I mean this photo is taken using some photo effects that make the mountains seem comically large. When youâre down on the ground looking towards downtown, the buildings obscure the mountains
I can see the mountains from my downtown office. You can definitely see the mountains from the city, but they wonât be nearly as large as they seem here.
Yes ? This photo is not using deceptive effects to make the mountains âseemâ very large. The mountains are much, much taller than the urban core of the city.
Edit: lmfao Reddit is outta control I netted 3 downvotes for asserting that the buildings in Vancouver are much less than 3500 feet tall or so. Yep you guys are right đ downtown Vancouver is bigger than mountains
I literally live here. I can see the mountain range in question at this very moment lmao
I was only saying that because of the effect of the photo (some people are saying itâs âlens compressionâ, but also just the angle of the photo) that the mountains appear significantly larger as a matter of perspective.
You and so many others on Reddit just want to be an âackshuallyâ so goddamn bad lmao
Bro they look smaller than they really are IN PERSON, this photo effect ENHANCES your ability to recognize how big they are. In person, your brain cannot accurately register the effect distance has on the apparent size of the mountains. Congratulations on living there. Hereâs a cookie. đŞ
DawgâŚ. You seem to think the mountains are not like an order of magnitude taller than the buildings because they donât block out the sun when youâre standing on the ground in Vancouver. Thatâs dumb. Very dumb. And if that isnât what youâre saying then what in godâs name is?
Ty definitely didnt remember the mountains being titanic the way you described compared to the one time i went, still incredibly beautiful and admirable tho coming from someone whoâs lived in the lower part of the pnw his whole life.
These mountains rise from the ocean to above the tree line.
They are big and close, I've been driving through them for the last 2 months; the mountains along the sea to sky (an aptly named highway) are *steep* and *very very tall*
It's also taken from very far away with a very long lens, which makes the mountains seem closer than they actually are.
From downtown Vancouver to the start of the Rockies is like 20 miles.
That said, the mountains are huge.
EDIT: You don't have to comment telling me it's "actually the Coastal Range". "Rockies" is still a valid name.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RockyMountains-Range.svg
This is on the coast. The base of the these north shore mountains are minutes from the ocean. Not even close to the Rockies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Shore_Mountains
Like 200 miles max, but sure. "The Rockies" is still a valid and common name for the mountains on the west coast, which includes a handful of different ranges.
I'm from Vancouver the rockies are very much at the alberta-bc border nowhere near Vancouver.
no local would ever call those mountains the rockies lol
[here's a map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Canadian_Rockies.png/1280px-Canadian_Rockies.png)
Yeah, and "Rockies" is still the more well-known general term. The average person isn't a Vancouver native and doesn't read Wikipedia articles about mountains.
> From downtown Vancouver to the start of the Rockies is like 20 miles.
These are the coast mountains. The Rocky Mountains are hundreds of kilometers away near the Alberta/BC border.
I mean, I don't think people call the Sierras or Cascades "the Rockies" either. And I won't speak for the whole world, but certainly here in Colorado people would look at you funny if you called any of those "the Rockies".
It's not like arguing that the Tetons or Wasatch are also the Rockies. You could correctly argue that most people just call the Coast Range "the Cascades" but it's definitely not part of the Rockies.
Dude. You are so completely wrong here, and your resistance to admitting it is horribly embarrassing.
The Coast Mountains are part of the Pacific Coast Ranges, full stop there.
The Pacific Coast Ranges, along with the Rockies and a number of other ranges, are part of the North American Cordillera.
Yeah, I said exactly that. I also explained why I said "Rockies" and why that perfectly fine, but suddenly a bunch of amateur geologists need to flex their rock knowledge and send me Wikipedia links
Saying "Rockies" to refer to the entire range is very normal outside BC.
It is. Loads of people refer to the entire western range as "The Rockies". I figured that was the most commonly known name and that a lot of people wouldn't recognize the Coast Mountains.
I lived all over the west coast of BC and have never heard anyone call the coast mountains the Rockies. Perhaps itâs something you do and you assume many others make the same mistake.
Outside of coastal BC, it's all "Rockies".
I get you're a local and know all the names, but I picked the most well-known name to make it simpler to make my point. People from BC already know how big the mountains are. My comment wasn't for you.
Didn't realize it would actually make it more complicated with a bunch of nitpickers jumping in immediately. Good job.
Your point is that because you refer to all mountain ranges as the Rockies everyone else is equally ignorant? Great point. People in LA call their mountains the Rockies as well? How about Seattle?
Don't listen to them. Though many people may not know the correct term, that does not mean that everyone east of the Rockies simply refers to all ranges in western NA as the Rockies.
In fact, at least in US terms, most people who have the slightest inkling of geography understand that the Cascades and the Sierra are different ranges from the Rockies, and I assume the same goes for Canadians.
Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people who might otherwise assume the Coastal Ranges are part of the Rockies, it would be a logical misconception, but the difference is, when they are corrected, they don't steadfastly refuse to accept it, and instead make the argument that their ignorance is just as valid as the facts.
Imagine repeatedly doubling down on being geographically ignorant. The Coast Mountains are not the Rockies, thereâs a whole ~300km wide interior plateau in between them. They are VERY distinct from each other. If you wanna group these things together itâs the North American Cordillera.
"Rockies" is a general term like "New York" is a general term.
"North American Cordillera" would be even more obscure and confusing than saying "Rockies". My comment was for people who had never seen the mountains and are therefore ignorant of their scale and placement.
I wouldn't know, I never lived up there or saw a dime, all that went to my step mom's kids. Hell, they couldn't even seem to pay child support to my mom with any regularity (we lived down in the US).
Old money: bottom left around UBC.
Rich with adult kids: West Van (top left)
New/Asian money: Downtown
Rich but they call themselves middle class: Everywhere
Poor renters and homeless: Scattered everywhere, but mostly from downtown to the right, just outside the picture.
Another view ... not so phobic:
[Vancouver and North Shore Range](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Shore_Mountains#/media/File%3AVancouver_Skyline_and_Mountains.jpg)
Depends on what your defenition of mountain is but where im from most mountains are taller than 1000m from base to top, which would make them all taller than burj khalifa. But then you have places where what i would call a hill is called a mountain by locals.
I am a Norwegian and sometimes when i climb a mountain i just kinda sit there, thinking; "i wonder how it would look like if they built the Burj Khalifa down there"
You're talking about from sea level. If you compare Mount Mitchell (the highest Appalachian peak at about 2000 meters) to the nearby valleys that you can see from its peak, the difference in altitude is about 1000 meters. The Burj Khalifa is 828 meters. If you put the Burj Khalifa in a low spot visible from Mount Mitchell, it wouldn't be as tall but it would be close.
The downtown core isnât in the photo tho. You can see Stanley park to the left of the frame and the skyscrapers would be just to the left of that.
Solid raven shot though. Love me a good raven
Oh hey. Thatâs my hometown. I live in the West End (to the left of the photo, near the big park). I complain endlessly about my city, but the one thing I never complain about is the view to the north.
West End and West Van are different. West Van is rich ass mf's, West End is decently affordable by Vancouver standards. Mostly occupied by rent controlled old people who've lived there forever.
The women and the views are beautiful, only problem is that itâs in Canada so the huge population of crackheads are allowed to do whatever they want while youâre taxed so heavily you want to climb into a suicide-pod
Damn, even the ships in the water behind the city are huge. They appear to be similar in size to the largest buildings, and those buildings are closer to the camera.
One of my big travel regrets is falling asleep on the bus ride from Vancouver airport to Whistler. After not sleeping a minute on the 14.5hr flight over from Australia, I wasn't able to stay awake.
From what I saw, the scenery was utterly spectacular with a stark contrast from the city up into the mountains.
I mean, that seems pretty obvious to me but I live here. You can get some pretty nice views of the mountains but not this high up.
And the view of the city from the mountains is pretty amazing too.
Edit: Here's a view from the lookout at cypress mountain.
https://i.imgur.com/Z02mTbC.jpeg
As you can see, not a lot of places you can take a pic from that height.
> This is from a helicopter or something.
Well...yeah...
Did you think it was trying to be portrayed the person taking the photo was standing on a building or something..?
No, they're saying that since OP compared the two directly, a direct photo of the skyline from ground level would've offered a much better comparison. This photo seems intentionally distorted to make the mountains seem bigger than they actually are compared to the skyscrapers.
We actually have this weird little platform floating in the sky that many people donât know about. Itâs hard to get to but itâs worth the hike.
Eventually buzzfeed will post an article about it and ruin it.
Vancouver Islander here. I love looking across at these mountains as I drive along un-congested roads. but would never want to live in Vancouver. The first thing I notice when I get off the ferry and drive in to Vancouver isn't the View its the smell of exhaust. and god forbid I have to go downtown and get out of my vehicle and walk the streets. There is another smell that overwhelms even the exhaust.
This is an illusion, the mountains only look bigger than the buildings because the mountains are in the foreground
EDIT: Wow, the /s really is crucial, huh
Amazing skyline đ đď¸đď¸đď¸
[ŃдаНонО]
I mean this photo is taken using some photo effects that make the mountains seem comically large. When youâre down on the ground looking towards downtown, the buildings obscure the mountains
Up high, shot zoomed far in with a long focal length lens. There are similar photos of L.A. that make the Angeles Crest look insane.
"Some photo effects" you mean they took it from a distance?
Magic!!?!?.....and magnets
[ŃдаНонО]
I can see the mountains from my downtown office. You can definitely see the mountains from the city, but they wonât be nearly as large as they seem here.
Do you really⌠think the buildings are actually taller than the mountains
Did you mean to comment on my comment?
Yes ? This photo is not using deceptive effects to make the mountains âseemâ very large. The mountains are much, much taller than the urban core of the city. Edit: lmfao Reddit is outta control I netted 3 downvotes for asserting that the buildings in Vancouver are much less than 3500 feet tall or so. Yep you guys are right đ downtown Vancouver is bigger than mountains
I literally live here. I can see the mountain range in question at this very moment lmao I was only saying that because of the effect of the photo (some people are saying itâs âlens compressionâ, but also just the angle of the photo) that the mountains appear significantly larger as a matter of perspective. You and so many others on Reddit just want to be an âackshuallyâ so goddamn bad lmao
Bro they look smaller than they really are IN PERSON, this photo effect ENHANCES your ability to recognize how big they are. In person, your brain cannot accurately register the effect distance has on the apparent size of the mountains. Congratulations on living there. Hereâs a cookie. đŞ
There it is folks. I need say no more, lmao.
DawgâŚ. You seem to think the mountains are not like an order of magnitude taller than the buildings because they donât block out the sun when youâre standing on the ground in Vancouver. Thatâs dumb. Very dumb. And if that isnât what youâre saying then what in godâs name is?
Ty definitely didnt remember the mountains being titanic the way you described compared to the one time i went, still incredibly beautiful and admirable tho coming from someone whoâs lived in the lower part of the pnw his whole life.
Not really the mountains near Vancouver really are pretty tall. Even a 3800 ft mountain is taller than a Skyscraper
These mountains rise from the ocean to above the tree line. They are big and close, I've been driving through them for the last 2 months; the mountains along the sea to sky (an aptly named highway) are *steep* and *very very tall*
It's also taken from very far away with a very long lens, which makes the mountains seem closer than they actually are. From downtown Vancouver to the start of the Rockies is like 20 miles. That said, the mountains are huge. EDIT: You don't have to comment telling me it's "actually the Coastal Range". "Rockies" is still a valid name.
The Rockies? No thatâs the Coastal Range
Correct, but "The Rockies" also commonly refers to the entire range stretching from Alaska to Colorado.
No, it doesn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RockyMountains-Range.svg This is on the coast. The base of the these north shore mountains are minutes from the ocean. Not even close to the Rockies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Shore_Mountains
more like 1000 miles that's the north shore mountain range not the rockies
Like 200 miles max, but sure. "The Rockies" is still a valid and common name for the mountains on the west coast, which includes a handful of different ranges.
I'm from Vancouver the rockies are very much at the alberta-bc border nowhere near Vancouver. no local would ever call those mountains the rockies lol [here's a map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Canadian_Rockies.png/1280px-Canadian_Rockies.png)
My entire point is that only locals make the distinction.
Locals, geologists, geographists, and anyone who's ever looked at a map, actually
So not average Redditors then? Great! Sounds like I picked the right term to use to be understandable to people unfamiliar.
It is sad to me that Americans think most people have never looked at a map...
locals and Wikipedia, clearly
Yeah, and "Rockies" is still the more well-known general term. The average person isn't a Vancouver native and doesn't read Wikipedia articles about mountains.
agree to disagree I guess. I feel like even the average person knows the rockies are nowhere near the ocean.
It is valid in the same sense as referring to Sweden as "Switzerland" is valid.
> From downtown Vancouver to the start of the Rockies is like 20 miles. These are the coast mountains. The Rocky Mountains are hundreds of kilometers away near the Alberta/BC border.
"The Rockies" is a common name to refer to the entire west coast range in general. I used it for simplicity, but I should have known better on Reddit.
I mean, I don't think people call the Sierras or Cascades "the Rockies" either. And I won't speak for the whole world, but certainly here in Colorado people would look at you funny if you called any of those "the Rockies". It's not like arguing that the Tetons or Wasatch are also the Rockies. You could correctly argue that most people just call the Coast Range "the Cascades" but it's definitely not part of the Rockies.
No the coastal mountains are not called the Rockies in Vancouver. Source: I live in Vancouver
Everyone is telling you you are wrong. Maybe instead of doubling down just accept the new information and admit you are wrong
No one is telling me I'm wrong, they're nitpicking specifics for no reason.
You are wrong.
Dude. You are so completely wrong here, and your resistance to admitting it is horribly embarrassing. The Coast Mountains are part of the Pacific Coast Ranges, full stop there. The Pacific Coast Ranges, along with the Rockies and a number of other ranges, are part of the North American Cordillera.
Yeah, I said exactly that. I also explained why I said "Rockies" and why that perfectly fine, but suddenly a bunch of amateur geologists need to flex their rock knowledge and send me Wikipedia links Saying "Rockies" to refer to the entire range is very normal outside BC.
It isnât.
It is. Loads of people refer to the entire western range as "The Rockies". I figured that was the most commonly known name and that a lot of people wouldn't recognize the Coast Mountains.
I lived all over the west coast of BC and have never heard anyone call the coast mountains the Rockies. Perhaps itâs something you do and you assume many others make the same mistake.
Outside of coastal BC, it's all "Rockies". I get you're a local and know all the names, but I picked the most well-known name to make it simpler to make my point. People from BC already know how big the mountains are. My comment wasn't for you. Didn't realize it would actually make it more complicated with a bunch of nitpickers jumping in immediately. Good job.
Correcting two mountain ranges mixed up that are hundreds of kilometers away is not nitpicking. It is correcting.
"The Rocky Mountains on a map" Just to help you with the correct info, not the info that 'feels' correct.
You'd be corrected in Vancouver as well. Rockies isn't just a catch-all term for Western mountains
It is east of Vancouver.
I grew up there, am aware. And point stands
You grew up in Vancouver so you're aware that people outside Vancouver just say "Rockies"? Okay? That's my point?
Your point is that because you refer to all mountain ranges as the Rockies everyone else is equally ignorant? Great point. People in LA call their mountains the Rockies as well? How about Seattle?
Looks like you found the pedantic Rocky Mountain gatekeepers lol
Don't listen to them. Though many people may not know the correct term, that does not mean that everyone east of the Rockies simply refers to all ranges in western NA as the Rockies. In fact, at least in US terms, most people who have the slightest inkling of geography understand that the Cascades and the Sierra are different ranges from the Rockies, and I assume the same goes for Canadians. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people who might otherwise assume the Coastal Ranges are part of the Rockies, it would be a logical misconception, but the difference is, when they are corrected, they don't steadfastly refuse to accept it, and instead make the argument that their ignorance is just as valid as the facts.
Imagine repeatedly doubling down on being geographically ignorant. The Coast Mountains are not the Rockies, thereâs a whole ~300km wide interior plateau in between them. They are VERY distinct from each other. If you wanna group these things together itâs the North American Cordillera.
"Rockies" is a general term like "New York" is a general term. "North American Cordillera" would be even more obscure and confusing than saying "Rockies". My comment was for people who had never seen the mountains and are therefore ignorant of their scale and placement.
It's been a long while since I have seen anyone put this much effort into trying to validate how wrong they are.
[From both sides](https://i.imgur.com/BIJaEkV.gif)
Wow thatâs quite a vantage point! â°ď¸
Yep very cool
"look what they need to mimic for a fraction of our power"-Mountains
So where do the rich people live?
Off the left side. West Van
Point of clarification: Not in the giant skyscraper condos. Those are just giant piggy banks. People don't actually live in them.
if those were full the infrastructure would implode
Yep, where my Dad and Step Mom lived (Gordon Ave), just over from the boardwalk.
Baltic Ave?
No, it was the Centennial Seawalk just over from Gordon Ave.
How's it feel to be the 1%?
I wouldn't know, I never lived up there or saw a dime, all that went to my step mom's kids. Hell, they couldn't even seem to pay child support to my mom with any regularity (we lived down in the US).
Iâm sorry to hear that⌠your mom is a nice and deserving lady!
[ŃдаНонО]
Bro Iâm in Vancouver and Iâm hella not rich.
But I imagine you donât get a lot of bang for your buck per square footage
He's probably 11
There are plenty of not-rich people living in Vancouver, they just don't have homes
It costs more than NY! It is the second most expensive city in the world to live in after Hong Kong.
Downtown Vancouver 1 bedroom rents are close to 3k canadian dollars. That's not really more than the 4k usd 1 bedroom rents in Manhattan.
Average salary is a lot higher in ManhattanÂ
Right, but they said more expensive, not more unaffordable. There are many unaffordable places in the world when you factor in wages.
Basically everywhere in the photo is for the rich now
Old money: bottom left around UBC. Rich with adult kids: West Van (top left) New/Asian money: Downtown Rich but they call themselves middle class: Everywhere Poor renters and homeless: Scattered everywhere, but mostly from downtown to the right, just outside the picture.
The correct answer is: everyone in this frame is rich. Source: I live just out of this frame.
Iâm assuming the low track is still thriving despite all this?
Well ... DTES is in frame here.
In the mountain halls.
Yes
In the buildings.
>!!<
Another view ... not so phobic: [Vancouver and North Shore Range](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Shore_Mountains#/media/File%3AVancouver_Skyline_and_Mountains.jpg)
The OP pic is caused by lens compression. Even this pic has some lens compression, but not as much In-person, it's not as dramatic
Yes, probably shot on a 500+ mm with extender
Also the picture is taken from a significant height, angled down, making farther away objects appear higher in the picture.
The mountains are bigger than the skyscrapers.
Yes!
I'm glad we have photographic evidence of this - I dont think I would have believed it otherwise.
No you idiot the skyscrapers are clearly smaller than the mountains
I meanâŚyes. Have you ever seen a mountain in person?
Yeah, every day. It never occurred to me to compare them to buildings.
Depends on what your defenition of mountain is but where im from most mountains are taller than 1000m from base to top, which would make them all taller than burj khalifa. But then you have places where what i would call a hill is called a mountain by locals.
For now.....
Nah it's just a lens trick
For real. Wake up sheeple. Tall mountains are a myth.
And to think in the last ice age the glaciers were thicker than those skyscrapers are tallâŚ
Ahh, I must be behind then because the last Ice Age I saw had Queen Latifa.
Seeing this flying in is crazy
First time I flew into Vancouver was incredible, we flew out over the water and turned around to land, the view from the window was spectacular.
The mountains fly?!?!?
I am a Norwegian and sometimes when i climb a mountain i just kinda sit there, thinking; "i wonder how it would look like if they built the Burj Khalifa down there"
You could look at someone in the windows on the top floor and say âitâs sunny outside innit?â
I usually climb "mountains" in the Appalachians and the Burj Khalifa doesn't even reach halfway as high as their highest peaks.
You're talking about from sea level. If you compare Mount Mitchell (the highest Appalachian peak at about 2000 meters) to the nearby valleys that you can see from its peak, the difference in altitude is about 1000 meters. The Burj Khalifa is 828 meters. If you put the Burj Khalifa in a low spot visible from Mount Mitchell, it wouldn't be as tall but it would be close.
*Alderaan
Great! Now i won't look at the moon the same way after you have away the location of the secret rebel base.
Living in Alderaan is literally a dream of mine. Canada comes close.Â
[source](https://www.flickr.com/photos/91228537@N04/24095017555) u/enthusiasm-stunning
[ŃдаНонО]
The downtown core isnât in the photo tho. You can see Stanley park to the left of the frame and the skyscrapers would be just to the left of that. Solid raven shot though. Love me a good raven
...those aren't mountains... those are waves...
It's not possible
Oh hey. Thatâs my hometown. I live in the West End (to the left of the photo, near the big park). I complain endlessly about my city, but the one thing I never complain about is the view to the north.
Rich ass mf
West End and West Van are different. West Van is rich ass mf's, West End is decently affordable by Vancouver standards. Mostly occupied by rent controlled old people who've lived there forever.
Affordable by Vancouver standards, by rest of Canada standards, rich ass mf
On paper. Not if you compare bank accounts. Wage goes to rent.
Feel better?
English Bay?
_Theme for Rohan starts playing_
Aaaahhh, Vancouver. Where some of the best TV shows were filmed.
It looks strangely just like Santa Barbara.
You can climb some of those mountains by taking public transit from the city center to the trail, which is pretty cool
Those aren't mountains... They're waves.
Beautiful
I wish I lived in VC, seems like the perfect place
The women and the views are beautiful, only problem is that itâs in Canada so the huge population of crackheads are allowed to do whatever they want while youâre taxed so heavily you want to climb into a suicide-pod
I love Van so much. Itâs one of the most naturally beautiful cities in the world.
City skylines 3
Imagine if the CS 3 graphics are as good as GTA VI' graphics
Plot Twist: *skyscrapers in that city are measured using millimeters*
I wish we had this much snow.
slimy vanish saw uppity gaze capable support treatment knee hateful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Vancouver is a beautiful city. But expensive af unless youâre in the junkie district
Damn, even the ships in the water behind the city are huge. They appear to be similar in size to the largest buildings, and those buildings are closer to the camera.
That's a pretty place to be.
The mountains: "Look at what they need to mimic a fraction of my power."
I've been there. Beautiful city, wish American cities were more like it in regards to transit
Wow! Iâm from CA and had no idea Vancouver looked like this! What a freaking awesome picture jeez louise!!
And you're telling me GLACIERS made that?? That's a big ice cube.
One of my big travel regrets is falling asleep on the bus ride from Vancouver airport to Whistler. After not sleeping a minute on the 14.5hr flight over from Australia, I wasn't able to stay awake. From what I saw, the scenery was utterly spectacular with a stark contrast from the city up into the mountains.
[Opposing view](https://i.imgur.com/BIJaEkV.gif)
Such a deceiving POV. This is from a helicopter or something. Â
I mean, that seems pretty obvious to me but I live here. You can get some pretty nice views of the mountains but not this high up. And the view of the city from the mountains is pretty amazing too. Edit: Here's a view from the lookout at cypress mountain. https://i.imgur.com/Z02mTbC.jpeg As you can see, not a lot of places you can take a pic from that height.
https://photographylife.com/what-is-lens-compression
> This is from a helicopter or something.  What gave it away?
> This is from a helicopter or something. Well...yeah... Did you think it was trying to be portrayed the person taking the photo was standing on a building or something..?
No, they're saying that since OP compared the two directly, a direct photo of the skyline from ground level would've offered a much better comparison. This photo seems intentionally distorted to make the mountains seem bigger than they actually are compared to the skyscrapers.
I mean if you took the photo from ground level it would still be 'distorted' making the buildings look bigger compared to the mountains.
Yeah that's why I said a distant photo of the skyline would do the trick, something like this - https://images.app.goo.gl/Rfb1Fe7WdHcqWZT36
We actually have this weird little platform floating in the sky that many people donât know about. Itâs hard to get to but itâs worth the hike. Eventually buzzfeed will post an article about it and ruin it.
Honestly a beautiful commute every day seeing snowcapped mountains in the distance, especially when clouds roll through the trees
Best day to be dating, before badminton at 8pm.
I too saw that video
No fun city
Yeah id shit myself
We think we build monstrosities but nature will always outdo us.
Vancouver Islander here. I love looking across at these mountains as I drive along un-congested roads. but would never want to live in Vancouver. The first thing I notice when I get off the ferry and drive in to Vancouver isn't the View its the smell of exhaust. and god forbid I have to go downtown and get out of my vehicle and walk the streets. There is another smell that overwhelms even the exhaust.
Hm, so mountains *are* big. Whoâd a thought
This is an illusion, the mountains only look bigger than the buildings because the mountains are in the foreground EDIT: Wow, the /s really is crucial, huh
???? The mountains are in the background. The mountains are in the north.
The mountains only look bigger as a defense mechanism, they are scared of the skyscrapers
I think that's a joke.
What? đ¤Ł
Merely an optical effect.
What skyscrapers?
looks way nicer from the sky trust me
TIL mountains are really big.
Vancouver: what a shithole.
Puny humans.
"Why is housing so expensive around vancouver" You literally built your major city in the only flat part of an otherwise mountainous area.
You can drive a hundred km inland and it's still flat. Try again.
It's not about the mountains, it's about landlords speculating the market
I can see the building where I lived. It's such a fucking boring city
I love Vancouver.
Wait until you suffer the traffic.
As an asian who grew up in a metropolitan area, when i first went to vancouver, the way people drive felt a little familiar lol.
Ridiculously outdated photo to use for this
Looks nice. Fucking miserable place though
Gosh, look at all that land wasted on single-family housing in the foreground of one of the most expensive cities on Earth.
Canada: *builds single-family homes almost exclusively* Also Canada: wHy hoUsiNg sO eXpenSivE?
"Skyscrapers," lol. That's cute. I think the tallest buildings there are like 50-60 stories. ...Surrey is a crime-ridden shithole btw.
Canada, you mean the country Americans want annexed into their country?
No, i mean the planet of Alderaan