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.
It's counterparts of SD, Denver, Portland, and Minneapolis all have a grid system that permeates outward in to a much larger footprint in and out of the city limits compared to Seattle.
Seattle is almost 100% built on a grid system throughout almost its entire 83 sq. miles.... all it takes is one look on google maps
San Diego is the least gridded out of 4 cities, due to its topography inhibiting a grid street scape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calisonn
Wrong, Seattle is on just about equal terms on density and built environment with Portland, Minneapolis, Denver, and San Diego. Just because you have more skyscrapers doesn't automatically leapfrog you in to the next tier.
Seattle's built up areas aren't limited to it's downtown, with the sole exception of Portland, none of the cities you list have this level of urbanity Downtown included.
Seattle
Portland
-big gap-
Denver/Minneapolis
-big gap-
San Diego
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calisonn
I was specifically talking about cores, you cannot judge a core by its inner 3 square miles, at minimum it should be about 10-15 square miles, at that point Seattle really starts to show its weakness and falls right in line with its peers.
Again what core other than NYC, Chicago or possibly DC is larger than 3 square miles?
For context.... the CDS's of Boston, LA, Philly, Atlanta or SF all fall within 1-2 square mile. You are setting the bar to high for any of these cities, and once you go 10-15 square miles out you are hitting ocean/bay in Seattle (on both sides) and all the cities are suburban by that point...
Unless your city happens to be named NYC, Chicago, DC, SF, Philly, Boston or Baltimore... expect to see suburban detached family housing within 10-15 square mies of downtown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calisonn
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, we can't prove either of our opinions and experiences.
Easy day
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calisonn
So finally we agree on this point?
We never debated that... I already said Seattle is transitioning into those cities tier group and separating itself from "lesser" cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calisonn
I've never argued otherwise on its GDP, as far as metro size i would argue that it's leading the pack compared to its peers, it hasn't ascended to the next tier just yet IMO, this decade will decide it.
Seattle has +4 million metro at this point... it's closest metro is Minneapolis-St. Paul (a dual core metro mind you). San Diego trails Seattle by +600k, Denver & Baltimore by ~1 million and Portland by +1.5 million.
Unless something apocalyptic happens like Amazon & Boeing both going belly up this decade.. I don't see anything changing other than the gap widening.
Concerning density, the San Diego region is generally more compact and dense than regions of comparable size, as well as larger sprawling sunbelt regions. This assertion is based on population weighted density profiles data prepared by the U.S. Census.
I've attached an image of the statistical comparison. Population-weighted density for every 1-mile radii from city hall (1-mile, 2-mile, 3-mile through 40-mile radii). That's 40 separate points of comparison. San Diego is simply more dense across the board. Seattle stands out for the 1-3-mile radii, but that's it.
I should also point out that San Diego's population essentially ends at the 40-mile radius marker, whereas Seattle, Minneapolis, and the others continue to sprawl at low densities for 10-15 more miles.
It's also worth noting that the only radii in which San Diego doesn't beat the other regions (1-3 and 17-23) also had the most significant growth in the past decade. Downtown (radii 1-3) growth is likely to be 30-40% and Carmel Valley/4S Ranch (radii 17-23) has probably doubled in population. San Diego metro may very well be more dense across the board in the 2020 Census...
Last edited by newgensandiego; 01-15-2020 at 10:05 PM..
Seattle is almost 100% built on a grid system throughout almost its entire 83 sq. miles.... all it takes is one look on google maps
San Diego is the least gridded out of 4 cities, due to its topography inhibiting a grid street scape.
I'm unsure why Seattle's grid is so impressive when 75% of its residential zoning is single-family. Also, you could easily carve out 83sqmi of central San Diego that is exclusively grid. Again, why does that matter?
Quote:
Seattle's built up areas aren't limited to it's downtown, with the sole exception of Portland, none of the cities you list have.
You do realize that's also the case with San Diego, right? Interestingly, San Diego's densest census tracts aren't even in downtown. Also, verticality isn't everything***
Quote:
Seattle
Portland
-big gap-
Denver/Minneapolis
-big gap-
San Diego
Seattle stands out in the 1-3 mile radius from city hall. San Diego is definitely more dense as a region though.
Quote:
Seattle has +4 million metro at this point... it's closest metro is Minneapolis-St. Paul (a dual core metro mind you). San Diego trails Seattle by +600k, Denver & Baltimore by ~1 million and Portland by +1.5 million.
Huh? I don't get what you are saying or what these numbers are based on. Either way, San Diego can add its border city and surpass any of them in population. Downtown San Diego and Tijuana are only 20 miles apart and are linked by one of the busiest light rail lines in the country.
Quote:
Unless something apocalyptic happens like Amazon & Boeing both going belly up this decade.. I don't see anything changing other than the gap widening.
I'd definitely say they are climaxing in importance (or getting close to). Amazon will get broken up and other countries (China, Japan) are trying to jumpstart domestic airplane manufacturing. Also, how much additional growth will these two companies produce for Seattle? It seems they are looking elsewhere.
Last edited by newgensandiego; 01-15-2020 at 09:57 PM..
Concerning density, the San Diego region is generally more compact and dense than regions of comparable size, as well as larger sprawling sunbelt regions. This assertion is based on population weighted density profiles data prepared by the U.S. Census.
I've attached an image of the statistical comparison. Population-weighted density for every 1-mile radii from city hall (1-mile, 2-mile, 3-mile through 40-mile radii). That's 40 separate points of comparison. San Diego is simply more dense across the board. Seattle stands out for the 1-3-mile radii, but that's it.
I should also point out that San Diego's population essentially ends at the 40-mile radius marker, whereas Seattle, Minneapolis, and the others continue to sprawl at low densities for 10-15 more miles.
It's also worth noting that the only radii in which San Diego doesn't beat the other regions (1-3 and 17-23) also had the most significant growth in the past decade. Downtown (radii 1-3) growth is likely to be 30-40% and Carmel Valley/4S Ranch has probably doubled in population. San Diego metro may very well be more dense across the board in the 2020 Census...
Appreciate the graph!
In a nutshell metro San Diego is going to densify at an exponentially faster clip the rest due to not being able to expand radially. It's boxed in by Camp Pendleton to the north, the Laguna Mountains to the East, Mexico to the south and the Pacific to the west hence
It also confirms how much of a monster core Seattle is (also not a suprise). A 3 mile radius is 28 sq. miles of which a good slug of that is going to be water due to Seattle's geography.
Seattle is almost 100% built on a grid system throughout almost its entire 83 sq. miles.... all it takes is one look on google maps
I welcome anyone on CD to take a look on Google maps and verify what this man/woman just wrote. Please tell me you're joking?
Quote:
San Diego is the least gridded out of 4 cities, due to its topography inhibiting a grid street scape.
Wrong, that would be Seattle by a longshot.
Quote:
Seattle's built up areas aren't limited to it's downtown, with the sole exception of Portland, none of the cities you list have this level of urbanity Downtown included.
Seattle
Portland
-big gap-
Denver/Minneapolis
-big gap-
San Diego
That's completely fine since it's just your opinion, if Seattle's urban structure is so great, why isn't it blowing these cities away in density?
Quote:
Again what core other than NYC, Chicago or possibly DC is larger than 3 square miles?
For context.... the CDS's of Boston, LA, Philly, Atlanta or SF all fall within 1-2 square mile. You are setting the bar to high for any of these cities, and once you go 10-15 square miles out you are hitting ocean/bay in Seattle (on both sides) and all the cities are suburban by that point...
Unless your city happens to be named NYC, Chicago, DC, SF, Philly, Boston or Baltimore... expect to see suburban detached family housing within 10-15 square mies of downtown
You're confusing CBD's with central cores which usually encompasses the whole of downtown and then some.
Quote:
Seattle has +4 million metro at this point... it's closest metro is Minneapolis-St. Paul (a dual core metro mind you). San Diego trails Seattle by +600k, Denver & Baltimore by ~1 million and Portland by +1.5 million.
Unless something apocalyptic happens like Amazon & Boeing both going belly up this decade.. I don't see anything changing other than the gap widening.
That's just your opinion, my opinion is that it's leading the pack but has not yet propelled itself to the likes of Boston, DFW, Houston, DC, etc.
In a nutshell metro San Diego is going to densify at an exponentially faster clip the rest due to not being able to expand radially. It's boxed in by Camp Pendleton to the north, the Laguna Mountains to the East, Mexico to the south and the Pacific to the west hence
It also confirms how much of a monster core Seattle is (also not a suprise). A 3 mile radius is 28 sq. miles of which a good slug of that is going to be water due to Seattle's geography.
Yes, it was a very interesting comparison! Seattle core is crazy dense--mind you, these are population density, not employment density. If we could combine the two, it would totally dwarf San Diego and the others.
I think a lot of people drastically underestimate how dense California cities are, particularly the suburban parts. In general, people on CD know very little about San Diego (city or region) and like to make generalizations that are simply untrue or outdated.
It's definitely the city of San Diego if we're going off city boundaries. An arbitrary and semi-useless comparison, but let's not make false claims.
Wrong again, I'm going off of square miles per square mile comparison, going off city limits, now that's useless.
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.
