Yeah, my statements were definitely a bit much, I pretty much agree with most of what you say because I hadn't meant to be that definitive but you piqued me just enough to respond.
the natural terrain and the architecture can sometimes be separated
My understanding of the comment wasn't the architecture, but the skyline, which in my view is massively affected by the mountains.
Viewed from, say, North Vancouver, Vancouver’s skyline cannot match Seattle’s, and not by a very long shot in my humble opinion.
Well if you view Seattle's skyline from its least attractive angles and compare it to Vancouver's best, you could say the same.
Granville Street, with its bizarre critical mass of douchey bars and wasted teens from Surrey two nights a week doesn’t count in my opinion.
Well, then you are right, without the largest grouping of people on a street totally full of bars, clubs theatres and music venues, it is just
dead. But I won't disagree about Coal harbour etc. That is for absentee Hong Kongers and rich retirees. Anyway, I made the contrast far too opposite and Seattle does have some action. In fact some areas
only have people at night.
Still, not many condos exist in Seattle while many do in Vancouver. As for the overall feel, I
do prefer Seattle precisely
because it is less condoified and therefore sterile. It has lots of areas that are more like Commercial in Vancouver or Gastown before it went upscale.
Also, of course people commute in both places - the dichotomy was too harshly put - but the fact is the downtown of Seattle is mostly corporate and not much residential development is going on. If I can't say that Seattle has a lot of highways for its size and that more people commute there, I won't argue because it is futile. Go there and see for yourself.
The population of Vancouver was quite tiny back when that decision was made, and had no manufacturing base to be concerned about – it’s always easier to make a decision like that when the need to move a great deal of people and goods is non-existent.
Wrong, there was tons of manufacturing all along the water and one of the largest ports in NA with all kinds of tertiary activity. No back patting, just actual decision - just like the beaches and the Spadina expressway. The viaduct was put in place in opposition to popular opinion and was to be the start of the megahighway - it is now hopefully being demolished. The only reason that the traffic is bad is that transit hasn't expanded enough to compensate.
My wife, a born and bred Vancouverite, always points out how badly the views of the natural landscape have been compromised looking from say the south side of False Creek towards North Vancouver.
Yeah, I am pro-development. I think a balance has been struck. The guy I was arguing against wants no restrictions. Your wife, like many Vancouverites, wants only nature. I am in between, where the current policies are. Sure you can't see everything from Granville Island, but just go up to Broadway and there is plenty there - but there wouldn't be without the view cones.
I would still argue Seattle’s skyline far surpasses Vancouver’s.
I didn't say it wasn't better - I said it is about 1 million people better plus a huge corporate base better. I was just saying the comparison is not 1:1. Imagine Vancouver when there are 1 million more people, plus whatever people come in to Seattle from the exurbs and places like Burlington. With all the condos plus people I think it would be more impressive than Seattle, but my opinion only I suppose.
Last, as to your complaining about the architecture, a lot is bad but there is a lot that is good coming and built. Coal harbour has quite a few nice new condos, the convention centre and BC place are great, BIG is doing a condo near Burrard bridge, Georgia Hotel is fantastic, Shangri-la isn't bad, most of the new commercial buildings look like they will be great (MNP, Credite Swiss, Bentall 6, Telus Gardens etc.) Vancouver's Turn will be top notch, etc. etc. For a small city it does alright - maybe not as good as the "best place on earth" b.s. but not too, too bad either.
I also am sorry and won't take the thread off topic again. I suppose the relevant comparison to Toronto is the tapering strategy, and I think that is worthy of discussion, but mostly because I think it isn't the best strategy for Toronto and I think another approach to the livability of the downtown would be better. The only "view" that preserves is from the island, but perhaps it does preserve the neighbourhoods next the the downtown, such as is being discussed in the Mirvish thread. The 1 Yonge development - as Innsertnamehere has shown - would balance the CN tower and provide a fantastic contrast to the CBD.
