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.
Seattle has the reputation as the most vibrant and active urban core (DT, Belltown, Pioneer Square, Internatinal District, SLU, Lower Queen Ann, Cap Hill) outside the traditional urban cities (NYC,CHI,PHI,SF,BOS,DC).
I'm wondering how LA compares? It has a sprawling, polycentric reputation. But, it is much bigger than Seattle. Is there any concentrated area of LA that is as consistently urban, lively and walkable as Seattle?
Seattle has the reputation as the most vibrant and active urban core (DT, Belltown, Pioneer Square, Internatinal District, SLU, Lower Queen Ann, Cap Hill) outside the traditional urban cities (NYC,CHI,PHI,SF,BOS,DC).
I'm wondering how LA compares? It has a sprawling, polycentric reputation. But, it is much bigger than Seattle. Is there any concentrated area of LA that is as consistently urban, lively and walkable as Seattle?
I would say yes - LA has huge swaths of lively and walkable areas. Seattle has an urban and walkable Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. Then, outside of that core there are plenty of walkable, commercial nodes (some that are actually quite large) but LA is 5-6 times bigger than Seattle so by absolute volume LA has more, no doubt.
I would say yes - LA has huge swaths of lively and walkable areas. Seattle has an urban and walkable Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. Then, outside of that core there are plenty of walkable, commercial nodes (some that are actually quite large) but LA is 5-6 times bigger than Seattle so by absolute volume LA has more, no doubt.
This. Seattle has more desirable neighborhoods right next to the core. LA is working on that with Chinatown, Wilshire Crridor from City West to Koreatown and even the USC areas seeing pretty quick improvement. But it still has a ways to go until DT LA to West Hollywood is the cohesive walkable core it could some day be.
But as you say, when taking the entire city into account LA does have more walkable areas than Seattle. Which makes sense as it is quite a bit larger.
Today, Seattle's core. In 10 years, LA. Downtown LA and it's surrounding neighborhoods are drastically improving, but Seattle is one of the hottest development sites in the nation and growth is fiery hot. I'd say both are very comparable and nearly equal.
Today, Seattle's core. In 10 years, LA. Downtown LA and it's surrounding neighborhoods are drastically improving, but Seattle is one of the hottest development sites in the nation and growth is fiery hot. I'd say both are very comparable and nearly equal.
Seattle seems to be more well-known for its downtown, especially since everyone won't stop talking about it. But LA is improving, and already has a more lively downtown.
I used to work on 4th and University in Seattle, and now I work at 5th and Flower in DTLA.
Foot traffic seems the same, but the DT infrastructure in Seattle is significantly more developed than it is in DTLA.
The inner neighborhoods is where it gets interesting. Seattle has Queen Anne, Capitol Hill, South Lake Union, First Hill, Belltown and several other dense adjacent neighborhoods that are definitely part of the urban core. LA has some very dense, urban areas like Westlake and Koreatown but they aren't quite as fluidly connected as the inner neighborhoods in Seattle.
LA is improving, but it has a long way to go to catch up to Seattle.
Most objective data will have Los Angeles ahead. For example:
Job density (0-3 miles from CBD; 2006)
Seattle - 264,218
Los Angeles - 393,091
Even transit favors Los Angeles.
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.