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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
