Condé Nast - The Best Cities in the World 2017

[Martin Mtl]

delete

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by someone123

Another sad realization is that Vancouver is full of businesses like L'Éclair de Génie and Ladurée. So much stuff now is just generic and globalized. Or at least so much of what's in Vancouver is like this. As for the other stuff, well, do we think that Condé Nast readers visit Vancouver to go to Wreck to do mushrooms at sunset?

Wait a minute. When was Vancouver ever filled with its own local culture, as opposed to something generic and placeless? If you believe local lore, Vancouver's golden age was around the year 1965, when housewives would take the trolley bus to Woodwards from their Vancouver specials and there were working class diners on every corner. But weren't these housewives buying the same pillbox hats at Woodwards that their counterparts in Detroit were buying at Hudson's? And weren't these diners serving the same ham and eggs with Bun-o-Matic coffee that ten thousand other diners were serving from Cape Breton Island to Miami to San Diego? I guess they've been replaced by French-themed bakeries serving the same macaroons that they would in Shanghai and Dubai, but, you know, same shit, different bun.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Wait a minute. When was Vancouver ever filled with its own local culture, as opposed to something generic and placeless? If you believe local lore, Vancouver's golden age was around the year 1965, when housewives would take the trolley bus to Woodwards from their Vancouver specials and there were working class diners on every corner. But weren't these housewives buying the same pillbox hats at Woodwards that their counterparts in Detroit were buying at Hudson's? And weren't these diners serving the same ham and eggs with Bun-o-Matic coffee that ten thousand other diners were serving from Cape Breton Island to Miami to San Diego? I guess they've been replaced by French-themed bakeries serving the same macaroons that they would in Shanghai and Dubai, but, you know, same shit, different bun.

I dunno. I never meant to suggest that Vancouver had a golden age when it was filled with its own local culture. I am just pointing out that today it doesn't seem to offer a lot of that to most visitors. I understand that it's more appealing as a home base for exploring some of the scenery around BC, and that's probably part of why it's on the list.

It is a bit disappointing that you can get on a plane for 8 hours, get off, and see a lot of the same stuff, but then again I realize that people everywhere want a lot of the same things. There is no sense in artificially constraining what's available just so the privileged traveler can have a more exotic vacation. Also we have global markets now so local producers will sell to whoever pays the most, accounting for transportation costs.

But it's also not true that culture is today or was in 1965 the same everywhere as your Bun-o-Matic example suggests. There's a lot of East Coast food I'd like to get here but really can't for example (whether or not it's better is subjective, but it's not the same). Actually even the crappy diner food is markedly different. It's Vancouver that is relatively poor in terms of unique local stuff. Or at least that is my opinion. It would be impossible to prove this objectively, because we all have a different sense of what is or isn't important.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

How I god's name do Victoria and Vancouver out rank Florence?

Lot more internet connections per capita in SW BC than in Florence, ergo, more homers and random not-particularly-well informed people voting for those.

[dreambrother808]

To understand why tourists would rank Vancouver so high you have to put yourself in a tourist’s mindset, seeing a city for the first time. I love the big 3 in Canada. My first visit to each of them was filled with delight, but Vancouver had a unique awe because it looked and felt “different”. You cannot underestimate the power of its natural setting and the wonder of exploring that in the many ways offered, especially for the first time.

Comparing Van to the rest of the big 3 on urbanity alone is not what tourists are doing. Toronto and Montreal are competing globally pretty much solely on that urbanity in this survey. Vancouver has something else to offer and stands out as a result.

It’s like Rio vs Sao Paolo. SP isn’t going to impress a tourist as much even though there’s actually more culture, more diverse food, etc. (due to its size). Rio’s setting trumps all of that, from the average tourist’s perspective.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by someone123

I dunno. I never meant to suggest that Vancouver had a golden age when it was filled with its own local culture.

No, I never suggested that you did. I was suggesting, however, that a lot of Vancouverites are nostalgic for the 1960s and 1970s; at least for the world pre-Expo 86. There was a feeling that the city has lost a lot of innocence since then.

One thing that I've always found interesting is that Vancouverites [mis]remember the city as being vibrant enough to feel like a real city, but small enough to escape the attention of global elites as a place to dump their wealth (the fact that this wasn't a period of tremendous capital accumulation, and that China was behind a Maoist wall seems to escape many people who make these comments). All the pictures from this era are of city streets at the height of summer thronged with people and neon lights shimmering in the puddles. Nobody is trying to convey the message that the city was a provincial backwater. This is very different from Torontonians, who tend to look back embarrassingly at their city in the 1950s and never cease to point out that the city was in the shadow of a place like Buffalo. I think that Torontonians tend to revel in how far they've come, while Vancouverites tend to regret what they've lost.

There's a lot of East Coast food I'd like to get here but really can't for example (whether or not it's better is subjective, but it's not the same). Actually even the crappy diner food is markedly different. It's Vancouver that is relatively poor in terms of unique local stuff. Or at least that is my opinion. It would be impossible to prove this objectively, because we all have a different sense of what is or isn't important.

Well, I'll take your word for it. I feel that I'd have to dig deep when I go to the Maritimes, because my surface impressions from everything but actually being there suggests that a diner in New Glasgow has the same coffee, eggs, napkin dispenser, vinyl chairs, portion sizes, Kraft jams and tables with the laminate veneer as a diner in Vancouver or Grand Rapids, Michigan.

I'll stick up a bit for Vancouver and say that there are certain things that are unique to Vancouver that may not exactly register to the average tourist. These are things like Vancouver Specials and weird low-rent stucco wedding cake architecture that doesn't even look like the stuff they have across the border in Washington state, or the fact that, in winter, women dress in a weird combination of yogawear and a layer of cape-like sweaters and cardigans that, again, is somewhat different from how hipsters dress in Toronto or Seattle in equivalent weather. These are just the things that stood out at me when I moved here, but they were noticeable enough.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I think that Torontonians tend to revel in how far they've come, while Vancouverites tend to regret what they've lost.

I would agree with this but add that I think most Vancouverites who lament the way the city has changed care more about their day-to-day life than about how provincial the city is or was. And it does seem like there was a sweet spot in Vancouver's history when it was pretty similar to today yet vastly more affordable. I am thinking more of the 90's than the 50's. The 90's were also a bad period in the rest of Canada in terms of the economy and city building so BC and Vancouver stood out more then.

People like the neon sign pictures but does this mean they think the city was better back then?

Well, I'll take your word for it. I feel that I'd have to dig deep when I go to the Maritimes, because my surface impressions from everything but actually being there suggests that a diner in New Glasgow has the same coffee, eggs, napkin dispenser, vinyl chairs, portion sizes, Kraft jams and tables with the laminate veneer as a diner in Vancouver or Grand Rapids, Michigan.

I probably shouldn't use that as an example because 90% of the time on SSP when I do the person is incredulous and thinks the Maritimes couldn't possibly be like anything other than culturally equivalent to a random slice of the Midwest, and I'm being a cheerleader. It doesn't matter, because my point is simply that Vancouver is weak when it comes to unique local culture compared to just about every other city on that list, including places like Rome and London which appear farther down.

I'll stick up a bit for Vancouver and say that there are certain things that are unique to Vancouver that may not exactly register to the average tourist. These are things like Vancouver Specials and weird low-rent stucco wedding cake architecture that doesn't even look like the stuff they have across the border in Washington state, or the fact that, in winter, women dress in a weird combination of yogawear and a layer of cape-like sweaters and cardigans that, again, is somewhat different from how hipsters dress in Toronto or Seattle in equivalent weather. These are just the things that stood out at me when I moved here, but they were noticeable enough.

These are.. not very impressive or interesting though.

My favourite aspect of Vancouver is how liberal it is. I brought up the Wreck beach example because it shows an interesting aspect of the city's culture. This is shared by the rest of the West Coast to some degree but Vancouver is the only big West Coast Canadian city with this sort of feel. So you can enjoy these things here with less flagrant social signalling.

[SpongeG]

isn't it a purely american voting pool on the list? A lot of americans use vancouver or go to vancouver purely to get on a cruise to alaska and of the canadian cities would be the only one they would ever visit and therefore would vote Vancouver.

Not to stereotype but the types of people who go on cruises don't necessarily mean they are well traveled or are travellers who venture out of the states too much I imagine.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by logan5

The list makes sense for the most part, except how does Vancouver make #8 and Victoria #22, while Toronto and Montreal don't even make the list? Go figure.

To clarify, the first 20 are top large cities followed by 20 best small cities. So Victoria is ranked #2 best small city. Likely not ranked ahead of Toronto Montreal etc.

https://www.cntraveler.com/galleries...-awards-2014/1

Well that's a funny list that has no American city in all of the top 40.

Rome got ranked lower than it should have IMO.


Its a worthless list IMO.

[MolsonExport]

San Miguel de Allende is on the list, but NYC is not.

yeah, that list is definitive.

[zahav]

It is simply a readers choice list, nothing more nothing less. It is a subjective poll of people on their travel experiences and where they want to go. It is not scientific, but if people are voting and ranking where they travel, then it means something. If cities are sore they didn't make the list, then too bad, it is what it is. There must have been something about their experience travelling to some of those places that made them not be ranked higher. I have traveled all over the world, and I don't put New York, Rome and Athens (just 3 of the places I've been) above some smaller places just because they are more worldly and famous.

People are questioning the list because Vancouver and BC places did well. If Toronto was #9 there would be way less discussion. Sorry, but true.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by bnk

Well that's a funny list that has no American city in all of the top 40.

Rome got ranked lower than it should have IMO.


Its a worthless list IMO.

this list is cities not located in the usa


on this list OF USA cities Chicago is FIRST

Chicago rated top big U.S. city by Condé Nast Traveler readers


Voted second best in 2016 and third in 2015, Chicago has moved up the list once again

https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/10/1...-nast-traveler

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

No, I never suggested that you did. I was suggesting, however, that a lot of Vancouverites are nostalgic for the 1960s and 1970s; at least for the world pre-Expo 86. There was a feeling that the city has lost a lot of innocence since then.

One thing that I've always found interesting is that Vancouverites [mis]remember the city as being vibrant enough to feel like a real city, but small enough to escape the attention of global elites as a place to dump their wealth (the fact that this wasn't a period of tremendous capital accumulation, and that China was behind a Maoist wall seems to escape many people who make these comments). All the pictures from this era are of city streets at the height of summer thronged with people and neon lights shimmering in the puddles. Nobody is trying to convey the message that the city was a provincial backwater. This is very different from Torontonians, who tend to look back embarrassingly at their city in the 1950s and never cease to point out that the city was in the shadow of a place like Buffalo. I think that Torontonians tend to revel in how far they've come, while Vancouverites tend to regret what they've lost.

Vancouver still is a provincial backwater, the only thing that's changed is now it's rife with white collar crime and corruption. We've gone from a respectable small town in an amazing setting to an embarrassment that no one even cares about fixing.