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.
DC suburbs have a lot of TOD these days and might shape up to be one of the more urban metros though still pretty sprawling. Your point about San Diego being not exceptionally more suburban is almost certainly true. Vast majority of US metropolitan areas are mostly suburbs though I think the conventionally urban ones less so. At least SD area suburban-ish areas are often somewhat smaller lots and less sprawling and might eventually become more urban.
I do wish they had left more of all of Southern California more undeveloped. It would have been nice if Casa de Oro-Mount Helix, California were just parkland.
These TODs still represent only 2-4% of the MSA's land area. Sure, DC MSA has more clusters of denser nodes, but suburban DC is generally much lower density sprawl than San Diego. Even if the District of Columbia was 100% urban (it's not by any stretch), the District only represents roughly ~11% of the region's population.
Ultimately, all U.S. metros are primarily suburban...both in terms of population distribution and, obviously, land area. NYC really is the only place where a solid % of the population is urban.
I feel Oakland is easily the most urban and the bay area without SF is also most urban west coast area. I know some folks that probably dont like urbanity though
Lol, um Santee and Danville are not “equivalents”. Quite the opposite actually. Danville is more comparable to Rancho Santa Fe, Fairbanks Ranch, Or Olivehain. Have you ever been to Danville?
That would be splitting hairs. I haven't been there because there doesn't appear to be a reason to travel there.
The Bay Area is the most urban west coast metro, even if you exclude SF. Oakland is very urban, even other East Bay towns like Berkeley are too. It's interesting there how some places would be considered a suburb there but really feel like their own city.
San Diego is kind of the opposite; I am surprised that there are neighborhoods in the city proper, even neighborhoods that aren't far from the core, that seem pretty suburban.
Portland is pretty urban, not as much as the East Bay though. I like the urban growth boundary the metro has in place, and I think that has helped even suburbs remain fairly dense. The transit system is also great for a metro of its size.
I think San Diego is the least urban metro on the west coast, but I also have spent the least time there, so maybe I just didn't see enough. The data does seems to support that though. A fun thing to do is go on Google Maps and drop pins in random locations to see street view in the 3 cities and compare the urbanity you see. I think the aesthetics of this process support my list. (So does the data)
What would the data be that supports Portland being a more urban metro than San Diego?
What would the data be that supports Portland being a more urban metro than San Diego?
Downtown San Diego doesn't even compare with Portland's or in the same league. Portland hoods are really cool urban areas. San Diego doesn't have an answer to it. North Park??? No. Not even Hillcrest comes close to cool neighborhoods of Portland. Portland has way more of an urban feel.
These TODs still represent only 2-4% of the MSA's land area. Sure, DC MSA has more clusters of denser nodes, but suburban DC is generally much lower density sprawl than San Diego. Even if the District of Columbia was 100% urban (it's not by any stretch), the District only represents roughly ~11% of the region's population.
Ultimately, all U.S. metros are primarily suburban...both in terms of population distribution and, obviously, land area. NYC really is the only place where a solid % of the population is urban.
I'm aware of that which is why I said it "might shape up to be one of the more urban metros though still pretty sprawling." If the TOD clusters around the metro stops get larger and end up having bus service or such to them from nearby, then it would push for conversion of places to denser and denser infill. It might happen, or it might not. The VA portion has at least put in place the funding for VRE to be far more frequent than it has before, so perhaps those stations will also get TOD to some extent. DC is not entirely urban, but much of its population lives in the urban parts, and some of the TOD clusters outside of DC also include higher population densities where people are living in an urban environment.
It's certainly not there yet and I agree with what you said about US metros as I had said earlier in that same post you quoted, "Vast majority of US metropolitan areas are mostly suburbs though I think the conventionally urban ones less so."
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,547,418 times
Reputation: 6682
I'm not a San Diego defender and, weather aside, I prefer Portland's urbanity, but SD does have some urban neighborhoods that can compete such as Little Italy, Mission Hills and Hillcrest--though the latter is not an area I hung out in much....where I prefer Portland is the dining scene and I love the job they did with the Pearl District, and other areas, integrating new construction with existing structures that gives the impression new buildings have been around much longer than they actually have been (much more so than more of pre-fabricated faux cookie cutter looking SD Little Italy).
Nob Hill/NW area is also very cool, almost reminds me a bit of the Union St and Marina sections of SF (much more so than Gaslamp) whereas the Southeast sections of the city, such as Hawthorne, etc, seem a tad nicer/cleaner than North Park, etc....I saw a comment from someone claiming Ocean Beach gives off an urban environment--I didn't get that vibe at all; more of a run down beach community to me but different strokes for different folks.
Also, the PDX Streetcar seems to run more through the center / heart of the city, as opposed on the outer boundaries of the center, as well as to the airport.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the topper
Downtown San Diego doesn't even compare with Portland's or in the same league. Portland hoods are really cool urban areas. San Diego doesn't have an answer to it. North Park??? No. Not even Hillcrest comes close to cool neighborhoods of Portland. Portland has way more of an urban feel.
Last edited by elchevere; 03-22-2020 at 03:22 PM..
Downtown San Diego doesn't even compare with Portland's or in the same league. Portland hoods are really cool urban areas. San Diego doesn't have an answer to it. North Park??? No. Not even Hillcrest comes close to cool neighborhoods of Portland. Portland has way more of an urban feel.
The notion that Downtown Portland is in a totally "different league" than downtown San Diego is idiotic. They are in fact, very comparable in scale, size, vibrancy, and density.
The notion that Downtown Portland is in a totally "different league" than downtown San Diego is idiotic. They are in fact, very comparable in scale, size, vibrancy, and density.
Please just stop.
Downtown Portland office: 23,000,000 sq. ft.
Downtown SD office: 10,700,000. sq. ft.
No way. Downtown Portland is way cleaner, bigger and much more vibrant. No comparison. Dt. Portland is much denser, too. San Diego has one of the smallest downtown for its size.
Last edited by the topper; 03-22-2020 at 08:44 PM..
And downtown San Diego has 2-3 times the resident population, as well as an MLB stadium, major convention center, and a waterfront. It's also a significantly more prominent tourist destination.
What, you think cherrypicking information means you're right?
Also, office development is probably the worst measure of "vibrancy". 9-5 jobs in which people only go out during lunch? Do you not realize how ridiculous you sound?
Quote:
No way. Downtown Portland is way cleaner, bigger and much more vibrant. No comparison. Dt. Portland is much denser, too. San Diego has one of the smallest downtown for its size.
Nope, the difference is pretty marginal. San Diego is the 17th largest metro and its urban core is more impressive than at least 1/3 of the 16 metros larger than it.
Enough with your delusions and bias.
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.
