[Radley77]

My sense is that there will always be both as opposed to an either/or scenario. If you are a construction worker your workplace is always going to be moving, if you work in the financial services in downtown Calgary not so much...

I know some are fans of driving; my personal preference would be either to be either spending time with my family or at work making money. I find time spent travelling between places to be not as productive, so in my situation we had estimated a cost to living far away from where we work at over $10G annually. Of a lesser consideration was parking ($5G) and even less than that was the cost of fuel.

The biggest factor being that there were time-reduced options available to us, and that we think there is more value in living close to where it's convenient for the both of us relative to the incremental cost for living in a more central location. We had calculated a NPV at a 5% discount rate to estimate what the perceived value is of living close to where you work so had estimated that value as being about $300G.

I like that there are more venues from arts to more restraunt choices, but I overall found that as a nice to have, versus a need to have for a shorter commuting time.

My preference is to build fitness into my daily routine by bicycling instead of driving. I found when I lived in the suburbs in Citadel, it was very hard to make time to exercise because it was hard to find a gym with full facilities that was conveniently located.

I like going out on a recreational trip to places like Auburn Bay for a tour this weekend, or the AVX screens at Cross-Iron Mills. I think one of the reasons why cities are great places to live is the diversity and specialization that happens.