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.
Baltimore doesn't have the stats to run with those cities. I'll admit that I'm defending Seattle here. Baltimore's 2018 density 7,443/sm, it small downtown, and its transit commute shares of 16.2% transit and 5.6% walk are all far exceeded by Seattle, and on average way more so by those cities. (Not all...Seattle has more pedestrian commuters than some for example.)
We're probably talking 15.5 years. Seattle has ratcheted itself up significantly in the last 15.5 years, including the boom before this one, particularly regarding the urban core.
Seattle will probably always be the denser city by population going forward, but extreme population density =/= dense urban built form
Unlike St. Louis or Detroit, Baltimore has retained a substantially larger portion of its built form & population (granted large swaths are in very dilapidated states). As of 2019 you do know by 1 mile peak population radius, Baltimore & Seattle are both in the top 10 cities (#10 & #9 respectively) in the US?. Houston, Atlanta & Dallas are #11,12 & 13 for context. Baltimore has always performed above its weight class when it comes to its core, which if I'm honest.. is just as large as Seattle just off of geography alone. What Baltimore lacks in glitzy +200m glass skyscrapers it makes up for in it's substantially greater pre-war built form and less inhibiting geography (I've walked both downtowns)
Seattles transit usage is 20% vs. Baltimore's 18.6%.. I'd expect Seattle to have more ridership because it's a +25% larger metro. People walk less in Baltimore because the murder/crime rate is out of control, not because Seattle or those other cites are necessarily more urban, but thats a completely different debate/conversion.
Now all that being said.... this is by no means implying Baltimore stands on the same economic peer group as Seattle, let alone those other cities, but as far as classically urban cities go, I think you are forgetting the urban "bones" of the city had to support almost 1 million people in it's 80 sq mi in a not so distant past.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,132 posts, read 7,575,946 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox
Baltimore has really good bones though and its urban neighborhoods are IMO better than Seattle’s. Fells Point, Inner Harbor, Mount Vernon are all extremely walkable vibrant areas that are drenched in history and amazing architecture.
I say this as a Seattleite myself who loves Seattle. But I will take any of those Baltimore neighborhoods over the newishly dense neighborhoods like South Lake Union in Seattle which is honestly so sterile and devoid of culture. I really hope that neighborhood isn’t a trendsetter for the city.
Yep. Baltimore has the same bones that Philly has, it's just smaller. I'd say still better urban bones than Seattle. Baltimore has housed around 1 million people in 80 sq miles in it's lifetime. I was in the city on Saturday, the urbanity is still top 7 in the US.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,132 posts, read 7,575,946 times
Reputation: 5796
Doing 7, because after we get past 7 what really matters here for a country of this size...
Top 7 importance by 2035
1. New York City
2. T- Washington DC/Los Angeles
3. San Francisco (if it were by metro swap with LA)
4. Chicago
5. T- Houston/Dallas
6. Atlanta
7. Boston
Top 7 urbanity in 2035
1. New York
2. SF
3. Chicago
4. Philadelphia
5. Boston/DC
6. Seattle (by 2035 I could see it's rank rising to here)
7. Baltimore
Doing 7, because after we get past 7 what really matters here for a country of this size...
Top 7 importance by 2035
1. New York City
2. T- Washington DC/Los Angeles
3. San Francisco (if it were by metro swap with LA)
4. Chicago
5. T- Houston/Dallas
6. Atlanta
7. Boston
Top 7 urbanity in 2035
1. New York
2. SF
3. Chicago
4. Philadelphia
5. Boston/DC
6. Seattle (by 2035 I could see it's rank rising to here)
7. Baltimore
Not sure where to put LA.
LA us already more urban than Baltimore and if they keep going down the paths they are going it will be a massive gulf come 2035.
LA us already more urban than Baltimore and if they keep going down the paths they are going it will be a massive gulf come 2035.
LA is more built up than anything not named NYC in urbanized area, but (and this is a massive but) it is not more urban. LA is Houston, Miami, Phoenix, Atlanta or Dallas on steroids.... none of which anyone calls classically urban. They are superficially urban in look but sprawl monsters through and through in form & function.
This is what Downtown LA looks like. Central LA is like Boston or DC in terms of built density. It’s just that proportionally since it’s a metro 2-3x larger than those cities people expect it to be much larger.
This is what Downtown LA looks like. Central LA is like Boston or DC in terms of built density. It’s just that proportionally since it’s a metro 2-3x larger than those cities people expect it to be much larger.
Thanks I've been to downtown LA. Most major city downtowns are built up/ built out like that including Baltimore.
I'm talking about "city wide" as a percentage of the building/housing stock, street width etc. How is it that LA has more urban format than Baltimore? I get that it's a large urban area behemoth overall, but on the micro level how is it block by block more urban than Baltimore City?
This is what Downtown LA looks like. Central LA is like Boston or DC in terms of built density. It’s just that proportionally since it’s a metro 2-3x larger than those cities people expect it to be much larger.
Having a large downtown doesn't give any city a free "I'm an urban/walkable wonderland" pass. Atlanta & Miami have larger downtowns than LA, and no one calls them classically urban cities.
Thanks I've been to downtown LA. Most downtowns are built up/ built out like that including Baltimore.
I'm talking about "city wide" as a percentage of the building/housing stock, street width etc. How is it that LA has more urban format than Baltimore? I get that it's a large urban area behemoth overall, but on the micro level how is it block by block more urban than Baltimore City?
Obviously that’s a bit unfair because LA has 400 sq miles in city limits so it will have more suburban neighborhoods but it’s intesenly urban footprint is larger than Baltimore. If you compared 100 sq miles to 100 sq miles LA would blow away any city not Bos/Philly/DC/SF/NYC/Chicago
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.
