Talk:Vancouver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Vancouver is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 8, 2007.
To-do list for Vancouver: edit · history · watch · refresh

Please feel free to add to the list.

1. To help with other 'Vancouver-related' articles, please visit the WikiProject Vancouver and the Vancouver Portal to find a list of articles needing attention.

2. Help keep FA Status. Revert vandalism and original research on sight. Maintain the integrity of the article by watching for NPOV and WP:NEO issues.

3. Several editors have been spamming the external links section, usually to vancouver profile. These links should be removed immediately per WP:COI.

4. Reference Integrity: Remove inaccurate and non-credible references. Revert vandalism to references. Make sure all references are formatted properly (using {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}} and the like) with a retrieved date if possible.

5. Upload quality photos that illustrate Vancouver and show people that would improve the article (preferably to Wikimedia Commons so they can be used across Wiki projects).
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
City of Vancouver Vancouver is a Showcase Article for the Vancouver Portal. It; (or a previous version of it) has been identified as a noteworthy article for display relating to Vancouver. Please feel free to visit the portal for more information.
This article has an assessment summary page.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. Archive 3
  4. Archive 4
  5. Archive 5
  6. Cited History Section

Contents

[edit] Archive

Talk page discussion from December 06 to Feb 07 has been archived in #5. Bobanny 04:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I attempted a re-write of the introduction here to make it a little less cluttered and disjointed. I don't want to step on any toes by just replacing what's already here, so I'm soliciting feedback beforehand. Cheers, Bobanny 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Nearly every sentence begins with "Vancouver" in the first few paragraphs, resulting in a stilted, repetative introduction. Please change it. Jackmont, MAR 4 2007

[edit] A Question...

So, is Vancouver the largest or second-largest in the Pacific Northwest? Re: "With a population of 587,891,[1] Vancouver is the largest city in the Pacific Northwest (just ahead of Seattle, which is about a 2½ hour drive south). The metropolitan region, known as Metro Vancouver, has a population of 2,180,737 (2006 estimate),[1] making it the largest metropolitan area in western Canada, the third largest in the country,[2] and second only to Seattle in the Pacific Northwest."70.52.215.62 (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a definition thing. By reading the sentences above, I would conclude that the City of Vancouver itself is the largest CITY in the Pacific Northwest but the Greater Vancouver Regional District is stated as being smaller than the Seattle metro area hence it is the second-largest METROPOLITAN AREA. Cities and metropolitan areas are not the same. TCB007 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Landing Page

Hello. I am unhappy with the fact that a Wikipedia serach for the word "Vancouver" lands on the Vancouver, BC, Canada page, instead of a generic disambiguation page (i.e., see "Springfield"), mainly because Vancouver, Washington, USA is the older city, being incorporated prior to Vancouver BC. Some might want to see a search for "Vancouver" land on Vancouver, WA, USA, but I think a Springfield-like intermediate page is the best idea. This has the added benefit of meeting an important Wikipedia goal -- article neutrality -- since an intermediate landing page would favor neither city. If there are other cities or towns named Vancouver, they, too, could be referenced there. Any comments? If no strong opposition, let's set this up. Cjkporter 00:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you dig through the talk page archives up top there, you'll find the relevant discussion that ended with the current arrangement, which was agreed to by Washington Vancouverites as well. The reason is that Vancouver, BC is the largest 2 million vs. 150,000 for Van, WA) and most widely known city of that name, and the convention is to go straight there (as with Paris, etc). I disagree with the proposed change or that it has anything to do with "article neutrality." The more likely target for users searching for Vancouver is the one in BC, and making it land on a disambig page adds an extra step for that majority. At the very top of this article points the way to other Vancouvers. Bobanny 00:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with it the way it is. There is a clear "other uses" disambiguation link at the top of the current article that displays "For other uses, see Vancouver (disambiguation)." and this is all that is needed. (yes, I did read WP:DISAMBIG). Thomas Dzubin Talk 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
See also Talk:Vancouver/Archive3#Name . Thomas Dzubin Talk 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There was a fairly large discussion about Vancouver and whether it should be a disambiguation page since there is a Vancouver, Washington city with the same name as well as other. However, the overwhelming concensus was to leave Vancouver since that particular city is far more notable. Not that Vancouver, British Columbia is as notable as Paris or New York but the same reasoning was applied relative to the other articles. Mkdwtalk 02:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For everyone's information, this exact same discussion is taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#Vancouver, though not binding, a consensus is in the process of being established again. Luke! 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Luke! Also see the survey here, where such a move was overwhelmingly opposed. Looks like one of those perennial issues we'll have to keep addressing periodically. Personally, I think it should be a redirect to Hongcouver. Bobanny 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver/Naming_conventions#Vancouver. Mkdwtalk 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

" ... the overwhelming concensus was to leave Vancouver since that particular city is far more notable ...." This being Wikipedia, I'd like to see a source cited for this "fact." My suspicion is that it is based wholly upon Vancouver, BC, Canada being the more populous city. To my mind, if there is any question at all about which city is being searched for (and one has only to look at several recent news stories about people traveling to the "wrong" Vancouver to understand that a search for "Vancouver" is not necessarily a search for Vancouver, BC, Canada), the best solution is a disambiguation page. Hey, I have nothing against Vancouver, BC - both my parents grew up there. I just don't agree with the implied assumption that the vast majority of searches for Vancouver are for Vancouver, BC. For me to agree with the above statements, I would have to be convinced NOT that Vancouver is the more "notable" or "prominent" city, but more to the point, WHY a disambiguation page is in any way a bad idea or would cause any harm. Cjkporter 21:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We're trying to make Wikipedia as helpful as possible. If you use interiot's tools you will see that the article Vancouver is accessed by a considerable margin than that of any other article that includes the name Vancouver. Futhermore a Vancouver disambig page exists at the top and is easily accessible. Doing otherwise would only be more inconvienent for everyone else. Please see WP:SNOW about the future of this time and time again debate. Mkdwtalk 21:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. The "harm" is the inconvenience to the majority of people looking for "Vancouver." The onus is on you, Cjkporter, to show that the benefit of a disambig landing page outweighs the user-friendliness of coming straight here, in light of the several discussions that have already taken place. But first it seems that you need to decide whether you are disputing that Van, BC is significantly more notable or not. If you're not contesting notability, then you should probably make your case elsewhere, because it's a convention that applies to more than just Vancouver on Wikipedia. If you are challenging notability, I'd personally like to see you come up with links to these "several recent news stories" about people ending up in the wrong Vancouver. Bobanny 02:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at other major cities in the Northwest North America region, the default is for a disambiguation, even though the disparity in population is far greater in the other examples. Anchorage gives you the option selecting info about the tiny hamlet of "Anchorage, Kentucky" in addition to the far larger and more well known Anchorage, Alaska. Portland includes Portland, Maine, which is about a tenth of the size of Oregon's largest city. In contrast, the difference between Vancouver, BC, and Vancouver, WA is less severe (roughly 600,000 versus 150,000). Defaulting to Vancouver, BC is not neutral or reasonable. Vancouver, BC is not nearly as noteworthy as New York or Paris.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.112.147.165 (talk)

How some other articles do it is irrelevant - Wikipedia works by consensus, not precedent. You're also cherry-picking examples. Surrey, England isn't as noteworthy as New York or Paris either, but that's where the landing page is, not Surrey, British Columbia or a dab page. Same with Houston; it doesn't take you to Houston, British Columbia or the dab page. It's completely arbitrary to say a city has to be as big or famous as New York or Paris to link there directly. bobanny 12:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Yaletown Green"

(removing "Yaletown Green" text - needs more development, proper citations, rewrite - and wasn't the West End around and high-density LONG before "Yaletown Green"?)

I've never heard "Yaletown Green" but I certainly know what they're talking about....except that "West End" is wildly wrong here; the bland-green-glass is a Downtown South/Yaletown/Expo Lands travesty and is actually rare in the West End, unless I guess in the newer luxury stuff built off Robson or over by the Park; no doubt it's all over Coal Harbour too. But the West End was not known for anything like "Yaletown Green", but rather for a diversity of styles in both houses and apartments; some mention should be made of the city's battle to preserve open space, i.e. you can build so high if you leave so much space around the tower, hence all the landscaped grounds/plazas around West End towers; and how this came about is that one building between the Sylvia and Davie & Denman, which was the first modern beachfront apartment and "threatened" to be the model for the whole waterfront; which would have built a wall of buildings blocking the view for everyone further in; so the architectural/zoning legacy in the West End has to do with THAT; not with glass colour; most West End buildings are not glass-covered anyway, but generally tile or stucco. It should also be mentioned that the West End had a higher population density when it was all cut-up old houses with sleeping rooms and suites built into them, plus the low-rises; the tower zoning regs actually wind up with there being fewer people per lot, somehow; or so it was for a while; as tower construction proceeded in the '60s and '70s the area's population actually dropped. Sorry I can't provide a cite for this, but supposeldy it's true....Kluckner might have a comment about it via email, maybe.Skookum1 17:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver's Wealth

There's a statement that Vancouver is affluent based on perception of numbers of luxury vehicles. However, according to StatsCan, Vancouver has a *lower* median income than half of other major metropolitan cities in canada. Further searching of statscan will show that Vancouver does have slightly more families (18%) making more than 100K compared to other cities (15%), but also has greater poverty problems. Therefore, the "perception" of wealth, at least by my measure, reflects common mythos but not reality. I am not modifying the sentence yet, though, since I'm open to being shown where my analysis is incorrect. A. March 19, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.158.14 (talk • contribs)

My reading of that section is that it points out the ostentatious display of wealth rather than actual wealth, and that wealth was suggested by the pricey houses significant #s of people live in. Mention of income and its distribution would be a welcome addition and complement the cost of living that is mentioned. Bobanny 01:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes, which were reverted; left a note on the reverter's talk page. I am not a regular wiki contributor; but I do know that as the Economy section stands, it's not borne out by fact, and that the StatsCan link I put in has the data to back up my (not particularly inflammatory or destructive) change. I don't know whether the revert just caught me in the crossfire of some other issue, or whether it was targeted for removal. Cleaning me up stylistically I certainly could appreciate! However, if a factual link was targeted for removal rather than editing, than I suggest the current sentence is more advertising than anything else, and I dispute its accuracy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.158.14 (talk • contribs)

I'm not the one who reverted, so I'm only speaking for myself here. As I noted above, I believe you interpreted that section incorrectly. Median income doesn't speak to the the stuff you're claiming it negates. "Generally affluent" is a bit weasely by itself, but in the context in the article, it specifically refers to perceptions of wealth. In other words, people who have wealth seem to flaunt it. I'm not sure how you think StatsCan figures can disprove a perception. The next sentence talks about the crazy prices people pay for real estate here, suggesting that, if these people can afford kazillion dollar homes, they must be wealthy. From there it goes into talking about homelessness and displacement because of the Olympics. This isn't the cherry picking you're claiming, because it's not all that rosy a depiction. Maybe the "generally affluent" bit is misleading; I'll try and change it so it's clear that the point being made isn't about the people who can't afford SUVs. Maybe you could specify what exactly you think the median income is an indication of, because it's not self-evident. Facts don't speak for themselves; someone with one foot in a bucket of ice and the other in a bucket of boiling water is pretty comfortable according to statistics. Vancouver's a wealthy city, and the maldistribution of wealth doesn't change that.
Also note that this is a featured article that attracts a lot of editors and vandals. Edits are more likely to get reverted here than in other articles on technical grounds, which is probably what happened to yours (formatting of citations, for example, needs to be consistent with all the other citations). Also, the article is already quite long and piling on more info at some point begins to detract from the over-all quality even if it's all correct. Don't take it personally if other editors are protective of the article - it's not intended to discourage changes, but it is more important to suss out changes or new additions on the talk page (like this) to ensure they stick. Also, please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~. Cheers, bobanny 06:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of arms

Is it possible to get a larger image of the city's current coat of arms? The features and text of the current image are unrecognizable. I searched Vancouver's website but that seems to be the smallest size they have. -Enviroboy (Talk|Contribs) 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this one's been removed too. Looking on the city's website, it's use is explicitly prohibited except by The Man, and it's doubtful that the Wiki copy-vio police are going to let it slip past in the future. It's not particularly attractive anyway, and I suggest we just leave it out. Anyone else? Bobanny 01:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, the thing to do would be to write the city and ask them to do a Wiki-drop of a fair-use version; I think their problem is the flag symbol; they use it like the Govt of Canada uses the 2/3 flag (maple leaf and one stripe only), as a logo (often, yuck, in black instead of red - where'd that come from?), and if it's on something it means it's from them. But the coat of arms proper should be public domain, as all coats of arms are - wherever you'd find it, but it must be somewhere online; I wonder if the Dogwood Herald or whatever he's called has a policy on it (the local guy in charge of heraldry and peerage/protocol issues connected with it, a lieutenant of the Whateveritis Herald in the UK, the Lion Royal or whatever he's called. That's the same dealy that's on the brow of the Burrard Bridge....and one solution would be to take a good square-on shot of that (middle of the night, when it's lit well, and there's no traffic) and use it instead ;-). Skookum1 02:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but their website is pretty explicit that the coat of arms is for the exclusive use of the city, and for non-commercial use only (which makes it non-wikipediable). It's registered with the College of Heralds in London, and noticing that London doesn't have a COA in its article, it's likely a restriction that applies across the empire, err, commonwealth (and different from copyright). (Maybe we should've had a revolution after all - sometimes American liberalism looks pretty good from up here). I'm not sure why Vancouver's being picked on though, maybe because it's an FA. Montreal has a COA, but instead of a normal licence, it has a special tag, which someone might want to explore if they want to pursue this. I'm also wondering where the original one we had came from. The city's website has a password-protected page where the COA can be downloaded from, but only low-rez versions elsewhere, so I'm wondering if maybe there was permission given at some point but not properly noted on Wikipedia. Bobanny 05:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The license is {{coatofarms}} but I'll have to find the place where it's explained, and what the restrictions that, in some countries, are irrespective of copyright as the generated text of this template says. But we're in the same country - so far - as Montreal, then if that licence works there, this is the same country and it should work here. The BC coat of arms isn't restricted in the same way is it? Canada's? Nope. So what's with Vancouver? I don't understand it, unless some manifestation of it constitutes a "legal seal", e.g. with all the bearers and the panoply, instead of just the escutcheon (shield). Heraldry, like the crests on "totemic" art around here, are yes in a certain way "owned" by their bearer; but they have always been featured as illustrations and of course are all over the genealogy sites. How else does the city coat of arms appear sometimes in news articles, sometimes in books and other publications, e.g. magazines? City permission, or some kind of public-domain reality that their reserved rights are in contravention of, perhaps; like the BC Archives pretense of owning the images outright, instead of the negatives and prints made off them only, as is the real case. Certainly worth inquiring at the city Information Services/Public Affairs department, I'd think...i.e. to see how other publications, esp. encyclopedias, are allowed to use it.Skookum1 06:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Clicking on the template-link goes to a somewhat different display than in the licensing section of the image page; could be because it's not on an image page and only the box warning is displayed, not the following, which I was referring to above:
This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.
The warning on the box seen by clicking on {{coatofarms}} is much more serious; there's probably a special section of the Copyright Act covering coats of arms, seals, crests and other things directly heraldic, as opposed to being merely logos; the reason would be grandfathered rights/obligations from imperial days. Heraldic law also applies in the US, by the way; all that doesn't there is the Peerage and the Knighthoods (even though they do love Duchesses and knighted rock stars and actors). But I'd think there's still special regs about heraldic usages re copyright; there is a difference between a seal and a coat of arms too, with usually the latter being part of the former (but not always); and the seal is in "impression", a stamp with legal potency dating back to the old days of signet rings and hot wax. The only heraldic usages I know of, prior to this, that are restricted are insignia of those in the royal iineages (not just UK) - it's a big no-no and very lese majeste to be someone other than the Duke of York if you're running around with the Duke of York's insignia on your Volkswagen, or your Silver Ghost for that matter. But even the royal emblems and even the royal standard people can produce in articles about them. So what gives in Canada anyway?Skookum1 06:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored the coat of arms. There was some hullabaloo about the coats of arms template a while ago so that now it redirects to the logo template(see the discussion here on the heraldry project). I initially thought the removal of the van coa had something to do with that, but then I found this showing that our German friend Voyager forgot to note the source of the image when he moved it to Wikimedia Commons, and that's why it was deleted. It should be okay now, and it's a better quality png version. Bobanny 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City of Vancouver

I'm starting to think that a smaller, separate article for the City of Vancouver might help this one become less confusing (but keeping this as the general article for Vancouver). Any thoughts? bobanny 19:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to have Greater Vancouver as the general one? --Canadianshoper 18:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Herzog

I don't think he should have a random sentence in the middle of the Culture section for this article. He is a famous enough photographer but there are many other famous Vancouverites that need not mention nor have major contributions to Vancouver Culture other than being from here and producing art. Mkdwtalk 18:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Any details need to be integrated into what's already there, not just random insertions. bobanny 21:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And about Herzog in particular, this is just a first take on your issues here, but he's important to the culture of the city as being someone who has provided a major visual record of it, i.e. of its life, its culture, its street atmosphere and overall style and look. That "art documentary" is very much a Canadian medium somewhere between fine art and "historical news reporting" (to try to describe it...) makes this also part of the culture; the way his show is presented/constitutes an "art event", not a museum display in the historical-only sense, is a statement about the city's culture in its own right (as also the regular repeats of the Emily Carr shows at VAG).Skookum1 21:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a thought, in the long run and from what I remember of VanArchives publications on certain of them, he and other GVRD/Vancouver photographers, from Charles Gentile (he was originally in Vic and New West before Vanc was founded, most of his stuff is earlier I guess) and Leonard Frank etc on down to Herzog and Lincoln Clarkes who are of artistic note as well as historical/commercial chroniclers or note, might well at some time all have articles; there's another big-name art photographer here right now, but I'm drawing a blank; he's of the calibre of Neal Wedman (Neil Wedman?) and Attila Richard Lukacs but they're graphic artists, not photogs; I'd say Herzog's show and collection are worthy of a separate article, certainly, given their significance to the city's historical visual landscape/imagery. Ditto with some of the scenic/postcard photographers from the 1900s-1920s who had distinct styles (y'know the big pictures of the English Bay Bathhouse, scenics from around Stanley Park, hand-tinted etc). There's a difference between an art or documentary photographer and a journalistic or commercial one; but even some news/press photographers (have to think who) might warrant inclusion (can't actually think of anyone of note, not like in NY or other places...cartoonists we got, but not photographers....).Skookum1 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
My main concern is that there should be a link to Herzog from somewhere, as it is currently an orphan. We could of course link from the gallery, but that seems somewhat limited, and would mean that we should list pretty much all major exhibitors at that page as well. I think that Herzog's star is rising, and a link from the main Vancouver article is not out of line since he is directly engaged in chronicling the city's life and history. Peregrine981 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
to me personally especially important, because he documents a city and lifestyle I remember well but which doesn't exist anymore, and there are few other ways to represent that to people who live here now than to show them pictures of the way it used to be; likewise the Gilded Age before WWI which was different again. It would be wonderful if we could get Herzog or his curator to donate a couple of shots to Wikipedia; some might even be public domain already, or have been released in public-domain circumstances; are shots from gallery showings' promo packages public domain, i.e. in the way that brochures and posters and postcards are?Skookum1 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Just got the book "Fred Herzog: Vancouver Photographs" with a lot of background. I see a stub. I think he's worthy of that, as are in fact the others Skookum mentioned, at least. I also have a postcard with a photo of his on it(?)--Keefer4 | Talk 23:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Fred Herzog is a stub, well, his entry on wikipedia is anyway. I stuck him on some lists, so consider him adopted. I don't think his notability is in question, just that there was no attempt to fit him in with what's already in the Vancouver article. Just finding a place to link from isn't much of reason to stick him in here; there's a ton of notable Vancouver people not mentioned, and the ones that are are not necessarily the most notable ones. It would be far more appropriate to link him from the vag article, or better yet, start a Culture in Vancouver article as a parent article for the category of the same name. Culture is sorely lacking in Van articles, and the ones that do exist are mostly free floating stubs with nothing to tie them together in the Vancouver context. (Music of Vancouver is the exception). bobanny 00:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of documenting history, does anyone want to put a mention in the "architecture/cityscape" part of all the neon signs that were taken from Vancouver in a fit of "urban renewal" not that long ago? (I know Skookum probably has a ton of info on this?) heqs 08:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig

The name of this article has been the target of many endless debates and I feel another one coming on here. The question is should Vancouver, Washington be directly linked at the top of this article or should the disambig link be solely there.

I did some digging around and have come to realize that while many people typing Vancouver may want to view the Washington city, I think just as many people will want to see articles like Vancouver Canucks, George Vancouver, North Vancouver, etc. etc. In fact the 2000 census for West Vancouver, East Vancouver and North Vancouver exceeds the population of Vancouver, Washington's 2000 census. Not to mention the sports teams such as the Vancouver Canucks who I would think as an article would be highly searched in North America (especially with the playoffs coming at Vancouver's team taking the division). In my opinion I think it looks messy, the code looks messy, and I don't really think one article should take importance over another when the hit counts might tell a different story. Anyway, I think its worth discussing, what do you guys think? Mkdwtalk 06:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should directly link the Washington city at the top of the article, whilst keeping the original disambig. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raphaelmak. Someone looking for Vancouver, Washington should be able to get there in one click from this article, without scrolling. In response to Mkdw: I don't think that someone looking for an article on West Vancouver, for example, would type simply "Vancouver" into the search box, so I don't find it relevant that the population of West Vancouver is greater than the population of Vancouver, Washington. --Mathew5000 07:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Having both Vancouver, Washington and Vancouver (disambiguation) linked at the top would seem to address most concerns without detracting from the article. bobanny 16:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver's relative age

"Vancouver is among British Columbia's youngest cities" Huh? I think other than New Westminister and Victoria its the oldest, at least in terms of incorperation date.

A lot of settlements in the province were established between 1859 and 1886, while what became Vancouver was a cluster of settlements (Hastings Townsite, Granville, Gastown, etc.). South Vancouver and Point Grey weren't added until long after incorporation, and the older New West is included in the scope of this article as part of Greater Van. Also, we're talking about a period of a few decades, so being the oldest isn't really a big deal; it's meaningless trivia and overly simplistic however you look at it, and could be deleted altogether. bobanny 16:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population Growth

The graph is overlapping the table in the population growth section. Could someone please fix it? I have no idea how to do it. 24.207.51.241 02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured in Vancouver Courier

In case you hadn't seen it yet, here's a link to the Vancouver Courier cover story about this article and WikiProject Vancouver...http://www.vancourier.com/issues07/055107/news/055107nn1.html Canuckle 05:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health and education

Some thoughts:

  • Population health statistics and health infrastructure could be bumped up. For instance, Vancouver Coastal Health and (declaring self-interest) BC Children's Hospital and PHSA.
  • In education, is it worth mentioning that Vancouver is experiencing declining enrollment, the high needs for ESL programs, and the gap between westside and inner-city schools?
  • Is this private New Jersey university - Fairleigh Dickinson University - notable enough to merit its mention here, or is it spam?
  • There have been a few stories lately about international students getting defrauded and institutions having their licenses pulled. Is that relevant to this Vancouver article? Could be notable for foreign readers.

Canuckle 05:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Be bold, but try and stay general and that there's not a lot of room to grow in terms of length; additions should ideally be important enough to bump something that's already there. On your specific points, the fraud thing seems too much like a news item to me and maybe more suited to WikiTravel. I've never heard of Fairleigh, but it sounds spammy. The inner-city vs. westside differences I believe are more about the neighbourhoods than the education system, IMO. bobanny 16:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Today's Sun had a story that confirmed Fairleigh Dickinson's opening, plus included a stat on foreign enrollment at UBC and mention of private-schools scandals. So I added those tidbits. Canuckle 23:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate?

Shouldn't there be a climate section similar to what's on the Hong Kong page? Srasku 16:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Climate of Vancouver has its own article and has a title link in the Geography section. =) Mkdwtalk 18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refreshing the lead

Problem:

  1. The current lead is very passive and does not summarize the city's notability: "Vancouver (pronounced: [vænˈkuːvɚ]) is a city located in southwestern British Columbia, Canada. It is named after Captain George Vancouver, an English explorer."
  2. The rest of the introduction doesn't hang together very well. It's a bit of a jumble and includes tidbits like "A resident of Vancouver is called a "Vancouverite"" prior to ending with it acting as host city for the 2010 Winter and Paralympic Games.
  3. The 2nd sentence in the lead notes the "named-after" George Vancouver fact. I'm not sure if it needs to be that high up (willing to hear your thoughts on this) but I do question whether the 'named-after' fact needs mentioning 3 or 4 times throughout the article.

Remedy: Can we discuss refreshing the lead and/or the introduction to make it more active and to boldly note its top 3 claims to notability? For comparison, check out Jerusalem:

Jerusalem ... is Israel's capital, seat of government, and largest city in both population and area, with 732,100 residents in an area of 126 square kilometers (49 sq mi). Located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern tip of the Dead Sea, the city has a history that goes back as far as the 4th millennium BCE. Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Judaism and the spiritual center of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE. The city contains a number of significant ancient Christian sites and is considered the third-holiest city in Islam.

Jerusalem's 3 claims to fame are political, population and history/religion. May I suggest that we craft a lead for Vancouver that highlights:

  1. Vancouver's role as BC's 'capital' for finance, entertainment and social (but not political)
  2. Vancouver as BC's most populous city and role in Greater Vancouver Regional District/Lower Mainland
  3. Vancouver as an international city: Olympics, Expo, liveability

Your thoughts please. I should say that I do think the info on the ports, economy, history, etc. are important but may be better placed in their section or as part of a better-worded introduction. Canuckle 22:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas! The lead really needs to be shrunk down. Location, history, seaport, and economy are all mentioned in just the second paragraph! To be honest, the entire article needs to be shrunk down. I took out the Vancouverite note, since I put it into the infobox a few days ago. Carson 22:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the many things I intended to get to finishing, but never did. Here's an old sandbox effort with a few people's opinions if you want to refer to that. There's some good advice at Wikipedia:Lead section. bobanny 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the tip. I'll look it over. Canuckle 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homeless Population

Vancouver has the highest concentration of homeless or so called street people in Canada. It is believed that the warm weather in Vancouver compared to the rest of Canada attracts homeless people from all over the country as the warmest place to sleep and live on the street. Certain areas such as downtown east side and hastings street have long been knows as centers of drug trade, prostitution and homelessness, often called "bum town". Presently a clean up effort is under way where the homeless population is being displaced away from the downtown area in preparation for the 2010 Olympics. A large amount of homeless people are now moving to Surreys which is a district south east of Vancouver also known for it's large homeless population and prostitution.

The homeless population is posing a risk to public transit users. Many of the homeless or "street people" suffer from varying kinds of diseases posing a health hazard to public transit users. Most vancouverites who have a car, use it instead of the public transit to get around, except for specific express routes to key destinations which are of no interest to homeless people.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadyes (talk • contribs)

I've never heard "bum town" before. I reverted your change to the article because it's original research, or rather, more of an opinion since few homeless people have the $2.25 for public transit. bobanny 07:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Vancouver public transit system is riddles with homeless, diseased, disabled people. They they get welfare, look for used passes, sneak crawl, walk beg their way into the buss any way they can. Except for express routes, the public transit in vancouver is notorious, it's well known by the locals. Tourist coming to Vancouver should be prepared because a lot of the routes are unsafe, unhygenic and simply unfit to be used in a proffesional manner, such as when having to get to work on time. A lot of places don't even have service, even though they are in a high density area. Try to get from Metrotown to Richmond Center.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadyes (talk • contribs)
  • Have you thought about alerting the public with a blog? Homelessness is a legitimate topic but it would be better if you found reliable sources to confirm the fact rather than just spamming anecdotal evidence on Vancouver, Demographics of Vancouver and GVRD. Canuckle 11:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the best!--Nadyes 02:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope you're never down on your luck, Nadyes. I took the bus and Skytrain from downtown to Metrotown just yesterday, and didn't see any dirty hoboes on either. I did give my transfer to someone though. Think I'll get some disease? bobanny 15:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Dormant strains of bronchitis, tuberculosis, skin warts and fungus--Nadyes 02:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You're more likely to get those from a food fair or public john in nearly any shopping centre.Skookum1 21:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Also true about Vancouver.--Nadyes 22:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
And your own hands and kitchen, in fact. And I was talking about shopping centres in Vancouver. Germs are everywhere; you're just as likely to get sick in an airplane as you are in an SRO on the Downtown Eastside or when kissing someone. Buses are the least of your worries as far as this goes. Methinks you're not even a kid, as Mkdw thinks; you're just (a) a troll and (b) silly and (c) juvenile.Skookum1 04:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
All that from giving some guy a bus transfer? Wow, it's worse than I thought. bobanny 15:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't beat yourself up, you didn't know any better. It's a death trap the minute you get into one of those trolleys.--Nadyes 06:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I must have a horseshoe up my butt then ... I take those trolleys all the time. Or else I've died a thousand deaths and just haven't realized it yet. bobanny 18:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Too much information.--Nadyes 12:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Prude. And the mortality rate from driving a private vehicle is MUCH higher in Vancouver anyway, than anything on transit. The trolleys at least don't cause the same ear damage as riding a diesel bus - or being on the sidewalk in any high-traffic area.Skookum1 21:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's very obvious that User:Nadyes is an editor of some youth that hasn't looked carefully into this particular subject. This person's medical knowledge about the transmission of the above said bacterial infections makes it all too obvious. Not to mention their spelling and grammar. Personally, this conversation started by this user is nothing more than an attempt to stir up the pot and introduce doubt by the means of 'scare tactics', false statements, and highly opinionated generalizations. Please find something better to do with your time. Mkdwtalk 02:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Feed the homeless--Nadyes 03:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, do. I'm homeless (really). Send me some money so I can buy a burger, or cut it with the pretentious moralizing.Skookum1 04:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Panorama

The Granville Bridge panorama is not relevant, nor is the photographic quality very good. I think it should be removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:East-facing_view_from_Granville_St_Bridge.jpg 24.81.30.221 08:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is dark and gloomy. The panorama from Chinatown is better (marginally). Remove at will. Sunray 18:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Its not very photographic at all. Mkdwtalk 21:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. Does anyone know how to make the list of politicians in the infobox hidden as a default setting? bobanny 23:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Apparently such a template is under construction, but it doesn't seem to work yet. bobanny 00:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to offer some help, but am afraid that it's not my area of expertise. So I will just offer moral support with this note so you don't feel too lonely. Sunray 01:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, hi Sunray. bobanny 01:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commuting time & commuting distance

Here's what the source says:

If you drive to work in Vancouver, your journey has gotten slower by about a third over the past decade. Get this: we’ve got slightly more traffic, but fewer cars on the road. There are actually seven percent fewer cars making trips into downtown. These new traffic jams were manufactured by guys like LaClaire.
Before you drive your Hummer through the front door at City Hall, consider that even though traffic is getting worse, Vancouver is the only major Canadian city where the average daily commute time has shortened in the last 10 years. How is this possible? Well, those StatsCan numbers include walkers, cyclists and transit users. The really selfish commuters have not just been cagily switching routes, but moving downtown or abandoning their cars for faster options. Just like the planners wanted them to.

I cannot find any mention of shorter average distance. The article says "journey has gotten slower by about a third" & later that "time has shortened". I do not think we can presume by slower they simply mean less km/h. There is also ambiguity about commuters within Vancouver, commuters to Vancouver, commuters from Vancouver, and commuters from one surrounding city to another. --JimWae 06:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Other source says:

Vehicles owned by Vancouver residents are also being driven less. According to AirCare data the average distance driven per year fell from 20,700 km in 1993 to 14,800 km in 2002.

We cannot presume what % of the distance per year drop is due to commuting, carpooling, not taking long trips for pleasure, or taking public transit instead of driving. Also note that UBC students now MUST purchase bus passes & so likely took bus more & car less. NONE of this clearly supports shorter commuting distances --JimWae 06:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Add to that the fact that vehicles as far away as Chilliwack must go to AirCare & one can perhaps see how premature the repeated deletions of my request for a source have been --JimWae 06:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC). There is no way to paste a rosy face on what is happening to commuter traffic in Vancouver. Regularly taking an hour to go 20 km (12 miles) is ridiculous --JimWae 06:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed your tag because there was a source and it wasn't clear exactly which point of information you thought was being misrepresented in the paraphrase. My understanding is that any "rosy picture" results from how bad things could have been with the same population/automobile increase if other things stayed the same. The shorter distance comes from more people living downtown, which therefore reduces traffic, proportionately, coming into the city and has been a factor in encouraging people to walk, cycle, etc. to work. According to this (page 10), "People may be driving or taking transit more elsewhere in the region, but in downtown Vancouver, they're walking more. A lot more. More than half of the people who live downtown also work downtown, which is also the region's largest employment center [sic]." It does follow that commuting distance on average has decreased with the residentialization of downtown. Driving may be worse, but, speaking as someone who doesn't drive, getting around on foot and bicycle has improved a lot in the past dozen or so years. Public transit, mind you, has also gotten worse in a lot of ways. bobanny 20:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be original research - interpreting stats in a way that is not clear from the source - --JimWae 21:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC) One person moving to Surrey & commuting from there affects the average more than one person moving from Point Grey to downtown --JimWae 21:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The article currently says: "average distance driven by daily commuters have fallen since the early 1990s" - the only way walking, cycling, or taking public transit could get included in these stats is by counting their driving distance as zero - which is misleading & still does not counter-balance the many, many people moving to Surrey. It is time to remove this rosy paste from the article --JimWae 21:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made an impressionistic comment, but this is the talk page, not the article. And your disgruntled motorist POV is hardly backed up with citations. City planning has been geared to decreasing the distance people commute for years in the GVRD by encouraging development to put them closer to where they work and shop and Vancouver has densified dramatically as part of this strategy. Are you suggesting that outmigration of people to Surrey and other outlying cities is actually countering that? The 7% fewer cars coming into downtown seems to suggest otherwise.
I'm still not clear on what your point is, or what you think the article should say in this section. I'm not opposed to changing it. We could remove the word "driven" from that sentence. We could change "distance" to time spent commuting. It appears that the original research source for the current cited sources is this stats can study that has Vancouver (p.15) as the only CMA with a declining "average travel time for making the round trip between home and workplace" between 1992 and 2005. We could change it from the distance falling over time to the lowest average commuting distance of big cities in Canada[1]. bobanny 23:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The source appears to contradict itself - saying shorter time but also the ambiguous slower (which can be either time or speed - and there is really no way to tell). One way to resolve the contradiction is perhaps that one is talking about commuting WITHIN Vancouver, and the other TO Vancouver - but there is not enough info to draw the conclusion of less distance - NOWHERE in the source is distance clearly stated --JimWae 00:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You lost me. Which source? How can "slower" refer to either time or speed, since time determines speed (distance/hour)? Anyway, I concede that no source has been produced here that says explicitly that the average commute distance has decreased, although the circumstantial evidence is awfully compelling. We do know that the average distance was 7.6 km in 2001; that 34.8% of commutes were under 5 km in Van in '01, which is proportionately higher than other big CMAs; and that the average roundtrip commute to work decreased from 70 down to 67 minutes between '92 and '05, while the numbers increased in the other 5 largest CMAs. I also saw a study that said commuters in large cities are least likely to view commuting through rose-coloured glasses, so you seem to be statistically normal, in case you were worried. bobanny 03:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Housing costs

The article states "The average two-storey home in Vancouver sells for $837,500, compared with $489,889 in Toronto and $411,456 in Calgary, the next most expensive major cities in Canada". Does anybody know the figures for the average price of a home in Greater Vancouver? This would be a better figure to compare to Toronto and Calgary, since those cities now include former suburban municipalities. Mariokempes 00:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The article says that "Average house prices are based on an average of all sub-markets examined in the area, except for the smaller markets of Charlottetown, Moncton, Fredericton, Saint John and Victoria." I would assume that this indicates Vancouver means Metro Vancouver (the new trendy name for Greater Vancouver) in the article. bobanny 01:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most Livable City

"Vancouver is consistently ranked one of the three most livable cities in the world" in the lead - all the references are from EIU and Mercer. These are surveys of best cities for *expatriate* employees of foreign companies which is not the same as most-livable for the actual citizens. Should this be clarified and/or are there references to most-livable cities for the residents? --Franamax 23:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The EIU, which recently put Vancouver on top, purports to measure livability by looking at things like infrastructure, crime rates, health care, etc. But yeah, these ranking systems say nothing about the quality of life actually experienced nor account for the huge variations within the population. bobanny 06:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Declared conflict - I live here and am convinced it is the MLC on Earth. I have gone as far as I can online without buying the reports and I don't see any cost-of-living criteria, for instance - presumably expat executives don't care(?) As written, this is a claim which requires the reader to check several references to discern the actual basis of the claim. Perhaps it can be reworded or balanced with a statement in the lead that social problems also exist / housing costs / cost-of-living / the fact that Vancouver is blurred with GVRD - any number of references will support these issues. Alternatively move the MLC statement to Economics? Right now it's just plain old boasting ('tho I agree with it) Franamax 02:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments:
1. Alternative City Rankings here
2. Balancing viewpoint here
3. Vancouver is conflated with GVRD in the 2nd sentence of the lead. My best research is that the City of Vancouver only is studied in the references, the same claim cannot be made for the entire GVRD. Franamax 02:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
But note that the following sentence states that it is the 2nd most expensive city in Canada, which seems to taper the boasting a bit. Conflating Van with GVRD is throughout the article. There's a proposal at WikiProject Vancouver to rename the project "Metro Vancouver," and I believe part of that change should include creating a City of Vancouver article and have this be the main article for Metro Vancouver writ large (but still be named just "Vancouver.") In any case, if you want to tinker with it, be bold and go nuts, keeping in mind that people watching this article might be more particular than with other articles because it's a featured artice. Also, are you sure it's only CoV proper that's included in these studies? I'd assume that it would be the census metropolitan area to make any comparisons meaningful, at least amongst Canadian cities. bobanny 03:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Metro Vancouver" is, to me, a Toronto-ism, like calling the Cariboo or Shuswap "Cottage Country". The _BC_ term is "Greater Vancouver"; neither term includes the Central Fraser Valley (Mission-Abby) or Chilliwack; NB Lower Mainland already exists for the concept apparently referred to by Metro Vancouver. There is no Vancouver "Metro" in the way of Toronto or other cities (Winnipeg? Calgary?); it's a pastiche of municipalities like LA, and not all of them have the same self-flogging vanity of Vancouver and its "most livable" and "world class" brag-sobriquets. Redefining Vancouver or BC according to "national idioms of Canada" (to coin a phrase) is noxious, and really a "let's talk about everything as if it were Toronto" agenda.....Skookum1 04:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

PS Metro Vancouver is what would result from a regional amalgamation, with the 'burbs and exurbs run by a Metro Vancouver Council; it's a proposition/proposal, not a reality; it's an agenda only, and not a popular one, especially in communities which are already self-governing without any help from 12th & Cambie's powerbrokers....Skookum1 04:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fix 2XSP. in my last. Bobanny thx - 4 words and a hyphen are bold enough for me right now. Edit completed. Skookum1 you raise many many issues in a single post but this is probably not the right thread. Lower Mainland is to me the obvious natural entity, it's the part where there isn't a mountain or water, up to Hope. Can you transfer your submissions to e.g. the WikiProject Vancouver page? Your statements are valid and I would love to both agree and kick the stuffing out of them. Alternatively, can I quote you? There is a difference between geo-political entities such as GVRD and (POV) "natural" entities like Fraser River delta and the original development area of City of Vancouver. Bobanny has set me a difficult task - are Mercer and EIU talking about the "city" itself or the "metro" area? I'll try to dope that one out. Meanwhile, we should probably all be at Project Vancouver pounding out what exactly it means to say "Vancouver". Franamax 09:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Darn it, I knew I'd miss something on the first go-round! Mathematics - if Van is the first-best city in the world, and it's also only the 2nd-most expensive city in Canada, doesn't it just keep getting more betterer? Thx again Bobanny :) However I'm happy with the way I've qualified the assertions, maybe add a footnote to a dissenting article later. Franamax 09:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Amalgamation did away with Metropolitan Toronto and made it all the City of Toronto, and really, I don't see the difference here. Vancouver's the hub of the metropolitan area, just like numerous other North American cities besides Toronto in its former set-up (and less like LA). The intent of changing the GVRD's name, as I understand it, is to emphasize that it's a major urban centre to outsiders, particularly those in Ottawa, whereas "regional district" could include anything. At first, I thought that was silly since anyone in Canada knows Vancouver's a big city. But then I recall an editor who tried to get us to change this article, claiming Calgary was bigger population-wise (because it's a unicity) than Vancouver proper. Personally I'm not hung-up on size, but it does translate as economic importance=political importance in the political arena. In any case, the name change is supposed to happen this month sometime regardless of what we think, but I'm not advocating changing the name of this article, just to be clear. Note that if this was an amalgamated city, changing the name might actually be a political decision, not just a re-branding exercise by GVRD staffers. bobanny 18:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bobany that the "new" metropolitan Vancouver is just a name change. As far as I know, nothing else changes—and that is a good thing. The change in Toronto amalgamated the boroughs into the City of Toronto. It was a major change in how the metropolitan area was governed. It was an unpopular change made by the Harris government in response to a study that suggested that a Greater Toronto Area be established along the lines of the GVRD. That didn't happen and the GTA still has no governance, no way of controlling growth or amalgamating services such as transit. Vancouver (and its GVRD/metropolitan area) is far better off in its form of governance. And, I would argue, this is one of the reasons why it is much more livable than Toronto. I think we should get used to distinguishing between "Vancouver" and "Metropolitan Vancouver," and thank our lucky stars that we don't have the problems of sprawling, ungovernable metropolitan Toronto. (/rant) Sunray 20:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The main difference if we amalgamated would be that the local government would be elected instead of having a body like the GVRD, which would give us more control over things like transit. I don't know Toronto that well, but my impression is that governance problems are more attibutable to ward politics, but they are nonetheless better equipped to make region-wide decisions. SFAIK, not even those who opposed amalgamation would want to revert. Their transit system also seems to work better. But amalgamation's not likely to happen here because it would seem to the provincial government that they'd be handing too much power to Vancouver; they prefer to keep the Lower Mainland Balkanized. bobanny 21:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
With respect to Toronto, one has to be cautious about generalizations. It is complex. However, their transit system, which was once very good (and may still be better than Vancouver's) has suffered from not keeping pace with growth. As to governance, I was referring to the Greater Toronto Area — the area, including outlying cities like Mississauga, Vaughan, Markham and Pickering, all of which are contained within the regions of York, Halton, Peel and Durham. This is an area of unrelenting sprawl development and is a jumble of separate governments, unregulated by any unitary governing body. What I am suggesting is that the amalgamation in Toronto did nothing to change the problems of transit, traffic, uncontrolled growth and sprawl development because it did not include the area where most of the growth is taking place. The question of amalgamation of the GVRD (where most of the Vancouver area's growth is taking place) is a more discrete problem. Your point about an elected body is a good one. However, my take on Toronto's current council is that it is so large as to be somewhat dysfunctional. We can learn from the Toronto example — mostly about what not to do. Sunray 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Points taken. I don't know enough about TO to argue the finer points, and you're right, it is complicated. Impressionistically speaking though, I'd add the relationship between the provincial and municipal governments as a key to governance issues and as a basis for comparing the two. In other words, don't a lot of GTA's governance problems in recent history stem from Harris downloading responsibilities onto municipalities, which allowed things like the GO system go to pot? BC's fairly evenly split population-wise between the lower mainland and the rest of the province, which is why I don't think the BC government, whether right or left-wing, is likely to allow/force/encourage things to go the way of Toronto any time soon because that would effectively hand political clout to lower mainland interests. bobanny 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re name change from GVRD to Metro Vancouver, I've been on the road and have been unaware of that, but mind you I also try to insulate myself from Vancouver/GVRD civic politics. But since that is the case, then the Greater Vancouver Regional District article is the one needing retitling/moving, not this one; still a Torontoism to me, a reflection of the in-migration/homogenization caused by people from the Frozen East rejigging the place in their own image (which is why Yaletown looks/feels like Yorkville, as does Fourth....sigh). That it's not an amalgamated government, and why/why not that is/is not a bad/good idea (I think it's a horrible idea, as do most residents/politicians outside the CoV as it means the cesspool of Vancouver civic politics will back-end their own needs), but again it has to be made clear that, once the name change is in place, is that it's synonymous with the Regional District status and is only a nomenclatural difference, like the Corporation of Delta and the Township of Langley vs the District Municipality of Whatever anywhere else in the region. So the GVRD article and the RD article/templates are what would need changing, not this article. As for the user of "Metro" being universal in North America, that's dubious and not across-the-board. Metro Seattle, Metro Portland, Metro L.A.? Metro is used in New York as shorthand for the MTC, much like the same usage in Montreal....but I always did think that RDs are undemocratic impositions on the political landscape anyway, as well as a clunky name (cf my previous comments on why RDs on, I think, Talk:Regional District are not useful permanent divisions of the BC landscape, and my preference for the traditional "Countries" despite their many overlaps). To Franamax, sure go ahead and quote me; don't have time to visit too many talkpages today; I'm in the Halifax main library with limited internet time (I like this town and it likes me, I may stay....); so feel free to quote me and slice'n'dice me, just leave a note as to where on my talkpage....Skookum1 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I opened this topic to challenge most-livable-city, I over-decorated my argument with the City/Metro issue, serves me right.
Nevertheless, according to [2] we in fact ARE now Metro Vancouver. I don't see the changes required listed in any to-do lists. I know the answer is gonna be "feel free to give it a shot" but I might make a big mess being new and all. Best to ignore it, put it on the City and Project to-do lists first, try it myself? Also, changes to transit responsibility (taken away from the GVRD I think) - not sure I see these reflected anywhere. Comments? Franamax 07:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably not a huge hurry, but the first thing is to move Greater Vancouver Regional District to Metro Vancouver. An admin has to do it because it was moved once already. It's too late for me to bother, but there is someplace to list 'requested moves.' Beyond that, there's all the pages that refer to the GVRD that should eventually be changed. Maybe there's a robot that could do it. bobanny 07:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Great chance for me to learn here. Since Metro currently points to GVRD, can't we just ask for a swap? Then all that changes is which one is redirected. Second, fix the GVRD article itself to reflect it's current reality as Metro. Third, the Whatlinkshere should now all go to the correct place, right? So we have now made a little fix that is all self-consistent. Looking at the content of what-links-here, e.g. Calgary, the cite is actually from the text "Vancouver" in the Calgary article (not GVRD at all - told ya it was conflated :) (Under Canadian CMA's -> Show). So would the 'bot just change the link? We would still have to check each link-from to see what the human text was and get all the GVRD in the article and change to Metro. If you follow that at all and agree that would be the roadmap, then I could actually try it myself :) Franamax 11:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed the Can. CMA's template, looks good. Next template has human text "Greater Vancouver" - I have to stop here. Do we have consensus that GVRD is now called Metro Vancouver? Have you checked a RSS yourself or just listening to me? Franamax 11:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Whereas actually looking at the transit issue, no problem as of now. Questions stand for GVRD/Metro. Franamax 07:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I put in the request for GVRD to be moved. bobanny 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I knocked down the whatlinks list big time. A few template changes made a big smiley reduction. There also turns out to be a GVRD, BC article, who'd a thunk? And then all those categories. Lots of work - I hope the next muni pols don't decide it was all a bad idea, let's change it back but with another logo on our business cards. Although it seems we do quite well without even having a city government - strike, what strike? Franamax 04:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver art scene

I'm rather surprised that there is no mention of the impact of the Vancouver art scene internationally, esp. with prominent artists such as Jeff Wall, Stan Douglas, Rodney Graham and others. (Mind you, those individual articles are pretty poor at the moment). But the arts and culture section focuses mostly on music with brief mentions of Vancouver Art Gallery. Has this been discussed in archived discussions? All big cities have an art scene that don't necessarily need to be mentioned in their wiki articles, but not all have had the impact of Vancouver. Freshacconci 00:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It most likely has to do with the interests of the original contributor to that section. Feel free to upgrade that section since you seem to know something about the visual arts scene. If you do, keep in mind that the article probably shouldn't grow any more in size, so consider making room by trimming what's already there. IMO, the pop/alt/rock section doesn't need to list so many bands to characterize these scenes, and things like "DOA Day" could probably be deleted as trivia. bobanny 17:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strike

Is this notable enough for mention in the article? It has been going on since ~July 25. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • No. Someone should write a City of Vancouver article on the municipal government someday though. Canuckle 04:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
you could also start Labour Relations on Sam Sullivan too. Canuckle 23:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add panorama?

Hi there,

You might want to display a panorama like the Chicago page does. I just uploaded one from stanley park, august 2007 (Wikimedia Commons). Tell me what you think.

Bupper 17:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It has a panorama. Dunno why, but someone recently shrunk it down so that, sadly, it's not as big as Chicago's. But it's there. bobanny 23:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, although I took the one there now and might not be objective about it, it shows a lot of the city, including numerous things that have their own articles. bobanny 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kerrisdale origins is Scottish not British

In the article it says...

"People of British origin were historically the largest ethnic group in the city, and elements of British society and culture are highly visible in some areas, particularly South Granville and Kerrisdale."

The origins of Kerrisdale is Scottish... not British.

Why is this important?!... Because the people from this region at that time considered themselves of Scottish origin... and not British.

My Dad and his family is from that region. (He was born in 1924.) I grew up with many many people from that region. And virtually all of them were Scottish. I've seen his high school pictures... and most the surnames are Scottish.

I've even heard stories from him complaining about being woken up in the morning due to people playing the bagpipes (too) early in the morning. (So Scottish culture was in the forefront there.)


--Charles Iliya Krempeaux 06:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So where's the contradiction? Scottish people are of British descent. bobanny 19:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
They'd disagree with you. I.e., they didn't consider Scottish people to be British people. This gets into a bit of a touchy subject, but... many many of them were hostile towards the English (especially any form of English government), and considered being called British to be derogatory. Many many of them considered Scotland to be occupied by the English. Also, to add to this, many many of them had at least some descendant from people who were forced over to Canada via the Scottish clearances --Charles Iliya Krempeaux 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've seen no sign of that in local histories. The Scots in Kerrisdale weren't exactly oppressed, and if anything, identifying as British would have only bolstered their social status. If there was animosity towards the English, it didn't manifest publicly or politically. bobanny 03:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
"no sign of that in local histories"... not everything is written down. Which may mean that it doesn't get into Wikipedia... and if that's the case, fair enough... but.... Me and alot of others have parents that are from there in that time. And are witnesses to this. (Some of them are still alive. And getting first hand information is still possible.) Also... them calling themselves British would not have bolstered their social status among other Scots. It is true that at one time you had to have an English accent to get a government job... or a management job, in alot of companies... but that has nothing to social status. --Charles Iliya Krempeaux 07:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not questioning that the Scots held some kind of animosity for the English (or "Sassenaches," their derogatory term for the English). What I don't find convincing is that this in any way translated into Vancouver Scots seeing themselves as non-British. Scots were amongst the British ruling class in Vancouver - the McLeans, Bell-Irvings, McRaes, etc. - who actively went to great lengths shaping the city in a British image and with British institutions. The police, for example, were virtually all Scottish in Vancouver's (and Point Grey's) early decades, enforcing British law and following the British policing model as closely as possible. Scots were also well-represented in the upper echelons of the military and among the keenest defenders of the British Empire. If they defined themselves against any other ethnic groups in Vancouver, it was Asians, Eastern Europeans, Italians, and all the other "foreigners," but certainly not other Brits. According to this source, the perceived threat posed by non-British immigrants gave all Brits a common cause, which, presumably, easily overrode any intra-cultural rivalries. bobanny 18:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pronunciation

I added the comment that V is pronounced with an [n], not the [ŋ] one might expect, as that's the only way I've ever heard it, but please correct me if I'm wrong. kwami 02:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You needn't put that clarification in its pronunciation. That is why they have the break down of the name, so people say it right. This article doesn't need to be an IPA tutorial or troubleshoot for those struggling with its print. Mkdwtalk 07:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've skimmed the article, and I don't see any other discussion of the pronunciation. Besides, people expect that kind of information up front. kwami 08:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about Vancouver, not pronunciation. If they can't sound it out from the English spelling, Vancouver, or the IPA, then this article cannot help them. Imagine how cluttered articles would be if we took on that same philosophy of saying, this not that. Ex. Monday (not Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday) October (not Octobre, Oktober, Ottobre, or Octubre) etc. etc. etc. Mkdwtalk 08:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
But with "Vancouver" we have an unusual problem, one shared with "Canberra" but not many other names. It's normal for an n to become [ŋ] before [k] (or [m] before [b], in the case of Canberra), so usual that readers will likely not notice that it isn't the case this time. Even if they do notice, they may well assume that the editors made an error - it's very common to find errors of this type in Wikipedia, so it's unfair for us to expect them to just assume it's literally correct. Even a [sic] notice would be helpful. kwami 08:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and your point about sounding it out from English spelling: if they sound it out, they get it wrong, don't they? kwami 08:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It's almost always inadvisable to write with the assumption that the reader is probably going to get something wrong even if it's written correctly. bobanny 18:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The reader may very well understand it perfectly, but wonder if the editors made a mistake. Considering the quality of notation in Wikipedia, much of which is completely unintelligible, I would wonder that myself. kwami (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It's still a bad idea to qualify things that are counter-intuitive. A footnote that says "no, really, this is correct" does absolutely nothing to give the edit more credibility. "Show don't tell" is a useful principle here. Get the content of the article right, source it properly, etc., and then it will stand up to scrutiny and should come off as a reliable source of information, whether it's statistical data, pronunciation, or geographical coordinates. Remember that readers have no way of knowing whether you are one of the competent editors or not, and so a footnote that says "take my word for it" isn't helpful. bobanny (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You have a point, but at least it shows that it's intentional rather than an oversight. A lot of references use [sic], which is basically the same thing. kwami (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No climate data?

Why does Vancouver's page not include this climate data?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Vancouver

Someone should add the climate data to Vancouver's main page. Every other city has the climate data included on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.30.32 (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

I am a Vancouver resident, and I find the Demographics section to be very misleading, especially the second paragraph "Vancouver has been called a city of neighbourhoods..." The paragraph makes it seem that the city is segregated into monocultural districts, which couldn't be further from the truth. The city is incredibly well integrated. Vancouverites would look at you sideways if you asked directions to "Greektown" or "Japantown". The Commercial Drive corridor really isn't ever referred to as "Little Italy", and is in fact very culturally diverse, and it is nowadays generally known as "The Drive". Only Chinatown stands out as a unique neighbourhood.

Please, someone with some eloquence clean this section up. Choppingmall (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver Charter

What exactly are the "additional and different powers" compared to the BC Municipalities Act? --Voyager (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continental status

Finally we have an edit summary from the IP user who kept deleting comparisons to other cities on the continent, such as

Metro Vancouver's population is second only to the Seattle metropolitan area among metropolitan areas north of San Francisco and west of Chicago.
to wit: Geographic relevance to American cities completely insubstantial and irrelevant

While I agree Canadian comparisons should come first, Vancouverites are acutely aware of their coastal location, their distance from the other major metro areas of Canada, and the nearness of the border & Seattle. Many people, Vancouverites & others, may be surprised to learn just what a footprint Vancouver leaves on the continent, and if asked to name the top 2 most populous metros north of San Francisco & west of Chicago, would soon stumble. Vancouver is not just a Canadian city, and especially evident with the 2010 Olympics, it aspires to be a world-class city (for which it has been awarded 2 points [some evidence])

Other (non-Canadian) comparisons are in the lead abound - such as

  • most liveable region in the world,
  • one of the three most livable cities in the world.
  • 56th most expensive city in which to live among 143 major cities in the world

Other continental comparisons in lead

  • Population density is highest for a major city on the continent after New York City, San Francisco, and Mexico City, and on track to being second by 2021.
    • btw, this on-track seems too iffy to me to be in lead
  • exports more cargo than any other port in North America. (definite keep)
  • third-largest film production centre in North America, after Los Angeles and New York City, earning it the nickname Hollywood North.

So, while this is not a continent-wide comparison, it certainly applies to a region spanning nearly half the continent. I cannot help wondering if part of the resistance to this is that it mentions yet another "American" city. --JimWae (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as this goes, Metro Vancouver's population is second only to the Seattle metropolitan area among metropolitan areas north of San Francisco and west of Chicago. -- What about Minneapolis-Saint Paul, population 3,502,891 to Metro Vancouver's 2,116,581? Also, Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Area, pop. 2,359,994? Denver is north of San Francisco (39°44′ to 37°46′). The quote isn't on the page at the moment, but seeing it here I thought I would ask about these other two metro areas. Pfly (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


Doh - my only lame excuse is difficulty finding a link to the (continental) data all in one place.

  • My original text which was deleted twice without edit summary: Within the Pacific Northwest region, Vancouver is the most populous city, and Metro Vancouver is second only to the Seattle metropolitan area
  • Possible expansion (of area): Of West Coast cities north of San Francisco, Vancouver is the most populous, and Metro Vancouver is second only to the Seattle metropolitan area (this holds at least to the Rockies, anyway, but is more of a mouthful)
    • hope this can be considered without being too overshadowed by my erroneous expansion to Chicago--JimWae (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you are trying to achieve here. This article should simply be encyclopedic and not a vehicle for collective self-promotion. What is a "world-class" city anyway?? :::I have no problem with the Pacific-Northwest references, but the rest seems completely unecessary. Dionix (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Dionix - try to find a way to say Vancouver is part of a major conurbation in the Pacific Northwest, but keep it simple. The population of the city itself seems somewhat immaterial as the city is defined by arbitrary lines on a map. Drawing circles to find where Metro Van is still 2nd-biggest seems a pointless exercise and should anyway be in the Metro Van article.
And check all those references to most-livable city, check them right to the bottom - you'll find that they do not say it's the most livable city for the residents, it's the most livable city for foreign workers - Mercer and EIU publish surveys to help governments and businesses negotiate relocation allowances when they send their people abroad. Franamax (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't...

Shouldn't this article be called Vancouver, B.C. or Vancouver, British Columbia, or Vancouver, Canada or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan c.00 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You can check through the history and archives of this page for the endless discussions :) Consensus is that this is the Vancouver everyone is thinking about, other uses are disambiguated at the top of the article. The article itself explains where Vancouver is. Franamax (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Then why isn't, I don't know, Seattle's article just called Seattle, not what it's called: Seattle, Washington? Ethan c.00 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, maybe you should try asking at Talk:Seattle for the answer. It might have something to do with a decision on how cities in the US should be titled. For alternative reference, check Toronto and Paris. But as far as Vancouver goes, look through the archives, it's a-l-lll there. :) Franamax (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) and Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide. It will require a lot of reading and investigating if you really want an answer. --maclean 05:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
maclean has directed you to the right guidelines. The Canadian naming guidelines provide that a city can be at [[Place]], rather than [[Place, Province]], much like the standard for many other countries. The U.S. guidelines, which have been subject to endless debate, favour the "comma convention" ([[Place, State]]) - although the U.S. guidelines have recently been modified to suggest that some city articles could be moved to [[Place]], I don't think any of the moves have occurred. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to Add (site)

Thank you all for your input. Here's hoping one day the site would become so useful that it will get included without me having to ask :) Thank you again! BCP

[edit] Vancouver skyline missing on Canada page

Montreal has one; Toronto has one.

How about a classic pic of Vancouver skyline and Ship in English Bay to illustrate Canada's largest Port under economy section? Love that town. There are many nice ones already on Wikipedia and on Flickr, but nothing that captures a) the skyline; b) ships in English Bay (showing it's function as Canada's busiest port); c) the mountain backdrop. That's how I think of Vancouver. There are pictures of the port, but somehow that doesn't capture it. I guess I'm asking if anyone found one.

Great looking page, btw. --Soulscanner (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted

Looks to me like we've been reverting to a bad version for a few days, the reference section had a wee bit of a problem. I've reverted to an unbroken version. Intervening edits were all minor, I'll review and catch things up. Franamax (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my page; I'll re-run AWB when I get a chance. (As I recall, the changes from the scan were pretty minor.) I also took a look at the problems with the "Reference" section, which seem to originate with the IP edits just after where you reverted to. The IPs removed a few brackets from the "ref" and "cite" coding that messed things up. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 00:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User concern regarding article neutrality

A user has expressed concern regarding the article's neutrality:

Warning: Truth Alert: Propoganda: This entry is trolled and auto edited by bots run by a VANOC programmer 

The above was posted by IP user 24.84.89.108

I had originally removed the post, as it fails the talk page guidelines regarding use of the page as a forum. However, as per suggestions from Skookum1 and Franamax, the text has been restored within a collapsible box, so as to avoid any appearance of "censorship". Thanks to those two for the ideas, and let the discussion begin... --Ckatzchatspy 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, Media manipulation and information control in British Columbia would certainly make an interesting article, and it's even conceivable without OR, just by fielding stuff from Adbusters. Just a joke, but a half-serious one. Good idea about "controversy boxes"....might be worth coming up with an across-the-board concept, no?Skookum1 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I am a robot. The good people at the Olympic committee had the insight to also allow this robot to freely edit other Wikipedia articles like Break a leg, which clearly helps promote Vancouver as a major tourist destination. Mkdwtalk 03:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC) PS vote for Pedro.

[edit] Introduction

I was just looking at the introduction to London and then compared it to the introduction for Vancouver. Does anyone else think our intro is obscenely long. It lists every notable thing Vancouver is known for and some records that almost no one else does. London is notable for a huge amount of things and perhaps more numerous records yet their intro is very concise. Would anyone like to work with me on shortening it and moving some of the records to their appropriate sections? Mkdwtalk 03:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Vancouver has a wonderfully eager article, but too much is being attempted in the introduction. I just moved some 2028 (!) Olympic stuff out of there. --Ds13 (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Meetup

Wikimedia Vancouver Meetup

Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.

This box: view • talk • edit


Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Panorama and Nicknames

Best, from me Ricky-Roman, someones keeps changing this back... I don't know why I have to explain this but the nicknames are valid geesh... I am not going to explain them. I guess I will explain the ones that need explaining. Van City is just common knowledge for the nickname of vancouver and its always been there. Go look at the New York City page. And the term Slam City has been associated in pop culture towards vancouver for over a decade... just do a search on google.

Also the picture is absolutey beautiful and I had to go to great lengths to get that picture on the public domain. It seems like there is some sort of jealous revisioning taking place [maybe hate as well]... he says it "not his taste"... man you are not even from Vancouver? And that picture is fuzzy and not even one tenth the beauty of the one that I purchased strictly for the use in wikipedia. Grow up and I am being nice here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky-Roman (talk • contribs) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the skyline image, I agree. Ricky-Roman's is superior to the previous one and a very good representation of Vancouver. As for "nicknames", well I'm not fond of them in general, so my comment is biased, but pretty much every city on earth has various nicknames. Unless there is a strong historic connection or wide, international recognition (such as "big apple", "city of lights" or "eternal city") I would discourage any mention. Maybe "Lotusland" as at least this has recognition within Canada. Dionix (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Lotusland is a reference to the BC political culture/milieu and isn't quite Vancouver-specific; it refers to me as much or more to Victoria. Vancouver's old traditional sobriquet was the Terminal City, as in the Terminal City Club on West Hastings (next to the Marine Bldg). Some of the new zero-generation nicknames like VanCity I find repulsive and way too faux, like CHUM/Znaimer's attempt to rename Vancouver Island "VI-Land" as part of his CKVI branding efforts; but they are out there; what I don't like is hearing proponents of nicknames like VanCity and Slam City talking about them as if they're all that matters, and people are supposed to heard of them who aren't, um, part of pop culture. VanCity to me is the credit union, as I've said before; it's way too "urban trendy" for me, sounds like a way to sound cool when you're really not, when you're really just a snotty post-consumer technoid with iPODs and a taste for rap to go wit hteh designeer duds....not meaning to get personal, just giving the assocations when I hear someone use nouveau terms. They come and go, like Rainburg and others; Terminal City's as old as the railway, and citable, though....Skookum1 (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's try to keep the remarks civil. Several editors have reverted your additions. Czatz was fairly clear in an edit summary about the nicknames and Franamax and I have both said that the picture is not good enough. You have been warned about violating the three revert rule, so would you please agree to continue to discuss matters here rather than edit warring? Sunray (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, with respect to the nicknames and the tone. This has been discussed on several occasions and (IIRC) the feeling was that only notable, verifiable nicknames should be listed (if any). Also, please don't make unfounded accusations about "jealousy" and the like. Please look over the talk page, the article history, and the contributors; you'll quickly realize how unnecessarily provocative it is. --Ckatzchatspy 23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I rather like the new picture, and in the spirit of collaboration, would a vote be in order? I think the new picture shows an interesting angle (complete with water and mountains- Vancouver's greatest attributes) and the filtred light quality is very much Vancouver. The previous one could be anywhere. Dionix (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a vote is nesecarry everything is fine now I took out a nickname... becasuse I am guessing that is what caused the problem... to many "city" nicknames as well.. but I have not heard of half the nicknames that new york has. But I am now in agreeeance... Ricky. Again no vote is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky-Roman (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly a striking image, my concern is that it seems as though it's been extensively retouched and kind of "fake". That's just my opinion and I'm not an image expert. I'm also not clear on whether you can buy a photograph and then release it as PD. Doesn't the original creator have to do that? Franamax (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've had to pull the names again - Ricky, please don't restore them until the discussion is resolved. I'll try to dig up links to the old discussions in the interim. --Ckatzchatspy 23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's missing

Two points:

  1. A city of 600,000 does not have a skyline like this. At least in the US, Canada, or Mexico. Can someone explain how this happened?
  2. Lavish praise for how livable the city is abounds. Similar praise for the city's expensive cost of living is all over the place. The two necessarily contradict. In the United States, the most livable cities are places with cheap real estate such as Cleveland, Ohio, or Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. What kind of livability are they ranking?

--Loodog (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. Well, that is indeed what Vancouver looks like. Keep in mind the metropolitan region has several million population and it is Canada'a major port on the Pacific Ocean. However the particular skyline picture in place right now appears to have been retouched, giving it a slightly unreal aspect IMO. This is discussed in the section above.
  2. The most-liveable city rankings, if you follow them to the source, have nothing to do with residents of the city. They are in fact "hardship indexes" used by international organizations to set the pay of expatriate workers. As such, they ignore or differently weight factors of interest to actual long-term city residents. That's where the contradiction comes in - it's a great city to live in, as long as you don't want to actually own a house some day. Franamax (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
To expand on Franamax's point, Vancouver also has a deliberate policy of pursuing high density, which is reflected in the downtown skyline. Most of those buildings are condo towers. I was actually surprised, in my travels, to find just how little density appears to exist in large North American cities, which have opted, apparently, for sprawl. fishhead64 (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, you don't really have to "opt" for sprawl; it's the free market default in a city with heavy automotive infrastructure, which virtually every post-1940s region of the US has in abundance. There are cities that implemented intent "Smart" planning like Portland but then the cost of housing goes up.
Even considering the 2 million metro area, that's still a huge skyline. Consider counterparts in the US with 2 million metro area:
Image gallery condensed for readability 

Did the city subsidize anything over 10 stories? Were cars outlawed?--Loodog (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no subsidies and no car restrictions, mostly a matter of smart planning initiatives. But Vancouver always has been more urban than most US cities- perhaps a result of being a city of immigrants more used to urban lifestyles (initially from the UK and Europe, later from Asia). Compare to Seattle, just a couple of hours down the coast: Vancouver seems more vibrant and has a much larger population living in the city centre. By the way, your Canadian examples are misleading. TO and Montreal are also quite urban. In the case of Toronto, the shot is taken from a great distance. Dionix (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c, Dionix is right) Well honest to god, it's the way it is, I look at it every day. Get your Google maps out and look - downtown Vancouver is a pretty small peninsula and that's where all the towers are. As noted, many of them are condos, also, none of them are all that tall, mostly 20-30 stories I think. It is however among the most densely populated areas in North America and all those people have to live somewhere. Keep in mind too that is the only available shot showing those buildings (Yaletown from the south side of False Creek if I'm not mistaken) that particular way. Having seen both of Toronto and Vancouver's cityscapes, nahh, TO is way bigger, the buildings are far taller, the extent is much greater. What you are seeing is just a particular "perfect" shot - as I've said, I think it's retouched, but it's not faked. Fly on up here and I'll show you around. You should see the mountains from street level, with the little lego-brick buildings in front of them :)
And yes, Vancouver has a history of urban planning dating back to the 1960's, cars are not thought of highly, wider roads tend to not get built, traffic is calmed and pedestrians rule, and if you want to build something, it goes before a design committee. No subsidies, just follow the rules if you want to build at all. There's lots of problems, but the basic concepts of making a city for people have been followed here, believe it or not. Franamax (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur. The whole issue is somewhat synthetic. Downtown Vancouver is what it is...in other words, crammed with skyscrapers. Part of it is intentional planning for density, and part of it is geographical necessity (Metro Vancouver has to squeeze between mountains to the north and the US border to the south). fishhead64 (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not that I'm incredulous, but such a unique characteristic (IMO) is worthy of explanation and note in the article. If someone can pull up articles that talk about the Smartness of Vancouver's growth, or what kinds of building restrictions exist and how they've shaped the city, I think it would greatly improve the article. All we've got now are talks of height restrictions, without an explanation as to why a modest-sized city has to worry about excess height all.--Loodog (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver's(metro)is only about a 1000 square miles,one of the smallest in North America(for a city this size) i would hazard to guess. Of that 1000 square miles, maybe a third is actually suitable for any buildings at all. Mountains to the North and bog and delta to the south. It's hard to place 2.2 million people in this area with out building up. Even the Suburbs like Burnabyand New Westministerhave a plethora of high rise buildings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.73.65 (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea for the article. New section: Cityscape, which could maybe be merged with the idea of livability/sustainability. I assume the latter is due to the former. Something along the lines of, "One of the most striking features of Vancouver is the city's density. Through [zoning/building restrictions/etc...] initiatives the city has built up a considerable core of high and mid-rises in a small footprint, which is often implicated for the city's walkable layout, abundance of street-level shopping and restaurants, and high public transit usage." By the way, feel free to correct me, I've never been there and am going on what I've looked up.--Loodog (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a good idea, except it only applies to the downtown peninsula and a few other areas. The majority of the city is made livable by the lack of high-rise buildings, traffic calming, medium-density neighbourhoods. For instance, Kitsilano, where almost no building is over 3 stories, but almost every building is three stories. Franamax (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Contradictions

In regards to this quote from Loodog:

it's either most expensive or most livable, the two inherentk contradict

I don't see anything inheritently contradictory here. Liveable, in the context of the article, means that city offers it's citizens convenient access to ammenities, public education, clean air and water, etc. This does not imply a cheap city to live in. To give an analogy, imagine we were talking about cars, and someone mentioned a car was very driveable. That would certaintly not imply that it's a cheap car to drive.

Regardless, I think there should have more community consensus before sticking a contradictions flag on the article. Bosintang (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)