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.
It's comparing the cities not metros if Seattle had such good shopping don't you think tourists would rate it higher?
There are definately more shopping DT; especially in terms of Deptartment stores; on boutiques it may be close to Philly actually being ahead but DT Seattle is the shopping core of Seattle, not as much in Philly
On many other categories (museums, cultural amentities, residential population, PT, bars, restaurants etc.) I feel Philly surpasses and most importantly to me overall vibrancy and consistency of vibrancy
Well there you have it then. Clearly you have never been to Seattle.
Well I think the post was a little ambitious
But outside of shopping I dont see one of the criteria where there is at best an argument either way and on the categories of vibrancy, culture, museums, arts, public art, bars, transportation, and population I am not sure a realistic argument can be made on Seattles behalf
But outside of shopping I dont see one of the criteria where there is at best an argument either way and on the categories of vibrancy, culture, museums, arts, public art, bars, transportation, and population I am not sure a realistic argument can be made on Seattles behalf
I can certainly make a strong argument that the food in Seattle is better. As is the case with so many of these categories, it's subjective, Activities? Lots more outdoor activities in Seattle IMO.
Vibrancy? Having spent a great deal of time in both, that is a draw IMO. Philly has more of most things on a basis of scale. But things like Pike Place Market are, in my view superior to Reading and the 9th Street Markets for example.
I am sure that will make some scoff at that idea.
Certainly the ethnic (read European) neighborhoods are more significant in Phiily, just as they are in the older east coast cities. But the Asian influences in Seattle are far more significant too.
Location means what? Seattle is within an hour of three National Parks and less than 2 hours from Vancouver, BC, 3 from Portland and 4 from Spokane. Location is relative to what one deems important is it not?
I can certainly make a strong argument that the food in Seattle is better. As is the case with so many of these categories, it's subjective, Activities? Lots more outdoor activities in Seattle IMO.
Vibrancy? Having spent a great deal of time in both, that is a draw IMO. Philly has more of most things on a basis of scale. But things like Pike Place Market are, in my view superior to Reading and the 9th Street Markets for example.
I am sure that will make some scoff at that idea.
Certainly the ethnic (read European) neighborhoods are more significant in Phiily, just as they are in the older east coast cities. But the Asian influences in Seattle are far more significant too.
Location means what? Seattle is within an hour of three National Parks and less than 2 hours from Vancouver, BC, 3 from Portland and 4 from Spokane. Location is relative to what one deems important is it not?
Not sure I get "Amenities", "Housing stock",
I have to agree many of these are quite subjective depending on what you value. I think you can make a strong case that the museum's and 17-18th century historical sites are better in Philadelphia. But then turn to something like transportation. Philadelphia has more rail but I think a reasonable case could be made for a faster public transit link into the core by all modes i.e including bus in Seattle. And then once you're in the downtown's themselves I think its a wash maneuvuring around. Population is another interesting case. Clearly Philadelphia is a bigger city but I've seen stats running around that slightly more people live within the 3-4 mile core in Seattle than the the same sized area central core in Philly (http://downtownseattle.com/pdf_files...Review2011.pdf) This opens the can of worms of what you define as the downtown in each of course which can judge for yourself at the end of the link. Another interesting way of thinking about it is relative integration between the center of the city and its neighborhoods. The adjacent neighborhoods around downtown Seattle are a lot wealthier that the ones around center city in Philadelphia. Living in Seattle means going between all these inner areas on a routine basis. Center city feels more like an island. Yes there are 1 million+ other residents around it but do they really interact much?
I have to agree many of these are quite subjective depending on what you value. I think you can make a strong case that the museum's and 17-18th century historical sites are better in Philadelphia. But then turn to something like transportation. Philadelphia has more rail but I think a reasonable case could be made for a faster public transit link into the core by all modes i.e including bus in Seattle. And then once you're in the downtown's themselves I think its a wash maneuvuring around. Population is another interesting case. Clearly Philadelphia is a bigger city but I've seen stats running around that slightly more people live within the 3-4 mile core in Seattle than the the same sized area central core in Philly (http://downtownseattle.com/pdf_files...Review2011.pdf) This opens the can of worms of what you define as the downtown in each of course which can judge for yourself at the end of the link. Another interesting way of thinking about it is relative integration between the center of the city and its neighborhoods. The adjacent neighborhoods around downtown Seattle are a lot wealthier that the ones around center city in Philadelphia. Living in Seattle means going between all these inner areas on a routine basis. Center city feels more like an island. Yes there are 1 million+ other residents around it but do they really interact much?
Ben
On popultion I ran the numbers about six months ago and the population in Philly in the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc are at a run rate of 2 to 3 times the population of Seattle; they are not even close quantitatively this is one area where the numbers are actually dramtically different.
Also Bill referenced in his response all the metrics I said were debatable
On transit I am not sure how they can even be comparable even after the light rail is built.
There are 3 subways with 16 stations, more buses, underground trollys already and 48 underground regional rail line stops in Philly; they are on two cmpletely different levels.
On markets I think Pike is better than RTM by a little
But on overall vibrancy I just dont see it; Seattle has some nice peaks and some areas with vibrancy but on consistency and over a wider area it just is not the case. I like Seattle but overall the DT does not feel as crowded on a continuum and especially conistently in the evening.
I have to agree many of these are quite subjective depending on what you value. I think you can make a strong case that the museum's and 17-18th century historical sites are better in Philadelphia. But then turn to something like transportation. Philadelphia has more rail but I think a reasonable case could be made for a faster public transit link into the core by all modes i.e including bus in Seattle. And then once you're in the downtown's themselves I think its a wash maneuvuring around. Population is another interesting case. Clearly Philadelphia is a bigger city but I've seen stats running around that slightly more people live within the 3-4 mile core in Seattle than the the same sized area central core in Philly (http://downtownseattle.com/pdf_files...Review2011.pdf) This opens the can of worms of what you define as the downtown in each of course which can judge for yourself at the end of the link. Another interesting way of thinking about it is relative integration between the center of the city and its neighborhoods. The adjacent neighborhoods around downtown Seattle are a lot wealthier that the ones around center city in Philadelphia. Living in Seattle means going between all these inner areas on a routine basis. Center city feels more like an island. Yes there are 1 million+ other residents around it but do they really interact much?
Ben
Interesting report that you cite, but the boundaries that they use for Philadelphia (Vine to South and River to River) are a very strict definition of Center City.
If you've ever explored Center City, you'd know there is a fairly distinct demarcation of the northern boundary (Vine Street Expressway), but the southern boundary absolutely is indistinct -- blending right into other neighborhoods like the Graduate Hospital, Queen Village and Bella Vista. These neighborhoods have become very revitalized and particularly affluent in the past couple of decades. Areas to the direct north of Center City (Fairmount/Brewerytown and Northern Liberties) have seen very similar trends.
My main point is that Center City is by no means an island and vibrancy in adjacent neighborhoods is building because of their proximity to Center City. As a result, the traditional boundaries of the CBD seem somewhat arbitrary, as Philly is doing a fantastic job of linking downtown vibrancy to adjacent neighborhoods, despite some physical boundaries. This is really snowballing to make a much more coherent, integrated city over time.
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.
if Seattle had such good shopping don't you think tourists would rate it higher?
)
