Immigration and Vancouver

Toronto is, of course, hardly the only Canadian city that draws American interest and immigrants. Vancouver famously has extremely high cost of living but also ranks quite high on quality of life; personally, I've already revealed my pro-Vancouver bias in CityBracket 2025.

But while it may be a good, even great city, is it a good place to actually immigrate to? Let's talk!

1. Proximity and Geography

As with much of Canada, at least the parts people live in, Vancouver has the benefit for US immigrants of being close to the US, both in the sense of easy travel to the US (love that train! Accept that bus!) but also in the sense that the geography/climate/etc. are America-like in some sense.

This is less true in places like Calgary and Winnipeg and more true in places like Vancouver because of the Pacific Coast climate.

Geographically, Vancouver has it all, from mountains (literally in the city up in North Van) to forests, plains, rivers, estuaries, and the ocean. Unless you're from central Nebraska or really far down South, you should be able to find a part of Metro Vancouver that reminds you in some way of home--only embedded in an urbanist landscape you probably didn't have there.

Beach, mountain, forest, water.

And that's the urbanist angle here: Vancouver connects all this varied geography efficiently and effectively so that you can go from place to place without taking the amount of time you might expect from a US context, and also so you can live anywhere in the metro region and still access either whatever you wanted to visit or wherever you wanted to or needed to work (or both).

Come from the Quad Cities? Well, there's plenty of river here, and you can also pretend (as the original explorers did!) that False Creek is just a big wide river like the mighty Mississippi.

Complete with paddleboat!

2. Vancouverism

Look, Vancouver's distinctive urban landscape and design has its detractors. But while I'll admit some critiques have some validity, overall I am a big fan of Vancouverism and I think most urbanist-interested immigrants will too.

Tall, thinnish buildings that are designed to still preserve the ability to see nature around them. Shops and services in the broader pediments of those big structures, so that ground level is attractive and busy, not a deep cavern from which one can never emerge. Transit-oriented and bike-oriented development, with urban green space and pedestrian access. 

Like this urban garden on Davie.

All the things that put Vancouver in the CityBracket final, in other words.

For immigrants in particular I'll suggest that (prices aside and that is a big aside) that kind of urban density and design is ideal for developing a sense of belonging in place. You have a lot of neighbors (or neighbours) but also a lot of neighborhood (or neighbourhood) spaces to meet them and mingle. If making acquaintances is a goal, and it likely is for an immigrant, I've found Vancouver an easy place to encounter people and a less chilly place than, say, nearby Seattle on the US side (sorry, hometown).

Vancouverism isn't perfect, but the urban society it is trying to produce is one that integrates people into community exactly how you might need if you're moving here from elsewhere.

3. Multicentrality

I keep coming back to this (hi Golden Horseshoe and Randstad!) but I think one of the biggest advantages for immigrants is coming to an effectively integrated region rather than a city, sprawl, and suburbs. Sure, Vancouver has those, but they're much more transit-integrated than in most US cities and they have their own individual downtown areas that have TOD. 

Welcome to North Vancouver!

That means that Vancouver (Metro Vancouver that is) has the same advantages, or similar ones, as we've discussed previously: the ability to live in multiple options for places and get to jobs and services, and the ability to find a community where you want or need to, alongside the flexibility that comes with both. And those are big for an immigrant who might know only a few people, or have to find a job wherever and hope that a spouse or partner can do the same in a different wherever--and need to afford it as well.

Which is admittedly hard in Vancouver.

And that's the biggest element here, in some ways. I think Vancouver is amazing. Given winning the lottery, I might well choose it as a place to immigrate, especially coming from the US (London won CityBracket but it's much further). But while its urbanist immigration qualifications are great, you have to be able to afford it.

What Does Complexity Mean?

 A very good article from Freewheeling on how complexity is not actually the problem with UK train fares, and it raises a distinction that I think is important for transit in the US (which has other problems than complexity, but also accusations of complexity). That is: it's not really about complexity, it's about cognitive load, jeopardy, and arbitrariness.

In other words, it's about

a) how much do I have to think?

b) how much risk is there to me if I do it wrong?

and 

c) can I detect the base logic of how it works (not necessarily the details, but the principles on which those details are built).

I want to suggest that these are also the main issues of people (not) using transit in the US rather than the actual complexity of transit.

1. Cognitive Load

US systems tend to make it surprisingly difficult to figure out how you're actually going to get from point A to point B, and back. You have to think about it pretty heavily, rather than being able to show up, go, and come back.

How often does this come? Where does it go? When does it stop running? How much does it cost? 

I don't know. And often I won't know. 

Yes, there are cities that try to improve that but their app use is not always helpful and their wayfinding likewise.

Plus, US transit (especially in cities like the Quad Cities) can often emphasize coverage over both frequency and directness, meaning that navigating the map is also quite difficult for a novice.

2. Jeopardy

Related to that: if I can't trust that I'll actually get back, or that I'll make it to where I need to go in time, I'm not going to use that form of transit.

And if I think it's actually dangerous, I also won't (though that's massively overstated when you consider the most dangerous part of traveling on the street is the car crashes and transit largely avoids those). 

Well, US transit kind of fails on both of those, especially the first, with the obvious exceptions:

Hello, NYC. Please ignore the following, except when there are transit works.

But largely in the US, it's common to have buses that stop running early, or take odd routes, or take forever to get there. All of which make there a genuine sense of jeopardy that you'll actually be able to do what you need to do, and that you'll be punished by being stranded otherwise.

3. Arbitrariness

Well, all of the choices that contribute to the above two elements feel very, very arbitrary.

Just like sidewalks, transit sometimes just...ends oddly. Or, in the case of  the rail lines that inspired "Waiting for the Interurban," ceases to exist altogether.

Artistic license aside, while we can ultimately look at things like "coverage was the idea here" to figure out some of the odder elements in US transit, a lot of networks could use a real redesign to actually go where people might want to take it. At the moment, they often feel like arbitrary lines on a map, with arbitrary costs, arbitrary hours, arbitrary frequency, etc.

Give people a clear reason why their bus runs when it runs, where it runs, etc., and it might make sense, but that kind of messaging is rare.

As a result, I think it's not just fare structures in the US that fall afoul of Freewheeling's ersatz complexity; it's whole transit agencies.

Shut up, NYC, I wasn't talking to you.

Though perhaps we could discuss some things about tourists and express trains...

Immigration and the Randstad

 Today I'm going to talk about immigration and a metro region that most Americans may not have heard of even though they've heard of its component parts: the Randstad region in the Netherlands, aka the conurbation that includes Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht--and many points in between.

Why talk about this, instead of about Amsterdam, Rotterdam, etc. alone? Because like my post on Toronto, but even more so, what matters here if you're considering immigrating is the region, not the city. As I'll discuss below, being in Haarlem instead of Amsterdam makes a difference to your life, of course, but that difference isn't like being in Seattle vs. Miami; they truly are one connected mega-city, and that has significant implications for the potential immigrant urbanist experience.

Not Seattle vs. Miami but maybe Miami Subs in Haarlem though.

1. Lots of Options, If You Can Afford Them

Let me get one thing out of the way right at the top: the Netherlands has a massive housing crisis, which at least some of the locals really want to blame on immigrants. This is a recurring theme in our coverage here, of course: it seems like every major city in the West at least and the world more generally has a housing crisis, because we have created some very excellent places to live and then not built enough housing in them. 

The Netherlands are particularly small, though, so this becomes especially problematic. 

The beauty of the Randstad from an urbanist perspective is that because of its excellent transit and biking links, you can live almost anywhere in it and commute to or just visit almost anywhere else in it pretty easily (during engineering works excepted). Here is Amsterdam Centraal, the (duh) central station in Amsterdam:

Here, about five minutes of train away, is Amsterdam Sloterdijk:

Here, a bit over ten minutes from there, is Haarlem Centraal:

For context, from the NS (Dutch national rail, Nederlandse Spoorwegen) website:

That's a 17 minute trip, with 147 trains a day, or more than one every ten minutes. Metro-like frequency between two cities and three major stops. And it costs about five euros.

The Dutch still complain about NS service, which is somehow both reasonable (compared to historic performance benchmarks and prices) and ridiculous (coming from the US).

And this somehow isn't the most metro-like service between cities in the Randstad, since the Rotterdam metro actually literally goes to the Hague (line E to Den Haag Centraal). 

So while there is definitely a housing crisis, that crisis ends up functionally spread across the whole region--and that means that it's a larger and more dynamic housing market than it seems at first glance (though it does also mean you can get scooped by someone else who is also working in a different city--it goes both ways).

It also means that there is a large variation in the kind of places you can live and still work and experience culture etc. across the region. Want to live in a suburb? Sure. A major downtown? Got that. Rural? Surprisingly yes. The integration of the transportation networks means these are all options.

2. Flat-rate Urbanism

Look, the Netherlands are expensive even in Europe and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

But that flattens out somewhat if you make two comparisons that are meaningful for this series: the Randstad versus other major metros and the Randstad versus the rest of the Netherlands.

This post does a pretty decent job of laying out what I mean, even though I'm not sure the post realizes it. If you look at the cost of living in any of the cities it mentions against New York, they're all 60-70% as expensive--not cheap but all cheaper than NYC.

And crucially, the "most expensive" and "least expensive" cities it lists are all in that range: it's a fairly flat space of costs. That's what I mean by flat-rate urbanism: whereas in the US or large parts of Europe there is massive variation in costs that can make large cities unbearably expensive, in the Netherlands the Randstad gives you good urbanism for basically the cost of living in the country at all.

Some of that is because the Randstad is a lot of the Netherlands. But Groningen up north doesn't get much cheaper, nor do the more rural areas. The Netherlands are expensive, but the urbanist core doesn't cost a premium on top of that, and that's a meaningful benefit if you're looking for somewhere to immigrate. And that urbanism isn't necessarily expensive compared to urbanism elsewhere, either--if you're looking for somewhere urbanist to immigrate, you're not comparing to the cheapest places on earth, but to other urban locations, and that makes the Randstad look better.

3. The Dang Grocery Stores

Look, I'm already on the record about this so I won't beat a dead horse.

I like shopping for groceries in Dutch supermarkets.

I like their size, their frequent appearance throughout neighborhoods, the freshness of their produce, and their selection given their size. I think that it's a healthier way to approach food acquisition than we usually see in American cities, and I think it's also a benefit for immigrants who may not be certain where they want to shop, what food they want to buy, which staple foods from the new country they want to adapt to and which they wish to cling to from the old. You can and should try multiple places; you can and should expect there to be multiple places to try. And you can take part in the Gym of Life along the way because you don't need to drive to access them.

I haven't even touched on the biking culture, really--that should tell you how much I like the grocery stores.

So yes: the Netherlands aren't cheap, they're getting less friendly to immigrants as so many places are, and they have a lot of complaints about their (from the outside) very good rail service. But there's a reason they're seen as an urbanist mecca, and the Randstad is a great place if you're looking for that in an immigration experience.

Plus if you're American there's the DAFT treaty, which makes it infinitely easier to go to the Netherlands than any of their neighbors.

It's not a slam dunk (compare the distance from Toronto to the US border vs. Amsterdam...) but it's definitely worth considering.

Coolness

Today I want to talk about something that I often see raised as a reason that people want to drive cars instead of taking transit: the cool factor.

And look, I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on cool. I am, perhaps, the opposite. But at the same time, let me at least try to explain why I don't think that cars are actually that cool compared to actual, exciting transit options.

1. What Are We Contrasting?

Let me start with this: in the Quad Cities context, and honestly in a lot of American contexts, I'd say that the conventional wisdom of which is cooler is correct.

This Mustang is cooler than this bus:

Bussy here is a good, solid vehicle and I would trust it in a crash much more than the Mustang, but it is boxy and basic. Of course, this car (which I love driving, but that's a different point) is less cool:

Classic bug-eyed Nissan Leaf: not cool.

This Jeep: cooler.

This bus: less cool.

Even in the same snow!

So, yes, what we're comparing matters a lot. This is why I'm saying that modern, up to date transit vehicles can be a lot cooler.

2. Keep Your Stuff Updated

Those buses were never cool, at least not in living memory. But also, transit tech that was cool can stop being cool (though retro is also a thing).

The El, I would argue, is retro.

El trains, however, are not.

The main distinction so far is not necessarily boxy vs sleek (the Jeep is pretty boxy but, I think, also considered fairly cool). It's up to date vs dated.

So this tram, which is sleek and up to date, is something else:

Look at those rounded edges and that smooth motion (I realize this is a still photo; I still think you can picture it from the picture).

The Croydon tram is not as cool, but could be if they updated the trainset:

And even this I like, personally: the green is a real touch of difference from the surroundings that makes it pop.

It's certainly less dated than the buses.

3. Speed Kills

One of the ways that I think the cars get the reputation for coolness is also the speed at which they travel. Trams, buses, metros, trains in the US: we think of these as pokey vehicles where you feel like you're trapped aboard, which massively limits cool factor.

Bonjour, je suis le TGV: le train à grande vitesse, aka the high-speed train.

This RER train is not a high-speed train, but look at that friendly front design--and it does go much faster than an American is probably used to their trains going.

This burst shot might give a sense of that.

Compare the Metra: blocky, slower, not as cool.

Basically, my takeaway here is that trains can be cool, but in the US they usually aren't. It's just not a thing we prioritize. Take the T in Boston:

I love the T but that train looks like it comes from the 1970s, and not necessarily in a cool way.

Contrast with the Mustang or Jeep above and you can see the cool difference.

But also contrast with a more up to date, cleaner, faster metro:

The newer SkyTrain sets in Vancouver are a lot cooler.

Which brings me to my conclusion: when people say cars are cooler, they're thinking about two categories of car, the awesome vintage car and the sweet new ride. But most cars on the road aren't either of those. And so when we contrast to most transit in the US, like Mr. Boxy Bus here, the comparison is weighted against the transit.

But when we consider the best of what transit can look like, it gets pretty cool too.

And you can add in some additional cool in terms of cooling the planet, since they're massively more efficient in fuel use.

Immigration and Toronto

As an American blogger, there's a sense that Canada is the gold standard of potential places to immigrate to: common language, high overlap in culture, closer than pretty much anywhere to friends and family back in the US, and a similar standard of living with a better social safety net.

But how does this translate into urbanist principles when considering immigrating to its major cities?

1. Regional Integration is Key

When I talk about Toronto, I think it's important to be talking about the entire Golden Horseshoe for potential immigrants, at some level, or at least the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). 

This is because if you're rich enough to actually buy into Toronto itself, you're probably having a different conversation from someone who ends up in Hamilton or Scarborough. 

Fortunately, they're increasing regional integration (though that project has faced setbacks), and there seems to be at least some awareness that yes, this needs to function as a region, not just as an economically-connected series of distinct areas. That means in the GTA that you finally see some new transit building within Toronto, and that it integrates into the plays for Go trains in the larger region.

They do have a fair number of trains! Even if the service isn't nearly at its best yet.

But if you're moving here, you're implicitly placing a bet on this actually coming to fruition: especially if you're hoping to be able to take a Go train consistently towards the US border, something that's right now not really a great option.

Of course, you could always just drive on the Gardiner to the 401, but let me tell you, that's not a fun experience. 

Again, if you can afford to live down where I took these pictures, you'll probably be fine regardless.

There may be a lot of homes in these individual towers, but...not enough for demand.

That's why regional integration is going to make or break the experience here, especially for immigrant groups that either get pushed to the margins or sprinkled throughout a wide and busy city.

2. Beware Doug Ford

This is not actually about Doug Ford specifically as a person, but it is about Ford's Ontario government and its hatred of Toronto's bike lanes. 

As we've discussed elsewhere in this series, biking as a travel option can be a godsend for immigrants, since it can increase health, reduce costs, and widen the range of places you're able to live or work.

And as you can see, people in Toronto do use them--some even for their businesses, as in this delivery ebike.

And in Toronto, strong bikeshare can even mean you don't need to own a bike to use one (though financially I'd recommend owning one if you're going to literally use it every day).  

But the Ford government is opposed to non-car street space in the city and region, seeing it as an attack on drivers and (implicitly or explicitly) on the kind of people who are drivers (i.e. out-of-Toronto voters).

So while there are major positive movements in the local area around transit and urbanism, there's also evidence already that the larger provincial government is not in favor (or favour) of this as a larger matter, and may step in to prevent or even reverse urbanist developments of which they disapprove.

That's a risk if you're hinging your immigration decision on increasing or at least stable urbanism.

3. Good Bones

But it would be unfair to treat the GTA as if it were all doom and gloom; setbacks to the Go expansion and the bike lanes aside, the region has strong urbanist bones in ways that many US cities do not (or perhaps used to but no longer do).

The TTC subway may be smaller than it should be in an ideal world, but it's still a good start from which to build, and build on it they plan to. 

I remember being impressed by the bus/tram/subway integration when I first visited in 2002, not because it was perfect but because it was intelligible in a way Seattle's then was not: even as a teen I could figure out how to get from place to place (and this is pre-smartphone!) and use the connections between transit modes to navigate effectively.

If I could do it as a visiting teen two decades ago, I gotta believe that's a benefit if you move there as an adult now.

And since I insisted above that you should treat the whole GTA and/or Horseshoe here, I do think that the multicentral nature of that region is meaningful. York FC (supporters pictured above) isn't Toronto FC, and York isn't Toronto (let alone further-dispersed centers like Mississauga, St. Catherine's, or even Niagara). While this sprawl can have its own flaws, the idea of integrating these places while still allowing them their own local flavor and relevance is a promising one, and if the region can pull it off then there would be some major benefits to an almost Randstad-like system (stay tuned for some thoughts on the Randstad in the Netherlands later in this series). 

All of this is to say that there's real potential in the GTA for growth and integration that can make it a better place to live--especially for immigrants, for whom that kind of marginal geographic location is often a reality. 

Canada will continue to be a difficult place to find a job if you're not a permanent resident or citizen (and also in current economic conditions for many of them). It will continue not to be the United States-lite or anything like it. But the GTA is a real option if you're looking for a region with great potential for a significant upward trajectory of urbanism built off a historic base that's high compared to the US.

The Trains, Again

 Look, we've talked about this before.

I would love for there to be train transit between the Quad Cities and Chicago. I think it would be a massive boost to the region, and frankly a personal benefit as well. 

So I'm chuffed to see announcements around state funding in Illinois for it. 

But remain a bit skeptical about this actually happening, unfortunately, for the following reasons:

1. Iowa Interstate Hasn't Said Anything

Even the article I've linked to only mentions that there is "more leverage" to convince or coerce Iowa Interstate (which owns key parts of the link between the two areas) to participate in the project, and mentions that they've "really struggled" to get them onboard. Now, it's obviously a good thing if the ask of the railroad doesn't include (as much) money, but it's still a dead letter unless they get involved voluntarily or the state/federal government (good luck...) actually starts getting into eminent domain territory.

If this was met by Iowa Interstate with a statement about their excitement to get working, I'd have a different reaction, but right now...nothing, so I have no expectations.

2. Where Will The Funding Really Go?

The Metra and the CTA are also due funding under this bill, and the money that is commonly being associated with the Quad Cities rail initiative apparently only refers to funding to help bring rail to new destinations. At the same time, Metra is being tasked to bring its rail to, you guessed it, new destinations.

So if Iowa Interstate doesn't play ball, this money doesn't have to stay around to convince them--it can (it seems) go to bring some iconic flat-fronted trains to the rest of the state.

Or, you know, maybe some more updated trains. But the point stands--this money doesn't have to go to this part of the state if we can't actually get moving on our trains.

3. I Hate Getting My Hopes Up

I just...don't like hoping for things that don't happen. 

Maybe like the new I-74 Bridge, it'll actually come. 

Or maybe, like doing something actually useful with the old I-74 Bridge instead of just tearing it down, it won't.

Unfortunately, I know where I'd put my money.

I really hope it happens, and I'd love to see Amtrak service to Chicago from here, but...this isn't quite it yet, and it's making me sad that it's reported like it is.

Immigration and London

 Ah London, city of immigrants (I mean this quite literally). Now to be fair, some of that is because when you colonize the world, it comes back to visit the metropole. But also, London has a history of attracting and indeed integrating immigrant populations, at least in Greater London (the square mile of the City is a bit small by now to be doing that). And one of my absolute favorite things about London is the sheer variety of foods, goods, and cultures that coexist within the British capitol.

Unfortunately, being in Britain does mean that it's not actually a practical place to immigrate to, given the absolutely rancid costs of paying for NHS coverage up front as part of your visa fees. But if you can swing it (or you're single--a thousand pounds per person per year adds up for families), it's got some major benefits to provide you.

1. A Transport of Delight

The London omnibus (thanks, Flanders and Swann) is, in my humble opinion, the greatest benefit for considering London as an immigrant's destination. 

They go pretty much everywhere, pretty efficiently, for relatively little money (compared to any rail, Tube or mainline or what have you). They're easy to recognize, easy to find, and easy to use.

They get stuck in traffic like everyone else, but they stop you from having to own your own car and be that traffic.

And like this particularly unflattering shot I took demonstrates, they'll take you right to the shops (this bus is at a Tesco, I think, though I went to so many grocery stores around that location that I may be mistaken).

2. Actually, who even needs the bus?

As Evan Edinger will happily explain to you, London is also massively beefing up its cycling network, in ways that mean that you won't even necessarily need to take any transport at all.

You can see a gentleman taking advantage of this directly in front of the tram here in Croydon.

London is also extremely walkable, both within neighborhoods and if you're brave enough to just hare your way across the city.

(Mind the crowds in Camden though).

Why is this a benefit for the immigrant? It means both that you can get to know whatever pocket of the sprawling megalopolis you end up in more personally and that you can save some of their ridiculously highly valued currency at the same time. And heck, you might not even need to use that NHS surcharge you pre-spent for if you use the Gym of Life (ignore that that video is about the Netherlands; the same concept applies).

It also means that you really can choose wherever you most want or need (for job purposes, say) to live and still enjoy life in London. Yes, it has slums and less safe areas, but the emphasis on active transportation has Jane Jacobs related benefits in terms of putting eyes on the street (attached to moving bodies, no less). 

3. The Cultural Amenities

Look, Paris is great, don't get me wrong. But what the British Museum lacks compared to the Louvre in terms of entertaining heists it makes up in being free to the public.

As are a lot London's best museums.

And, you know, its public spaces as well.

I'm not saying that there aren't cool places in Paris to sit around. I'm saying that London does a damn good job of making it easy to exist for free and still be either beautified or educated. 

This view of St. Paul's Cathedral isn't going to legally protect itself. 

Even less famous spots than Camden Locks and St. Paul's are pretty cool.

London is a place that you can afford entertainment because it's free. Can you afford the entertainment that isn't free? My barristers have advised me not to answer that. But you can afford so many cultural amenities that the place is amazing anyway.

And you might just walk or bike past them (or see them from a double-decker bus) because of the transportation options as well.

Is London the best place to move? Well, I referenced those high visa fees above, so there are considerations that cut against it. But it has some serious advantages once you're there.

Just be aware that you won't qualify for these estates, so you might also need to save up some for rent.