CityBracket 2025, Round 3, Matchup 2 (Semifinal 2): Vancouver, BC vs. Washington, DC

On this side of the bracket, two of my favorite cities to visit have emerged victorious: Vancouver surprisingly besting both Toronto and New York on the bracket of pure tourism and Washington, DC coming out much less surprisingly from what may have been the easiest bracket, given my family's tendency to live in less urbanist cities.

Let's see who gets to go up against the European giant in the final! Will it be a battle of national capitals, or will the US be excluded entirely?

Category 1: Visiting Without A Car

a) How can you get to the city? 

Both cities sit at the end of an Amtrak corridor that is the primary train option, have fairly robust intercity bus/coach service, and connected their airports to their subway lines.

Unfortunately for Vancouver, DC has two airports, both on the Metro, and the Acela corridor is a stronger rail link than Amtrak Cascades or anything VIA Rail currently offers.

The SeaBus is a personal favorite (and I love that building), and BC Ferries is nice, but they can't tip the scales against that.

VERDICT: Vancouver 0, DC 1

b) How do you get around?

The Washington Metro is a nice system, and DC is a very walkable area in general. Tourists have no problem getting around the city.

SkyTrain is also pretty straightforward, and Vancouver downtown is just as walkable. 

Ultimately, I think the visitor-oriented parts of Vancouver are more compact, and SkyTrain is a simpler system to navigate.

Price is also a concern--except the costs of their transit systems to ride are pretty much parallel. But note that Vancouver works on a zone system, while DC is distance-based--this means that again, it's just easier to get around on the TransLink system.

VERDICT: Vancouver 1, DC 1

c) What are the limits on a visitor without a car?

On the one hand, it's pretty easy to get everywhere a tourist might be interested in in both cities.

Everyone's Chinatown is easy to get to.

But overall, here I think DC really shines: UBC is on a good bus line and going to be on SkyTrain, but pretty much everything in DC that a tourist needs is right there on Metro.

This meerkat, however, might disagree, since he's kinda stuck in the zoo.

VERDICT: Vancouver 1, DC 2 (unless you're a meerkat)

Category 2: Living Without A Car

a) Can you expect to get to work?

In DC, about 2/3 of commuters use non-auto modes for their commute, compared to a bit over half in Vancouver.  That's not quite as true for the overall metro area, though, which flips the percentage around in DC, and by a little bit it's even worse in Vancouver.

Basically, the answer is yes, but you'll want to live in the main city--and there, DC wins.

VERDICT: Vancouver 1, DC 3

b) Can you live the rest of your life?

Overall, about half of metro Vancouver trips are by transit or active modes. That is not the case in DC; commutes are heavily out of the car, but that does not appear to translate to the rest of life (at least, not in the wider metro area; DC residents may be another matter).

This is reflected in car ownership. Metro DC is at 1.67 cars per capita, and no single part of the Vancouver metro, let alone the overall, is that high.

VERDICT: Vancouver 2, DC 3

c) How are the basic amenities?

I love Vancouver's amenities (witness how I gave it this category last time against NYC). But DC has it all: the Smithsonian (even if they cave to presidential pressure), walkable streets, gorgeous architecture.

VERDICT: Vancouver 2, DC 4

Category 3: Miscellaneous

a) Are there people on the street?

Yes, in both cases. In my experience outside the most downtowny parts of the city, though, DC has fewer eyes on the street than Vancouver. 

That's a subjective measure, of course. There's people here, even if I tend to avoid taking pictures of too many strangers:

Just like there are in this random Vancouver park:

But I can't help my subjective reading--and that is, Vancouver has this more.

VERDICT: Vancouver 3, DC 4

b) Where is the city's urbanism going?

This is a place where DC is doing well--just extended Metro, has plans for more--but Vancouver is just doing better, with the BC upzone, SkyTrain extensions, and the lack of a federal government that wants to take over the city and undo its work.

VERDICT: Vancouver 4, DC 4

c) Is it functionally diverse?

DC and Vancouver are both highly diverse cities, although DC metro is likely more segregated by race, especially given the city/suburb divide. Canada just tends towards lower segregation, even if it's still a potential issue. As is often the case with US cities, racial diversity in DC is more about a Black/White divide, where the city is plurality Black and the metro area is not, whereas there is much more Asian population in Vancouver.

Again, both highly diverse--but I think this goes to Vancouver.

VERDICT: Vancouver 5, DC 4

d) How do people there react to knowing you're not using a car?

I don't think either city would treat that as odd (which is a theme this late in the bracket) but there are still noticeable differences. It really depends whether you were in the inner city, in which case I think DC is less concerned about you than Vancouver is, or in the outer suburbs, where DC residents will actually start looking at you oddly (as US people do on this topic).

But in the land of fine distinctions, I think that matters.

VERDICT: Vancouver 6, DC 4

e) How do people react to people living close together?

DC is a dense city overall, but it has a lot more mid-level and low density, especially in the suburbs. Vancouver has its Vancouverism, pushing people close together even with a visual streetscape that's lower-density-looking. In neither city would you be thought of as odd for being in a dense area, but it's more central to Vancouver culture than DC

North Vancouver is still pretty dense. 

Of course, so is random urban DC:

But the overall population is denser in Vancouver: the metro area by about 3 times compared to the entire DC metro, while the cities themselves are closer but Vancouver is still a bit denser. 

FINAL VERDICT: Vancouver 7, DC 4

Well, this was a much closer matchup, but Vancouver has seen off the last US city in the competition. Next up: the final, a matchup of two of my absolute favorite cities (no surprise there) and the best of Canada against the best of the UK. May the best Commonwealth city win!

CityBracket 2025, Round 3, Matchup 1 (Semifinal 1): London vs. Boston

Here we are, in the final four! Boston has emerged from a hard-fought set of matchups as the best of the best from the cities I've lived in the longest, and London has fought off its own little sibling, Oxford, and then waxed Baltimore for the crown among cities I've lived in for a shorter time. Let's see who moves on to the final--and whether we see another squeaker or another wipeout.

Category 1: Visiting Without A Car

a) How can you get to the city? 

Boston has but the one airport, connected but a bit oddly to downtown. London has more airports, some with great connections but most much further from the city center.

Boston is also the northern terminus of the Acela Corridor in the US, the highest speed and most frequent rail in the country. London is the hub of all UK railroading, and also one end of Eurostar (aka HS1 in the UK), running to Paris, Brussels, and (but for a period of repairs this year) Amsterdam. 

This is an easy one for London, I'm afraid; Boston is good, but London is one of the easiest cities to get to without a car.

The trains do not actually drive over Shakespeare's face, however.

VERDICT: London 1, Boston 0

b) How do you get around?

Boston is, in my opinion, more walkable as a metro overall for tourists than London, partly because the "Boston metro" is more compact.

London's system is more comprehensive outside that urban core, but that's less crucial to a tourist perspective. Not that there aren't quite walkable areas:

Historically, very walkable. And the Millennium Bridge makes it easier.

Frankly, these are both very easy, but I'd say that (again, because of compactness) Boston tips the scales here.

VERDICT: London 1, Boston 1

c) What are the limits on a visitor without a car?

That said, as soon as you're outside the compact core (say, for a football match--of any type) Boston loses its edge, hard. And you can't get to Foxboro (as I keep saying in this competition).

There are a billion different stadia in London, but they're all accessible by transit in a way Boston doesn't respect, and honestly there's nowhere you can't get with time and transit.

Say, for example, you wanted to see Chelsea.

VERDICT: London 2, Boston 1

Category 2: Living Without A Car

a) Can you expect to get to work?

Londoners benefit from that larger, more extensive network. Lewisham is much easier to access (and to get back to the City from if you work there) than Brighton in the Boston metro, even though they're roughly equivalent distances from the city center (about 6 miles). The advantage grows the further out you are, especially if you work a non-traditional schedule.

This guy is going places--with two decks of people on him.

This guy is stuck in traffic--which also happens in London, but it felt like a good metaphor.

This is reflected in London having about 10-20 percentage points fewer car commuters than Boston. The congestion charge surely affects that, but also--London can have a congestion charge because it has the systems in place to support that.

VERDICT: London 3, Boston 1

b) Can you live the rest of your life?

Yes, in both cases. Boston has amazing low car ownership for the US: over a third of households have no cars at all.

Outer London shows similar numbers. Inner London nearly doubles them. 

That's the difference between "you can live the rest of your life" and "most people do." Over half of households in inner London have no access to any car. 

That speaks to how easy it is to live life in London without a car. 

This is normally where I'd say that cost of living matters, and it certainly does. But opinions differ on which of these two cities is actually more expensive. Is it London? Is it Boston? I expect it is actually London. But the point is, it's close enough that that big advantage in the ease of a car-free lifestyle makes a big difference (Boston with a car is more expensive than London without).

VERDICT: London 4, Boston 1

c) How are the basic amenities?

Look, I took a tour of the Olmsted Parks the first week I was at college, and I love them. Likewise, the MFA and the various museums at Harvard are excellent.

I would still spend every day at the parks and museums in London over them--plus the London ones tend to be free.

The sidewalks, streetscape, and other amenities are similar. I love Boston, and it still can't beat London here.

I even like the views, let alone the collections at the British Museum

VERDICT: London 5, Boston 1

Category 3: Miscellaneous

a) Are there people on the street?

Very much yes in both cases! 

I want to give this as a tie, or to Boston, so much, because I love walking in Boston and there genuinely are people on the street there a lot. But here's the views from the places I lived around both downtowns:

Boston (Gainsborough St)

London (Farringdon)

Neither has any people, but one is dominated by cars, while the other shows you bikes. They're similar streets--if anything, the Farringdon one is more of a through-street--but you can see the difference.

Let's look at another comparison, this time of major downtown walkable areas by financial centers:

Boston by the Prudential Center

London by Canary Wharf

The former photos are old; these are recent; the overall feeling is the same. Boston has people on the street, I promise, but London has to win this.

VERDICT: London 6, Boston 1

b) Where is the city's urbanism going?

I did some diving here into the 2030 plans for each metro. And while both metros know they need to expand their transit, Boston doesn't really have strong plans for that. London does (although of course people debate if it's enough).

I would love to live in either of these going forward, but there's a clear winner in the future category too.

VERDICT: London 7, Boston 1

c) Is it functionally diverse?

Both of these cities are ethnically diverse; London just barely has a white majority, while Boston does not, though both have a white plurality. Boston is a city with some extensive metro segregation; London, for all its diversity, may be less integrated than average in Britain by some measures. 

Given that, I'm going to just tip this over to Boston here, though it's very close.

VERDICT: London 7, Boston 2

d) How do people there react to knowing you're not using a car?

No one in either city will blink an eyelash. But that reaction will stretch further into the suburbs for London than it will for Boston; I got strange looks out in Newton for not having a car when I worked there.

VERDICT: London 8, Boston 2

e) How do people react to people living close together?

Both cities are quite dense and build density downtown especially.

The river is prime real estate.

So is the financial district.

London's density extends over a broader part of the urban area, however. Metro Boston has some areas that are much less dense, even if there are definitely areas of major density as well.

Basically, as with much of this, Boston is good; London just keeps beating it at the same game.

FINAL VERDICT: London 9, Boston 2

Perhaps throwing all that tea into Boston Harbor was a waste of time, and we should have thrown dirt in there to increase the urban land downtown instead. An easy romp for London in the end into the final, where DC or Vancouver awaits.

CityBracket 2025, Round 2, Matchup 4: Baltimore vs London

The last matchup in round 2 is a matchup between a city and the city it was settled from (among others): Baltimore, Maryland and London, UK. We've had a couple close matchups this round and one runaway: let's see where this one ends up.

Category 1: Visiting Without A Car

a) How can you get to the city? 

Baltimore is on the Acela corridor, and connected to Washington DC (also still in this bracket) via the MARC train which also connects its international airport to the city by rail (as does the light rail). I've visited Baltimore coming in both car-free and car-light, and both are easy to do.

That said, let's not pretend that Eurostar, six airports all on train lines, and being the hub of a national intercity coach network doesn't pull London ahead here. 

You can even get to *squints* Welwyn Garden City.

VERDICT: Baltimore 0, London 1

b) How do you get around?

The light rail, single-line subway, and bus service in Baltimore do make it easy to get around. The various tourist destinations are mostly easy to walk to, either from transit or just around downtown. 

My friend the light rail!

London's iconic red buses, world-renowned Tube, and massively interconnected National Rail services could all disappear, though, and I would suggest the Overground, trams, Elizabeth Line, ferries, and even the silly Air Line would still get you around better than anything in Baltimore.

My better friend, the tram!

VERDICT: Baltimore 0, London 2

c) What are the limits on a visitor without a car?

Baltimore has one little section of hipster shops and cafés that everyone recommends--Hamden--and it's actually quite difficult to get to by transit or walking from the rest of the city, hidden up on a hill behind the Johns Hopkins University campus.

The greatest limitation on a tourist in London is finding the time to go everywhere.

Or the crowds.

VERDICT: Baltimore 0, London 3

Category 2: Living Without A Car

a) Can you expect to get to work?

Baltimore's transit system is definitely made up to promote commuters, including commuters to DC and from the Lutherville/Timonium suburbs. 

However, there are definitely places that are hard or impossible to commute to/from without a car. 

London seems to have a somewhat different approach: while of course people do commute by car, between the congestion charge and the sheer cost of living, it's definitely set up to not need a car.

That said, I'm not really counting these motorbikes (but it was nice that there was a motorbike stand!)

VERDICT: Baltimore 0, London 4

b) Can you live the rest of your life?

Here's where cost of living starts to matter, and London is certainly more expensive than Baltimore.

How much? That matters, a lot, because if you can afford it, London has a lot better integration of groceries, hospitals, shopping, etc into the urban fabric, and it's easier to live those parts of your life without a car there.

Some have London only 20ish% more expensive; others more like 40% or even 70%. That's a meaningful difference. It's the difference between which would win this category, in fact.

What all those analyses agree on is that London is cheaper to eat in (groceries for sure, eating out possibly). That surprised me given the overall difference they all agree on. The higher estimates correspond to: the higher cost of transportation. The 70% comes because a car is so expensive. Yes, the monthly transit ticket is also more expensive, but in one place the transit ticket allows you not to own the car--in the other, it's an add-on, effectively.

That means, without a car, London does much better. Well, still worse financially, but good enough that the advantage in city organization shines through.

Sometimes dinner is right next to the station...

VERDICT: Baltimore 0, London 5

c) How are the basic amenities?

I love the Walters Museum, the waterfront by the Inner Harbor, and Fort McHenry.

I'm also aware that even the most xenophobic American inspired by the battle at the latter in the War of 1812 would have to admit that London has the better city amenities including the spoils of empire all around, for free admission.

Some of the spoils are clearer about the colonial context that spawned them than others.

VERDICT: Baltimore 0, London 6

Category 3: Miscellaneous

a) Are there people on the street?

Baltimore has done a much improved job of this over the years I've visited. It's a city where I do see people walking and sitting on their stoops. 

London is one of the few cities I've had actual trouble walking in because of the number of people on the street.

This isn't "difficulty walking" territory, but it is pretty normal levels of people on the street.

VERDICT: Baltimore 0, London 7

b) Where is the city's urbanism going?

Baltimore is finally getting off the ground. That means reviving the Red Line project, and trying to complete more of the urban infrastructure for density and transport.

But proud as I might be of them for that, here's something London has done that Baltimore doesn't even look to do:

Lower speed limits in Islington -- a decade ago -- are about the same as speed limits in side alleys alone in Baltimore.

And then when you consider the larger plan for the future is also more comprehensive, this has to go to London. 

VERDICT: Baltimore 0, London 8

c) Is it functionally diverse?

Baltimore has a legacy of segregation and it has had consequences to the present day. It's a majority Black city, but the metro is not, which might be an indication of the problem. It's a pretty racially segregated metro area, though not necessarily that high by US standards.

That said, the US is generally more segregated than the UK (except with regard to Asian groups, which is an interesting finding). And London in particular is a very diverse city. Even though it wasn't when I was born.

VERDICT: Baltimore 0, London 9

d) How do people there react to knowing you're not using a car?

I've gotten odd looks in Baltimore County about not using a car; in the city, less so but still a certain amount of expectation around car ownership arose.

The topic literally never came up in London, and I think people would have been surprised if I'd mentioned driving--though that might be because I'm noticeably American. Still, none of my UK relatives ever drove into the city to see me either; they took transit, and I took transit out to them as well.

People do own cars in London, but it's very normal not to.

Even if sometimes the bus stops have trouble connecting to their Internet for arrival times.

VERDICT: Baltimore 0, London 10

e) How do people react to people living close together?

Baltimore is famous for the row house. Sorry for the bad picture, but the point is that people are close together.

But again, that isn't the same as London's denser density.

This is a relatively non-dense part of inner London, and yet look at that relative height.

And this is a bit more:

FINAL VERDICT: Baltimore 0, London 11

I'm sorry to Baltimore, which would probably have won some potential second round matchups, but was completely overmatched here. A pair of wipeouts to match our pair of close results in Round 2. We'll move on to round 3 next, aka the semifinals, with London moving on to face Boston, aka the American Revolution v.2

CityBracket 2025, Round 2, Matchup 3: Lincoln vs Washington, DC

The first two matchups in round 2 have been real nailbiters, where as I was going through them I wasn't entirely sure where it would end up going.

I'm not sure that's going to be true today. With all due respect to Lincoln, Nebraska, a city I deeply enjoy visiting and, to quote Shakespeare, would willingly waste my time in, I think there's a clear favorite here. 

But maybe some would have said that about New York last time, so let's get to it! This is Lincoln vs Washington, DC.

Category 1: Visiting Without A Car

a) How can you get to the city? 

Lincoln has daily train service, a cute little airport with some bus service, intercity bus (coach) service, and even a shuttle to the Omaha airport as well.

DC has Acela, the highest capacity and highest speed rail line in the US, even more intercity bus service, a regional train to Baltimore, and three international airports all connected to it by rail, including two on the metro.

Or: I have visited Lincoln without a car once. I have driven into DC once.

The train drops you off right downtown, too.

VERDICT: Lincoln 0, DC 1

b) How do you get around?

Lincoln has a small but relatively robust bus network, a growing and frankly impressive for the Midwest bike network, and a very walkable downtown next to the university.

DC has one of the best subways in the USA, which visits pretty much all of the major sites in the city, the National Mall to walk along, and a more robust bus network than Lincoln.

VERDICT: Lincoln 0, DC 2

c) What are the limits on a visitor without a car?

Honestly, in Lincoln there's not a lot you can't get to without a car that's of visitor interest, although the UNL's Memorial Stadium is definitely set up for car parking first and foremost.

The best rail service in Lincoln: at the Zoo. I'm afraid it doesn't quite compare...

DC? There can be some long walks from place to place, but again, very little in terms of restrictions.

VEDICT: Lincoln 0, DC 3

Category 2: Living Without A Car

a) Can you expect to get to work?

In Lincoln this is primarily true if you live downtown. It's definitely dominated by single-car driving.

In DC, you should totally expect to be able to work without a car, unless you work at one of the federal offices out in suburban Virginia or Maryland -- though in that case you probably won't live in DC proper anyway. There are definitely large numbers of car commuters, but they aren't nearly as dominant, especially inside the city.

VERDICT: Lincoln 0, DC 4

b) Can you live the rest of your life?

Again, I respect the grind of those who live in Lincoln car-free. The bike network and walkable downtown really do make it possible.

You can bike to UNL!

That said, the sheer comparison of lived experience shows how many more people in DC make this work, and I cannot stress how much easier it is to do there.

VERDICT: Lincoln 0, DC 5 

c) How are the basic amenities?

I'm sorry for Lincoln here: I like its parks and museums, the sidewalks are empty (see below) but ample, and I think it has everything you need for a city.

Nice park. Too bad there was no one on this path...

Unfortunately, DC overflows. It hath abundance. It does and overdoes. The national investment in DC's amenities is impressive, and deserves recognition.

VERDICT: Lincoln 0, DC 6 

Category 3: Miscellaneous

a) Are there people on the street?

See above. I have seen more than one person on the streets in Lincoln, and the downtown Haymarket can get pretty packed.

And then there's the rest of the city, where I think my in-laws were about to commit me to a mental institution the first time I walked to the Runza (Nebraska fast food chain) from their house.

DC is a different city: it buzzes throughout, and the desire to walk to your junk food fix is hardly unusual.

VERDICT: Lincoln 0, DC 7

b) Where is the city's urbanism going?

Here, as with NYC, we have to consider the reality of what the US government is doing: whatever we think of DC, we have to admit that Donald Trump has explicitly declared a desire to micromanage the government of DC, which can derail any ongoing projects. 

Lincoln is building out bike lanes and densifying downtown. 

DC has just extended the Metro (into a new county in the outskirts of the metro area even) and has started discussing plans to continue to intensify the transit options in the city. 

Against another opponent the threat of US government intervention might tip things, but DC's developments are just too strong here.

VERDICT: Lincoln 0, DC 8

c) Is it functionally diverse?

For Nebraska, Lincoln is quite diverse. The options in terms of food and groceries, education and community, are diverse among African, Asian, and Hispanic cultures, to name just three broad groups.

DC is a majority-minority city embedded in a larger metro area that is also more diverse than Lincoln. The city has its troubles with historical segregation and discrimination, as all large US cities do, but it's still a more diverse city than Lincoln.

VERDICT: Lincoln 0, DC 9

d) How do people there react to knowing you're not using a car?

In Lincoln they'll probably assume you're a poor student.

In DC, 👍 is probably about the amount of reaction you'll get.

VERDICT: Lincoln 0, DC 10

e) How do people react to people living close together?

Again, DC is much more used to this; in Lincoln it's basically restricted to college kids, and that's not always viewed positively.

FINAL VERDICT: Lincoln 0, DC 11

Sorry Lincoln; I love visiting you and would gladly live there, but it's not DC. This is our first clean sweep (although there were some narrow "ties" in earlier rounds that here in round 2 would probably have fallen one way or the other and caused sweeps as well).

CityBracket 2025, Round 2, Matchup 2: Vancouver vs. New York

This matchup is a big one for North America: the Canadian champion (since Toronto already lost to it) and a major US contender in New York. Let's get to the competition!

Category 1: Visiting Without A Car

a) How can you get to the city? 

New York is the heart of the US East Coast network, in the middle of the Acela corridor and with connections west as well. It also has a strong commuter network, if you're visiting from closer in. It has multiple airports in the region, all of which can connect to the larger transit network with varying degrees of ease. 

Vancouver is on the north end of the Amtrak Cascades, has a major ferry network if you're coming from coastal BC, and has one international airport directly on the SkyTrain. 

Acela is a strong contender here, but the sheer inconvenience of getting to NYC without a car from the airports (which remain, in the US, the dominant mode of intercity non-automotive travel) tips this to Vancouver for me--especially as Acela only covers a limited range of cities from which one could visit NYC.

VERDICT: Vancouver 1, NYC 0

b) How do you get around?

The MTA is a great resource for visitors to NYC: it covers a huge amount of the city, and has stops directly adjacent to, or often underneath, major destinations. 

And of course you can walk a lot of it as well, as these people are doing.

Vancouver is no slouch here: SkyTrain is great, and the bus service is better in Vancouver (NYC has a huge problem with slowdowns). 

With that said, I don't think I can quite give this to Vancouver, much as I love traveling there on foot and transit. NYC just has too much of a system.

VERDICT: Vancouver 1, NYC 1

c) What are the limits on a visitor without a car?

Here's where the MTA system, to me, becomes a bit of a hindrance. It's complex (especially when there's construction, but even without it the express trains can be confusing for a visitor) and as I mentioned above, if you end up on a bus instead of a train it's often very slow. This produces a limit on the practical use of the system that I don't think is present in Vancouver.

VERDICT: Vancouver 2, NYC 1

Category 2: Living Without A Car

a) Can you expect to get to work?

The answer in both cities is certainly yes. NYC is a clear winner here: only 30% of people drive to work, compared to something more like 40% in Vancouver. Both cities have multiple job centers and multiple routes to get to them, a strong culture of non-car commuting, and effective transit options. But NYC does better here in practice.

VERDICT: Vancouver 2, NYC 2

b) Can you live the rest of your life?

NYC has a strong bodega culture, which certainly helps with living the rest of your life beyond work. But to live in the parts of the city that have that culture most strongly, you have to pay out the nose. Vancouver famously has a massive cost of living crisis. New York is somehow approximately 70% more expensive than Vancouver, and that's across the whole city, not the most urbanist parts. 

These aren't cheap to live in, but they aren't NYC prices.

VERDICT: Vancouver 3, NYC 2

c) How are the basic amenities?

Both cities have areas (*cough* Staten Island *cough*) without sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities.

Both also have amazing parks and museums.

Stanley Park

Central Park

NYC has the lead on museums due to MOMA and the Met, although I will say that the American Museum of Natural History falls behind the UBC Museum of Anthropology.

(The pic is actually from Stanley Park, because I didn't take pictures of totem poles in the museum, but the point stands).

Ultimately, I'm going to go with the immense natural beauty of Vancouver here:

NYC doesn't have any amenities like this available a transit ride away, even if I do love the islands in the harbor.

VERDICT: Vancouver 4, NYC 2

Category 3: Miscellaneous

a) Are there people on the street?

Vancouver has a lot of people on the street, especially downtown:

NYC, however, is the locus classicus of this kind of thing.

VERDICT: Vancouver 4, NYC 3

b) Where is the city's urbanism going?

Here's an interesting question. NYC just got congestion pricing and it's massively effective--but the federal government has it in for the program. Vancouver is doing major expansions to SkyTrain, while NYC is finally starting to actually work on that Second Ave Subway at massively inflated cost.

Another key to me here is that Vancouver (and BC more generally) has massively liberalized rules on constructing transit-oriented development. This isn't congestion pricing, but it is a major step forward in urbanist housing, which seems vital given the well-documented issues in housing costs in both regions.

I may regret this if congestion pricing sticks, but the active opposition from the Trump administration to continuing that project makes me tip this ever so slightly to Vancouver.

VERDICT: Vancouver 5, NYC 3

c) Is it functionally diverse?

Both of these cities prize their diversity and multiculturalism. Demographically, NYC has a much higher Black and Hispanic population, while Vancouver has a much higher proportion of Asian ethnic groups: neither city has a single majority ethnic group. Both cities have a history of segregation (as noted last round), but Vancouver is, according to most metrics, much less segregated than US cities in general and NYC in particular. 

In other words, both cities are pretty diverse, but in Vancouver there is less functional division between where different ethnic groups are settled.

VERDICT: Vancouver 6, NYC 3

d) How do people there react to knowing you're not using a car?

This is the reverse of the above: both cities do well but I tend towards NYC. Vancouver does very well on metrics of car ownership, with less than a vehicle per person average in most of the metro area, but NYC does even better. Neither city is one in which anyone will be surprised you don't have a car, but there are places in NYC people would be more likely to be surprised you do, especially given the cost of living noted above.

VERDICT: Vancouver 6, NYC 4

e) How do people react to people living close together?

Again, both of these cities are notably dense, and people are very used to encountering people who live close together. But to my shock, Vancouverism appears to have produced similar density to NYC's intense density in the urban core. The NYC metro as a whole is denser, but the urban density is actually higher in Vancouver. 

Vancouver's design tends towards these spiky little islands of height. 

NYC's is more uniform across the streetscape.

Ultimately, I think that NYC is more used to living cheek by jowl, even if the densities are similar (after all, remember that things used to be denser and less safe).  

FINAL VERDICT: Vancouver 6, NYC 5

It's a close one, and honestly could have gone either way (I imagine a fan of NYC's museums and parks would like a word about that amenities ranking). Both of these cities are amazing for urbanism, but only Vancouver is going on to the next round!