If Vancouver, BC and Seattle, WA were in the same country, which one do you think would be the major city of the area? (cost, map)
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.
You're overthinking it. I think that in this scenario we are to assume that they are the same as they are now regardless of the geopolitical circumstances that precipitated their getting there.
If that’s the question… I think it’d still be Vancouver. It just has this really amazing energy to it. Vancouver is hands down one of my favorite cities and consistently ranks very well in terms of QOL. Its natural setting is extremely unique. It offers as much as Seattle if not more IMO. I think removing geopolitical boundaries would benefit Vancouver more so than Seattle, but again, it’s speculative. No doubt it would cut into Seattle’s industries more easily, though it could work the other way too I suppose.
I think the question is extremely speculative, even to the point that the premise almost fails with the assumptions. Are we assuming British Columbia never existed? Canada never existed? Both cities are in Canada? Or both cities are in the US?
That being said, I voted for Vancouver because there’s just more land, particularly to the south, for development to have occurred. Seattle is sort of in a weird location. The port access may be better, I don’t know. But I do know the areas south of Vancouver are filled with flat agricultural areas that would have been an easier catalyst for growth. Seattle metro has some areas like that (such as to the north in the Skagit Valley), but too far removed from the city center. I think the perfect location for a city is actually between the two cities, somewhere like Blaine or White Rock/Boundary Bay.
I think the most plausible scenario is if the US annexed all of Oregon Country, meaning all of BC is part of the US.
Vancouver's backdrop is nicer, but in Seattle it's much easier to be close to water, in addition to the drier climate. At the point where leisure became more important to the broad population (early 1990s with the rise of unions etc.) it was easier for Seattle to build a lot of city-nature crossover stuff for people to do right in town. At some point later proximity to skiing became important to a lot of people and Vancouver has an advantage there.
I find Vancouver a very unbalanced city. Driving thru DT, one sees mostly by a wide margin, residential buildings. I get the impression Vancouver is a bedroom community for Asians seeking safety out of HK etc. What major employers or businesses are there compared to Seattle metro with Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks etc?
Its a beautiful city but so is Seattle. But I cant help but believe Vancouver is so popular with expat Asians due to being in Canada. Does that mean Seattle has to be in Canada too for them to be in the same country? Sure does. I dont think Seattle would be wht it is now without being in the USA. So both of the two are diminished in my view if there are in different counties from where they are now. So both being in the same country means the decision of which would dominate depends on which country there are both in, OP did not specify.
I think it would be a lot like comparing Orlando and Tampa. They’re not in the same metros, but they’re only about 90 minutes away. One isn’t clearly better than the other. It doesn’t feel like they’re in the same city because they’re in separate media markets, which I think is a big factor. If Seattle and Vancouver were in the same state, but separate media markets you’d more or less have the same experience. I think the main difference might be a closer rivalry since the rules governing each would be the same.
If British Columbia were part of the US then the PNW as a whole would be a much more substantial region of the US and would have counterbalanced California more for West Coast influence. Alaska would also be contiguous.
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.
I've lived in Seattle from '90-'99, when I moved to the northshore area outside Seattle. We still have property in Seattle. It has a 2021 population of 755,936. You are probably thinking of the Seattle-Bellevue Metropolitan population, which is at present 3,461,000. Not four plus change.
Vancouver BC metro population is at present: 2,606,351. So, if you are going on sheer population, yes -- Seattle-Bellevue is larger, but in fact Seattle is not the Seattle-Bellevue metro area in any way. In many respects, it is vastly smaller than Vancouver BC.
Seattle's art museums, its Aquarium, it's International District do not even come close in comparison with those in Vancouver. Vancouver is a prettier city in a more scenic location. One has to travel more than an hour to reach its over-used (crowded) natural places, whereas in Vancouver one can enjoy the views in their backyards.
Every Seattle native I've ever spoken to has been surprised that I haven't been nearly as impressed with their city as they are. I can only surmise that they just haven't taken the time to look outside their narrow viewpoint. After all, who could possibly be as wonderful as they?
One has to travel more than an hour to reach its over-used (crowded) natural places, whereas in Vancouver one can enjoy the views in their backyards.
You have got to be kidding me. Many homes in Seattle have amazing views of the Sound, Olympics or the Cascades. My very own house has a nice view and I live in the city proper. Even if your house doesn’t have a view, just driving around your neighborhood will show you killer views as the roads are sloped on hills so there are amazing vantage points everywhere. The city is an isthmus surrounded by water and mountains. You have to try hard not to see a view.
We are not Denver. With that sentence of yours alone I’m not sure you are qualified to talk much about Seattle. No wonder Seattle natives give you a quizzical look.
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.
