Seattle energy and "bustle"

[prairiestate]

I'm a native Chicagoan. Seattle may not be as busy, but it is still one of the most vibrant and urban cities I've been too, with many bustling and distinctive neighborhoods. I would say it's almost comparable to Philly. Philadelphia does have a busier urban center, but so much of the rest of the city is blighted. I think Seattle has a wider range of vibrant neighborhoods then Philly, even though blocks of burned our row houses may feel more "traditionally" urban.

[eastwesteastagain]

Originally Posted by prairiestate

I would say it's almost comparable to Philly. Philadelphia does have a busier urban center, but so much of the rest of the city is blighted. I think Seattle has a wider range of vibrant neighborhoods then Philly, even though blocks of burned our row houses may feel more "traditionally" urban.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that Seattle is more bustling or vibrant than Philly, although I'll agree that Seattle's run-down areas are tame and much fewer compared to those in Philly (or most cities for that matter). I guess it depends what one means by vibrancy. Re: the OP's question, when I lived there, I experienced Seattle as somewhat subdued as far as urban centers go (i.e., slower-paced, less 24/7 activity, fewer people intermingling, less I guess energy is the word I'm looking for, although it doesn't quite capture the phenomenon). Philly, for all of the problems it may have, doesn't lack for energy or people.