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.
well good, they will have to put prices down and more people will be able to live in downtown, not just rich people.
No, because they were just bought by rich foreign(mostly Chinese) investors. Even when the inevitable real estate bust occurs in Vancouver--the price on those high end downtown condos won't drop far enough that some middle class family is suddenly going to want to pay $750,000 for a 900 square foot condo. Despite the claims of urban planners, building dense towers with luxury condos and expensive smaller studios does little to bring down the home prices for middle-class families(who actually are looking for a home with some space). Vancouver just went along the route of Miami and Panama City, Panama in building a gleaming center of shiney high rise condos that were basically sold mostly to wealthy out of country real estate speculators and second home buyers.
The average cost of a home in Vancouver is higher than Seattle and much higher than Portland--yet Seattle and Portland have far lower vacancy rates for real estate. And Vancouver has among the highest home prices in Canada-yet the median income is over $20,000 lower than much-maligned Edmonton--which is booming due to oil production in Alberta.
My only real knock on Vancouver, other than the idiotic drivers, are the endless ugly condos. Way too many. Of course the views from them are spectacular. But they are ugly as a mud fence.
I've been to Seattle and Portland many times but have never made it to Vancouver BC. It imagine Vancouver tends to have a more urban feel since it's quite dence. I know from info I've read it has more of an international appeal than the Northwest US cities. I guess Vancouver is the "Los Angeles" of Canada which explains the large number of foreign airlines serving it's airport. It's the only western point of entry for foreign visitors.
Seattle reminds me of a smaller San Francisco. Portland looks relatively dence on the I-84 corridor between I-205 and the I-5.
I'm from Vancouver, and I am pleased with the way our urban planners are handling development. Downtown is developing a real, big-city pulse, the waterfront is pedestrian-accessible, the transportation system is good and getting better all the time, and there is a general "pleasantness" about the city.
However, when it comes to serious culture (opera, symphony...) Seattle beats Vancouver hands-down. And Seattle has a REAL economy. Sometimes Vancouver feels like an oversized resort city. What Vancouver has in beauty and charm, Seattle makes up for in culture and economic dynamism.
Not having been to Portland for a while now, I cannot comment on it directly, but only from pictures and discussion.
Being more familiar with Seattle and Vancouver (where I'm from, living elsewhere) I would agree with an above remark that Vancouver is over-rated. Yet the city has a subtle "dynamism" and pulse all its own, even if Seattle is more overtly Big City in height and scale.
I would rank the cities, in a general matter as follows:
Vancouver: best in urban planning and transit infrastructure. Sleekest in appearance, and most livable central city.
Seattle is the Big Kid, with a great music scene in all categories, the most culture, and a real economy, the centre for the worldwide corporations we all know. The neighborhoods are great, downtown also, but dt Seattle is less lived-in, and perhaps less "liveable" than downtown Vancouver. Heavy finacial investment in transit has produced good results, but transit ridership lags way behind Vancouver, even in this bigger city.
Portland IMO has a cool mix of Big City and Small Town. Apparently the nightlife is interesting, and despite the cold, rainy winters, has the earliest spring and the most sunshine and summer warmth of all three. Portland has also magnificently redeveloped it's main civic square with a beautiful fountain. Vancouver is still wondering what to do with its central sqaure at the VAG.
To re-iterate, very much "individual-taste-oriented", this is a dificult choice. In point form, I'd vote the best features and strong points of the cities as follows:
Vancouver: urban planning innovation, quality of life, best pubic transit system, centre city most livable of the three.
Seattle: strongest cultural scene, especially in music, economy of scale, economic diversity and importance.
Portland: quality lifestyle*, retainment of small-city charm within a metroplitan context. Good transit system*.
They're all great places. It depends what you're looking for, your job, and what you can afford.
Not having been to Portland for a while now, I cannot comment on it directly, but only from pictures and discussion.
Being more familiar with Seattle and Vancouver (where I'm from, living elsewhere) I would agree with an above remark that Vancouver is over-rated. Yet the city has a subtle "dynamism" and pulse all its own, even if Seattle is more overtly Big City in height and scale.
I would rank the cities, in a general matter as follows:
Vancouver: best in urban planning and transit infrastructure. Sleekest in appearance, and most livable central city.
Seattle is the Big Kid, with a great music scene in all categories, the most culture, and a real economy, the centre for the worldwide corporations we all know. The neighborhoods are great, downtown also, but dt Seattle is less lived-in, and perhaps less "liveable" than downtown Vancouver. Heavy finacial investment in transit has produced good results, but transit ridership lags way behind Vancouver, even in this bigger city.
Portland IMO has a cool mix of Big City and Small Town. Apparently the nightlife is interesting, and despite the cold, rainy winters, has the earliest spring and the most sunshine and summer warmth of all three. Portland has also magnificently redeveloped it's main civic square with a beautiful fountain. Vancouver is still wondering what to do with its central sqaure at the VAG.
To re-iterate, very much "individual-taste-oriented", this is a dificult choice. In point form, I'd vote the best features and strong points of the cities as follows:
Vancouver: urban planning innovation, quality of life, best pubic transit system, centre city most livable of the three.
Seattle: strongest cultural scene, especially in music, economy of scale, economic diversity and importance.
Portland: quality lifestyle*, retainment of small-city charm within a metroplitan context. Good transit system*.
They're all great places. It depends what you're looking for, your job, and what you can afford.
Seattle just seems so cool, artsy and relaxing to me. Portland seems kinda sleepy, and ive never been to Vancouver. id choose 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.
