MOV Exhibit: Vancouver Imagined: The Way We Weren't

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by giallo

It's not that it's politically incorrect, it all has to do with hindsight. If that particular freeway would have come in to Vancouver, some key neighbourhoods (Chinatown/Gastown) would have been razed. Vancouver would have been a lesser city for it. Look at before and after pictures of American cities from the 1940s and then from the 1960s; the difference between their downtowns and surrounding neighbourhoods is staggering.

Bcasey mentioned that he thinks Vancouver would have felt more urban with this freeway network. Um, what? Drive through San Francisco, and then drive through Atlanta, and tell me which city feels more urban and complete.

We've dodged so many bullets in this city.

I don't want a freeway and before you think that I would have wanted this, think again.

My best comparison is Vancouver vs Seattle.

Seattle feels and looks so much larger and it's not just due to taller buildings, the freeway system and street system gives it a much larger feel.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

I don't want a freeway and before you think that I would have wanted this, think again.

My best comparison is Vancouver vs Seattle.

Vancouver feels and looks so much larger and it's not just due to taller buildings, the freeway system and street system gives it a much larger feel.

I assume that was a typo and you mean Seattle feels bigger? If so, Seattle does feel bigger, but it has nothing to do with the I-5 completely decimating their inner city. It's because Seattle has a whole extra million people, is more corporate and is much less multinodal. If you take all our regional town centres and the population, jobs and skyscrapers they have and put them downtown all of a sudden Vancouver looks much bigger. Which is not to say I don't support our nodal metro layout, but it contributes to downtown not being as imposing as it otherwise would have been.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I assume that was a typo and you mean Seattle feels bigger? If so, Seattle does feel bigger, but it has nothing to do with the I-5 completely decimating their inner city. It's because Seattle has a whole extra million people, is more corporate and is much less multinodal. If you take all our regional town centres and the population, jobs and skyscrapers they have and put them downtown all of a sudden Vancouver looks much bigger. Which is not to say I don't support our nodal metro layout, but it contributes to downtown not being as imposing as it otherwise would have been.

Yes, typo, thanks for recognizing that. I have a headache.

Also, Seattle and Vancouver metro comparison's are extremely close.

3.6 million in the Seattle area which includes cities as far away as olympia and mt vernon.

Theres 2.8 million in Vancouver's lower mainland area.

It wasn't the city's population that felt large to me. It was the infrastructure and the freeway system and road network felt bigger to me.

Vancouver's streets, not just downtown, feel like small town streets to me.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Yes, typo, thanks for recognizing that. I have a headache.

Also, Seattle and Vancouver metro comparison's are extremely close.

3.6 million in the Seattle area which includes cities as far away as olympia and mt vernon.

Theres 2.8 million in Vancouver's lower mainland area.

It wasn't the city's population that felt large to me. It was the infrastructure and the freeway system and road network felt bigger to me.

Vancouver's streets, not just downtown, feel like small town streets to me.

Americans seem to be willing travel a lot further, so I think the populations I mentioned stand. It's hard to include the entire Lower Mainland as Vancouver's area because I don't think many people from Chilliwack commute downtown.

As far as road network, that's just personal opinion so I can't really say anything about it. To me, mass transit feels bigger city than big roads do but like I said that's entirely subjective.

[Klazu]

Yeah, all those Seattle freeways are just so lovely places to be stuck in a daily traffic jams. Gives you plenty of time to admire the skyline.

I love Seattle, but I hate their car-dependency.

BTW, thanks guys for the comments. I was surprised for this thread to re-surface two months after I posted my photos, but thanks!

[red-paladin]

I am not sure about apparent size. I have met people that live in Seattle that assumed Vancouver was a 'bigger city' after visiting downtown and were surprised that the population of the greater Seattle area is so much larger.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I am not sure about apparent size. I have met people that live in Seattle that assumed Vancouver was a 'bigger city' after visiting downtown and were surprised that the population of the greater Seattle area is so much larger.

Interesting. Even before I started getting into populations I always felt that Seattle was bigger. At the same time Portland and Vancouver are basically the same size, yet Portland's always felt significantly smaller to me.

[Genauso]

Today's Metro populations, Seattle:3.5 million, Vancouver 2.5 million, total=6 million
at 3.5% annual growth, that's a doubling in 20 years or 12 million total
at 30 years that's 17 million.

That's Los Angeles today.
We are one of the few places on Earth without problems with cheap fresh water, cheap electricity, and a clean environment. The growth has not been the fastest, but it has a long way to run under many different future scenarios.

There's a lot of change to come, we can't define a city based on what didn't happen forever.

[Metro-One]

Actually I always felt that metro Seattle and metro Vancouver were the same size.

Seattle has the higher towers and the larger freeways making it seem larger, but then Vancouver has the more complete downtown feeling and a much larger true metro system, to me this adds so much to the city feeling.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Seattle is sprawling all over the place, Vancouver is fairly dense in a small area.

Vancouver is surrounded by farmland (this is good but doesn't feel urban), Seattle's metro lacks a farming community until you get way out of king county past Everett heading north.

Seattle's freeways, taller skyline, and overall more corporate look screams big city to me.

Vancouver's lack of high-rises above 400 ft, lack of freeways and overpasses, and bland condo buildings give it the look of a small resort town with some commerce.

Vancouver's downtown is more active and lively in theory, but when I was in seattle a few months ago, It felt the opposite to me. Downtown Seattle was bigger, had more going on, and was subjectively more active.

Vancouver however isn't very active unless it's summer and the only reason it's downtown is so active is due to the fact people actually live in the core whereas in Seattle they do not.

I also found downtown seattle seemed safer, had less homeless and visible poverty, and less sketchy people.

Vancouver has a LOT of problems to work on, we should start by bulldozing the entire dtes and starting over.

If this freeway was built, the whole DTES problem wouldn't be as big right now, Seattle has NO comparison to the dtes and overall was a cleaner, larger city with a lot more going on.

The only thing that felt small in seattle was once leaving the core it was very suburban.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Vancouver's bland condo buildings give it the look of a small resort town with some commerce...

Vancouver has a LOT of problems to work on, we should start by bulldozing the entire dtes and starting over.

Seeing as how the DTES has the largest concentration of historic buildings in the city, bulldozing it would be criminal. You want more bland condos?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Seattle is sprawling all over the place, Vancouver is fairly dense in a small area.

Vancouver is surrounded by farmland (this is good but doesn't feel urban), Seattle's metro lacks a farming community until you get way out of king county past Everett heading north.

Seattle's freeways, taller skyline, and overall more corporate look screams big city to me.

Vancouver's lack of high-rises above 400 ft, lack of freeways and overpasses, and bland condo buildings give it the look of a small resort town with some commerce.

Vancouver's downtown is more active and lively in theory, but when I was in seattle a few months ago, It felt the opposite to me. Downtown Seattle was bigger, had more going on, and was subjectively more active.

Vancouver however isn't very active unless it's summer and the only reason it's downtown is so active is due to the fact people actually live in the core whereas in Seattle they do not.

I also found downtown seattle seemed safer, had less homeless and visible poverty, and less sketchy people.

Vancouver has a LOT of problems to work on, we should start by bulldozing the entire dtes and starting over.

If this freeway was built, the whole DTES problem wouldn't be as big right now, Seattle has NO comparison to the dtes and overall was a cleaner, larger city with a lot more going on.

The only thing that felt small in seattle was once leaving the core it was very suburban.

Wow, I've always felt the opposite. I'll walk all over downtown Vancouver no problem, but downtown Seattle at night scares the hell out of me.

I agree though that Seattle's downtown feels busier. But I don't think it's because of freeways.

[GMasterAres]

Case of grass is greener on the other side. I've had friends from New York and LA come to Vancouver and have commented that Vancouver's downtown makes the entire city look like a city of 8 or 9 million people. Everyone I've ever spoken to from outside Vancouver that visits thinks very similar, that the city seems so much larger than many other cities, even other cities that are vastly larger than metro-Vancouver population wise.

I've also heard comments along the lines of "Man your towers just go and go.. you are downtown Vancouver with like 1000 towers, then you're at Metrotown with loads of towers, then Edmonds with loads, then New West with loads, then Surrey almost 45 minutes away with many towers."

As someone who has traveled many parts of the World, I don't feel a small town tiny vibe out of Vancouver at all ever. Is it Hong Kong? No. London? No. But it doesn't feel tiny or small. You can gripe left or right about little things but it always comes down to grass is always greener. I spend quite a bit of time in Seattle too and it, to me, seems on par with Vancouver. I like the vibe, I like the feel. But if you really think about it, Seattle is just Seattle. You have basically 1.5 collections of towers in the entire region. Seattle + Bellevue. Bellevue to me when you're coming down the 405 looks dense and big again compared to other areas in Metro-Vancouver but that's because of the building compactness.

The difference I find in US cities compared to Vancouver, is that they build buildings stacked next to each other giving you this dense look. Take Bellevue again. It has maybe 25 high-rises at most yet looks super dense when you're up close. Metrotown though has what 40 towers? Heck even Brentwood I think has 25 or so and Surrey Central is creeping close to that number, but they are spread out. So you get gaps in the skyline.

If you look at Surrey from Ikea in Coquitlam the angle makes it look super dense, then you look at Surrey from New West and it looks like there's an entire city between each tower.

And Seattle is much like Bellevue. You get buildings chalk blocked next to each other. It creates an illusion, not to mention there are moderately taller towers and less of them. Is downtown Seattle taller? Sure, but we're not talking New York vs Vancouver here and honestly, if you didn't know the "foot-count" of the tower heights in Seattle, outside of the bank of america building, you'd be hard pressed to tell their second tallest is over 150 taller than Vancouver's tallest.

Vancouver downtown again has hundreds of skyscrapers but as most are around the same height it can make it kind of look like this flat plain of meh.

So I dunno.

As for the freeway stuff, I think it could have been done right if it was well thought of but it would have been a different city so would be hard to classify it as a dodged bullet to me. It's hard to know how the region would have ended up with that freeway system in place. I have my doubts the fabric of Vancouver would have been destroyed with a 3rd crossing though. That probably would have ended up being a good thing in the long run...

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i really only miss 2 parts from the freeway system really.

- i feel that us not getting project 200 is a very large shame. it would have given us a different type of building, lots of waterfront space, and would have "made" land which is currently just a dirty rail yard that cuts us off from the water. project 200 would have fixed all of this. i think it also would have helped us with that crap-hole DTES drug capital. i doubt that would exist is project 200 were built. it would have also made DT more of a business centre compared to more of a "resort town" full of condos that all look the same, such as what we have now, for the most part.
Klaus' photos

- i think also think that not getting an East/West Freeway that connects with the Canada 1 is another lost opportunity. i saw a very nice plan where the Freeway started with the viaducts and wound its way down into the Gradnview-Cut. it followed that all the way to the #1 basically. i think that would have been a great idea as well as keeping everything in a low profile type way. ie all bellow grade in a trench or tunnel for that last part.
not sure who these were from originally. I've had them for years.

[Caliplanner]

Bcasey25raptor, I live in L.A. but my wife and kids live in Vancouver. Indeed the first comment my teenage son made to me on his first trip back home to L.A. is that the streets and general public infrastructure in the (pro-car designed) City of Angels look much bigger than those of Vancouver. I gave it much thought and have come to the conclusion that hilly topography, the age of the (pre-car) road infrastructure of some B.C. cities (like New West) and the relatively narrow peninsula on which Vancouver (like San Francisco) was built, all contribute to the relatively tiny roads.

[Caliplanner]

red-paladin and Metro-One, downtown Vancouver seems small to me. Funny enough many of my American friends who are now trained urban planners also make that comment quickly on visiting Vancouver. Given that I take the Canada Line in from YVR when I come to visit my family in Vancouver, I can say that its small size (two car/people mover scaled) trains definitely gives Vancouver a smaller "suburban" feel.

[Caliplanner]

red-paladin and Metro-One, downtown Vancouver seems small to me. Funny enough many of my American friends who are NOT trained urban planners also make that comment quickly on visiting Vancouver. Given that I take the Canada Line in from YVR when I come to visit my family in Vancouver, I can say that its small size (two car/people mover scaled) trains definitely gives Vancouver a smaller "suburban" feel.

[connect2source]

Project 100 would have levelled Gastown all the way to Abbott St., yes it would have been nice to have the Crab Park area accessible and developed but not at the expense of our most historic and important central area.

I do, however, agree that that having and east-west freeway, well designed and within the Grandview Cut, would have been brilliant and would have resulted in minimal negative effect on the urban landscape. Was the width intended to be 6 lanes like the viaducts? I fear if it was it would likely be gridlock today

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by connect2source

I do, however, agree that that having and east-west freeway, well designed and within the Grandview Cut, would have been brilliant and would have resulted in minimal negative effect on the urban landscape. Was the width intended to be 6 lanes like the viaducts?

Yep:

[ozonemania]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner

red-paladin and Metro-One, downtown Vancouver seems small to me. Funny enough many of my American friends who are NOT trained urban planners also make that comment quickly on visiting Vancouver. Given that I take the Canada Line in from YVR when I come to visit my family in Vancouver, I can say that its small size (two car/people mover scaled) trains definitely gives Vancouver a smaller "suburban" feel.

A bit of an anecdote... I remember when my (former) boss from New York came to Vancouver for the first time, at one point he asked me where "Downtown" was. I felt a little awkward because when he asked me, we were actually standing in the middle of it!

We have lots of towers, but our downtown's commercial district is tiny, or at least by superficial examination. We incorporate alot of mixed use, which will disguise some of our commercial space. Our commercial tenants may be numerous but are smaller, who don't require say 10 floors of contiguous office space. We are also a multi-nodal city, where a good chunk of our population actually does not work downtown, but may live or conduct day-to-day activities in the downtown core.

I debated telling him all this, but it was easier just to say that we are a small city, which we are. He then looked confused, because of the amount of street life activity going on around us didn't make it look like a small (American) city, which was his point of reference.

That being said, I wish we had a bit of a more imposing commercial district. Even if height restrictions and zoning were relaxed further, we are so built out I'm not sure if it will ever happen. Maybe the area centred around the Canada Post building is our last hope? What sort of viewcones exist over there? Surely there can't be any....