Canadian cities broken into tiers

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Matty81

I think Vancouver is pretty terrible myself. Everyone gushes about it after going downtown, to Kitts or North Van but 90% of the population lives in crappy megasuburbs that are worse places to live than mid sized cities like Kamloops or Lethbridge and take as long to get downtown as somebody living in Vic.

Normal working folks can't afford any of the nice areas and the average quality of life is not exceptional. Even in terms of culture, I find it just ok, the Vancouver art gallery for example pretty poor compared lots of to other cities of that size. Aquarium is a great attraction, postsecondary is good, healthcare average, public transit average.

I think it has a good rep because tourists go to the nice areas and think thats what it is like to live there but most people aren't jogging in stanley park and then sipping a coffee in gastown.

Good point. I can see this being true for a bunch of the cities people rank as "tier 1" though.

Most people don't live on Younge Street or Kensington Market in Toronto. Most live in hell holes like Markham or Pickering or the like and commute 2 hours each way. So really, would that be more desirable of a place to live in than say Victoria where your commute to work is never more than 20 minutes?

[karl262]

After visiting Montreal 2 summers ago, I can't understand why it's automatically a top city in peoples minds. Population and length of time existing? The things I noticed the most was crumbling infrastructure and garbage.

[OffsideSpecialist]

Neither Markham nor Pickering are part of Toronto though. Thus I don't think they can be considered living in Toronto

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by OffsideSpecialist

Neither Markham nor Pickering are part of Toronto though. Thus I don't think they can be considered living in Toronto

They're part of the GTA, in the same way Richmond and Burnaby is part of the Greater Vancouver Lower Mainland.

[OffsideSpecialist]

The town of 80 people I grew up in is GTA. I don't refer to it as Toronto.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by rubecube

When I first moved to Victoria, I probably would've ranked it as a tier 2 city, but seeing the growth in culture over the past 5 years has me leaning towards a tier 2. The summer is full of cultural events and music festivals and we have a great craft beer scene here. The University is also pretty highly regarded. Plus, being a provincial capital has to carry some weight. The only thing I would argue that holds it back is the fact that there are still a couple of nights a week here that are pretty dead.

I think it has the most growth potential of the cities it's size

[Table 5]

In my opinion...

Tier 1a:
Toronto - I think Toronto over the last decade has separated itself from the other 2 big cities.

Tier 1b:
Montreal
Vancouver

Tier 2:
Calgary
Ottawa (based on mostly hearsay, haven't actually been there)

Tier 3:
Edmonton
Winnipeg
Quebec City (based on mostly hearsay, haven't actually been there)

Tier 4:
Victoria (might be 3...its been a while since Ive been there).
Saskatoon
Regina
Halifax (based on mostly hearsay, haven't actually been there)
Hamilton

Tier 666:
Airdrie

[MrMastodonFarm]

I'd put places like St. John's and Halifax above Edmonton and Winnpeg as well. Edmonton would be solidly in my 4th tier.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Tier 666:
Airdrie

I don't really care about the other rankings, but this is pretty accurate. I'm sure this is the only magazine they have in the waiting room of hell.

[_Q_]

My obviously biased list of Metro areas larger than 200,000 based on desirability to live there:

tier 1a:
Calgary - no other place in Canada I would rather live in than Calgary.

tier 1b:
Victoria
Ottawa
Halifax
If things went south with the job here in Calgary, I would take a job in any of these cities in a heart beat.

tier 2:
Vancouver
Toronto
Montreal
All nice cities with great amenities and lots of things to do. I just need to be making decent money to be able to enjoy fully what these cities have to offer.

tier 3:
Quebec
Winnipeg
Seem interesting enough, but wouldn't willingly move there without a good reason.

tier 4:
Edmonton
Hamilton
Kitchener
London
St. Catherines
Windsor
Not a reason to live in any of those cities other than the fact they're close to some more interesting cities that might make life easier.

tier 5:
Regina
Saskatoon
Couldn't pay me enough to live in either of those hell holes.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

I think it has the most growth potential of the cities it's size

I don't think so. Its popular with retirees. They move to Victoria and then die.

A place like Saskatoon looks like it has much more growth potential as people move there to work and raise families. The growth rate in the last 5 years is almost triple that of Victoria. Also the city isn't hampered by being on an island and surrounded by parks.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I don't think so. Its popular with retirees. They move to Victoria and then die.

A place like Saskatoon looks like it has much more growth potential as people move there to work and raise families. The growth rate in the last 5 years is almost triple that of Victoria. Also the city isn't hampered by being on an island and surrounded by parks.

Ya Victoria has been claimed as a city on the rise ever since I can remember, but nothing ever happens

[bizkitgto]

Originally Posted by _Q_

My obviously biased list of Metro areas larger than 200,000 based on desirability to live there:

tier 1a:
Calgary - no other place in Canada I would rather live in than Calgary.

tier 1b:
Victoria
Ottawa
Halifax
If things went south with the job here in Calgary, I would take a job in any of these cities in a heart beat.

tier 2:
Vancouver
Toronto
Montreal
All nice cities with great amenities and lots of things to do. I just need to be making decent money to be able to enjoy fully what these cities have to offer.

tier 3:
Quebec
Winnipeg
Seem interesting enough, but wouldn't willingly move there without a good reason.

tier 4:
Edmonton
Hamilton
Kitchener
London
St. Catherines
Windsor
Not a reason to live in any of those cities other than the fact they're close to some more interesting cities that might make life easier.

tier 5:
Regina
Saskatoon
Couldn't pay me enough to live in either of those hell holes.

Edmonton way above Winnepeg.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by rubecube

When I first moved to Victoria, I probably would've ranked it as a tier 2 city, but seeing the growth in culture over the past 5 years has me leaning towards a tier 2. The summer is full of cultural events and music festivals and we have a great craft beer scene here. The University is also pretty highly regarded. Plus, being a provincial capital has to carry some weight. The only thing I would argue that holds it back is the fact that there are still a couple of nights a week here that are pretty dead.

That is the only reason some might rank Regina ahead of Saskatoon. Other than that, Saskatoon has Regina beat in spades.

[Matty81]

Provincial capital adds to the quality of life because their employment is better after sucking up the rest of our tax dollars and placing the good government jobs locally.

(maybe just a little bitter living the the interior where we mainly only see government organizations on tv from Victoria and Lower Main lol!)

[jammies]

I think some of you are a little on the parochial side; there is no way Calgary ranks higher than Vancouver as far as prestige and desirability to live in goes. There's a reason asian millionaires own all the insanely priced condos in Vancouver, and it's not because it sucks there and they just haven't heard about Calgary.

Calgary is not hugely better than Edmonton, either. They are similar cities with similar climate, economic opportunities, and people. Calgary *is* better, because it has mountains nearby, is bigger, is more of a transportation nexus (meaning you can get other places - like Vancouver - more easily) and has a much better downtown with far more head offices located there, but Edmonton has better cultural events and has taken more care of its architectural heritage than "blow 'em up good!" Calgary.

Fort Mac and Regina though - those places are objectively crap. You couldn't create enough man-made lakes to make them not suck.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by jammies

but Edmonton has better cultural events and has taken more care of its architectural heritage than "blow 'em up good!" Calgary.

This. As much as we make fun of Edmonton, their music and arts scene has been quietly putting Calgary's to shame for years now.

I also like our preservation of old architecture;

This building was built in the 80's and looks like ****. Keep it!

This building looks neat and has historical value. Blow it up!

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by flameswin

This. As much as we make fun of Edmonton, their music and arts scene has been quietly putting Calgary's to shame for years now.

I also like our preservation of old architecture;

This building was built in the 80's and looks like ****. Keep it!

This building looks neat and has historical value. Blow it up!

And again (Charlie Simmer) these are two points that are becoming less and less prevalent with each year.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by jammies

I think some of you are a little on the parochial side; there is no way Calgary ranks higher than Vancouver as far as prestige and desirability to live in goes. There's a reason asian millionaires own all the insanely priced condos in Vancouver, and it's not because it sucks there and they just haven't heard about Calgary.

Calgary is not hugely better than Edmonton, either. They are similar cities with similar climate, economic opportunities, and people. Calgary *is* better, because it has mountains nearby, is bigger, is more of a transportation nexus (meaning you can get other places - like Vancouver - more easily) and has a much better downtown with far more head offices located there, but Edmonton has better cultural events and has taken more care of its architectural heritage than "blow 'em up good!" Calgary.

Fort Mac and Regina though - those places are objectively crap. You couldn't create enough man-made lakes to make them not suck.

There is a huge Climate difference between Edmonton and Calgary. The Chinooks make a huge difference to livability in winter.

One thing that hasnt been discussed in this thread directly is corporate head offices. Calgary being at number 2 behind Toronto. This is a big difference between here and edmonton.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Good point. I can see this being true for a bunch of the cities people rank as "tier 1" though.

Most people don't live on Younge Street or Kensington Market in Toronto. Most live in hell holes like Markham or Pickering or the like and commute 2 hours each way. So really, would that be more desirable of a place to live in than say Victoria where your commute to work is never more than 20 minutes?

Commute never more than 20 minutes? Victoria has some pretty crappy commutes. Haven't you heard of the Colwood crawl? I liked Victoria a lot and it was a great place to go to University, but it seemed a pretty difficult city to try to set up a life in. The nice areas were incredibly expensive to live, there weren't a lot of jobs, and it may even be a worse place for having to live in a less than desirable suburb with painful traffic.