[dunno]

Agreed.

Objectively, the only thing Calgary has fared significantly better than Edmonton, from a lifestyle/urbanism point of view, is their downtown.

They have more than one vibrant urban neighbourhood too. The infill is nicer quality in general too. There's nothing like Bridgeland or the East Village here.

And even so, I still believe Edmonton has better bones to work with, especially due to the underground section of the LRT and the absence of freeways. Other than that, neither city is really a great example of a great urban lifestyle focused city.

Calgary also doesn't have freeways downtown. Both cities have the remnants of a larger freeway network that never panned out just across the river from downtown. Edmonton does have the underground LRT which is great, but we're just repeating 7th Ave with 102 Ave now. Bones are a bit of a wash, but Stephen Ave is significantly more vibrant than 104 St.

On the flip side, Edmonton's bike network is growing to be substantially better, our LRT, albeit smaller, is more efficient and better planned, our parks system is a whole order of magnitude above theirs (thank you River Valley <3) and our cultural apparatus is at least as good, if not better.

This part I do agree with.

 

[husky]

They key here is to take what Vancouver has done well and apply it, replicate it and adapt it.

Edmonton still struggles at that for a variety of reasons.

Time to raise the bar and expectations.

Agreed. I find there's often too much of a focus on a made in Edmonton solution to things when other cities have great examples of what we could strive for. Use them as an example.

 

[Munanyo]

Some really good and healthy discussions taking place here the last 3 pages (I'm playing catchup as I was out of town for a bit).

I'm one of those people who really loves Vancouver and will admit my bias. I actually made a post a few months back talking about my experiences in Vancouver after spending some significant time there and it created quite the discussion and debate (just like now). I do agree that in some ways Vancouver is "stalling out" in terms of being the poster child of what makes a city lively, livable and exciting. The cost of living coupled with the opioid crisis along with some smaller issues have made Vancouver a great city to visit but not so much to settle down and set up roots. It's getting incredibly tough out there for young professionals and families especially. Vancouver is very much a "lifestyle" type city, where you'll find some people content with living in a small condo and putting up with average wages just to soak in the hippie/healthy vibe that is there and enjoy the beautiful scenery.

I'm very much of the opinion that there are some things we should aspire to and try to replicate that Vancouver has. Density and transportation being the major ones. However, we should be looking at other cities in NA and Europe to get a fair overview of what has and hasn't worked elsewhere. There are always going to be advantages that places like Vancouver and others have that we never will (weather and geography being the major ones) but it's important to also be able to say X city has some problems that we need to avoid.

We compare ourselves to Vancouver because it is the closest "cool" city and feels very exotic to many people. At the end of the day, there's some lessons, both good and bad, that we can learn from them. But I wish and hope that decision makers and developers look elsewhere to really see what we can do to make Edmonton a more well rounded city instead of being great in one area, but subpar in X,Y and Z areas.

 

[JuliallThat]

Vancouver's cred is propped up by high demand and fluke decisions made in the past. It's a hard example to replicate because many of the things they do are only enabled by this. We're not going to see developments to the same quality, with the same consistency as Vancouver so long as land values are "affordable", we can't extort developers for concessions without forcing everyone else in the to cope with runaway costs. I firmly believe that most transit oriented development in the Metro Vancouver area, although very successful now, was not originally successful because of Transit access, all those older apartments have full parkades regardless. It's just that, that was the only area they allowed apartments to be built, and the constrained land uses in Vancouver, combined with the high demand meant that people moved into these apartments anyways.

The more I've learned about land-use and network design the more I've realized that Vancouver is sort of dropping the ball. The metro area as a whole, really but Vancouver in particular. The land use decisions around many of the Skytrain stations in the city of Vancouver are shameful, Nanaimo station area should not look the way it does, and Commercial street station should be built up like a second downtown. For them to allow a city's affordability to become so out of hand while they still bend over backwards to protect "neighbourhood character".
Many of the things we like about Vancouver, or the types of things that get built there are a product of the high land values, and as such the high return developers can get, and in turn the high fees and demands the city can extort from developers. Vancouver has been blessed with beautiful landscapes, interesting topology and high demand, yet they artificially constrain themselves. When I worked there I spent a lot of time on the road - but a lot of that time was in fairly suburban areas of Vancouver and the metro.
I realized how many instances of bad infrastructure are gussied up by overgrown shrubs and beautiful trees just because of how fervently plants will grow there.

There are good decisions that were made in the past, but they're always small blips that later governments and people seem to take for granted, but for example the upzonings that occurred in the 60s that enabled the West End, for example, were rapidly overturned and, although there was original intent for Kitsilano to look like the West End, community push back overturned that and it's become a rich enclave instead. The West End is considered by many watchers and outsiders to be a fantastic example of a dense urban form and yet...

I don't know a tremendous amount about Montréal's development history, but I know the city is full of moderate density quadplexes and such, and doesn't have the same distorted demand situation that Vancouver does. They've got a cold and difficult climate like we do here, and yet they're building some of the best active-use infrastructure in North America. Their situation is more apt to ours, and we should look to be inspired by what they do, rather than aspire to the distorted mess that Vancouver has become.

 

[ChazYEG]

They have more than one vibrant urban neighbourhood too. The infill is nicer quality in general too. There's nothing like Bridgeland or the East Village here.

West Oliver/124 St is getting there. I do agree that, quality-wise (especially architecturally) they're doing better, but it's not leaps and bounds ahead, and we're seeing some interesting movements of recent. We also have to talk about Blatchford. While it's moving slower than expected, the quality of what has been delivered so far is high, and I do have high expectations for the neighbourhood one it starts to fill up with higher density.

Calgary also doesn't have freeways downtown. Both cities have the remnants of a larger freeway network that never panned out just across the river from downtown. Edmonton does have the underground LRT which is great, but we're just repeating 7th Ave with 102 Ave now. Bones are a bit of a wash, but Stephen Ave is significantly more vibrant than 104 St.

Sorry, I should've expressed myself better. Out downtown is not severed from the rest of the city by freeways. While Calgary's is not totally cut off, it's more than here.
I do think there's a significant difference between 7th Ave and 102 Ave, which is how the low floor integrates much better in the urban fabric than a high floor LRT. It's much more seamless and less intrusive.
Don't disagree about Stephen Ave and 104 st, but from the beginning I've stated that overall, they've done better Downtown than we have. I still believe the raw material here, if worked properly, could yield a better end result than Calgary's, especially if we manage to integrate DT better with the River Valley. We also have the opportunity to focus on residential growth, more than office towers (I will admit that it'll probably make for a much less interesting skyline, in general, and that the reason why we still can do that is because we have failed to develop DT, not because of some great forward thinking vision, though).

 

[IanO]

'Vancouver's cred is propped up by high demand and fluke decisions made in the past.'

Inherently blessed, but far from a fluke.

 

[ChazYEG]

I'm one of those people who really loves Vancouver and will admit my bias. I actually made a post a few months back talking about my experiences in Vancouver after spending some significant time there and it created quite the discussion and debate (just like now).

Bless you. Admitting our biases makes the conversation much easier. And I think the bulk of that discussion was between you, me and @dunno haha

I do agree that in some ways Vancouver is "stalling out" in terms of being the poster child of what makes a city lively, livable and exciting. The cost of living coupled with the opioid crisis along with some smaller issues have made Vancouver a great city to visit but not so much to settle down and set up roots.

That is exactly the feeling I get. My own bias aside, which has more to do with very subject factors than anything, over the past couple of years I've felt like the city is becoming less and less of a place I'd consider living, even if the subjective factors (such as weather, politics, the people, etc...) were to my liking. My whole argument is built over the cost-benefit of what the city offers, and the steadily declining socio-economic situation and the ever escalating cost of living put it exactly where you described it: nice to visit, but not for living, because it doesn't not offer enough benefits for what it costs to live there.
If their cost of living was, say, comparable to Calgary's for example (or even a little bit higher), I'd 100% see huge advantages of living in Vancouver over most cities in Canada (I maintain my opinion that Toronto and Montreal are inherently more complete cities, and Montreal is the best bang-for-the-buck in Canada).

I'm very much of the opinion that there are some things we should aspire to and try to replicate that Vancouver has. Density and transportation being the major ones. However, we should be looking at other cities in NA and Europe to get a fair overview of what has and hasn't worked elsewhere. There are always going to be advantages that places like Vancouver and others have that we never will (weather and geography being the major ones) but it's important to also be able to say X city has some problems that we need to avoid.

I honestly believe that we could learn from Vancouver, especially in terms of how they built density in their core, with a really high residential density. If I am not mistaken, almost 1/3 of Vancouver proper's population is west of Main St (some 200k+ people), which is absolutely IMPRESSIVE. That would be the equivalent of having 300k people living in DT/Boyle St/Oliver/Old Strathcona/Garneau/Rossdale, in terms of physical space. Edmonton would be a completely different city if that were to happen.
I think that, considering our climate and geography, our transit would be better off taking inspo from Montreal, like some else suggested.
I do agree with you reasoning on learning from other places around the world, not just in our vicinity. There are a lot of good (and bad) examples of city planning out there. I don't know who said it, but I agree that we need to stop with the "made in Edmonton" solutions for everything, because it's clearly not working. "A smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from other's mistakes as well).

 

[Gronk!]

"Montreal is the best bang-for-the-buck in Canada"

I believe more people may choose to live in Montreal if it wasn't for the decades-long sovereignty and language issues. I only know enough French to read the back of a cereal box but I'm not fluent by any stretch of the imagination. I'm only fluent in English and that is hard enough already lol! Having been a tourist in Montreal about 2 or 3 times, it's probably going to be awkward as hell trying to live there permanently.

 

[EdmTrekker]

"Montreal is the best bang-for-the-buck in Canada"

I believe more people may choose to live in Montreal if it wasn't for the decades-long sovereignty and language issues. I only know enough French to read the back of a cereal box but I'm not fluent by any stretch of the imagination. I'm only fluent in English and that is hard enough already lol! Having been a tourist in Montreal about 2 or 3 times, it's probably going to be awkward as hell trying to live there permanently.

As much as I love Montreal to visit - I don't like the politics there or attempts to extinguish the English language or to coerce English only speakers to be fully fluent.

 

[erudyk_29]

My personal experience in Montreal is that most people speak and understand English fairly well. I actually do speak French but grocery store clerks, waiters etc would switch to English upon hearing my imperfect French accent. That being said, you do get the feeling that people are somehow annoyed that you aren't French or don't speak it perfectly even if you do speak well enough to converse, less so in Montreal than in Quebec City and more rural parts of Quebec. It's very different from France where people are just happy you're trying even if it isn't perfect. I found that metropolitan France was very welcoming and friendly despite their reputation. Quebec less so. This is most likely the result of historical precedent.

Montreal is pretty much the best city in Canada though for urbanism. Vancouver gets all the attention for some reason but Montreal is objectively better with a lot more vibrant areas and beautiful well preserved historical areas. My only issue with MTL is Boulevard Ville Marie which is a nasty freeway scar through the downtown. Also while it's metro is good, the regional rail sucks and neither is as good as Toronto. But overall, MTL is king. Also rents and housing prices haven't skyrocketed nearly to the same extent as Toronto, Vancouver and even Calgary now.

 

[dunno]

West Oliver/124 St is getting there. I do agree that, quality-wise (especially architecturally) they're doing better, but it's not leaps and bounds ahead, and we're seeing some interesting movements of recent. We also have to talk about Blatchford. While it's moving slower than expected, the quality of what has been delivered so far is high, and I do have high expectations for the neighbourhood one it starts to fill up with higher density.

West Oliver has potential. So does McCauley, Alberta Ave, Ritchie, Downtown, and Garneau. But we're talking about where these cities are now, not in 5 or 10 years. This applies even more so to Blatchford, which may be an amazing development in time, but the story of that has yet to be written. I will say that Downtown/East Village, Inglewood, and Kensington are further ahead by a decent margin from West Oliver. West Oliver might be closer to a Bridgeland in vibrancy at the moment.

Sorry, I should've expressed myself better. Out downtown is not severed from the rest of the city by freeways. While Calgary's is not totally cut off, it's more than here.
I do think there's a significant difference between 7th Ave and 102 Ave, which is how the low floor integrates much better in the urban fabric than a high floor LRT. It's much more seamless and less intrusive.
Don't disagree about Stephen Ave and 104 st, but from the beginning I've stated that overall, they've done better Downtown than we have. I still believe the raw material here, if worked properly, could yield a better end result than Calgary's, especially if we manage to integrate DT better with the River Valley. We also have the opportunity to focus on residential growth, more than office towers (I will admit that it'll probably make for a much less interesting skyline, in general, and that the reason why we still can do that is because we have failed to develop DT, not because of some great forward thinking vision, though).

This I agree with. Though I think Calgary is more cut off via the railyards from the Beltline than Memorial Drive and the flyovers.

 

[dunno]

My personal experience in Montreal is that most people speak and understand English fairly well. I actually do speak French but grocery store clerks, waiters etc would switch to English upon hearing my imperfect French accent. That being said, you do get the feeling that people are somehow annoyed that you aren't French or don't speak it perfectly even if you do speak well enough to converse, less so in Montreal than in Quebec City and more rural parts of Quebec. It's very different from France where people are just happy you're trying even if it isn't perfect. I found that metropolitan France was very welcoming and friendly despite their reputation. Quebec less so. This is most likely the result of historical precedent.

Montreal is pretty much the best city in Canada though for urbanism. Vancouver gets all the attention for some reason but Montreal is objectively better with a lot more vibrant areas and beautiful well preserved historical areas. My only issue with MTL is Boulevard Ville Marie which is a nasty freeway scar through the downtown. Also while it's metro is good, the regional rail sucks and neither is as good as Toronto. But overall, MTL is king. Also rents and housing prices haven't skyrocketed nearly to the same extent as Toronto, Vancouver and even Calgary now.

Montreal as an Anglophone is quite easy to visit, but it's a different story for living. Not only are the job prospects much weaker (and usually quickly gobbled up) but over time you can start to feel excluded from a large part of the city's culture by not indulging in the language of the majority.

In my experience, in Montreal, nobody seems really annoyed by speaking English, especially in central areas where there are many Anglos. Lots of youth swap between the two languages in conversation. Off-island, it gets a bit different, but it's never seemed to be an annoyance from my perspective. More that the level of confidence (or ability) in English is much lower, and so there's an awkwardness. I noticed that folks in Quebec City appreciated making more of an effort in French in a way that a Montreal waiter would've just switched to English.

I think a lot of us are clouded by being this far west because by the time you hit Manitoba, Vancouver and Montreal have about equal pull, and east of there it's all Montreal, and this is where the majority of Canadians live. Vancouver figures so highly by comparison just because of geography, I think. We're so far west and so disconnected from any other major city, Calgary aside, that it's the closest thing, and yeah, it is a place that's been held up as exemplar in various aspects of urban planning, which many Edmontonians pick up on.

Montreal's prices are getting there though. They're in the ballpark of Calgary's, last I looked (not too long ago).

 

[David A]

Incredibly desirable seems a little bit of an overstatement. I can think of at least a dozen cities in English North America that are more desirable, in pretty much all aspects.

One of the reasons why it remains a destination so desired by internationals, especially, is how good their PR is, and how well they capitalize on their past success. They're still reaping the rewards of when they were, in fact, on of the most desirable places to live in North America.

My take is that it has become overhyped and overpriced. It's still a great city, but far from worthy of the price tag it carries, especially with the growth in social disorder issues it has experienced in the past couple of years. The absurd costs of living in Vancouver bring it down a few notches in the desirability index, considering that to be effectively desirable, people have to be actually able to live there.

Lets not kid ourselves, the things that really attract people to Vancouver and are most desireable are: a more moderate climate, the scenery and location on the Pacific ocean (which is a factor for many people from Asia). None of these relate to how nice the buildings are or how bustling it is and the density arose due to physical constraints and the high cost of property.

90% of people who come to Canada from elsewhere live in a more moderate climate, so Vancouver is a way for them to ease in to living in a different climate. They certainly aren't all moving to Yellowknife of Inuvik for obvious reasons.

 

[Tropical]

I will say that Downtown/East Village, Inglewood, and Kensington are further ahead by a decent margin from West Oliver. West Oliver might be closer to a Bridgeland in vibrancy at the moment.

I've seen you try to make this argument before - must we keep making comparisons that make no sense?

For example:

Bridgeland, Calgary
# of Supermarkets: 0
# of Pubs/Bars: 0

West Oliver, Edmonton
# of Supermarkets: 3
# of Pubs/Bars: Over a dozen and growing

 

[ChazYEG]

I believe more people may choose to live in Montreal if it wasn't for the decades-long sovereignty and language issues. I only know enough French to read the back of a cereal box but I'm not fluent by any stretch of the imagination. I'm only fluent in English and that is hard enough already lol! Having been a tourist in Montreal about 2 or 3 times, it's probably going to be awkward as hell trying to live there permanently.

The only reason why I didn't move to Montreal last year is this. Finding good jobs, and climbing the corporate ladder, in MTL is pretty much impossible without fluent French.
If it were not for that, I would've been in Montreal for about a year, now.