Which city can most legitimately claim to be "coastal?" (rates, job)

[mhays25]

Until the 1990s, Seattle sprawled badly. Since then the sprawl has dropped dramatically due to growth management rules and other factors.

[Champ le monstre du lac]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Every North American metro area has sprawl. Seattle's suburbs are no different, it's good for an American city but when looking at the whole world, it's not nearly as impressive. It could still be argued that it isn't on the coast for some people but not me.

Well yeah, that's always the nature of suburbs outside the city even for the most urban older legacy cities, but that wasn't my point. I was referring to the city of Seattle itself.

What I was saying was, Seattle is not as sprawly as a sunbelt city and it's not quite as urban as an older legacy city, it's somewhere in between in that grey area. The density is pretty good in the core and by US standards, but would agree not so much by international standards. It's core urban density grew by a lot over the last decade, and it's probably the next tier level down from the older urban legacy cities. If there was a city making a transition over the next century to have a more urban fabric and a less car orientated layout across the city, the most poignant example would be Seattle and its constrained topography and setting supports that. But it still has a good bit of catching up to do with plenty of spread out neighborhoods, so yeah it's not San Francisco. That's why the urban fabric of the city is often debated and sometimes exaggerated. Whereas Dallas, even though it also added a lot of dense urban infill, is undeniably sprawly and auto orientated and will be for many years to come.

To suggest Seattle is not coastal is a ridiculous argument, I stand by that. Just looking at Guineas' photos reminds me of the cool salt water breezes there in the summer.

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by Champ le monstre du lac

Well yeah, that's always the nature of suburbs outside the city even for the most urban older legacy cities, but that wasn't my point. I was referring to the city of Seattle itself.

What I was saying was, Seattle is not as sprawly as a sunbelt city and it's not quite as urban as an older legacy city, it's somewhere in between in that grey area. The density is pretty good in the core and by US standards, but would agree not so much by international standards. It's core urban density grew by a lot over the last decade, and it's probably the next tier level down from the older urban legacy cities. If there was a city making a transition over the next century to have a more urban fabric and a less car orientated layout across the city, the most poignant example would be Seattle and its constrained topography and setting supports that. But it still has a good bit of catching up to do with plenty of spread out neighborhoods, so yeah it's not San Francisco. That's why the urban fabric of the city is often debated and sometimes exaggerated. Whereas Dallas, even though it also added a lot of dense urban infill, is undeniably sprawly and auto orientated and will be for many years to come.

To suggest Seattle is not coastal is a ridiculous argument, I stand by that. Just looking at Guineas' photos reminds me of the cool salt water breezes there in the summer.

Most people who live in a city, I assume, have to use the whole metro. I live in an urban neighborhood but still have to go to more suburban areas frequently. So I reject the idea of only using city limits for almost any discussion.

That's your opinion, I just want people to be consistent in their arguments.

[Gaylord_Focker]

There aren’t a lot of cities like Seattle. It’s pretty unique

[Guineas]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Most people who live in a city, I assume, have to use the whole metro. I live in an urban neighborhood but still have to go to more suburban areas frequently. So I reject the idea of only using city limits for almost any discussion.

That's not true at all. I live in the city proper of Seattle and never really access the metro area for amenities outside of natural ones. Seattle is a very self-contained city despite its small land area and population.

Seattle has the symphony, opera, ballet, zoo, aquarium, arboretum, the only large university in the metro (state flagship is in the city), all professional and state college sports stadiums, all the major academic hospitals, trauma center, children's hospital, all the flagship art, natural history and science museums, nearly all large concert venues, the main ferry terminal, cruise ship terminal, all the largest farmer's markets, U Village mall, and nearly every big box store.

The funny thing about Seattle is even amenities that started in the burbs (like say a soup dumpling place Dough Zone), once they find success, end up creating a clone in the city as well. It's a much more contained city than even cities like Chicago where say the Brookfield Zoo is outside the city proper, or in Boston, where many big box stores are in the suburbs, or Denver, where the major state flagship university and the things that go with that is in Boulder.

[Bicala]

Originally Posted by Guineas

That's not true at all. I live in the city proper of Seattle and never really access the metro area for amenities outside of natural ones. Seattle is a very self-contained city despite its small land area and population.

Seattle has the symphony, opera, ballet, zoo, aquarium, arboretum, the only large university in the metro (state flagship is in the city), all professional and state college sports stadiums, all the major academic hospitals, trauma center, children's hospital, all the flagship art, natural history and science museums, nearly all large concert venues, the main ferry terminal, cruise ship terminal, all the largest farmer's markets, U Village mall, and nearly every big box store.

The funny thing about Seattle is even amenities that started in the burbs (like say a soup dumpling place Dough Zone), once they find success, end up creating a clone in the city as well. It's a much more contained city than even cities like Chicago where say the Brookfield Zoo is outside the city proper, or in Boston, where many big box stores are in the suburbs, or Denver, where the major state flagship university and the things that go with that is in Boulder.

Along that same vein, then, I assume you don't like to include the MSA population of Seattle (when discussing population, growth, etc.), but feel the city proper is much more accurate number. Interesting, because the MSA number is way larger than city proper. So the Brookfield Zoo is outside the city proper, lol, kind of a lame argument, as is where U of Colorado is located. Seriously?? I do count Seattle as coastal, and I like to look at the city as a whole...you know the one with millions of people, rather than just the city proper, with quite a bit less than a million.

[TacoSoup]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Seattle has some pretty annoying boosters. Always claiming it's some urban oasis.

Don’t forget downplaying the crap weather whenever that’s brought up.

[Guineas]

Originally Posted by Bicala

Along that same vein, then, I assume you don't like to include the MSA population of Seattle (when discussing population, growth, etc.), but feel the city proper is much more accurate number. Interesting, because the MSA number is way larger than city proper. So the Brookfield Zoo is outside the city proper, lol, kind of a lame argument, as is where U of Colorado is located. Seriously?? I do count Seattle as coastal, and I like to look at the city as a whole...you know the one with millions of people, rather than just the city proper, with quite a bit less than a million.

Are you actually arguing about something here?

All I am saying is that there is a large number of amenities in the city and much of the non-natural amenities of the Seattle metro area are actually in the city proper and not scattered across the metro area like some other newer American cities despite having a smaller city limits population. This is directly in response to someone above who was saying that you often need to go outside of the metro area for many errands and amenities, but you actually don’t in Seattle because the amenities are largely in the city. Even the small town vibe can be found in the city proper. Although the growth of Bellevue in recent years may change things, but even then it will largely be a two-city dynamic, rather than suburban sprawl and most of the institutional amenities are still in Seattle.

Brookfield Zoo is a good example to highlight that even cities as big as Chicago and several fold bigger than Seattle in land area and population can have a large amenity drawing tons of people well outside into the suburbs. It’s just one example of many and not supposed to be exhaustive. You can say the same for Ravinia etc. Also you might not think having CU in city proper makes a difference or not, but a state flagship is huge and generally has a ton of sporting and non-sports events on its campus practically daily. When that is in another city 40 minutes away instead, it’s definitely spreading your metro area out.

Not every city is the same. Seattle has some unique advantages and disadvantages. But I find it really weird that some people look at its smaller population and size and immediately dismiss it. Instead of talking about actual merits, just use population numbers and ad hominems like “annoying Seattle boosters” to shut down the conversation. Like high school level man.

[Bicala]

Originally Posted by Guineas

Are you actually arguing about something here?

All I am saying is that there is a large number of amenities in the city and much of the non-natural amenities of the Seattle metro area are actually in the city proper and not scattered across the metro area like some other newer American cities despite having a smaller city limits population. This is directly in response to someone above who was saying that you often need to go outside of the metro area for many errands and amenities, but you actually don’t in Seattle because the amenities are largely in the city. Even the small town vibe can be found in the city proper. Although the growth of Bellevue in recent years may change things, but even then it will largely be a two-city dynamic and most of the institutional amenities are still in Seattle.

Brookfield Zoo is a good example to highlight that even cities as big as Chicago and several fold bigger than Seattle in land area and population can have a large amenity drawing tons of people well outside into the suburbs. It’s just one example of many and not supposed to be exhaustive. You can say the same for Ravinia etc. Also you might not think having CU in city proper makes a difference or not, but a state flagship is huge and generally has a ton of sporting and non-sports events on its campus. When that is in a city 40 minutes away instead, it’s definitely spreading your metro area out.

I don't think it makes a city better, because everyone has to cram into the city for all amenities. Why, on earth, does that make a city better? Seattle's population is mostly in the suburbs, and I can't imagine everyone who chose to live in the 'burbs, would want to have to go into the city for whatever it is they desire. A zoo in a suburb, is just fine. I've never heard complaints, and I've got relatives in Chicago. Ravinia, as well. People form the Milwaukee suburbs travel to Ravinia, as it's not far over the border. Kind of weird, IMO, to think every popular amenity should be in the city proper. What do you think about mountains in the Seattle area not being in the city? Are they not as relevant because of this?

[mhays25]

Even if all your activities are within city limits, their customers, workers, etc., are from all over the UA/MSA/CSA/etc. The latter are far more relevant to any discussion that's not about the finer points of municipal administration.