Vancouver – Great urbanism amidst gorgeous scenery

[Murphy de la Sucre]

Best catches of Vancouver as I was there in 2017 sometime.

No wonder Vancouver is one of the most livable cities in the world, obviously you can just SEE from those photos.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by pip

Nice! Is Vancouver perfect? Stunning city

Those are fantastic pics and Vancouver is truly stunning and has a parks system legends are made of. Vancouver has done so many things right. From density, commercial at the base of buildings, walkability, good transit, good cycling system, and a vibrant pedestrian realm.

Nice city but far from perfect. Vancouver has the nation's highest poverty & child poverty rates and highest socio-economic stratification. It is also home to Canada's only urban slum with thousands of homeless and open drug shooting right on the streets. It is consistently rated the LOWEST quality of life in the country because livability requires the financial ability to actually live and Vancouver is HYPER expensive. The rents are the highest in the country by a long shot as is the real estate with the median price of a SFH being $2.8 million and gas at $2.40/litre {$10 a gallon} is the most expensive in the Americas. This all backed up by low wages and no head offices or major manufacturing........the city lives on money laundering in its real estate sector.

Vancouver offers a great quality of life but only if you have the right parents.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Those are fantastic pics and Vancouver is truly stunning and has a parks system legends are made of. Vancouver has done so many things right. From density, commercial at the base of buildings, walkability, good transit, good cycling system, and a vibrant pedestrian realm.

Nice city but far from perfect. Vancouver has the nation's highest poverty & child poverty rates and highest socio-economic stratification. It is also home to Canada's only urban slum with thousands of homeless and open drug shooting right on the streets. It is consistently rated the LOWEST quality of life in the country because livability requires the financial ability to actually live and Vancouver is HYPER expensive. The rents are the highest in the country by a long shot as is the real estate with the median price of a SFH being $2.8 million and gas at $2.40/litre {$10 a gallon} is the most expensive in the Americas. This all backed up by low wages and no head offices or major manufacturing........the city lives on money laundering in its real estate sector.

Vancouver offers a great quality of life but only if you have the right parents.

Yeah, just go ahead and trash talk - (we know you for that). It is not consistently rated the lowest quality of life, it's more the opposite. Most truly great cities are expensive, isn't Paris, London, San Francisco, New York, Tokyo, etc.? It's the only major city in Canada with a mild winter, so it attracts homeless people from elsewhere in the country (even Okotoks).

Gas at $2.40 CAD per liter, is actually $6.63 USD per gallon.

[vanatox]

Originally Posted by Architype

Yeah, just go ahead and trash talk - (we know you for that). It is not consistently rated the lowest quality of life, it's more the opposite. Most truly great cities are expensive, isn't Paris, London, San Francisco, New York, Tokyo, etc.? It's the only major city in Canada with a mild winter, so it attracts homeless people from elsewhere in the country (even Okotoks).

Gas at $2.40 CAD per liter, is actually $6.63 USD per gallon.

Vancouver is amazing but it isn't Paris, London, San Francisco, New York or Toyko.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by vanatox

Vancouver is amazing but it isn't Paris, London, San Francisco, New York or Toyko.

I didn't mean to make that assertion, but the quality of life is high by world standards, and attracts people from all over the world. Many would rather live here than in the aforementioned places for various reasons. Don't forget that Canada is a member of the G7.

[VantageHD]

Great photos! Can't believe how much ground you covered. Definitely brought back some fun memories.

[phone]

Originally Posted by vanatox

Vancouver is amazing but it isn't Paris, London, San Francisco, New York or Toyko.

Or, for that matter, Toronto or Montreal, which both outclass Vancouver for urban amenities by a country mile. In that regard, Vancouver talks a lot of bluster, which is buttressed by a profoundly inward civic attitude that churns out true believers to a strange form of parochialism, but when it comes down to it, its city-life is hardly better than Calgary's.

But, what Vancouver has that all those cities lack (including those you quoted) is its true wealth of outdoor amenities at its doorstep. There are few cities in the world that can compete with Vancouver in that respect.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by phone

Or, for that matter, Toronto or Montreal, which both outclass Vancouver for urban amenities by a country mile. In that regard, Vancouver talks a lot of bluster, which is buttressed by a profoundly inward civic attitude that churns out true believers to a strange form of parochialism, but when it comes down to it, its city-life is hardly better than Calgary's.

But, what Vancouver has that all those cities lack (including those you quoted) is its true wealth of outdoor amenities at its doorstep. There are few cities in the world that can compete with Vancouver in that respect.

So much hate from you, and based on what evidence? Have you been to all of these places? You are comparing Toronto, with more than twice the population, and Montreal, which is very historic, to Vancouver, and saying it's no better than Calgary. I remember when I visited Calgary years back and there were only about three gay clubs, compared to Vancouver's maybe 15 or 20 at that time. I have friends here in Vancouver from Alberta, and they would laugh at you.

[Doady]

What Calgary has achieved in the post-war automobile era as a much smaller and much newer city is impressive, but it's still a much smaller and much newer city, right? In a similar way, Toronto is much smaller and newer than Chicago, which has a pre-war inner city that is five times larger. Likewise, the historic pre-war inner city Calgary might only be one-fifth the size of Vancouver's also.

[phone]

Originally Posted by Architype

So much hate from you, and based on what evidence? Have you been to all of these places? You are comparing Toronto, with more than twice the population, and Montreal, which is very historic, to Vancouver, and saying it's no better than Calgary. I remember when I visited Calgary years back and there were only about three gay clubs, compared to Vancouver's maybe 15 or 20 at that time. I have friends here in Vancouver from Alberta, and they would laugh at you.

You got me! I haven’t been to San Fran. Vancouver’s ego spoils the city to some extent, personally speaking. I know it’s not popular to have something less than a glowing view of Vancouver, and laugh all you want, but it’s how I feel. Not that I think Vancouver is *bad*, but the disconnect between the city and the idea of the city is pretty noticeable. Apologies if I don’t have the creds to back up my opinion (I just have a sister who lives in the west end, to start), but I don’t see how I’m any less entitled to my opinion than anyone else.

PS- your vociferous refusal to acknowledge any local shortcomings is exactly what I’m talking about, and why I decided to chime in. Everyone who doesn’t kiss the ring is either a trash talker or doesn’t know what they’re talking about lol

[ssiguy]

Vancouver is a wonderful outdoorsy city with a stunning location, beaches, and a parks system that is truly one of the best in the world. Due to being outdoor oriented, the city lacks a lot of urban amenities and soul and is rather sterile. It's not called "no fun city" for nothing.

As far as livability Vancouver is indeed very livable but only for the chosen few. A good paying job in Vancouver still means you have a low standard of living. Seriously, how many people do you know that have an income high enough to buy an "average" priced home at $2.8 million?

BC isn't referred to as "bring cash" for nothing.

[Doady]

The idea of Vancouver being equivalent to Calgary in term of "urban amenities" and having the "LOWEST quality of life in the country" is more than having a "less than a glowing view". To feel such need to come into someone's huge photothread to dispute and disprove the way their photos present the city and criticize the city and its people so strongly is pathetic. I saw both positive and negative aspects in the photos here, the OP did take time to go off the beaten track, even mentioning Downtown Eastside, giving us a much more balanced presentation of the city, much easier to take seriously than you two.

[phone]

Originally Posted by Doady

The idea of Vancouver being equivalent to Calgary in term of "urban amenities" and having the "LOWEST quality of life in the country" is more than having a "less than a glowing view". To feel such need to come into someone's huge photothread to dispute and disprove the way their photos present the city and criticize the city and its people so strongly is pathetic. I saw both positive and negative aspects in the photos here, the OP did take time to go off the beaten track, even mentioning Downtown Eastside, giving us a much more balanced presentation of the city, much easier to take seriously than you two.

The fact that comparing Vancouver to Calgary is taken as a grave insult is also indicative of what I mean.

But I take your point about raising this in a photo thread so I'll shut up.

I thoroughly enjoyed the photos and thought you did a great job of showcasing Vancouver's tremendous beauty, OP.

[kool maudit]

That Mt. Rainier photo is otherworldly.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Vancouver is a wonderful outdoorsy city with a stunning location, beaches, and a parks system that is truly one of the best in the world. Due to being outdoor oriented, the city lacks a lot of urban amenities and soul and is rather sterile. It's not called "no fun city" for nothing.

As far as livability Vancouver is indeed very livable but only for the chosen few. A good paying job in Vancouver still means you have a low standard of living. Seriously, how many people do you know that have an income high enough to buy an "average" priced home at $2.8 million?

BC isn't referred to as "bring cash" for nothing.

similar to my impressions. I was living there in the nineties, and even then housing was ridiculously expensive. But the outdoors....could be one of the best, if not the best cities, for being able to enjoy the great outdoors, and being on a limited budget, I made full enjoyment of these natural amenities, which were free or nearly so. But coming from Montreal (admittedly, is a much larger city, and even more so back then), the downtown attractions were...subpar for what I expected given the size of the city. I enjoyed the neighborhoods, but there wasn't nearly as much "pizzazz", even when adjusting for population, as I encountered in my Montreal days. Still a wonderful city, and extremely photogenic. I rate it my second or third favorite city (After Montreal, and maybe QC) in Canada, mostly on the outdoor attributes.

San Francisco is amazing, except for the extreme costs, and preponderance of junkies (stay away from "the Tenderloin").

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Architype

Yeah, just go ahead and trash talk - (we know you for that). It is not consistently rated the lowest quality of life, it's more the opposite. Most truly great cities are expensive, isn't Paris, London, San Francisco, New York, Tokyo, etc.? It's the only major city in Canada with a mild winter, so it attracts homeless people from elsewhere in the country (even Okotoks).

When people talk about the "livability" of Vancouver it's usually in reference to its urbanism - it is an exceptionally well designed city. It's dense, vibrant, attractive, has good transit & bike infrastructure, abundant green space, a variety of housing typologies, and great urban amenities - all of which are especially remarkable given the age & size of the place. Add in the natural setting, fresh ocean air, and mild climate and it can be a pretty idyllic place.

When it comes to quality of life however, it's - by Canadian standards at least - not great. Between the housing crisis & generally high cost of living, low wages, homelessness, drug epidemic, crime rates, inequality, poor access to healthcare, and so on, it's not an easy place to live. But it's nevertheless a place where people are still willing to put up with those challenges because it offers a certain lifestyle & experience that's hard to replicate elsewhere.

[Murphy de la Sucre]

Never expected such amazing photo thread could draw dispute.

while i am busy with enjoying the cityscape

[Architype]

People like to make up their own metrics. I don't disagree about the cost, but that's not what the indices measure. If you just want cheap, you can live anywhere that's cheap. This one even puts Calgary on top, also above Toronto & Montreal, I guess it considers the cost.

Four out of the top five North American cities to live are in Canada, with Calgary ranked as No. 1, followed by Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.

https://financialpost.com/moneywise-...to-live-there#

https://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438...iXd1IanfFgryvQ

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Murphy de la Sucre

Never expected such amazing photo thread could draw dispute.

while i am busy with enjoying the cityscape

People always feel the need to bring cities down. I've had this same experience before on another forum when I dared to put the transit system of Mississauga on the same level as that of adjacent Toronto suburb, Brampton, drawing much ire and condemnation and accusations of "incessant boosterism". People can only see black or white, nothing in between.

Even now, I applauded what Calgary has achieved as a much smaller, post-war city but I disagreed that Vancouver was the urban equivalent of Calgary, therefore they said that I considered a comparison of a city to Calgary as a "grave insult" to that city. There's just no point trying to argue or reason with these people.

I go out of my way to show both good and bad aspects of cities in my photos, maybe the contrast of the achievements with the failures makes both them stand out even more. And highlighting those achievements is important, and highlighting those failures is equally important to me, especially now with my seizures, having my driver's license taken away in 2020, no longer allowed to even ride a bicycle, nervous to even to walk down the stairs now, I want cities to be built the right way more than ever. I just don't think we can learn more if we focus on the negative so much, especially looking at a Canadian city, where there is so much negative and so much positive mixed together.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

That Mt. Rainier photo is otherworldly.

the cascade volcanos read as jumbo sleepy deities - especially during years when there’s heavy snowfall and you're hiking opposing slopes in the summer or dry autumn and the mountain (hood, rainier, etc) present as a near illuminated bright moon with its own gravity against a dark cobalt noon sky.