# What is Vancouver, Canada?



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

It's my hometown and my current city. It has received praise, often ranked as one of the world's most livable cities and praised for being well urbanly planned. And of course, it's often praised for its spectacular natural and urban setting. 

As someone who has grown up here, is it really that special? Is the natural scenery really THAT beautiful? Personally, I don't think so...perhaps it's because of oversensory after living here all this time....(and I find this city boring).....or perhaps it's a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side". I'd like to hear an international perspective on this city.

Would you visit Vancouver? What is this city to you?











http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordybb/4428132965/sizes/o/in/[email protected]/











http://www.flickr.com/photos/a-vision/3352101787/sizes/l/in/[email protected]/












http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1391/4610628632_1f877c6726_b.jpg












http://www.flickr.com/photos/nattyk/2826404231/sizes/l/in/[email protected]/












http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/3740835005/sizes/l/in/[email protected]/


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

As someone who's never been there my perception is that it's a sophisticated, beautiful place that's rather boring still. I view Vancouver as a mini-Sydney in the making. Vancouver has so much potential, but it's not there yet.


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

I think those "livability" surveys are a crock of shit. No doubt Vancouver is a great city, but I fail to see how it's so livable when its real estate is so grossly unaffordable.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

I'd like Vancouver more if there were more emphasis on cultural activities. I know it appeals to the "outdoorsy" types, but I am unfortunately not really into jogging, skiing, snowboarding, etc... The city has magnificent fresh fruit and vegetable markets, and I adore all the fresh fish. But nightlife is a bit on the slow side as the city tends to wind down early in the evening. I think it is a city that people either love or hate, and most people I know who live there seem to love it.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

Vancouver seems like it is in a great location, but seems to lack in the city attractions point of view. It needs an icon to really set off its natural beauty. The convention centre was a great chance to do it, but really is abit plain to really become an icon. Its position, next to the cruise terminal would have been amazing with a stand out structure. Cities without icons have a harder time gaining attention, which is the same with my city (Melbourne). Sydney has the icons, it gets the attention.

Overall, it looks like a good city, with plenty of potential. It has the natural beauty, now just needs that next piece in the puzzle to take it to the next level.


----------



## Spoolmak (Aug 4, 2007)

Downtown generally doesn't shut down early, unless you don't consider Robson, Granville or Davie Downtown. If anything Downtown gets busier as the sun goes down, seeing as how 100,000 people live there.


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

Skyrazer said:


> I think those "livability" surveys are a crock of shit. No doubt Vancouver is a great city, but I fail to see how it's so livable when its real estate is so grossly unaffordable.


Well, the argument is that real estate is unaffordable because people want to live here.


----------



## Kensingtonian (Nov 8, 2008)

I lived in Vancouver for 4 months one summer and loved it! Totally different vibe than Toronto (which I also love). 

The main draw, of course, is the natural setting. It's surrounded by water and there are mountians right next to the downtown, not off in the distance somewhere. For this reason it draws a lot of people who are into outdoorsy stuff like hiking, camping, skiing, snowboarding, etc.

If you want an urban vibe and big-city hustle and bustle, Vancouver is not the place for you. It still has a bit of a small-townish feel in many areas and I think this is why people from small towns across Canada are more comfortable there than Toronto or Montreal. It's a big city for people who don't like big cities.


----------



## kyookumbah (Apr 11, 2010)

I really want to visit. I'm into urban planning, so I'm obviously biased in favour of it. It does look very nice, and I'd visit if only for the natural attractions. I've considered moving there but decided it wouldn't be right for me. It's going to need to at least double in size to be able to compete with what other big cities have to offer. It doesn't seem home to any major companies or industries, and the gap between average salaries and the cost of living is way too big to ignore. Overall I'm glad it's part of the country though, as it seems to have a bright future. I kind of think of it as Canada's version of San Francisco.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Spoolmak said:


> Downtown generally doesn't shut down early, unless you don't consider Robson, Granville or Davie Downtown. If anything Downtown gets busier as the sun goes down, seeing as how 100,000 people live there.


Maybe things have changed since I was last there about five years ago.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

As a Seattle resident with relatives and friends in Vancouver, I idealize it in many ways. It's a very successful outcome for a lot of things I'd like my city to do more of. If I had to move it would be an excellent choice. 

It does lack some big city aspects, but it has a lot of the important ones despite its size -- international air connections (though poor connections to the US), a decent transit system, and a level of vibrancy that comes from decent density.


----------



## Spoolmak (Aug 4, 2007)

Taller said:


> Maybe things have changed since I was last there about five years ago.


Must have, but I'm not saying you're wrong because I do respect your posts TB.
But I've wandered downtown past 9pm and its still as busy as ever.


----------



## Plateau Mont-Royal (Sep 21, 2009)

I visited Van in 07. Its a great city sure, but is very overrated.


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

mr.x said:


> Well, the argument is that real estate is unaffordable because people want to live here.


Which really pushes down its livability IMO. Alot of it can be interpreted many ways, but if you have to indebt yourself to such an excessive degree to provide yourself with such a necessity (housing), I'm sorry, but it's not a place I would really want to live.

Others may disagree, but that's just my stance.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Positives: Spectacular setting

Negatives: Rain, typical N American lack of walkable places


----------



## mirza-sm (Jul 28, 2005)

Ive been to Vancouver in 2006. A beautiful and indeed livable city, with a great nature (which is a great plus from me), and with nice people. kay:


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

gonzo said:


> Positives: Spectacular setting
> 
> Negatives: Rain, typical N American lack of walkable places


I am indeed curious, as I would certainly have rated the downtown Vancouver that tourists would visit as a _very_ walkable city. Assuming you have visited, how did you find it lacked walkable places?


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

I'm not speaking for him, but being walkable in a North American way is not the same as being walkable in a Greek hill town way, for example, where you can walk anywhere without seeing cars.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

isaidso said:


> As someone who's never been there my perception is that it's a sophisticated, beautiful place that's rather boring still. I view Vancouver as a mini-Sydney in the making. Vancouver has so much potential, but it's not there yet.


This is also my view.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Taller said:


> I am indeed curious, as I would certainly have rated the downtown Vancouver that tourists would visit as a _very_ walkable city. Assuming you have visited, how did you find it lacked walkable places?


First, I haven't been there.

Vancouver may be walkable for the tourist who wants to hit all the urban attractions on foot but that's not exactly what I was referring to.

The N American lifestyle isn't compatible with walkable communities. There are minorities who choose to live this way but there is a clear line that divides places like N.America/Australia with places like Asia/Europe. It's a different standard altogether.

I know a large proportion of downtown Vancouver is condos. This makes the downtown dense, however this in itself doesn't necessarily make the downtown (much less the city as a whole) walkable. There needs to be the right mix in order to get things done on foot.

Of course this is all a matter of taste and I'm not trying to push this ideal on anyone..


----------



## Dancing Banana (Jul 8, 2009)

been there, loved it and wanna go again...


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

Dancing Banana said:


> been there, loved it and wanna go again...


Just wondering, where are you from?


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

I would move back there if there were more jobs. 

But as it is now, it's too expensive and the job market is not really strong.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

gonzo said:


> First, I haven't been there.
> 
> 
> 
> The N American lifestyle isn't compatible with walkable communities. .



I would say that there is no homogenous _"North American Lifestyle"_ any more than there is an homogenous _"South American Lifestyle"_.
It follows therefore, that the "walkability" of all cities in North America is not the same. No offence, but a person really has to actually
visit a city to know how "walkable" it is, or isn't.


----------



## Gerrad (Dec 17, 2006)

Vancouver is *totally* walkable. It's a completely compact city.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

Taller said:


> I would say that there is no homogenous _"North American Lifestyle"_ any more than there is an homogenous _"South American Lifestyle"_.
> It follows therefore, that the "walkability" of all cities in North America is not the same. No offence, but a person really has to actually
> visit a city to know how "walkable" it is, or isn't.


The things that you didn't quote I thought argued my point sufficiently.

Is the average Vancouverite able to accomplish a lot on foot? Probably in a N American context...I plead ignorance in this case. 

I gather you're speaking more in the context of a tourist. I would argue that one can determine a city's walkabality better from satellite images than one can from touring downtown.

Perhaps the bottom line is that I don't idealize the picture that is painted of Canadian urbanity by online resources such as SSC and Google maps/streetview.

I remember reading that you live in downtown Toronto. This is indeed a great place (I would rather be there myself) but is not an accurate representation of Canadian living.


----------



## Pfeuffer (Sep 9, 2009)

Vancouver is beautiful but the weather is shitty ! too much rain
and too cold during "summer". hno:


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Vancouver is a beautiful city in a beautiful setting. It's nirvana if you are a true outdoorsy type. If you are a hardcore urbanite it is very lacking. It's cultural institutions are marginally laughable and cultural events are few and far between. Most festivals are not free so again it is truly Canada's have/have not city. Relatively low wages, very high general and child poverty rates and due to the extreme cost of housing it has the lowest rate of home ownership in the country backed up by the smallest middle class for those under 40. 
The city just lacks an "umph". Hard to put your finger on it but the city just doesn't seem to have a soul. Downtown Vancouver and all the new areas of endless glass and steel kind of reminds of an indoor car dealer. Tidy, functual, orderly and new. It works well but in it's strive to be so picture perfect it's a rather sterile joyless affair. 
I find Granville Island market typical of Vancouver. It can be fun, has variety but still has that "manufactured to being nice" atmosphere. Vancouver is a city where impromptu is not allowed. Toronto's Kensington Market on the other hand is a bit grimy but it's real. Kensington is the cool place you wander around because it is a cool enviornment and you never know what's going on. Granville Island is more of a "planned day's event". 
Toronto is more anything goes while Vancouver is a anything goes but only if you get a licence from the city, keep the noise down, not interfere with Translink, and have the event well planned, consult with the area residents, and be wheel chair accessible. 

One thing EVERYONE on this planet can definatly agree upon is that there is no city that is as great as Vancouver {or all of BC} thinks it is. Always trying to put other cities down to make themselves feel better............................insecurity 101.


----------



## Dancing Banana (Jul 8, 2009)

mr.x said:


> Just wondering, where are you from?


switzerland, so i dont get it why people think vancouver is missing the big city feeling ;-)


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

Skyrazer said:


> Which really pushes down its livability IMO. Alot of it can be interpreted many ways, but if you have to indebt yourself to such an excessive degree to provide yourself with such a necessity (housing), I'm sorry, but it's not a place I would really want to live.
> 
> Others may disagree, but that's just my stance.


Well, Vancouver is consistently a high achiever in livability rankings based on the following:

_stability, health care, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure_

Obviously, places that have a high standard for these categories are more expensive places to live. An extreme example could be comparing the cost of living in Afghanistan and the cost of living in a city like Vancouver.

Even look at your own city. The nicer neighbourhoods cost more to live in while the less nicer neighbourhoods are lower in cost. Now apply that on a world scale.


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

ssiguy2 said:


> One thing EVERYONE on this planet can definatly agree upon is that there is no city that is as great as Vancouver {or all of BC} thinks it is. Always trying to put other cities down to make themselves feel better............................insecurity 101.


My, you sure woke up on the wrong side of the bed.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Taller said:


> I am indeed curious, as I would certainly have rated the downtown Vancouver that tourists would visit as a _very_ walkable city. Assuming you have visited, how did you find it lacked walkable places?


He's not the only person that thinks that Vancouver is unwalkable. It is not very friendly to pedestrians outside of the core at all and suffers from the typical North American problems of being sprawly and car-centric. Sorry to say this but I agree with those that have said it is bland and a bit dull. Vancouver is overrated.


----------



## kingsdl76 (Sep 1, 2007)

mhays said:


> As a Seattle resident with relatives and friends in Vancouver, I idealize it in many ways. It's a very successful outcome for a lot of things I'd like my city to do more of. If I had to move it would be an excellent choice.
> 
> It does lack some big city aspects, but it has a lot of the important ones despite its size -- international air connections (though poor connections to the US), a decent transit system, and a level of vibrancy that comes from decent density.


I've always been curious about how Seattle and Vancouver compare to each other...(not in the least bit interested in starting a city vs city conversation).. I'm just curious about the similarities/differences between the 2... because in fotos, they almost look like sister cities...


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

Downtown Vancouver and the rest of the Metropolitan Core are certainly quite walkable, but I agree it does get quite unwalkable as you leave the City of Vancouver. 

I do think Vancouver's walkability is improving quite a bit, but yes compared to the walkability of Europe (largely because of its origins as small villages and towns, and density) the City of Vancouver still has a long way to go (and nearly all other North American cities are even farther behind).



Some pictures of the new Olympic Village neighbourhood within the Vancouver Metropolitan Core.....taking a page from Europe. The Olympic Village is just 1/5th of the new neighbourhood being planned and the rest will be designed to the same standard:

Photos by SFU Vancouver at ssp


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Certainly within Canada, Vancouver and Victoria have the best gardens and gardeners! :yes:



Svartmetall said:


> He's not the only person that thinks that Vancouver is unwalkable. It is not very friendly to pedestrians outside of the core at all .


I wasn't referring to walking in the suburbs; I was referring to walking downtown. And, I do remember your theories that lump All North American cities into one pile from previous threads! 

I think Vancouver has to start taking cultural institutions far more seriously, and the rich in the city need to become more philanthropic. I always get the feeling there that there is a belief
that producing or enhancing cultural institutions is the responsibility of the Government. The Government rarely does so, therefore little happens.


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

You don't need to think too hard to know Vancouver would lack the 'in your face' qualities of cities like New York or Tokyo. If anyone tries to compare it to these sort of cities and complain, then you are as sharp as marble. It is one step out from being a lumber town for goodness sake. Very walkable IMO within the city, as walkable as any. The suburbs are probably like many others.


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

ssiguy2 said:


> Vancouver is a beautiful city in a beautiful setting. It's nirvana if you are a true outdoorsy type. If you are a hardcore urbanite it is very lacking. It's cultural institutions are marginally laughable and cultural events are few and far between. Most festivals are not free so again it is truly Canada's have/have not city. Relatively low wages, very high general and child poverty rates and due to the extreme cost of housing it has the lowest rate of home ownership in the country backed up by the smallest middle class for those under 40.
> The city just lacks an "umph". Hard to put your finger on it but the city just doesn't seem to have a soul. Downtown Vancouver and all the new areas of endless glass and steel kind of reminds of an indoor car dealer. Tidy, functual, orderly and new. It works well but in it's strive to be so picture perfect it's a rather sterile joyless affair.
> I find Granville Island market typical of Vancouver. It can be fun, has variety but still has that "manufactured to being nice" atmosphere. Vancouver is a city where impromptu is not allowed. Toronto's Kensington Market on the other hand is a bit grimy but it's real. Kensington is the cool place you wander around because it is a cool enviornment and you never know what's going on. Granville Island is more of a "planned day's event".
> Toronto is more anything goes while Vancouver is a anything goes but only if you get a licence from the city, keep the noise down, not interfere with Translink, and have the event well planned, consult with the area residents, and be wheel chair accessible.


Much of these woes, from lacking big city attractions to low wages to a lack of cultural events or even the sterileness, comes from the city's dominant socialist left-wing attitude towards everything.

Vancouver as an expensive place to live
- Places like Vancouver that rank high in the livability list are often very left leaning cities. The local government takes priority to things like abundant and well maintained parks and green spaces, quality education and health care, and [relatively] well maintained infrastructure....cities like Vancouver are highly regulated. 
- Because of "quality control" and abundant regulations, there's also high taxation...which makes it an even more expensive place to live. 
- Because of "quality control" and abundant regulations, it tends to make places quite a bit more livable and in turn it does drive up real estate prices. Again, the good neighbourhood vs. bad neighbourhood analogy above but on a world scale. There's a trade off to everything.

Poor job market, low wages
- It most certainly comes from the region's leftist attitudes, which originate from the big lumber and mining workers' unions of British Columbia.
- Anything done to encourage investment and business often becomes a faux controversy by the left wingers.
- People here are simply a bit more laid back, jobs aren't entirely as important to local government and the public...it lacks that savvy competitive capitalist attitude.

Lack of cultural events and attractions
- Again, comes from the leftist attitude.
- Many big city attractions have been proposed but have been shot down because it doesn't fit within the Vancouver "norm" of what is allowable. It's a big city that refuses to be daring with its attractions, instead it unfortunately relies far too much on its natural setting and recreation opportunities.
- Big city attractions are often seen as "corporate greed". 
- There are lots of regulations by the City of Vancouver that make sporadic and organic cultural events and activities difficult to have.
- Because of a lack of a major corporate base, events often have to rely on Eastern Canadian based companies for sponsorship.



It's a young city, it's slowly going towards the right direction...I think, hope. This city lacks history - it's one of Canada's "newest" cities (as you go West the urban history gets younger and younger), everything we have today was built overnight - it's all relatively new. It still hasn't figured itself out so in a sense it hasn't grown organically as many other cities have - it'll take time. 

It's a shame that we don't have better museums, but you do kinda need some history and definitive culture (which Vancouver is still trying to figure out) in order to have a great museum....


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Sounds like Vancouver is more "conservative" than socialist, but far left cities aren't my thing either. Same with far right ones.


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

LtBk said:


> Sounds like Vancouver is more "conservative" than socialist, but far left cities aren't my thing either. Same with far right ones.


I suppose it's both socialist and conservative in different senses and aspects.


If we do compare Vancouver with Sydney and Toronto, the latter two cities have had a huge head start with:

*1) History and Population. * Both cities have had ample time to figure themselves out, they've been around for much longer whereas Vancouver had a mere western settlement population of hundreds in 1886 when it officially became a city....by 1886, both Sydney and Toronto were already quite urbanized. The first trans-continental train didn't arrive in Vancouver until the following year, 1887. 

*2) Proximity to Provincial/State Government.* Sydney and Toronto are where the provincial and state legislatures are located. It has helped accelerated economic growth, whereas the British Columbia provincial capital is located in Victoria off the coast of Vancouver.

*3) Proximity to Federal Government.* Both Sydney and Toronto are close to their national capitals (Canberra and Ottawa), which again has greatly helped economic growth in these two cities (with Toronto, it's also in the same time zone as the stock exchange in NYC). Whereas Vancouver is located at...



Compound the above reasons with the fact that very narrow minded individuals run the city. They lack imagination and vision.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Taller said:


> I wasn't referring to walking in the suburbs; I was referring to walking downtown. And, I do remember your theories that lump All North American cities into one pile from previous threads!
> 
> I think Vancouver has to start taking cultural institutions far more seriously, and the rich in the city need to become more philanthropic. I always get the feeling there that there is a belief
> that producing or enhancing cultural institutions is the responsibility of the Government. The Government rarely does so, therefore little happens.


Difference is that my family has been to Vancouver and we have friends living up near Lions Bay. I do actually know Vancouver.  

As for my "theories" governing North American cities, not necessarily true. The same holds for New Zealand, Australia and parts of the UK even. My views on urban planning in the main nations of the anglosphere don't have a geographical basis, more a historical/cultural one.


----------



## spongeg (May 1, 2006)

there are so many special interest groups here that nothing can get done

just look at them whining in the west end over a new rental tower - what do they expect? a developer isn't going to buy a church and put up a half dozen townhouses on the site - when they paid millions for the site - no one is going to pay that kind of money and turn the church into another church or community centre

in this sense I can really see why people who come here say vancouver is full of cliques and people are standoffish

its stupid we can't progress unless we appease joe blow and his blowigans first


----------



## spongeg (May 1, 2006)

double post


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

[email protected] it. I'm moving to Sydney, Australia before I turn 30.


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

mr.x said:


> [email protected] it. I'm moving to Sydney, Australia before I turn 30.


Ummm, Sydney shares some of the same problems as Vancouver. Housing is terribly unaffordable (Demographia had Vancouver and Sydney 1st and 2nd most unaffordable respectively, lol) and if you think Vancouver NIMBYs are bad....well be prepared for the same crap in Sydney.

Yeah Sydney would be a more "happening" city (it can be a kick ass city with a fair bit of potential), but it's mirred in countless problems (mostly stemming from its inept government). I doubt Vancouver has so many issues.

And anyway, what about Toronto? It's sweet as from what I gather and I imagine Toronto wouldn't be hindered with as many issues as Sydney, or am I wearing tinted-glasses?


----------



## Luli Pop (Jun 14, 2010)

Taller said:


> I am indeed curious, as I would certainly have rated the downtown Vancouver that tourists would visit as a _very_ walkable city. Assuming you have visited, how did you find it lacked walkable places?


I agree!

I've been there for a moth and it lacks walkable spaces.
Maybe it doesn't for northamerican parameters, but it does lack WS for european-south cone parameters.

I didn't find it sophiticated neither. But once again is a matter of parameters.
I certainly not consider Sydney to be sophisticated, when there are cities in the world like Milan, Tokio, or Paris. Maybe if someone from Texas goes there, he/she could percieve the city as sophisticated.

Said that, I think Vancouver is one of the 5 cities in the world with better landscape and one of the few where you can swim in the sea and do some skiing in ha same day. People is very nice, and chinese food is the best in occident.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

So, can you be more specific? If it is just walkable by North American parameters, how is it less walkable than in Argentina, where you are from? I think I am quite curious as to what makes a city "walkable" for people. I've walked around Vancouver hundreds of times and never found it difficult to do so......


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

So I was just digging around on my computer for some skyline photos of Vancouver to post on another forum, figured I might as well post 'em here too.


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

Skyrazer said:


> Ummm, Sydney shares some of the same problems as Vancouver. Housing is terribly unaffordable (Demographia had Vancouver and Sydney 1st and 2nd most unaffordable respectively, lol) and if you think Vancouver NIMBYs are bad....well be prepared for the same crap in Sydney.
> 
> Yeah Sydney would be a more "happening" city (it can be a kick ass city with a fair bit of potential), but it's mirred in countless problems (mostly stemming from its inept government). I doubt Vancouver has so many issues.
> 
> And anyway, what about Toronto? It's sweet as from what I gather and I imagine Toronto wouldn't be hindered with as many issues as Sydney, or am I wearing tinted-glasses?


I love Toronto, but I don't think I'd be able to survive your frigid winters. :lol:


----------



## brewerfan386 (Apr 24, 2009)

monkeyronin said:


> Its alright. From a planning perspective I applaud the city's focus on density, walkablitiy, and transit, especially considering the auto-centric era in which it has developed, though I wish there were a less stringent and less "suburban-feeling" focus on design. Too many giant podiums with excessive landscaping are not conducive to creating an urban environment. *And the mostly identical, blue/green-glass towers get rather tiresome.*


I agree 110% with that statement. The buildings seem to be clones of one another (for the most part) with no real uniqueness or differences. :|


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

brewerfan386 said:


> I agree 110% with that statement. The buildings seem to be clones of one another (for the most part) with no real uniqueness or differences. :|


I know in Vancouver, the city has a strong grip on what gets built and how it is built...it's very controlled, and after a decade developers submit proposals that they know will work and will be approved by the city. For some reason, the city has this thing of making our buildings "blend" into our natural scenery.

I read this from somewhere, but it seems to be a common occurrence how many major cities that are blessed with a scenic mountain backdrop have bland/low-key building designs. 

For instance, to name a few:



Santiago




















Rio de Janeiro











Most of Hong Kong and Kowloon:


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

^^Condos are usually low key though. You see hundreds of the same sort of low key buildings in Sao Paulo and countless other Chinese cities. But yea, I'm not a fan of monotony either.


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

mr.x said:


> I love Toronto, but I don't think I'd be able to survive your frigid winters. :lol:


FYI, I'm from Canberra, Australia....


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

What is Vancouver? Vancouver is the wealthiest city per capita in Canada


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> What is Vancouver? Vancouver is the wealthiest city per capita in Canada


The wealthiest city in Canada would either be Westmount (suburb of Montreal) or Oakville (suburb of Toronto), Westmount having the highest average income for individuals over the age of 15 at $39,321, and Oakville having the highest average household income at $92,394. Vancouver's for comparison is $23,682/$47,299.

Now, as far as actual cities/metros go, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Kitchener, Quebec City, and Toronto are all wealthier too (in that order). 

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang=E


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

monkeyronin said:


> The wealthiest city in Canada would either be Westmount (suburb of Montreal) or Oakville (suburb of Toronto), Westmount having the highest average income for individuals over the age of 15 at $39,321, and Oakville having the highest average household income at $92,394. Vancouver's for comparison is $23,682/$47,299.
> 
> Now, as far as actual cities/metros go, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Kitchener, Quebec City, and Toronto are all wealthier too (in that order).
> 
> http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang=E


Ah okay, I was going by GDP Per Capita of World Cities. PricewaterhouseCooper had them listed something like this,

Vancouver - $43,000
Toronto - $39,000
Montreal - $37,000

and that was all the Canadian cities mentioned.


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

Well for places of interest in Vancouver, I hear downtown east side is pretty interesting....:shifty:


----------



## Spoolmak (Aug 4, 2007)

ssiguy2 said:


> Vancouver is not a "socialist" city at all. City Hall is conservative which is why nearly all mayors are voted in from the ultra rich Westside vote. Progressive yes but not socialist.
> The mind set at City Hall is very stodgy. Spotenaty is taboo in Vancouver. In it's strive to be "liveable" it's nearly dead.
> Its an auto mall in a beautiful setting. Functions well, tidy, keeps the none wealthy out, and looks well designed. That, unfortunately, is it's problem. It is City Hall that refers to Vancouver as "no fun city".
> As far as this not old enough to have cultural vitality is B.S. Winnipeg is younger and only one third the size but has a cultural, theater, music, festival scene that Vancouver could only dream of. Its well known that Winnipeg is Western Canada's cultural mecca followed by Edmonton.
> ...


LOL. No one ever? Don't speak for everyone please. Because you are obviously wrong.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (Sep 12, 2002)

Vancouver is decent enough (it does get overrated), but when the right job opportunity comes up I'm on the first plane to Chicago.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Vancouver is a very like able city it's just not a very personal one. The glass and steel make for an uninteresting urban vitality. 
Victoria is the complete opposite. They have lots of old historic building they wish to maintain whereas Vancouver only sees history as something for a good base of a new glass and steel condo tower. Victoria is a human scaled city. Victoria is a warm Boston and Vancouver is a cold Miami.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Plumber73 said:


> ^^Condos are usually low key though. You see hundreds of the same sort of low key buildings in Sao Paulo and countless other Chinese cities. But yea, I'm not a fan of monotony either.


There's a lot of really nice buildings in Vancouver but because they are so numerous and close together, the *effect* is bland. I think that's more of an urban planning problem than a "bland architecture" one.


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

desertpunk said:


> There's a lot of really nice buildings in Vancouver *but because they are so numerous and close together, the effect is bland*. I think that's more of an urban planning problem than a "bland architecture" one.


Well, I think the designers could certainly have made more of an effort putting a bit more texture in from the beginning to avoid the monotonous seafoam green towers. Probably really tough though, when almost the entire surface is glass covered. I think most glass is naturally greenish. 

Having "numerous and close together" buildings is nothing new..., but I don't believe Vancouver's towers are really that close together. I believe the urban planning in Vancouver actually calls for, and has made sure there is a certain amount of space between the towers to allow for views and sunlight. When you are standing amongst the buildings, you certainly don't feel like they are overly crammed together. But I guess you can't see that from afar.


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

ssiguy2 said:


> Vancouver is a very like able city it's just not a very personal one. The glass and steel make for an uninteresting urban vitality.
> Victoria is the complete opposite. They have lots of old historic building they wish to maintain whereas Vancouver only sees history as something for a good base of a new glass and steel condo tower. Victoria is a human scaled city. Victoria is a warm Boston and Vancouver is a cold Miami.


You are quite wrong. Vancouver has many beautiful historic buildings, it's just that they are located in the poverish Downtown Eastside and are unnoticed because of that. In time, when that neighbourhood improves, it'll become a lot like the streets of Victoria.

Virtually all of the what you call "cold glass and steel" buildings were built in areas that were still in industrial sites and railyards in the 1980's. It's a bit difficult to build history from that.



With regards to the separation of space between Vancouver's towers, I believe the rule is that a minimum 80-feet separation is needed.


----------



## spongeg (May 1, 2006)

monkeyronin said:


> The wealthiest city in Canada would either be Westmount (suburb of Montreal) or Oakville (suburb of Toronto), Westmount having the highest average income for individuals over the age of 15 at $39,321, and Oakville having the highest average household income at $92,394. Vancouver's for comparison is $23,682/$47,299.
> 
> Now, as far as actual cities/metros go, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Kitchener, Quebec City, and Toronto are all wealthier too (in that order).
> 
> http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang=E


West Vancouver is one of the richest too

from wiki


> West Vancouver is often referred to as one of the wealthiest municipalities in Canada, though two Ontario municipalities, primarily Forest Hill In Toronto as well as Westmount in Quebec are often considered contenders for the same title. 40% of the male population and 18% of the female population of West Vancouver earned over $60,000 in 2000. Average total incomes were $86,253 for males and $37,133 for females, almost double the provincial average. Over 50% of the population has a total family income of at least $90,000.[6]


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Plumber73 said:


> Well, I think the designers could certainly have made more of an effort putting a bit more texture in from the beginning to avoid the monotonous seafoam green towers. Probably really tough though, when almost the entire surface is glass covered. I think most glass is naturally greenish.
> 
> Having "numerous and close together" buildings is nothing new..., but I don't believe Vancouver's towers are really that close together. I believe the urban planning in Vancouver actually calls for, and has made sure there is a certain amount of space between the towers to allow for views and sunlight. When you are standing amongst the buildings, you certainly don't feel like they are overly crammed together. But I guess you can't see that from afar.


I can't fault developers for choosing materials and designs that maximize those fabulous views and exposures. It's funny to look at interior shots of some of the supertall condos in Dubai and after the build-out, the windows are virtual slits! The closeness of those condos in Vancouver is a relative thing: as long as buyers of luxe units still have decent water and mountain views their spacing won't be a huge issue. But planners could have opened up view corridors within the city to preserve perspectives and open up space and light. Also, the height limits needed to get busted a long time ago. Even Downtown Boston which is just a mile across the harbor from a major airport had plans for a supertall. Variegated heights, opened up view corridors and _some_ encouragement of unique designs could have made Vancouver a North American Singapore.


----------



## mazhulka (Jul 2, 2010)

Hi)
i've never been to Vancouver but i know that this town is not only beautiful, is consider to have very clean air , i want to live in such a town...but how about peple here, i mean mentality?


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

mazhulka said:


> Hi)
> i've never been to Vancouver but i know that this town is not only beautiful, is consider to have very clean air , i want to live in such a town...but how about peple here, i mean mentality?


Depends on who you talk to, and what you're used to. Where are you from, if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## dj4life (Oct 22, 2009)

The best city in the World that is


----------



## dj4life (Oct 22, 2009)

Plumber73 said:


> Depends on who you talk to, and what you're used to. Where are you from, if you don't mind me asking?


Lithuania, i suppose. "Mažulka" sounds lithuanian. :lol:


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

dj4life said:


> Lithuania, i suppose. "Mažulka" sounds lithuanian. :lol:


Cool. To answer your question about mentality of the people, it is not so simple. Honestly, most people who either live here or have visited will say we're friendly. Then there's the other end, where some people who've had a bad experience will often make blanket statements, like we're arrogant or unfriendly. People are people... You'll meet some pretty bad apples in all places. I'd say we probably aren't as outgoing or eager to engage in conversation with strangers compared with some places, but this is hardly anything to be concerned with.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> What is Vancouver? Vancouver is the wealthiest city per capita in Canada


Vancouver is the "wealthiest" city in Canada, surprising but it's true. The reason for that, however, is people live in a lot of unlikeable housing and areas that would buy you a mansion elsewhere. When they took that stat they went by "average", not median. It is the medians that paint a true picture of the socio-economic level of a city and Vancouver is at the bottom of almost every list in the country. 
Vancouver has a median income of almost exactly the national average. It has the lowest rate of home ownership in the country and for those under 40 the rate is under 40%. It has the highest rate of general poverty and a child poverty rate 40% higher than the national average. It has the largest gap between the rich and the poor and despite it's high costs BC has the lowest minimum wage in the country. By the end of this year, as other provinces have more rises of the minimum wage coming in 2010, it's minimum wage will be a staggering 25% BELOW the national average. The gap between BC and the rest of the provinces is huge. After BC, ultra low tax Alberta is $8.80. 
NS & NFLD are at $10 where you can quite literally buy a house for $20,000. 
Vancouverites are the most heavily indebted as well and has the lowest income postal code area in the country. It's one area, the Downtown Eastside, even took Olympic organizers and and TV networks by surprise and many did special programs on Vancouver's ills. That area of 8,000 has 2500 drug addicts and the highest rate of HIV and hypitits C in the western world. 
Vancouver, and BC for that matter, is Canada's have/have not city.


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

ssiguy2 said:


> Vancouver is the "wealthiest" city in Canada, surprising but it's true. The reason for that, however, is people live in a lot of unlikeable housing and areas that would buy you a mansion elsewhere. When they took that stat they went by "average", not median. It is the medians that paint a true picture of the socio-economic level of a city and Vancouver is at the bottom of almost every list in the country.
> Vancouver has a median income of almost exactly the national average. It has the lowest rate of home ownership in the country and for those under 40 the rate is under 40%. It has the highest rate of general poverty and a child poverty rate 40% higher than the national average. It has the largest gap between the rich and the poor and despite it's high costs BC has the lowest minimum wage in the country. By the end of this year, as other provinces have more rises of the minimum wage coming in 2010, it's minimum wage will be a staggering 25% BELOW the national average. The gap between BC and the rest of the provinces is huge. After BC, ultra low tax Alberta is $8.80.
> NS & NFLD are at $10 where you can quite literally buy a house for $20,000.
> Vancouverites are the most heavily indebted as well and has the lowest income postal code area in the country. It's one area, the Downtown Eastside, even took Olympic organizers and and TV networks by surprise and many did special programs on Vancouver's ills. That area of 8,000 has 2500 drug addicts and the highest rate of HIV and hypitits C in the western world.
> Vancouver, and BC for that matter, is Canada's have/have not city.


This is why I find it hard to believe those "livability" lists - you hardly get the whole picture. Yeah I would like to visit Vancouver sure, but fucked if I'd want to live there (I'd have to live out of a dog kettle as everything else would be too unaffordable).


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

ssiguy2 said:


> Vancouver is the "wealthiest" city in Canada, surprising but it's true. The reason for that, however, is people live in a lot of unlikeable housing and areas that would buy you a mansion elsewhere. When they took that stat they went by "average", not median. It is the medians that paint a true picture of the socio-economic level of a city and Vancouver is at the bottom of almost every list in the country.
> Vancouver has a median income of almost exactly the national average. It has the lowest rate of home ownership in the country and for those under 40 the rate is under 40%. It has the highest rate of general poverty and a child poverty rate 40% higher than the national average. It has the largest gap between the rich and the poor and despite it's high costs BC has the lowest minimum wage in the country. By the end of this year, as other provinces have more rises of the minimum wage coming in 2010, it's minimum wage will be a staggering 25% BELOW the national average. The gap between BC and the rest of the provinces is huge. After BC, ultra low tax Alberta is $8.80.
> NS & NFLD are at $10 where you can quite literally buy a house for $20,000.
> Vancouverites are the most heavily indebted as well and has the lowest income postal code area in the country. It's one area, the Downtown Eastside, even took Olympic organizers and and TV networks by surprise and many did special programs on Vancouver's ills. That area of 8,000 has 2500 drug addicts and the highest rate of HIV and hypitits C in the western world.
> Vancouver, and BC for that matter, is Canada's have/have not city.


Wow...it's almost as if you got all of this from the BC NDP party's website. 

Regardless, you never had anything good to say about your own homeland.

It's beyond me why the minimum wage should be raised given the current worldwide economic situation. If anything, it'll only hurt small businesses. 

There's a reason why Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have low real estate prices. No offense to those living there, but what exactly is there in these two provinces that make it an attractive place to live?

The Downtown Eastside received some world attention during the Olympics, but not much - certainly contrary to what anti-Games activists would have you believe. Basically, the world media came to Vancouver and realized that it wasn't as bad as locals/activists/local media had made it out to be (there are worst neighbourhoods in the countries the media came from) and that the local and provincial governments were doing much more about poverty than what their own governments back at home would do.

In addition, a good majority of those homeless in the Downtown Eastside aren't locals. They are from all across Canada. They migrate to Vancouver because it's the nation's mildest city with its mild winters - they escape the frigid winters the rest of Canada experiences. In addition, this is an ultra liberal left-leaning city....its lax policies on drugs and the fact that we offer significant social programs also attracts homeless to the city from all parts of Canada. Vancouver's homeless problem is not just its own, it's all of Canada's.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Something similar to Seattle


----------



## Penguino (Sep 22, 2007)

mr.x said:


> Wow...it's almost as if you got all of this from the BC NDP party's website.
> 
> Regardless, you never had anything good to say about your own homeland.
> 
> ...


u asked for ideas and opinion on vancouver but only want to hear good stuff?
i lived in vancouver for three years and i found it lonly and boring. pretty setting but not very friendly and too much rain.


----------



## boschb (Jul 8, 2010)

ive lived in vancouver all my life and i love it
when you go around these days it more like a nice chiniese city, sure there is a bit of a gap between the rich and the poor and it is more than half asian, its dence so it has a different vibe then most north american cities so its hard to say if its an amazing city, but if it fits your taste then you can love it but if not then watever


----------



## mr.x (Jul 30, 2004)

Penguino said:


> u asked for ideas and opinion on vancouver but only want to hear good stuff?
> i lived in vancouver for three years and i found it lonly and boring. pretty setting but not very friendly and too much rain.


I too find this city, my city, boring...but that doesn't mean you spout things that aren't true or completely out of context. And it's not like this is the first time he has done this, he's done it in many other topics too.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

AS I have said before Vancouver is a great outdoorsy city. It's this idea that it is Canada's "wealthiest" city which is misleading in the extreme. By any socio/economic comparison it is constantly at or near the bottom of any city in the country. 
Also let me clarify something................I was a welfare worker for the province during the 90s. It is quite true that people would come to Vancouver for the summer, lay on the beach and collect welfare. We often referred to English Bay as French Bay. In the winters many would come out to escape the cold but that is no longer the case. Basic welfare in BC is very hard to get these days and the migration to Vancouver for the poor and homeless has come to a screatching halt. It a convient excuse for Victoria and City Hall but has absolutely no bearing in this day and age.


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

mr.x said:


> There's a reason why Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have low real estate prices. No offense to those living there, but what exactly is there in these two provinces that make it an attractive place to live?


Well I'm certainly offended. There are just as many things that make NS livable as BC, and we don't have to put ourselves in poverty to do it. We have a milder than average climate, beautiful coastal scenery, an abundance of historic and cultural attractions, great heritage architecture, and in the urban areas such as Hfx, a very healthy and stable economy. Of course, the $20,000 house bit would only be in the very rural areas where the economy isn't that great, but urban areas like Hfx have prices similar to centers across the country. I suggest you take the time and do some research before making such pronouncements. Or even better, come for a visit.


----------



## Gerrad (Dec 17, 2006)

Vancouver = unicorns, rainbows, gumdrops and Lol cats.


----------



## boschb (Jul 8, 2010)

Nouvellecosse said:


> Well I'm certainly offended. There are just as many things that make NS livable as BC, and we don't have to put ourselves in poverty to do it. We have a milder than average climate, beautiful coastal scenery, an abundance of historic and cultural attractions, great heritage architecture, and in the urban areas such as Hfx, a very healthy and stable economy. Of course, the $20,000 house bit would only be in the very rural areas where the economy isn't that great, but urban areas like Hfx have prices similar to centers across the country. I suggest you take the time and do some research before making such pronouncements. Or even better, come for a visit.


dude the maritimes is nothing like bc though, no rich people cause there isnt many opportunities to make money, nothing wrong with the people but the population is decreasing cause it isnt "that of a great place to live," though i wish the population would grow over there


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

isaidso said:


> My thoughts on Vancouver? Vancouver always struck me as a mini Sydney, Australia. It doesn't have the size, architectural gems, energy, or global status of Sydney, but it could certainly develop in the same direction as Sydney has. It has sophistication, natural beauty, strong Pacific ties, and that same demeanour/image. Vancouver is still at the large provincial city stage on its way to becoming a global city.
> 
> I suspect that a Vancouver at 4.6 million would look and feel very much like Sydney does today.


I don't quite get this Sydney affiliation. I mean, Sydney is a fair bit older and it shows compared to Vancouver's "youthful" appearance. Vancouver is meticulously planned while Sydney is a bit of a chaotic mish-mash. Also Vancouver is extremely clean while Sydney is well....rather dirty and grimy to put it simply.

No doubt both cities sit on some of the most beautiful natural settings in the world, but other than that, they're, in my view, two very different cities.


----------



## IrishMan2010 (Aug 16, 2010)

I was in Vancouver for a few days at the end of July and I have to say I loved it. The mountains and the water is a big factor, but also I thought there was a really good buzz off it. I was there on the Friday night and downtown area was full of life, the restaurants were packed and the streets were buzzing. Also the weather is perfect there around that time of year. Stanley park was beautiful it is kept nice and clean. Its a really laid back city(similar to Sydney) and the suburbs are very nice(the ones that I saw).


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

isaidso said:


> I always liked BC's old slogan: 'SuperNatural, British Columbia'. It sort of said it all, was unique, and memorable all at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought that was a great ad campaign too.  As for Vancouver at 4.6 million, where would they all fit? The city would look more like Hong Kong than Sydney!


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

mhays said:


> My Seattle perspective is that Vancouverites and Victorians (including some of my relatives and friends there) consider Vancouver superior to Seattle in everything except jobs and maybe the presence of a few civic toys like MLB (I agree with them on some points). They're shocked when any outsider disagrees, or knows more about Seattle than Vancouver, etc.
> 
> The cruise ship industry is a big deal for both cities. Vancouverites (in news sites for example) have been mystified as a lot of their ships have relocated to Seattle, making presumptuous statements like "the tourists prefer Vancouver". This has been a serious misestimation by Vancouver...in the US especially, Vancouver's profile doesn't seem to be as large as they think, and Seattle's is probably larger than they think. As far as I can tell, Vancouver is better known in current/former Commonwealth countries, but it's probably fairly equal in many other countries, and in the US Seattle obviously is much better know. Due to a variety of issues such as air connections, and regardless of where the truth is in terms of image, Seattle now has probably 60% of the Alaska cruise market.


Both are really great cities, but Vancouver's natural setting is a few cuts above Seattle & the public transit system is better. 

On the other hand, when it comes to the local economies, Seattle trumps Vancouver. 

Vancouver's economy, such as it is, seems to depend heavily on tourism, "trade", construction, development, special events, & most of all, a steady stream of immigrants & newcomers. 

I hear Vancouver's port still has a large employment base. But there's nothing like a Boeing or Microsoft that provides large-scale employment. 

Who knows, maybe Vancouver's the future of all rich, pretty, world cities?


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

True, when a city is a lifestyle magnet it'll always have something to keep things moving in the right direction....to a point. Phoenix and Las Vegas are lifestyle magnets (oddly enough) that have relied on the same economic drivers minus shipping. The difference is that they had higher growth rates, and much cheaper/easier supply of residential and commercial space. Vancouver, similar to Seattle and Portland, can avoid the worst of the boom/bust cycle because it's hard for developers to overdevelop as much. 

A strong Canadian dollar vs. other currencies would be an example of something that could destroy the second home market, if the rise was fairly major. I'm guessing that any fluctuations are already watched closely by RE people...


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Being in Vancouver once , I can say that I wasn't impressed that a lot by it...sure, it is very compact for a North American city, and has quite a stunning scenery, but still it seems rather to be without character...by this I mean without any buildings, streets, or parks which set it apart from other cities in North America...I personally prefer Seattle, seems to be less self-centered than Vancouver IMO , and also has quite spectacular Natural scenery...but generally I'd say that Vancouver is over-hyped, just my opinion.


----------



## Hed_Kandi (Jan 23, 2006)

I have resided in Vancouver for nearly 4 years. In that time I have arrived at a very certain conclusion, and it is this...

The less that one has traveled, the fewer countries that one has visited is equally proportionate to the positive perception that one will have of Vancouver.

Seek out the world and experience it's greatest offerings, one quickly realizes that Vancouver is cold as the glass towers which define it.


----------



## CanadianSkyScraper (Sep 5, 2008)

the grass is always greener on the other side :|


----------



## spongeg (May 1, 2006)

its a small isolated city - its not bad for what it is


----------



## yusef (May 20, 2006)

Hed_Kandi said:


> I have resided in Vancouver for nearly 4 years. In that time I have arrived at a very certain conclusion, and it is this...
> 
> The less that one has traveled, the fewer countries that one has visited is equally proportionate to the positive perception that one will have of Vancouver.
> 
> Seek out the world and experience it's greatest offerings, one quickly realizes that Vancouver is cold as the glass towers which define it.



I live in Vancouver, and I agree with you, this city is boring, the people are ultra reserved, cold, and unfriendly for the most part in the city, and the burbs are filled with ******* types. The city is VERY lacking in culture, and feels more like a town than a city.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Vancouver has a lot going for it, but as far as attaining all the trappings of a big city, Vancouver is still a work in progress. Give it another 25-30 years.


----------



## Gerrad (Dec 17, 2006)

I was briefly planning to move there a couple of years back and a friend who lives there and loves it gave me the lowdown.

Two things that stuck out were: if you want cultural things to do you really need to go out and find them, they're there but require your motivation and effort for participation. The other was, people don't go out after work for drinks like they do in say Toronto, or London (other places where she had lived).

Another friend (from HK) thinks Vancouver has the best shopping in Canada IF you're looking for luxury labels.


----------



## boschb (Jul 8, 2010)

yusef said:


> I live in Vancouver, and I agree with you, this city is boring, the people are ultra reserved, cold, and unfriendly for the most part in the city, and the burbs are filled with ******* types. The city is VERY lacking in culture, and feels more like a town than a city.


how is this city boring? lol all you people do is get drunk and high on the weekends? get out and do something exciting, so many extraordinary things to do.
Ultra reseverd? cold? wtf? rednenecks?!! ive never even seen a ******* in vancouver, all i see are a bunch of stoners whites, east indians, and Chinese.
well i guess ive never lived anywhere else, but those kinda statments really get on my nerves, what is so exciting in all these other cities that make them less boring?? thats my question


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

I have never found Vancouverites rude but they are, as a rule, very aloof. 
Polite but very hard to make friends. 
Unlike what it use to be this is a very monetary oriented city. 
The gap between the rich and the poor is obscene and never the twain shall meet. 
Half the populace would get a nose bleed if it went east of Main. 
Perhaps the cost of housing and certainly, in part, due to the massive influx of Hong Kongers, money rules. 
The Hong Kong mentality of priority 1, 2, and 3 of money being king has changed the underlying feel of the city. Once being a relaxed and easy going city has become one of wealth accumulation and disregard of the poverty in the city which is the highest in the nation. 
In terms of economics Vancouver is definatly Canada's most Americanized city. The social and economic stratifaction level would put any Latin American country to shame. 
It is Canada's truly sink or swim city where the middle class is shrinking and the poor irrelevant. 
Vancouver is a pretty postcard but like all postcards it's outward shine doesn't conceal the fact that it has no depth.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

ssiguy2 said:


> In terms of economics Vancouver is definatly Canada's most Americanized city. *The social and economic stratifaction level would put any Latin American country to shame.*


Are you sure you want to go with that statement? And btw, capitalism isn't an American concept.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Yer right, capitalism is not an American invention. I was referring to the American system where capitalism has left, when compared to other industrialized countries, has a relatively small middle class due to it's wide gap between the rich and the poor and how it resulted in a large social, economic, and political stratification. In that regard BC far and away leads the nation.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

I think people might get too negative an impression of Vancouver from this thread.... it may have its faults, but it also has a lot of positives and is in one of the most beautiful natural settings in the world. Maybe people are being a little too hard on it!  I have lots of family there who absolutely love life there and wouldn't dream of moving.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

I suppose people are being very critical of Vancouver because it's at an 'awkward' stage in its development. The 2010 Olympics, it's status as western Canada's largest city and gateway to Asia are all raising the city's profile. With that elevated visibility comes more scrutiny. 

The reality is that most other cities with the profile of Vancouver are a lot larger, but people don't take that into consideration. Let's not forget that Vancouver has a metropolitan population on par with Portland, Sacramento, or Brisbane.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Count me as a huge fan, as I'm sure I've said already. It's nearly ideal in many ways. 

The newness of much of it seems to be a factor in some of the negatives. I love most of what's gotten built, and it'll get better with age. One part I don't love is that building podiums tend to be short, which detracts from the feeling of density.


----------



## Kensingtonian (Nov 8, 2008)

ssiguy2 said:


> I have never found Vancouverites rude but they are, as a rule, very aloof.
> Polite but very hard to make friends.
> .


It can't be as bad as Ottawa - good lord, people here are unfriendly!

Personally, Vancouver is the only other city in Canada I could live in after Toronto. (I'd live in Montreal, but I'd never get a job since I don't speak French well enough)

The one thing I miss in Vancouver is the urban vibe you get in cities that are a bit older. That's why I like San Francisco - you get that West Coast vibe, but it still feels like a city!


----------

