Again these statistics are vacuous and meaningless when taken on their own without any context added. Edmonton has 1 million people in a City bounded within 264.2 square miles. Toronto, such as it is has 2.93 million people within its physical bounds of 243.3 square miles -- Edmonton is a larger City than Toronto (land area) with a HUGE River valley swath with very few people living in it taken out of its central core -- 12 times larger than NYC's Central Park. Little wonder that the densities don't align when comparing the two statistically. Same for Montreal that has 1.78 million people packed into the much smaller area of 166.6 square miles. Vancouver -- the City itself -- only has 680,000 people squeezed into its jurisdictional area of 44 square miles (nowhere to go but up). Calgary is the most valid comparison, remembering that it was until very recently the white-collar capital of the petroleum industry (Edmonton was more of a blue-collar entity).
When you consider these elements and the fact that Toronto and Vancouver are afflicted with the disease of out-of-country condo ownership where the owner seldom, if ever, resides there, then you get a picture of Edmonton with its lower home prices and better schools being a much more pleasurable place to live.
If you want to live in a City where density is your prime consideration then your baby, baby, is Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver and why else would these skewed statistics have such meaning for you. Edmonton is still a young City compared to all of the others, save Calgary -- it has the unique opportunity of "getting it right" when it comes to the ideal living environment; it is an experiment crucible with untold opportunity; it -- and the rest of Alberta -- are fast-growing, dynamic, and experimental.