[yeggator]

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

What does the article talk about? It's behind a paywall for me.

 

[Munanyo]

What does the article talk about? It's behind a paywall for me.

Alberta may be calling, but despite the many similarities between the province’s largest cities, when it comes to house prices, Edmonton is lagging behind – why?

Last winter, Madelyne Toller began her search for a home in Edmonton. “We looked at a lot of places,” she says, noting that having a backyard was the main reason she wanted to enter the detached market. “I was living in a condo with my high-energy dog, and really needed more space for him.”

It took Ms. Toller four months and one failed bid before she successfully moved on a 1972 bungalow in Duggan, a mature neighbourhood in south Edmonton, that suited most of her needs while not overstretching her budget. The listed price of the 1,315-square-foot house was $415,000.

“I didn’t know anything about this neighbourhood,” Ms. Toller says. “It is a little bit further from downtown than I would have liked, [but] in terms of safety and convenience it was a good compromise.”

Thanks to the help of her realtor, Hillary Rilling, Ms. Toller’s experience as a first-time buyer was straightforward, but not stress-free. “It was like a second full-time job,” she says. “There were multiple houses that I loved, [but] they had an offer on them before we could arrange a viewing.”

Had Ms. Toller been looking for a home in Calgary, however, it would have been even more difficult to find a unit of similar characteristics at the same price point. In April, the average price in Edmonton’s detached segment was roughly 30 per cent lower than Calgary’s, as average prices in this segment reached $493,000 and $690,000 respectively. And the spring season was just beginning.

In August, the average resale price of detached homes in Calgary surpassed$700,000 – while in Edmonton it decreased to $492,000.

Unlike Calgary, the real estate market in Edmonton hasn’t experienced any major fluctuations this year, says Melanie Boles, board chair at the Realtors Association of Edmonton. “Our average price is still sitting in that very affordable $412,000 range,” she says, pointing at data from the last week of August. “That still is very affordable for the average person.”

Over the past two decades, house prices have tended to be lower in Edmonton, and price fluctuations ran mostly in parallel. But that changed in 2022, when the house price index took off in Calgary. By July this year, Calgary’s HPI was 23.59 points higher than Edmonton’s – a record gap.

This situation is keeping many first-time buyers in Calgary from homeownership and creating a glut in the city’s rental market.

Robert King is a Calgary renter who’s been saving up to buy a house for two years, but despite having a relatively high income and a stable job as a tradesman, his dream of homeownership is becoming increasingly elusive. “We’re making our way there,” he says. “But every time my savings account goes up – housing prices also go up.”

The reason house prices in Calgary have reached a record high this year, while in Edmonton they’ve remained stable, seems to be a matter of supply and demand.

Driven by interprovincial and international migration, in 2022 Alberta’s population increased by roughly 119,000 people, and according to City of Calgary estimations, nearly a third of these new arrivals settled in Calgary.

Despite similar employment numbers, a key difference between the two cities is their economy, says David Dale-Johnson, the Stan Melton executive professor of real estate at the University of Alberta. Because Edmonton’s economy is driven by government, health care, postsecondary, wholesale retail and “grey collar” oil and gas, it allows for more stable housing market conditions than Calgary. “From an entrepreneurial, new high-tech growth, Calgary is the place to be, relative to Edmonton,” he says.

Indeed, according to Ray Wong, vice-president of data operations at Altus Group, Calgary has quickly become a magnet for talent in the tech and energy sectors. “When firms are looking at different cities to locate to, they look at the overall occupancy costs, at the cost of living and at the talent pool,” he says. “Both cities are doing well based on affordability, but Calgary a little bit more so because of the types of jobs available.”

But this doesn’t mean Edmonton’s population isn’t growing. Between July, 2021, and July, 2022, Edmonton’s population increased at a rate of 2.4 per cent, while Calgary grew by 3.1 per cent.

Some believe that the main reason these markets are behaving differently is that Edmonton was better positioned to accommodate newcomers.

“What happened in Edmonton is that they never had the same supply shortages Calgary did,” says Ann-Marie Lurie, chief economist at the Alberta Real Estate Association, noting that by the end of 2022, Edmonton had five months of supply, while Calgary had less than two months.

“Everyone went through this big peak last year, when the market ran up,” she says. “Edmonton came back down [this year], like Calgary did, too. But Calgary ramped back up, and Edmonton didn’t – and part of that was because they have more supply.”

One of the factors that have helped accommodate rapid population growth in Edmonton is a more robust stock of purpose-built rentals, Ms. Lurie says, noting that this has allowed Alberta’s capital city to divert some growth away from the resale market.

As the fall market settles in, Edmonton buyers still have more choices available across segments and price points. On Sept. 1, the share of detached homes listed for $500,000 or less in Edmonton represented about 50 per cent of all listings in this segment, according to Realtor.ca. In Calgary, this share was less than 9 per cent.

But if current migration trends hold, and housing starts don’t pick up, Alberta’s capital city could follow Calgary’s lead, Ms. Lurie says. While supply across segments has remained higher than last year, interest rates are cooling demand in the upper end of the market. As a result, housing starts in Edmonton dropped by roughly 40 per cent in the second quarter of 2023, relative to the same quarter last year. If this situation persists, Ms. Lurie says, it could limit supply and trigger price growth in the resale market.

Although a tighter market in Edmonton could price out first-time buyers, the pull of Alberta’s cities is likely to continue. “The migration patterns have been mostly from Ontario, and they’re less price-sensitive than people in Edmonton,” Ms. Lurie says.

“If you’re coming from some of the larger centres around Toronto, or near that area, you’re not going to be as concerned about [paying] $700,000 for a detached home.”

 

[dunno]

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.

I agree. It's usually jobs, school, or a personal connection (moving to take care of an ailing relative, for a lover, etc). After that probably climate. Most people aren't city people. Or they are, but only insofar as it is a means to an end, but not an end unto itself. It's a place of conveniences, where you can go shopping, to the theatre, experience art, festivals, etc while having your community in close proximity. The natural environment probably plays a bigger role when debating the attractiveness of cities. It's an escape from the daily life of urbanity, which becomes so rote and mundane for many, as, again it's a means to an end. I'm sure for people considering a city like Calgary, for example, and aren't moving for jobs/school, personal reasons, or the climate, they're less likely to be considering Calatrava's fingerprints or the vibrancy of Inglewood than proximity to mountains, lakes, and badlands. If you talk to people who aren't as plugged into urbanism, that's often cited as a big ingredient for why Calgary is "better" than Edmonton.

I'm not one of these people, and my opinions about how Edmonton is as a city are not meant to speak for the majority. I happen to like cities themselves, as an end, and I think for that reason, I have a much harder time with Edmonton than a lot of other people do. And obviously there's other people who think like this too, but their numbers are not driving the population and economic growth of cities by and large.

 

[David A]

What does the article talk about? It's behind a paywall for me.

It is goes into a number of reasons including: Edmonton has a more stable market, no supply shortages at the end of 2022, more robust stock of purpose built rentals.

 

[David A]

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.

I think any city that has a major university could argue it has a creative class.

Of course, in Canada our major universities tend to be in bigger cities, unlike in the US with many Universities and colleges in smaller places where they have a disproportionate impact on the economy and the culture.

As usual arguments that better fit the US get extrapolated to places where they do not fit as well. Also, financial centres tend to be larger places with strong economies, not just because of creative classes.

New York is a financial center because it is the largest city in the eastern US. It has vibrant arts and culture mainly because of its size and wealth. People sometimes confuse cause and effect.

 

[ChazYEG]

My definition of a big city is... an actual big city. 1 million is a mid-sized city.

I don't know where you got the idea that 1 million is a midsized city, but even in country with far larger populations and many more cities over that threshold, I have NEVER heard anyone call a 1M+ people city midsized. Maybe in some places in Asia, where there are so many 10M+ people cities that 1M+ fades into the background, but in the context f the Americas and Europe, particularly, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If we categorize cities like Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa or even Vancouver, as midsized, then what are Halifax, Victoria, Winnipeg, QC? Small cities? As lovely as they might be, for their size, they're definitely not in the same league, just as much as Edmonton and Toronto are not on the same league (hell, we're not even on the same league as Vancouver).

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.

Of course it doesn't feel big when you compare it to cities that are 4, 8, 12 and 15 times more populous, respectively. If your metric is some of the largest cities on the planet, then we have what? Maybe 20, 30 actual big cities in the world? And even then, some of them barely compare to each other. Toronto feels small when you put it side-by-side with cities like NYC, Mexico City or São Paulo. Does this mean Toronto is then not a big city?

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.

I feel like there's a disconnect between what you expect from big cities and that is mostly because those places you mention are not just large in population/economy, but also are older and significantly more relevant in all of those areas than even most other cities in similar categories, for several reasons.

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.

By most measures, our retail slightly outshines Calgary's, but I agree (and I pointed that out earlier) that it's mostly even. Ottawa lags behind both.

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

I do strongly disagree with this one. It falls into the same category as our general arts and cultural scene: we have a serious PR problem, and that is not just institutional/governmental, but the people (and in this case, restaurants) don't promote themselves nearly as well as they could, let alone as well as they should. You'd be amazed as to how many people in Edmonton know very little about what is going on in the city, even those who theoretically would be interested for professional reasons, like realtors. Yet, we see a bunch of people routinely hyping up stuff that is in Vancouver, or Calgary, following them on social media and wishing they'd open here.

 

[ChazYEG]

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.

I agree 100%, and that has been my points. We check all of the boxes to qualify as a big city, even if it is not to the same level as you'd get in cities Like Toronto or Montreal, for example. We punch above our weight in some of these areas (retail, higher education) and are lacklustre in others (museums, urban lifestyle), but on average, it's better than, or just as good as most cities the same size in North America, while being very affordable. Definitely not worthy of Vancouver prices (but again, my whole point has been that even Vancouver is not worthy of Vancouver prices, at least to me).

As for the museums, their biggest issue is management. We do have spaces that are great, but very poorly managed. RAM could be MUCH better than it is, so could the AGA, for example (their physical spaces are well thought and built). The reasons for the poor management are a mystery, at least to me, but I have hardly looked deep into it.

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.

Right now, considering what the city offers, I don't even think we justify being on the same price range as Calgary. Maybe in a couple of years, as DT gets back some momentum and west Oliver is more complete, for example. What I will point out is that, if things keep moving in the direction they are moving, if we ever get to the same size as Vancouver, and the same goes for Calgary, at least in my opinion, they will be more interesting cities and more worthy of a higher price tag. The potential is there, Calgary has been doing a better job at taking advantage of it, but it's not like Edmonton has not changed A LOT, for the better in the past decade or so.

 

[ChazYEG]

I'm sure for people considering a city like Calgary, for example, and aren't moving for jobs/school, personal reasons, or the climate, they're less likely to be considering Calatrava's fingerprints or the vibrancy of Inglewood than proximity to mountains, lakes, and badlands.

Not sure I agree with this. There is plenty of people out there who couldn't care less for these things. In my experience, just as many people care about vibrancy and city life as there are people who care about closeness to nature. What happens is that, in Canada, most these people mostly end up in places that actually do offer these things in higher quality and quantity, such as Toronto or, to some extent, Vancouver.

The case of Edmonton and Calgary boil down to the fact that while none of them will offer and even remotely close urban life experience as bigger places, Calgary does offer the option for the nature-focused lifestyle, while Edmonton doesn't do it nearly as much. Our biggest draw is, as we all said before, that Edmonton offers the basics of a big city for mid-sized city prices an, frankly, if we do not get better at offering a better city life, we'll grind to a halt, eventually, while other places will outpace us in growth, if the affordability ceases to be a factor.

 

[dunno]

I don't know where you got the idea that 1 million is a midsized city, but even in country with far larger populations and many more cities over that threshold, I have NEVER heard anyone call a 1M+ people city midsized. Maybe in some places in Asia, where there are so many 10M+ people cities that 1M+ fades into the background, but in the context f the Americas and Europe, particularly, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If we categorize cities like Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa or even Vancouver, as midsized, then what are Halifax, Victoria, Winnipeg, QC? Small cities? As lovely as they might be, for their size, they're definitely not in the same league, just as much as Edmonton and Toronto are not on the same league (hell, we're not even on the same league as Vancouver).
By most measures, our retail slightly outshines Calgary's, but I agree (and I pointed that out earlier) that it's mostly even. Ottawa lags behind both.

Ok...

City sizes I look at in a global context, not Canadian, not North American, whatever. I appreciate that there are differences regionally, but generally, I'd say mid-size is about 700,000-3 million, big is 3-10 million, huge (megacity) is 10+ million. These are broad categories and of course there's going to be differences between the upper and lower of these tiers. We can get more fine-grained with our tiers than this, but for simplicity sake that's what I use. Obviously you're different. But, by a similar token, if Edmonton is a big city and Toronto is also a big city, in your eyes, do we not run into the same problem? These are vastly different cities with very different proportions. Or do you have another word for Toronto beyond "big" and if so, are we not just ranking things the same but quibbling over terminology? Thus far you've also described Toronto as a big city. So how is lumping Toronto and Edmonton in the "big" category different than me lumping Winnipeg and Edmonton in the "mid-size" category? I'm sure most would agree the latter pair have more in common than the former. And no, it's not just me refusing to call Edmonton big, because I've never seen anyone call Edmonton a big city unless they're from Red Deer or Medicine Hat. But at the end of the day, regardless of the density of people calling something one thing or another, the key is that we just have different metrics for what is and is not something. The most I've seen thrown around is "Alberta's big cities" within the context of Alberta itself.

I feel like there's a disconnect between what you expect from big cities and that is mostly because those places you mention are not just large in population/economy, but also are older and significantly more relevant in all of those areas than even most other cities in similar categories, for several reasons.

I mentioned Montreal, Phoenix (as an example of a big city that underwhelms for what you'd expect), and Toronto in my examples to you as big cities. I also mentioned other cities in my mid-size range, like Ottawa, not as an example of a big city. Later, there was a discussion about Vancouver, in which cities like Portland and Pittsburgh were brought up. None of these cities I consider big. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I do strongly disagree with this one. It falls into the same category as our general arts and cultural scene: we have a serious PR problem, and that is not just institutional/governmental, but the people (and in this case, restaurants) don't promote themselves nearly as well as they could, let alone as well as they should. You'd be amazed as to how many people in Edmonton know very little about what is going on in the city, even those who theoretically would be interested for professional reasons, like realtors. Yet, we see a bunch of people routinely hyping up stuff that is in Vancouver, or Calgary, following them on social media and wishing they'd open here.

Are you very familiar with Winnipeg? I've lived there for significant chunks of time and still am there regularly. There's often a knee-jerk reaction Edmontonians get to Winnipeg, and they view it as a lesser place, and therefore comparisons to it are assumed to be out of derision. But it's not. Both Winnipeg and Edmonton have nice culinary scenes with lots of great options. It doesn't have to be an either/or. Both cities I find far better than Calgary, for example, except in the high end stuff where it's better or more comparable. Why do we need to tear down another city to boost up our own city?

Not knowing much about what's going on in your city isn't a uniquely Edmonton thing. It's downright Canadian.

 

[dunno]

I agree 100%, and that has been my points. We check all of the boxes to qualify as a big city, even if it is not to the same level as you'd get in cities Like Toronto or Montreal, for example. We punch above our weight in some of these areas (retail, higher education) and are lacklustre in others (museums, urban lifestyle), but on average, it's better than, or just as good as most cities the same size in North America, while being very affordable. Definitely not worthy of Vancouver prices (but again, my whole point has been that even Vancouver is not worthy of Vancouver prices, at least to me).

As for the museums, their biggest issue is management. We do have spaces that are great, but very poorly managed. RAM could be MUCH better than it is, so could the AGA, for example (their physical spaces are well thought and built). The reasons for the poor management are a mystery, at least to me, but I have hardly looked deep into it.


Right now, considering what the city offers, I don't even think we justify being on the same price range as Calgary. Maybe in a couple of years, as DT gets back some momentum and west Oliver is more complete, for example. What I will point out is that, if things keep moving in the direction they are moving, if we ever get to the same size as Vancouver, and the same goes for Calgary, at least in my opinion, they will be more interesting cities and more worthy of a higher price tag. The potential is there, Calgary has been doing a better job at taking advantage of it, but it's not like Edmonton has not changed A LOT, for the better in the past decade or so.

I think Edmonton does really well when you consider the broader North American context. It's only when you look at our peers in Canada does Edmonton seem less interesting or vibrant or 'complete'. But, aside from history, museums, and architecture in older US cities in the 1-2 million range, American cities tend to compare poorly to Edmonton, particularly in terms of quality of life. Buffalo is perhaps a more interesting city, for example, but I'd never want to deal with their urban planning on a regular basis.

Re: museums - the AGA is also pretty small in terms of exhibition space. It's weird there's no permanent collection on display, too. RAM does have significant potential, I agree there.

 

[ChazYEG]

Ok...

City sizes I look at in a global context, not Canadian, not North American, whatever. I appreciate that there are differences regionally, but generally, I'd say mid-size is about 700,000-3 million, big is 3-10 million, huge (megacity) is 10+ million. These are broad categories and of course there's going to be differences between the upper and lower of these tiers. We can get more fine-grained with our tiers than this, but for simplicity sake that's what I use. Obviously you're different. But, by a similar token, if Edmonton is a big city and Toronto is also a big city, in your eyes, do we not run into the same problem? These are vastly different cities with very different proportions. Or do you have another word for Toronto beyond "big" and if so, are we not just ranking things the same but quibbling over terminology? Thus far you've also described Toronto as a big city. So how is lumping Toronto and Edmonton in the "big" category different than me lumping Winnipeg and Edmonton in the "mid-size" category? I'm sure most would agree the latter pair have more in common than the former. And no, it's not just me refusing to call Edmonton big, because I've never seen anyone call Edmonton a big city unless they're from Red Deer or Medicine Hat. But at the end of the day, regardless of the density of people calling something one thing or another, the key is that we just have different metrics for what is and is not something. The most I've seen thrown around is "Alberta's big cities" within the context of Alberta itself.

To be quite honest, I do prefer to use cities' status in terms of influence over the "big-medium-small" scale, as I feel it represents things better, especially on a global context. You have cities that are far bigger than Toronto, for example, but that offer much less in terms of city life, and that has a lot to do with other factors, on top of population sizes. On the other side of it, you have cities that are the same size, or even slightly smaller, but that have more robust and interesting offers (Berlin is the one that first comes to mind, but you have others, such as Barcelona, for example).

In that sense, I'd put Edmonton and Calgary in somewhat the same tier, with a slight edge to Calgary, relative to Western Canada, where Vancouver is the major centre, and the most complete city. At the same time, I'd say that both Edmonton and Calgary exert much more influence, and are reference cities to many more people in the Prairies, than Winnipeg. I'd say Toronto edges all of the three (as well as Ottawa and Montreal) on a national scale, being the only true global city in Canada. In short, it's more like Global city (Toronto), national centres (Vancouver and Montreal), major regional centres (Edmonton and Calgary), regional centres (Winnipeg, Ottawa, Quebec City), minor regional centres (Halifax, Victoria, Saskatoon, Regina), for me.

Are you very familiar with Winnipeg? I've lived there for significant chunks of time and still am there regularly. There's often a knee-jerk reaction Edmontonians get to Winnipeg, and they view it as a lesser place, and therefore comparisons to it are assumed to be out of derision. But it's not. Both Winnipeg and Edmonton have nice culinary scenes with lots of great options. It doesn't have to be an either/or. Both cities I find far better than Calgary, for example, except in the high end stuff where it's better or more comparable. Why do we need to tear down another city to boost up our own city?

I am somewhat familiar with Winnipeg, less than I would like to, but more than you'd expect. I'm not tearing down Winnipeg, on this, but I do feel like Edmonton does have an edge there. I also agree that both (and I'd also throw Halifax in this mix) have a better scene than Calgary. Calgary does edge Edmonton slightly on high-end dining, but not by as much as people like to believe sometimes, and both are much closer to, say, Vancouver, than Vancouver is to Toronto or Montreal, IMO.

Not knowing much about what's going on in your city isn't a uniquely Edmonton thing. It's downright Canadian.

The only cities I can say with a somewhat high degree of certainty are Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver, and compared to the other two, Edmonton does a substantially better job at neglecting what's going on here. People are downright oblivious to anything that's not on their local strip mall. It's actually very sad.

I think Edmonton does really well when you consider the broader North American context. It's only when you look at our peers in Canada does Edmonton seem less interesting or vibrant or 'complete'. But, aside from history, museums, and architecture in older US cities in the 1-2 million range, American cities tend to compare poorly to Edmonton, particularly in terms of quality of life. Buffalo is perhaps a more interesting city, for example, but I'd never want to deal with their urban planning on a regular basis.

Agreed. I haven't been to Buffalo, but I interesting things. Out off the cities between 1M and 2.5M in North America I've been to, in general, the only ones that are substantially more complete or interesting, IMO, are Austin, Vegas and Portland. Calgary might be a bit ahead of us, in general, bur not to an extent in which they're on completely different levels.

Even in the 2.5M to 5M range, you have some REALLY underwhelming cities, that I'd frankly never chose over Edmonton, such as Charlotte, St. Louis, Orlando/Kissimee, Tampa and San Antonio. TBH, there are even bigger cities that don't seem to offer much more than Edmonton, in general, such as Phoenix, like you mentioned, or even Atlanta (with the obvious exception to the airport, it's a deathly boring city, especially considering it's size. Spent 6 months there, almost died out of boredom).

Overall, my impression is that almost, if not all Canadian cities punch way above their weight, compared to most similar (or even slightly bigger) sized cities in the US.

Re: museums - the AGA is also pretty small in terms of exhibition space. It's weird there's no permanent collection on display, too. RAM does have significant potential, I agree there.

AGA is small, but well built. Their management is absolute shite, and I agree, the lack of a permanent collection is sad. My (substantially smaller and immensely poorer) hometown in Brazil has a better managed Arts Museum, with a more substantial collection and permanent exhibitions.

The RAM has so much potential that is makes me sad to see how poorly managed it is. I do take a lot of pride on Fort Edmonton Park, and I genuinely think that the CoE should pursue an agreement with the province to use the old RAM building to become the home of a "Historical Museum of Edmonton" or something.

 

[dunno]

To be quite honest, I do prefer to use cities' status in terms of influence over the "big-medium-small" scale, as I feel it represents things better, especially on a global context. You have cities that are far bigger than Toronto, for example, but that offer much less in terms of city life, and that has a lot to do with other factors, on top of population sizes. On the other side of it, you have cities that are the same size, or even slightly smaller, but that have more robust and interesting offers (Berlin is the one that first comes to mind, but you have others, such as Barcelona, for example).

In that sense, I'd put Edmonton and Calgary in somewhat the same tier, with a slight edge to Calgary, relative to Western Canada, where Vancouver is the major centre, and the most complete city. At the same time, I'd say that both Edmonton and Calgary exert much more influence, and are reference cities to many more people in the Prairies, than Winnipeg. I'd say Toronto edges all of the three (as well as Ottawa and Montreal) on a national scale, being the only true global city in Canada. In short, it's more like Global city (Toronto), national centres (Vancouver and Montreal), major regional centres (Edmonton and Calgary), regional centres (Winnipeg, Ottawa, Quebec City), minor regional centres (Halifax, Victoria, Saskatoon, Regina), for me.


I am somewhat familiar with Winnipeg, less than I would like to, but more than you'd expect. I'm not tearing down Winnipeg, on this, but I do feel like Edmonton does have an edge there. I also agree that both (and I'd also throw Halifax in this mix) have a better scene than Calgary. Calgary does edge Edmonton slightly on high-end dining, but not by as much as people like to believe sometimes, and both are much closer to, say, Vancouver, than Vancouver is to Toronto or Montreal, IMO.


The only cities I can say with a somewhat high degree of certainty are Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver, and compared to the other two, Edmonton does a substantially better job at neglecting what's going on here. People are downright oblivious to anything that's not on their local strip mall. It's actually very sad.


Agreed. I haven't been to Buffalo, but I interesting things. Out off the cities between 1M and 2.5M in North America I've been to, in general, the only ones that are substantially more complete or interesting, IMO, are Austin, Vegas and Portland. Calgary might be a bit ahead of us, in general, bur not to an extent in which they're on completely different levels.

Even in the 2.5M to 5M range, you have some REALLY underwhelming cities, that I'd frankly never chose over Edmonton, such as Charlotte, St. Louis, Orlando/Kissimee, Tampa and San Antonio. TBH, there are even bigger cities that don't seem to offer much more than Edmonton, in general, such as Phoenix, like you mentioned, or even Atlanta (with the obvious exception to the airport, it's a deathly boring city, especially considering it's size. Spent 6 months there, almost died out of boredom).

Overall, my impression is that almost, if not all Canadian cities punch way above their weight, compared to most similar (or even slightly bigger) sized cities in the US.


AGA is small, but well built. Their management is absolute shite, and I agree, the lack of a permanent collection is sad. My (substantially smaller and immensely poorer) hometown in Brazil has a better managed Arts Museum, with a more substantial collection and permanent exhibitions.

The RAM has so much potential that is makes me sad to see how poorly managed it is. I do take a lot of pride on Fort Edmonton Park, and I genuinely think that the CoE should pursue an agreement with the province to use the old RAM building to become the home of a "Historical Museum of Edmonton" or something.

I think regarding the size stuff, ultimately we just have different ways of measuring these things. Though I don't know many cities bigger than 6.5 million (Toronto) that are duller than it. There's some in the same size range, like Atlanta, as you mention, but that's about it.

Without going into a point-by-point analysis of Winnipeg and Edmonton and their respective food scenes (something I'm not sure anybody is interested in) I think we'll have to agree to disagree. All I will say is that the two are the cities I'm most familiar with and, although they have their differences, in terms of food scene, they don't feel that different. There's some categories I might give an edge to Winnipeg or to Edmonton, but on the whole it balances.

Canadian cities by and large far exceed the urbanism and vibrancy of equivalent-sized US cities. Similarly, European cities of similar size tend to blow Canadian cities out of the park. What American cities tend to do better, more so (but not exclusively) the older cities, than equivalent Canadian cities is architecture/design, museums, nightlife, and overall cultural output. Fun things, but not practical. I'd rather live in Edmonton than Buffalo, but I'd rather visit Buffalo, for example. The younger US cities of similar size to Edmonton, like Albuquerque, Oklahoma City, Fresno, Salt Lake City (sort of), Raleigh-Durham, El Paso, Jacksonville, Tampa, etc are far worse cities IMO -- only the big new cities are interesting. The older ones of similar size, like Buffalo, Rochester, Milwaukee, Providence, Louisville, and Memphis are better at the things I listed, but are less livable and practical. The only one that punches far above its weight in a weight class similar to Edmonton is New Orleans, though it has its own impracticalities. And I agree, there's even bigger US cities like Charlotte or Orlando that are terribly insufferable nothing cities. St Louis is interesting, though.

Ft Ed is definitely a far more remarkable tourist attraction than RAM or the AGA. The AGA is weird because for the first few years after it reopened in 2010, it had far more consistently good exhibits. Nowadays I maybe go once a year when there's finally something that piques my interest, and half the time I'm still left disappointed.

 

[IanO]

Yesterday I ran into a random realtor in my building Downtown who was meeting with the owner for another price reduction. The unit was purchased ~7 years ago for $400k and will be re-listing for $269k. I asked her about what she is seeing in the market these days:

-there is an over supply of condos and significant lack of demand in the Downtown
-very few female buyers for anything Downtown due to safety and that represents 55-60% of the market
-the impacts of interest rate increases have pushed ~20% of buyers completely out of the market and into a holding position, back at parents or into rental product
-the same increases have forced some with secondary 'investment units' to list causing further inventory to land on MLS and a bit of a race to the bottom as many of these units are being priced to sell; undercutting neighbours
-investors are picking and choosing deeply discounted units, but she indicated that the majority of her investment buyers are out of the market and into secondary markets around Edmonton or have moved money south to Calgary
-a lot of people are trying to divest out of all of those 3 storey walk-up condo conversions in CM, QMP, Oliver, WestMount etc. and are facing (surprise!) significant special assessments due to low or no reserve funds
-any single family product in the 350-400k range is selling incredibly well around the city
-many of those buyers are coming out of multi-family product

It was but one perspective, but an interesting unexpected coffee chat and one that reinforced just how much work there is ahead to correct the market and fill those units.

 

[northlands]

-very few female buyers for anything Downtown due to safety and that represents 55-60% of the market

I am surprised this isn't mentioned more within the sphere of residential RE discussion downtown here

 

[IanO]

I was thinking back to my building and that number was probably closer to 2/3 when I lived there. The majority were single females who worked professional jobs in the CBD or at the Leg and who walked to work.