Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you talking under old zoning or new revised All the new buildings being built in last 5 years are big midrise buildings built to sidewalk in the areas away from downtown. Seattle changed its zoning laws a few years back to encourage density upzoned the city.
I'm not talking about downtown. I'm talking about the neighborhoods outside downtown.
These exist all over Seattle and they are horrible from an urban planning standpoint.
This is another example of a bad design for Seattle. The corners aren't crisp. The intersection is too big and the corners are way too far apart. The buildings should be way closer together at all four points, however, that would involve shrinking the street width which is not going to happen.
How is the US economy ? Anyone know? real sector? real estate? Foreign? I feel inflation, unemployment has stopped growing? right? how the stock market? and that f_in bench? fed?
can the southern States will become more productive in agriculture, with such re-industrialization of the United States ? given a part of US economy in China would be good to know plans about desolated lands D...so somehow to solve many problems.
I'm not talking about downtown. I'm talking about the neighborhoods outside downtown.
These exist all over Seattle and they are horrible from an urban planning standpoint.
Yeah that's old zoning laws but Seattle's population is growing at a fast rate and seattle had to change to accommodate all the new people. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=seatt...p=12,4.41,,0,0
This is another example of a bad design for Seattle. The corners aren't crisp. The intersection is too big and the corners are way too far apart. The buildings should be way closer together at all four points, however, that would involve shrinking the street width which is not going to happen.
I agree that without retail, a neighborhood isn't developed to its highest and most intense use, however, how many row house neighborhoods near downtown lack retail? Row house neighborhoods typically have commercial boulevards every few streets near downtown.
So do the Mercer and Federal Avenue locations in Seattle. Also with your streetview displays of certain streets in Boston, DC, Philadelphia and NY, why would Seattle need anything like that? It really doesn't.
Pittsburgh is obviously the most urban. Really have no clue how Seattle is winning this poll.
1. Pittsburgh
2. Seattle
3. Minneapolis
4. Denver
Because most people that have voted are Seattle boosters. Clearly Seattle's CBD is larger than Pittsburgh's, but Pittsburgh as a whole is far more urban.
It seems like this comes down to Seattle vs. Pittsburgh, and it reminds me of the urbanity debate between Philadelphia and Chicago. Seattle excels much more in "modern" urbanity, with its greater emphasis on high-rise density, while Pittsburgh looks much more "traditionally" urban, with a greater emphasis on human-scaled, street-level engagement and tighter streets.
Obviously, the age of both cities has had much to do with their built environments.
I think that's really the crux of the debate. I don't think choosing either is really a wrong answer, and it would come down to the type of urbanity one prefers.
I agree - I voted Seattle but Pittsburgh is right there side by side with it. One is older East Coast / Midwest urban design, one is West Coast bungalow / apartment urban design.
And as far as huge empty lots and parking lots around the core, Pittsburgh has more and it's not even close. I don't understand why all of a sudden this doesn't matter as much to some of these posters who love to act like parking lots are lava pits for pedestrians when it benefits their argument.
However, you get further away from the core I think Pittsburgh does better as Seattle's commercial blocks get spaced out more and more and that detracts from how urban it feels. Neighborhoods that are exclusively row homes do feel more urban than neighborhoods that are exclusively mid-century bungalows, at least to me.
Also the idea that grass and green space is a bad thing in urban design is ridiculous.
I agree - I voted Seattle but Pittsburgh is right there side by side with it. One is older East Coast / Midwest urban design, one is West Coast bungalow / apartment urban design.
And as far as huge empty lots and parking lots around the core, Pittsburgh has more and it's not even close. I don't understand why all of a sudden this doesn't matter as much to some of these posters who love to act like parking lots are lava pits for pedestrians when it benefits their argument.
However, you get further away from the core I think Pittsburgh does better as Seattle's commercial blocks get spaced out more and more and that detracts from how urban it feels. Neighborhoods that are exclusively row homes do feel more urban than neighborhoods that are exclusively mid-century bungalows, at least to me.
Also the idea that grass and green space is a bad thing in urban design is ridiculous.
I think there is an urban way to incorporate vegetation though. The way Seattle incorporates it is not urban.
Here is an example of a way to incorporate vegetation, however, still maintain an urban build:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
