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 seems like every two weeks this Los Angeles versus Seattle urbanity topic is always revisited.
Why?
What is there to discuss?
The city proper of Los Angeles is only about 330 developable miles and in those 330 developable square miles there are nearly 4 million people (300,000 larger than the entire Seattle MSA; which has a significantly larger developed land area than Los Angeles proper).
So the human population density of Los Angeles proper is significantly higher than Seattle, at every level. At 1 square mile, 2 square miles, 10 square miles, 50 square miles, 100 square miles, 250 square miles, 500 square miles, and 1,000 square miles.
The structural density, for those that been to both, isn't even close. In fact, the structural density difference between Los Angeles and Seattle is probably even wider than the actual human population density. Los Angeles' corridors stemming from the Central Los Angeles core (Downtown Los Angeles) and going in every direction, but most specifically the western direction, is a higher density corridor of population, structural build, amenities, and transit network than anything in Greater Seattle.
The public transportation in Seattle is extending but is still limited in length and scope, Los Angeles has a significantly more comprehensive inner city rail system, a vast commuter rail system, and its bus system absolutely destroys Seattle in every way from service time, to destinations, to efficiency, to fleet size, to ridership, to number of stations, to everything.
Oh, not that it needs to be mentioned but the concentration and sheer availability and accessibility of amenities is significantly higher in Los Angeles than it is in Seattle.
For what it is worth, I've spent a pretty good amount of time in BOTH cities in the last 1 year. I've been to both cities TWICE, each, in the last 18 months from December 2014 to March 2016 and I don't think Downtown Seattle has more pedestrian activity nor vibrancy as Los Angeles. Downtown Seattle isn't bad but Fifth Avenue (a high concentration of retail) can be spotty with activity and pedestrian life, the structural density going from Downtown Seattle to surrounding environs/neighborhoods can also be more spotty in relation to Los Angeles going from Downtown Los Angeles to each side of the city through the core.
So Los Angeles has; more extensive and comprehensive public transit in all types (BRT, LRT, HRT, CRT). It has a higher concentration and density of amenities. It has more built up pre-war areas in the central city. It has a higher structural density. It has a higher population density. Finally, it is built up more vertically, that's how it is able to sustain having more people in 330 square miles of developable land inside city limits than the entire Seattle MSA has people.
Seattle's Downtown probably does have more office space than Downtown Los Angeles, but in reality the sheer concentration of office space in Central Los Angeles (the Downtown core moving outward to other nodes in the core of the city proper) is much higher than it is in Seattle. Downtown Los Angeles' residential population and concentration of amenities is higher than Downtown Seattle.
I love Seattle, one of my favorite cities, but I don't understand why people love to pit it against Los Angeles on the topic of urbanity.
I dont get it either. Aerial viewa of seartle show alot sfh neighborhoods. ...
Seattle is 2/3 single-family by land area, but majority-multifamily by unit type.
LA can be called more urban if you mean geographic extent of truly urban areas. But I don't think its peak areas are as urban as Seattle's, and its downtown isn't quite on the same level. Though DTLA is booming, Seattle is booming faster and widening the gap.
Seattle is 2/3 single-family by land area, but majority-multifamily by unit type.
LA can be called more urban if you mean geographic extent of truly urban areas. But I don't think its peak areas are as urban as Seattle's, and its downtown isn't quite on the same level. Though DTLA is booming, Seattle is booming faster and widening the gap.
Can you give examples? Otherwise it sounds to me like you're blowing hot air, and the gap which you talk of is LA being much more urban than Seattle, there is no "widening" from Seattle's standpoint, it can only be playing catch up at this moment.
LA doesn't have a downtown retail district like Seattle's, or a Pike Place Market. Not even a Belltown really, though it has an area that's moving in that direction.
LA's greater-downtown housing boom is at least a good percentage of Seattle's, but it's building little office space vs. greater Downtown Seattle's massive amount -- basically a couple dozen Wilshire Grands so far. Hotels are closer I believe without looking...3,000 rooms so far in our case.
I don't recall how many buildings over 400' are going up in DTLA...Downtown Seattle is at 17 started since 2012 or so with a few dozen more planned. LA is a lot fewer.
I wouldn't live in LA without a car. PT needs to be a major concentration for all of socal for the next decade.
It can be done. It really isn't hard, especially in LA city. As for the second sentence, that minda thing could fly in the 90s, but LA has built a ton of rail the past ten years with even more under construction now.
LA doesn't have a downtown retail district like Seattle's, or a Pike Place Market. Not even a Belltown really, though it has an area that's moving in that direction.
LA's greater-downtown housing boom is at least a good percentage of Seattle's, but it's building little office space vs. greater Downtown Seattle's massive amount -- basically a couple dozen Wilshire Grands so far. Hotels are closer I believe without looking...3,000 rooms so far in our case.
I don't recall how many buildings over 400' are going up in DTLA...Downtown Seattle is at 17 started since 2012 or so with a few dozen more planned. LA is a lot fewer.
Seattle has nothing like the fashion district, nothing as large as the historic core, it doesn't have anything near the density (both in ppsm and structural) and pedestrian activity of Westlake or even Koreatown, it doesn't come close to the PT found in LA's core nor as utilized, all you speak of is office space which I'll give the nod to Seattle but when taking everything in to consideration Seattle is on a lower tier of urbanity compared to LA's core. I do however think Seattle as of now is building more in it's core than LA's but it's playing catch up, now which one is more desirable? Undoubtedly Seattle but strictly from an urban standpoint LA beats out Seattle pretty handily as others have pointed out, RedJohn has demonstrated this with facts.
LA doesn't have a downtown retail district like Seattle's, or a Pike Place Market. Not even a Belltown really, though it has an area that's moving in that direction.
LA's greater-downtown housing boom is at least a good percentage of Seattle's, but it's building little office space vs. greater Downtown Seattle's massive amount -- basically a couple dozen Wilshire Grands so far. Hotels are closer I believe without looking...3,000 rooms so far in our case.
I don't recall how many buildings over 400' are going up in DTLA...Downtown Seattle is at 17 started since 2012 or so with a few dozen more planned. LA is a lot fewer.
Seattle doesnt hsve all of la's urban areas either.
La's urban area is far larger than sea, with more walkable hoods. Theyre all infilling as well
it isnt debatable.
Seattle has nothing like the fashion district, nothing as large as the historic core, it doesn't have anything near the density (both in ppsm and structural) and pedestrian activity of Westlake or even Koreatown, it doesn't come close to the PT found in LA's core nor as utilized, all you speak of is office space which I'll give the nod to Seattle but when taking everything in to consideration Seattle is on a lower tier of urbanity compared to LA's core. I do however think Seattle as of now is building more in it's core than LA's but it's playing catch up, now which one is more desirable? Undoubtedly Seattle but strictly from an urban standpoint LA beats out Seattle pretty handily as others have pointed out, RedJohn has demonstrated this with facts.
If the fashion district was any other city not named nyc or la, it would get far more attention.
LA doesn't have a downtown retail district like Seattle's, or a Pike Place Market. Not even a Belltown really, though it has an area that's moving in that direction.
LA's greater-downtown housing boom is at least a good percentage of Seattle's, but it's building little office space vs. greater Downtown Seattle's massive amount -- basically a couple dozen Wilshire Grands so far. Hotels are closer I believe without looking...3,000 rooms so far in our case.
I don't recall how many buildings over 400' are going up in DTLA...Downtown Seattle is at 17 started since 2012 or so with a few dozen more planned. LA is a lot fewer.
Downtown la has 15-16 buildings over 25 stories u/c right now. 10 of those are over 33 stories.
7 over 40.
Therea a ton more planned/approved. Many over 40 stories.
Oh it's without a doubt DC.
Then honorable mentions include: Seattle, Baltimore, Portland, and New Orleans
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.
