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.
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.
I'm not sure what you are trying to ask here. Its debatable the that Urban core of Seattle is ahead of both these cities. San Diego has a nice core but is closer in similarities to Portland than Seattle.
Seattle's downtown mostly feels quite a bit bigger than San Diego but it doesn't really compare to L.A. or feel very much like it to me. Because of both San Diego's and Seattle's proximity to water, the topography and the relative compactness of their downtowns because of it they feel more alike than not.
I would say they both actually compare in general downtown vibrancy depending on what activities/events/festivals are taking place. Both really come much alive on game days with the proximity of their stadiums and both have great core and happening neighborhoods with their own identity adjacent downtown. San Diego's core, happening neighborhoods are closer to downtown though- you aren't gonna walk from Ballard to downtown even as it is relatively close. I live in a mini Ballard on a canyon but only a half hour walking distance to downtown and two other great neighborhoods here- North Park and Hillcrest, a bit closer even than Capitol Hill. But we have walked from Pikes Place Market to the Arboretum and back to downtown so if you are a walker- you can traverse some great areas in Seattle. Both also have areas right downtown that don't really feel all that vibrant at certain times as well though, again, depending on the weather and calendar events
Seattle definitely feels like a more broad shouldered and complete city than San Diego though but it most certainly ain't L.A. It's darn near perfect when it's sunny out. I wouldn't necessarily prefer to live there over SD, but it is a fine city that would be in the absolute top tier of very few cities I would ever consider relocating to.
Seattle is like LA in that there are houses within a mile of Downtown, and too many vacant sites. Seattle's greater downtown area is more vibrant than LA's with more retail and more tourism. LA has a low hotel room count and not a lot of destination retail unless you count quincinera dresses and a single Macy's. San Francisco is in a league by its own but Seattle is closer to it than LA is. Like 4-5-8. Seattle's boom is larger in the residential category and on another planet for offices.
Leaving the downtowns, LA has density much farther out, and much more rail. But Seattle has far better transit usage. Transit commute share for the city-of in 2015 was 10.6% for LA, 20.1% for Seattle, and 33.1% for SF...a little unfair given LA's land area but even the mostly suburban/wilderness King County was 12.1%.
Not sure why SD is a point of comparison here as it is handedly less urban than the other two.
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.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-07-2017 at 03:12 PM..
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.
Between 2000-2013 San Diego built 35 new high rises versus 30 in Seattle.
I wouldn't be surprised if Seattle is building more at a higher rate today but SD still has plenty under construction/planned.
Sure, but not as tall or as many. The current cycle is this post-recession one and it is very obviously creating a larger boom in Seattle than in San Diego.
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.
