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 7,547,924 times
Reputation: 5785
Advertisements
Baltimore still, is a more urban city proper than Seattle pound for pound. It simply was created to be more of a classically urban center, and housed almost 1 million people in 80 sq miles at its peak.
Today, Seattle is a more complete, cosmopolitan, big city, with a better skyline and downtown overall. Once you get further away from the DT of both cities, Baltimore stays more urban in build for much longer.
Yes. Very good points made here. I love the urbanity of the NE, and while Seattle has become more urban it still has a ways to go to meet areas like Baltimore.
None of those small, boxy buildings even come close to the beauty of Seattle's skyline. The only thing Baltimore has going for it is the waterfront backdrop, which is nice. But Baltimore's skyline is pathetic.
None of those pictures are even close to the pictures of Seattle's skyline that the other poster posted.
None of those small, boxy buildings even come close to the beauty of Seattle's skyline. The only thing Baltimore has going for it is the waterfront backdrop, which is nice. But Baltimore's skyline is pathetic.
None of those pictures are even close to the pictures of Seattle's skyline that the other poster posted.
No one is contesting Seattle having the prettier skyline, but aesthetics has zero to do with density or urbanity.
Boxy yes, but I wouldn’t call anything in downtown Baltimore “small” when the vast majority of Seattle’s skyline growth has come in the shape skinny copy and paste glass 440-480’ Condo towers. As of 2021 Seattle has built a grand total of.... wait for it..... 3... buildings taller than Baltimore’s TransAmerica in the last 2 decades.
They are both in the same scale bracket in the terms of building size. Seattle just obviously builds a wayyyyy more
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.
500k... yeah unless you think the city is going to continuously shrink for the next half a century..
Its taken almost 2 decades for the city to shed 50k. Almost every projections/statistic shows that cities population loss for all intents and purposes has bottomed out. It’s not going to get much lower than it currently is.
The underlying tax base has skyrocketed in the last half decade, which is supported by the current +95% occupancy rate in the luxury apartment market (even through the pandemic), the sale premium of condominiums from out of state residents (NYC in particular) and the massive jump in medium home asking price. There’s a substantial influx of new residents starting to park money in the city.
You're downgrading Seattle for building a lot of 440-484' residential towers?
Yes, greater Downtown's growth has a ton of residential. About 38,000 starts since mid-2010 in an area of four square miles or so.
It's also added or has underway about 16,000,000 square feet of offices since then. And 4,000 hotel rooms. And long tunnels for transit and getting a highway out of the way.
We haven't built a ton of really tall buildings in those 20 years (849', 660', 598' iirc). But we've built a decent number of commercial towers that height limits kept to just over 500'...three for Amazon, the Hyatt Regency, 2+U, IDX, 5th & Madison.
If you want to compete on skyline, try Bellevue. It has a 600' Amazon tower underway, and a second in site prep. Its other five tallest are all right at 450', its old height limit. By 2023, Bellevue's seven tallest will be more impressive than Baltimore's. Six others at the 600' limit are proposed.
You're downgrading Seattle for building a lot of 440-484' residential towers?
Yes, greater Downtown's growth has a ton of residential. About 38,000 starts since mid-2010 in an area of four square miles or so.
It's also added or has underway about 16,000,000 square feet of offices since then. And 4,000 hotel rooms. And long tunnels for transit and getting a highway out of the way.
We haven't built a ton of really tall buildings in those 20 years (849', 660', 598' iirc). But we've built a decent number of commercial towers that height limits kept to just over 500'...three for Amazon, the Hyatt Regency, 2+U, IDX, 5th & Madison.
If you want to compete on skyline, try Bellevue. It has a 600' Amazon tower underway, and a second in site prep. Its other five tallest are all right at 450', its old height limit. By 2023, Bellevue's seven tallest will be more impressive than Baltimore's. Six others at the 600' limit are proposed.
Where in all of that did I downgrade Seattle?
I simply said both cities throw up roughly the same size residential buildings so the whole notion that Baltimore’s buildings are “small” is silly. Obviously Seattle wins anything numerically.
No one (myself included) is trying to argue Baltimore’s CBD is even remotely developed as Seattle’s
Bellevue will have more 600’ towers than Baltimore, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Cleveland, Detroit & San Diego and you’d still be hard pressed to find anyone who would put its skyline on or above any of those cities. Baltimore is on the smaller end of the spectrum w/ 24 buildings over 100m, Bellevue (including every proposal) will only have 16. It simply lacks the architectural layering, infill and urban breadth that compliments those impact towers becuase it’s not the central city to a metro i.e Tysons, VA
None of those small, boxy buildings even come close to the beauty of Seattle's skyline. The only thing Baltimore has going for it is the waterfront backdrop, which is nice. But Baltimore's skyline is pathetic.
How is Baltimore’s skyline “pathetic”? It has a mix of architectural styles, colors, & heights. Every skyline has it’s “ugly” buildings but overall the skyline is really nice. But that wasn’t the point of me posting. I wasn’t trying to compare skylines. I posted those pictures to show the true urbanity and beauty of Baltimore from various angles. I was simply giving Baltimore credit where it’s due.
Quote:
Originally Posted by personone
None of those pictures are even close to the pictures of Seattle's skyline that the other poster posted.
I’d say they come pretty close. Seattle’s is more impressive because it has more height.That’s all.
500k... yeah unless you think the city is going to continuously shrink for the next half a century..
Its taken almost 2 decades for the city to shed 50k. Almost every projections/statistic shows that cities population loss for all intents and purposes has bottomed out. It’s not going to get much lower than it currently is.
The underlying tax base has skyrocketed in the last half decade, which is supported by the current +95% occupancy rate in the luxury apartment market (even through the pandemic), the sale premium of condominiums from out of state residents (NYC in particular) and the massive jump in medium home asking price. There’s a substantial influx of new residents starting to park money in the city.
That's good to hear. We need it.
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.
