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.
Seattle Washington and Vancouver British Columbia are two major cities located in the Pacific Northwest, one in the United States and one in Canada. Seattle is 4 mil and change in it's metropolitan area, Vancouver is 2 mil and change if I am correct.
I suspect that Vancouver is less populous mostly because it's in Canada and not in the US. The US is significantly more populous as a whole, and with the US having free trade between all other 50 states (the US as a nation is an economic powerhouse) makes putting business significantly easier. Despite all of this, and considering that Canada is significantly less populous, Vancouver is only half of Seattle's size, give or take.
Just wanted to open a discussion and see what people think and why. Which city would have stronger cultural influence? Which city would have more people? Etc.
On the contrary, would Vancouver be as popular if it wasn't in Canada? It's Canada's warmest major city with the mildest winters. Vancouver is Canada's LA. But that's not the case if it were part of the US. Secondly, Vancouver has a huge amount of Hong Kong expats due to the British Hong Kong transfer and Canada being a Commonwealth country. Vancouver benefits greatly because it's in Canada.
They would be collectively less than they are today IMO, where combined they number some 7-8 million people as a metropolitan node. A CSA of both if their areas were both US I think wouldn’t be as large or significant as these two cities separately.
Really hard to say which would be “bigger” since they developed independently of each other and their reason for being is because of their different national statuses. If the 49th parallel were moved further north then I suspect there will just be a Vancouver a bit further north correspondingly as immigration is easier to Canada and so a “Vancouver”, a Canadian west coast port if you will, would still exist. Maybe it would be Victoria if they kept it, and it would support some 3 million people while the now US Vancouver (not to be confused with Vancouver WA near Oregon) would be an outpost like Bellingham.
If there was no Canada at all and all American territory then I suspect the Vancouver harbor is easier to navigate than the Seattle one just based on geography and might be the better place to set up a large PNW port? Just speculation there. Hard to say in the 1800s which ones the settlers would choose to develop. Interesting thought experiment though, if all of Northern America was one massively powerful and influential country which cities would have developed geographically.
On the contrary, would Vancouver be as popular if it wasn't in Canada? It's Canada's warmest major city with the mildest winters. Vancouver is Canada's LA. But that's not the case if it were part of the US. Secondly, Vancouver has a huge amount of Hong Kong expats due to the British Hong Kong transfer and Canada being a Commonwealth country. Vancouver benefits greatly because it's in Canada.
So basically that if both areas were combined, Seattle would be bigger regardless, because it is further south?
Quote:
Originally Posted by svelten
If there was no Canada at all and all American territory then I suspect the Vancouver harbor is easier to navigate than the Seattle one just based on geography and might be the better place to set up a large PNW port? Just speculation there. Hard to say in the 1800s which ones the settlers would choose to develop. Interesting thought experiment though, if all of Northern America was one massively powerful and influential country which cities would have developed geographically.
This is basically the thought experiment I was hoping to open. As it is right now with the areas separated, both countries benefit from having a port in this region. But when they are the same...
I was curious on what people had to say. I personally don't have any opinions. I suspected Vancouver as it appears to have easier access to the Pacific but also because of that waters may be rougher and not ideal for a port set up. I don't know as much about the region as others.
Vancouver is far more rainy (being right against mountains) and is harder to connect eastward by rail, so maybe Seattle. Vancouver is a beautiful spot, but not easy.
Seattle is farther from Asia by air, but it looks slightly closer by freight ship, since Vancouver is a long trip back north from the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
But I suspect there's a finite number of people who prefer the Portland/Seattle/Vancouver climate. If Canadians weren't allowed to live there automatically and Americans now had three to choose from, would they be a little smaller collectively?
A lot of it's luck. Seattle lucked into Bill Boeing, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos choosing it when they all lived elsewhere and had other options.
Greater Vancouver's population is 2.581 million
Greater Seattle is 4.01 million
So a 1.42 million difference.
If the Vancouver area was always part of the US then I doubt either city would have developed in the same way. It's difficult to say, would the Seattle area grow more, or the Vancouver area? Both have protected ports, neither is on the open Pacific, so the waters are not rougher than each other.
The same if Seattle was always part of Canada.
If Vancouver was always part of the US and it was the one to grow more, it would look very different than it does today. For instance, no Stanley Park. The reason that this area wasn't developed and later made a park, was because it was owned by the Federal Government and made a military reserve in 1859, due to fears of a US invasion. So naturally if Vancouver was part of the US, this wouldn't have happened and would probably be office towers today. Also, since the seawall started in Stanley Park, the look of Vancouver today would most likely be missing one of it's most iconic features, 29K of seawall surrounding the city. A ripple effect on town planning.
So many other things that create and develop cities are dependant on which country they are in. IMO, if Vancouver was always part of the US, it would look more like Seattle does today, and vice versa.
The answer is probably that simple and it really is a toss up of which one would be bigger.
Greater Vancouver's population is 2.581 million
Greater Seattle is 4.01 million
So a 1.42 million difference.
If the Vancouver area was always part of the US then I doubt either city would have developed in the same way. It's difficult to say, would the Seattle area grow more, or the Vancouver area? Both have protected ports, neither is on the open Pacific, so the waters are not rougher than each other.
The same if Seattle was always part of Canada.
If Vancouver was always part of the US and it was the one to grow more, it would look very different than it does today. For instance, no Stanley Park. The reason that this area wasn't developed and later made a park, was because it was owned by the Federal Government and made a military reserve in 1859, due to fears of a US invasion. So naturally if Vancouver was part of the US, this wouldn't have happened and would probably be office towers today. Also, since the seawall started in Stanley Park, the look of Vancouver today would most likely be missing one of it's most iconic features, 29K of seawall surrounding the city. A ripple effect on town planning.
So many other things that create and develop cities are dependant on which country they are in. IMO, if Vancouver was always part of the US, it would look more like Seattle does today, and vice versa.
The answer is probably that simple and it really is a toss up of which one would be bigger.
If Canada had the Puget Sound, but the US still existed (which would allow the benefit of Stanley Park for example), do you believe Vancouver would still be Canada's favored West Coast port or would Seattle be favored?
Or what if it's the reverse, and the US had the Vancouver area while Canada still existed?
I would like to say they would become twin cities like Minneapolis-St. Paul and Dallas-Fort Worth but they're too far apart so I'm gonna say they'll both be major cities with Seattle being bigger of course.
Urban/Density power- Vancouver
Economic power- Seattle
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 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.
