U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Seattle's urban form is closer to?
Los Angeles 15 28.85%
San Diego 37 71.15%
Voters: 52. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-07-2017, 08:11 PM
 
3,569 posts, read 2,014,636 times
Reputation: 3299

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I think there's an arguable case for San Diego versus Seattle, though Seattle looks to be putting some distance in recent years. Currently, San Diego gets a lot higher ridership on its rail lines and has more high density census tracts than Seattle does. However, its population growth hasn't exploded as Seattle's has in recent years and there is much less notable high-rise construction.
San Diego's transit commute share was 20% of Seattle's (one fifth!!) in 2015 per the ACS...20.1% to 4.0% within city limits. Even subtracting Seattle, the remainder of King County (1,400,000 people) destroyed San Diego by this measure if you do the math. This isn't a comparison you want to make.

On the flip side, SD deserves a lot of credit for residential infill and for its general density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-07-2017, 08:46 PM
 
429 posts, read 277,336 times
Reputation: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I think there's an arguable case for San Diego versus Seattle, though Seattle looks to be putting some distance in recent years. Currently, San Diego gets a lot higher ridership on its rail lines and has more high density census tracts than Seattle does. However, its population growth hasn't exploded as Seattle's has in recent years and there is much less notable high-rise construction.
Not to mention, Seattle has passed a $54 Billion dollar grade-separated rail plan that will create a 120 mile system with a projected ridership of over 500K and San Diego hasn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2017, 08:53 PM
 
429 posts, read 277,336 times
Reputation: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Between 2000-2013 San Diego built 35 new high rises versus 30 in Seattle.

Trends in American High-Rise Construction

I wouldn't be surprised if Seattle is building more at a higher rate today but SD still has plenty under construction/planned.
Seattle currently has 46 buildings completed or under construction that are over 400 feet, while San Diego has 18. LA has 51. (Not that tall buildings on their own determine urbanity, but they are one factor).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2017, 10:46 PM
 
Location: South Park, San Diego
4,636 posts, read 7,060,273 times
Reputation: 8468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234 View Post
Seattle currently has 46 buildings completed or under construction that are over 400 feet, while San Diego has 18. LA has 51. (Not that tall buildings on their own determine urbanity, but they are one factor).
San Diego's building height is strictly limited to 500' because of FAA regulations surrounding the downtown airport, of course Seattle and any similarly growing city is going to have more buildings over 400' because they lack completely that restriction. You really think that all the construction in San Diego would voluntarily limit itself to to that height without that truncating regulation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2017, 11:56 PM
 
3,569 posts, read 2,014,636 times
Reputation: 3299
Logically it would then have a lot of buildings just under 500', and perhaps more highrises overall to meet square footage demands.

Seattle has a lot of 440' zoning, so we get a lot of buildings just under that.

SD has had impressive infill lately, but your logic is flawed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2017, 01:35 AM
 
Location: Point Loma, San Diego, CA
922 posts, read 903,771 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric View Post
Is the urban form of Seattle closer to Los Angeles or San Diego?

Make your argument and case using;

1. Structural density

2. Current transit coverage

3. Pedestrian liveliness

4. Amenities accessible by foot

5. Transition from CBD to adjacent neighborhoods

6. Size of the central urban core of the city

7. Population density (not of the city itself but just the central core, lets say the central 25-50 square mile core, minimum 25 square miles to a maximum of 50 square miles)

Feel free to add other criteria factors if you feel more is necessary. Also, keep things to the present state, meaning try not to dwell into talking about future situations and circumstances, those things haven't happened yet.
Someone pointed out on this forum somewhere that San Diego's urban core (92101-92116) is about 80 square miles with around 700,000 people....lining it right up with Seattle. I went to Seattle for the first time last year, loved it, but when I came back I was surprised at how well San Diego stood up to it. San Diego actually beats Seattle in light rail coverage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2017, 03:03 PM
 
429 posts, read 277,336 times
Reputation: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco View Post
Someone pointed out on this forum somewhere that San Diego's urban core (92101-92116) is about 80 square miles with around 700,000 people....lining it right up with Seattle. I went to Seattle for the first time last year, loved it, but when I came back I was surprised at how well San Diego stood up to it. San Diego actually beats Seattle in light rail coverage.
But Seattle's transit commute mode share absolutely demolishes San Diego's and within 6 years its rail network coverage will as well. Looking even further into the future, Seattle has passed a $54 Billion dollar grade-separated rail plan that will create a 120 mile system with a projected ridership of over 500K and San Diego hasn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2017, 03:30 PM
 
Location: In the heights
20,111 posts, read 21,722,272 times
Reputation: 10216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234 View Post
But Seattle's transit commute mode share absolutely demolishes San Diego's and within 6 years its rail network coverage will as well. Looking even further into the future, Seattle has passed a $54 Billion dollar grade-separated rail plan that will create a 120 mile system with a projected ridership of over 500K and San Diego hasn't.
Yes, I think a lot of that has to do with having a better bus network, though I'm not sure if that's completely true. San Diego in 2021 is supposed to open an 11 mile long extension of its light rail line to serve its major university (UCSD) and secondary CBD. In regards to light rail specifically, I think San Diego will stay ahead on total ridership numbers for at least a decade as it's currently double Seattle's ridership.

I think what San Diego is actually missing the most is a good bike lane network for commuting and visiting. Lord knows its weather is just about perfect for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2017, 03:37 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,404 posts, read 24,375,629 times
Reputation: 8769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234 View Post
But Seattle's transit commute mode share absolutely demolishes San Diego's and within 6 years its rail network coverage will as well. Looking even further into the future, Seattle has passed a $54 Billion dollar grade-separated rail plan that will create a 120 mile system with a projected ridership of over 500K and San Diego hasn't.
The 2050 Regional Transportation Plan proposes an additional 156 miles of light rail in San Diego.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2017, 03:41 PM
 
7,237 posts, read 12,642,972 times
Reputation: 8509
Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Damon View Post
San Diego's building height is strictly limited to 500' because of FAA regulations surrounding the downtown airport, of course Seattle and any similarly growing city is going to have more buildings over 400' because they lack completely that restriction. You really think that all the construction in San Diego would voluntarily limit itself to to that height without that truncating regulation?
SeaTac does have an impact on the building codes in DT. Columbia Center was supposed to be taller, but FAA told them to cut it shorter. More recently, Crescent Heights was envisioned with 101 stories, but it had to lop off 7 stories to comply. So Seattle doesn't completely lack that restriction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top