Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype
People often have the perception that "smaller is better" in municipal politics, whether it is true or not, it gives the perception of more intuitive control over the environment. It's sometimes hard to argue that this is not the case, because when it comes to amalgamation the rationale is generally a purse tightening economic one. Suburbs which were not really suburbs to begin with also have a stronger identity. Vancouver is full of these, a collection of independent small semi-rural centres, many geographically distinct to begin with, many as old as the city itself. Politically I think this works better than a highly centralized municipal government.
|
It might be better for governance and political power, but I find the identity thing so annoying. Interactions like:
"Some people think Vancouver is a really boring city"
"They should see Coquitlam"
or the classic
"Can't wait to go back home to Vancouver"
"I thought you were from Richmond?"
Some of you are saying that the municipal identity isn't that common, but I've found the opposite. Yeah everyone says they're from Vancouver when asked about it in the UK, but at a local level people speak of Vancouver and Surrey as if it was no different from Ottawa and Edmonton.
I fully agree that different local geographies have different customs and cultures, so maybe I just find the "city" distinction annoying. I get that people from Surrey and Vancouver can have their own local quirks, but so can people from Kerrisdale and Killarney. To me, all these different geographies are just different neighbourhoods of a grand "Vancouver." Yeah slang can be different, but we all cheer for the Canucks, take the SkyTrain, have opinions on the housing crisis, etc.