Vancouver's skyline vs American cities'.

[paul514]

Vancouver has density on its side and a beautiful natural setting, but the towers themselves are too short and unimaginative. There are almost no older historical buildings within the core and I don't think the skyline is aging well ( I have heard many complaints of poor construction and leaking condos) Again, the setting is stunning but the actual quality of architecture in Vancouver is pretty bad.

The reason towers were all mandated under 150m was so that views of the mountains would not be blocked. However, recently that has changed and now there are new buildings on the horizon.

Living Shangri-La is meant to be a hotel/condos and will have a height of 197m (646ft) with 61 storeys (the first 15 being the hotel and the rest being condos. It will be completed in 2008.

As for the leaky condos, they were built from the late 1980s until the early 1990s. When looking for a place to buy in 2002 I saw quite a few of them for sale. The prices were usually a lot cheaper because when you'd buy one you'd have to end up paying $25,000 to $60,000 in "assesment fees". In Yaletown there tend to be more condos built after that period and it appears that the builders have learned their lesson. I never had a problem in my place while I lived there. It's always important to get a good realtor who knows which buildings to avoid. Also important is to read all of the STRATA council minutes that disclose problems pertaining to leaky condos.

As for the skyline it's not the prettiest or most unique I'll admit. Dallas for instance has a much more aestetically appealing skyline. However, given the choice between places to live I'd definately choose Vancouver handsdown. What makes the city great is it's livability and the fact that the streets aren't abandoned after 5:00PM during the working week and on weekends.

[daniel18]

Definitely one of the best in North America and very interesting, almost like an Asian city.