Statistics Canada Reports II

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by zoomer

Yah I'm not sure how the numbers are calculated so it's quite possible apples to oranges. Depending on who you talk to, Tech is either the number one, two or three industry in Victoria between tech, tourism and government. Hard to get consistent information partly because of the definitions I guess. The CRBE report doesn't appear to be based on employment numbers but a variety of factors so perhaps those Victoria numbers are still based on the same definition. From their report:

”The scorecard uses 13 metrics to measure each market’s depth, vitality and attractiveness to companies seeking tech talent and to tech workers seeking employment."

Victoria definitely won't have any issues attracting the talent.

[phone]

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

Victoria definitely won't have any issues attracting the talent.

Victoria is beautiful, has generally great weather, and has a lovely dense historic core. But it also has a reputation of being a little fusty and antiquated, with little in the way of nightlife, with a not great value proposition given the cost of living. And for being one of the most visible examples of homelessness issues in Canada. Like you, I have no doubt that the tech scene is flourishing, but how much of the money is associated with resident workers, and how much is associated with locally registered corporations? Is living in beautiful Victoria really enough of a draw for people used to larger city amenities? I know that this is an ongoing discussion in Saskatoon's pocket-sized tech scene, and Saskatoon's not that much smaller than Victoria. Yes, obviously Victoria is sexier on paper than Saskatoon, but really, it's the same dynamic of needing an exceptional draw factor to counterbalance pulls to other locations.

[someone123]

I would say that Victoria is very attractive and a lot of people would pick it over Vancouver or Toronto or Seattle. The problem for younger working people, aside from it being a smaller city with more limited employment options, is that housing there is almost as expensive as it is here in Vancouver.

[Architype]

The impression I get from Vancouver islanders, including Victorians, is that they don't want outsiders moving there, they're resistant to population growth, a bit of a reclusive curmudgeon of a city. This comes from conversations with people I've known over the years who lived there. (Fact or fiction?)

[zoomer]

Curmudgeon - well I think all city has its share of those, typically those opposed to change, might be on the older side, live outside the downtown core. Otherwise, I’ll say no, the city has a very progressive council, approves virtually all development proposals, proponents and builders of bike lanes and the city is well left of centre, whether or not that plays into it I’ll leave it up to you. Tons of activity for young folks, has the by far the highest rate of cycling/walking and heck even transgender people in the country so old school this city is not. For Canada it’s a fairly radical and political city, although in a peaceful, non confrontational way. A lot is supported and tolerated here (drug use) so yah, not the old school Victoria you may have heard about a few decades ago. As for downtown it’s one of the most vibrant/busy in the country per capita (obviously not at big 3 levels) and in western Canada I’d put it after Vancouver.

Reclusive.. maybe. I think it’s more that residents (and this is a huge generalization) don’t concern themselves too much with what’s happening off the island. People here are willing to pay a huge price in housing and cost of living to stay on this island so some are trying to disconnect while others are hoping to create a utopia of their dreaming. It’s not as if it’s a bunch of rich homeowners, Victoria has one of the highest rates of renters in the country.

As far as tech being in the west coast time zone helps, as does being a short seaplane ride to Vancouver and Seattle, but it seems that most of the tech is local, which I think is a good thing for sustainability and retention of revenue/profits, but maybe not as good in terms of higher salaries.

[svlt]

Victoria's growth rate is enormously slow for a city that has the best weather in Canada - a huge selling point for a country starved of a good year round climate - and for being the capital of the third largest province in the country. Something is keeping people out and it isn't just home prices, as Vancouver (and the Lower Mainland as a whole) grows at a significantly faster clip.

[craner]

^I would suggest being on an island with no land (i.e. drivable) connection is one reason for a slower growth rate.

[zoomer]

/\ And the cost of ferry travel is expensive.

Also, if you look at Stats Canada, Victoria is usually in the middle of the pack for the past several census so I wouldn't call that enormously slow. Compared to Vancouver, it does not get anywhere near the same level of international immigration which is the main reason for the population growth difference. Being one of the most expensive cities in the country without a large established new immigrant population makes it less likely for newcomers to land here rather than go to Vancouver where there are greater support networks and employment opportunities.

Also, complicating matters is the 13 different municipalities in Greater Victoria. The Western communities, in particular Langford has actually one of the highest growth rates in the province, while Oak Bay has basically not grown at all since the 1970s and consists of a fairly large land base.

"Victoria completed 1,477 net new units in the first year, exceeding the target of 659 new homes.

Oak Bay was singled out by the province when it delivered only 16 new homes in its first year — well below the target of 56."

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news...-targets-for-langford-courtenay-11108627

Oak Bay is 10.53 square km, while Victoria is 19.47.

Here's a wild table that shows discrepancy in growth rates -
https://www.reddit.com/r/VictoriaBC/s/GT5Wx53bp5

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by craner

^I would suggest being on an island with no land (i.e. drivable) connection is one reason for a slower growth rate.

That has to be part of it, If you look at StatsCan's population estimates for CMAs, Victoria has decently strong in-migration from outside B.C. and within B.C. (as opposed to Vancouver, which has fallen into negative territoruy in both).

It does have an older population (only seven CMAs have older median ages) and the ratio of deaths to births is skewed more toward deaths than in most CMAs. But that's not a huge driver.

The biggest reason that Vicoria seems to grow slowly despite being an objectively desirable place to live is that immigration is quite low. In 23/24 permanent immigration was only about 3,300, which was less than St. John's, NL (3,800). That surprises me, since St. John's is A: smaller, B: on an even more remote island, C: has objectively worse weather and D: is more economically disadvantaged.

So...curious.

[zoomer]

Not really a mystery - most newcomers to Canada are looking for affordability, job opportunities and expat community.

St. John’s is affordable, Victoria is not.



St. John’s is not on here for some reason, but I would assume their numbers drive the Newfoundland average. You can buy 2 to 3 houses in St. John’s for the cost of one in Victoria - plus St. John’s has a lot to offer as well.

Source

Also there just isn’t enough existing housing/growth to support rapid population increases and land is limited (compared to other Canadian CMAs) for affordable sprawl, but density increases on existing land continues to increase and it’s the way to go.

[Nouvellecosse]

Oh wow Halifax is actually affordable apparently! Least affordable of the affordable cities but it's something at least lol.

[MolsonExport]

Weird how Ottawa is affordable but rustbucket places like Brantford are not.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

That has to be part of it, If you look at StatsCan's population estimates for CMAs, Victoria has decently strong in-migration from outside B.C. and within B.C. (as opposed to Vancouver, which has fallen into negative territoruy in both).

It does have an older population (only seven CMAs have older median ages) and the ratio of deaths to births is skewed more toward deaths than in most CMAs. But that's not a huge driver.

The biggest reason that Vicoria seems to grow slowly despite being an objectively desirable place to live is that immigration is quite low. In 23/24 permanent immigration was only about 3,300, which was less than St. John's, NL (3,800). That surprises me, since St. John's is A: smaller, B: on an even more remote island, C: has objectively worse weather and D: is more economically disadvantaged.

So...curious.

The province of Newfoundland for 2025 get to nominate 2,500 people to immigrate to newfoundland, i image almost all will end up in St. Johns.
However this was around 1,000 before 2025

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Oh wow Halifax is actually affordable apparently! Least affordable of the affordable cities but it's something at least lol.

We should get a new civic slogan: "Technically still affordable."


It is really amazing that so many very small cities like Brantford, Guelph, Peterborough and Barrie are less affordable than Halifax, Calgary, Ottawa and even Montreal. I understand why, it's just striking to see it so starkly represented. Like, you can live in Montreal, one of the greatest cities in North America. Or, for more money, you can live in Barrie. (That's not a dig on Barrie, which is a nice place, but you know.)

[kora]

Originally Posted by zoomer

As for downtown it’s one of the most vibrant/busy in the country per capita (obviously not at big 3 levels) and in western Canada I’d put it after Vancouver.

Having lived in Edmonton and Calgary for long periods, I agree. It's not even close.

Victoria is also a place where I recently heard this from some seniors walking by my apartment building: "That's the building with a lot of young people living in it"

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by kora

Having lived in Edmonton and Calgary for long periods, I agree. It's not even close.

Victoria is also a place where I recently heard this from some seniors walking by my apartment building: "That's the building with a lot of young people living in it"

The role of scale in vibrancy is interesting. I recall a couple of years ago on this site I got into a looong debate with someone (I forget who) over the relative busy-ness of Calgary vs. Halifax. They argued that Calgary must necessarily be more busy at street level because it's so much larger. My feeling was that Halifax feels, most of the time, like it has more street activity than Calgary, over a larger area. And my guess is that it has something do do with a greater proportion of residents living in and near the core, major civic insitutions like hospitals and universities being centrally located, and an overall cultural focus on the core as a hub of entertainment. Tourism plays a role too, although this discrepancy persists in all seasons, and outside the main tourist areas.

So there's not just one reason. But the other person was basically like, "No, it's not possible because Calgary is much bigger."

Anyway, it's not at all surprising that the most vibrant three cities in Canada are indisputably the three biggest. But it is interesting to me that the next tier down in scale (Calgary, Edmonton Ottawa) does not, in my opinion, match up with the next tier in "vibrancy", which I think you could argue would be Halifax, Victoria and maybe Quebec City (I've never been to Quebec but I'm guessing, based on the obviously strong urbanism of the place, that it performs well, maybe the best of those three.)

I'm also not familiar with every medium-sized and small city in Canada, and I wonder what other contenders there may be for the "second tier" of vibrancy.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Anyway, it's not at all surprising that the most vibrant three cities in Canada are indisputably the three biggest. But it is interesting to me that the next tier down in scale (Calgary, Edmonton Ottawa) does not, in my opinion, match up with the next tier in "vibrancy", which I think you could argue would be Halifax, Victoria and maybe Quebec City (I've never been to Quebec but I'm guessing, based on the obviously strong urbanism of the place, that it performs well, maybe the best of those three.)

I don't mean to criticize anybody but if you've traveled the world it's really obvious that there can be huge "urbanism" disparities between metro areas of comparable population. The difference between NA and Europe or Asia is even larger; you can find very nice vibrant towns with 50,000 people and car-dependent suburbs with millions of people living in them. North America is not as extreme but can be like this to a significant extent.

I think part of what's going on in North America is that there's so little urbanism that cities with even a bit of urbanism can stand out a lot. If you have a city of 500,000 that is 20% urban, it can have more going on than a city of 2M that is 2% urban. Another related factor is that cities were more urban prior to WW2 do an older city is going to tend to be more urban, all else being equal. The cities east of Ontario tend to have a much higher proportion of older development because they developed earlier and then grew more slowly in the modern era.

Calgary has really been improving in recent years but I don't feel like it's commensurate with the rapid growth of the metro area, meaning that the suburbs expand even faster than the central areas improve. Another issue is that LRT development there got bogged down due to politics. But I think in the long run it will end up improving a lot, and it's impressive how functional the infrastructure is there given all the growth. I don't go to Edmonton as much and haven't been to Ottawa in ages so won't comment on them.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It is really amazing that so many very small cities like Brantford, Guelph, Peterborough and Barrie are less affordable than Halifax, Calgary, Ottawa and even Montreal. I understand why, it's just striking to see it so starkly represented. Like, you can live in Montreal, one of the greatest cities in North America. Or, for more money, you can live in Barrie. (That's not a dig on Barrie, which is a nice place, but you know.)

I think Halifax still has a disconnect with a certain proportion of people thinking that the distance, employment options, and climate are all worse than they are, and that the city's smaller than it is. Basically many think of it as Northern-Ontario-by-the-Sea.

I find people also underestimate the disconnect of moving 100-200 km outside of the city. They think they'll move from inner Toronto to Barrie and they and friends and family will go back and forth all the time. It is the same around here with people moving to Mission, Chilliwack, or even someplace like Merritt. If you like it, great, but you're not really living in the city anymore and at that point maybe you should just consider living in a different region entirely, like Victoria or Calgary.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't mean to criticize anybody but if you've traveled the world it's really obvious that there can be huge "urbanism" disparities between metro areas of comparable population. The difference between NA and Europe or Asia is even larger.

My favourite comparison is between Hong Kong and Houston. Same metro population, incomparably different urbanism and vibrancy.

[kora]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Anyway, it's not at all surprising that the most vibrant three cities in Canada are indisputably the three biggest. But it is interesting to me that the next tier down in scale (Calgary, Edmonton Ottawa) does not, in my opinion, match up with the next tier in "vibrancy", which I think you could argue would be Halifax, Victoria and maybe Quebec City

I think that's right. As someone who's also lived in Ottawa, I would say Ottawa beats Calgary by a bit because of its age and historical core and Calgary beats Edmonton by a lot, especially when just comparing the downtown. Edmonton is too split between downtown and its main inner city core which is far away from downtown in Strathcona on Whyte Avenue. Calgary's Beltline is closely integrated with its downtown core. Calgary has also has a huge commercial downtown (3rd for head offices nationwide) while Edmonton's downtown is a small regional centre.

My parents, who live in Calgary, recently went to Halifax for a summer holiday. They have been to Victoria several times and they prefer Halifax as a city, at least during the summer.