'Peg City ranked 19 out of 27!!! (Conference Board of Canada)

[wags_in_the_peg]

City an ugly duckling - Ranked 9th last in attracting new residents

NEVER mind the new buildings springing up around the city and the above-average economic growth in the last few years -- Winnipeg is one of the ugly ducklings when it comes to attracting new people, according to a new report released today.

The Conference Board of Canada's first-ever metropolitan benchmarking report gauges how well Canada's 27 largest cities are doing in attracting new people.

It ranked Winnipeg 9th last (19th overall) among the 27, and gave it a report-card-style grade of C.

The Manitoba capital even had the dubious distinction of being the largest census metropolitan area (CMA) to receive a C ranking.

It also finished behind much smaller Canadian cities such as Halifax (7th overall), Kitchener (9th), Sherbrooke (12th), Saskatoon (13th) and Regina (17th).

The board ranked Calgary as the most attractive city in Canada, followed by Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Victoria and Ottawa-Gatineau. Calgary also scored high compared with 27 major cities in the United States.

"Thanks to its red-hot economy, robust employment growth and young labour force, Calgary ranks just behind first-place Washington and second-place Austin (Texas) as the only overall A cities," the report said.

While Winnipeg's comparatively low ranking could be seen as a blow to the city's ego, the board stressed there's more than pride at stake here.

"Cities without the ability to act as magnets and attract new people will struggle to stay prosperous," it states in the report, which was released to the media Tuesday.

"Labour shortages are already beginning to affect some Canadian cities," added Mario Lefebvre, director of the board's new Centre for Municipal Studies.

"Attracting highly skilled workers and the business investment they encourage is crucial to Canada's economic competitiveness in the decades ahead," Lefebvre said.


"The paradigm of 'people go where the jobs are' is changing to 'businesses going where the people with the skills and talent want to live.'"

In other words, places attractive to people will also attract business investment."

In a telephone interview from his Ottawa office, Lefebvre tried to put a positive spin on Winnipeg ranking as one of the country's "struggling" cities.

"I think you guys have improved quite a bit over the last couple of years," he said. "I know that five or 10 years ago, you guys would have been even lower than that."

He said Manitoba has been doing a bang-up job in the last few years of not only stemming the loss of people to other provinces, but also of attracting new, highly skilled immigrants.

The board looked at 46 indicators that reflect a city's ability to attract talented, creative people from around the globe. They included such things as economic growth, personal disposable income per capita, average life expectancy, cultural diversity, immigration population, commuting time to and from work and crime rates.

Some of the areas where Winnipeg ranked among the "disappointments" were labour force productivity (23rd among the 27 cities), infant deaths per 1,000 births (25th), voter turnout (25th), percentage of homes in need of repair (26th), and maximum average temperature (26th).

But sprinkled among the "disappointments" were a few "bright spots" where Winnipeg outshone most other cities.

They included domestic water usage (3rd lowest usage per capita) and air quality (tied with six other cities for the best air quality in the country).

In fact, environment was the category where Winnipeg received its best overall ranking and grade -- 6th overall and a B.

Winnipeg gets its report card

Here is how Winnipeg stacked up in the seven key domains, with its ranking (among 27 cities) and overall grade in brackets:

DOMAIN RANKING GRADE
Economy 19th C
Health 17th C
Society 18th C
Housing 23rd C
Environment 6th B
Innovation 20th D
Education 15th C

How cities rank for attractiveness

Rankings of census metropolitan areas and overall grades:
1 Calgary A
2 Toronto A
3 Vancouver A
4 Edmonton A
5 Victoria A
6 Ottawa-Gatineau A
7 Halifax B
8 Oshawa B
9 Kitchener B
10 Abbotsford B
11 Quebec City B
12 Sherbrooke B
13 Saskatoon B
14 Montreal B
15 Hamilton B
16 St. John's B
17 Regina B
18 London C
19 Winnipeg C
20 Kingston C
21 Greater Sudbury C
22 Trois-Rivières C
23 Windsor C
24 St. Catharines-Niagara C
25 Saguenay D
26 Saint John D
27 Thunder Bay D

[Only The Lonely..]

You know..

If we had really progressive politicians and private industry, a report like this could really put fire in this city's belly for change.

But we don't, especially as long as the NDP is around.

So last person to leave please turn out the lights.

[Svenn]

Calgary...the city where debt becomes an asset.

[Only The Lonely..]

'Peg gets a meagre 'C'

City ranked No. 19 in quality-of-life study
By TOM BRODBECK




Winnipeg's cheap housing, warm summers and short commuter rides wasn't enough to keep it from scoring poorly on one of the most far-reaching, quality-of-life studies on Canada's largest cities.

The Conference Board of Canada is scheduled to release a 75-page report today comparing the country's 27 largest cities on key indicators like the economy, health care and education.

Overall, Winnipeg got a disappointing grade of C and ranked only 19th out of 27 census metropolitan areas.

Worse, Winnipeg came in dead last among eight western cities, trailing both Saskatoon and Regina.

If this isn't a wake-up call for our elected officials, business leaders and labour gurus -- many of whom continue to ignore some of the serious economic and social woes facing Winnipeg -- I don't know what is.

"Winnipeg is by far the largest CMA receiving a "C" grade, posting strong results in the environment domain, but falling behind in all other categories, including the economy," the report states.

The aim of the study, called City Magnets: Benchmarking the Attractiveness of Canada's CMAs, is to analyze how prepared Canadian cities are to compete in an increasingly global marketplace.

The study measures the quality and attractiveness of a city using seven categories: economy, health, society, housing, environment, innovation and education.

Winnipeg scores poorly on almost every one of them.

"A CMA without the attributes to act as a magnet for new people will struggle to stay prosperous in the coming years," the report says.

In other words, if we don't pull up our socks now, we're going to fall even further behind as high-tech companies, capital and the best and the brightest flock to more attractive centres.

Not surprisingly, Winnipeg didn't fare well in the economic category, which includes economic growth, earnings and employment.

We ranked 19th and got a grade of "C." We fared a little better in health, which measures doctors and specialists per capita, population health and life expectancy, among other things.

But we still only ranked 17th out of 27 in that category.

Winnipeg's best showing was under the environment heading, where we came in sixth.

Environment measurements include air quality, domestic water usage (we ranked third best there) and climate.

Winnipeg is the second coldest city behind Saskatoon.

Surprisingly, Winnipeg did not do well in the housing category.

One of the things you hear consistently about Winnipeg is it has good, affordable housing.

Not so much, according to this report.

Winnipeg ranked 23rd in this category, which measures affordability, housing quality and the growth of residential building permits.

Ouch.

The report also compared Canadian cities with their U.S. counterparts. Winnipeg ranked 44th out of 54 North American cities.

The study is not a be-all-end-all report, though.

It has some weaknesses, including the fact some of the statistics are dated. Some health care data, for example, date back to 2001 and 2004.

Most of the statistics in the report, though, are as recent as 2006.

The study also didn't cover amenities such as the availability of cottage country and beaches, something Winnipeg shines at.

Nor did it cover per capita charitable donations, a category that would have highlighted Winnipeg's philanthropic virtues.

But it did include our short commuting time -- something I like to brag about.

All told, we should be doing much better.

And we can do much better.

[biguc]

"Some of the areas where Winnipeg ranked among the "disappointments" were labour force productivity (23rd among the 27 cities), infant deaths per 1,000 births (25th), voter turnout (25th), percentage of homes in need of repair (26th), and maximum average temperature (26th)."


Do people actually think about this stuff when they're looking for a place to live?

Also, including labor force productivity speaks to a pretty major problem in the logic behind this ranking: how they account for economic performance. They could have something like, say, job market being an attractor to individuals, and labor productivity attracting business, but they can't sit there and say economic performance makes a city more attractive, then say something like, "The paradigm of 'people go where the jobs are' is changing to 'businesses going where the people with the skills and talent want to live.'". I understand they only mean that as a corollary, but it's still a stupid thing to say.

Also, if you make stats used in determining which place is most desirable, places end up equal. There's a reason Winnipeg is cheaper than Toronto: it's less desirable by a host of other factors. But accounting for its cost levels the difference. This matters because eliminating certain criteria seems arbitrary. If you ask me, trying to build an "attractiveness" grade out of abstract information is foolish; just look at where people are actually going. By that standard, Winnipeg is still underperforming, but whatever.

Also, did they seriously rank Washington as the best place in the states? As in DC? That place is a shithole. If they really did that, their moronic methodology has played out in moronic results.

[harls]

I love editorials.

Editorials that are written in one sentence paragraphs.

Isn't it annoying?

It sure is.

[Greco Roman]

Great. More ammo for the Winnipeg-bashers to come trolling with.

[TSN]

A couple of different ways to look at this from the Winnipeg perspective:

A) The Conference Board, who I've generally regarded as providing good commentary on a number of issues, have really suffered a loss of credibility from a number of perspectives including:
-They praise the Winnipeg and Manitoba economies for being Top 3 in the nation in previous reports and then they come out with this
-Canadian Business magazine did a ranking of best cities a few months back and while it is similar to the Conf Brd, they took a very favorable view of Winnipeg while doing the opposite with Calgary/Edmonton
-The most credibility is lost when doing the US comparison. The reality is that Vancouver and Toronto, maybe Montreal, are true international cities and should rank up their with the big boys in terms . How the Conf Brd can look in the mirror and not laugh at themselves when they place world class or semi world class cities like LA, San Diego, Chicago, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle after Edmonton/Calgary/Ottawa is beyond me. Edmonton ahead of Minneapolis?? Calgary ahead of Portland?? Somebody is on crack.

B) IMO, even though the report is lacking, the Conf Brd is still well known and this does nothing but cause more grief for the city. Winnipeg always has a tough time attracting outsiders, and now gets alot of immigration and I'm not sure what impact this might have, but it can't be positive. Having lived in other places in Canada and the US and having recently returned, there does seem to be an inertia and lack of vision here to improve on things at the political (municipal) level. Politicians being around for too long, not having experienced life in other communities does not help to put things forward.

The city is nowhere near as bad as the report makes it out to be, sure there are issues and there is work to be done. The report is bad press but hopefully there will be something good come out of it. It's up to local political and business leaders to show a bit more backbone to at least try to polish the image. Cleveland and Pittsburgh are two examples in the US that are regarded as prime examples of how to change your image.

[spiritedenergy]

OMG look at Thunder Bay. It's true what they say then

It's pretty bad for Winterpeg, and actually if you think at it Winnipeg it's not exactly the place where skilled workers would like to end up living.

However the study is not very comprehensive, the environment thing is based on only water usage, clean air and average temperature??? So a city may have polluted rivers and wastelands but that doesn't count. I wonder what's under "society".

Edit: and then what's up with Montreal at n.14? I think that's the place where most people would go among all those cities.

[wags_in_the_peg]

^ it's in Quebec buddy, it should been ranked at the bottom.

Althought the HABS are the best NHL team around

[Dalreg]

Saskatoon at 13th is not to bad I guess. Middle of the pack but hopefully it rises up soon.

[Boreal]

Attracting new people, as shown before, or found out when you talk to real citizens, is based on really only 2 things. Money/Job and Family. The other variables are nice, but obsolete for many when it comes to choosing a destination. Thus, in a rash generalization, it can be argued that what sets Winnipeg apart from the upper echelon is economic growth and development. Therein should be the major focus.

Everything is important, but in my opinion, relatively extraneous when it comes to "ATTRACTING NEW PEOPLE".

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Jeff1987

Attracting new people, as shown before, or found out when you talk to real citizens, is based on really only 2 things. Money/Job and Family. The other variables are nice, but obsolete for many when it comes to choosing a destination. Thus, in a rash generalization, it can be argued that what sets Winnipeg apart from the upper echelon is economic growth and development. Therein should be the major focus.

Everything is important, but in my opinion, relatively extraneous when it comes to "ATTRACTING NEW PEOPLE".

Fun is actually a pretty big factor too. Maybe you missed that asking people here, let's be honest...

[Boreal]

I agree, that fun is very important. However, fun is subjective, whereas family and income/career are not. For example, the floods of people in Fort McMurray, Airdrie, Canmore, Sherwood Park, Grande Prairie, and even Kitchener-Waterloo, etc. is based almost entirely, if not completely off the draw of salary and the prospect of wealth accumulation. Perhaps the earlier examples are just oil towns, but K-W is a tech centre that after spending time in it, would not consider to be "fun" in any regard. Besides perhaps the proximity to Toronto.

My point being, that fun is very important, but fun is subjective. Money can buy fun. Thus, in some regards, money can buy happiness. If happiness means working at 2 or 3 times your previous salary.

Entertainment in a city is paramount, but in discussion of "attracting people" I firmly believe that it is a distant secondary factor. I mean, Montreal is by most subjective accounts more "fun" than Calgary. But Calgary is the hot pole.

Just my two cents. I think this could be a very interesting debate. Unfortunately, my remarks are merely populist assumptions. I'm not a sociologist by any stretch of the imagination - professional, or otherwise. Perhaps there are some on the former who are, or who have access to academic databases that could bring forth some neat articles and numbers or ideas.

Perhaps too, I subscribe too strongly to the theory that fun can be made in almost any situation. ...I'm always on the defensive about "fun and Winnipeg in the same sentence". I think Winnipeg needs to offer more - I'm part of the wavepool junkie faction - but I do feel that it currently has a tonne to offer.

[drew]

^ I agree. How much "fun" a person can have in any situation and in any place is completely dependent on said person.

"fun" is not a quantifiable value - and cannot be compared on relative terms between any two places.

[Tower Crane]

Originally Posted by TSN

A couple of different ways to look at this from the Winnipeg perspective:

A) The Conference Board, who I've generally regarded as providing good commentary on a number of issues, have really suffered a loss of credibility from a number of perspectives including:
-They praise the Winnipeg and Manitoba economies for being Top 3 in the nation in previous reports and then they come out with this
-Canadian Business magazine did a ranking of best cities a few months back and while it is similar to the Conf Brd, they took a very favorable view of Winnipeg while doing the opposite with Calgary/Edmonton
-The most credibility is lost when doing the US comparison. The reality is that Vancouver and Toronto, maybe Montreal, are true international cities and should rank up their with the big boys in terms . How the Conf Brd can look in the mirror and not laugh at themselves when they place world class or semi world class cities like LA, San Diego, Chicago, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle after Edmonton/Calgary/Ottawa is beyond me. Edmonton ahead of Minneapolis?? Calgary ahead of Portland?? Somebody is on crack.

B) IMO, even though the report is lacking, the Conf Brd is still well known and this does nothing but cause more grief for the city. Winnipeg always has a tough time attracting outsiders, and now gets alot of immigration and I'm not sure what impact this might have, but it can't be positive. Having lived in other places in Canada and the US and having recently returned, there does seem to be an inertia and lack of vision here to improve on things at the political (municipal) level. Politicians being around for too long, not having experienced life in other communities does not help to put things forward.

The city is nowhere near as bad as the report makes it out to be, sure there are issues and there is work to be done. The report is bad press but hopefully there will be something good come out of it. It's up to local political and business leaders to show a bit more backbone to at least try to polish the image. Cleveland and Pittsburgh are two examples in the US that are regarded as prime examples of how to change your image.

The only one suffereing a loss of credibility is you TSN. Your comments and feelings carry no factual information. Whether you like the report or not at least it farely evaluates all cities equally. Now, let's take the results and make Winnipeg a better place.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by drew

^ I agree. How much "fun" a person can have in any situation and in any place is completely dependent on said person.

"fun" is not a quantifiable value - and cannot be compared on relative terms between any two places.

Really? Is the amount of fun a person has in prison entirely up to him? Of course not.

And just because something is subjective doesn't mean it isn't quantifiable. People pay money for fun, like Jeff said--you have a quantifier right there: price.

To tie the two points together, you can buy fun, but not if nobody's selling. Let's be real, for every person who goes to Ft. McMurray for a job, there are a lot who would never go there because living in a place with a 5:1 ratio of men to women (or whatever it is) sucks.

Jeff, I think your point about Kitchener actually cuts at this topic pretty well. People go to KW for jobs, not fun. People who care about jobs more than fun aren't the type of people who make a place fun. I guess people after fun, and those after jobs, aren't so coextensive. And if a place moves in one direction definitively, it gains momentum in that direction, and pulls it away from the other. Not to say a place can't gain in both counts, of course. Huh.

[drew]

Originally Posted by biguc

Really? Is the amount of fun a person has in prison entirely up to him? Of course not.

And just because something is subjective doesn't mean it isn't quantifiable. People pay money for fun, like Jeff said--you have a quantifier right there: price.

Haven't you seen Trailer Park Boys? I think Ricky may argue your point about jail being fun.

I still stand by my opinion that fun is most certainly NOT quantifiable. Paying money for something has little or nothing to do with this argument. Sure you can pay for something that YOU like, but in order to be willing to pay for it, you would still be expecting it to be fun beforehand.

[TSN]

Originally Posted by CB-MAN

The only one suffereing a loss of credibility is you TSN. Your comments and feelings carry no factual information. Whether you like the report or not at least it farely evaluates all cities equally. Now, let's take the results and make Winnipeg a better place.

Another Albertan flies off the handle at just the slightest criticism, no surprise. I will agree with your last sentence, there is work to be done in Winnipeg, as there is in every place.

I don't know if you've ever left Alberta but I've lived in both cities, plus Ottawa and Dallas. I would rank Calgary dead last and Edmonton behind both Ottawa and Dallas. Does that mean they suck? No, but that's just my preference. If the key measure of 'attractiveness' is job growth, no argument from me on the rankings. Beyond that criteria, there's lots that can be disputed based on preferences.

So would you say that the folks at Canadian Business are morons while the Conf Brd are pure genius?

[Boreal]

That's a great point biguc.

I think you are very correct in that those who are mercenaries, like many in say Fort McMurray, do not really care too much about the make-up of the city beyond their home, work, and the road from their home to their work. That is to say, that a hot economy, could, theoretically, bear more introverts who likely carry many suburban values than hipsters, urbanites, etc. who can be, but are by no means exclusively tied to the upper-income bracket. I apologize if I'm simply rehashing what you said. That's rude on my part. Anyways ...due to my lack of knowledge on the subject, I'm going to to check and see what the UofM has online for numbers on discussions like these, if any at all.

(I can see how those in the social sciences go mad - I can forsee many a person debating themselves potentially in circles over very complex and slippery topics ...alas, my interest is peaked)

...I can think of 1,000 questions to blight this page with my inquisitions, but in the name of verbal diarhhea, I think I will refrain.