Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2013, 04:00 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,500,336 times
Reputation: 5879

Advertisements

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2013, 04:15 PM
 
9,961 posts, read 17,515,379 times
Reputation: 9193
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
look at the high rises, now look at all the space in between them, look at the multilane highways between them.. that kills the "urbanity" and bustling. Vancouver uses some weird development planning, for sure.

Now look at SF...

notice the almost no wasted space anywhere.
Vancouver doesn't have any multi-lane highways in that picture--in fact there's no multi-lane highways in downtown at all. You're just looking at a bridge and off-ramps into two lane roads through downtown and Pacific Blvd which is sort like the Embarcadero as a waterfront bouelevard. There's some emptier areas near the stadiums and Expo area though that's sort of a rare example.

San Francisco is denser all together for sure, but it's older in terms of development and had much more population growth earlier on in an even more confined landscape. So Vancouver doesn't feel as urban as San Francisco or Philadelphia or Boston in most places as far as older neighborhoods. And you can see the waves of development in the West End from older single family homes that survived to more 1970s-style residential apartments and condos to the new modern highrises. But there's really not that much wasted space in central Vancouver considering they put in infill wherever they could in the old industrial areas around Yaletown and what land was availble in between and around the older residential areas of the West End. It's just a more modern style of development.

Actually despite all the hype around the shiney new highrises in Vancouver I actually find some parts of the older eastern edge of downtown into Gastown and the eastside to be more interesting(despite the fact that much of the downtown eastside is a Tenderloin/Skid Row-style down-and-out district)--but it feels like the most traditional old urban area of Vancouver. Stanley Park is beautiful and Denman Street has some great restaurants, but the West End seems like just a fairly quiet resdential area for the most part.

Last edited by Deezus; 07-05-2013 at 04:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Denver/Atlanta
6,083 posts, read 10,694,910 times
Reputation: 5872
I think Vancouver's urbanity is overrated. Grapico made a valid point with the pictures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 04:16 PM
 
Location: PNW
2,011 posts, read 3,458,888 times
Reputation: 1403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold As War View Post
This thread is about how Vancouver compares to Montreal, Boston, Philly and SF in terms of urbanity.

If the two of you want to discuss Toronto or SD please start your own thread. Thanks
I wasn't trying to talk about San Diego. Just specifying how that data may be incorrect. As Vanocuver density has definitely increased sense then
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 04:27 PM
BMI
 
Location: Ontario
7,454 posts, read 7,267,519 times
Reputation: 6126
Darn tootin' it does.

Vancouver by north American standards is very dense.
Chalk a block with condos, similar to downtown Toronto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 05:30 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,864 posts, read 15,237,207 times
Reputation: 6767
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.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Toronto
15,102 posts, read 15,865,611 times
Reputation: 5202
Downtown Toronto has far more condo's and highrises than Vancouver and they are decidedly taller as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI View Post
Darn tootin' it does.

Vancouver by north American standards is very dense.
Chalk a block with condos, similar to downtown Toronto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 05:39 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,500,336 times
Reputation: 5879
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Downtown Toronto has far more condo's and highrises than Vancouver and they are decidedly taller as well.
Yeah it's not close really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 05:40 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,500,336 times
Reputation: 5879
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.
Vancouver would rank last out of all those cities. Everybody knows it. If not, please tell me which one Vancouver is better than hmm?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2013, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia,New Jersey, NYC!
6,963 posts, read 20,530,843 times
Reputation: 2737
10 yrs ago, i had a cousin moving to the east coast from vancouver

i asked him why, dude said...."its vacouver"
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top