Why Do Canadian Skylines Overperform Relative To Their Metro Populations?

[GreaterMontréal]

Montréal has a much larger highway network than Vancouver. Its skyline is also very centralized, compared to Vancouver. Other than the population density, you can't really compare the two, they are very different cities.

[giallo]

dp

[giallo]

Originally Posted by goat314

I disagree, St. Louis and Pittsburgh both feel like their respective sizes from an American perspective. Also, outside of the West End Vancouver looks like typical Pacific Northwest suburbia.

The skyline is more than just the West End. Yaletown, Coal Harbour and the CBD make up a significant portion of downtown and its towers.

As for outside of downtown, I'm not so sure Vancouver resembles typical PNW suburbia. The metro region is littered with hundreds and hundreds of high rises.

[dc_denizen]

^ more like PNW with Miami or Benidorm/Monaco mixed in

[giallo]

^ Yeah. That's a more apt comparison, I think.

[dc_denizen]

In the US you might have more of this:

The Armstrong at Knox by Wade Griffith, on Flickr

Alexan Ross by Wade Griffith, on Flickr

The Nash by Wade Griffith, on Flickr

with a similar unit count as those foreground towers

note the large footprint. US cities have a lot of room in central areas, cheaper/higher return to add 4-6 story midrise covering an entire block

[Razor]

^ That's what I mean..That first shot of that set of Vancouver pics screams more then a 2.5m metro. Then add in the secondary skylines.

[ue]

Originally Posted by goat314

I disagree, St. Louis and Pittsburgh both feel like their respective sizes from an American perspective. Also, outside of the West End Vancouver looks like typical Pacific Northwest suburbia.

I haven't been to St Louis or Pittsburgh, but from what I have seen in photos, from what I've heard of first-hand accounts, despite having beautiful downtown areas and core neighbourhoods, I doubt either are as busy as downtown Vancouver and some key neighbourhoods on an average day. Places like Granville St Downtown are easily as busy as the busy parts of downtown Seattle and generally busier than equivalent areas in Portland (which has a similar metro population to both Vancouver and Pittsburgh). The density of people, the concentration of amenities, the well-used transit system that feeds into the same area, etc cause the central areas of Vancouver to be busier than similarly-sized American metros that I've been to. St Louis seems even sleepier than Portland in the core areas.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ue

I haven't been to St Louis or Pittsburgh, but from what I have seen in photos, from what I've heard of first-hand accounts, despite having beautiful downtown areas and core neighbourhoods, I doubt either are as busy as downtown Vancouver and some key neighbourhoods on an average day. Places like Granville St Downtown are easily as busy as the busy parts of downtown Seattle and generally busier than equivalent areas in Portland (which has a similar metro population to both Vancouver and Pittsburgh). The density of people, the concentration of amenities, the well-used transit system that feeds into the same area, etc cause the central areas of Vancouver to be busier than similarly-sized American metros that I've been to. St Louis seems even sleepier than Portland in the core areas.

Pittsburgh's core is fairly busy. Probably not notably less busy than any Canadian core outside of Toronto and Montreal. St. Louis not so much.

But your general point is probably right. Canadian metros tend to have somewhat more active cores, apples-to-apples. U.S. metros like Pittsburgh and St. Louis have bigger bones than their current needs, so feel a bit sparse. Canadian metros often have weak historic bones, and feel very packed-in relative to infrastructure.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Pittsburgh's core is fairly busy. Probably not notably less busy than any Canadian core outside of Toronto and Montreal. St. Louis not so much.

But your general point is probably right. Canadian metros tend to have somewhat more active cores, apples-to-apples. U.S. metros like Pittsburgh and St. Louis have bigger bones than their current needs, so feel a bit sparse. Canadian metros often have weak historic bones, and feel very packed-in relative to infrastructure.

the last time i drove through vancouver the streets were incredibly busy, and seemed like a foot narrower than the early auto age neighborhoods would suggest (it's not like it was philly) and felt like i was in danger of sideswiping stuff on what would normally be a spacious pre-war (but solidly automobile/streetcar age) boulevard in the u.s. (with maybe even a neutral ground). i ended up in a weird traffic situation worse than anything i've encountered in los angeles mixed up in closed off streets and just trying to turn around and take a bridge.

on the flipside the level of core activity was suggestive of a region double the size, and the surface transit was as easy and good as it gets in north america on the dedicated surface lanes at least...

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by JoeMusashi

Americans generally don't want to live in residential towers unless they are luxury buildings or in prime locations. Suburban towers, like what you'd see in Toronto, is not appealing to an average American.

I thought I'd like this lifestyle but eventually grew tired of bringing up groceries and taking garbage/recyclables to the dumpster. And it wasn't even a tall building. I can't imagine dealing with this and a kid. Going up and down elevators is a nuisance, like living in a hotel.

I think that depends on the building.

My biggest complaint about my last building was the elevators. It was a former bank(24 stories) that got renovated into apartments. The elevators was slow, not intelligent at all, and were always packed because of those reasons. Taking my dog out 3 times a day and just living life became annoying. I avoided leaving my apartment some days because of the annoyance(I did the math and came to the conclusion I spent about 40 hours+ just waiting for my elevator while taking my dog out over a year).

My new building is smaller, has smarter elevators, and less units per elevator. I am almost NEVER in an elevator with others nor do I usually wait more than 5-10 seconds for one.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Canada doesn't over-perform; the US under-performs. I believe it's largely due to our "American-dream," white-picket-fence, SFH culture.

I feel it in my daily American existence. I'm constantly reminded that one can have a lot more space for a lot less money out in the burbs. People living the suburban life apply pressure every day: "Jesus! You're paying how much for a one-bedroom?" "Man, I was down there the other day and it took me like 10 minutes just to find a place to park! I don't know how you live down there!"

Not only does more square-footage for the buck mean each kid gets his/her own room, but you're keeping up with the Joneses.

In much of America, "I live in an apartment" still means "I'm a loser that hasn't made anything of myself yet."

In much of America, not owning a car still means, "I'm a loser and can't get a date."

In much of America, riding the bus still means, "I'm poor."

The culture is changing and there has definitely been a rise in the so-called urbanist movement and an increased desire for walkable neighborhoods, but we still have a long, long way to go - both in terms of cultural change, and in terms of massive infrastructure and policy change.

I suspect in a couple decades, US cities will start getting seriously dense due to cultural changes driven by environmental reasons and whatnot. For now though, I feel like COVID is going to be a temporary setback. I sure wouldn't mind having my own little mini-palace with its own private driveway and it's own private green space right about now. Being trapped down here in the city where I can't go outside without turning doorknobs, pushing buttons, and walking a sidewalk crowded with mask-wearers is making me wish, just a little bit, for that white picket fence. And I can't be the only one feeling this way.

Dude, YES. Everything you said.

I get so tired having family talk about how small my apartment is and "where do I store things" and the like. It's hard to put into words why I think my life is better than theirs. I would never down them on their choices, but its natural for them to do it to me.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by JManc

In much of America, having a car isn't really about status but a necessity and buses in most cities aren't really that efficient in getting from point A to point B; it often involves transfers and longer commute times. High school kids even really don't care about having cars anymore and have to be drug kicking and screaming to the DMV.

I highly doubt the "average" teen is kicking and screaming going to get their license...which in the teenage world means ultimate freedom.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I highly doubt the "average" teen is kicking and screaming going to get their license...which in the teenage world means ultimate freedom.

Fewer teens are driving these days. Not uncommon for teens to get to college and still not have their license.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Fewer teens are driving these days. Not uncommon for teens to get to college and still not have their license.

True. But the percentages are small.

[IrishIllini]

^ It was down to about a quarter of 16-year-old kids having their license in 2018. That seems to be about half what it was in the 1980s, when nearly 50% of 16-year-old kids had their license. Uber and Lyft have made it easier to get around and fewer kids work low wage jobs during their high school and college careers. University students who do have jobs are often employed through their university or at private businesses adjacent to campus.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

^ It was down to about a quarter of 16-year-old kids having their license in 2018. That seems to be about half what it was in the 1980s, when nearly 50% of 16-year-old kids had their license. Uber and Lyft have made it easier to get around and fewer kids work low wage jobs during their high school and college careers. University students who do have jobs are often employed through their university or at private businesses adjacent to campus.

My sister was born in the mid/late-90s and didn't get her license until she was 20 or 21, and even then she wasn't in a rush to do it. I was born in the 80s and got mine when I was 16.

[montréaliste]

My two sons are 22 and 24. The older one has had 7 cars from the time he turned 17. The other one is onto his 6th car.

I guess they are not your typical gen X millenial types.

They are tuned into so many youtube tuning channels that it is hard to believe there aren't more like them in that cohort.

[Martin Mtl]

My two sons are 19 and 21. The older one did not finish his driving lessons by lack of interrest, the younger one never even mention taking driving lessons. We live in a central Montreal neighborhood.

Different situation, different priorities.

[BillM]

I noticed that teens are not particularly thrilled about getting their licence; it is just something they have to do.

The concept of driving is quite different than it was 20, 40 or 60 years ago. It started out as a privilege. Now it is thought of as a necessity.