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.
A "city" is only a government entity or specific set of boundaries under one definition. If I'm referring to that I specify it. Generally by "city" I mean what's on the ground. By an number of subjective or standardized definitions, SF is twice Seattle's size.
The OP mentioned Seattle and San Francisco, and that is relevant. I think that is pretty clear. But I agree with you when you move it out to CSA or even MSA. I'm not sure that is what the OP meant. Perhaps he/she can expand.
I'm not getting your point. SF has a much larger and denser core.
Also the two have counterparts. Redmond is like a mini Silicon Valley. Downtown Bellevue is a larger version of Downtown San Jose. Tacoma is like a distant Oakland.
That said, Seattle's core is narrowing the gap by building a lot more, and doing it in a dense format with less parking than housing units, and a small fraction of the parking vs. what new buildings add in office workers. We'll never hit the same density levels overall, but the core is starting to have some similarities.
I get the point. Seattle is about 35% of the metro, SF is about 18% of the metro.
SF needs the surrounding cities to seem big and influential, Seattle doesn't. That's the key difference here.
I don't think anybody's trying to be dishonest or "trying to make SF seem bigger than it is". It's a fact that the surrounding areas of SF are more devoloped, because the area as a whole just is. Seattle does have Bellevue, and it could definitely develop some more "Oakland/San Jose" type areas as time goes on.
The OP said Seattle and San Francisco, but that doesn't have to relate to municipal boundaries at all. From a tourist perspective and from a lot of local perspectives, a city is a flexible concept. Like the developed area you see when you fly over.
SF is more like 10% of its metro by any larger definition.
Seattle is much, much smaller than 35% of our metro, even if it's MSA. The City is 35% of King County's population alone.
I don't think anybody's trying to be dishonest or "trying to make SF seem bigger than it is". It's a fact that the surrounding areas of SF are more devoloped, because the area as a whole just is. Seattle does have Bellevue, and it could definitely develop some more "Oakland/San Jose" type areas as time goes on.
Agreed. Nobody here is really disagreeing with each other, it is just some details. Both cities are great, and both metros are expansive and growing.
FWIT, I drove up 167/405 from Kent to Bellevue on a sunny summer day today, and it is purely fantastic from an urban standpoint. I can't think of any urban suburbs as impressive as this, (except for perhaps Buckhead in Atlanta). And that includes the Bay Area ironically.
The OP said Seattle and San Francisco, but that doesn't have to relate to municipal boundaries at all. From a tourist perspective and from a lot of local perspectives, a city is a flexible concept. Like the developed area you see when you fly over.
SF is more like 10% of its metro by any larger definition.
Seattle is much, much smaller than 35% of our metro, even if it's MSA. The City is 35% of King County's population alone.
Like I said, we are disagreeing on some minor numbers. The general point is Seattle is more important to the metro from a population standpoint than SF.
Agreed on that. Bellevue is too suburban in some ways (no automatic walk signals for one) but has few US parallels in terms of secondary skylines outside the core few miles. Century City, Buckhead....
Like I said, we are disagreeing on some minor numbers. The general point is Seattle is more important to the metro from a population standpoint than SF.
If your starting point is municipal population, sure.
When the City of London ceased to be only the "Square Mile" and became "Greater London," did that change "London's" importance in its CSA equivalent, in any way other than administration?
A lot of comparisons happen where people try to use different administrative systems to figure out what's the "city" and what's not. The US has examples like the "city/county" format which render comparisons meaningless. Or the "township" model. But the simple happenstance of other cities' boundaries can be hugely varying as well. Now try to compare any of the various US formats to Japan.
I don't know. The Seattle Freeze has not affected me at all. Both cities are filled with transplants anyway. People may be more introverted in Seattle but are way more down to earth than in my experience in SF. I encountered way more high strung A types in SF. Seattle is a bit more normal to me (though you still get those types here as well). It's just a more comfortable culture here if that makes sense.
That's interesting to know. I'm one to think that the "Seattle Freeze" is absolutely real (borrowed from Minnesota) based on everyone I know from SEA who went to college with me in SoCal. But my clients and other co-workers in SEA are surprisingly down to earth and pretty fun.
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.
