Is Seattle a good "Vancouver substitute"?

[Botev1912]

Seattle is better to live in while Vancouver is better for visitors.

[movingwiththewind]

Originally Posted by DevanXL

Seattle Has a vastly stronger economy and growing everyday. A larger array of dining options (cheaper options too), Prime location of the sound and nestled only an hour out from the cascades and lots of beaches since the city is boxed in by water. Friendly neighborhoods instead of just the "Urban neighborhoods" that are taking up Vancouver. Seattle and Vancouver both could learn from eachother as Vancouver is a much better planned city then Seattle, but I see a larger upside for Seattle in the future. Unless Vancouver develops a true economy, the glitz and glamour thing will run it's course. Both cities are great but I think seattle has much more to offer.

All that is highlighted is pure BS.

"Prime" location of the sound, huh? Lots of beaches? "Friendly" beaches vs. "unfriendly" beaches? "Friendly" neighborhoods vs "unfriendly" urban neighborhoods?

Nothing else to say, what?

Seattle has a better economy and lower cost of living.

Vancouver has a MUCH better urban planning, better public transportation, better (and many more in the city limits) beaches, MUCH better waterfront in the city limits that stretches for miles and much higher density, even outside of the downtown.

The most important difference: Vancouver is urban. Seattle is suburban. For better or for worse. I personally much prefer urban to suburban. From this point of view, Seattle is not a good substitute for Vancouver, I think.

[DevanXL]

Originally Posted by movingwiththewind

All that is highlighted is pure BS.

"Prime" location of the sound, huh? Lots of beaches? "Friendly" beaches vs. "unfriendly" beaches? "Friendly" neighborhoods vs "unfriendly" urban neighborhoods?

Nothing else to say, what?

Seattle has a better economy and lower cost of living.

Vancouver has a MUCH better urban planning, better public transportation, better (and many more in the city limits) beaches, MUCH better waterfront in the city limits that stretches for miles and much higher density, even outside of the downtown.

The most important difference: Vancouver is urban. Seattle is suburban. For better or for worse. I personally much prefer urban to suburban. From this point of view, Seattle is not a good substitute for Vancouver, I think.

I will agree with the better hrban planning part but the transportation is arguable. True you have ected to go the no freeway route but in a industrial area around seattle with bowing and the port and all the other industries, this area could not function without an effective freeway system. Yes the freeway is located downtown but its not a bad location in fact its really the only area that makes sense to but it.

[Radical347]

Vancouver has better urban planning but it still didn't feel like a legit urban city a la NY, Boston, LA, Montreal, or Toronto to me when I visited in 2008. Maybe it's gotten better since, but Seattle felt a lot more urban. I noticed an abnormally high ratio of tall-ish apartment buildings to actual activity, bustle, or people walking about, in Vancouver. Also most of it just looked so manicured and manufactured. It was nice and clean and all...but it lacked soul, in my opinion.

[ironcouger]

Originally Posted by movingwiththewind

All that is highlighted is pure BS.

"Prime" location of the sound, huh? Lots of beaches? "Friendly" beaches vs. "unfriendly" beaches? "Friendly" neighborhoods vs "unfriendly" urban neighborhoods?

Nothing else to say, what?

Seattle has a better economy and lower cost of living.

Vancouver has a MUCH better urban planning, better public transportation, better (and many more in the city limits) beaches, MUCH better waterfront in the city limits that stretches for miles and much higher density, even outside of the downtown.

The most important difference: Vancouver is urban. Seattle is suburban. For better or for worse. I personally much prefer urban to suburban. From this point of view, Seattle is not a good substitute for Vancouver, I think.

I agree Vancouver is urban , But realize Seattle is urban also Seattle had 6,000 new apartments open downtown last year and 7,000 are going to open this year and the next for 21,000 new apartments in 3 years. Downtown Seattle is supposed to hit 100,000 residents by 2015. Since Seattle upzoned its neighborhoods not just downtown is booming so is the cities other neighborhoods also. Seattle does not do tall skinny buildings on big lots like Vancouver , Seattle does large buildings on lots right up to the streets giving more of an urban landscape. Seattle has dozens of highrise under construction. Far from suburban . Both cities have similar walk scores Seattle's being sixth best in the USA Vancouver has a much more extensive light rail system compared to Seattle's wich is new and much of it is under construction. Downtown Seattle has a better transportation system with one street car line open , one line opening the end of the year and one line partialy funded.

[OyCrumbler]

I don't understand all this talk about Vancouver not having a real economy. Yes, a lot of it is in real estate and tourism, but those are still industries. What's more, those don't make anything close to the majority of it. It's the largest port for Canada and much of international trade for Western Canada, especially the huge bulk commodities such as grain and petroleum, passes through Vancouver. How is that not a part of a real economy? Vancouver also has one of the largest film industries in North America, by some counts coming in third after LA and NYC, and yet that's not a real industry? Though not nearly as big as that of Seattle, Vancouver also has a pretty strong tech industry. It also has two fairly good research universities. The sort of dismissal of Vancouver on economic grounds seems sort of ridiculous to me.