One of my good friends I went to undergrad with currently resides in Vancouver and attends University of British Columbia to finish her masters. We decided I should come visit so we planned a quick 1.5 day jaunt in Seattle before I spent a week at her place in Vancouver.

 

General notes:

 

Seattle was nice but the bit I saw felt like the city lacked personality in much of the CBD. Areas like Capitol Hill felt far more comfortable but I wasn't overly impressed by Downtown or the waterfront (which was a gigantic tourist trap and was exceptionally uncomfortable). I'd really like to take another trip there and spend more time in the city to get a better feel for it since 1.5 days anywhere will never be enough.

 

Vancouver is incredibly gorgeous. The mountains, the bay, the beaches, the water, the city, the people, everything. In stereotypical Canadian fashion every person I met was friendly and polite and everyone had some outdoor activity they regularly did. Boating, sailing, paddle boarding, volleyball, swimming, running, walking, gymnastics, kite flying, whatever. Everyone was healthy and outdoors at any moment possible. It was really nice to see and easy to bet enticed by.

 

The city itself isn't the most architecturally interesting, but from a planning standpoint is quite amazing. A handful of the choices they made were a little off in my book, but overall the city is comfortable. At all times. Great business districts, great residential areas, great parks, super easy access for everyone, immense traffic calming measures, mature street trees everywhere (why is this such a hard thing to have in Ohio? It seems like we never let them mature), etc. The city is basically a gigantic urban planning experiment and it clearly has worked. Yes, it's crazy expensive, but compared to its peer cities it is so much more livable and you get what you pay for. The same thing definitely can't be said for NYC, SF, LA, etc. where you pay 2500 for a studio that is roach infested, smells like urine, is in a bad location that requires an hour train ride to get anywhere on a subway system that is literally falling apart, etc. This wasn't the case in Vancouver. Public transit was hefty, clean, on time, easy to use, etc.

 

I noticed that the cleanliness was quite different than, say, Downtown Chicago's cleanliness. Which feels sterile at times. The cleanliness in Vancouver felt like its origins weren't from heavy-handed political gestures but rather just the pride of the residents. I watched people of all walks of life picking up what little litter there was and throwing it in the rubbish. People took pride in their city and it showed. I was a tad jealous. I wish everyone had that attitude about where they lived.

 

Overall the trip was amazing. I took a bunch of photos but as I was packing for vacation I left my camera on my dining table (genius) so they're the best I could do with my phone. Which is good as far as phone cameras goes, but limited in its abilities obviously. Hopefully you all enjoy these photos and the slice of the cities I show here. Enjoy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ugh. I hate this building.

 

 

 

 

The train ride from Seattle to Vancouver was beautiful. The scenery was great as was the sunset.

 

 

 

My friend's place is in Kitsilano and was a cute 3 bedroom in a duplex. Great light, big mature street trees everywhere, huge windows. Quite nice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biggest pancakes I've ever eaten. That's a full size dinner plate and each of the two pancakes was about an inch thick and they were dense. Good thing I later went hiking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And after that picture is when I got attacked by a crow that dive bombed me and proceeded to chase me (like full sped ran away) and follow me until I ran far enough away. Apparently it's nesting season...would have been good to know.

 

 

 

We made a trip to a place called Deep Cove. Basically it's utopia. Cute town, great water, great trails. Beautiful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hope you enjoyed my photos. I can't wait to get back to Vancouver.

Very nice... I love Seattle and Vancouver - clean, cultural, diverse, liberal, walkable with great street presence, good public transit (including trolley buses in both).  Even though they are in different countries, they have more in common culturally with each other than, say, Seattle has with most other American cities.

Take the same experience make it grungier and you get Portland.  I did a vacation in all three and I have to agree with jmicah Vancouver was the nicest. Seattle other than capitol hill and downtown wasn't all that urban.

Having lived in Seattle and visited the others many times, I don't see how your criticism couldn't be equally applied to all three.  All three are young cities.  All have very vibrant downtowns and a handful of other inner neighborhoods (not just Capitol Hill) that are vibrant, walkable, and rapidly densifying.  All have large swaths of postwar to current-day suburban development.  All three are working to develop denser "urban nodes" in older commercial areas while protecting their stock of single family homes.  They're way more alike than not.

Seattle proper is only a little more than half as dense as Vancouver proper. Seattle metropolitan area has a population density of 596/sq. mile versus Vancouver metropolitan area's density of 2,218 people/sq. mile. They may have similarly urban areas but Vancouver appeared to have significantly more of them. But I wasn't really given enough time to properly see how those places felt in person, especially in Seattle since I had nowhere near enough time to really explore.

 

It appeared from what I saw that Vancouver's more sprawl-esque areas seemed to still have pretty dense urban corridors often enough to be walkable. Is that the case in Seattle?

Metro Vancouver is certainly denser than Seattle-Tacoma.  Generally, both cities are a wash (Vancouver has a more residential "downtown;" Seattle far more commercial; same general housing and random commercial districts).  Seattle felt more big city to me; Vancouver felt more "Canadian comfortable," if that makes any sense.  Both are wonderful cities.  Love Stanley Park.

One thing that really threw me off is the scale of the skyline in Vancouver. The fact that almost all the buildings are residential is such a contrast to bascially every American city that when I looked at it my perception of the height of the buildings was way off. And it was because they're much skinnier than commercial buildings and therefore looked taller than they were. I was sitting in North False Creek looking across and realized the tallest buildings were only in the 35 or so story range and many were 15-25 story buildings. Hardly massive buildings but due to their context they looked like slender, tall buildings. I looked at some stats and realized if you put Cincy's tallest (or Cleveland's even moreso) in the city they'd be significantly larger in height and width than their context. It was an interesting departure from what I'm used to in American cities.

 

The density of the Downtown peninsula was also extremely surprising. It's only 2.25 square miles and has about 100,000 people in it. And yet so much of that space is parkland (that stat doesn't include Stanley Park) and there are still so many opportunities for towers to fill in holes in the city. I was reading under current plans they'll add another 30,000 or so people under current plans to the Downtown peninsula. Pretty amazing.

 

The whole time I was walking around False Creek I kept imagining Queensgate being reworked to have a marina and highrise residential development. Not even close to realistic at this point in time, but my imagination was running wild with how our cityscape could look if we took over underutilized industrial land and repurposed it in a connected development in the style of urban planning common in the PNW and BC.

 

There's a lot to learn from this region.

Seattle proper is only a little more than half as dense as Vancouver proper. Seattle metropolitan area has a population density of 596/sq. mile versus Vancouver metropolitan area's density of 2,218 people/sq. mile. They may have similarly urban areas but Vancouver appeared to have significantly more of them. But I wasn't really given enough time to properly see how those places felt in person, especially in Seattle since I had nowhere near enough time to really explore.

 

It appeared from what I saw that Vancouver's more sprawl-esque areas seemed to still have pretty dense urban corridors often enough to be walkable. Is that the case in Seattle?

 

Vancouver certainly has more apartments in its Downtown area, that makes for more density, though Seattle's Downtown always felt more "urban" to me.  Like Colday said, commercial vs residential proportions are different.  Vancouver also  has less "fringe" sprawl, and more suburban high rises.  I'm not sure how it's "metro area" is defined, I know Seattle's includes large areas of mountains and other undeveloped land, skewing it's numbers.  Still, I wouldn't say either is very walkable in the suburbs.

 

Overall I would say that infill in Vancouver focuses more on high rise residential, Seattle focuses more on low to midrise mixed use development (at least outside of Downtown).  There could be a divergence therefore in "density" and "walkability".  Which more closely correlates to "urban"?

Vancouver: boxy bluish buildings

^It's funny, you can tell the age range of a building purely from the color of glass used. The planning board has gone through many eras of glass color and it shows. There's very green glass, very blue glass, pale blue glass, and most recently, nearly clear glass.

 

The buildings individually don't have much soul or character to them, but there's something about the collective that just works. The business corridors offer enough variation and street level activity that the overly boxy, basic residential towers aren't offensive like they would be if you just took one and plopped it into an historic district. The modernity of the city is a nice contrast to the nature.

Great photo set! Thanks!

 

Loved the tour of Vancouver. How far from the city did you hike?

The furthest away we went was Deep Cove which was probably around 10 or so miles away. We wanted to go further but my friend's thesis writing schedule kept us from having the time to take a whole day to drive out to some of the other places she liked, such as The Chief, Squammish, etc. But Deep Cove was far enough away that it felt like you were way outside the city due to the nature. Granted you could see Burnaby's skyline above the hills, but still. It was a nice departure from the city.

 

I really want to get back and explore further out. So many great natural areas that are relatively quick to get to since the city just kind of stops when you get past the coastline of the North Shore Mountains. It very quickly becomes dense forest again. Which is a really nice asset to have. You're never more than 20 or so minutes from true nature.

I'm not an expert on this but from what I understand Vancouver (and to larger extent Toronto) have used downtown hi-rise condo development as a way to capture foreign investment.  So all sorts of people from around the world have invested in these condo towers and possibly don't even live in them simply to get some of their net worth into a relatively stable currency.  Condos obviously have huge advantages for an out-of-town investor vs. individual houses, one being that they can look at building plans and pretty much know what they're going to get. 

 

I have done some reading on Canadian real estate investing and how it differs from the United States, and one of the key differences is how the banks and HOA's interact.  Specifically, U.S. banks discourage HOA's from letting more than 25% of a building's units go rental whereas the standards are much more lax in Canada, but differ by province.  Ontario by far has the loosest regulation in this regard, as it allows condo towers to be 100% rented.  This factor alone has motivated the insane condo tower boom in downtown Toronto.  This is leading to all sorts of problems in Toronto since it's attracting nasty personalities from Russia and the Arab world who have hundreds of millions they need to quickly get into U.S. or Canadian dollars.  They obviously can buy American stocks but they can't buy U.S. real estate as easily and that's why they've turned to these condo towers. 

Love this photo set.  I went on a VERY similar trip through Seattle and Vancouver 2 months ago.  How did you get between the 2 cities?  We took Amtrak along the coast and that was DEFINITELY the way to do it.

 

On the topic of residential midrises, one thing I heard from several locals in Vancouver is that there has been a ton of Chinese investment recently that is driving the development of those towers.  It's a double edged sword because the new development is great, but locals feel like they're getting priced out of their own city.

I'm not an expert on this but from what I understand Vancouver (and to larger extent Toronto) have used downtown hi-rise condo development as a way to capture foreign investment.  So all sorts of people from around the world have invested in these condo towers and possibly don't even live in them simply to get some of their net worth into a relatively stable currency.  Condos obviously have huge advantages for an out-of-town investor vs. individual houses, one being that they can look at building plans and pretty much know what they're going to get.

 

Ha.  I was typing my message above just as you were typing this.  This is exactly what I was hearing while in Vancouver.  Also, that it's not uncommon to see only one or two condos lit up at night in some of these towers, because they're mainly vacant or second homes. 

That could help explain why the downtown area isn't overwhelmingly crowded with people.  If a 200-unit building only has 100 people living in it, when it theoretically could have 300-400 people living in it, means there are tens of thousands fewer people actually living in the downtown area than would otherwise be expected.  The empty condo tower situation is supposedly more acute in Toronto, but because Toronto has much more of a "real" downtown with a ton of office buildings and apartments, it's less conspicuous. 

 

The only U.S. city where this is a lot of international investment of this kind is New York, but there as in Toronto it's far less noticeable, although that will be changing with the construction of various planned supertall condo towers. 

I'll admit, transit-wise Seattle wasn't, and isn't, as well developed as Vancouver with the latter's excellent, automated SkyTrain, which was recently expanded.  Seattle was the last West Coast metro area to develop rail transit which opened recently with the Central Link LRT to SeaTac international airport and the N-S Sounder Commuter rail line to Everett and Tacoma; and LRT is expanding... But Seattle was one of the few cities that held onto and expanded it's trolleybus network and the very weird 5-station, 1.4 mile trolleybus tunnel through downtown provided the infrastructure to build the LRT in a subway through  downtown a few years  ago, which  is much  more preferable to those surface "transit malls" cities build because they are too cheap and/or politically unwilling to build subways....

 

...Seattle has maintained it's walkability and areas like Pioneer Square and Pike's Market have always  been ped friendly, plus there are tons of walkable neighborhoods with sidewalk stores and cafes, like in the Queen Anne neighborhood or the University District near UW, which will soon be getting a subway LRT station.

Atlanta was able to build MARTA with federal funds that were originally earmarked for a subway system in Seattle.  The later lost the funding because of a failed supermajority vote back in the era when states required ridiculous supermajority votes for local taxes.  That subway system was going to be a lot different than the light rail network that is currently under construction.  I seem to remember that the old system was going to be pretty much just in the central areas of Seattle (where coverage would be much more extensive than what's being built not) and would not have crossed the lake. 

I'm not sure Vancouver suffers quite as much from the "empty condo" plague as much as some are suggesting. When looking at the city from across the water it's quite lit up. Condo towers weren't dark like they are in, say, Manhattan. You could tell people were occupying those spaces.

 

I never felt like there was a lack of people anywhere I went except it Kitsilano away from the main commercial districts since it's a sleepier, more retirement-oriented neighborhood. But once I got close to Downtown the parks were filled, the sidewalks had a lot of activity, and people were clearly living their daily lives there going to and from work, stopping in coffee shops and bakeries, etc.

 

The Skytrain was great and I wish I had more opportunities to take it. The whole transit system was just nice and easy. Bus stops were clearly labeled, the city had "you are here" style maps everywhere (useful since I had super limited data while in Canada and therefore couldn't access google maps) that helped you get around, and people were very friendly. I saw many bus drivers gladly answer questions people had about getting around. I'm not one to be intimidated by transit but many are and this system was clearly set up and organized to reduce that feeling for people who might not be used to taking the bus or train.

 

 

Atlanta was able to build MARTA with federal funds that were originally earmarked for a subway system in Seattle.  The later lost the funding because of a failed supermajority vote back in the era when states required ridiculous supermajority votes for local taxes.  That subway system was going to be a lot different than the light rail network that is currently under construction.  I seem to remember that the old system was going to be pretty much just in the central areas of Seattle (where coverage would be much more extensive than what's being built not) and would not have crossed the lake. 

 

But it should be noted would have been *much* better than MARTA, so far as an investment of federal tax dollars.  MARTA has the ideal alignment under Peachtree St. but outside of DT Atlanta there are few good station locations.  The Seattle system was going to have far more good station locations and so a much more robust effect on the city's real estate values and function. 

 

Atlanta was able to build MARTA with federal funds that were originally earmarked for a subway system in Seattle.  The later lost the funding because of a failed supermajority vote back in the era when states required ridiculous supermajority votes for local taxes.  That subway system was going to be a lot different than the light rail network that is currently under construction.  I seem to remember that the old system was going to be pretty much just in the central areas of Seattle (where coverage would be much more extensive than what's being built not) and would not have crossed the lake. 

 

Would Seattle's planned subway been anything like this?

 

http://transitmaps.tumblr.com/post/88695820653/seattle-1920

How did you get between the 2 cities?  We took Amtrak along the coast and that was DEFINITELY the way to do it.

 

We took Amtrak as well. The sunset photos toward the beginning of the set were taken from the train. That route is seriously gorgeous. It was such a nice ride. Great nature, super friendly Canadians coming back from a Seahawks game, comfortable, etc.

 

And the view when you curve around the peninsula when you pass White Rock and you can see Vancouver off in the distance against the North Coast Mountains. It was night when we were arriving so the city lights were all that we could really make out and it was a pretty cool experience. Once you're in the region the train ride is pretty "meh" but everything up until that little stretch past White Rock was so cool.

I have friends out in Vancouver, Seattle and Portland, and last xmas i made a two week trip and saw all three cities. (i should probably post some of them, shouldn't i?)

 

Vancouver is just...magical. I love it there so much and would totally emigrate there if it weren't so difficult and  expensive. Having been to Montreal, Toronto and Windsor, Vancouver has the same Canadian niceness, cleanness and spirit, but with a west-coast laid back attitude. SKyTrain is amazing. Love Stanley Park. Their Chinatown is my favorite, next to New York's. My friends out there tell me though, the condos all through town have driven prices so high that the island is becoming like Manhattan.

 

Seattle however, is likely where my fiancee and are moving in the next four to six years. See, i have MS, and the extreme climates of this half of the country make it almost miserable for me six months out of the year. It doesn't hurt that Seattle is my favorite city, next to my current home- Pittsburgh. I'll admit the CBD is a bit business focused, but you can see that it is starting to change- mainly near Pike Place and Westlake (transit tunnels) and the retail. O! The Retail! So many things, so many price points. For additional nice neighborhoods- visit Queen Anne and Ballard. The transit system (there's like 5 agencies!) is confusing.

 

Seattle+ Skytrain+Hippies= Portland. ANOTHER city I love too.

Love Vancouver!  It's one of two (by my estimation) major CBD's in North America without a major interstate/highway rammed right through it (Manhattan being the other). 

 

On the residential front, it has prospered greatly since the handover of Hong Kong to the Chinese, when at the time many of the wealthy residents there left fearing the Chinese government closing down free trade or seizing assets there. 

Does anyone know why these people chose Vancouver vs. anywhere in the United States?  Or why Toronto continues to attract skads of people from around the world despite its flat boring landscape and horrible winters? 

 

 

Does anyone know why these people chose Vancouver vs. anywhere in the United States?  Or why Toronto continues to attract skads of people from around the world despite its flat boring landscape and horrible winters? 

 

 

 

My buddy in Vancouver told me the Canadian government were openly courting them, offering liberal immigration policies to attract them (have no idea of the validity of this).      I'm sure some ended up in the USA as well, but like many immigrants they tend to move in flocks.  If Vancouver was easier, they took the path of least resistance.

Or why Toronto continues to attract skads of people from around the world despite its flat boring landscape and horrible winters? 

 

 

just for the record, Toronto does not have a flat boring landscape. Its sort of a bluff rising up from Lake Ontario and filled with ravines and escarpments (if that's the right word). And the winters, though cold, are not generally as snowy as Cleveland's.

Vancouver definitely courted them. The development policies reflected a desire to utilize money from Hong Kong developers which offered a product that was enticing to people from there. Essentially the entirety of the North False Creek waterfront and the Coal Harbor waterfront are developed by people from Hong Kong and it shows. And it did a good job of luring Hong Kong money into the city.

 

I think by the time Hong Kong was handed over Vancouver had also already attained the title of being one of the most livable cities anywhere. When you have money those are the types of things that draw you in. And in addition to that, being the only big city on the West Coast of Canada (with its more liberal immigration policies) meant it was an ideal location to go to but still have relatively easy access to China if need be.

Vancouver definitely courted them. The development policies reflected a desire to utilize money from Hong Kong developers which offered a product that was enticing to people from there. Essentially the entirety of the North False Creek waterfront and the Coal Harbor waterfront are developed by people from Hong Kong and it shows. And it did a good job of luring Hong Kong money into the city.

 

I think by the time Hong Kong was handed over Vancouver had also already attained the title of being one of the most livable cities anywhere. When you have money those are the types of things that draw you in. And in addition to that, being the only big city on the West Coast of Canada (with its more liberal immigration policies) meant it was an ideal location to go to but still have relatively easy access to China if need be.

 

Dead on--I left out the direct flights to China from there....always helps!

 

It would be interesting to find out if any US cities tried similar pitches. 

Vancouver definitely courted them. The development policies reflected a desire to utilize money from Hong Kong developers which offered a product that was enticing to people from there. Essentially the entirety of the North False Creek waterfront and the Coal Harbor waterfront are developed by people from Hong Kong and it shows. And it did a good job of luring Hong Kong money into the city.

 

I think by the time Hong Kong was handed over Vancouver had also already attained the title of being one of the most livable cities anywhere. When you have money those are the types of things that draw you in. And in addition to that, being the only big city on the West Coast of Canada (with its more liberal immigration policies) meant it was an ideal location to go to but still have relatively easy access to China if need be.

 

Dead on--I left out the direct flights to China from there....always helps!

 

It would be interesting to find out if any US cities tried similar pitches. 

 

The Economist which is widely read by upper class folks particularly in Commonwealth Countries and colonies (like HK) was the big publication that called it the most livable city right around the time said people were getting anxiety over the then upcoming handover to China in 1997.

 

I've heard though that on the national level Canada has made it more difficult for immigrants to come in due to the conservatives holding the power right now - even then commonwealth countries or areas have it easier due to their history as one empire.

Quebec doesn't let people in like the rest of Canada does.  It all dates back to whenever the French took control soon after the Olympics.  There's no doubt that in the 70s and 80s Montreal was thought of as Canada's leading and most exotic city.  Now nobody talks about it since it has hardly grown since the 80s and real estate sells there at Ohio price levels. 

I've yet to visit Toronto, but I have been to Montreal, Quebec City, Victoria, and Vancouver, and I think Canada has some really spectacular cities. I loved the natural side of Vancouver, and one of my best travel memories is biking around Stanley Park, but I found the city a bit bland at times. By contrast, Montreal is far less impressive from the natural landscape, but has some of the most interesting and pleasant neighborhoods I've been to. I love the French vibe there too- I think it gives it a cosmopolitan (or at least European) feeling. It does seem a bit stuck in the 80s though, and I think it has undeniably lost its cultural importance, as Toronto has taken the reigns as Canada's cultural capital.

 

Great pics, Jmicha, thanks for sharing!