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.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,558,075 times
Reputation: 5785
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
DC/Baltimore are never going to have the peak residential densities the way Vancouver/Seattle do as they lack the forest of glass apartment/condo towers where you can cram 2000 people in 2-3 acres, nor are they building them (in Baltimore's case) anywhere near fast enough to close the gap.
On the inverse Vancouver/Seattle are never going to have the urban reach or structural density DC/Baltimore have due to their rowhomes, narrower streets & more linear spread/density of urban development which allows them to have uninterrupted intense urban form +3 miles outside there downtowns.
Their apple to oranges cities in terms of built form.
Very true. Residential density, and structural build, or density are two entirely different things. Seattle could never be structurally more dense or impressive than Baltimore in a classic urbanity sense. Baltimore is literally just a smaller version of Philadelphia in urbanity. It's urban bones are more structurally dense than even DC. The city once housed just under 1 million in 80 sq mi. The city is just not as filled in as it used to be with residents now like DC or Seattle.
The flip side is that Seattle has impressed as maybe the most transformed DT and urban core overall of any major city in the US the past 10 years. Once you get out of that immediate DT though it doesn't hold the urban structure for much longer like Baltimore.
Not disagreeing. However, density=/=urbanity. Those are concepts that get combined, but should not be combined. They play off each other. You need density to be urban, but density does not inherently produce urbanity. There are some very dense places that are not urban. There are no urban places that lack density, though. So basically, urbanity is not defined by density.
Therefore, DC/Baltimore is able to equally as urban as Vancouver/Seattle even though it is not as dense.
The best tiebreaker I can think of for Baltimore v. Seattle is the share of transit ridership in Seattle, plus its increasing usage.
However, if you're going with density being the tiebreaker, are you ready to admit that Vancouver is more urban than Seattle? I doubt many on here would agree. Even I don't think I'd agree with that statement overall. I still find them tied since DC is able to have its urbanity spread further out, while Vancouver's urbanity drops off pretty quickly outside the core areas.
Vancouver: 14,226/sq mi
DC: 11,506/sq mi
Vancouver is more urban than Seattle by a fair amount. The only possible metric of urbanity where Seattle beats Vancouver is building height. I prefer Seattle overall for various other reasons (more character, more distinct neighborhoods, better bar scene, etc) but in terms of urbanity Vancouver wins handily.
It has nearly 200k people in 5 square miles and its urban core is substantially denser, more pedestrian-oriented, more vibrant, more transit-oriented, narrower streets on average, denser with commerce, etc.
Last edited by Vincent_Adultman; 04-02-2020 at 09:30 PM..
Vancouver is more urban than Seattle by a fair amount. The only possible metric of urbanity where Seattle beats Vancouver is building height. I prefer Seattle overall for various other reasons (more character, more distinct neighborhoods, better bar scene, etc) but in terms of urbanity Vancouver wins handily.
It has nearly 200k people in 5 square miles and its urban core is substantially denser, more pedestrian-oriented, more vibrant, more transit-oriented, narrower streets on average, denser with commerce, etc.
Again population density =/= built urban environment.
DT SF has a higher population density than DT Chicago, yet no one with a rational brain would say DT SF is more built up than Chicago's Loop or Magnificent Mile.
Seattle has +90 buildings over 100m that are completed or U/C
Vancouver currently has 55 buildings over 100m with another 5 U/C.
Baltimore currently has 25 buildings over 100m
You could add Baltimore & Vancouvers skylines together and it still wouldn't give you the numerical numbers of Seattle. It has the largest downtown proper by a country mile.
Greater structural density, more industrial areas especially amongst residential areas that give ya the traditional city feel. Classical downtown, lots of businesses open very late, more consistent residential density throughout a larger area
Do people put old eastcoast looks over newer just because they're old? Downtown Seattle and its close in neighborhoods blows Baltimore away in every conceivable category. Stand in the middle of both and there is no contest. Structural is a look, but in Baltimore's case is it truly vibrant and urban?
Very true. Residential density, and structural build, or density are two entirely different things. Seattle could never be structurally more dense or impressive than Baltimore in a classic urbanity sense. Baltimore is literally just a smaller version of Philadelphia in urbanity. It's urban bones are more structurally dense than even DC. The city once housed just under 1 million in 80 sq mi. The city is just not as filled in as it used to be with residents now like DC or Seattle.
The flip side is that Seattle has impressed as maybe the most transformed DT and urban core overall of any major city in the US the past 10 years. Once you get out of that immediate DT though it doesn't hold the urban structure for much longer like Baltimore.
How does it not hold the urban structure for much longer like Baltimore?
Do people put old eastcoast looks over newer just because they're old? Downtown Seattle and its close in neighborhoods blows Baltimore away in every conceivable category. Stand in the middle of both and there is no contest. Structural is a look, but in Baltimore's case is it truly vibrant and urban?
No one here has even claimed to put downtown Baltimore at let alone above Seattle's in terms of size/built form... The debate/challenge comes from notion that outside of downtown Seattle and its immediate surrounding areas, the rest of the city looks like this
Old east coast cities (like Baltimore) aren't functionally structured like that. While you have less peak density in and around downtown (relative to Seattle) they trade that peak density for vast swaths of moderate density miles upon miles around their downtowns. It's the reason why 9/10 times their most interesting neighborhoods aren't any where close to their downtown in the first place and locals avoid them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blaserbrad
How does it not hold the urban structure for much longer like Baltimore?
Again population density =/= built urban environment.
DT SF has a higher population density than DT Chicago, yet no one with a rational brain would say DT SF is more built up than Chicago's Loop or Magnificent Mile.
Seattle has +90 buildings over 100m that are completed or U/C
Vancouver currently has 55 buildings over 100m with another 5 U/C.
Baltimore currently has 25 buildings over 100m
You could add Baltimore & Vancouvers skylines together and it still wouldn't give you the numerical numbers of Seattle. It has the largest downtown proper by a country mile.
So you’re saying Seattle is more urban because it has taller buildings? That’s not the part of the built environment that makes a place more urban. Vancouver’s built environment is more urban because it is absolutely more structurally dense, more pedestrian- and transit-oriented, denser with businesses, narrower streets. It just feels a lot more urban. And yes it is way bigger than Seattle’s downtown.
Finally, instead of building heights, why not look at total number of high-rise buildings (with high-rise defined as between 35 and 100 meters or between 12 and 35 stories). That’s a better metric than just looking at skyscrapers.
They show the single-family vernacular on their edges. But each has built a four-figure number of new apartments in recent years, and each has decent street-level retail.
As for the Vancouver comparison, it's certainly denser and more active in its core, and because its nodes are denser elsewhere too. But its core lacks the office heft of Seattle's, so its peak activity levels aren't necessarily higher.
No one here has even claimed to put downtown Baltimore at let alone above Seattle's in terms of size/built form... The debate/challenge comes from notion that outside of downtown Seattle and its immediate surrounding the rest of the city looks like a void.
Old east coast cities (like Baltimore) aren't built like that. You have less peak density in and around downtown as a trade off for vast swaths of moderate density miles around downtowns which is why 9/10 times there most interesting neighborhoods aren't any where close to their downtown.
People rank Baltimore above Seattle because Seattle it doesn't look like this +3 miles from it's downtown (geography aside)
So you’re saying Seattle is more urban because it has taller buildings? That’s not the part of the built environment that makes a place more urban.
Downtown Seattle has peak structural density greater than Vancouvers because at their peak they have the same amount of buildings in the same space, Seattle are just taller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman
Vancouver’s built environment is more urban because it is absolutely more structurally dense, more pedestrian- and transit-oriented, denser with businesses, narrower streets. It just feels a lot more urban. And yes it is way bigger than Seattle’s downtown.
Public transportation ride-share, or or business density, etc etc.. have zero to due with built form, which is not subjective.
I get homerism/boosting but lets be real here. You saying DT Vancouver is "way larger" than Seattle is like saying DT Vancouver is way larger than Philly, SF, Boston, Montreal etc.. to which we all know that silly. Does Vancouver have more "high-rises" sure, that doesn't make it inherently larger.
The only cities who's downtowns operate on different built enviornment playing fields is NYC, Chicago & Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman
Finally, instead of building heights, why not look at total number of high-rise buildings (with high-rise defined as between 35 and 100 meters or between 12 and 35 stories). That’s a better metric than just looking at skyscrapers.
You are vastly underestimating Vancouver’s structural density.
I'm not underestimating anything above Vancouver... Miami has the same amount of high rises as Vancouver adjusted for land area (one has to included North/Miami Beach).. that doesn't make either one of them as urban as cities +100 years older than them, with housing stock that's organically urban in design and function
Saying Vancouver has 768 high-rises in no more relevant than saying Baltimore has more row-homes than all the other cities put together by an order of magnitude. How they interact with the environment determines their urbanism.
Vancouver will never have DC or Baltimore's overlying structural density unless it plans on rebuilding its entire street grid/housing stock.
Last edited by Joakim3; 04-02-2020 at 11:53 PM..
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.
