Trevor Boddy: The New Seattle (versus Vancouver)

[seaskyfan]

I'd definitely agree that Vancouver feels like a larger city on the ground. The density (residential and retail) really makes it feel a lot bigger.

Look forward to visiting again soon.

[Hot Rod]

Originally Posted by bgwah

Counties in the Western United States are so enormous that, while they may gave an approximate population for a metropolitan area, they do not even come close to a metro's actual land area.

For example , look at this map of King County:
http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/images/seattle-sprawl/study%20area.jpg

Even including the sprawliest areas as part of Metro Seattle's land area, about half the county is undeveloped.

I always see different ways of calculating the population of the Seattle area. Sometimes it is restricted to King and Snohomish, and does not even include Pierce/Tacoma. Sometimes it goes all the way to Olympia. And now apparently it occasionally includes Mason, too...? Anyway, using 2006 numbers...

King County (Seattle)
1,835,300

King + Snohomish (Everett)
2,507,100

King + Snohomish + Pierce (Tacoma) + Kitsap (Bremerton/Bainbridge) - The most common definition of Metro Seattle from my observations
3,524,000

Go a step futher and add Thurston County (Olympia) and Island County to that (usually the largest I see Metro Seattle ever get)
3,832,300

Go crazy and add Mason & Skagit counties, which is a little far in my opinion
3,998,500


Anyway, I don't think that is what the topic is actually about. The 22,000 number for downtown Seattle probably does not include neighborhoods like Capitol Hill. Whether or not you consider that part of downtown is a matter of opinion I suppose. mhays usually knows more about the downtown population (if he ever sees this thread).

I'm not sure why Seattle is getting attacked so much, most people here, at least the SSP forumers & urbanists in general, look to Vancouver most often as an example of what we want Seattle to look like in the future. You guys should be flattered.

And Boeing and Microsoft aren't Seattle's largest employers. Perhaps they are for the entire metropolitan area, I don't know, but for the city?

Oh well, I'm sure you guys are just angry because every time you watch a movie that takes place in Seattle, you'll see the Vancouver skyline.

bgwah, that was my point exactly - well spoken.

its not that we dont like seattle or anything but it seems to have a lot of pretention at times. And there seems to be a few SEA-boosters on this site who love to project a vision that Seattle is not.

And yes, it does piss some of us off when Vancouver's dense skyline and vibrant streetlife is credited as being Seattle in the films.

I think it gives people a misconception that Seattle is like that, when most of the time downtown Seattle is far from what we see in the movies, aka Downtown Vancouver.

I think it is this SAME misconception why some in this thread have a problem realizing that downtown Seattle should have 22,000 residents. Every time I visit, it looks like a downtown with 22,000 residents (or less).

Seattle for sure has MANY great things to offer and is a great neighbour, but it is too bad that most of them that get shown or published in the international marketing/films are actually in Vancouver, aside from the Space Needle and Public Market which area always digitally inserted.

I think the film "firefly" or whatever the name was with Harrison Ford, just about made me and my fiance die laughing - there were so many Vancouver landmarks/scapes in that film claiming to be Seattle, it isnt even funny.

..................

By the way, all of the publications say that Boeing and Microsoft are Seattle's largest companies, I agree that neither are hq'd in Seattle or have the largest employment base in the city. I know only WAMU, Starbucks, and AMAZON are the true Seattle Giants, although Boeing does have a large presence in the metro area (and even in Seattle at Boeing Field, which was the old corporate hq).

Microsoft is ALWAYS touted as being a Seattle company, but it has always been hq in Redmond and its facilities have always been on the Eastside.

[Hot Rod]

Originally Posted by SEA-TOWN

Yea, I guess its really not. I just got aggrevated because this is definately not the first thread where Hot Rod has claimed that the Vancouver metro area is larger than that of the Seattle metro area. It really doesn't matter. I think it just set me off after all the Seattle bashing that I saw in this thread...

Sea-Town, I never claimed that Vancouver metro was larger, I said Vancouver city was larger. But I only chime in when certain Seattle-boosters come in with their claims.

As far as the metro populations, I didn't think it would be such a big deal - we all know Greater Seattle/Tacoma is larger than Metro Vancouver. And the key is, it's Seattle AND Tacoma metros combined, not JUST Seattle.

But my point was - and it was more rhetorical than anything, was that the US uses a rather loose definition of a metro area while Canada has very strict rules on concatchment.

In Vancouver, they "arbitrarily" picked boundaries for the GRVD even though there are STILL cities to the East and West (across the water) that border the GRVD and rely on Van as the central city for almost everything. If Vancouver were in the US, all of this lower mainland/SE Vancouver Is/Belling/Blaine area would be called Metro Vancouver (just as the tv/cable markets call it), and this would be a much more fair comparison to Greater Seattle/Tacoma.

It is/was a theory not a claim for fact. I am glad it sparked some healthy debate from some but I am sad that there were others who saw it as an attack and am greatly troubled by the defense given by others.

but I think if you were going to compare apples-to-apples, then we should use the same concatchment since folks from VI-Nanaimo/Victoria and Abbotsford/Blaine do in fact commute to Vancouver for jobs/education/shopping and since looking from a sattelite there isn't really any natural boundaries separating those areas.

Even TO often uses the Golden Horseshoe as its TRUE "Consolidated Metropolitan Area" so I don't see why Vancouver couldn't do something similar. At least then you could compare apples-to-apples you'd see the two are pretty dang close at best.

I do think it is pretty questionable that Seattle would include Mason County and Island County in its metro. But since Seattle it does, then Vancouver should include Vancouver Island and the Western Fraser Valley since there are ferries and commute patterns into the city. (those ferries from VI to Van are carrying somebody, aren't they, last time I rode one, I needed a reservation - it was that busy)

Im sorry to have somewhat been responsible for turning this into a city vs. city issue, but I think if you revisit the posts - you will see that I was only responding to what was being said and offering a different "look" at what makes up Metro Vancouver, and that is a better comparison.

This was my whole argument. Anyone offended, please accept my apologies - but I too have a right to discuss and I've clearly have tried to do just that. Im willing to move on .....

[Nutterbug]

All areas that are contiguously red or reddish should be considered to be within the same metro area, wouldn't you say? To include Bellingham into Vancouver's would be reaching. And you can't exactly equate a 1.5 hour ferry ride across the Strait of Georgia to a half hour ride across Puget Sound.

Anyways, it seems some people here get about as defensive about their metro size like it's their penis size.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by seaskyfan

I'd definitely agree that Vancouver feels like a larger city on the ground. The density (residential and retail) really makes it feel a lot bigger.

Vancouver's missing the supertalls though, so it that sense, Seattle feels like the bigger city.

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

And yes, it does piss some of us off when Vancouver's dense skyline and vibrant streetlife is credited as being Seattle in the films.

Would you prefer they film them in Seattle?

[renthefinn]

No Van Island communities should be considered or would be considered part of Metro Van even if in the states, there simply aren't enough commuters, not to say there aren't any commuters, but the percentage doesn't come close to justifying it. Heck I know of people who work in Calgary during the week but live in Vancouver, but you wouldn't try to lump Vancouver in as part of Calgarys metro would you?

[bgwah]

Bellingham is in a different country so no, it cannot be included as part of the Vancouver Metro. Windsor is not included the Detroit area, is it?

The 2000 census numbers are getting a little out of date, but you could go look there and they have more strict boundaries for a metro (not by county) called an "urban area" instead of an MSA.

And I don't think Mason is included in Metro Seattle...At least it shouldn't be!

And yeah... I was thinking of the Harrison Ford movie, where he would be driving through Vancouver and go up to his office with a view of the Space Needle, hahaha.

[SEA-TOWN]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

Besides Jiminy, we dont need to debate the size of Seattle or Vancouver - my point was to mention that Vancouver is just as big (if not bigger) if Canada used the same concatchment as the US.

Never said Vancouver was bigger huh?

[SEA-TOWN]

Originally Posted by renthefinn

Vancouver has a metro feel, that I've never seen in Seattle, but if I wanna fly to my home country, I've only ever been able to get there through Seattle, though that was a couple of years ago.

What exactly do you mean by "metro feel"?

[SpongeG]

weird i always preferred seattles spread out downtown at least retail wise

compared to vancouver's lone robson street

though vancouver has improved with burrard picking up and granville and hastings

but it still feels very spread out with dead pockets in between

and whats the deal with Daiso expanding like mad in seattle?

[SEA-TOWN]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

and whats the deal with Daiso expanding like mad in seattle?

Well I guess they are pretty successful... Maybe it is due to the large area Japanese population?

Apparently as much as 20 stores are planned for the Seattle area.

[Rusty Gull]

Interesting point about Daiso. Which begs the question: Why does Seattle lay claim to the Japanese grocery giant Uwajimaya Village, while Vancouver only has little-ole Fujiya. Can you imagine how Uwajimaya could transform a neighbourhood like Vancouver's Chinatown if it made the move north?

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by Rusty Gull

Interesting point about Daiso. Which begs the question: Why does Seattle lay claim to the Japanese grocery giant Uwajimaya Village, while Vancouver only has little-ole Fujiya. Can you imagine how Uwajimaya could transform a neighbourhood like Vancouver's Chinatown if it made the move north?

Because Seattle has more Japanese people.

Vancouver had the Yaohan supermarket, but the chain has long gone defunct, and T&T took it over.

[SpongeG]

Vancouver has the largest japanese community in Canada plus a ton of students

you would think there would be one more Daiso by now - there were plans for 5 in the lower mainland apparently
they should help revive international village and open a big ass one there

[Rusty Gull]

Nutterbug, where are you getting your stats on the Japanese populations in Seattle and Vancouver, respectively? I suspect that the Japanese-Canadian population in the Lower Mainland is higher than you think. And I have no doubt that Vancouver has a higher concentration of Japanese restaurants than Seattle.

I'm not arguing that Vancouver is under-served by Japanese retailers. In addition to Fujiya, the downtown core also has Konbinya food store and Izumi-Ya -- as well as the Chinese retailers like T&T (and the Chinese-owned Osaka in Richmond) which carry a wide array of Japanese foods.

However, there is a wonderful opportunity in the Vancouver market for Uwajimaya Village, if it was willing to expand beyond its U.S. Pacific Northwest comfort zone.

One other Japanese retailer that both Vancouver and Seattle are missing: the clothing retailer Uniqlo.

[SpongeG]

i would settle for MUJI

damn i loved that store in the UK





i believe Vancouver's or BC's Japanese population is 27,000 compared to Toronto whose Japanese population is only 14,000 not sure of what Seattle's numbers are

[raggedy13]

^Here's a decent website for Seattle info...
http://www.cityofseattle.net/oir/datasheet/demographics.htm

Might be a bit out-dated though since it appears to be from 2000 census info.

Japanese:
Seattle (City) = 8,979
King County = 21,455
Washington = 35,985

According to the 2001 Census...
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/Profil01...Begins&SearchPR=59&B1=Population&Custom=

Japanese:
Vancouver (City) = 8,280
GVRD = 24,025
BC = 32,730

An interesting comparison. The numbers are quite close with Washington having greater total numbers and BC with a greater concentration (and nearly the same totals). Most interesting is how Seattle proper has both a greater total number as well as concentration than Vancouver proper (since Vancouver proper is larger in pop. than Seattle proper).

[SpongeG]

Victoria probably had the bigger Japanese community back in the day

it used to also have a larger chinese community than Vancouver - there were a lot of small japanese and chinese communities all over the island

also Steveston had a large japanese community and richmond still has a lot of Japanese

[SEA-TOWN]

Originally Posted by raggedy13

^Here's a decent website for Seattle info...
http://www.cityofseattle.net/oir/datasheet/demographics.htm

Might be a bit out-dated though since it appears to be from 2000 census info.

Japanese:
Seattle (City) = 8,979
King County = 21,455
Washington = 35,985

According to the 2001 Census...
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/Profil01...Begins&SearchPR=59&B1=Population&Custom=

Japanese:
Vancouver (City) = 8,280
GVRD = 24,025
BC = 32,730

An interesting comparison. The numbers are quite close with Washington having greater total numbers and BC with a greater concentration (and nearly the same totals). Most interesting is how Seattle proper has both a greater total number as well as concentration than Vancouver proper (since Vancouver proper is larger in pop. than Seattle proper).

I could of sworn I looked up these numbers before and the population for the Seattle area was closer to 45,000... Oh well... Besides, the Seattle proper is more than just King County...

[raggedy13]

Originally Posted by SEA-TOWN

I could of sworn I looked up these numbers before and the population for the Seattle area was closer to 45,000... Oh well... Besides, the Seattle proper is more than just King County...

Oh, well by Seattle proper I meant Seattle City since Vancouver City here is known as Vancouver proper.