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.
That was 10 years ago. Since then, greater Downtown Seattle has grown by probably 60% in population. The State OFM numbers for 2019 had it well over 50%. A 4.524-square-mile area was estimated at 131,736 people, or 29,119 per square mile. That had been 82,842 or 18,312 per square mile in 2010. Or 53,388 and 11,801 in 1990 while we're at it.
Every city has added housing. San Diego and Denver have added impressive amounts. But Seattle has added a much higher number than Denver, and though I haven't seen stats I believe it's a much higher number than SD in a similar area.
Seattle also grew the fastest by city-limit population in that period.
I'm blown away that Seattle has 2/3 more people in a 3 square mile area. That's a very significant difference and I agree with mhays that it's "far more".
You also have to consider that this is just population and not employment. Downtown Seattle's employment far surpasses Downtown San Diego. So in terms of total activity, Seattle's core 1-2 miles is a different level than these other cities
Quote:
I probably walked 8 miles or so around Downtown Seattle over a few days from the space needle to the CBD to pikes market and surrounding areas. A year earlier I walked about the same in and around downtown San Diego over a few days from the convention center to gas lamp to balboa park and surrounding areas. I took light rail in both, but no buses in either.
I still think that my "feeling" may be correct, but perhaps my experiences weren't complete. I may have walked areas in each that felt similar (actually San Diego was much more lively in the gaslamp), but missed the areas in Seattle that separate the two. I guess that I have to go back.
I definitely wasn't referencing your post in terms of "feeling". Seattle is its own level/tier above SD and the others.
My point is that regardless if someone feels like Tampa is a bigger city, it simply is not.
That was 10 years ago. Since then, greater Downtown Seattle has grown by probably 60% in population. The State OFM numbers for 2019 had it well over 50%. A 4.524-square-mile area was estimated at 131,736 people, or 29,119 per square mile. That had been 82,842 or 18,312 per square mile in 2010. Or 53,388 and 11,801 in 1990 while we're at it.
Every city has added housing. San Diego and Denver have added impressive amounts. But Seattle has added a much higher number than Denver, and though I haven't seen stats I believe it's a much higher number than SD in a similar area.
Seattle also grew the fastest by city-limit population in that period.
I haven't been to Denver in 20 years, but I recently saw a video of just a small part of the downtown and surrounding area and it's completely changed in terms of the amount of residential units. I don't think that it had very many before, but it has lots now. It's transformed in a way that I hadn't realized.
So many of the buildings in Seattle are new, that parts of the downtown area feel new. But not new in the sense that it feels like reclaimed territory like parts of DTLA or LIC.
I haven't been to Denver in 20 years, but I recently saw a video of just a small part of the downtown and surrounding area and it's completely changed in terms of the amount of residential units. I don't think that it had very many before, but it has lots now. It's transformed in a way that I hadn't realized.
So many of the buildings in Seattle are new, that parts of the downtown area feel new. But not new in the sense that it feels like reclaimed territory like parts of DTLA or LIC.
There are parts that feel like that - SLU used to be warehouses and drug dealers and now it’s Amazon Country. Outside of Downtown, the Central District and Rainier Valley have been heavily gentrified. Georgetown went from an industrial neighborhood near Boeing Field to being a nightlife/artists/hipster neighborhood.
You also have to consider that this is just population and not employment. Downtown Seattle's employment far surpasses Downtown San Diego. So in terms of total activity, Seattle's core 1-2 miles is a different level than these other cities
I definitely wasn't referencing your post in terms of "feeling". Seattle is its own level/tier above SD and the others.
My point is that regardless if someone feels like Tampa is a bigger city, it simply is not.
Is Houston a bigger city than San Diego? Because by your same silly chart, you might conclude that it isn’t simply because it’s less dense than San Diego. Or your blanket generalizations might lead you to asset that Jersey City is a larger city than San Diego. So I ask you, what are your responses to those questions?
Using density in the city core is a juvenile and rudimentary way of determining if a city “simply” is or is not bigger. In fact, there’s nothing truly simple about it. There are a preponderance of factors to consider. If you really wanted to argue simplicities, then population amount is the best indicator, and therefore San Diego is larger than DC, Boston, San Francisco, Miami, Seattle, and more. Laughable. It is not a major city. Its core is pretty weak for its population density. It’s much closer to Tampa than it is to Seattle.
You want to argue San Diego is simply a larger city? Fine. But use something marginally comprehensive.
I haven't been to Denver in 20 years, but I recently saw a video of just a small part of the downtown and surrounding area and it's completely changed in terms of the amount of residential units. I don't think that it had very many before, but it has lots now. It's transformed in a way that I hadn't realized.
So many of the buildings in Seattle are new, that parts of the downtown area feel new. But not new in the sense that it feels like reclaimed territory like parts of DTLA or LIC.
Denver's core has grown impressively. Using stats by DenverInfill (using a 1.5-mile radius), Seattle would be over half again as many units even in a smaller area with some gerrymandering. I have Seattle starting about 36,000 housing units in that area since mid-2010.
We get more units than our building's massing might suggest. Denver builds a lot of above-grade parking, and ours is underground. Further, many of our units are small and come with no parking. And of course we build a lot of 40-story apartments.
But where Seattle is even more unique is offices, with 16,000,000 square feet broken ground on that same area since 2010. That's over 26 times the size of San Diego's tallest office tower.
This means large areas where most things are new. Basically the whole Denny Triangle and South Lake Union for starters. But also a lot of areas where existing districts have simply had ongoing infill on top of existing neighborhoods.
Is Houston a bigger city than San Diego? Because by your same silly chart, you might conclude that it isn’t simply because it’s less dense than San Diego. Or your blanket generalizations might lead you to asset that Jersey City is a larger city than San Diego. So I ask you, what are your responses to those questions?
Someone mentioned the density by radius chart, so I provided the chart as a reference. Where exactly did I explicitly assert that density is the equivalent of a "big city"? Please show me.
My questioning of Tampa being a bigger city than SD is based on just about every single metric imagineable, not just density.
Here's my question for you: what's up with the rude and condescending post? Why so angry?
Quote:
Using density in the city core is a juvenile and rudimentary way of determining if a city “simply” is or is not bigger. In fact, there’s nothing truly simple about it. There are a preponderance of factors to consider. If you really wanted to argue simplicities, then population amount is the best indicator, and therefore San Diego is larger than DC, Boston, San Francisco, Miami, Seattle, and more. Laughable. It is not a major city. Its core is pretty weak for its population density. It’s much closer to Tampa than it is to Seattle.
The only thing that is "juvenile" is your attitude.
Also, my post you responded to literally stated Seattle was a tier higher than the others, including San Diego. So what exactly is the point of your childish jab?
Quote:
You want to argue San Diego is simply a larger city? Fine. But use something marginally comprehensive.
This topic has been covered plenty of times and I've created exhaustive lists. So please don't join the conversation making baseless accusations of me only using a single metric. I'm not even the person who started the core density discussion. That was already being discussed before I provided my chart as an informational reference. So back off and leave the conversation if you have nothing of value to add other than attacking people.
I’ve been to all and all of those feel pretty similar to me except Detroit feels a bit bigger. Denver punches above its weight being a regional center. Orlando and Tampa probably the opposite because they are so near to each other. Absent tiers, which I think are off, I’d have it:
Detroit
Seattle/Denver
San Diego
Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Tampa
Orlando
Charlotte
I don't get how Detroit "feels" bigger than Seattle specifically. The urban areas and surrounding neighborhoods have swaths of empty land. With the exception of the downtown cluster, it feels abandoned. The general feeling is one of a former big city. Not a current big city. (i realize it is...)
Does Denver really have the same big city feel as Seattle? That was not my experience at all. Denver felt pretty similar to San Diego and even smaller outside of downtown.
A lot of people have this feeling that Denver is a bigger city than San Diego, but I personally don't get it. The downtowns are both fine and are of equal scale. San Diego definitely has more urban neighborhoods and more impressive urban transportation infrastructure (except Denver Union Station of course!). San Diego also has a second downtown (UCSD-UTC) and an increasingly urban corridor along Mission Valley. And that's still excluding Tijuana, only 20miles from downtown and accessible by SD's light rail.
San Diego just feels a lot bigger on the ground. The urban clusters are more numerous and more impressive.
Someone mentioned the density by radius chart, so I provided the chart as a reference. Where exactly did I explicitly assert that density is the equivalent of a "big city"? Please show me.
My questioning of Tampa being a bigger city than SD is based on just about every single metric imagineable, not just density.
Here's my question for you: what's up with the rude and condescending post? Why so angry?
The only thing that is "juvenile" is your attitude.
Also, my post you responded to literally stated Seattle was a tier higher than the others, including San Diego. So what exactly is the point of your childish jab?
This topic has been covered plenty of times and I've created exhaustive lists. So please don't join the conversation making baseless accusations of me only using a single metric. I'm not even the person who started the core density discussion. That was already being discussed before I provided my chart as an informational reference. So back off and leave the conversation if you have nothing of value to add other than attacking people.
That post isn’t any more rude or condescending than you dismissing several posters for their “feelings.” You’re trying to assert that San Diego is somehow leaps and bounds bigger than these cities, no matter how anyone “feels,” but you only provided density as an argument. If you’re going to denounce the way people feel, then you better come with something greater than density.
If you’ve discussed something ad nauseam like you claim, then you’ll have no problem rehashing what you’ve previously stated, as I have not seen anything from you supposedly providing context why San Diego is larger than Tampa.
Like it or not, San Diego is in the same conversation with most of these cities. Get off your high horse and don’t pretend San Diego ”feels” much bigger than Tampa, Cleveland, or Detroit. It doesn’t.
I have been to San Diego many times and consider it more a Tier b similar to Denver or Tampa but certainly not a Detroit or Seattle.
San Diego just doesn't have the business base or density of Seattle, Detroit or even Denver. But it does seem more urban overall in my opinion than Metro Tampa (which is a great metropolitan area in my opinion, especially for a long vacation)
Skyline: San Diego is a medium-sized skyline for it's size. It is smaller than cities like Denver, Cleveland, Boston but larger than Tampa.
San Diego skyline is mainly residential buildings, the number of companies based there is very small for a metro of over 3 million people. The skyscrapers are mainly apartments and condos, not office buildings.
Cosmopolitan: San Diego tries to be extremely cosmpolitan but it mainly a show outside of a few areas.
Aggressive/Indifferent Personality types: San Diego is a very, very aloof and pretentious city in my opinion. I don't consider the people to be Aggressive, but they are very, very indifferent.
While, a vast majority in North County are decent and much more pleasent overall in Oceanside, Carlsbad, Escondido areas because the personality traits are similar to Orange County which is the most friendly county in California I have encountered in my opinion.
The city of San Diego itself is very, very pretentious and aloof in my experience. It seems to draw in alot of Narcissistic personality types. The people in San Diego proper are just cold, but it's not the entire county just the city itself.
I think people in East county are very cold also, in the South Bay they are a bit better but North County is much better in my opinion despite being better off economically.
Strong bustling urban core: Downtown San Diego is way slower than the typical downtown it's size. The reason is because it has so few large companies and those that are in metro San Diego are mainly in places like La Jolla, Mira Mesa, University City which are a 20 minute drive north of San Diego
Nightlife: San Diego is a very married and coupled city. People there seem to go out in large groups and many different couples. Even areas like Hilcrest and Pacific Beach were mainly married people and couples.
Transit: San Diego seems about average. They have the trolley system which goes to a majority of high density areas. The bus system is average also, seems like a majority of routes run about 15-30 minutes from 5am to 10/11pm. The transit is nothing special, but I noticed the buses are cleaner and newer than a majority of cities.
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.
