If Vancouver, BC and Seattle, WA were in the same country, which one do you think would be the major city of the area? (compare, place)
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.
I'm afraid you don't understand what inequality means.
One of these cities has two of the richest men on Earth living only a few miles away from where thousands of homeless live.
The city I'm referring to is not Vancouver.
And yet, I've never seen as many homeless in my life as I saw in a two-minute stroll through Vancouver from the Steam Clock to the Sun Yat-Sen Chinese Garden.
Saying that Vancouver doesn't have massive inequality is a farce, especially considering the average home costs over $1 million USD in Metro Vancouver (and way more in the city itself) and the median household income is $30k lower than in Seattle. In Vancouver, there's the wealthy children of East Asian money launderers and Chinese apparatchiks, and then there's everybody else making wages that are below the American average, much less the Seattle one. The economic gap between Downtown Vancouver and Eastside would make you think you'd just entered South Africa.
Vancouver has a lot of good, and a lot of bad like every place. Let's not pretend Vancouver is some utopia because "America always bad!!1"
EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guineas
This statement reflects a certain amount of cluelessness about the actual inequality in Canada. The median single family house in Vancouver BC costs $1.65 MILLION in 2021 (while in Seattle it is under $1.0M). Meanwhile the median household income in Vancouver BC before taxes is $96,000 (it is $102,000 in Seattle before taxes). While Seattle certainly has a lot of inequality and housing is extraordinarily expensive there, Vancouver's situation is in fact about 70% worse than Seattle. And there's no Amazon or Microsoft to show for it.
Your $96k figure is in CAD. It's $76k USD. And it's average household income, not median (like your Seattle one). Average household income is higher in Vancouver since the billionaires drag up the average. Median to median is ~$73k to ~$103k, so the median household in Seattle makes $30k more.
The gap in Seattle's favor is even worse than you stated.
Last edited by manitopiaaa; 09-06-2021 at 11:22 AM..
Seattle is already infilling. State growth management laws and the related county/city laws focus growth into existing areas and limited outward areas. Yes we have hundreds of square miles of relatively easy land we could choose to sprawl onto but mostly won't.
Vancouver has more effective growth management of course, hence the skyscraper districts while farms are protected a short distance away. It's pretty stark from the air.
As for Vancouver's homeless, they're extremely concentrated in the Lower Eastside. The rest of the city has typically been far less street-homelessy than Seattle.
And yet, I've never seen as many homeless in my life as I saw in a two-minute stroll through Vancouver from the Steam Clock to the Sun Yat-Sen Chinese Garden.
Saying that Vancouver doesn't have massive inequality is a farce, especially considering the average home costs over $1 million USD and the median income is $40k lower than Seattle. In Vancouver, there's the wealthy children of East Asian money launderers and Chinese apparatchiks, and then there's everybody else making wages that are below the American average, much less the Seattle one. The economic gap between Downtown Vancouver and Eastside would make you think you'd just entered South Africa.
Vancouver has a lot of good, and a lot of bad like every place. Let's not pretend Vancouver is some utopia because "America always bad!!1"
Seattle's homeless and inequity problem makes Vancouver, including the downtown east side, look like a utopia.
Ultimately the problem in both cities is not a lack of services or funds or help but a city council that under the guise of "compassion" has enabled vagrancy as a lifestyle choice through the soft legalization (deliberate lack of enforcement) of petty crimes, theft, drug use and dealing, sleeping on sidewalks etc... such that a lot of these people choose this lifestyle over any help that's given them.
As for wealth the two cities are fairly comparable in terms of average net worth of citizens with Vancouver actually edging out Seattle a bit depending on which data you look at. These are not poor cities despite your best efforts. They're some of the richest in the world.
Seattle's homeless and inequity problem makes Vancouver, including the downtown east side, look like a utopia.
Ultimately the problem in both cities is not a lack of services or funds or help but a city council that under the guise of "compassion" has enabled vagrancy as a lifestyle choice through the soft legalization (deliberate lack of enforcement) of petty crimes, theft, drug use and dealing, sleeping on sidewalks etc... such that a lot of these people choose this lifestyle over any help that's given them.
As for wealth the two cities are fairly comparable in terms of average net worth of citizens with Vancouver actually edging out Seattle a bit depending on which data you look at. These are not poor cities despite your best efforts. They're some of the richest in the world.
Average net worth is grossly inflated in Vancouver due to the obscene housing costs. I find it funny that the same people attacking Seattle for inequality keep posting "average" figures instead of "median" because they make Vancouver look better.
I do agree that the region in general (all of the West Coast) is undergoing a massive homeless crisis, and that most of it isn't economic but a coddling. If I $hit on the street, beat up a tourist, and injected myself with heroin in broad daylight, I'd be arrested on the spot. But in Seattle and Vancouver, they look the other way because "the city belongs to them too." It's a silly philosophy, and one that I'm glad the East Coast doesn't tolerate as much, but that's a different discussion.
Average net worth is grossly inflated in Vancouver due to the obscene housing costs. I find it funny that the same people attacking Seattle for inequality keep posting "average" figures instead of "median" because they make Vancouver look better.
Housing is not obscene compared to Seattle, price per sq ft in USD is about the same in both cities, except Seattle has 3x higher property taxes and 2x higher HOA dues. Property values are no more an inflation of net worth than any other asset class including stocks.
Quote:
I do agree that the region in general (all of the West Coast) is undergoing a massive homeless crisis, and that most of it isn't economic but a coddling. If I $hit on the street, beat up a tourist, and injected myself with heroin in broad daylight, I'd be arrested on the spot. But in Seattle and Vancouver, they look the other way because "the city belongs to them too." It's a silly philosophy, and one that I'm glad the East Coast doesn't tolerate as much, but that's a different discussion.
We have police who buy expensive telescopic equipment to catch and fine adults drinking a beer on public beaches yet nowhere to be found in the downtown east side.
Not their fault of course, if they arrested a homeless person for assaulting a bystander or selling **** he stole from breaking into cars on the street in broad daylight the guy would be back on the streets before the ink is dry on the paperwork. The police are just as frustrated as everyone else.
Vancouver has by far a better quality of life just for being in Canada. It's also way safer.
Seattle is like the rest of America: inequality, a few billionaires, lots of homeless and crime, though less than other cities. But hey, they've got Boeing.
Their crime rates are almost exactly the same, low for homicide, high for property at about 5,000 per 100k. Vancouver has a lot of grimy, druggie areas, especially Downtown Eastside which is worse than Pioneer Square or anyplace I've ever seen in Seattle. Vancouver is OD and homeless central. Sounds like you've never been there based on what you're saying.
Re: economy, Vancouver has much lower wages but real estate is still super $$ due to foreign investors. It's quality of life hinges on being one of the few places in Canada that's not an icebox, and great views of mountains and water. It's also far less diverse than Seattle with smaller Latino and Black populations.
A major problem for Vancouver and Canada in general is paltry amounts of funding for life sciences, which is thriving in the US west coast. Canadian companies this year have raised less than $500 million of VC in this area compared to approx $30 billion for US companies. The result is Canada, and especially Vancouver, is stuck with a lot of lower paying academic research with far less commercialization than the US. This is why so many of their scientists and entrepreneurs want to come here.
Last edited by TheseGoTo11; 09-06-2021 at 12:01 PM..
Why are we discussing the current cities as they stand? This thread is about which city based purely on geography would host the largest city given equal circumstances. I feel like this the history forum anyway since it deals with alternate timeline. Geographically Vancouver seems to have the superior port, as they have 57 berths, compared to Seattle and Tacoma together only having 23 berths. However I think Seattle would be better positioned as the terminus of a northern transcontinental railroad since Seattle is further south making it closer to the rest of the Eastern US. For instance Anacortes and Bellingham tried to be come the terminus but they ultimately lost out to Tacoma and Seattle.
Also another interesting thing to consider, is would Vancouver even be the major city in BC if it wasn’t for the merger of BC and Vancouver Island. Because otherwise it seems like New Westminster which was the capital at the time would’ve become the major city in BC?
I think looking at the map alone justifies the argument that Seattle has more access to water than Vancouver, having the city sandwiched between the Puget Sound, Lake Union and Lake Washington. Vancouver Harbour and the Burrard Inlet makes for some very pretty views for those who live in West Vancouver, coastal downtown Vancouver and Kitsilano, but most of Metro Vancouver is two big land masses divided by a fairly small - and icky - Fraser River.
Water is definitely a bigger part of the Seattle physical geographical identity, and more of its residents have better access, use and views to it. Vancouver is better known for its balance between the mountains and water - and better beaches too.
The maps alone may show that Seattle has more shoreline ( I'm not sure, I'd like to know how much each actually has ), but it doesn't show who has more ACCESS.
As mentioned, Vancouver is known for it's access to the water since the whole shoreline, except for parts of the Fraser River which is mostly industrial. This is a massive part of the city. If you look at where the population density is and access is, I would think MORE Vancouverites have easy access.
I simply find in Seattle it's much patchier.
Also in regards to the question, the way Vancouver has developed itself, I believe is due to the fact it's in Canada that it developed differently, and Seattle because it's in the US development differently. This could be because of forms of government, taxation etc. It's an interesting notion how these effect city planning.
And yet, I've never seen as many homeless in my life as I saw in a two-minute stroll through Vancouver from the Steam Clock to the Sun Yat-Sen Chinese Garden.
Saying that Vancouver doesn't have massive inequality is a farce, especially considering the average home costs over $1 million USD in Metro Vancouver (and way more in the city itself) and the median household income is $30k lower than in Seattle. In Vancouver, there's the wealthy children of East Asian money launderers and Chinese apparatchiks, and then there's everybody else making wages that are below the American average, much less the Seattle one. The economic gap between Downtown Vancouver and Eastside would make you think you'd just entered South Africa.
Vancouver has a lot of good, and a lot of bad like every place. Let's not pretend Vancouver is some utopia because "America always bad!!1"
EDIT:
Your $96k figure is in CAD. It's $76k USD. And it's average household income, not median (like your Seattle one). Average household income is higher in Vancouver since the billionaires drag up the average. Median to median is ~$73k to ~$103k, so the median household in Seattle makes $30k more.
The gap in Seattle's favor is even worse than you stated.
They are concentrated in that area. No excuses, but it is right between two tourist areas, that is why you saw it. In many cities it can be hidden better.
Vancouver does a better job with parks along water. But access doesn't require parks. A ton of Seattle's shoreline is commercial piers with pedestrian access (Downtown especially), marinas, etc. Small parks are mixed in. Within city limits nearly everyone is within three miles of a significant body of water, and I bet the vast majority are within three miles of access they can get to. I'd guess about half have public access within two miles.
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.
