Whenever I visit the greater Vancouver area, I’m struck by how much undeveloped land there is for a place with such insane house prices. Truly a head scratcher.

What makes you say that Burnaby is a deadzone? Metrotown, Brentwood, Lougheed all seem to be growing like crazy. I moved to Toronto a few years ago and I'm find myself surprised by new buildings every time I go back.

Burnaby heights has a real nice resident/commerce mix (but very poor transit and developers are forcing a lot of the commerce out). Metrotown is a good area, around the station the commerce is developed and there is plenty of density but going in any direction from it brings you through strip malls. Brentwood is weird... It is a new artificial neighborhood with plenty of Cactus Clubs and Starbucks but it doesn't have much natural commerce and there is very little in the area in terms of employment, I am afraid that neighborhood might suddenly collapse if the developers stop pouring money into it.

Lougheed is fair, I would generally consider that part of the Burquitlam span. It's awkwardly spread out with the mall itself sitting in a sea of parking lots, that doesn't tend to help build a good neighborhood but it is thriving, possibly due to being within short reach of the box stores out United/Woolridge.

Sorry, I was incorrect about Metrotown, it is a pretty nice city center but the rest of Burnaby suffers from west-coast suburb development, areas are either residential, res+light commerce or res+employers, it's hard to find a neighborhood where you can live, work and shop unless you're working in retail, and IMO a neighborhood that can't supply all three is going to fade away to pure residential in time due to NIMBYism.

Not to mention Gilmore, Patterson, Edmonds...

What makes you think transit is poor?

Compare to a city with great transit, then you know. I used to think that Vancouver transit was great. Then I started working in Shenzhen. Shenzhen and Hong Kong are awesome at public transit, Vancouver sucks. Part of the problem is that it's difficult for public transit in Vancouver to be profitable because the population density is so low.

You're not incorrect, and I think it's always important to look higher and strive for that. However, it's also such an unhealthy and distasteful attitude to embrace. Now, I actually do say the same about the transit in the city I'm currently living in (Winnipeg, MB), but you have to consider the test case for what makes transit "suck". Let's use basic reliability as a measure for this. Can I expect a bus to be on time and get me to work? In Vancouver yes, in Winnipeg no. Can I expect constant time travel to the downtown core from a suburb? In Vancouver yes, in Winnipeg the bus might not show up. Is there better? Yes. In Zurich for example everything was impossibly on time every time, but the country's reputation is literally watches and money.

Population density does play a huge part, which forces inadequate access to skytrains and so on, but you can still catch a bus, then use the same fare to get on the seabus, then the skytrain, then more buses, and maybe bring your bike so you can get that last mile in.

I agree, and part of your message is one of my strong objections. Public transit shouldn't be measured in terms of income-cost for profitability, most commercial ventures come with externalities of some sort and public transit provides a strongly net positive externality effect, it helps to subsidize business costs (cheaper transit can be seen as a subsidy to wages), retail prices (again, paying less gas/time/whatever to purchase a good makes it cheaper and reduces amazon's advantage) and psychology (IMO wanderlust is a real human need, being stuck in pattern for too long lowers productivity)

It's a public service and one that society should be happy to invest in. Governments that balance the books on public transit with accountants alone are acting against the societal good.

Fair enough. When I said profitable, I used the wrong word for what I meant. What I meant to say was sustainable. Profitable public transit is easily sustainable. Unprofitable public transit, harder to make sustainable, requires a really serious government commitment, and there are so many other things that also seriously require government equipment. For example, if I had to choose between Vancouver having good public transit and good public health care, I'd choose good public health care. Of course in an ideal world, they'd find funding for two (and more) unprofitable public programs.

Come to Europe. Then go back to pretty much any North American city.

Yup, or just go to an east coast city (though apparently NYC is sort of terrible right now). I'm originally from Boston and while the city isn't perfect it has a solid offering in terms of moving through the metropolitan area efficiently, whether you reside directly on a T line or not.

Cities built before cars were as widespread as they are now had to put a lot more effort into making themselves livable and providing sane ways to move about the city locally (for daily needs) and regionally (for occasional needs)

I have, and would like to move there if I can manage it. Valid criticism to be sure, but I think it's a bit misguided to levy a statement like "Vancouver transit sucks". Because it doesn't. At the very least it's pretty good. No it's not Zurich or Schenzen, but it's also not Winnipeg, Manitoba.