Seattle VS. Portland.... (rates, beautiful, south, development)

[orzo]

Originally Posted by jm02

We visited both cities when looking to re-locate. Although we ended up in neither one, Portland would have been our choice if forced to choose.

Why:
- Seattle felt more sprawly with the interesting neighborhoods further distances from one another than compact Portland.
- Portland has better PT, hands down.
- The Pearl, for my tastes, is more interesting than DT Seattle.
- We preferred the OR coast to the more distant WA coast out on the Olympic Peninsula. In addition, in those instances where we wanted to get to the coast, spare me traffic-clogged I-5 and the ferry back-ups one must endure in Seattle.

I know what you mean re: your first point, but I think a lot of people don't recognize just how much bigger Seattle's continuous downtown and inner core are than Portland's. In Seattle you've got the CBD, Pike Place/Westlake, Pioneer Square, Belltown, South Lake Union, First Hill, Capitol Hill, and Queen Anne all connected and walkable, and covering a much larger area than Downtown Portland, the Pearl/Chinatown, and 23rd/21st. Also, Seattle has neighborhoods like Ballard and the University District that are a significant distance from Downtown yet still quite dense - Portland doesn't have this.

[ironcouger]

Originally Posted by jm02

We visited both cities when looking to re-locate. Although we ended up in neither one, Portland would have been our choice if forced to choose.

Why:
- Seattle felt more sprawly with the interesting neighborhoods further distances from one another than compact Portland.
- Portland has better PT, hands down.
- The Pearl, for my tastes, is more interesting than DT Seattle.
- We preferred the OR coast to the more distant WA coast out on the Olympic Peninsula. In addition, in those instances where we wanted to get to the coast, spare me traffic-clogged I-5 and the ferry back-ups one must endure in Seattle.

Interesting seeing that portland is 134 square miles of land spread out with 583,000 people . And Seattle is 83 square miles of land at 620,000 people . Seattle is much more dense and less spread out Portland is like 60% bigger and spread out more than Seattle yet Seattle has more people.

[CaliSon]

Having visited both cities I would much rather live in Seattle, Seattle actually felt like a city Portland felt like a small city, even the Portland bridges are very narrow and tiny, I went up there to see Mike Epps and he cracked a joke saying " what the f--- yall do out here after 10? Everything closes down by 11", however both cities sit on beautiful terrain.

[jm02]

Originally Posted by ironcouger

Interesting seeing that portland is 134 square miles of land spread out with 583,000 people . And Seattle is 83 square miles of land at 620,000 people . Seattle is much more dense and less spread out Portland is like 60% bigger and spread out more than Seattle yet Seattle has more people.

I said nothing about density. I remember few impressions of the relative density of these two cities.

[iNviNciBL3]

Main things i like about Seattle is how vibrant it is, idk it was unexpectedly crowded, i guess people actually get out of the house and enjoy there city. Also the scenery is amazing, the view of the water and hills when you're going down those steep downtown streets is very pretty

[beenhereandthere]

Originally Posted by orzo

I know what you mean re: your first point, but I think a lot of people don't recognize just how much bigger Seattle's continuous downtown and inner core are than Portland's. In Seattle you've got the CBD, Pike Place/Westlake, Pioneer Square, Belltown, South Lake Union, First Hill, Capitol Hill, and Queen Anne all connected and walkable, and covering a much larger area than Downtown Portland, the Pearl/Chinatown, and 23rd/21st. Also, Seattle has neighborhoods like Ballard and the University District that are a significant distance from Downtown yet still quite dense - Portland doesn't have this.

I will agree with most of this, but Queen Anne more walkable? While Seattle is my preference in this poll, I admit, you don't have to contend with hills as much, for walking and biking in Portland.

[Relegate]

I think the key word here is cohesive - Portland feels like a more cohesive city and neighborhood transitions are smoother. It leads to a city that feels more connected, and when you add the more pedestrian-friendly nature of much of the Northwest and Southwest quadrants of Portland, it just creates a more fluid urban fabric.

That said, Seattle is definitely more bustling and vibrant, it has substantially more parts that feel like a "big city" and its downtown and inner neighborhoods are nearly twice as large in area as Portland's. I also agree that there are also significantly denser pockets outside of Downtown in Seattle.

It really depends on what you prefer in an city - a more consistant urban fabric or a city that feels more vibrant and like a "big city", but more node-based, less fluid, and with more dead areas in between.

[Inkpoe]

Originally Posted by orzo

Ballard is far more happening than Fremont right now.

Fremont is more overbuilt compared to the 90s. But to say Ballard is more happening than Fremont right now... meh. It's all contrived now: both are being overbuilt and losing a lot of character.

[Relegate]

Originally Posted by Inkpoe

Fremont is more overbuilt compared to the 90s. But to say Ballard is more happening than Fremont right now... meh. It's all contrived now: both are being overbuilt and losing a lot of character.

I agree that Ballard is far more happening. It's not even close - Ballard has new restaurants and bars opening weekly, while Fremont has a couple a month at most. Ballard also has multiple large mixed-use apartment projects being built while Fremont has none. Fremont is now essentially a place for Frat alumni to hang out on weekends, while Ballard is becoming one of the top nightlife destinations in the city and population is growing very fast.

[jm02]

Originally Posted by orzo

In Seattle you've got the CBD, Pike Place/Westlake, Pioneer Square, Belltown, South Lake Union, First Hill, Capitol Hill, and Queen Anne all connected and walkable, and covering a much larger area than Downtown Portland, the Pearl/Chinatown, and 23rd/21st.

Originally Posted by beenhereandthere

I will agree with most of this, but Queen Anne more walkable? While Seattle is my preference in this poll, I admit, you don't have to contend with hills as much, for walking and biking in Portland.

I agree with you, beenhere. Unlike orzo, I would not consider a walk to and from Queen Anne to Capitol Hill via South Lake Union an easy stroll. Hence, this is why Seattle feels a touch sprawly to me. This is not helped by its lack of rail connecting these neighborhoods. Personally, I find the compactness of Portland makes it a much more walkable city. These two paragraph sums up my comparative impressions of the two cities very well (+1):

Originally Posted by Relegate

I think the key word here is cohesive - Portland feels like a more cohesive city and neighborhood transitions are smoother. It leads to a city that feels more connected, and when you add the more pedestrian-friendly nature of much of the Northwest and Southwest quadrants of Portland, it just creates a more fluid urban fabric.

It really depends on what you prefer in an city - a more consistant urban fabric or a city that feels more vibrant and like a "big city", but more node-based, less fluid, and with more dead areas in between.

I prefer the more consistent urban fabric I feel Portland offers.