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.
I so disagree with these assessments. Seattle has a ridiculous number of vibrant, walkable neighborhoods; arguably more per capita than any other city in the US.
LOL JJG. I think you just disproved your point about which city has the better skyline with those pics. Seattle has one of the most distinctive, beautiful skylines in the US.
And the Houston skyline is NOT distinctive?
Actually, I think you missed my point.
Seattle's skyline is "beautiful" because of it's surroundings. I mean, the buildings by themselves have great architecture, but I feel that Houston's is just slightly better. Plus, there's MORE of a skyline there in Houston. Several different ones seen from a distance... it almost makes it as grand as Manhattan...... And I said ALMOST, so don't kill me for that.
Seattle may get more of a vote because of it's surroundings, but when I look at a city's skylines, I prefer to look at the man made part of it.
(I'm an architect major, so that's pretty much a given).
And the Houston skyline is NOT distinctive?
Actually, I think you missed my point.
Seattle's skyline is "beautiful" because of it's surroundings. I mean, the buildings by themselves have great architecture, but I feel that Houston's is just slightly better. Plus, there's MORE of a skyline there in Houston. Several different ones seen from a distance... it almost makes it as grand as Manhattan...... And I said ALMOST, so don't kill me for that.
Seattle may get more of a vote because of it's surroundings, but when I look at a city's skylines, I prefer to look at the man made part of it.
(I'm an architect major, so that's pretty much a given).
Seattle will get more of a vote simply because he lead off with which is more urban.
If you start with something like which is taller and has a big building feel, the Empire State Building or the pentagon. well heck the Empire state building is gonna get all the votes because it is taller, even thought the pentagon has more floor space.
Things would be different if the question was simply which feels larger
Overall, houston, but the waterfront areas and some of the neighborhoods of seattle are very nice, or to me they were. Vibrant downtown, all day, and 7 days a week goes to seattle also, but that doesn't mean that houston doesn't have very vibrant areas, it just isn't always downtown. But seattle is much better for a misguided traveler while houston takes a little whilte to learn. But truthfully, as far as urban goes, there about even. But I like houston more because its more diverse
I actually loved seattle because I like a city with a little greenery and man that city was green Im not crazy about the whole, incredibly dense gigantic concrete slab kinda city. I like them especialy to visit, but im not just nuts about nuthing but concrete everywhere and it doesn't ruin the city feel to me to see a tree or two. But this one is definately fairly close. Although I maintain that there isn't a place as of now in houston as nice as the waterfront in seattle, although if you want that there is still a nice little boardwalk here on the bay. And even with that Houston actually feels like the bigger city by a good bit, but not any nicer. There both very green though which I love.
LA is straight up continuous dense sprawl through and though, LA's urban area is nearly triple Boston’s urban area in both population And density wise Look at the hold dynamic.
Yes, I said per capita. These are all much larger cities than Seattle.
Downtown?
Capitol Hill?
Queen Anne Hill?
Magnolia?
Ballard?
West Seattle?
Vashon Island?
Bellevue?
Madrona?
Madison Park?
Belltown?
Lake Union?
University?
Greenlake?
The list goes on and on. In no way does Houston compete on this level.
Calling Madrona a walkable "neighborhood" is a stretch. It's like 3 blocks of commercial surrounded by residential.
Overall, I agree, there are a lot of walkable neighborhoods in Seattle, more than you listed even. But many of them (outside of the urban core and inner neighborhoods) are walkable islands. Commercial strips or areas, varying in size, surrounded by suburban-like residential or sprawly industrial. Nothing like SF, Chicago, Boston, where the neighborhoods connect and there are walkable "neighborhoods" between neighborhoods (if that makes sense). In Seattle, the areas between neighborhoods (not in the urban core) are sometimes pretty large and not very walkable (e.g. the area between Ballard & Fremont, the area between Northgate & Greenwood, the area between Columbia City & Georgetown, etc, etc.)
Im not sure if youve spent much time in Chicago, SF, Boston, etc but these cities are lined with wall-to-wall walkable neighborhoods. (Chicago has indusial areas that arent walkable, but it has a HUGE area that is walkable and connected)
Also, many of Seattle's walkable neighborhoods are more like--as the city program implies--urban villages. Town centers spread out across the city. This is not the same as a connected city with literally dozens of walkable, urban neighborhoods butting up against each other.
Yes, more walkable neighborhoods than Houston. But per capita? You do realize Manhattan and San Francisco are smaller in area than Seattle, right?
Last edited by developnsustain; 08-17-2010 at 11:54 PM..
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.
