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.
Bahaha. I'm "seriously cherrypicking" but you send me links to areas with smalls strips of urban developments. The good majority of Seattle is suburban. Let's not try to kid ourselves.
Small strips? Did you actually walk around any of those areas? Greenlake is the only one that fits the "small strip" bill. The rest are decent-sized urban neighborhoods.
Also, the significant majority of Seattle housing units are multi-family - that does not fit the bill of a suburban city with a few "small urban strips". Outside of Downtown (which includes multiple districts in itself - Downtown Core, Belltown, Pioneer Square, Westlake) there is Queen Anne, Capitol Hill, South Lake Union, First Hill, Inner Ballard, and the U District, which are all full 3-dimensional urban neighborhoods. Places like Georgetown, Fremont, Greenwood, Columbia City, Alaska Junction, Admiral Junction, and many other areas also have highly walkable, urban portions. I think you underestimate Seattle's core and just how much more impressive and urban it is than Pittsburgh's - it is a large, urban area with multiple urban downtown districts and adjacent inner neighborhoods that is around 3 X 3 miles.
I'm not claiming Seattle is Boston, SF, or Philly. But it is the most urban of these four, in my opinion. Pittsburgh may have a more cohesive urban fabric, since Seattle is more of a collage, but Seattle wins in other regards. Much denser, more vibrant, bigger, and more bustling downtown with a high residential population, stronger and more active adjacent urban inner neighborhoods, and way more urban nodes/outer neighborhoods throughout the City.
Dense development ≠ urban development. Look at Dubai. Walkability, transit, aesthetics and local character, access to parks and recreation zones, availability of services, interesting neighborhood, presence of 24-hour establishments matter just as much or more.
Dense development ≠ urban development. Look at Dubai. Walkability, transit, aesthetics and local character, access to parks and recreation zones, availability of services, interesting neighborhood, presence of 24-hour establishments matter just as much or more.
Are you claiming Seattle doesn't have those things? It has the highest walkscore and highest transit ridership of any of these cities. There are also plenty of interesting neighborhoods, access to parks/recreation, and availability of services. None of these cities are 24-hour cities by any stretch.
Pittsburgh seems to have a better, more traditional urban fabric. Doesn't necessarily mean it's more "urban" though.
I agree. That's one of the area where Pittsburgh handily wins - consistency of urban fabric (along with urban bones). However, Seattle's urban areas are much more urban, dense, vibrant, and there's just a lot more cumulative urban areas because it's a bigger city.
Ok, and before you were saying Seattle is the way it is because it wasn't "planned" like other cities. Yes a developer/builder needs a "plan" to build something but weren't you talking about city/urban planning? Weren't you inferring that zero lot development in older cities were the result of "planning" as in city/urban planning?
Everything isn't planned the same way it always been at all. As a supposed "professional" in the field I would think you would know that. Cities weren't planned a 100 years ago like the are today.
This is the quote I'm referring to, what are you even saying here? It sounds like you're saying Seattle isn't as urban because it wasn't "planned" to be as in there wasn't any city/urban planning back then and that is the reason it's built like it is.
Seattle was planned just like every other city was. When I say planned by the way, I'm not talking about planning the whole city at one time. I'm talking about planning a neighborhood one by one which every city has done. The thing we must remember is the difference is the car. It's the problem. The points people are making about the changing in development based on the car is what is making these new neighborhoods less urban.
Seattle was planned just like every other city was. When I say planned by the way, I'm not talking about planning the whole city at one time. I'm talking about planning a neighborhood one by one which every city has done. The thing we must remember is the difference is the car. It's the problem. The points people are making about the changing in development based on the car is what is making these new neighborhoods less urban.
You're contradicting what you said earlier now. Seattle being less "urban" has mainly to do when it grew than anything related to "planning".
Probably Seattle. While a lot of it is new urbanism type developments, it's still very walkable and urban in it's core. However, outside of this, it's suburban with small urban nodes scattered. It doesn't have the continuous urban environment you see in cities like Philly, Chicago, or SF.
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.
