[dunno]

For me, it sort of seems like the Canadian version of LA, except with more density and much wetter weather. Montreal has a rich, vibrant culture and history, Toronto has some of that and is also a significant business centre.

Yes, Vancouver is nice to visit for the scenery. However I am considering a short fall trip and I was thinking about going to Vancouver, but I am leaning towards someplace possibly more interesting I have never gone to.

I get why you're making the comparison, but Los Angeles is far, far more developed as a place than Vancouver. It has a stronger identity, culture, better amenities, interesting (and often iconic) architecture/urbanism, great museums, etc. It's also significantly bigger. Vancouver is in the same hype-mobile as Nashville or Portland, but where people erroneously think they're in California because it's as close as Canada gets to that.

 

[ChazYEG]

I get why you're making the comparison, but Los Angeles is far, far more developed as a place than Vancouver. It has a stronger identity, culture, better amenities, interesting (and often iconic) architecture/urbanism, great museums, etc. It's also significantly bigger. Vancouver is in the same hype-mobile as Nashville or Portland, but where people erroneously think they're in California because it's as close as Canada gets to that.

I'll have to partially agree. LA is a significant historical and cultural hub, and their food scene is ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC, from fine dining to street food, there are few places where you eat as well as LA, and the weather is actually fabulous (unlike Raincouver).

I only disagree that Vancouver is on the level of Portland or Nashville. Everyone here knows, at this point, that I personally don't like Vancouver, but to be objetive, I do see it as more worthy of the hype than either of these, as it is a more complete city than either.

 

[dunno]

Precisely. You can add to that list cities like Geneva, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Cartagena, Zurich, Rio... Vancouver is not all that special, and comparing to some of these cities, as well as Montreal and Toronto, falls short in terms of urban fabric, culture and vibrancy. And yet it is just as expensive, if not more, than all of these, hence why I find it to be overrated.

I think the thing with Vancouver is that it's a lot of Edmontonians key experience with another city, one that's dense, vibrant, pretty. The other places Edmontonians travel to in high numbers... Kelowna, Jasper, Arizona, Varadero, Puerto Vallarta, Montego Bay, Palm Springs, Orlando, etc. are not places being visited for a fine urban experience.

The problem is that Vancouver is quite pleasant in many respects. Fairly easy to get around without a car, especially if you're near a Skytrain or BRT, a lush, dramatic landscape, vibrant communities, and, even though not world-renown, a better roster of attractions than Edmonton overall. Essentially, a nice place to live. Except that it isn't because of the outrageous housing market. So that leaves Vancouver as a place to visit, and while it's nice, it's more nice in the way of "it'd be nice to have these conveniences and amenities as part of my daily routine." But Vancouver isn't that interesting. It may be well-designed in many respects, but it's not a fascinating urban environment the way cities overseas are, dozens of American cities are, and Eastern Canadian cites can be. So, to me, there's more worthwhile places to visit, especially if you've already been. However, 90 minute $100 Flair flights are extremely enticing.

 

[dunno]

I'll have to partially agree. LA is a significant historical and cultural hub, and their food scene is ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC, from fine dining to street food, there are few places where you eat as well as LA, and the weather is actually fabulous (unlike Raincouver).

I only disagree that Vancouver is on the level of Portland or Nashville. Everyone here knows, at this point, that I personally don't like Vancouver, but to be objetive, I do see it as more worthy of the hype than either of these, as it is a more complete city than either.

That's fair. I'd agree that Vancouver is more 'complete' in terms of general functionality, but there are other things the other two excel at: mainly creating a distinct and attractive vibe from much more formidable cultural output. Arguably, neither city is as innovative as it once was, but that innovation is part of recent history and the lore that visitors and newcomers buy into. Vancouver doesn't have that. Even the stuff it does have that could be said to crystallize into a cultural moment (eg Lululemon and the athleisure movement in fashion) are things nobody outside of Canada (and maybe the PNW) associates with Vancouver. There's no intent to associate the two the way Amazon is associated with Seattle or Ford is associated with Detroit.

 

[Munanyo]

I'll be upfront and say I absolutely love Vancouver. And as someone from Ontario, who knows Toronto and Montreal extremely well (and I consider myself well travelled in general), I still consider Vancouver to be one of my favourite cities in NA. Yes, the exorbitant costs of housing is by far the biggest hindrance to making Vancouver a truly exceptional place, but there's so much to love about the city. Fantastic food, strong culture of urbanism, unparalleled natural beauty all around etc. The biggest draw for me personally is the lifestyle; people there are really into the outdoors and generally quite fit and active and that's a big draw to me. It also feels much less "hustle and bustle" that you typically will find in a place like Toronto. I will say though, that Vancouver's "culture" is absolutely nowhere near that of a place like Montreal's or LA's - those types of cities are in a complete league of their own for that.

Edmonton being affordable is by far one of the biggest positives about being here. To be able to have the amenities of a big city, have access to what should still be considered beauty in the river valley and surrounding ravines and have relatively high wages gives me and my partner hope of not only owning a house one day, but also continue to have disposable income to eat out, save + invest, vacation etc. Yes I'm aware that higher real estate prices would likely result in bigger and better projects being announced and under construction (especially downtown) but seeing all around how the high cost of housing is literally crushing millennials is disheartening. There is no amount of "cool" factor that will outweigh owning a place of your own in your desired city. And as I've said before, if Edmonton ever got to the point of becoming extremely unaffordable, I'll happily pack my bags and head back to Ottawa or live the dream and head to Vancouver for a couple of years.

 

[dunno]

I'll be upfront and say I absolutely love Vancouver. And as someone from Ontario, who knows Toronto and Montreal extremely well (and I consider myself well travelled in general), I still consider Vancouver to be one of my favourite cities in NA. Yes, the exorbitant costs of housing is by far the biggest hindrance to making Vancouver a truly exceptional place, but there's so much to love about the city. Fantastic food, strong culture of urbanism, unparalleled natural beauty all around etc. The biggest draw for me personally is the lifestyle; people there are really into the outdoors and generally quite fit and active and that's a big draw to me. It also feels much less "hustle and bustle" that you typically will find in a place like Toronto. I will say though, that Vancouver's "culture" is absolutely nowhere near that of a place like Montreal's or LA's - those types of cities are in a complete league of their own for that.

Edmonton being affordable is by far one of the biggest positives about being here. To be able to have the amenities of a big city, have access to what should still be considered beauty in the river valley and surrounding ravines and have relatively high wages gives me and my partner hope of not only owning a house one day, but also continue to have disposable income to eat out, save + invest, vacation etc. Yes I'm aware that higher real estate prices would likely result in bigger and better projects being announced and under construction (especially downtown) but seeing all around how the high cost of housing is literally crushing millennials is disheartening. There is no amount of "cool" factor that will outweigh owning a place of your own in your desired city. And as I've said before, if Edmonton ever got to the point of becoming extremely unaffordable, I'll happily pack my bags and head back to Ottawa or live the dream and head to Vancouver for a couple of years.

That's perfectly reasonable. I don't hate Vancouver, and can definitely see the allure. I would probably find it very pleasant to live in, if I could afford it. The natural beauty is great and I appreciate the relative accessibility of it (something even Calgary can't claim).

I'm very city-oriented. Not that I don't enjoy natural environments, because I do, and I can appreciate how cities such as Vancouver merge with it in attractive ways, but when I'm going to a place like Vancouver, the North Shore mountains are secondary to the urbanism. And honestly, Vancouver's urbanism is also pretty good. It has relatively strong history bones with an interesting collection of pre-war skyscrapers, its rapid transit acts more like the region's freeways as conduits of development, and there's a dedication to new planning and architecture taking the best contemporary ideas in terms of providing pleasant, hospitable places that are the meat and potatoes of vibrant cities. And because of the natural climate, the way that greenery creeps into the urban fabric is quite visually stunning.

I think it just lacks that it factor. Something that less vibrant cities with more haphazard urbanism, like Detroit, have. And if I can't afford to live in pleasant Vancouver, then I'm just visiting, and for visiting cities, other cities that offer a more fascinating urban experience, even if less livable, are a bigger draw for me. Seattle and Portland have a similar general vibe (albeit more Americanized) to Vancouver, but give a more distinct personality with their own version of Pacific Northwest moodiness.

I don't really know if I'd say Edmonton has "big city amenities." Like, it has pretty good retail options, I guess. But other things, like pro-sports or festivals are things you get in other cities too, even smaller than Edmonton. For things like museums, ours are very, very mediocre. A city like Toledo, smaller than Winnipeg, has a better art museum than us (I know the why of it, but it doesn't change the fact that the AGA sucks). The RAM is no ROM, either. For nightlife, Edmonton is perfectly fine for a city of its size, but it's nothing like the nightlife amenities of an actual big city or nightlife hub. Edmonton also lacks more than 1 truly vibrant urban neighbourhood, something big cities generally don't have a problem with.

 

[ChazYEG]

I'll be upfront and say I absolutely love Vancouver. And as someone from Ontario, who knows Toronto and Montreal extremely well (and I consider myself well travelled in general), I still consider Vancouver to be one of my favourite cities in NA. Yes, the exorbitant costs of housing is by far the biggest hindrance to making Vancouver a truly exceptional place, but there's so much to love about the city. Fantastic food, strong culture of urbanism, unparalleled natural beauty all around etc. The biggest draw for me personally is the lifestyle; people there are really into the outdoors and generally quite fit and active and that's a big draw to me. It also feels much less "hustle and bustle" that you typically will find in a place like Toronto. I will say though, that Vancouver's "culture" is absolutely nowhere near that of a place like Montreal's or LA's - those types of cities are in a complete league of their own for that.

Liking or disliking cities is a very personal choice, and I'll not judge anyone for liking this os that city. I personally don't like Vancouver. Their weather makes me miserable, and they don't have such a city-oriented lifestyle, with more options and quality for nightlife and arts & culture (compared to other cities of comparable size, such as Toronto and Montreal), together with the ridiculous cost of living and the relative unfriendliness of the people (again, compared to other Canadian cities, Edmonton included) simply don't work for me. I'll visit it, every once in a while, and I could tolerate living part time (1 week of the month, for a year).

Edmonton being affordable is by far one of the biggest positives about being here. To be able to have the amenities of a big city, have access to what should still be considered beauty in the river valley and surrounding ravines and have relatively high wages gives me and my partner hope of not only owning a house one day, but also continue to have disposable income to eat out, save + invest, vacation etc. Yes I'm aware that higher real estate prices would likely result in bigger and better projects being announced and under construction (especially downtown) but seeing all around how the high cost of housing is literally crushing millennials is disheartening. There is no amount of "cool" factor that will outweigh owning a place of your own in your desired city. And as I've said before, if Edmonton ever got to the point of becoming extremely unaffordable, I'll happily pack my bags and head back to Ottawa or live the dream and head to Vancouver for a couple of years.

I'll echo the sentiment, and say that if Edmonton gets too expensive, I'll pack my stuff and gladly move to Toronto (which, for me, is a much more attractive city than Vancouver, since we're in the comparison business here). For me, the biggest draw of Edmonton is the same as yours, the combination of affordability, high wages and big-city amenities (albeit with some lacklustre ones, and a few gaps).

 

[quit]

I'll be upfront and say I absolutely love Vancouver. And as someone from Ontario, who knows Toronto and Montreal extremely well (and I consider myself well travelled in general), I still consider Vancouver to be one of my favourite cities in NA. Yes, the exorbitant costs of housing is by far the biggest hindrance to making Vancouver a truly exceptional place, but there's so much to love about the city. Fantastic food, strong culture of urbanism, unparalleled natural beauty all around etc. The biggest draw for me personally is the lifestyle; people there are really into the outdoors and generally quite fit and active and that's a big draw to me. It also feels much less "hustle and bustle" that you typically will find in a place like Toronto. I will say though, that Vancouver's "culture" is absolutely nowhere near that of a place like Montreal's or LA's - those types of cities are in a complete league of their own for that.

Edmonton being affordable is by far one of the biggest positives about being here. To be able to have the amenities of a big city, have access to what should still be considered beauty in the river valley and surrounding ravines and have relatively high wages gives me and my partner hope of not only owning a house one day, but also continue to have disposable income to eat out, save + invest, vacation etc. Yes I'm aware that higher real estate prices would likely result in bigger and better projects being announced and under construction (especially downtown) but seeing all around how the high cost of housing is literally crushing millennials is disheartening. There is no amount of "cool" factor that will outweigh owning a place of your own in your desired city. And as I've said before, if Edmonton ever got to the point of becoming extremely unaffordable, I'll happily pack my bags and head back to Ottawa or live the dream and head to Vancouver for a couple of years.

Curious if the desire to own is a lifestyle choice vs a financial one? I assume the former given renting is generally cheaper over a long term if you invest the difference in housing costs into investments. Nothing wrong with a desire to own for the lifestyle (we own our place), but renting is generally a better financial choice if you are actually investing the money that would have otherwise gone into a mortgage.

 

[ChazYEG]

That's perfectly reasonable. I don't hate Vancouver, and can definitely see the allure. I would probably find it very pleasant to live in, if I could afford it. The natural beauty is great and I appreciate the relative accessibility of it (something even Calgary can't claim).

I'm very city-oriented. Not that I don't enjoy natural environments, because I do, and I can appreciate how cities such as Vancouver merge with it in attractive ways, but when I'm going to a place like Vancouver, the North Shore mountains are secondary to the urbanism. And honestly, Vancouver's urbanism is also pretty good. It has relatively strong history bones with an interesting collection of pre-war skyscrapers, it's rapid transit acts more like the region's freeways as conduits of development, and there's a dedication to new planning and architecture taking the best contemporary ideas in terms of providing pleasant, hospitable places that are the meat and potatoes of vibrant cities. And because of the natural climate, the way that greenery creeps into the urban fabric is quite visually stunning.

I can understand the allure for some people, whose lifestyle is more in synch with the city. I'll maintain my position, however, that it's too expensive for what it offers. My best comparison for Vancouver's status in Canada is the same as Rio's in Brazil, relative to the country. It's just as expensive as the major financial and economic hub in the country (Toronto and São Paulo, respectively), but doesn't offer the same level of services, jobs and amenities, and basically hinges on lifestyle, weather and mostly a touristic approach to justify the extremely high cost of living. Both have interesting and beautiful urbanism and natural beauty, are very well known and very attractive to visit, but pound-per-pound, hardly justify the living costs for most people.

I don't really know if I'd say Edmonton has "big city amenities." Like, it has pretty good retail options, I guess.

We're at least on par with all other major Canadian cities on retail options, a courtesy of the West Edmonton Mall (for bad or for worse). I'd even wager we're slightly ahead of Calgary, substantially ahead of Ottawa, considering the new luxury retail additions to WEM, as well as the offerings on South Edmonton Common and Southgate.

But other things, like pro-sports or festivals are things you get in other cities too, even smaller than Edmonton

Sure, the fact that other cities get it too doesn't really mean anything. The fact is that we do have these. Out of the similar sized cities in Canada, we don't lag behind anyone in terms of pro sports, and we're probably not much further behind Montreal and Vancouver, either. Only Toronto, in Canada, has a clear edge over other cities (they have CFL, MLS, NBA, NHL and MLB teams). As for festivals, again, we're ahead of Calgary and Ottawa in that department (Stampede aside, Calgary isn't really big on these).

For things like museums, ours are very, very mediocre. A city like Toledo, smaller than Winnipeg, has a better art museum than us (I know the why of it, but it doesn't change the fact that the AGA sucks). The RAM is no ROM, either.

Our museums are lacklustre, indeed, but that is more a factor of management than the spaces, themselves (and saying that AGA sucks sounds a little hyperbolic to me). On the other hand, we do have things like the Fort Edmonton Park, which is probably the best of its kind in Canada.
Our art scene is very strong, compared to other cities the same size in North America, particularly in Canada, and comparing with Europe in this department is pointless, for cultural reasons. You'll find European cities under 100k that will have a more vibrant and interesting cultural life than most major NA cities. We do have a severe PR problem in this department, since we do have a lot going on, but very little advertising. Our culinary scene Is also very well respected, especially for a city its size, and in every Canadian city comparison I've read, we only trail Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal in this department.

For nightlife, Edmonton is perfectly fine for a city of its size, but it's nothing like the nightlife amenities of an actual big city or nightlife hub.

Again, if you're saying that it is appropriate for city its size, you're also saying a 1.5M city is not a big city, which is somewhat unheard of. It might be on the lower bound of the big city definition, but it's definitely there. We cannot expect to compare with cities 2, 3x bigger. Even with big cities, there are tiers.

Entertainment-wise, we also cannot discount the power of WEM (I know, it's repetitive), but the offer of some many entertainment options that are accessible year-round, is something that very few cities can claim, let alone in Canada.

Edmonton also lacks more than 1 truly vibrant urban neighbourhood, something big cities generally don't have a problem with.

This is not an amenity/service issue, it's a lifestyle issue. You'll find no lack of examples of large cities in North America that suffer the same issue. Even so, ever so slightly (and at a fairly good place in the past few years), Oliver/124st is moving towards becoming a vibrant urban neighbourhood.


On top of all that, Edmonton does offer top tier educational institutions, an international airport that, while not offering as many destinations as it should (and the blame here can be spread between airline politics and EIA poor management), is still a good connector, high-complexity healthcare services,

My impression is that your definition of big city is either focused on European cities, which has a very different historical context, or aims at cities like Toronto, NYC, LA, Chicago, Montreal... Which are substantially older and larger than Edmonton. Overall, in terms of services and amenities, we have AT LEAST the minimum one would expect from a big city. Might not be comparable to the major centres, but big city nonetheless.

 

[dunno]

I can understand the allure for some people, whose lifestyle is more in synch with the city. I'll maintain my position, however, that it's too expensive for what it offers. My best comparison for Vancouver's status in Canada is the same as Rio's in Brazil, relative to the country. It's just as expensive as the major financial and economic hub in the country (Toronto and São Paulo, respectively), but doesn't offer the same level of services, jobs and amenities, and basically hinges on lifestyle, weather and mostly a touristic approach to justify the extremely high cost of living. Both have interesting and beautiful urbanism and natural beauty, are very well known and very attractive to visit, but pound-per-pound, hardly justify the living costs for most people.


We're at least on par with all other major Canadian cities on retail options, a courtesy of the West Edmonton Mall (for bad or for worse). I'd even wager we're slightly ahead of Calgary, substantially ahead of Ottawa, considering the new luxury retail additions to WEM, as well as the offerings on South Edmonton Common and Southgate.


Sure, the fact that other cities get it too doesn't really mean anything. The fact is that we do have these. Out of the similar sized cities in Canada, we don't lag behind anyone in terms of pro sports, and we're probably not much further behind Montreal and Vancouver, either. Only Toronto, in Canada, has a clear edge over other cities (they have CFL, MLS, NBA, NHL and MLB teams). As for festivals, again, we're ahead of Calgary and Ottawa in that department (Stampede aside, Calgary isn't really big on these).


Our museums are lacklustre, indeed, but that is more a factor of management than the spaces, themselves (and saying that AGA sucks sounds a little hyperbolic to me). On the other hand, we do have things like the Fort Edmonton Park, which is probably the best of its kind in Canada.
Our art scene is very strong, compared to other cities the same size in North America, particularly in Canada, and comparing with Europe in this department is pointless, for cultural reasons. You'll find European cities under 100k that will have a more vibrant and interesting cultural life than most major NA cities. We do have a severe PR problem in this department, since we do have a lot going on, but very little advertising. Our culinary scene Is also very well respected, especially for a city its size, and in every Canadian city comparison I've read, we only trail Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal in this department.


Again, if you're saying that it is appropriate for city its size, you're also saying a 1.5M city is not a big city, which is somewhat unheard of. It might be on the lower bound of the big city definition, but it's definitely there. We cannot expect to compare with cities 2, 3x bigger. Even with big cities, there are tiers.

Entertainment-wise, we also cannot discount the power of WEM (I know, it's repetitive), but the offer of some many entertainment options that are accessible year-round, is something that very few cities can claim, let alone in Canada.


This is not an amenity/service issue, it's a lifestyle issue. You'll find no lack of examples of large cities in North America that suffer the same issue. Even so, ever so slightly (and at a fairly good place in the past few years), Oliver/124st is moving towards becoming a vibrant urban neighbourhood.


On top of all that, Edmonton does offer top tier educational institutions, an international airport that, while not offering as many destinations as it should (and the blame here can be spread between airline politics and EIA poor management), is still a good connector, high-complexity healthcare services,

My impression is that your definition of big city is either focused on European cities, which has a very different historical context, or aims at cities like Toronto, NYC, LA, Chicago, Montreal... Which are substantially older and larger than Edmonton. Overall, in terms of services and amenities, we have AT LEAST the minimum one would expect from a big city. Might not be comparable to the major centres, but big city nonetheless.

My definition of a big city is... an actual big city. 1 million is a mid-sized city. Edmonton does not feel big when you compare it to an actual big city like Toronto, let alone Los Angeles or New York or Mexico City. For what it's worth, I also don't consider Vancouver a big city. Canada only has Toronto and Montreal for that. I know the Vancouver line in the sand is more controversial, but most people don't consider Edmonton a big city unless they're coming from somewhere like Medicine Hat. I'm not even looking to Europe with this mindset, either, but I similarly wouldn't say Glasgow or Antwerp are big cities.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but when I see people say "Edmonton has big city amenities" it appears to contrast a pre-conceived notion that Edmonton is not big leagues, but despite that, it has all the amenities of said big league. It doesn't. And I do agree, comparing to older or bigger places is hardly fair. I would never expect Toronto out of Edmonton. That's silly! I was more addressing my own understanding of the comment, which I've seen thrown around repeatedly by many folks.

Regardless of if it's a management issue, a lifestyle issue, politics, economy, or some random mix of these and other factors, stuff like lacklustre museums, exactly-what-you'd-expect nightlife, and dead urbanism, things you expect to a higher level in big cities, does mean that Edmonton lacks big city amenities. It has.... mid-sized amenities. And that's mostly ok. Some things can and should be better, but it's not like Edmonton has 4 million people and still only has Whyte Ave for vibrant strips and a tiny art museum.

On the urban neighbourhood issue, there definitely are other cities that have the same problem as Edmonton. Mostly in the US, and mostly in a similar weight class as us. There's still outliers, like much larger Phoenix, but in those cases I'd argue they are also very lacking, even more so than Edmonton. How do you have a city bigger than Montreal and still only have a terrible scaled Tempe as your vibrant area? I doubt Edmonton would be like that at 5 million.

Our retail isn't better than Calgary's. Maybe Ottawa's. But for everything we have and Calgary doesn't, they likewise have something that we don't. It's pretty even these days.

Food scene wise, smaller Winnipeg feels about on par with Edmonton.

 

[Munanyo]

That's perfectly reasonable. I don't hate Vancouver, and can definitely see the allure. I would probably find it very pleasant to live in, if I could afford it. The natural beauty is great and I appreciate the relative accessibility of it (something even Calgary can't claim).

I'm very city-oriented. Not that I don't enjoy natural environments, because I do, and I can appreciate how cities such as Vancouver merge with it in attractive ways, but when I'm going to a place like Vancouver, the North Shore mountains are secondary to the urbanism. And honestly, Vancouver's urbanism is also pretty good. It has relatively strong history bones with an interesting collection of pre-war skyscrapers, its rapid transit acts more like the region's freeways as conduits of development, and there's a dedication to new planning and architecture taking the best contemporary ideas in terms of providing pleasant, hospitable places that are the meat and potatoes of vibrant cities. And because of the natural climate, the way that greenery creeps into the urban fabric is quite visually stunning.

I think it just lacks that it factor. Something that less vibrant cities with more haphazard urbanism, like Detroit, have. And if I can't afford to live in pleasant Vancouver, then I'm just visiting, and for visiting cities, other cities that offer a more fascinating urban experience, even if less livable, are a bigger draw for me. Seattle and Portland have a similar general vibe (albeit more Americanized) to Vancouver, but give a more distinct personality with their own version of Pacific Northwest moodiness.

I don't really know if I'd say Edmonton has "big city amenities." Like, it has pretty good retail options, I guess. But other things, like pro-sports or festivals are things you get in other cities too, even smaller than Edmonton. For things like museums, ours are very, very mediocre. A city like Toledo, smaller than Winnipeg, has a better art museum than us (I know the why of it, but it doesn't change the fact that the AGA sucks). The RAM is no ROM, either. For nightlife, Edmonton is perfectly fine for a city of its size, but it's nothing like the nightlife amenities of an actual big city or nightlife hub. Edmonton also lacks more than 1 truly vibrant urban neighbourhood, something big cities generally don't have a problem with.

Everything you said here completely makes sense and I get your perspective. A lot of people think Vancouver is a tad underwhelming when it comes to urbanity and does not compete with other large metros. I can see that and appreciate that stance. I guess what really appeals to me about Vancouver is it strikes a nice balance between urbanity, modernity and beautiful and accessible nature. It's clean, transit is good and it's not an overhwhelmingly big city, something I think is great if I were to live there. As well, close proximity to the US and having a great airport (that is arguably the best in NA) are also things I love. Overall, Vancouver, to me, strikes a good balance at everything. It wins in nature and attractive surroundings, but is quite mid level on the urban front and for some (like yourself) that is something much more important than the nature side of things.

I agree as well, Vancouver does lack a bit if the "it" factor. Cities like Montreal, NYC, LA (among others in NA) contain that special "it" factor, where you are absolutely awestruck by the sheer size, scale, pace, history, culture etc. of a city. Vancouver is not really that, but to be honest, there are not that many places on the continent that contain that feeling.

I should've reworded my initial post by saying Edmonton contains the "basics of a bigger city". We have some entertainment, okay nightlife, decent selection of ethnic foods, good retail etc. We don't compete with the next tier of cities but Edmonton is a good "bang for your buck" city that is perfectly fine and acceptable for a city of 1.4 million people. I agree completely though, our museums are very underwhelming. I wish we did better on that front.

Liking or disliking cities is a very personal choice, and I'll not judge anyone for liking this os that city. I personally don't like Vancouver. Their weather makes me miserable, and they don't have such a city-oriented lifestyle, with more options and quality for nightlife and arts & culture (compared to other cities of comparable size, such as Toronto and Montreal), together with the ridiculous cost of living and the relative unfriendliness of the people (again, compared to other Canadian cities, Edmonton included) simply don't work for me. I'll visit it, every once in a while, and I could tolerate living part time (1 week of the month, for a year).



I'll echo the sentiment, and say that if Edmonton gets too expensive, I'll pack my stuff and gladly move to Toronto (which, for me, is a much more attractive city than Vancouver, since we're in the comparison business here). For me, the biggest draw of Edmonton is the same as yours, the combination of affordability, high wages and big-city amenities (albeit with some lacklustre ones, and a few gaps).

Yup, liking or disliking a city is very much a personal thing. I enjoy and like Toronto for example, but I do find it slightly overrated to an extent but see why some people are head over heels for it. When I visit Toronto (I actually plan on visiting a friend there shortly) I have a great time, but can I see myself live there? Mehhhh not so sure. But again, absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Glad we share the same perspective on your last point though. Edmonton, for all its charm and what it has going for it, does not justify ever having high real estate prices and if that's ever the case, many people would pack their things and head home (wherever that may be), move somewhere they've always wanted to, or go somewhere cheaper.

 

[Munanyo]

Curious if the desire to own is a lifestyle choice vs a financial one? I assume the former given renting is generally cheaper over a long term if you invest the difference in housing costs into investments. Nothing wrong with a desire to own for the lifestyle (we own our place), but renting is generally a better financial choice if you are actually investing the money that would have otherwise gone into a mortgage.

It's more a lifestyle choice. I've dealt with a couple of shit landlords and the feeling of paying off someone else's mortgage and not having control over where you live far outweighs whatever financial cost savings comes from renting long term (at least to me).

 

[dunno]

Everything you said here completely makes sense and I get your perspective. A lot of people think Vancouver is a tad underwhelming when it comes to urbanity and does not compete with other large metros. I can see that and appreciate that stance. I guess what really appeals to me about Vancouver is it strikes a nice balance between urbanity, modernity and beautiful and accessible nature. It's clean, transit is good and it's not an overhwhelmingly big city, something I think is great if I were to live there. As well, close proximity to the US and having a great airport (that is arguably the best in NA) are also things I love. Overall, Vancouver, to me, strikes a good balance at everything. It wins in nature and attractive surroundings, but is quite mid level on the urban front and for some (like yourself) that is something much more important than the nature side of things.

I agree as well, Vancouver does lack a bit if the "it" factor. Cities like Montreal, NYC, LA (among others in NA) contain that special "it" factor, where you are absolutely awestruck by the sheer size, scale, pace, history, culture etc. of a city. Vancouver is not really that, but to be honest, there are not that many places on the continent that contain that feeling.

I should've reworded my initial post by saying Edmonton contains the "basics of a bigger city". We have some entertainment, okay nightlife, decent selection of ethnic foods, good retail etc. We don't compete with the next tier of cities but Edmonton is a good "bang for your buck" city that is perfectly fine and acceptable for a city of 1.4 million people. I agree completely though, our museums are very underwhelming. I wish we did better on that front.

Yup, liking or disliking a city is very much a personal thing. I enjoy and like Toronto for example, but I do find it slightly overrated to an extent but see why some people are head over heels for it. When I visit Toronto (I actually plan on visiting a friend there shortly) I have a great time, but can I see myself live there? Mehhhh not so sure. But again, absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Glad we share the same perspective on your last point though. Edmonton, for all its charm and what it has going for it, does not justify ever having high real estate prices and if that's ever the case, many people would pack their things and head home (wherever that may be), move somewhere they've always wanted to, or go somewhere cheaper.

Thanks!

I'm kind of ambivalent towards Vancouver. I get the allure, but also growing up here, I've seen how hyped it is and from that perspective, it feels a bit overrated, like Chaz suggests. But somebody wanting to live there? I totally get it. For the exact reasons you said. Hell, I contemplated it at one point not long ago.

I'd argue there's a lot more cities with distinctive character and/or "it' factor Stateside. I think that's cultural -- the US tends to go big with stuff, leans into iconography and cultural production, while Canada is more reserved. Like Vancouver for example - I don't think it's actually interested in being a cutting edge, grandiose metropolis of renowned attractions and amenities. It's leveraging its climate and topography and trying to build as pleasant a place to live in, ignoring real estate costs. And on that front, it's doing well. From a planning perspective, there's so much North American cities should be learning from Vancouver. But, for art, culture, museums, history, even architecture, similarly-sized Pittsburgh is far more interesting. It has more of an identity and a sense of uniqueness in the human fabric of the city. Portland's another, which I'd argue is even more overrated than Vancouver in general, but it still has something to say.

But yeah, I think we're in agreement in terms of the level and/or quality of amenities for Edmonton. It's basically a level of amenities that means you're not terribly bored even if it's not as exhilarating as Paris. It doesn't feel limiting in the way Saskatoon or Moncton do. Would this quality of city be worth Vancouver prices? Absolutely not. I think what's going on right now is that, of the million+ club in Canada, Edmonton is the last bastion of broad affordability. You can still get a good deal in Calgary or Montreal if you look at the right time, but that window is closing and quickly! It may not offer the best assortment of amenities in that million+ club, but it's good enough, and means people can have a nicer home and afford other things during a tumultuous period of inflation. But that's the main draw - it's cheap and decent, not a place a lot of people would choose otherwise if CoL was equal (or more comparable) across Canada's major metros. It's kind of sad IMO.

 

[Munanyo]

Battle of Alberta: Why are Edmonton homes so much more affordable than Calgary’s?

Edmonton’s real estate market hasn’t experienced any major fluctuations this year, unlike the market in Calgary

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[occidentalcapital]

Thanks!

I'm kind of ambivalent towards Vancouver. I get the allure, but also growing up here, I've seen how hyped it is and from that perspective, it feels a bit overrated, like Chaz suggests. But somebody wanting to live there? I totally get it. For the exact reasons you said. Hell, I contemplated it at one point not long ago.

I'd argue there's a lot more cities with distinctive character and/or "it' factor Stateside. I think that's cultural -- the US tends to go big with stuff, leans into iconography and cultural production, while Canada is more reserved. Like Vancouver for example - I don't think it's actually interested in being a cutting edge, grandiose metropolis of renowned attractions and amenities. It's leveraging its climate and topography and trying to build as pleasant a place to live in, ignoring real estate costs. And on that front, it's doing well. From a planning perspective, there's so much North American cities should be learning from Vancouver. But, for art, culture, museums, history, even architecture, similarly-sized Pittsburgh is far more interesting. It has more of an identity and a sense of uniqueness in the human fabric of the city. Portland's another, which I'd argue is even more overrated than Vancouver in general, but it still has something to say.

But yeah, I think we're in agreement in terms of the level and/or quality of amenities for Edmonton. It's basically a level of amenities that means you're not terribly bored even if it's not as exhilarating as Paris. It doesn't feel limiting in the way Saskatoon or Moncton do. Would this quality of city be worth Vancouver prices? Absolutely not. I think what's going on right now is that, of the million+ club in Canada, Edmonton is the last bastion of broad affordability. You can still get a good deal in Calgary or Montreal if you look at the right time, but that window is closing and quickly! It may not offer the best assortment of amenities in that million+ club, but it's good enough, and means people can have a nicer home and afford other things during a tumultuous period of inflation. But that's the main draw - it's cheap and decent, not a place a lot of people would choose otherwise if CoL was equal (or more comparable) across Canada's major metros. It's kind of sad IMO.

It's always fun to think about what draws newcomers. City nerds tend to think the city makes a big difference. In my experience, more often than not, it's jobs. Then they end up staying if they like it.

I think the "creative class" arguments have run their course. It's just not as in vogue as it once was.