What is Vancouver? A response...

[mr.x]

On another forum, I asked what people thought of our city as a tourist destination. This is one Berliner's response, and sadly I couldn't agree more.


- relies on natural setting to sell itself as the standalone city is rather generic and unexceptional
- thinks it's world class (it's not)
- laid back (i.e. boring, if vibrant urban culture is your thing)
- nightlife, art scene, culture, urban vibrancy distinctly lacking or underdeveloped
- bland, uninspired architecture (with a few exceptions)
- sprawling suburbia, low population density outside of downtown peninsula (yet some people, apparently, find Vancouver "crowded"...?)
- green...lots of parkland, urban forests etc. and surrounded by nature (the mountains and ocean the city is known for)
- summer brings out the best in people
- the rainy fall/winter season can be depressing
- home to wreck beach (swimming nude in the ocean in the summer can be very therapeutic)
- gay friendly
- an abundance of restaurant/eateries serving good food from every corner of the world
- multicultural
- xenophobia/intolerance has increased in recent years
- poverty and homelessness increased dramatically during the last decade

- generally, as a place to live, rather boring, overrated and full of itself
- a few saving graces that make living here bearable (provided, of course, one leaves the city for at least one month each year...this is a non-negotiable necessity)



That basically sums up the city as an attraction...


And personally, I don't get the whole nature and recreation thing as our main thing. You can do that ANYWHERE in the world.

Sure, we market ourselves as a destination where you could "ski, golf, and sail" all on the same day. But how many people actually go golfing and skiing all in one day?

If you really want a quality skiing experience, go to the interior or Whistler (which btw is NOT a "Vancouver destination").

Basically, we're far too reliant on our natural environment.