The Economist: Vancouver Mindnumbingly Boring

[st7860]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

yeah, because Torontonians and Montrealers aren't into nature or taking transit.

Sorry, but that is a ridiculous statement. I've lived in all three cities, so please don't bore me with cherry-picked "data".

That's no more ridiculous than using such language.

I'll try to use easier words. Vancouver night/drinking life shuts down early at night, and people don't come to Vancouver(except from nearby cities) for it. They come for the recreation, nature, all of which is accessible by transit. If recreation, nature or taking quiet electrically powered transit buses that come frequently isn't your thing, then large cities in Eastern Canada would be more suitable for the enhanced nightlife.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

One big factor for Vancouver's "cultural backwardness" (as defined by its critics) is the city's lack of a vibrant global corporate head office business environment (beyond the limited rural/primary resourced based economies of mining/lumber/fishing etc.)! The presence of global head offices (in say high technologies/finance/high-order consumer goods etc.) do tend to attract vibrant corporate patrons of the arts!

I think that's very true. If it were not true, then Seattle (also close to the great outdoors) would not have the spectacular music and cultural (and no doubt club) scene that it has.
But Seattle IS a major corporate centre with an urban GDP about 2.5 times that of Vancouver, and there's no need to mention the companies based out of there.
Vancouver's metro GDP is smaller even than Portland, Oregon, which seems more small-town than Vancouver in many ways, but earns more corporate money.
As implied, Vancouver's economy needs diversifying (though a lot of people ignore that). Then the city will develop a real nightlife and a - hopefully -renowned cultural / music scene.
Just compare it with Seattle. That says most of it right there.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by st7860

You know a lot about Germany so I'm wondering is it true that a university degree is almost but not completely free for any person including a visitor as long as they can speak German? That's what I heard

There are semester fees, but they are something like 500-1000 euros / semester. At least for European exchange students those fees are normally waived.

I also slightly doubt the figures given for the percentage of public housing in Germany. There are vast commieblocks of public housing in East Germany cities that I would think make more than 4%. I might be wrong, but I am surprised by that figure.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

One big factor for Vancouver's "cultural backwardness" (as defined by its critics) is the city's lack of a vibrant global corporate head office business environment (beyond the limited rural/primary resourced based economies of mining/lumber/fishing etc.)! The presence of global head offices (in say high technologies/finance/high-order consumer goods etc.) do tend to attract vibrant corporate patrons of the arts!

Yes and no. Vibrant underground culture (like the one in Berlin) stems from anything but corporate presense. Cheap housing and rents for hosting galleries is much more important for such culture and Berlin for one has been able to offer that thanks to its painful history.

What I think you mean is how in Seattle the local billionaires have sponsored several arts arenas.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Yes and no. Vibrant underground culture (like the one in Berlin) stems from anything but corporate presense. Cheap housing and rents for hosting galleries is much more important for such culture and Berlin for one has been able to offer that thanks to its painful history.

What I think you mean is how in Seattle the local billionaires have sponsored several arts arenas.

Klazu, not sure that you can effectively compare a very large/old national capital city like Berlin (with its political/social-intellectual/fiscal economic muscle) with a much smaller newbie like Vancouver!

[Vin]

Exciting cities do not have to be large. Their planners just need to be open to new ideas and dare to be different, and not be confined by the status-quo. They need to tour more exciting cities around the globe (with their own money of course) and be more worldly by expanding their horizons instead of just harping on a one-track thinking. Decision-making needs to be flexible, as in a case-by-case basis. All projects that can make a city more exciting can include various kinds of retail, culture/arts, sports, theme parks, entertainment outlets (not just beer halls) and special events. Aesthetically-pleasing architecture and built-surroundings can also make a city more exciting, and this does not need to be in a huge or capital city.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by cornholio

And it is. Its just another reason why Quality of life in Germany is better. But once again this is Canada and we must play by the Canadian rules. Had we had a strong public housing strategy, like in Germany, owning would be a non issue and we would not have all these realestate discussions.

Be prepared to have cookie-cutter flats all over the country. Would Canadians want that? It the only solution for mass social housing.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Vin

Exciting cities do not have to be large. Their planners just need to be open to new ideas and dare to be different, and not be confined by the status-quo. They need to tour more exciting cities around the globe (with their own money of course) and be more worldly by expanding their horizons instead of just harping on a one-track thinking. Decision-making needs to be flexible, as in a case-by-case basis. All projects that can make a city more exciting can include various kinds of retail, culture/arts, sports, theme parks, entertainment outlets (not just beer halls) and special events. Aesthetically-pleasing architecture and built-surroundings can also make a city more exciting, and this does not need to be in a huge or capital city.

Vin, although I do agree with you that exciting cities don't have to be large/capital cities, large/multi cultural/global capital cities (with political/fiscal muscle to boot) like Berlin do have an edge over a more "provincial" Vancouver!

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Vin

Exciting cities do not have to be large. Their planners just need to be open to new ideas and dare to be different, and not be confined by the status-quo. They need to tour more exciting cities around the globe (with their own money of course) and be more worldly by expanding their horizons instead of just harping on a one-track thinking. Decision-making needs to be flexible, as in a case-by-case basis. All projects that can make a city more exciting can include various kinds of retail, culture/arts, sports, theme parks, entertainment outlets (not just beer halls) and special events. Aesthetically-pleasing architecture and built-surroundings can also make a city more exciting, and this does not need to be in a huge or capital city.

We do love to over-zone everything in North America, put 'everything in its place'. It's far too rigid and that is too bad. I would love to see small scale retail pushing into residential neighbourhoods more (small grocery stores, restaurants and coffee shops). I also agree about bigger projects being important to making a city more exciting, save for theme parks which are far too space-consuming for Vancouver I think.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Vancouver is an absolutely lovely city but I think a reality check is in order.

1) Vancouver is NOT a global world class city, stop comparing it to Sydney, Toronto, London, Paris, New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc.

2) For it's size it performs quite well to be entirely honest, but even than it is a drag.

Vancouver is a small oversized fishing and logging town that has been given world stardom due to the Olympics and thanks to dozens of quality of living reports.

Vancouver isn't the worlds most liveable city, heck it isn't even in the top 10 as far as I'm concerned.
The worlds most liveable cities would be in Europe and possibly Australia/NZ. Not in Canada.

As Far as fun is concerned? If fun = friday and saturday night on granville street downtown, than as far as I'm concerned, I don't exactly want anymore of that.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

1) Vancouver is NOT a global world class city

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/04/v...cities-future/
Large North American Cities of the Future
1. Vancouver, British Columbia

Large North American Cities of the Future: Economic Potential
1. Vancouver, British Columbia

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Vancouver is an absolutely lovely city but I think a reality check is in order.

1) Vancouver is NOT a global world class city, stop comparing it to Sydney, Toronto, London, Paris, New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc.

2) For it's size it performs quite well to be entirely honest, but even than it is a drag.

Vancouver is a small oversized fishing and logging town that has been given world stardom due to the Olympics and thanks to dozens of quality of living reports.

Vancouver isn't the worlds most liveable city, heck it isn't even in the top 10 as far as I'm concerned.
The worlds most liveable cities would be in Europe and possibly Australia/NZ. Not in Canada.

As Far as fun is concerned? If fun = friday and saturday night on granville street downtown, than as far as I'm concerned, I don't exactly want anymore of that.

I agree with you that Vancouver gets carried away with this "world class" notion, and is nowhere near San Fran, Toronto, Sydney ..... let alone NYC, Paris or London !!

However, I'd say it is a more than an oversized fishing-lumbering town. (It's only 130 years since the railway reached the coast - give it a break!)

Vancouver is rather like a adolescent, growing up to "be someone," yet perhaps not yet having realized its full identity.

It has a contingent of small-town mentality people ... and a big-city aspect as well:
It entered upon the world stage in 1976 with the UN Habitat Conference, and has since seen the Commonwealth Conference, an Expo, even the Clinton-Yeltsin summit back in the 90s.
That would not have happened in a large fishing-lumbering town.

It's entering it's next phase now, becoming economically more important, and paying more attention to its appearance at street-level - with mixed success.

But it's really "only a kid" as cities go. Give it another 25 years, and it may seem a lot snazzier, sleeker, and (dare I say it) ... world class, and is already setting an
example of urbanism copied in cities around the globe. (Melbourne is an example of one of our emulators). Give it time; it's going places.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by st7860

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/04/v...cities-future/
Large North American Cities of the Future
1. Vancouver, British Columbia

Large North American Cities of the Future: Economic Potential
1. Vancouver, British Columbia

1) Vancity buzz isn't entirely reliable. If you actually read the report you find out Vancouver is an after thought

Regardless, Vancouver is a great place for what it is. But we are not a world class city and our obsession with that Label needs to end.

Outside of the mountains, hills, lakes, and the ocean, we are known for almost nothing.

The worlds largest cities and the worlds most influential cities have industry. Vancouver has the worst economic growth and GDP per capita of any major city over 1 million in Canada and we are probably near the bottom still if you add the US.

Vancouver being a well planned, very liveable (though ridiculously expensive and this will wind up destroying the city within probably 20 years) city situated amongst some of the most majestic mountains and waterways makes us a destination. Outside of that however, we have pretty much nothing.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Vancouver has the worst economic growth and GDP per capita of any major city over 1 million in Canada and we are probably near the bottom still if you add the US.

Source for this, please. Also, worth a read: http://www.longfinance.net/images/PD...5March2013.pdf

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Vancouver is a small oversized fishing and logging town that has been given world stardom due to the Olympics and thanks to dozens of quality of living reports.

Come on, one could be trolling better than that.

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Vancouver isn't the worlds most liveable city, heck it isn't even in the top 10 as far as I'm concerned. The worlds most liveable cities would be in Europe and possibly Australia/NZ. Not in Canada.

This must be your personal opinion, as many countries and cities in Europe look up to Canada and Vancouver especially. We have it very, very good in here and millions envy what we have. Millions would also want to live here, if they just could.

I understand Canadians having trouble giving their country and wonderful cities enough credit. The grass seems always greener somewhere else, although it ain't. I guess Canadians are somewhat spoiled since they have it so good.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

1) Vancity buzz isn't entirely reliable. If you actually read the report you find out Vancouver is an after thought

Regardless, Vancouver is a great place for what it is. But we are not a world class city and our obsession with that Label needs to end.

Outside of the mountains, hills, lakes, and the ocean, we are known for almost nothing.

The worlds largest cities and the worlds most influential cities have industry. Vancouver has the worst economic growth and GDP per capita of any major city over 1 million in Canada and we are probably near the bottom still if you add the US.

Vancouver being a well planned, very liveable (though ridiculously expensive and this will wind up destroying the city within probably 20 years) city situated amongst some of the most majestic mountains and waterways makes us a destination. Outside of that however, we have pretty much nothing.

Toyko has a very advanced rail system right? Are any of their systems able to bring a train into a station just 20 seconds after a train left? In Vancouver its possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq3f7...eature=related

The top comprehensive university in Canada is in Metro Vancouver
https://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/stories/2...according.html

The busiest bus route in North America is in Vancouver
http://rabble.ca/babble/western-prov...t-bus-corridor

The top BMW salesperson in the USA is in Beverly Hills, however the top BMW salesperson in the world is in Metro Vancouver. Coincidentally they are both female!
http://www.ludiali.com/about-ludia.html
http://www.beverlyhillspeople.com/pages/neda_ad_2.html

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Vancouver is an absolutely lovely city but I think a reality check is in order.

1) Vancouver is NOT a global world class city, stop comparing it to Sydney, Toronto, London, Paris, New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc.

Nobody is comparing Vancouver to London and Paris. I would compare Vancouver to some larger cities like Seattle though.

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

As Far as fun is concerned? If fun = friday and saturday night on granville street downtown, than as far as I'm concerned, I don't exactly want anymore of that.

See this is the problem when people talk about Vancouver nightlife. They automatically bring up Granville street, as if this is the only option for going out. The lower part of Main street is far more interesting with venues that show live acts and feature more alternative dance music, like the Cobalt and Electric Owl. Also, there's the Rickshaw and The Imperial and much more. And it's edgy.

The same pseudo-cultured people who make remarks about Vancouver being duller than other cities are at the same time completely blind to what's happening in their own city. Some people need to get out more I guess.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Source for this, please. Also, worth a read: http://www.longfinance.net/images/PD...5March2013.pdf

I was flabbergasted seeing Vancouver ranked so relatively high. It seems to beat
Seattle (which is more of a corporate HQ with a bigger metro GDP than we have. It was not even mentioned, neither Dallas or Houston.)
Funny though; Vancouver doesn't appear - superficially - to be a major centre of finance .... but I guess it has its place. Interesting indeed!!

[red-paladin]

These conversations always seem to come down to:
1) The home town haters that do nothing but trash the city they live in, but don't seem to want to move.
2) The boosters that describe how Vancouver is the best city in the world in every post.

I think that Vancouver is big enough, with a real, organic reputation, that it doesn't require boosterism to become more popular, it can do that on it's own. The city is also always better than the home town haters think, and the opinions of tourists, immigrants and the resident population that actually takes part in activities and society will always outweigh theirs.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by logan5

Nobody is comparing Vancouver to London and Paris. I would compare Vancouver to some larger cities like Seattle though.



See this is the problem when people talk about Vancouver nightlife. They automatically bring up Granville street, as if this is the only option for going out. The lower part of Main street is far more interesting with venues that show live acts and feature more alternative dance music, like the Cobalt and Electric Owl. Also, there's the Rickshaw and The Imperial and much more. And it's edgy.

The same pseudo-cultured people who make remarks about Vancouver being duller than other cities are at the same time completely blind to what's happening in their own city. Some people need to get out more I guess.

Funny you should mention the electric owl. I live practically beside it and have been there many times.

However my point still stands. Vancouver performs ok for it's size, but it's far from what most young people would openly call a fun place.

Also the article in question makes those city comparisons. This city needs a reality check.

[MolsonExport]

taking quiet electrically powered transit buses that come frequently

always been my main criterion for choosing a place to visit.

I suppose that Montreal's metro and Toronto's streetcar networks don't count.

Jesus. And I lived in Vancouver for years (loved it, but come on!)