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.
SF's urban fabric is incredibly consistent and, for that reason, it will be much denser than Seattle for the forseeable future. However, right now SF is having major housing issues because NIMBYs and city policy don't allow for taller developments that can meet the extraordinary demand for housing in SF. It's causing housing prices to skyrocket.
Unfortunately, if you've kept up with recent urban planning news, NIMBYs in Seattle are petitioning to lower building heights in all neighborhoods outside of downtown and to lower density on new developments. What's more unfortunate, Seattle city counsel somewhat agrees with NIMBYs that Seattle simply doesn't have the infrastructure to support rapid density development and is considering their arguments.
I love Seattle, don't get me wrong, but it'll never really become as big as SF, at least for a very, very long time.
Unfortunately, if you've kept up with recent urban planning news, NIMBYs in Seattle are petitioning to lower building heights in all neighborhoods outside of downtown and to lower density on new developments. What's more unfortunate, Seattle city counsel somewhat agrees with NIMBYs that Seattle simply doesn't have the infrastructure to support rapid density development and is considering their arguments.
I love Seattle, don't get me wrong, but it'll never really become as big as SF, at least for a very, very long time.
I don't think anyone is attempting to lower current building heights - they're debating about future building heights. But I agree nimbys have too much power in that debate.
What did you think of the street view I posted. Would you call it an "urban wall"?
I don't think anyone is attempting to lower current building heights - they're debating about future building heights. But I agree nimbys have too much power in that debate.
What did you think of the street view I posted. Would you call it an "urban wall"?
Personally I think it is functionally the same as a street wall, though there are some posters who insist that buildings must touch each other.
I think on commercial streets, a continuous, mostly-unbroken street wall is critical - a feature Seattle does really well on, even in outer neighborhoods. On residential streets? I think a continuous, unbroken street wall is much less important as long as the buildings have relatively similar setbacks and very small breaks between buildings (such as in that street view) and create a high population density.
However, the non-streetwall on residential streets of Seattle give it a different style than San Francisco. They don't look similar to me. Outside of a small area near downtown, Seattle is much less dense than San Francisco, with a lot more detached homes. A bit like la, but the ratio of houses to apartment buildings looks higher in seattle
I really don't need Google street view since I live in and walk through the densest part of Cap Hill daily. It just doesn't give me the same feeling as SF. As "nei" stated, it feels more akin to LA's neighborhoods. In many ways, having lived in LA, Seattle and LA feel very similar save for the hills and trees. LA is denser overall, though, than Seattle, especially the more north and south you go where Seattle can feel downright rural in some places.
However, the non-streetwall on residential streets of Seattle give it a different style than San Francisco. They don't look similar to me. Outside of a small area near downtown, Seattle is much less dense than San Francisco, with a lot more detached homes. A bit like la, but the ratio of houses to apartment buildings looks higher in seattle
Yeah I agree. I think the Bay Area and Southern California are the most similar, but comparing just cities I'd say SF and Seattle are most similar. I'd say LA is most similar to Seattle - in fact I think Seattle is sort of a blend of all three cities.
I really don't need Google street view since I live in and walk through the densest part of Cap Hill daily. It just doesn't give me the same feeling as SF. As "nei" stated, it feels more akin to LA's neighborhoods. In many ways, having lived in LA, Seattle and LA feel very similar save for the hills and trees. LA is denser overall, though, than Seattle, especially the more north and south you go where Seattle can feel downright rural in some places.
What would you call the densest part of Capitol Hill? Definitely not Broadway. In any case I'm curious about your definition of streetwall so take a look at the specific block on the street view I posted and let me know what you think.
However, the non-streetwall on residential streets of Seattle give it a different style than San Francisco. They don't look similar to me. Outside of a small area near downtown, Seattle is much less dense than San Francisco, with a lot more detached homes. A bit like la, but the ratio of houses to apartment buildings looks higher in seattle
It depends on how you define small as Seattle's urban core is relatively big compared to most American cities. But compared to San Francisco it's not on the same level at all. San Francisco is one of the few American cities to be almost completely urban throughout.
However as Munch said Seattle does a nice job with commercial urban street walls, even in outer neighborhoods where the residential is less urban.
It's also worth noting that the majority of Seattle's population lives in multi-family housing and the city is building up.
Yes, because black people really don't matter as a whole in SF. The Latino population in SF doesn't have a voice either. SF's Latino population is very Californian seeing as a huge percentage of SF's Latino population was born and raised in Northern California or SF, itself. SF's Latino population also has deep-seated problems with crime and gangs. Nortenos, mostly Mexicans born and raised in Northern California who wear red, are entrenched in an unending bloody holy war with Surenos, mostly Mexicans born and raised in Southern California and Mexico who wear blue, in SF's heavily Latino, Mission District.
The Asian population is looked at as a monolithic fobby group, which is far from the truth. You have all types of Asian-American groups in SF from Chinese to Japanese to Filipino to Cambodians etc. And Asians in SF come from all walks of life from rich and upper middle class Asians to Asians living in the projects in the worst parts of the city in places like Sunnydale and Double Rock. Chris Rock was dead wrong when he said "there are no homeless Asian people", he definitely never spent any real time in SF if he truly believed that statement.
Although minorities collectively outnumber whites in SF, all you hear about when people talk about SF is white people (i.e. gays downtown and in the Castro, hippies and homeless people in Golden Gate Park, fart sniffing yuppie liberals etc.). Ultimately, SF is defined from such a wealthy white perspective because these are the people who are investing the most in the city through gentrification and tourism. White people from Utah and Maine moving to SF know nothing about SF other than the stereotypes and they never go into the dangerous outskirts of the city where all the scary black people reside. Perception becomes reality.
Black people are out of sight and out of mind for the most part in SF, so they don't matter. Unlike L.A., SF does not have Hollywood or major record labels to broadcast the plight of blacks living in ghetto areas like Hunter's Point, Sunnydale and Lakeview in SF despite the fact that these areas have churned out an obscene amount of independently produced Gangsta Rap since the 80's. Because L.A. is the showbiz capital of the world, people aren't allowed to forget about places like South Central and Compton. Boyz 'N The Hood is played on cable TV every week and Kendrick Lamar is here to remind us of how bad Compton is although the crime rate there is exponentially lower than it was 20 years ago.
Also, SF is an international city renowned as being one of the top ten most beautiful cities in the world with ambitions of climbing the lists in terms of wealth, reputation and tourism. Because of this, the other side of things in SF is never publicized in the mainstream national media despite the fact that the local news always talks about ghetto crime in SF just like any other big city in America. With the few really bad areas of SF being gentrified pretty quickly, the stereotypes of SF are quickly becoming a reality.
I know of SFs social ills because I listen to bay area artist. Which in turn, prompted me to look up the specific SF neighborhoods in which they discussed.
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.
