Which is the more urban city: Seattle vs. Baltimore (cost, metropolitan, ranking)
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.
Baltimore has better urban 'bones,' Seattle has better urban 'meat,' if that makes sense.
I think that's somewhat changing though--a bit of the bones of Baltimore in regards to its structural density has been gradually reduced or removed. A pretty tiny percentage of it in the scheme of things, but it has been happening over the decades. Both Seattle and Baltimore saw some highways cut through neighborhoods and level things mid 20th century as well as some leveling of structures for surface parking lots, but Baltimore has also seen some of its structures slowly disappear with vacant houses becoming dilapidated and then removed whether intentionally or unintentionally. Meanwhile, Seattle also knocked down some structures, but sometimes did so as part of constructing even denser structures. Seattle's even gone some extra steps in removing a large elevated highway and making a tunnel in its place to open up that surface for parks and development and is debating further capping another freeway that's currently in a trench (and has a small freeway cap park). So Seattle is actually getting structurally denser over this time and not just adding population density.
I think that's somewhat changing though--a bit of the bones of Baltimore in regards to its structural density has been gradually reduced or removed. A pretty tiny percentage of it in the scheme of things, but it has been happening over the decades. Both Seattle and Baltimore saw some highways cut through neighborhoods and level things mid 20th century as well as some leveling of structures for surface parking lots, but Baltimore has also seen some of its structures slowly disappear with vacant houses becoming dilapidated and then removed whether intentionally or unintentionally. Meanwhile, Seattle also knocked down some structures, but sometimes did so as part of constructing even denser structures. Seattle's even gone some extra steps in removing a large elevated highway and making a tunnel in its place to open up that surface for parks and development and is debating further capping another freeway that's currently in a trench (and has a small freeway cap park). So Seattle is actually getting structurally denser over this time and not just adding population density.
You all should see Brewers Hill in Baltimore, theyve built a whole mini neighborhood. With some development spilling up to Greektown too. Folks are still building large apartment complexes and other building in Baltimore, Especially along S Central Avenue and South/East
You all should see Brewers Hill in Baltimore, theyve built a whole mini neighborhood. With some development spilling up to Greektown too. Folks are still building large apartment complexes and other building in Baltimore, Especially along S Central Avenue and South/East
Yea, and there's definitely dense and ongoing development in Baltimore as well since with something as large as the 80+ square miles of land area both cities cover, there's going to be quite a bit of variation in how neighborhoods fare. However, Seattle's parts that are getting structurally denser seem to be more widespread and doing so more quickly overall and meanwhile it doesn't really have the parts that are getting less structurally dense. I don't want to overemphasize the structural "loss" in some Baltimore neighborhoods--it's not like anything close to a majority of Baltimore neighborhoods are going through this nor that those which are are all doing so at a particularly rapid pace. It's just that it is happening and ongoing and so it's more like a gradual attrition in parts (save for the early highway destruction that both cities saw, but Baltimore had much more to lose with those than Seattle generally did as Baltimore back then was far and away the structurally denser and more populous city). Meanwhile, Seattle didn't just add more population density and housing to somewhat support such, though it certainly did do that and often in a way that replaced parking lots and lower structural density buildings in doing so, but also added significantly more commercial, hotels and office space which contribute to structural density even if they don't directly change population density as well as made large infrastructure changes with burying a long highway, boring tunnels for light rail, and doing more road diets.
I think even a ago Baltimore had a strong case for being the more urban, more structurally dense city. In that decade since, it's been a slow overall attrition for Baltimore coupled with rapid growth and construction in Seattle. I certainly don't think it had to be this way or that things can't change with Baltimore's trajectory. Baltimore is in many ways a very attractive city that has a legacy seen in its dense, historic neighborhoods that is quite difficult to recreate, and I really wish the transit projects that were originally headed its way had actually happened and that more people flocked to Baltimore and rehabbed more of the existing structures in lieu of demolition.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 04-27-2021 at 11:56 AM..
Yea, and there's definitely dense and ongoing development in Baltimore as well since with something as large as the 80+ square miles of land area both cities cover, there's going to be quite a bit of variation in how neighborhoods fare. However, Seattle's parts that are getting structurally denser seem to be more widespread and doing so more quickly overall and meanwhile it doesn't really have the parts that are getting less structurally dense. I don't want to overemphasize the structural "loss" in some Baltimore neighborhoods--it's not like anything close to a majority of Baltimore neighborhoods are going through this nor that those which are are all doing so at a particularly rapid pace. It's just that it is happening and ongoing and so it's more like a gradual attrition in parts (save for the early highway destruction that both cities saw, but Baltimore had much more to lose with those than Seattle generally did as Baltimore back then was far and away the structurally denser and more populous city). Meanwhile, Seattle didn't just add more population density and housing to somewhat support such, though it certainly did do that and often in a way that replaced parking lots and lower structural density buildings in doing so, but also added significantly more commercial, hotels and office space which contribute to structural density even if they don't directly change population density as well as made large infrastructure changes with burying a long highway, boring tunnels for light rail, and doing more road diets.
I think even a ago Baltimore had a strong case for being the more urban, more structurally dense city. In that decade since, it's been a slow overall attrition for Baltimore coupled with rapid growth and construction in Seattle. I certainly don't think it had to be this way or that things can't change with Baltimore's trajectory. Baltimore is in many ways a very attractive city that has a legacy seen in its dense, historic neighborhoods that is quite difficult to recreate, and I really wish the transit projects that were originally headed its way had actually happened and that more people flocked to Baltimore and rehabbed more of the existing structures in lieu of demolition.
You seem to only think urbanity is about urban structures, including abandoned ones, which is a bizarre take on urbanity TBH.
I guessed you skipped over the part where myself and everyone else in this thread have long been in agreement that Seattle is the more urban city in function which is another way we all can measure urbanity. The debate atm is if Seattle has surpassed Baltimore in structural ubranism.
Regarding the housing abandonment issues, you do realize those abandoned lots represent a minuscule amount of overall cityscape which is why no one here except you brings them up... so you’re take is just as opinionated
Household density is much higher in Seattle due to lower avg HH sizes. Baltimore is also becoming less dense as population declines and has something like 17,000 abandoned buildings. Anything abandoned in Seattle will be bought by developers and turned into something. Anything abandoned in Baltimore goes on the list to be bulldozed.
Seattle's skyline has blossomed, with 45 buildings over 400 feet, nearly as many as San Francisco, and most built since 2000. Baltimore has 8 buildings over 400 feet, with just one built in the last 20 years. Private developers finance projects in Seattle while Baltimore relies on "TIF" or tax incentive financing because no developer can make money there without a subsidy.
"Vibrancy" in Baltimore is a bunch of dudes in jean shorts hanging out by the Inner Harbor at chain restaurants, along with a bunch of thug kids on bikes and their friends nearby squeegee'ing car windshields. It doesn't compared to Pike Place in any way, shape, or form. The few other parts of Baltimore with walkable bar/restaurant areas like Fells Point and Federal Hill are 1/10th the size of Ballard, Capitol Hill, Belltown, or Fremont and have very few new places.
This could be the silliest, most one sided comparison I've ever seen on C vs. C.
Don't make me discuss all the fecal throwing, encampments, disease, human waste, drug needles & deranged homeless people who are taking over WHOLE Seattle & San Francisco neighborhoods. Camping on all of your sidewalks & every open spot of land available. Must I pull the receipts. The YouTube videos and newspaper articles are everywhere to be found on how San Fran & Seattle are becoming one big homeless shelter & open toilet.
Baltimore has issues with a murder rate stemming from ruthless drug turf wars. Almost all of which is is strategically targeted against those who are also i that lifestyle. Let's not pretend that Seattle & San Francisco are Utopia because we all know better.
You can boost Seattle without tearing down Baltimore! Let's not be "silly!"
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.
