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.
5 ish mile drive (unsure exact because of recent detour)
The difference between those and what I posted for Baltimore (and to an even greater extension DC) is that there is zero urban breaks in between. Seattle (and Vancouver) have pockets of high density development or TOD locations and then density falls off a cliff until you hit the next one.
Baltimore and for sure DC aren't built like that.
3.5 mile drive (downtown is visible off in the distance just for scale)
DC & Baltimore like Philly, Boston, SF, Chicago & NYC (the usual urban prize "winners") all have largely retained their prewar built forms across the entirety of their cityscape, not just sections of it.
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.
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
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.
Vancouver is just over half the size of Seattle in area and yet it has 200 more total buildings. That is the definition of being more structurally dense. And it’s more noticeable in the core. It sounds like you’ve never been to Vancouver so that might explain the disconnect.
You mentioned boosterism but I’m not a Vancouver booster. If anything, I’ve been accused of being a Seattle homer. I just think there are a number of tangible, measurable factors - including built environment but also other factors that define urbanity - where Vancouver excels over Seattle. I’m not saying it’s exponentially more urban or at the level of NYC or Chicago, but it is noticeably above Seattle, at least for now. Outside a few northeast cities, Chicago and SF, Vancouver has a strong case as the most intensely built urban core in the US/Canada.
The difference between those and what I posted for Baltimore (and to an even greater extension DC) is that there is zero urban breaks in between. Seattle (and Vancouver) have pockets of high density development or TOD locations and then density falls off a cliff until you hit the next one.
Baltimore and for sure DC aren't built like that.
3.5 mile drive (downtown is visible off in the distance just for scale)
DC & Baltimore like Philly, Boston, SF, Chicago & NYC (the usual urban prize "winners") all have largely retained their prewar built forms across the entirety of their cityscape, not just sections of it.
This is true - Seattle has some great urban districts and nodes throughout the city but there are large swaths of single family zones in between. There are a lot of cool neighborhoods to explore in Seattle but unlike SF or Philly they’re not all crunched together outside of the urban core. It’s stil fun in a lot of ways - I can go to Georgetown, White Center, Alaska Junction, Admiral District (examples of neighborhoods far from where I live) and feel like I’m exploring all these mini-downtowns with cool bars and restaurants, and yet I’m still in the same city. In other words, there are a lot of opportunities for exploration but it requires moving between different centers. I’m excited for the development of the grade-separated rail system which will do a better job of connecting everything.
This map gives a sense of the disconnected nature of the concentrated urban areas in Seattle. You can see that outside the core they’re more scattered. Now I should clarify, this map doesn’t show all of them (only the ones being upzoned and there are plenty that are missing) but again it gives a rough sense of the distribution of urban districts once you get out of downtown and the inner neighborhoods.
Last edited by Vincent_Adultman; 04-03-2020 at 02:39 AM..
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.
Hi -- do you have a source for this and also what the rough boundaries of this 5 sq mile area would be? Thanks
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 bostonkid123
Oh boy, here we go again. The never ending apples-to-oranges Vancouver vs. DC debate...
There's no debate. DC's urban core is wider, longer, and expands further across a larger area with consistent structural urbanity than Vancouver. In relation to this thread that is not debatable.
I don't understand what's so hard for them to understand.
The difference between those and what I posted for Baltimore (and to an even greater extension DC) is that there is zero urban breaks in between. Seattle (and Vancouver) have pockets of high density development or TOD locations and then density falls off a cliff until you hit the next one.
Baltimore and for sure DC aren't built like that.
3.5 mile drive (downtown is visible off in the distance just for scale)
DC & Baltimore like Philly, Boston, SF, Chicago & NYC (the usual urban prize "winners") all have largely retained their prewar built forms across the entirety of their cityscape, not just sections of it.
Disregarding population, do you really think Baltimore is the same even structurally as it was at its peak? It takes people and money to maintain the built form. Its not a donut in the same way that some midwestern cities are but its not hard to find significant gaps and empty spaces due to abandonment and decay either.
Disregarding population, do you really think Baltimore is the same even structurally as it was at its peak? It takes people and money to maintain the built form. Its not a donut in the same way that some midwestern cities are but its not hard to find significant gaps and empty spaces due to abandonment and decay either.
even where its most abandoned/decayed its still looks very urban
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.
