Quote:
Originally Posted by simonfiction
High cost of living, hosting a major cultural event (Winter Olympics), major city in a country gaining international influence and in a geographically advantaged part of that country, excellent infrastructure - I'm not sure why you're surprised, it seems we tick a lot of the standards of this index. If anything, I'm surprised Montreal isn't below us.
|
While I agree with you on most points, (and let's not forget the UN Habitat Summit of (?) 86, nor the Clinton-Yelstin summit in the early 90s, both of which pushed us into the "big league," at least media wise), there are elements I might disagree on, or at least question.
You thought we might even have been ahead of Montreal.
First, although less an international player for many years now after Toronto, it still has substantial production infrastructure for stuff like aerospace, pharmaceuticals, and more. It slumped a long time, but has largely regained its dynamism. There is an extensive metro system in the city which has been enlarged in stages since it was opened in 1966.Maybe other infrastucture needs work. (I'll have to look that one up)
Also, an indicator of the "global index" as you'll notice if you do a lot of research, is the number of air destinations, and where they go. Example; small, but powerfully oil-rich Oslo has direct flights to the USA, all over Europe, and of course the Gulf States, with Qatar Air and EK etc etc etc.
Vancouver has a very respectable roster of destinations throughout East Asia (... come back, SQL, come back ....) and Auckland and Sydney, both of which are unserved from Seattle (ranked as a Beta normal city, as opposed to Bata+ like us. However they do have Paris wheras we don't (pretty major market, many will disagree) and we don't have EK to Dubai.
And apparently YVR was the FIRST choice for EK, I read somewhere. (Thank you Ottawa) We could push for IST, the most optimal for YVR. Ok enough airport stuff.
The housing prices are very expensive, yes,! but are sometimess ill-affordable in a city without a lot of big-league incomes. Some, yes, most, no. I think this reflects a natural geographic advantage, in a city where land is scarce, and enables investors to drive prices artificially high. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, I think this reflects an insufficiently diversified economy.
We all know Vancouver grew from a logging town, and gradually diversified into many sectors, yes. But somehow it still doesn't seem enough.
I find it ironic ironic that with as much medical research infrastructure as is here, such as that out at UBC, and including pharmacolgy, that we don't have a more important pharmeutical sector. That's something that would make Vancouver more global economically.
The transit ... nifty things are coming down the pipe, and yes we're way ahead in the number of transit PAX for cities in the USA three times the size, like Dallas. If we had more culture, (like stealing the Seatlle music scene, even their Opera), that woud be a big plus, but not necessarily a category changer.
There was once, oh so long ago, talk of making Vancouver into an International Banking Centre, if anyone kows about that. Anyone?
That might have pushed us into Alpha- but that seems a long way off, unless something here germinates and extrapolates.
Prev
Vancouver makes the "The 10 Global Cities With The Best Infrastructure"
Linear Mode
