Quote:
Originally Posted by noodlenoodle
Why are these people worth retaining/attracting at the cost of lowering quality of life for the vast majority of Edmontonians? I get that they're your sorta people, but objectively why is it inherently superior to attract a banker that makes $100k/year in an office tower downtown versus a pipefitter who makes $100k/year in a Nisku mod yard, now that we've traded the infrastructure costs of supporting the latter's lifestyle to pay for all the infrastructure you're proposing that attracted the former?
|
The argument works both ways. Why is attracting a pipefitter more important than a banker? (Though both of those massive over simplifications don't hold an ounce of water in suburban vs urban but we'll roll with your words.)
Neither is more important, but they are both important. We need to invest in both, but it so happens because north American cities are how they are that they typically contain more 'unique' attractions that support the whole city within the urban areas. There isn't anything wrong with that in my opinion because you get added benefits of grouping things together. Critical mass and all that.
Advocating to continue to expand and improve these amenities and 'destination' areas is a positive and doesn't have to detract from anything else.
The city has done an excellent job of building more suburbs, it's done a mediocre job improving the urban areas. Putting some focus on the latter is going to be only a benefit.