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.
Pike Place wouldn't generally be considered the CBD, however. The CBD is kind of sterile. I still like it, in it's cold glass towers sense, but it's not someplace I'd like to live. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=seatt...15.95,,0,-9.91
Obligatory Starbucks in every skyscraper. Sterile, but nice.
Pioneer Square is still my favorite least sterile place in Seattle, however.
The ID is my favorite not sterile Seattle place.
I would consider Pike Place in the CBD, but hey - it's NBD.
Pike Place is definitely in downtown. Downtown Seattle includes Belltown, Pioneer Square, Denny Triangle, CBD/Commercial Corridor, ID, and First Hill.
If you just mean, CBD/CC and maybe First Hill, I'd agree it's kind of sterile. Denny Triangle is sort of getting that way, but it's still got places like 5-Points.
If it is bigger... hmm... I have seen sometimes smaller cities like to over reach the size of their downtowns, where as bigger cities often only consider cbd/financial districts and such as their downtown.
I've seen people comment on how Seattle downtown is more vibrant than Chicago, which I think is a complete farce, or extended it's boundaries.. So I am very skeptical of these claims.
Sounds about right. And than includes those neighborhoods I just listed. Seattle's a pretty small city, certainly compared to Chicago. Seattle doesn't really give a sh-- about being more vibrant than NYC; that's a Chicago thing. If it has an inferiority complex, it's to San Francisco, and honestly that's much more a San Francisco theme than Seattle.
From what I remember, my first impression of Seattle's downtown was quite sterile, much less so once I ventured more to the north and east. The glass office-only areas that someone posted is around the sterile section. It's not the busiest of downtowns but definitely not dead, either.
Had a bit more surface parking than I'm used to seeing, but mostly they or similar dead zones didn't get in the way much. Definitely not Chicago, though.
From what I remember, my first impression of Seattle's downtown was quite sterile, much less so once I ventured more to the north and east. The glass office-only areas that someone posted is around the sterile section. It's not the busiest of downtowns but definitely not dead, either.
Had a bit more surface parking than I'm used to seeing, but mostly they or similar dead zones didn't get in the way much. Definitely not Chicago, though.
Bringing this back, if we are just measuring the true CBD then LA's is pretty sterile too. Though that is definitely not true of the entire area of DTLA.
If it is bigger... hmm... I have seen sometimes smaller cities like to over reach the size of their downtowns, where as bigger cities often only consider cbd/financial districts and such as their downtown.
I've seen people comment on how Seattle downtown is more vibrant than Chicago, which I think is a complete farce, or extended it's boundaries.. So I am very skeptical of these claims.
Seattle's Downtown is much bigger than 1.4 square miles. Really, you have to include Belltown, Pioneer Square, the ID, and even South Lake Union. If you are talk about the urban core, you should also include the Pike/Pine and Broadway portions of Capitol Hill and Lower Queen Anne. I'd say you're talking about 4 square miles of the urban core.
Almost all of this could be considered the urban core (with only part of what they're labeling as "Capitol Hill" being excluded)
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.