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.
In cohesiveness and filling gaps, maybe. In scale, it's already nipping at the heels of those cities, thanks to a much larger boom in the past decade.
In fact, we don't have to fill everything in to exceed the scale of Boston or Philly's core...we'll do a lot of that, but a continued influx of big towers on small sites will do wonders.
The footprint of the urban core in Seattle doesn’t come close to the Northeastern cities though. The urban core of a city is mainly defined by how urban the areas outside of downtown are. All downtowns are urban, but the surrounding neighborhoods is really what separates the northeastern cities from the rest of the country.
In cohesiveness and filling gaps, maybe. In scale, it's already nipping at the heels of those cities, thanks to a much larger boom in the past decade.
In fact, we don't have to fill everything in to exceed the scale of Boston or Philly's core...we'll do a lot of that, but a continued influx of big towers on small sites will do wonders.
A good comparison would be to draw an equal distance and compare the development and vibrancy in that area. What would a 13 sq. mile area over Seattle proper look like compared to a 13 sq. mile area over DC/Philly/Boston? For continuity, the entire area has to be in city proper. Actually, this is probably a good comparison for all these cities mentioned.
For DC, that would run from Columbia Heights to the north, Buzzard Point/Navy Yard to the south, Foggy Bottom to the West, and H Street/Atlas District to the east.
What neighborhoods would that distance cover N/S/E/W for Seattle? Google maps has a measure distance tool that will allow you to get a 3.6 mile x 3.6 mile measurement so you know which neighborhoods are covered over that distance.
Then we can do the same for Boston and Philly.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 03-29-2020 at 12:48 AM..
+2
-OyCrumbler's post. I mentioned something earlier about how a number of Latin American and Caribbean cities warranted serious consideration when it comes to urbanism earlier, but I believe it was orphaned.
I would even make a case for Guanajuato, perhaps the largest car-free or nearly carfree zone in the Americas.
I feel like Vancouver and Seattle have a similar amount of urbanity.. The Seattle metro is just more populated. Even outlying cities/ suburbs are relatively dense in both. Burnaby, Surrey, Richmond for Vancouver. Tacoma, Bellevue, and Kirkland for Seattle.
If you're comparing population density per square mile then Vancouver will seem much more dense, but it's about half the size of Seattle in land area, which is an unfair comparison.
That is the exception, and on the outskirts. But a lot of suburban areas can become pretty dense so it doesn't really feel like you're exiting an urban area imo.
The average for both areas looks something like this:
I am much more familiar with Seattle, so if someone wants to give dense examples of Vancouver feel free. I chose locations from all over the city! North, South, East, West, Central. There are more examples I could have given too. Trying to prove a point here. Vancouver is an amazing city, but it's not anywhere ahead of Seattle in density or most other things imo.
Had some time on my hands due to covid-19, gave me time to put more thought (length) into this post.
This is unrelated to the central premise of the post at hand, but those two Vancouver streetviews are just ridiculously appealing. The second one at first struck me as 'standard Canadian streetview' (with my frame of reference being...Ontario, lol), till I 'drove' down to the intersection of 26th St...unreal what that sidestreet looks like, on either side of the main drag. Something out of a dream and that might well be a conventional street. Ridiculous. The houses are well-designed as well but I think the PNW trees leapt out at me more than anything.
you can’t ignore size. The fact a 5.5 mile walk from the Chicago Loop gets you to Wrigleyville and the same walk from DTX in Boston gets you to Chestnut Hill tells you all you need to know about those cities.
Same with Line 1 in Toronto vs the Red Line in Boston.
Mexico City
New York
Chicago
Toronto
Then it gets messy. LA, SF, Boston, Montreal and Philly could all be the next 3. I don’t know enough about Mexico but there is probably a Mexican City or two that has an argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavsfan137
+2
-OyCrumbler's post. I mentioned something earlier about how a number of Latin American and Caribbean cities warranted serious consideration when it comes to urbanism earlier, but I believe it was orphaned.
I would even make a case for Guanajuato, perhaps the largest car-free or nearly carfree zone in the Americas.
Well, I notice that I think only one poster has mentioned Mexico's third-largest metropolis, the industrial center of Monterrey, and no one has mentioned its second-largest, Guadalajara.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
IMO, even if the DC urban area spreads further out, it doesn't equate in quality. Quality>quantity for me. Vancouver has a very solid, dense, urban core. So does DC, but it isn't as intense or high-quality as Vancouver.
I don't believe this to be true at all. Vancouver doesn't compete with classic East Coast level of urbanity the further away you creep out as consistently. Now if this were Montreal we were talking about absolutely I'll concede. Vancouver isn't ahead IMO.
Seattle and Philadelphia have great downtown’s, but their urban core’s aren’t really impressive for that very reason. For Philly, the difficulty with adding 2-3 story rowhouse neighborhoods with no other type of 6-9 story apartment buildings etc. mixed in is a feeling that you have left the urban core. Is Georgetown apart of DC’s urban core? I think the mix of uses and building heights need to vary within that footprint if it’s going to be apart of Philadelphia’s urban core.
I think we can all objectively agree that Seattle and Philadelphia are still on two different scales, although certainly Seattle is catching up quickly.
Philadelphia by all objective measures meets the threshold of one of the most impressive cores in North America based on structural and population density over a large area, and this extends outside of the traditional Center City boundaries.
Anyone also following recent development patterns in the city would note that 4-10 story "midrise" projects are absolutely being proposed and constructed in neighborhoods across the city, far outside of Center City, particularly along major commercial corridors.
Two- or three-story developments now tend to be the exception, rather than the rule for Philadelphia moving forward.
Well, I notice that I think only one poster has mentioned Mexico's third-largest metropolis, the industrial center of Monterrey, and no one has mentioned its second-largest, Guadalajara.
They should be part of this discussion, but they're not. Why is that?
The Monterrey Canadiens and Guadalajara Blue Jays don’t exist. Canada is in the same culture sphere as the US. Mexico is not as much. People know less about Mexico.
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.
