17.101 17.209 0.11 0.63% 2 F (Tract Area [Total Tract Population and Change. [Total Oecupie i Dwellings [Average Hsehld Size Density (Population per Hectare) • - . . . i ,«,| , • 1 No. Sq Km 201 191 Chng % Chng QT 201 191 Chng % Chng QT 201 191 Chng 191 201 Chng •AChng QT | Total ! •. 5902.74 | 4682897 3893046 789851 2029% 4 | 1634755 1366695 268060 20.29% CUE 2.9 0.0 6.595 7.933 1.338 20.29% 505.02 3.84 4318 4177 141.0 3.38% 2 1390 1320 70.0 5.30% 2 3.1 ,3.2 -0,1 10.878 11.245 0.37 3.38% 2 ,505 1.87 2686 2539 147.0 5.79% 2 845 815 30.0 3.68% 2 3.2 3.0 . 0.2 13.578 14.364 0.79 5.79% 2 507 2.06 3665 3753 -88.0 -2.34% 1 1335 1315 20.0 1.52% 1 2.7 2.7 0.0 18.218 17.791 -0.43 -2.34% 1 508 1.3 3314 3565 -251.0 -7.04% 1 1095 1085 100 0.92% 1 3.0 3.2 -0.2 27.423 25.492 -1.93 -7.04% 1 509.01 1.96 . 4749 3857 892.0 , 23.13% 4 1680 1200 4800 40.00% 4 28 3.2 -0.4 19.679 24.230 4.55 23.13% 4 509.02 2.91 3109 2991 118.0 3.96% .2 1210 1120 90.0 8.04% 3 26 2.7 -0.1 10.278 10.684 0.41 3.95% 2 510 6.31 5735 5895 -160.0 -2.71% 1 1960 1895 65.0 3.43% 2 29 3.0 -0.1 9.342 9.089 -0.25 -2.71% 1 511.01 0.47 4935 5566 -631.0 -11.34% 1 2255 2545 -2900 -11.39% 1 22 2.2 : 0.0 118.426 105.000 -13.43 -11.34% 1 511.02 1.43 5350 5458 -108.0 -1.98% .1 1780 1750 30.0 1.71% 1 3.0 , 3.0 0:0 38.168 37.413 -0.76 -1.98% 1 512 1.98 6965 5379 1586.0 29.49% 4 2480 2145 335.0 15.62% 3 27 2.5 0:2 27.167 35.177 8.01 29.49% 4 513.01 3.51 6840 6760 80.0 1.18% 2 2290 2020 270.0 13.37% 3 3.0 3.2 -0.2 19.259 19.487 0.23 1.18% 2 513.02 1.0E 6695 6199 496.0 8.00% 3 2335 2115 220.0 10.40% 3 28 2:9 -0.1 56.872 61.422 4.55 8.00% 3 513.03 1.07 3806 3339 467.0 13.99% 3 1140 1130 10.0 088% 1 28 2.5 0.3 31.206 35.570 4.36 13.99% 3 613.04 1.36 4063 4352 -289.0 -6.64% 1 1160 1110 50.0 4.50% 2 • 3.5 3.9 , ,-0:4 32.000 29.875 -2.13 -6.64% 1 514 5.25 8793 7899 894.0 11.32% 3 2605 2430 175.0 7.20% 3 3.4 3.2 0:2 15.046 16.749 1.70 11.32% 3 515.01 2.74 4683 4937 -254.0 -5.14% 1 1510 1475 35.0 2.37% 2 3.1 3.2 -0,1 18.018 17.091 -0.93 -5.14% 1 515.02 1.4 3886 3266 620.0 -. 18.98% 4 1335 1110 225.0 20 27% 4 27 ,2.7 0:0 23.329 27.757 4.43 18.98% 4 516.01 1.45 6082 5970 112.0 1.88% 2 1780 1675 105.0 6.27% 3 3.4 3.5 -0.1 41.172 41.945 0.77 1.88% 2 516.02 1.73 5214 3717 1497.0 40.27% 4 1550 1130 420.0 37.17% 4 , 3.4 3.2 0.2 21.486 30.139 8.65 40.27% 4 516.03 1.12 6041 6168 -127.0 -2.06% 1 2195 2145 50.0 2.33% 2 2.8 2.9 -0.1 55.071 53.938 -1.13 -2.06% 1 516.04 1.03 6376 5533 843.0 15.24% 3 2615 2290 325.0 14.19% 3 . 2.4 2.4 0.0 53.718 61.903 8.18 15.24% 3 516.05 1.16 6957 6826 131.0 1.92% 2 2140 2085 55.0 2.64% 2 3.3 32 0.1 58.845 59.974 1.13 1.92% 2 516.06 0.91 5177 5049 128.0 254% 2 1780 1720 60.0 3.49% 2 2.9 2.9 0.0 55.484 56.890 1.41 254% 2 516.07 2.22 7720 7671 49.0 0.64% 2 2505 2365 140.0 5.92% 2 3.1 3.2 -0.1 34.554 34.775 0.22 0.64% 2 516.08 1.33 6535 6248 287.0 4.59% 2 2180 2095 85.0 4.06% 2 3.0 3.0 0.0 46.977 49.135 2.16 4.59% 2 516.09 2.37 7399 7009 390.0 5.56% 2 2390 2170 220.0 1014% 3 3.1 3.2 -0.1 29.574 31.219 1.65 5.56% 2 516.1 3.85 8574 4862 3712.0 76.35% 4 2295 1220 1075.0 88.11% 4 ,3.7 3.9 -0,2 12.629 22.270 9.64 76.35% 4 516.11 2.17 5033 5012 21.0 0.42% 2 1430 1360 70.0 5.15% 2 3.5 3.7 -0.2 23.097 23.194 0.10 0.42% 2 516.12 9.34 30479 9608 20871.0 217.23% 4 8625 2725 5900.0 216.51% 4 3.5 3,5 0.0 10.287 32.633 22.35 217.23% 4 516.13 6.S 16102 14213 1889.0 13.29% 3 4385 3880 505.0 13.02% 3 3.7 3,5 0.2 20.599 23.336 274 13.29% 3 516.14 2.65 4273 3625 648.0 17.88% 4 1225 1020 205.0 20.10% 4 3.5 3.5 0.0 13.679 16.125 2.45 17.88% 4 516.15 10.32 21956 1279 20677.0 1616.65% 4 6625 365 6260.0 1715.07% 4 3.3 3.5 -0.2 1.239 21.275 20.04 1616.65% 4 516.16 2.97 5511 4900 611.0 12.47% 3 1800 1460 340.0 23.29% 4 3.0 3;2 -0.2 16.498 18.556 2.06 12.47% 3 517 1.23 1795 1872 -77.0 -4.11% 1 585 575 10.0 1.74% 1 3.1 3.2 -0.1 15.220 14.593 -0.63 -4.11% 1 518 0.74 4834 4495 339.0 7.54% 3 1615 1585 30.0 1.89% 1 3.0 2.7 0:3 60.743 65.324 4.58 7.54% 3 51S 1.12 3946 4029 -83.0 -2.06% 1 1250 1175 75.0 6.38% 3 3.1 3.4 -0.3 35.973 35.232 -0.74 -2.06% 1 620.01 2.63 5812 5303 509.0 9.60% 3 1590 1385 205.0 14.80% 3 3.7 3.7 0.0 20.163 22.099 1.94 9.60% 3 520.02 1.65 6834 4239 2595.0 61.22% 4 2010 1160 850.0 73.28% 4 3.4 3.5 -0.1 25.691 41.418 16.73 61.22% 4 520.03 1.3 10049 8287 1762.0 21.26% 4 3745 3090 655.0 21.20% 4 2.7 27 0.0 63.746 77.300 13.55 21.26% 4 520.04 1.44 8137 2395 6742.0 239.75% 4 3180 1070 2110.0 197.20% 4 2.6 2.2 0.4 16.632 56.507 39.88 239.75% 4 521.01 0.2 5362i 3985 1367.0 34.30% 4 2335 1900 435.0 22.89% 4 2.3 , 2.0 0:3 199.250 267.600 68.35 34.30% 4 521.02 0.86 3810 3935 -125.0 -3.18% 1 1150 1105 45.0 4.07% 2 . 3.3 3:5 -0:2 45.756 44.302 -1.45 -3.18% 1 521.03 0.64 5461 5055 406.0 8.03% 3 1515 1465 50.0 3.41% 2 3.6 3.4 0.2 78.984 85.328 6.34 8.03% 3 521.04 1.29 6804 6835 -31.0 -0.45% 1 2130 2100 30.0 1.43% 1 3.2 3.2 0.0 52.984 52.744 -0.24 -0.45% 1 521.05 0.75 3876 3881 -5.0 -0.13% 2 1660 1625 25.0 1.54% 1 . 24 2.4 0.0 51.747 51.680 -0.07 -0.13% 1 521.06 0.61 5316 4315 1001.0 23.20% 4 2320 2105 215.0 10.21% 3 2.3 2.0 0.3 70738 87.148 16.41 23.20% 4 622 1.74 6285 6335 -60.0 -0.79% 1 2025 1900 125.0 6.58% 3 3.1 3.2 -0.1 36.408 36.121 -0.29 -0.79% 1 523 1.16 6019 5766 253.0 4.39% 2 2480 2430 50.0 2.06% 2 2.4 2.4 0.0 49.707 51.888 2.18 4.39% 2 524.01 0.81 4848 4447 401.0 9.02% 3 1580 1410 170.0 12.06% 3 „ 3.1 3.0 0.1 54.901 59.852 4.95 9.02% 3 524.02 0.63 3775 3578 197.0 5.51% 2 1565 1515 50.0 3.30% 2 2,4 2.4 0,0 56.794 59.921 3.13 5.51% 2 525.01 0.52 3735 3773 -38.0 -1.01% 1 1125 1120 5.0 0.45% 1 3.3 3.4 -0.1 72.558 71.827 -0.73 -1.01% 1 525.02 1.81 4273 4003 270.0 6.74% 3 1545 1555 -10.0 -0.64% 1 2.8 2.5 0.3 22.116 23.608 1.49 6.74% 3 526.01 0.76 6532 6044 488.0 8.07% 3 1990 1960 30.0 1.53% 1 3.3 3.0 0.3 79.526 85.947 6.42 8.07% 3 626.02 o.e 3106 3067 39.0 1.27% • 2 1175 1150 25.0 2.17% 2 :, 2.6 2.7 -0:1 38.338 38.825 0.49 1.27% 2 527.01 2.46 4212 3887 325.0 8.36% 3 1210 1085 125.0 11.52% 3 .3.5 3.5 0:0 15.801 17.122 1.32 8.36% 3 527.02 1.16 5746 6698 48.0 0.84% 2 1760 1690 70.0 4.14% 2 3.1 3.2 -0.1 49.121 49.534 0.41 0.84% 2 527.03 1.3 5339 5103 236.0 4.62% 2 1700 1610 90.0 5.59% 2 3.1 3.2 -0.1 39.254 41.069 1.82 462% 2 527.04 1.67 6212 6236 -24.0 -0.38% 1 2110 2020 90.0 4.46% 2 -2.9 3.0 -0:1 37.341 37.198 -0.14 -0.38% 1 527.05 1.65 5682 5215 467.0 8.96% 3 1675 1410 265.0 18.79% 4 3.4 3.7 -0.3 31.606 34.436 2.83 8.95% 3 527.06 1.07 4514 4596 -82.0 -1.78% 1 1410 1320 90.0 6.82% 3 3.2 3.5 -0,3 42.953 42.187 -0.77 -1.78% 1 Tract Area f jTotal Tract Population and Change [Total Occupied Dwellings 'Average HseHd Size • Density (Population per Hectare) •- - 1 No. Sq Km 201 191 Chng % Chng QT 201 191 Chng % Chng QT 201 191 Chng 191 201 Chng •AC ling QT j Total 5302.74 1 4682897 3893046 789851 20.29% | 1634755 1366695 268060 20.29% « ! 2.9 2.9 0.0 6.595 7.933 1.338 20.29% r i 527.07 1.32 5289 5469 -180.0 -3.29% 1 1620 1550 70.0 4.52% 2 3.3 3.5 -0.2 41.432 40.068 -1.36 -3.29% 1 527.08 1.21 4872 4660 222.0 • 4.77% 2 1270 1165 105.0 9.01% 3 3.8 4.0 -0.2 38.430 40.264 1.83 4.77% 2 527.09 1.6 3781 3772 9.0 0.24% 2 1080 1070 10.0 0.93% 1 3.5 3.5 0.0 19.853 19.900 0.05 0.24% 1 528.01 1.34 5331 2307 3024.0 131.08% 4 1475 620 855.0 137.90% 4 3.6 3.7 -0.1 17.216 39.784 22.57 131.08% 4 528.02 1.54 6095 2322 3773.0 162.49% 4 1640 625 1015.0 162.40% 4 •3.7 3.7 0.0 15.078 39.578 24.50 162.49% 4 528.03 1.74 10710 8558 2152.0 25.15% 4 3755 2785 970.0 34.83% 4 29 3.0 -0.1 49.184 61.552 12.37 25.15% 4 528.04 1.65 5715 3563 2152.0 60.40% 4 1725 950 775.0 81.58% 4 3.3 3.7 -0.4 21.594 34.636 13.04 60.40% 4 528.05 2.85 9293 . 7914 1379.0 17.42% 4 2245 1935 310.0 16.02% 3 4.1 4.0 0.1 27.768 32.607 . 4.84 17.42% 4 528.06 8.4 33694 6273 27421.0 437.13% 4 9110 1725 7385.0 428.12% 4 3.7 3.5 0.2 7.468 40.112 32.64 437.13% 4 528.07 20.39 20607 6838 13769.0 201.36% 4 5830 2030 3800.0 187.19% 4 3.5 3.2 0.3 3.354 10.106 6.75 201.36% 4 528.08 6.14 16192 11110 5082.0 45.74% 4 4570 3115 1455.0 46.71% 4 .3.5 3.5 0.0 18.094 26.371 8.28 45.74% 4 528.06 88.54 39043 13770 25273.0 183.54% 4 10980 3895 7085.0 181.90% 4 3.6 3.5 0.1 1.555 4.410 2.85 183.54% 4 529.01 0.99 4174 3653 521.0 14.26% 3 1245 1085 160.0 14.75% 3 3.4 3.4 0.0 36.899 42.162 5.26 14.26% 3 529.02 0.7S 5086 4535 551.0 .12.15% 3 1435 1300 135.0 10.38% 3 ;a5 3.5 , 0.0 57.405 64.380 6.97j 12.15% 3 53C 1.24 8811 7870 941.0 11.96% 3 2415 2350 65.0 2.77% 2 3.6 3.2 0.4 63.468 71.056 7.59 11.96% 3 531.01 0.67 4273 3693 580.0 15.71% 3 1160 1075 85.0 7.91% 3 3.7 3.4 0.3 55.119 63.776 8.66 15.71% 3 531.02 1.33 7301 6809 492.0 7.23% 3 1805 1665 140.0 8.41% 3 4.0 4.0 0.0 51.195 54.895 3.70 7.23% 3 532.01 0.83 4765 4160 605.0 14.54% 3 1250 1085 165.0 15.21% 3 3.8 3.7 , 0.1 50.120 57.410 7.29 14.54% 3 532.02 0.69 5305 4739 566.0 11.94% 3 1295 1190 105.0 8.82% 3 4.1 4.0 0.1 68.681 76.884 8.20 11.94% 3 540.01 1.55 5366 5649 -283.0 -5.01% 1 2695 2715 -20.0 -0.74% 1 2.0 2.0 . 0.0 36.445 34.619 -1.83 -5.01% 1 540.02 1.09 4510 4539 -29.0 -0.64% 1 2155 2135 20.0 0.94% 1 21 2.0 0.1 41.642 41.376 -0.27 -0.64% 1 550.01 7.52 4644 4881 -237.0 -4.86% 1 1555 1560 -5.0 -0.32% 1 3.0 3.0 . 0.0 6.491 6.176 -0.32 -4.86% 1 550.02 3.02 7235 6622 613.0 9.26% 3 2720 2305 415.0 18.00% 4 27 . 2,9 : -o.2 21.927 23.957 2.03 9.26% 3 560 4.14 6497 6662 -165.0 -2.48% 1 2105 2045 60.0 2.93% 2 ' 3.1 3.2 -0.1 16.092 15.693 -0.40 -2.48% 1 561 4.66 5294 5199 95.0 1.83% 2 1700 1630 70.0 4.29% 2 3.1 3.2 -0.1 11.157 11.361 0.20 1.83% 2 562.01 6.88 7467 6665 802.0 12.03% 3 2910 2725 185.0 6.79% 3 2.5 2.4 - . 0.1 9.688 10.853 1.17 12.03% 3 562.02 2.09 . 6930 6899 31.0 0.45% 2 2045 1895 150.0 7.92% 3 -3.4 3.5 -0.1 33.010 33.158 0.15 0.45% 2 562.03 1.06 5672 5433 139.0 256% 2 1565 1505 60.0 3.99% 2 3.6 3.5 0.1 51.255 52.566 1.31 2.56% 2 562.04 1.03 5027 6069 -42.0 -0.83% 1 1385 1315 70.0 5.32% 2 3.6 3.7 -0.1 49.214 48.806 -0.41 -0.83% 1 562.05 1.29 5638 5551 87.0 1.57% 2 2165 2020 145.0 7.18% 3 26 2.7 -0.1 43.031 43.705 0.67 1.57% 2 56206 0.82 3317 2883 434.0 15.05% 3 925 715 210.0 29.37% 4 3.6 4.0 -0.4 35.159 40.451 5.29 15.05% 3 56207 1.1 5113 4925 188.0 3.82% 2 1385 1275 110.0 8.63% 3 3.7 3.9 -0.2 44.773 46.482 1.71 3.82% 2 562.08 1.05 4682 4852 -170.0 -3.50% 1 1395 1365 30.0 2.20% 2 3.3 3.5 -0.2 46.210 44.590 -1.62 -3.50% 1 56209 1 4332 4427 -95.0 -2.15% 1 1265 1235 30.0 2.43% 2 3.4 3.5 -0.1 44.270 43.320 -0.95 -2.15% 1 562.1 1.97 7974 7205 769.0 10.67% 3 2110 1850 260.0 14.05% 3 3.8 3.9 -0.1 36.574 40.477 3.90 10.67% 3 562.11 0.78 3353 3453 -100.0 , -2.90% 1 995 975 20.0 2.05% 2 3.4 -3.5 -0.1 44.269 42.987 -1.28 -2.90% 1 563.01 0.88 6799 5124 1675.0 32.69% 4 2520 2180 340.0 15.60% 3 27 2.2 0.5 58.227 77.261 19.03 32.69% 4 563.02 1.02 3172 3197 -25.0 -0.78% 1 1025 1000 25.0 2.50% 2 3.1 3.2 -0.1 31.343 31.098 -0.25 -0.78% 1 564.01 0.84 2447 2457 -10.0 -0.41% 1 750 720 30.0 4.17% 2 3.3 3.4 -0:1 29.250 29.131 -0.12 -0.41% 1 564.02 0.91 5134 5086 48.0 0.94% 2 1450 1380 70.0 5.07% 2 3.5 3.7 -0.2 55.890 56.418 0.53 0.94% 2 570.01 8.04 3371 3137 234.0 7.46% 3 1340 1345 -5.0 -0.37% 1 2.5 22 0.3 3.902 4.193 0.29 7.46% 3 570.02 1.31 . 3668 3972 -304.0 -7.65% 1 1295 1285 10.0 0.78% 1 28 -3.0 -0.2 30.321 28.000 -2.32 -7.65% 1 571.01 0.73 3556 3578 -22.0 -0.61% 1 1125 1080 45.0 4.17% 2 3.1 3.2 -0.1 49.014 48.712 -0.30 -0.61% 1 571.02 1.36 4184 4315 -131.0 -3.04% 1 1510 1480 30.0 2.03% 2 2.7 2.7 0.0 31.728 30.765 -0.96 -3.04% 1 572.01 2.11 . 7301 6735 566.0 8.40% 3 2615 2370 245.0 10.34% 3 .. 28 ...2.7 . 0.1 31.919 34.602 2.68 8.40% 3 572.02 1.62 8903 8159 744.0 9.12% 3 3325 2945 380.0 12.90% 3 27 2.7 0.0 50.364 54.957 4.59 9.12% 3 572.03 4.23 17102 8123 8979.0 110.54% 4 4405 2045 2360.0 115.40% 4 3.9 3.9 0.0 19.203 40.430 21.23 110.54% 4 573.01 4.27 13788 9238 4550.0 49.25% 4 3970 2605 1365.0 52.40% 4 3.5 3.5 0.0 21.635 32.290 10.66 49.25% 4 573.02 2.36 10322 5266 5056.0 96.01% 4 3440 1785 1655.0 92.72% 4 3.0 2.9 0.1 22.314 43.737 21.42 96.01% 4 573.03 1.4 6675 5895 780.0 13.23% 3 1895 1700 195.0 11.47% 3 3.4 3.2 0.2 42.107 47.679 5.57 13.23% 3 574 1.98 5222 4889 333.0 6.81% . 3 2400 2155 245.0 11.37% 3 22 '2.2 0.0 24.692 26.374 1.68 6.81% 3 575.01 1.22 6806 6785 21.0 0.31% 2 1955 1820 135.0 7.42% 3 3.5 3.7 -0.2 55.615 55.787 0.17 0.31% 1 575.02 1 4838 4404 434.0 9.85% 3 1935 1750 185.0 10.57% 3 25 2.5 0.0 44.040 48.380 4.34 9.85% 3 575.03 1.07 7170 6813 357.0 5.24% 2 1935 1820 115.0 6.32% 3 3.7 3.7 0.0 63.673 67.009 3.34 5.24% 2 575.04 1.55 6847 7154 -307.0 -4.29% 1 2050 1985 65.0 3.27% 2 3.3 3.5 -0.2 46.155 44.174 -1.98 -4.29% 1 575.05 1.56 7377 4230 3147.0 74.40% 4 2225 1210 1015.0 83.88% 4 3.3 3.5 . -0.2 27.115 47.288 20.17 74.40% 4 575.06 1.5S 4631 4256 375.0 8.81% 3 1225 1115 110.0 9.87% 3 3.8 3.7 0.1 26.767 29.126 2.36 8.81% 3 576.01 63.56 5869 2428 3441.0 141.72% 4 1945 800 1145.0 143.13% 4 3.0 3.0 • " 0.0 0.382 0.923 0.54 141.72% 4 576.02 7.89 14628 7910 6718.0 84.93% 4 4230 2125 2105.0 99.06% 4 3.5 3.7 -0.2 10.025 18.540 8.51 84.93% 4 576.03 98.8 41980 3453 38527.0 1115.75% 4 10755 890 9865.0 1108.43% 4 3.9 3.7 0.2 0.349 4.249 3.90 1115.75% 4 , C T Tract Area Total Tract Population and Change Total Occupied Dwellings 'Average HseWd Size Density (Population pet Hectare) - I No. Sq Km 201 191 Chng Vo Chng QT 201 191 Chng % Chng QT 201 191 Chng 191 201 Chng %Chng QT f Total j 5902.74 | 4682897 3893046 789851 20.29% I 4 !-• 1634755 1366695 268060 20.29% * r •» 2.9 0.0 | ' . 6.595 7.933 1.338 20.29% I 2 576.04 3.23 5053 , 5142 -89.0 -1.73% 1 1400 1375 25.0 1.82% 1 3.6 3.7 -0.1 15.920 15.644 -0.28 -1.73% 1 576.05 1.54 7405 6775 630.0 9.30% 3 1885 1710 175.0 10.23% 3 3.9 3,9 ' , .0.0 43.994 48.084 4.09 9.30% 3 576.06 2.21 6271 5166 1105.0 21.39% 4 1720 1360 360.0 26.47% 4 3.6 3.7 -0.1 23.376 28.376 5.00 21.39% 4 576.07 3.56 4599 3640 959.0 26.35% 4 1260 985 275.0 27.92% 4 3.6 3.7 -0.1 10.225 12.919 2.69 26.35% 4 585.01 141.23 8060 7254 806.0 11.11% 3 2565 2180 385.0 17.66% 4 3,1 3.2 - -0.1 0.514 0.571 0.06 11.11% 3 585.02 77.34 4779 2596 2183.0 84.09% 4 1480 745 735.0 98.66% 4 3.2 3.5 -0.3 0.336 0.618 0.28 84.09% 4 585.03 8.19 4621 3577 1044.0 29.19% 4 1560 1145 415.0 36.24% 4 29 3.0 -0.1 4.368 5.642 1.27 29.19% 4 585.04 £ . 14316 6842 7474.0 109.24% 4 4435 1975 2460.0 124.56% 4 3.2 . 3.4 . r0.2 8.553 17.895 9.34 109.24% 4 586 169.58 8105 5188 2917.0 56.23% 4 2560 1655 905.0 54.68% 4 3.2 3.0 0.2 0.306 0.478 0.17 56.23% 4 687.01 130.92 5413 4623 790.0 17.09% 4 1715 1450 265.0 18.28% 4 3.1 3.2 -0.1 0.353 0.413 0.06 17.09% 4 587.02 151.57 5301 4967 334.0 6.72% 3 1800 1620 180.0 11.11% 3 29 3.0 -0.1 0.328 0.350 0.02 6.72% 3 59C 1.88 5273 5056 217.0 4.29% 2 2055 1845 210.0 11.38% 3 2.5 2.7 -0.2 26.894 28.048 1.15 4.29% 2 591 6.1 7958 5249 2709.0 51.61% 4 2500 1525 975.0 63.93% 4 3.2 3.4 -0.2 8.605 13.046 4.44 51.61% 4 592 7.( 12017 7616 4401.0 57.79% 4 4050 2730 1320.0 48.35% 4 3.0 • .2.7 0.3 10.021 15.812 5.79 57.79% 4 593 277.77 6922 5782 1140.0 19.72% 4 2285 2125 160.0 7.53% 3 3.0 3.1 -0.1 0.208 0.249 0.04 19.72% 4 600.01 4.95 6566 6872 -306.0 -4.45% 1 2035 1990 45.0 2.26% 2 3,2 3.4 -0.2 13.883 13.265 -0.62 -4.45% 1 . 600.02 5.: . 7438 5923 1515.0 25.58% 4 2050 1620 430.0 26.54% 4 3.6 3.5 0.1 11.175 14.034 2.86 25.58% 4 601 3.23 3949 3974 -25.0 -0.63% 1 1290 1300 -10.0 -0.77% 1 3.1 3.0 0.1 12.303 12.226 -0.08 -0.63% 1 602 3.94 4651 4251 400.0 9.41% 3 1585 1470 115.0 7.82% 3 28 2.7 0.1 10.789 11.805 1.02 9.41% 3 603 1.15 4823 4941 -118.0 -2.39% 1 2415 2375 40.0 1.68% 1 20 2.0 0.0 42.965 41.939 -1.03 -2.39% 1 604 0.86 2407 2138 269.0 12.58% 3 1205 1005 200.0 19.90% 4 1.9 • 2.0 ' -0.1 24.860 27.988 3.13 12.58% 3 605 1.53 2162 2205 -43.0 -1.95% 1 805 730 75.0 10.27% 3 2.5 2.5 0.0 14.412 14.131 -0.28 -1.95% 1 606 3.36 . 5618 5513 105.0 1.90% 2 2155 1895 260.0 13.72% 3 26 2.9 -0.3 16.408 16.720 0.31 1.90% 2 607 3.21 3076 3240 -164.0 -5.06% 1 1085 1090 -5.0 -0.46% 1 28 3.0 -0.2 10.093 9.583 -0.51 -5.06% 1 608 1.4 2647 2781 -134.0 -4.82% 1 890 880 10.0 1.14% 1 28 3.0 -0.2 19.864 18.907 -0.96 -4.82% 1 60S 2.14 2692 2743 -51.0 -1.86% 1 945 910 35.0 3.85% 2 28 3.0 -0.2 12.818 12.579 -0.24 -1.86% 1 610.01 2.08 7188 7773 -585.0 -7.53% 1 3380 3435 -55.0 -1.60% 1 21 2.2 • -0.1 37.370 34.558 -2.81 -7.53% 1 610.02 3.22 4498 4267 231.0 5.41% 2 1545 1300 245.0 18.85% 4 29 3.2 -0.3 13.252 13.969 0.72 5.41% 2 611 4.92 5069 5509 -440.0 -7.99% 1 1695 1690 5.0 0.30% 1 3.0 , 3.2 -0.2 11.197 10.303 -0.89 -7.99% 1 612.01 7.98 47 66 -19.0 -28.79% 1 20 25 -5.0 -20.00% 1 2.5 2.2 0.3 0.083 0.059 -0.02 -28.79% 1 612.02 11.88 11761 156 11605.0 7439.10% 4 3860 55 3805.0 6918.18% 4 3.0 2.7 0.3 0.131 9.900 9.77 7439.10% 4 .612.03 4.2 6043 3788 2255.0 59.53% 4 1725 1035 690.0 66.67% 4 3.5 3.5 0.0 9.019 14.388 5.37 59.53% 4 612.04 3.33 • 8356 8184 172.0 2.10% 2 2505 2410 95.0 3.94% 2 3.3 3.4 . 4).1 24.577 25.093 0.52 2.10% 2 61205 3.28 5844 5011 833.0 16.62% 4 1865 1415 450.0 31.80% 4 3.1 3.5 -0.4 15.277 17.817 2.54 16.62% 4 612.06 4.28 11918 4795 7123.0 148.55% 4 3435 1335 2100.0 157.30% 4 3.5 3.5 0.0 11.203 27.846 16.64 148.55% 4 612.07 2.69 6459 2478 3981.0 160.65% 4 2095 790 1305.0 165.19% 4 .3.0 3.0 0.0 9.212 24.011 14.80 160.65% 4 61208 1.66 4403 2729 1674.0 61.34% 4 1245 675 570.0 84.44% 4 3.5 4.0 -0.5 16.440 26.524 10.08 61.34% 4 612.09 4.2 5471 3028 2443.0 80.68% 4 1560 870 690.0 79.31% 4 3.5 .3.5 0.0 7.210 13.026 5.82 80.68% 4 612.1 4.17 58 59 -1.0 -1.69% 1 15 15 0.0 0.00% 1 4.0 3.7 0.3 0.141 0.139 0.00 -1.69% 1 613.01 1.88 4537 4803 -266.0 -5.54% 1 1500 1495 5.0 0.33% 1 3.0 3.2 -0.2 25.548 24.133 -1.41 -5.54% 1 613.02 3.09 8777 8676 101.0 1.16% 3635 3450 185.0 5.36% 2 24 25 -0.1 28.078 28.405 0.33 1.16% 614 4.72 7725 8175 -450.0 -5.50% 1 2515 2450 65.0 2.65% 2 .3.1 . 3.2 -0.1 17.320 16.367 -0.95 -5.50% 1 615 39.86 555 592 -37.0 -6.25% 1 190 200 -10.0 -5.00% 1 29 3.0 -0.1 0.149 0.139 -0.01 -6.25% 1 62C 153.51 3181 3370 -189.0 -5.61% 1 1095 1050 45.0 4.29% 2 29 3.0 -0.1 0.220 0.207 -0.01 -5.61% 1 621 2.54 5919 6290 -371.0 -5.90% 1 1655 1650 5.0 0.30% 1 3.4 3.6 -0.1 24.764 23.303 -1.46 -5.90% 1 622 2.63 6480 6563 -83.0 -1.26% 1 2225 2145 80.0 3.73% 2 29 3.0 -0.1 24.954 24.639 -0.32 -1.26% 1 623 1.48 3594 3233 361.0 11.17% 1660 1380 280.0 20.29% 4 21 22 -0.1 21.845 24.284 2.44 11.17% 624 1.72 5900 6266 -366.0 -5.84% 1 1970 1955 15.0 0.77% 1 3.0 3.2 -0.2 36.430 34.302 -2.13 -5.84% 1 625 15.04 627 966 -339.0 -35.09% 1 180 175 5.0 2.86% 2 2.8 3.0 -0.2 0.642 0.417 -0.23 -35.09% 1 626 189.54 5770 5387 383.0 7.11% 3 1890 1710 180.0 10.53% 3 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.284 0.304 0.02 7.11% 3 630 110.44 3501 3588 -87.0 r2.42% 1 1180 1135 45.0 3.96% 2 3.0 3.2 -0.2 0.325 0.317 -0.01 -2.42% 1 631 5.66 8493 1018 7475.0 734.28% 4 2380 310 2070.0 667.74% 4 3.6 3.2 0.4 1.799 15.005 13.21 734.28% 4 632 2.06 4430 4356 74.0 1.70% 2 1565 1390 175.0 12.59% 3 2.8 3.0 -0.2 21.146 21.505 0.36 1.70% 2 633 3.65 2639 1850 789.0 42.65% 4 1090 675 415.0 61.48% 4 24 2.7 -0.3 5.068 7.230 2.16 42.65% 4 . 634 4.39 6243 5748 495.0 . 8.61% 3 2140 1860 280.0 15.05% 3 29 3.0 -0.1 13.093 14.221 1.13 8.61% 3 635 2.88 5215 4142 1073.0 25.91% 4 2065 1585 480.0 30.28% 4 25 25 0.0 14.382 18.108 3.73 25.91% 4 636 1.57 2872 2588 284.0 10.97% 3 990 860 130.0 15.12% 3 29 3.0 . -0.1 16.484 18.293 1.81 10.97% 3 637 128.93 6755 5923 832.0 14.05% 3 2085 1775 310.0 17.46% 4 3.0 3.2 -0.2 0.459 0.524 0.06 14.05% 3 638 6.43 4996 5016 -20.0 -0.40% 1 1865 1755 110.0 6.27% 3 26 2.7 -0.1 7.801 7.770 -0.03 -0.40% 1 639 10.34 3040 2587 453.0 17.51% 4 1025 845 180.0 21.30% 4 29 3.0 -0.1 2.502 2.940 0.44 17.51% 4 •BBSS S E s MESS S E r 3 • M X •HE! • i 800.01 1.06 2431 2406 1 25.0 1 1.04% 2 930 870 60.0 6.90% 3 CP 2.6 " 2.7 -0.1 22.698 22.934 0.24 1.04% 2 800.02 10.52 6018 5256 • -238.0 , -4.53% 1 1710 1690 20.0 1.18% 1 29 3.0 1 -0.1 4.996 4.770 -0.23 -4.53% 1 801:01 1.43 4006 4172 • i -166.0 if) -3.98% 1 1335 1285 50.0 3.89% 2 3.0 1 , 3.2 -0.2 29.175 28.014 -1.16 -3.98% 1 801.02 3.84 6092 5350 742.0 - 13.87% 3 1885 1615 270.0 16.72% 4 . 3.2 3.2 0.0 13.932 15.865 1.93 13.87% 3 802 4.45 9438 8033 1405.0 17.49% 4 4520 2325 2195.0 94.41% 4 2.1 ':, 3.4 -1.3 18.052 21.209 3.16 17.49% 4 soaoi 5.74 ».: 10498 5146 :5352.0 .104.00% 4 3035 1445 1640.0 113.49% 4 3.4 •Si- 3.5 -0.1 8.965 18.289 9.32 104.00% 4 803:02 4.02 11178 15851 .5327.0 ' 91.04% 4 3210 1580 1630.0 103.16% 4 3 " 3.5 f- 1 3.7 -0.2 14.555 27.806 13.25 91.04% 4 804.01 3.08 71781 6244 >'- 934.0 • 14.96% 3 2065 1805 260.0 14.40% 3 '•" 3.5 3.4 0.1 20.273 23.305 3.03 14.96% 3 804.02 3.21 10027 16513 3514.0 i f 63.95% 4 3770 2260 1510.0 66.81% 4 2.6 . 2.9 i l -0.3 20.290 31.237 10.95 53.95% 4 804:03 1.72 7499 <«7183 "? tl'316.0 4.40% 2 2225 2090 135.0 6.46% 3 1 . 3.4 A 3:2 81 0.2 41.762 43.599 1.84 4.40% 2 804.04 11.94 12269 9208 3061.0 ! . 33.24% 4 3320 2485 835.0 33.60% 4 3.7 3.7 0.0 7.712 10.276 2.56 33.24% 4 804.05 3.07 6467 . 5262 1205.0 22.90% 4 1940 1480 4600 31.08% 4 3.3 .:••' 3.5 -0.2 17.140 21.065 3.93 22.90% 4 805.01 29.75 16648 9893 6755 0 • , 68.28% 4 4740 2850 1890.0 66.32% 4 i r f - 3.5 ,'iS.' 3.5 0.0 3.325 5.596 2.27 68.28% 4 805.02 1.05 5060 4888 172.0 3.52% ' 2 1525 1445 80.0 5.54% 2 3.3 3.4 ' -0.1 46.552 48.190 1.64 3.52% 2 805.03 17.21 1 8549 6603 1946.0 ' 29.47% 4 2525 1985 540.0 27.20% 4 ' 3.4 T" ' 3.2 0.2 3.837 4.967 1.13 29.47% 4 .80= 62.46 1697 2271 -574.0 -25.28% 1 575 710 -135.0 -19.01% 1 2.9 s~ 3.2 -0.3 0.364 0272 -0.09 -25.28% 1 *807 119.51 ~ 2779 2613 '166.0 -." 6.35% 3 905 835 70.0 8.38% 3 '. 3.1 '-•' 3.0 ';-*. 0.1 0.219 0.233 0.01 6.35% 3 810.01 0.61 4034 3873 161.0 4.16% 2 1600 1535 65.0 4.23% 2 25 2.5 o.o 63.492 66.131 2.64 4.16% 2 810.02 079 2570 ,12768 ji -198.0 "i- -7.15% 1 980 965 15.0 1.55% 1 2.6 2.9 -0.3 35.038 32.532 -2.51 -7.15% 1 810.03 1.08 3500 -'3772 ' < 11-272.0 3P' ' -7.21% 1 1180 1180 0.0 0.00% 1 3.0 3.2 : - -0.2 34.926 32.407 -2.52 -7.21% 1 810.04 2.52 6223 . 6323 1-100.0 . • -1.58% 1 2095 1920 175.0 9.11% 3 3.0 3.2 -0.2 25.091 24.694 -0.40 -1.58% 1 810.05 3.39 4061 3888 173.0 4.45% 2 1330 1140 190.0 16.67% 3 3.0 3.4 -0.4 11.469 11.979 0.51 4.45% 2 811 3.47 2833 2866 ... -33.0 .-•.<:• -1.15% 1 1180 1195 -15.0 -1.26% 1 ; » , 23 £:\ 2.2 0.1 8.259 8.164 -0.10 -1.15% 1 812 1.59 „6209 r»:»*6693 ;«*.516.0 4S)m 9.06% si,..,, 3 1925 1780 145.0 8.15% 3 '4%li,!.3i2 fca 3:2 «-:.S-.,-,0.0 35.805 39.050 3.25 9.06% 3 82C 5.63 14066 7939 '6127.0 U : 77.18% 4 4095 2465 1630.0 66.13% 4 3.4 3.2 0.2 14.101 24.984 10.88 77.18% 4 83C 186.3 4165 , 3991 :' 174 0 i f 4.36% 2 1375 1270 105.0 8.27% 3 3.0 . 3.0 0.0 0.214 0.224 0.01 4.36% 2 831 29.71 9175 ' 6467 12708.0 41.87% 4 3210 2335 875.0 37.47% 4 •'•' 2.9 .-'•' 2.7 0.2 2.177 3.088 0.91 41.87% 4 .832 204.65 4037 3634 403.0 11.09% 3 1315 1120 195.0 17.41% 4 3.1 3.2 -0.1 0.178 0.197 0.02 11.09% 3 Cesus Tract to Municipal Boundary Conversions Amalgamated City of Toronto CT001.00 to 142.00 CT 150.00 to 176.00 CT 180.00 to 196.00 CT 201.00 to 250.05 CT 260.01 to 324.06 a 330.00 to 378.22 Central City (Former City of Toronto) Former City of York Former City of East York Former City of Etobicoke Former City of North York Former City of Scarborough Outer-Ring Suburbs a 400.01 to 476.00 CT 500.01 to 592.02 CT 600.01 to 639.00 a 800.01 to 832.00 Regional Muncipality of York Regional Muncipality of Peel Regional Muncipality of Halton Regional Muncipality of Durham 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0091692/manifest

Comment

Related Items