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.
Portland has easy access to beautiful coastline, lush green forests in city limits, and the multiple rivers for boating, swimming, windsurfing, and other water activities. Denver doesn't have any of these.
As far as city amenities go, I can't really think of anything Denver has that Portland doesn't have (besides professional sports, which I don't really care about). Neither of them have world class institutions that you would find in much larger cities, but both have pretty much every type of typical city amenity that you would think of.
boomtown boi covered the difference in walkability between the two. While the MAX and the streetcar are not as extensive as they could be, they still hit nearly all the major urban nodes of the city.
Do they though? What about Hawthorne, Belmont, Division, Alberta, St. John's, etc? Portland's system may be a little better than Denver's, but it's still missing a lot of the cool urban neighborhoods.
Seattle's system feels more like a light metro than a light rail and it has a lot of subway and elevated stations in relatively dense areas.
Seattle has a lot of urban districts where the key is good bus service, not rail, though rail is scheduled to be built.
A few of those are switching over though. This Saturday, subway stations will open at the U District and Roosevelt, and an elevated station opens at Northgate. The U District is a huge key...it's our #2 downtown within city limits.
Do they though? What about Hawthorne, Belmont, Division, Alberta, St. John's, etc? Portland's system may be a little better than Denver's, but it's still missing a lot of the cool urban neighborhoods.
Seattle's system feels more like a light metro than a light rail and it has a lot of subway and elevated stations in relatively dense areas.
Seattle's light rail coverage in its urban neighborhoods is way worse than Denver or Portland's. Even after the current extension finishes, it'll be missing areas like Ballard, Greenwood, Queen Anne, Lake City, Fremont, Alki, the Alaska Junction, and even Belltown. Kirkland won't be covered until 2044, and there are no plans to ever reach places as dense and close-in as White Center, Burien, and Edmonds.
Those Seattle neighborhoods' transit commute shares are probably quite a bit higher than their rail-served Portland/Denver equivalents, particularly Denver's. Overall, the in-city transit share was almost twice Portland's and 3x Denver's at last Census ACS count. Why? Because buses can work well when they're reasonably frequent, on fast lanes, and close to people.
I'm sure it's up to some standard. It's just that Denver's transit commute rate is pretty bad, despite a lot of concentrated employment and housing. That suggests transit could be much, much better.
Hell, Seattle's bus service, despite its relative popularity, could be WAY better.
Do they though? What about Hawthorne, Belmont, Division, Alberta, St. John's, etc? Portland's system may be a little better than Denver's, but it's still missing a lot of the cool urban neighborhoods.
Seattle's system feels more like a light metro than a light rail and it has a lot of subway and elevated stations in relatively dense areas.
I should have included buses as part of transit systems in my original post. Hawthorne, Belmont, and Division all have strong bus connectivity. Fair point on St. John's, that neighborhood is notably disconnected from the rest of the city in terms of transit and there should definitely be a light rail line going through there. I have also heard that transit access in some Northeast districts like Alberta and Fremont could be much better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
I'm sure it's up to some standard. It's just that Denver's transit commute rate is pretty bad, despite a lot of concentrated employment and housing. That suggests transit could be much, much better.
Hell, Seattle's bus service, despite its relative popularity, could be WAY better.
Maybe, but it could also suggest Denver has an easier car commute than Seattle. When looking at commute times (I think from the same ACS survey), 50% of Seattle residents have a commute time <30 mins. For Denver and Portland, the percentages for the same statistic are 57% and 61%, respectively. Roughly 11.4% of Seattle residents have a commute time >1 hour. Denver and Portland, for the same statistic, are around 7.5%. Car ownership is very high in all three of these cities, and I'm certain the average car owner would rather drive to work if it's convenient enough.
Not saying that Seattle doesn't have a better transit system than Denver, it seems like it does, I just think it's possible for a city to have a good transit system and also be relatively easy to traverse by car.
Seattle's light rail coverage in its urban neighborhoods is way worse than Denver or Portland's. Even after the current extension finishes, it'll be missing areas like Ballard, Greenwood, Queen Anne, Lake City, Fremont, Alki, the Alaska Junction, and even Belltown. Kirkland won't be covered until 2044, and there are no plans to ever reach places as dense and close-in as White Center, Burien, and Edmonds.
I strongly disagree with you on this. Capitol Hill and the U District are the two densest neighborhoods in the state outside of downtown and they both have subway stations in the heart of them. Roosevelt and Northgate both have growing density. Columbia City is quite urban and dense. Queen Anne, South Lake Union, Ballard and Alaska Junction will all be getting subway or elevated station within the next 10-15 years.
As for Belltown, the Westlake and future SLU subway stations are within 10-minute walks of the core of the neighborhood. Sure there will be some urban neighborhoods without rail, most notably First Hill, Fremont, Upper Queen Anne, and Greenwood, but that pales in comparison to what's missing from Denver or Portland.
Denver has no rail to Capitol Hill, South Broadway, Uptown, Highlands i.e. all the most urban neighborhoods outside of Downtown are missing.
Portland has no rail to all of the "cool" urban neighborhoods in the Southeast past the Industrial District. No Hawthorne, Belmont, Division, Foster, etc. In the Northeast you can't get to Alberta or St. John's in the North.
But here's the biggest difference - even in the urban neighborhoods that are covered by rail in Denver and Portland, it's at-grade and often away from the neighborhood center. Basically a glorified streetcar. Seattle's rail system (aside from along MLK) functions like a metro and has stops under or above the cores of the neighborhoods. It's a huge difference.
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.
