Of course it's not a guarantee that it will work, but I'd rather my tax dollars go towards a densely populated downtown than filling potholes out near Leduc.
And it's not just about downtown revitalization either. Don't oversimplify the process. First you create and refine the product (an attractive and livable city), then you foster an environment for industrial growth and innovation (Canada as a whole needs to do a much better job of this), then you sell it like crazy. Edmonton has two major advantages over a city like Winnipeg in that regard: one being the U of A, and the other being a wealth of intellectual talent in the oil and gas industry. A startup can come in and find a wealth of students and professionals with which to grow a business.
My take is some of what you state in terms of building infrastructure to attract and retain learned citizens holds value. But more and more what I see being more attractive options is recreational development. So that people, families, can engage in first person recreation and not vicarious entertainment. Todays lifestyle includes wants of access to multi-use trails, rec, work out facilities, pools, leisure etc. This is the thing that seems to keep people around and keep real estate prices high. Todays value is activity access. That's the buzz.
Liveable now connotes primary access to first person recreation. Western cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon, Edmonton, have focused on this. Winnipeg has gone the completely wrong way and focused on building as many entertainment facilities as possible downtown, while doing nothing about increasing user friendly access to the region. Virtually no bike trails go downtown, public transit is unpleasant there, and parking your car anywhere in downtown Winnipeg is just asking for trouble=massive fail.
Fortunately in Edmonton we're covering all the bases and should be OK. Reasonable access to downtown, better places to park, more pleasant public transit access.
Finally, I'll address a theme I've often addressed re this topic is that arena/stadia infrastructure in present day are somewhat redundant particularly in attracting todays version of music festivals which almost always occur in non built venue locations, For instance in fields, parks, Islands, etc. With these often being much more enjoyable locations for promoter, fan, and acts. Meanwhile we have infrastructure like Commonwealth Stadium ( a great place) sitting empty all but 15 or so dates/year.
Theres a move away from largescale infrastructure being in vogue. When people want a festival experience they want it to occur anywhere but a stadium. To this end a place like Moncton, or Ottawa, get better festivals then we ever see sans the big stadium. It seems as if the notion that all you need is a field got forgotten for a few decades. Well that field of dreams is attracting the big crowds these days across the world.
It seems all you really need is proper marketing, a field, and some love.
Deleted, why bother
