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.
Breathtaking pictures. Baltimore doesn't have any vies that even come close to matching that level of urbanity. These pictures explain why Seattle is much more urban than Baltimore.
Baltimore can definitely compete with Seattle when it comes to Urbanity/viewpoints.
It's closer than Personone is giving it credit for.
How about at street level. I'd think it would be pretty close.
At street level? Hmmm... based on just the CBDs of each city, in terms of that “urban” feel and density, I would say Seattle. But overall, I would say Baltimore is more urban.
Seattle has been a case where its either overcast and mild drizzle for weeks / months, or the sun is out for several weeks from my experience.
Disagree. Again I'll speak as someone who doesn't like sunlight that much (though it was a great on a bike today). Even in the winter, most days seem to have some sun at some point.
At street level? Hmmm... based on just the CBDs of each city, in terms of that “urban” feel and density, I would say Seattle. But overall, I would say Baltimore is more urban.
I'm sure it will. People don't think our buildings are tall enough to classify as a CBD. Since most business are moving away from downtown, we'll just left with 500ft apartments.
The two are an odd couple. Baltimore definitely has the bones of an urban city. There really is no denying that, with dense in city residential. That said, Seattle has more modern urban neighborhoods, to be expected as it is a younger and vibrant city. The two really don’t resemble each other on many levels.
Baltimore in theory based on bones, Seattle in practice
Yeah, Baltimore has a more cohesive urban vernacular with miles of rowhouses. Seattle's default land use is basically a streetcar suburb.
But, in practice, Seattle is far more vibrant. It has a bigger downtown, with a much larger residential population and then dense clusters of "urban villages" throughout the rest of the city. Baltimore has the look of an very urban east coast city, but, in practice, much of the city is below capacity.
In 2000, I would have said Baltimore. Seattle was over rated (peak Frasier effect) relative to its actual urban foot print. Baltimore 652k vs. Seattle 563k
In 2010, I would have said they were pretty close. With each excelling in various areas. Baltimore had stagnated (some growth in the core/some decline in the outer area.) Seattle had done an impressive job infilling and punching out density. Baltimore 621k vs. Seattle 609k.
By 2020, I'm comfortable saying Seattle is the more vibrant and functionally urban city. Baltimore has continued to stagnate (and frankly the past 6 years have been less positive than the '05-'15 period). Seattle has just exploded. It has arguably been the most rapidly urbanizing city in the county. Baltimore 609k vs. Seattle 724k (2019 estimates.)
Baltimore's population will get down to about 500k before City Hall realizes that there is a problem. Baltimore is making very minute improvements, no where near the level of anything on the West Coast on the rest of the South.
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.
