U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Can Vancouver hold it's own against SF, Philly, Boston and Montreal for urbanity?
Yes 21 42.86%
Sort of - mixed opinions - not sure 8 16.33%
No 20 40.82%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 07-05-2013, 08:00 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: New York / Long Island, NY
45,422 posts, read 37,711,397 times
Reputation: 14589

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticman View Post
^^ DevanXL, That graph is showing the weighted density of the selected metro areas. The data used is from the 2000 census for the American metros and the 2006 census for the Canadian metros, so there would be some changes in the rankings when more current data is used. For example, I believe Toronto has moved up in the rankings.
The numbers are weighted density, technically of urban areas not metro areas (slightly different definition), weighted by population by census tract. The graphs are not weighted, they count the number of people living in census tracts at different densities.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2013, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,174 posts, read 12,218,117 times
Reputation: 4895
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Vancouver would rank last out of all those cities. Everybody knows it. If not, please tell me which one Vancouver is better than hmm?
As I stated before, it can hold its own. If you've been to all 5 you would see, at least imo. Everybody? Whatever.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 08:45 PM
 
Location: Atlanta and St Simons Island, GA
19,328 posts, read 31,229,132 times
Reputation: 11130
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1 View Post
As I stated before, it can hold its own. If you've been to all 5 you would see, at least imo. Everybody? Whatever.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, but unlike some here I've actually been there. If you want to fake it, at least google some pics to bluff your way through the argument.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 09:19 PM
 
Location: Both coasts
1,564 posts, read 3,984,359 times
Reputation: 1396
i am familiar with Vancouver and though it's not an intense hustle-bustle feeling you get in some US cities...it is surprisingly congested for its size and they have very bad traffic jams. It's bridges, narrow streets, no real freeways..if you take the light rail during rush hour- you can be packed like sardines.

It's not as fast-paced or as buzzy a city as those listed in the op but it is certainly dense and holds its own- maybe just a notch below. It does feel bigger than a 2.5 metro though
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 09:37 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: New York / Long Island, NY
45,422 posts, read 37,711,397 times
Reputation: 14589
Quote:
Originally Posted by f1000 View Post
i am familiar with Vancouver and though it's not an intense hustle-bustle feeling you get in some US cities...it is surprisingly congested for its size and they have very bad traffic jams. It's bridges, narrow streets, no real freeways..if you take the light rail during rush hour- you can be packed like sardines.
From what I remember seeing, traffic flow was better than Boston, even though Boston has freeways into downtown and Vancouver doesn't. But Vancouver's light rail feels much better used than Seattle and Portland's, by crowdedness it was more similar Boston.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2013, 01:17 AM
 
Location: Miami-Jax
5,291 posts, read 5,831,233 times
Reputation: 2706
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Also remember, Vancouver only has 2... count 'em... 2 buildings over 500 feet tall. From a frame of reference from like Chicago, as I'm sure you are familiar with their skyline has well over 100 of them. Don't let their pictures fool you, those buildings aren't that tall. You will definitely not get any "imposing" feel walking around.
LOL, I typed out a thorough response about how you are way over-valuing skyscrapers, especially supertalls. But I've changed my mind...although you put too much weight in skyscrapers I admit that your point is still valid to a degree.

Interestingly though, in doing some quick research to support my view that skyscrapers add little to the vibrancy and density of urban areas, I opened two google search results (searched "skyscrapers negative effect on walkability" or something like that) and both corresponding articles used Vancouver as a shining positive example, although one discussed ecology and not solely vibrancy.

I can't copy and paste this, but if you read the two pages on this link you'll get the entire gist of the argument, plus the Vancouver reference.
Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time - Jeff Speck - Google Books

This next link focuses on ecological benefits of skyscrapers (or lack thereof) but part of the ecological focus is on walkability and vibrancy on the street level.

Quote:
Two, research shows that the benefits of density are not linear, but taper off as density increases. In other words, there is an optimum density, above which the negative effects of density start to increase over the positive ones. That "sweet spot" seems to be in the neighborhood of about 50 people per acre. And many cities around the world achieve this density without tall buildings, and while creating a very appealing, livable environment (e.g., Paris and London, as well as the aforementioned parts of New York, Vancouver et al.).
More low-down on tall buildings | Better! Cities & Towns Online
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2013, 06:42 AM
 
Location: Atlanta and St Simons Island, GA
19,328 posts, read 31,229,132 times
Reputation: 11130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold As War View Post
Do you have any links or resources to show this is true?

I'm having trouble believing it.....
It was actually a local tourguide that quoted that along with the supporting stats. Having stayed in the West End, I found that believeable. The only lowrise development I saw there were some townhouses on the waterfront. Remember, I'm comparing particular districts within cities, not the cities themselves.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2013, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
8,702 posts, read 10,867,422 times
Reputation: 3514
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1 View Post
DC has 1, so what. Comparing the cities mentioned bldgs 300' and above, San Francisco has 80+, Vanvouver 70+, Montreal, Boston and Philadelphia are all in the low 50s. Still Vancouver can easily hold its own in urbanity, built up enviornment, walkability, shopping, amenities and people in the streets. San Francisco is the most densly packed and urban of them all imo.

Tallest Buildings:

1. Philadelphia: Comcast Center- 975 ft
2. San Francisco: TransAmerica Pyramid- 853 ft
3. Boston: Hancock Place- 790 ft
4. Montreal: Le 1250 Boulevard Rene-Levesque- 743 ft
5. Vancouver: Living Shangri-La- 659 ft

Tallest Five:
1. Philadelphia:
Comcast Center- 975 ft
One Liberty Place- 945 ft
Two Liberty Place- 848 ft
BNY Mellon Center- 792 ft
Three Logan Square- 739 ft

2. San Francisco:
TransAmerica Pyramid- 853 ft
555 California Street- 779 ft
345 California Center- 695 ft
Millennium Tower- 645 ft
One Rincon Hill- 605 ft

3. Boston:
Hancock Place- 790 ft
Prudential Tower- 750 ft
Federal Reserve Bank Building- 614 ft
One Boston Place- 601 ft
One International Place- 600 ft

4. Montreal:
Le 1250 Boulevard Rene-Levesque- 743 ft
Le 1000 de la Gauchetiere- 673 ft
Tour de la Bourse- 623 ft
1 Place Ville-Marie- 617 ft
La Tour CIBC- 590 ft

5. Vancouver:
Living Shangri-La- 659 ft
The Private Residences- 517 ft
One Wall Centre- 491 ft
Shaw Tower- 489 ft
Harbour Centre- 481 ft


Buildings Taller than 500 ft
1. San Francisco- 18
2. Boston- 16
3. Philadelphia- 10
4. Montreal- 6
5. Vancouver- 2


Buildings Taller than 300 ft
1. San Francisco- 94
2. Vancouver- 82
3. Philadelphia- 68
4. Boston- 55
5. Montreal- 54

Your numbers are mostly right, but slightly off. I used Emporis for all sources.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2013, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
8,702 posts, read 10,867,422 times
Reputation: 3514
I don't know what other cities have under construction. But for Philadelphia, there are four buildings over 300 feet under construction.

2116 Chestnut- almost complete- 380 ft
http://buildingphilly.com/wp-content...507-131041.jpg

Morgan Hall- almost complete- 312 ft
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...14877240_n.jpg

With those two buildings, Philadelphia reaches 70 buildings taller than 300 ft.

Then there is:

The Grove- steel is just rising- will be over 400 ft
http://hiddencityphila.org/wp-conten..._riverview.jpg

3601 Market- site prep- 309 ft
http://www.gundpartnership.com/sites...1-market_0.jpg

...and there are a bunch proposed... at least 20.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2013, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
8,702 posts, read 10,867,422 times
Reputation: 3514
Philadelphia aerial

Aerial Photos of Philadelphia for the Center City District | Imagic Digital Blog
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top