Not OP but a city block isn't an entire city. If you read their comment again without prejudice you may be able to understand what they meant, even if it does require a little imagination.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if a city is composed of city blocks and by induction then a whole city is surrounded by roads.
Plenty of cities have greenways that lead into parks considered "part of" the city. Such parkland might not feel like the inner city, indeed ideally it has minimal street intrusion, but still can be part of the fabric of good city living.
I think the sentence is best read as "a wild animal could not reach the city without crossing a road that is not considered part of vancouver proper". Seems clear that that's the intended meaning
When a premise leads to a false conclusion, you should reconsider your premise.