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.
I recently was in Seattle. Regarding the downtown, I was stunned about how huge the downtown area is, in terms of just the physical size in terms of number of blocks as well as the walls of extremely tall, glass high-rise buildings. I didn't necessarily love the downtown because the streets are largely one-way and filled with cars. That combined with the tall, glass buildings made downtown Seattle seem like more of a business area than a charming place to walk around and visit.
On the other hand, the outskirts of downtown quickly becomes extremely vibrant. There were hordes of young people walking everywhere and countless gyms, dance places, etc - with windows onto the street so that you could see people dancing and working out as you walked by. It seemed ideal for people in their 20s. Going further north the area transitioned to mostly apartment buildings but dotted with restaurants and bars on the corners, which I loved. Those areas managed to be quiet and vibrant at the same time, just the right balance for me.
But Seattle's big calling card is the countless neighborhoods filled with bungalow style houses from the early 1900s. They are building countless apartment buildings along the main thoroughfares through these neighborhoods and countless, quaint little areas of cafes and coffee shops.
My main complaint about Seattle is that I'm shocked they don't have a London-style subway system. In London you can walk maximum three blocks and catch the subway. In Seattle the interstates are at a complete standstill, basically a giant parking lot, so you have to drive around surface streets which are also dense with traffic due to the many apartment buildings that have increased the density of the city. And don't even think about driving anywhere near the University of Washington. Fagettaboutit.
The traffic for me might be a deal breaker for choosing to live there, but I love the architecture and the endless numbers of cute coffee shops etc, plus many nice parks and countless water views. Also Seattle is blessed with almost no crime-ridden urban areas like you find in most cities.
To the extent that Seattle has violent crime, it's because there isn't a police car in sight. I'm used to almost always having a police car within eye view as I ride around town (thank God), but in Seattle due to its mostly educated population, they don't seem to have any police, at least not visibly. In any event, doubtless the reason they are so open to filling their neighborhoods with apartment buildings is that that don't fear those apartments going down in 20 years and ultimately the neighborhood being overcome with armed robberies, carjackings, murders, etc.
In any event, I can't speak for San Diego, but I will say as for Seattle, if they ever put in London-style subways, I may be checking out homes for sale in the area.
I recently was in Seattle. Regarding the downtown, I was stunned about how huge the downtown area is, in terms of just the physical size in terms of number of blocks as well as the walls of extremely tall, glass high-rise buildings. I didn't necessarily love the downtown because the streets are largely one-way and filled with cars. That combined with the tall, glass buildings made downtown Seattle seem like more of a business area than a charming place to walk around and visit.
On the other hand, the outskirts of downtown quickly becomes extremely vibrant. There were hordes of young people walking everywhere and countless gyms, dance places, etc - with windows onto the street so that you could see people dancing and working out as you walked by. It seemed ideal for people in their 20s. Going further north the area transitioned to mostly apartment buildings but dotted with restaurants and bars on the corners, which I loved. Those areas managed to be quiet and vibrant at the same time, just the right balance for me.
But Seattle's big calling card is the countless neighborhoods filled with bungalow style houses from the early 1900s. They are building countless apartment buildings along the main thoroughfares through these neighborhoods and countless, quaint little areas of cafes and coffee shops.
My main complaint about Seattle is that I'm shocked they don't have a London-style subway system. In London you can walk maximum three blocks and catch the subway. In Seattle the interstates are at a complete standstill, basically a giant parking lot, so you have to drive around surface streets which are also dense with traffic due to the many apartment buildings that have increased the density of the city. And don't even think about driving anywhere near the University of Washington. Fagettaboutit.
The traffic for me might be a deal breaker for choosing to live there, but I love the architecture and the endless numbers of cute coffee shops etc, plus many nice parks and countless water views. Also Seattle is blessed with almost no crime-ridden urban areas like you find in most cities.
To the extent that Seattle has violent crime, it's because there isn't a police car in sight. I'm used to almost always having a police car within eye view as I ride around town (thank God), but in Seattle due to its mostly educated population, they don't seem to have any police, at least not visibly. In any event, doubtless the reason they are so open to filling their neighborhoods with apartment buildings is that that don't fear those apartments going down in 20 years and ultimately the neighborhood being overcome with armed robberies, carjackings, murders, etc.
In any event, I can't speak for San Diego, but I will say as for Seattle, if they ever put in London-style subways, I may be checking out homes for sale in the area.
Yep, Seattle seems to be somewhat going for what's happened in Vancouver and Toronto where major thoroughfares. downtown, and secondary CBDs are getting developed while places further from such are more or less left as they are. This means it'll get kind of splotchy with density drops in some places, but the major thoroughfares aren't that far apart so essentially even those lower density blocks end up walking distance of high-density, mixed-use parts.
Seattle blew its earlier chance in the 70s to have a large rail transit system, but is now, paying a lot more and doing this a lot later, embarking on a fairly large for a US city expansion of it's mostly grade-separated light rail system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_l...uture_segments
That'll help a lot. There's also the cute monorail and commuter rail. Seattle could ostensibly make the commuter rail a bit more useful and more like such trains in Europe, East Asia, and Oceania (and where Toronto is headed with its own commuter rail system) with some through-running, fare adjustment, frequency increase, and a couple of infill, but it has less potential than other US cities for that as there aren't that many intact branches and right-of-ways they can quickly make use of, but it can be something of note.
I guess we're supposed to ignore this though, doesn't really fit the prevailing narrative on this thread.
I'm sure Seattle has these all over the place, probably all adjacent to light metro stations.
I said Seattle has a big lead. Meaning a head start.
In 2004 we averaged 1.57 parking spaces per new apartment within city limits. Completions in 2017 averaged 0.63. About 30% of buildings in high-transit areas (many with just buses) had no parking at all.
We've continued to liberalize the rules since then, and continued to focus most housing growth near transit.
Based on a quick review of SD's LUC, it looks like it might be around our 2004 figure still! That should change as CA gets out fo the dark ages. Developers will jump at it of course.
But catching up to Seattle, when even today's completions are often under the old rules?
Yep, Seattle seems to be somewhat going for what's happened in Vancouver and Toronto where major thoroughfares. downtown, and secondary CBDs are getting developed while places further from such are more or less left as they are. This means it'll get kind of splotchy with density drops in some places, but the major thoroughfares aren't that far apart so essentially even those lower density blocks end up walking distance of high-density, mixed-use parts.
Seattle blew its earlier chance in the 70s to have a large rail transit system, but is now, paying a lot more and doing this a lot later, embarking on a fairly large for a US city expansion of it's mostly grade-separated light rail system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_l...uture_segments
That'll help a lot. There's also the cute monorail and commuter rail. Seattle could ostensibly make the commuter rail a bit more useful and more like such trains in Europe, East Asia, and Oceania (and where Toronto is headed with its own commuter rail system) with some through-running, fare adjustment, frequency increase, and a couple of infill, but it has less potential than other US cities for that as there aren't that many intact branches and right-of-ways they can quickly make use of, but it can be something of note.
Buses, including express routes in HOV or bus lanes, will continue to be our primary transit service even while we add rail. That's why our metro area transit commute rate was 10.7% in 2019 vs. 2.8% for SD or 4.8% for LA.
Buses, including express routes in HOV or bus lanes, will continue to be our primary transit service even while we add rail. That's why our metro area transit commute rate was 10.7% in 2019 vs. 2.8% for SD or 4.8% for LA.
Yea, I expect buses to be the backbone of most US cities for a long while as we don't have much in ambitious rail build out nor much will to figure out why the capital costs of building such is so absurdly high in the US.
SD, also partly due to state government, is also concentrating growth with transit, so in a sense the two are going down similar pathways.
Buses, including express routes in HOV or bus lanes, will continue to be our primary transit service even while we add rail. That's why our metro area transit commute rate was 10.7% in 2019 vs. 2.8% for SD or 4.8% for LA.
But by 2040 the region is planning to have 120+ miles of rail (incrementally added between now and then) that will serve as the backbone of the system and much of the bus service will be oriented around getting people to the rail stations. Vancouver, Toronto, Chicago, etc. all have a similar approach: a robust bus system to supplement the rail system, which is the true back bone of transit in the region. Seattle is behind but it's ambitious in what it's trying to build to catch up to these cities. Over the next 10-15 years you see the balance shift from buses to rail. And many of the buses will be consolidated into BRT or BRT-lite style lines.
And don't even think about driving anywhere near the University of Washington. Fagettaboutit.
There are two subway rail stations in the University District - one by the stadium and one in the middle of the business district. It's an 8 minute ride on the train from Capitol Hill, while it can be a 45-minute drive during rush hour. Next time don't drive there - take the train!
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickpatio2018
Also Seattle is blessed with almost no crime-ridden urban areas like you find in most cities.
To the extent that Seattle has violent crime, it's because there isn't a police car in sight. I'm used to almost always having a police car within eye view as I ride around town (thank God), but in Seattle due to its mostly educated population, they don't seem to have any police, at least not visibly.
This isn't really accurate. Not as bad as places like Philadelphia or Oakland, but Seattle does have some relatively high crime areas in the city and especially in the suburbs and cities to the South. This year Seattle is on pace for 62 murders, which puts the rate at 8.2 per 100K people. This is much higher than places like San Diego and San Jose, which are between 2 and 3 per 100K people. Violent Crime in Seattle aside from murder is also much higher than many other cities, although also much better than many others as well.
If you go south of the city you'll hit suburbs like Kent and Federal Way, etc. that have substantially higher murder and violent crime rates than Seattle. And Tacoma - about 30 minutes south of Seattle and part of the metro - has had an explosion of gang-related killings recently. The murder rate there this year is in the 20s, not too far below where Washington DC is.
Overall, it's a relatively safe city, no doubt, but it is not among the elite safe American cities like San Diego, San Jose, El Paso, Boston, etc. Certain areas of the region have a fair amount of crime.
But by 2040 the region is planning to have 120+ miles of rail (incrementally added between now and then) that will serve as the backbone of the system and much of the bus service will be oriented around getting people to the rail stations. Vancouver, Toronto, Chicago, etc. all have a similar approach: a robust bus system to supplement the rail system, which is the true back bone of transit in the region. Seattle is behind but it's ambitious in what it's trying to build to catch up to these cities. Over the next 10-15 years you see the balance shift from buses to rail. And many of the buses will be consolidated into BRT or BRT-lite style lines.
Has Sound Transit announced any financial shortfalls due to inflation for planned expansion as have impacted plans in other cities such as LA and Austin?
There are two subway rail stations in the University District - one by the stadium and one in the middle of the business district. It's an 8 minute ride on the train from Capitol Hill, while it can be a 45-minute drive during rush hour. Next time don't drive there - take the train!
This isn't really accurate. Not as bad as places like Philadelphia or Oakland, but Seattle does have some relatively high crime areas in the city and especially in the suburbs and cities to the South. This year Seattle is on pace for 62 murders, which puts the rate at 8.2 per 100K people. This is much higher than places like San Diego and San Jose, which are between 2 and 3 per 100K people. Violent Crime in Seattle aside from murder is also much higher than many other cities, although also much better than many others as well.
If you go south of the city you'll hit suburbs like Kent and Federal Way, etc. that have substantially higher murder and violent crime rates than Seattle. And Tacoma - about 30 minutes south of Seattle and part of the metro - has had an explosion of gang-related killings recently. The murder rate there this year is in the 20s, not too far below where Washington DC is.
Overall, it's a relatively safe city, no doubt, but it is not among the elite safe American cities like San Diego, San Jose, El Paso, Boston, etc. Certain areas of the region have a fair amount of crime.
If Seattle's non-murder violent crime rates are high, I suspect it's because we report a larger percentage of them. Said differently, I bet high-murder cities have lower reporting percentages for other violent crimes.
Has Sound Transit announced any financial shortfalls due to inflation for planned expansion as have impacted plans in other cities such as LA and Austin?
Yes. Some projects will take substantially longer. They're also figuring out big questions on alignment, station locations, etc., for all the non-UC phases. For example will Ballard get a bridge or a tunnel and what street will it connect to (maybe 14th).
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.
