Another one. Although I do tend to favour these sort of awards over things like Mercer or that Economist list simply because it's real people voting vs statistics.

In any event, congrats again Vancouver. Oh, and Vancouver Island too!

Vancouver tops again in Condé Nast ratings

Globe & Mail
Wednesday, October 19, 2005 Page S3

Vancouver -- For the second year in a row, readers of Condé Nast Traveller voted Vancouver the best city in the Americas. And for the sixth year running, they named Vancouver Island as best island in North America.

"It's all good news," said Olga Ilich, British Columbia's Minister for Tourism, Sports and the Arts. "Tourism right now brings in about $9 billion in revenue to the province, so it's very, very big," she said.

Cities in the competition were divided into geographic categories: the Americas, which covers Canada, Central America and South America; Asia/Pacific; Africa/Middle East; the United States and the Pacific Rim.

Cities were scored on ambience, friendliness, culture and sites, restaurants, lodging, and shopping.

At a ceremony in New York, Vancouver was awarded first place over San Miguel de Allende, Mexico and Buenos Aires, Argentina. CP

Why does the US get a category of it's own? and what cities won in the other cats?

Why does the US get a category of it's own?

Thats dumb, but its not like Vancouver wouldn't have won if the USA was included. :)

These are interesting lists. US cities that show up consistently in the top 10 are like Sante Fe, Charleston, and even Carmel?

Man, one of these days I'm going to visit Charleston!

I suppose this means that Vancouver is the best city in Canada as well, eh?

Bravo Vancouver!

Hmm...

Vancouver is great, but it's not like the U.S. doesn't have great cities. The fact that it has its own category suggests the separation allows for other cities in other countries to fair well. I think the legitimacy of Vancouver's designation as #1 would have greater significance if American cities had been included as well.

Think about it.

Hmm...

I think the legitimacy of Vancouver's designation as #1 would have greater significance if American cities had been included as well.



Goes without sayin

San Fran was the #1 US city.

Here's some further details

Results of the 2005 Conde Nast Traveler
Tuesday October 18, 12:32 pm ET
18th Annual Readers' Choice Awards

NEW YORK, Oct. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- The November issue of Conde Nast Traveler celebrates the 18th annual Readers' Choice Awards. This year's survey boasts the highest responses and scores ever in each category. With nearly 28,000 travelers voting, the lists show an even greater global variety and depth.

Many perennial favorites are holding onto their top spots. Singapore Airlines is again the 2005 #1 International Route Airline, and has led this category for 17 of the past 18 years (in 1994 Swissair took the top spot). San Francisco, the #1 US City, has also been #1 for 17 of the past 18 years (in 1992 Santa Fe won the honor). But there are some surprises too, including St. Lucia's Ladera, which is the first-ever Caribbean Hotel to rank number one in the Best of the Best category. St. John also climbed to the top of the Caribbean/Island category, marking the first time since 1994 that Bermuda has not won.

Also of note was the fact that New Orleans made the top ten cities list, which it has done consistently since Conde Nast Traveler's first reader poll in 1988. The magazine is confident that The Big Easy will rank high in the years to come, despite the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. As editor Klara Glowczewska notes, "New Orleans will need more than just your accolades ... bringing back residents and visitors alike will be fundamental to the city's long-term survival and will test the mettle of its tourism officials." New Orleans can find hope in Thailand's remarkable recovery. With five resorts (all in Phuket) in the top 15 Asian resorts category, there is proof that these beautiful regions are fully rebounding after last year's Tsunami.

Below are results for the top three winners in each category. Complete Awards results are listed on page 259 of the November issue, on newsstands October 25th.

Top Cities - United States:
1. San Francisco, CA
2. Santa Fe, CA
3. Charleston, SC

Top Cities - Europe:
1. Florence, Italy
2. Rome, Italy
3. Venice, Italy

Top Cities - Pacific Rim:
1. Sydney
2. Melbourne
3. Queenstown, NZ

Top Cities - The Americas:
1. Vancouver
2. San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
3. Buenos Aires

Top Islands - North America:
1. Vancouver Island
2. Kiawah, South Carolina
3. Nantucket

Top Resorts - Canada:
1. Four Seasons, Whistler, B.C.
2. Post Hotel, Lake Louise, Alberta
3. Fairmont Chateau Whistler, B.C.

Top Hotels - Canada:
1. Hotel Dominion 1912, Quebec City
2. Opus Hotel, Vancouver
3. Four Seasons, Vancouver

FULL LIST: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051018/nytu015a.html?.v=1

The November issue of Conde Nast Traveler is available on newsstands on October 25th. Unlike many other travel publications, Conde Nast Traveler does not accept free travel and accommodations, and its correspondents, as far as possible, travel anonymously. The result is travel the way consumers experience it -- good and bad, with reporting that is fair and honest. Conde Nast Traveler recently won its 6th National Magazine Award and is still the only travel publication to have won the highest honor in magazine publishing. Conde Nast Traveler, the 2005 Zagat Survey Best Travel Magazine, has a circulation of over 750,000 and is published by Conde Nast Publications, Inc.

Source: Conde Nast

I think it's a US based magazine, is why there is a US category. It makes more sense to have a US-Canada category imo. Good for Vancouver and SF!

This is a reader poll, it has no valididity at all, anymore than do the call-in polls on the news. Completely worthless.

This is not a scientific survey based on a probability sample, it is not based on objective quantitative measures as is the Mercer report (WHICH ALSO LAUDS VANCOUVER, this is NOT against Vancouver!); it is a voluntary vote that only says something about the readers of one magazine, and a self-selected segment of it at that.

Vancouver does have a lot going for it but culture????
Even Vancouverites often admit that their city is lacking in many cultural amenities and in terms of shopping Toronto and Montreal blow Vancouver out of the water.
I guess its all what you think is important.

Vancouver does have a lot going for it but culture????
Even Vancouverites often admit that their city is lacking in many cultural amenities and in terms of shopping Toronto and Montreal blow Vancouver out of the water.
I guess its all what you think is important.

Its funny that you never hear someone from Vancouver bitching about the cities lack of cultural amenities or shopping centers. Why do you always feel you need to point out the downside or shortcomings of the city?

When a city recieves a lot of praise and constantly rates # 1 in multiple surveys and studies - certain people tend to get jelous. Everyone hates the best - its like the kid who gets straight A's in class - its a grudge, so they have to point out nothing but the negative aspects to try to convince themselves that its not as good of a city as it's constantly proved and said to be by people around the world.

I've never been, but I'd love to check it out. I guess I've been so long without a vacation too that it'd be wonderful to go somewhere quiet. What should I look for if i visit?

WHITE
If you read it I said Vancouver has a lot going for it but its cultural institutions aren't one of them.
Vancouver Art Gallery is embarrasing and the city has no great museum, opera house, performing arts, and its theatre scene is rather limited.
Shopping?....I noticed you said shopping centre. Not my idea of interesting shopping.
Vancouver does have wonderful things. Fantasic setting, aquarium, parks system that is phenominal, dense and vibrant downtown, good but small museum of anthropology which is unique.
I don't cut down Vancouver all the time but I also recognize that it is a sports and outoddor haven that often results in mediocer cultural scene. People are simply more outdoor oriented.
Nothing wrong with that at all but it results in a less vibrant arts /cultural scene because it results in other cities being more urbane due to their limited outdoor options.
Like I said its all what you like and want in your city.

The U.S gets a category of it's own because Canadian cities still beat their's.
I guess they can't take loosing? Even though they always do in UN reports, etc...

Good call. I really wish the global community would show some respect to NYC and LA and SF and the like. But all I ever hear anyone talk about is how they want to go to the 'big city, Toronto'. Tough pill to swallow.

Vancouver does have a lot going for it but culture????
Even Vancouverites often admit that their city is lacking in many cultural amenities and in terms of shopping Toronto and Montreal blow Vancouver out of the water.
I guess its all what you think is important.

This is the worst post by you yet.

Shopping, Blown out of the water???????? Montreal is probably the best but Vancouver isn't far behind and is deffinatly up there with Toronto. We have many high end stores that no other city in Canada has such as the Armani Exchange. If there is one thing Vancouver doesn't lack in its shopping.

What a stupid thing to say.

Vancouver only beat Melbourne by one point.

Top Islands - North America:
1. Vancouver Island
2. Kiawah, South Carolina
3. Nantucket

Source: Conde Nast

I agree with this.

Top Cities - Europe:
1. Florence, Italy
2. Rome, Italy
3. Venice, Italy

Source: Conde Nast


I don't agree with this at all.

This is the worst post by you yet.

Shopping, Blown out of the water???????? Montreal is probably the best but Vancouver isn't far behind and is deffinatly up there with Toronto. We have many high end stores that no other city in Canada has such as the Armani Exchange. If there is one thing Vancouver doesn't lack in its shopping.

What a stupid thing to say.

Vancouver shopping up there with Toronto? Are you kidding me!
What shopping? Pacific Centre? You honestly think that can compare to the Eaton Centre for example? Not just in the quantity of stores but the experience of it all. It takes a lot more than a couple high end stores scattered around downtown to compete with the largest retail market in the country.

Vancouver has nothing like the shopping districts of Yorkville, Queen West, Kensington Market, PATH, Yonge St. etc. If there's one thing TO excels at, it's shopping and shopping malls.

Vancouver is more on par with Calgary in terms of shopping. And even then, they still have a better Holt's.

Top Cities - Europe:
1. Florence, Italy
2. Rome, Italy
3. Venice, Italy
Source: Conde Nast
I don't agree with this at all.

IMHO my choice will be:
1. Berlin (been there many times)
2. Buda-Pess (not pronounced as in pest)
3. Paris (lived studied and worked there)

Vancouver is more on par with Calgary in terms of shopping. And even then, they still have a better Holt's.


Not for long! Holt is moving and will occupy the entire north atrirum in the mall, it's going to be quite huge and extravagent. For our size, Vancouver is doing quite well. We have free standing Louis Vutton, Gucci, Chanel, St.John, Hugo Boss, Armani Exchange, Versace, Dolce & Gabanna, Max Mara, Coach and probably many other stores i'm forgetting. Metrotown is massive now that it's been renovated if your into that sort of thing. Our shopping is a hell of a lot better than Calgary let me assure you that.

Vancouver shopping up there with Toronto? Are you kidding me!
What shopping? Pacific Centre? You honestly think that can compare to the Eaton Centre for example? Not just in the quantity of stores but the experience of it all. It takes a lot more than a couple high end stores scattered around downtown to compete with the largest retail market in the country.

Vancouver has nothing like the shopping districts of Yorkville, Queen West, Kensington Market, PATH, Yonge St. etc. If there's one thing TO excels at, it's shopping and shopping malls.

Vancouver is more on par with Calgary in terms of shopping. And even then, they still have a better Holt's.You guys talking about shopping??? Sounds girly.

I think shopping via the internet is the great equalizer. So in that sense, Vancouver is on par. :)

Its not the big names that give a city good shopping, every major city has them.
Its the unique stores not the chains.
Being able to walk blocks and blocks throughout the city and finding interesting things you can't find anywhere else. Places that are special, individualistic, funky, one-of-a-kinds, stores that don't play by the rules which makes them alluring.
Not some store no matter how nice located all through out the city. Thats no better than a mall.
This is where Toronto and Montreal beat Vancouver hands down.
In Vancouver its not considered a great shopping area because there is no Starbucks while in Tor/Mon they are often NOT considered the best shopping areas precisly becuase they DON'T have one.
That is what makes for a true shopping experience. Knowing you went to a store and there is no other the same anywhere on the planet.

^^^wops! meant to say that areas are the best for shopping becuase they don't have a Starbucks.
The big city with the LEAST number of Starbucks, Gap, Armani downtown are the best ones to shop in.

Trouble in paradise
By Trevor Boddy
Special to The Times

VANCOUVER, B.C. — Americans, folk wisdom tells us, have a "benevolent ignorance" of all things Canadian. In other words, you don't know a whole lot about us, but what you do know is pretty positive.

We micelike Canadians dwelling beside your elephantine United States are obliged to know a lot about your country: Canadians tend to have a "malevolent knowledge" of things American.

Yes, we are surely guilty of stockpiling a list of every ill in your country, then smugly congratulating ourselves about our superiority. At the drop of a hat, we cheeseheads can rattle off average wait times on the Highway 520 bridge to and from the Eastside, announce that Experience Music Project is the worst Frank Gehry building ever, and always, always, mention the sticky-sweet tackiness of your version of Chinese food.

I would like to reverse this pattern by cautioning Seattleites that all the answers to the future of your downtown are not to be found here in Vancouver.

The solutions to healthy and balanced downtown growth are certainly not to be found in the ideas of our current director of central area planning, Larry Beasley, who recently hit your town in his extended roadshow of American colleges and city halls, selling his latest branding of "Vancouver-ism" to the land of his birth.

Beasley — Las Vegas-born and educated, and the best showman in the annals of urban planning — and former planning director Ray Spaxman arrived in Seattle in August at the invitation of City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck. Steinbrueck is a typical Seattleite, in that he, with his late architect-father, has been coming to Vancouver ever since he was a kid, and has a great love for our town. Peter, we love you and your Pike Place Market-saving dad, too, but we love you enough to now tell you that you do not really understand us.

For visitors using us as a resort, or a pit stop on the way to that other resort on the slopes of Whistler, Vancouver is a brilliant place. Because of higher levels of recent immigration from a more-diverse range of countries, we are a notch more cosmopolitan, our neighborhoods are a little spicier than yours, and without doubt, Vancouver is the cheap sushi capital of the known universe.

But before Seattle follows Beasley's Vancouver recipe for remaking the shores of Elliott Bay, listen up, because there is trouble in paradise.

To understand what is really happening in downtown Vancouver, you have to look past our gorgeous screen of ever-positive visuals: Marilyn Monroe was no less beautiful when she was depressed.

Our restaurants are full, tourists pack the sidewalks, and the climax forest of condominium apartment towers is now nearing a complete buildout on our land-limited downtown peninsula, with False Creek on one side, Burrard Inlet on the other.

Downtown Vancouver appears to pros-per, but in the complex world of city building, appearances can be deceiving. I am not for a moment questioning the prospering part — the whole world is scrambling to live and play on our downtown peninsula, with its paradisiacal combination of mountain and ocean vistas, parks and urbanity.

I am, however, most certainly questioning the "downtown" part, because the city we are shaping in the current boom is something quite different from any notion of what a "downtown" is, was, or will be.

Paradise, yes, but because of shortsighted urban planning, downtown Vancouver may be becoming a fool's paradise. This is because people are coming to live and play here, but not to work.

Beasley and his senior staff recently confirmed to me that in the nearly five years of the new century, development applications have been made for only 700,000 square feet of new office towers in downtown Vancouver.

In this same period since Jan. 1, 2001, they have approved 7 million square feet of new condos. Many of us wonder if a 10-to-1 ratio in favor of condos is in our city's best long-term interest. While all three of our municipal political parties are maintained by donations from downtown condo developers, even our politicians are getting worried about this extreme skew.

After the conversion of the award-winning West Coast Transmission office tower on West Georgia Street plus two dozen other commercial buildings (both office and warehouse) into condominium apartments, Vancouver's City Council recently changed policy to require an impact study and further approvals before any more conversions to condos — lest our beleaguered last stand of office towers also turn places to work into places to live.

Why this is happening is revealed in a couple of disturbing facts about the state of Vancouver's downtown core. According to developer Ian Gillespie, there is now a 5-to-1 ratio between the economic return per square foot of new condominium apartments built in downtown Vancouver and a square foot of new office space. This is unambiguous marketplace feedback telling us that our core is a brilliant place to live, visit and party in, but a lousy place to do business — especially corporate business, which requires multiple floors of dedicated office space.

I mentioned this 5-to-1 ratio at a May 26 symposium at New York's Institute of Urban Design, and the assembled developers, Realtors, planners and architects there could not name another major city — anywhere — where the economic return from building condos so eclipses offices.

This ratio, in combination with a ham-handed rezoning of most of our downtown peninsula in 1991 that permits housing nearly everywhere, means that developers like Westbank Corp.'s Gillespie would be out of their minds to build places to work here, rather than places to sleep, such as hotels and condos.

This downtown-reshaping policy was labeled by Beasley's team and approved by the council as "Living First," but in application it has evolved into "Condos Only."

There are some startling new facts to indicate what is happening downtown, and it is not the class- and income-balanced urban growth Beasley declaims in his lectures for "the Vancouver miracle."

The percentage of condos to all housing downtown (that is, condos + social housing + market and nonprofit rental housing) has been on a continuous rise ever since 2001. That year, our downtown housing was 45 percent condos; in 2002, it was 55 percent condos; in 2003, 75 percent; in 2004, it was 87 percent; and so far this year, an astonishing 100 percent of all downtown housing approved was for condos and condos alone!

The office-development market in downtown Vancouver — for all intents and purposes — is dead, even while it is reviving strongly in Toronto, Calgary, Ottawa and, yes, Seattle. Your city has hung on to a large number of its banks and corporate head offices, while Vancouver never had them in the first place, or they have headed to the suburbs and Alberta in the face of a severe and mounting anti-business ethos from our governing, extreme-left "Coalition of Progressive Electors" municipal party.

Downtown Vancouver faces the dismal prospect of fewer and fewer sites having the proper size and location for office towers. This will fix our destiny as a shortsighted residential resort, not the diverse and lively mixture of living and work that is a real downtown.

Whistler residents used to worry about their resort becoming "Vancouver-ized." As a new home to global hot money, as apartment hub for a generation of boomers wanting to retire in cities after lives in the suburbs, and with condos-as-commodities emerging as investments of choice, Vancouver ironically now has ample reason to worry that its downtown is becoming "Whistler-ized."

In a major speech to developers last year, Beasley urged new investment to "Go east." In other words, exploit some of the underused land between Granville and the Downtown Eastside. To paraphrase my Saskatchewan progenitors, Beasley's advice was closing the barn door after the office horses long since had fled.

Why has our land-use policy, which by definition plans for future needs as well as current demand, not left more dedicated office-tower sites in reserve where business actually wants them — west of Granville Street? There is only one phrase to describe the extent of the 1991 rezonings, and the way they have been managed since — bad urban planning.

There is a second disturbing ratio that, together with the first one, seals the fate of our core as more of a resort than a conventional downtown. This second figure has to do with our vastly skewed property-tax assessments, which soak businesses such as offices and stores in order to artificially lighten the financial load for residential property owners.

Vancouver businesses pay 6.2 times the municipal taxes per square foot that houses and condos do — by far the highest such ratio among major Canadian cities, much higher than Vancouver's suburbs (which are, no surprise, getting all the office action), and unthinkable in the United States. Well-intended but badly mismanaged downtown land-use policies ensure any future corporate successes, like a Vancouver-grown Starbucks or Amazon.com, will be obliged to leave our burg, because 90-plus percent of our best downtown sites went for condos, not offices.

In Vancouver's strange world of municipal politics under COPE, a mild proposal to even out this skewing of property taxes onto the backs of business — to be phased in over a barely perceptible 20-year-long track of tiny incremental adjustments — went down to spectacular defeat by politicos who value short-term happiness for homeowners over their city's long-term health.

I am tempted to blame you Americans for the loony left that has controlled our municipal government since 2002, because fully one-third of all of our COPE municipal officials elected then were born and educated in the United States, most coming to Canada during the Vietnam War era. The anti-business ethos of Vancouver's civic politicians is more reminiscent of Berkeley in 1972, or Santa Monica under Tom Hayden, than any urban political culture in Canada.

The Nov. 19 election campaign by Alabama-born mayoral candidate Jim Green is largely financed by downtown condo developers — it is our lefties, ironically, who are turning downtown into a retirement zone for the wealthy, decorated with a few "Potemkin Villages" of low-cost housing, such as the redevelopment of our former Woodward's department store on our troubled Downtown Eastside.

When it opens as all condos next year, the former West Coast Transmission Tower will generate somewhere between one-half and one-fifth the property-tax revenue that it did as an office tower. And while the condo-boom-inducing downtown lifestyle depends on huge investments of our taxes in parks, transit, theaters, galleries and schools, our de facto "condos only" downtown development strategy means high-growth businesses, faced with diminishing options, will be obliged to move to other municipalities, taking their taxes with them.

The myopia of this tradeoff is having stark consequences all over B.C.'s Lower Mainland. Let's start with the implications for transportation of the "de-downtownization" of our core.

With the first two SkyTrain lines, and now with the Richmond-Airport line currently under construction, we have a radial public-transportation network, centered on jobs and shopping downtown.

But ridership projections for this latest line predict more people leaving downtown to work in Richmond than coming into the center. Downtown as new dormitory suburb? This fate may come sooner than later, accompanied by calls by parties on the political right for radial and ring freeways near Vancouver for the first time — like your Highway 520 and Interstate 405 — doomed to be packed-out the day they open.

We may once have dreamed of taking our place on the list of the world's great cities, but unless something is changed soon to preserve and promote our downtown as a place to work, we will instead join Waikiki and Miami Beach on the list of resorts filling up with aging baby boomers lounging around their overpriced condos.

Beasley counters that many of Yaletown's and Downtown South's new condo owners will work from their apartments. Yes, being a home worker, I can relate to that. But what happens when these consultants and startup companies need to hire their third employee? What happens when we information workers and "Cultural Creatives" have to flee Vancouver because resort-based housing prices make it impossible for us to live and work here, even when we conduct both halves of our lives in 500-square-foot condo apartments with close vistas of other condo apartments?

It all comes down to planning.

While they spin these facts differently, Beasley and staff are cognizant of the urban forces described above, and some are as worried as I am. They have commissioned a grandly named "Metropolitan Core Jobs and Economy Land Use Plan" that will not be returned, conveniently, until long after Vancouver's Nov. 19 municipal election.

Listen, Seattle: Vancouver's densification and urge toward some housing is a great idea, and your core could surely use quite a few new residents of all types and income levels. But please be careful not to undertake overscaled rezonings like ours, as under the pressure of the current housing bubble they have undermined the best intentions of two generations of Vancouver planners.

For this wonderful city's sake, I hope Vancouver's upcoming election campaign offers a real debate about alternative futures for our core — as this may well be downtown's last resort.

Though Vancouver is not as good as Montreal or Toronto when it comes to shopping it most definitely is not far back. Vancouver has the high end shops but it also has great shopping in other interesting places than Downtown. Upmarket and hip shops in Yaletown. Shed loads of a whole range of shops on West 4th. Alternative shopping on Commercial and Main St. What about all the cool shops in Gastown? A place that has expensive shops as well as used clothing shops but all very popular. What about City Square and Oakridge? Really cool shops in those places.

The only thing we are missing is an Urban Outfitters....but I emailed them and they said they are interested in coming to Vancouver.

"Vancouver does have a lot going for it but culture????"



Meh, your in the "very small" minority who thinks that. The fact is when it comes to the total package, urbanity, shopping, restaraunts, scenery etc, Vancouver is ahead as voted by people visiting the city from all different places. That was the whole point of this survey, but this is like the hundredth time Vancouver has won it. I guess the jelousy bug is still there from some people from Eastern Canada. What else could it be?

That article has flaws. For one thing Seattle's downtown is not nearly as land locked as Vancouver and therefore has plenty of room to build both condos and offices far into the future. Vancouver also has many, many sites downtown that are underutilised with office buildings built in the 70s that are only 10 or so floors tall.If developers nocked a few of these buildings down and built offices 30 floors and up there would easily be enough space for at least another ten million square feet of office space. Another thing that this article does'nt mention is all the high density cores in the suburbs of Vancouver that are ripe for new office towers. These areas of intense population ((that are growing rapidly) that are mostly near rapid transit could easily handle millions of square feet of office space in the future . Metrotown Station, Brentwood,Surrey Central are a few areas that already have significant highrise commercial development.

We have many high end stores that no other city in Canada has such as the Armani Exchange. .

Yikes! Armani Exchange is Armani's Cheap line. Like DKNY Jeans. I personally wouldn't be touting that but to each their own.

Yikes! Armani Exchange is Armani's Cheap line. Like DKNY Jeans. I personally wouldn't be touting that but to each their own.

LOL...that'll do him

"I guess the jelousy bug is still there from some people from Eastern Canada. What else could it be? "


Let me assure you, jealousy is not the problem. I have no problem with Vancouver "winning" some kind of rating system (regardless of how or where said ratings come from). Why would it...Vancouver is a great city that has all the basics down pretty good, and has it's own vibe....and yes, nice mountains to look at.

Unfortunetely, my rating system is different than that, which is why looking at mountains isn't important, and other urban aspects are. Just having the "basics" is not good enough for me.

There's little point in getting into an arguement over retail choices in Vancouver and Toronto....there are certain areas where vancouver is simply not going to be able to compete with...so pretending it can despite the obvious is what makes me always feel it's you guys that are reacting out of jealousy (or denial or something).

Walk down Queen Street's 14 kms of solid retail (any not many Gaps or *bucks thankfully), and you will begin to see the major difference. No need to even look at any other retail area.

But lets be positive...I think it's great Canadian cities are getting a good rep internationally...it makes us all look good. That doesn't hurt Toronto (we are still going to get more tourists)...it helps promote Canadian cities.






KGB

It is wonderful that Vancouver has a dence downtown. Maintains a lively downtown.
They made excellent decisions to keep their stadium/arenas right near the core and right at SkyTrain. The thing I don't like is that almost all the building are steel and glass towers.
There is no real diversity. They zoned everything for highrises.
Where are the townhomes, new low rises, even dense duplexes?
Where is the variety? Where are the different building types like wood and brick homes to add some personality?
Thats what I dislike not the density. They used a HongKong example instead of even a Vancouver one like the WestEnd or Kits which definatly have far more personality than any of the developments built downtown in the last 15 years.
Also by filling every square inch with steel and glass condos they have left no room for urban space.
Now if the ArtGallery wanted to expand {which it should because its prety pathetic for a city Vancouver's size} it would have to leave the core. No room for a new great museum or great performing arts centre. No room foor big urban spacees for people to congregate.
By putting 30 story glass towers at every corner they have basically have completly their desire to create a great city with more than just condos.
If Vancouver wanted to create a beautiful open space for just gathering with hundreds, open bands, political and intelectual discourse, festivals with thousands, a beautiful boulevard which adds to beauty of a city, or just a place to hang out with others without having to do it at a coffee shop because there is no where else to meet. This is what Vancouver has done to its core by focusing on nothing by high rise condos.
Vancouver in the mid 80's had a great oppurtunity to create a incredible downtown one of true vibrancy. Something that offers evreything to everyone to do anything they want throughout the downtown.
Vancouver has been highly successful in creating a downtown with thousands which is something Vancouver and any city needs to prosper and Vancouver has created, much to her credit, that.
That, however, is only half the equation. There is more to a city than just density.
That is the difference between urban and urbanity.
Unfortunatly Vancouver lost that opportunity.
In Toronto, for intence, they are spending hundreds of millions on the expansion of ROM, AGO, OperaHouse, Performing Arts Centre, a centre just for its Filmfest.
Lets say Vancouver had both the will and money to do the same, where would they put it.........not downtown, there is simply no where to put them.
It has create a dense downtown which has resulted in a populated downtown but in the process the city has condoed itself to death.

Where are the townhomes, new low rises, even dense duplexes?
Almost all new towers have townhomes and or retail at street level; as for new lowrises they are going up in Kerrisdale and Kitsilano like there going out of style.

They used a HongKong example.
Where are the different building types like wood and brick homes to add some personality?
Thats no surprise, many developers are from Hong Kong. To be fair most building arn't glass towers, Yale Town and Gas town have alot of brick. Look at the new Woodwards tower its all brick.

If Vancouver wanted to create a beautiful open space for just gathering with hundreds, open bands, political and intelectual discourse, festivals with thousands, a beautiful boulevard which adds to beauty of a city, or just a place to hang out with others without having to do it at a coffee shop because there is no where else to meet. This is what Vancouver has done to its core by focusing on nothing by high rise condos.

There are open spaces all over the place!! Developers build parks all over downtown. A new outdoor stadium is being built downtown. I think Vancouver could use a public square downtown but there is room to build one, there are tons of parking spaces and lowrise buildings that could be torn down to build one.

Where are the townhomes, new low rises, even dense duplexes?
Downtown has the highest crime rate. Most highrise condos are patrolled by 24/7 security guards and cctv.

In Toronto, for intence, they are spending hundreds of millions on the expansion of ROM, AGO, OperaHouse, Performing Arts Centre, a centre just for its Filmfest.
Now you are making my eyes red :cry:

In all fairness to Vancouver, it is the youngest city in North America so naturally, it's built form is different than older eastern cities. Toronto was founded in 1793 vs 1886. That nearly 100 year advantage makes a huge difference.

If you think about all the development that has occured in Vancouver, particularly downtown in the last 20 years, they really didn't have much to work with. They had to create entierly new neighbourhoods out of literally nothing.

1992
http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/1992/vcs1992_066.jpg

2005
http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/2005/vcs2005_537.jpg

I really can't see how else they could of possibly contained that magniture of growth (on large blocks) without imposing strict design guidelines, heigh limits, etc.

WE don't have to look any further than Humber Bay Shores to see what mess would happen. Here was a perfect opportunity to create a new community along the water but instead, we got a shitty collection of pooly designed condos crammed in tight sites with absolutely no relation to one another.

'Carte-blanche' doesn't work well in Toronto.

Given Vancouver's canvas, I think they're doing ok.

Like I said, its the the density. I am very glad Vancouver continued to populate its downtown. That helps maintain a vibrancy.
Its the lack of cultural amenities and more to the point a lack of open spaces. Open public spaces for thousands to go to just to hang out, watch the crowds go by, political rallies, festivals. All the things that make a city more than just people.
Its too late now. Any cultural centres/museums/galleries/performing arts in the future will have to be built over the bridge.
Like I said, having people living downtown is only half the equation.

It's easier to start with a blank canvas, if you have the 'right' people running the city. There has always been something happening in Toronto though. The boom in the late 1800s, the development after the fire of 1904, construction of the subway in 1949, immigrants from Europe in the later 1940s-1950s, the office tower 'boom' of god knows when (1980s), and the recent and still ongoing boom of 100,000 immigrants per year. There hasn't really been a time when the slate was 'clean'. Things have just been, rolling - sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, but always rolling. That and Toronto was not founded as just one city, and neither was it founded in 1793; the town of York was founded then. It was incorporation that founded the city. And why build up in Toronto when you can build out? There's so much space. Sure there's the Don Valley, but one can always go up Yonge St. With Vancouver on the other hand, look at its geography, it's so restricted in terms of available space - of course they're going to build up, not out. There's also the fact that the Toronto has been governed by the wrong people, so many times. But, yes, I agree, they have managed to do something with that tiny space.

Yes, Vancouver is a new city but Winnipeg started at about the same time and they had, more or less, the same population from 1900 to 1950.
Winnipeg has, however, done a far superior job of maintaining its historic buildings, created grand boulevards and has a arts/cultural/music scene that is far superior to Vancouver's.
Winnipeg has always been considered WesternCanada's cultural capitol.
Vancouver had the room {East of Granville to Yaletown} to create a wonderous city of lots of people but the cultural amenities and public spaces to match.
It chose not to and is nothing but highrise condos.
It is these things, although not exclusivly} that separate a great city to one that is just a big collection of people.
Vancouver let HongKong developers set the urban agenda and instead of creating another SanFrancisco they have created another HongKong with the sterility of wall to wall glass boxes.

HongKong developers set the urban agenda and instead of creating another SanFrancisco they have created another HongKong with .

Not quite exactly. Thankfully its repretitive glass and not masses of precast concrete drones that are still going up in Hk.

Yes, Vancouver is a new city but Winnipeg started at about the same time and they had, more or less, the same population from 1900 to 1950.
Winnipeg has, however, done a far superior job of maintaining its historic buildings, created grand boulevards and has a arts/cultural/music scene that is far superior to Vancouver's.
Winnipeg has always been considered WesternCanada's cultural capitol.
Vancouver had the room {East of Granville to Yaletown} to create a wonderous city of lots of people but the cultural amenities and public spaces to match.
It is easy for Winnipeg to maintain its historic buildings when not as many people want to develop there. East of Granville is where most of our historic buildings are, I thought you have rather preserved that than clear it out of the way for empty spaces?

^Thats called urban planning, historic designations, a political will, a cityhall that doesn't put development as first,second,third in its vision, and a basic understanding that a city is more than just people.

^Thats called urban planning, historic designations, a political will, a cityhall that doesn't put development as first,second,third in its vision, and a basic understanding that a city is more than just people.


Where else do you propose this development to take place? There is HIGH demand in Vancouver with lack of land. Council's vision isn't to go out and attract the most amout of development as possible, it comes on its own, and the prossess of getting anything developed in Vancouver is a strenuous one at that.

Where else do you propose this development to take place? There is HIGH demand in Vancouver with lack of land. Council's vision isn't to go out and attract the most amout of development as possible, it comes on its own, and the prossess of getting anything developed in Vancouver is a strenuous one at that.
"It's a prime piece of waterfront land in the heart of Vancouver -- which would be worth millions if it weren't contaminated with sulphur and toxic metals. Instead, the land is vacant, and Ottawa is on the hook for the clean-up. It's a little-known deal 30 years in the making, which, in the end, could cost Canadian taxpayers as much as $1 billion."
Source: (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051019/whistleblower_waterfrontland_20051024/20051025?hub=CTVNewsAt11)

I dont know whats wrong with Honk Hong style development, the city of Honk Hong is heads and tails above any Canadian city in Urbanity, and for that matter almost all American cities. Its not even close. Don't hate Vancouver just because it gets attention from all over.

i thought a lot of vancouver's historical buildings were torn down because they weren't earthquake safe. that's what my mom said, she grew up in the area when it was happening (back in the 70s).

I the city of Honk Hong is heads and tails above any Canadian city in Urbanity, r.

Don't equate Hong Kong Developers with Hong Kong urbanality being transplanted to Vancouver. There is a big difference going around HK island and even Kowloon vs. Vancouver. Developers come to Canada to make a quick buck building condo developments.

Winnipeg has, however, done a far superior job of maintaining its historic buildings
What the hell do I care about old buildings? We've kept enough, look at gas town. I would much rather see skyscrapers then some building from the 1900's that you think is historic. Look at cities in Europe now those are nice historic buildings. Vancouver isn't a historic city.

Awesome! Vancouver number one again! I understand Canada is the best place too live! I know the diversity! I understand the equality! I know the lifestyle. Canada is awesome! Vancouver is unreal! :)

Don't get me wrong,I think Vancouver is a wonderful city and has a lot to offer.
Its StanleyPark and mountain/waterside is unmatched.
I am very glad they used much of the land east of Granville housing and CityPlace is very nice development, much better than Toronto's.
Where they blew it was zoning EVERYTHING for residental. Now, and forevermore it can never have any urban places/spaces and cultural landmarks downtown. No archetectural materpiece, no grand boulevards, no meeting places just glass boxes.
They can never have such things now, that land is gone and thats a shame.

^ dude there is still tons of room downtown. Its not all residental, unlike other cites (Seattle for one) Vancouver has retail at the street level with condos on top, it makes the downtown so lively. Like I said there is still alot of room for more public spaces, not that I think there is a lack of them.

Every city has shopping at street level.
Its the cultural amenities and great boulevards that are lacking. No where for people to congregate by the thousand for festivals or just something to do. No public spaces or open spaces wher she could build great cultural landmarks.
Every last space has been taken by condos. It is great to have a dense downtown core with tons of people but that only half the equation to a great city.

^ But there are!!!! Ever been to Vancouver??

Publc Spaces / Cultural Amenities / Landmarks
Art Gallery Plaza
Plaza of Nations
Canada Place
Library Square
They are building a new outdoor stadium downtown
BC Place
Many Parks, including World Famous Stanley Park
GM Place
Dozens of Theaters
Great Skiing just 15min from downtown
ect...

What more could you want???

These are interesting lists. US cities that show up consistently in the top 10 are like Sante Fe, Charleston, and even Carmel?

Carmel? Are they calling it a 'city' now? It's barely a village...

Vancouver is more on par with Calgary in terms of shopping. And even then, they still have a better Holt's.

Okay, I'm the last person to argue that Vancouver is anywhere near Toronto or Montreal in terms of shopping...but "more on par with Calgary"? I don't think so. Where is Calgary's Commercial Drive and Main? Where is Calgary's Broadway or West 4th in Kits? Where is Calgary's eclectic Denman and Davie Streets? Oh, that's right, Calgary has nothing even remotely close to Vancouver's range of shopping.

And that's without even mentioning downtown/Yaletown, Robson Street, Granville, Pacific Center, yada yada.

Its too late now. Any cultural centres/museums/galleries/performing arts in the future will have to be built over the bridge.

Saying that downtown Vancouver has run out of space is like saying that Canada is running out of space. At this point, Vancouver is such a young and growing city that the concept of "downtown Vancouver" is a fluid one. Do you include Broadway and the West Side? Do you include Chinatown, Gastown, the Downtown Eastside, and East Van up to Commercial? All of these areas have massive potential for growth and densification, and will probably one day be considered "downtown" - they already are, in a way.

It's simply a matter of time...when developers run out of space on the Peninsula, they will have to move east and west.

Carmel? Are they calling it a 'city' now? It's barely a village...



Okay, I'm the last person to argue that Vancouver is anywhere near Toronto or Montreal in terms of shopping...but "more on par with Calgary"? I don't think so. Where is Calgary's Commercial Drive and Main? Where is Calgary's Broadway or West 4th in Kits? Where is Calgary's eclectic Denman and Davie Streets? Oh, that's right, Calgary has nothing even remotely close to Vancouver's range of shopping.

And that's without even mentioning downtown/Yaletown, Robson Street, Granville, Pacific Center, yada yada.



Saying that downtown Vancouver has run out of space is like saying that Canada is running out of space. At this point, Vancouver is such a young and growing city that the concept of "downtown Vancouver" is a fluid one. Do you include Broadway and the West Side? Do you include Chinatown, Gastown, the Downtown Eastside, and East Van up to Commercial? All of these areas have massive potential for growth and densification, and will probably one day be considered "downtown" - they already are, in a way.

It's simply a matter of time...when developers run out of space on the Peninsula, they will have to move east and west.
No kidding... Look at all the towers built/rising even across the water; south of False Creek.

Vancouver has no historic/cultural venues? What a joke.

Publc Spaces / Cultural Amenities / Landmarks
Art Gallery Plaza
Plaza of Nations
Canada Place
Library Square
They are building a new outdoor stadium downtown
BC Place
Many Parks, including World Famous Stanley Park
GM Place
Dozens of Theaters
Great Skiing just 15min from downtown
ect...


Also to add the world class waterfront is a place for people to gather and meet, far better choice than a large square in my opinion.

Okay, I'm the last person to argue that Vancouver is anywhere near Toronto or Montreal in terms of shopping...

The gap is not as far as many make it to be, and its only gettin better and better.