why have i heard people saying Seattle is sprawled out/low density? (Tacoma: living in, zoning)

[HeyHolliday!]

Originally Posted by mrman78

Yeah, there is something wrong with that. It lists Honolulu as #4 and that is hilarious! I lived there and it does not FEEL dense at all. Seattle FEELS dense, whether it actually is by numbers or not doesn't really matter...

they were most likely referring to the Honolulu urban area and not the whole city and county.

And yes The city of Honolulu(not including the county) is more dense than Seattle. Waikiki for example has a population density of 25k and thats not including the tourists. No neighborhood in Seattle can match that. Also take into consideration half of the Honolulu urban area includes the Pali ridge which is impossible to build any housing on and Honolulu international airport. Almost half of Honolulu is green space.

Seattle has a lot of potential to be an amazing city, it has a great economy and very intelligent workforce. Unfortunately the city is still sort of stuck in car mode and a lot of people live in single family homes. I'm hoping they build more high rises/mid rises over the next decade. Having Vancouver like density is something Seattle should be shooting for.

[scottyr]

i just never understood how a city full of latte-sipping, indie-rock-loving liberal hipsters and their asian friends could NOT have a super-efficient all-encompassing mass transit network. Based on demographics, Seattle should have become a identical twin of either Vancouver or Portland 15 years ago, but it remains the Houston of the Pacific Northwest

[Inkpoe]

I don't understand why people praise PDX's transit network. While they do have more LR lines going on... its still pretty limited. I've used PDX transit extensively in 3 days-- and I understood better why driving a car is better. Yes, traffic does suck, but man... I rather deal with that than PDX's PT. Ultimately I like how Seattle does their transit much better and I find the drivers more patient and informative here than in PDX.

But in response to you, Scottyr... WHY? Its a money issue. Its a TAX issue. People here are dichotomic about it. They willing to be levied more taxes again and again for the improvement of the schools because they really believe that it would help. But when it comes to public transportation, well there's that evil person who's just going to take the money, do a lousy job and end up leaving us with a bigger bill. The public can't trust the person to do the job right (though why trust the schools can? IDK). I was really surprised when the Light Rail passed because I wasn't sure if there ever was going to be enough people who'd be willing to try risk it. I would say that the Sound Transit agency is doing pretty good job of doing what they're suppose to be doing. Now if only they can reverse their position on Federal Way.

[evergraystate]

Originally Posted by scottyr

i just never understood how a city full of latte-sipping, indie-rock-loving liberal hipsters and their asian friends could not have a super-efficient all-encompassing mass transit network. Based on demographics, seattle should have become a identical twin of either vancouver or portland 15 years ago, but it remains the houston of the pacific northwest

lol

[Vinylly]

Originally Posted by scottyr

Ive seen people on city-data posting about how seattle is low density and sprawled, yet from the pictures i've seen, seattle seems to be very urban and not broken up by so many freeways and parking lots like houston or Atlanta.

Seattle seems to have alot of dense urban neighborhoods that are connected to downtown...how is this sprawled? Also i doubt such a progressive/left-leaning city like Seattle could be so auto-centric and bulldozer-happy when it comes to old walkable neighborhoods

Because, 50 years ago you could drive 15 minites in any direction eccept West and you would be out in the countryside. Today the Seattle (area) is one big megatropalous just like Los Angeles. It's actual one city connected to another with vast tact home developments from Olympia to beyond Everett and from the foothills of the Cascade Mountains to the shores of Elliot Bay, with hundreds of freeways connecting them. Also Seattle is very 'bulldozer happy'. If a building is less then five stories tall then the 'progressive/left-leaning' politicians want to bull-doze it down and replace it with a building 20 stores tall, just to bring in more revenue for their hungry fat asses. Actually, I'm just kidding, what they really want to do is bulldoze everything down eccept the numerous court houses and jails, -because it is a 'progessive/left-wing' police state, -build a multi-billion dollar transit system and send everybody out into the suburban tract home sub-divisions, force them to come in to work, thus adding billions of more dollars for their hungry fat asses.

[DJKirkland]

I don't think Seattle needs to be a mirror of either Vancouver or Portland, personally. When the area declined the money for public transit in the 60s that Atlanta ultimately saw, it was a different area. Today, this is a metropolis of 4.2 million, and things would probably be different. Comparisons to density in Honolulu, Vancouver, or Portland are nice and all - but in the end, Seattle is much larger, much more robust economically, and nothing to be ashamed of. The Seattle CSA is more populated than the entirety of Oregon, Hawaii, or British Columbia. Portland has a great established transit network, but while Seattle may be slow to join in the game, the light rail network here will be significantly superior. It will be almost completely separated from grade, unlike the MAX. Where Portland's light rail struggles slowly through downtown Portland, LINK moves swiftly and avoids traffic and pedestrians in a subway. Density is building quickly even during this economic downturn. Check the development thread on skyscrapercity to see for yourself. In comparison, Portland is dead. Vancouver is always progressing, but prices are astronomical, and they don't have the corporate base Seattle does. Our economic output dwarfs the other PNW metropoli. I would add that despite not having the network Portland does, a higher percentage of Seattle uses what we have. Wait until LINK extents to Cap Hill, Northgate, Bellevue, Redmond. It will not be a contest anymore.

[mrman78]

Originally Posted by scottyr

...but it remains the Houston of the Pacific Northwest

Oh hell no!!!

[Steve Bowen]

Originally Posted by scottyr

Ive seen people on city-data posting about how seattle is low density and sprawled, yet from the pictures i've seen, seattle seems to be very urban and not broken up by so many freeways and parking lots like houston or Atlanta.

Seattle seems to have alot of dense urban neighborhoods that are connected to downtown...how is this sprawled? Also i doubt such a progressive/left-leaning city like Seattle could be so auto-centric and bulldozer-happy when it comes to old walkable neighborhoods

Seattle is not comparable to Chicago, Philly, SF, NYC or Boston in terms of density. It is one of the most walkable cities in the US though, as Walkscore can attest to: Most Walkable Cities in the United States on Walk Score - New York, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, Washington D.C.

It sounds like you're interested in walkability as much as density.

[brandonfromseattle]

I'm living in Hartford CT right now and it has about one tenth the land area of Seattle but has about 1 fifth the population. That's about double to population density. Seattle is very sprawled out compared to many other cities.

One of the things I don't miss about Seattle is having to drive to people's houses across town.

[mrman78]

Sorry, but until you've lived in Houston, you don't know sprawled out. It's like the king of sprawl in the US. Seattle is not sprawled out at all compared to most cities its size or larger - a lot of that has to do with its geography.