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've spent lots of time in both. Seattle has a more walkable, urban core, and its a more centralized city. Now, outside of downtown there are a number of semi-suburbanish neighborhoods, but even those typically have a walkable "main strip" area (Ballard, Fremont, U. District, Columbia City). Also, even without a light rail (until mid-July, that is) it's easier to get around than in LA. (I agree though, Seattle is clearly not San Francisco...)
L.A.'s downtown isn't as walkable or pedestrian-filled, and there are lots of strip-mallish areas across the city. Now, there certainly are dense, urban areas as well, but it has a more patchwork quality to it...
As for Portland, the downtown areas (SW and NW quadrants) are very walkable and urban. Even though it feels like a smaller city, it has an urban quality to it that many other US cities lack
Seattle is pretty urban when you compare it to the majority of sunbelt cities, but when you compare it to LA. I think they are on the same level. LA has tons of walkable areas. I'd even go as far as to say, that LA might be more walkable than Seattle.
I've spent lots of time in both. Seattle has a more walkable, urban core, and its a more centralized city. Now, outside of downtown there are a number of semi-suburbanish neighborhoods, but even those typically have a walkable "main strip" area (Ballard, Fremont, U. District, Columbia City). Also, even without a light rail (until mid-July, that is) it's easier to get around than in LA. (I agree though, Seattle is clearly not San Francisco...)
L.A.'s downtown isn't as walkable or pedestrian-filled, and there are lots of strip-mallish areas across the city. Now, there certainly are dense, urban areas as well, but it has a more patchwork quality to it...
As for Portland, the downtown areas (SW and NW quadrants) are very walkable and urban. Even though it feels like a smaller city, it has an urban quality to it that many other US cities lack
So, should we judge what a real "city" is by how urban their downtown is or how big their urban core is? Portland does not have a very large urban core. Providence, which is much smaller feels more urban than Portland does--except for when you compare downtowns.
Let's face it, there is a huge North-South divide in this country from east to west. No cities in the south can actually pretend to be real cities.
LA is the one city that really tries, or at least wants to feel, like it is a true city. And in many ways it outdoes Miami, Atlanta, and Houston in terms of being an actual city. But is isn't...NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, Philly, etc--these are real cities. Cities in the South of this country (and I don't mean 'the south' as a region, I mean literally the southern half) just arent' quite there yet...
Cities like NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Philly--even Portland--, actually feel like realy cities.
Everyone always divides it by East/West...but the real division is North/South across the country. In the north you get real cities, in the South you get sprawl.
From San Francisco across to Annapolis is about the true dividing line...
So let me get this straight...Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Albuquerque, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Little Rock, Phoenix, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans, Charlotte, Nashville, and Memphis don't feel like real cities to you? Wow...somebody hasn't been to the Southern part of the country. East to West is a far more accurate term when discussing the entire country. When discussing the eastern half of the country, I normally compare cities by cultural differences...in the west, I compare them by topography more. There is far less cultural variance in the Western half of the country than in the Eastern half.
So, should we judge what a real "city" is by how urban their downtown is or how big their urban core is? Portland does not have a very large urban core. Providence, which is much smaller feels more urban than Portland does--except for when you compare downtowns.
I disagree with that statement. Providence is grittier than Portland, but in no way does it feel more urban to me...
LA is a very unique city. As a whole, no it's not very walkable. However, MANY areas are walkable. Downtown (South Park and the Historic core) are pretty walkable. Pretty much most of Mid City (K-Town, Mid Wilshire, Miracle Mile) is walkable as well as most of Hollywood. This is easily a good 40% of the city. The rest (San Fernando Valley, Lakeview Terrace, Porter Ranch) is terribly suburban.
If San Francisco is the North, then San Jose is also the north. Let's also not forget about the poster child of poor urban planning Tyson's Corner. I've read case studies about Tyson's Corner. To be fair, the city where I'm from has become the synonymous with sprawl.
All I'm saying is that LA is a VERY urban in many places. Even it's suburbs are the densest suburbs in the nation. Chicago, prior to the advent of skyscrapers, was considered a fragmented city in search of a center...sound familiar?
We all know that most people making comments on all of these cities are only going by what they have heard/read and by photos they've seen. If everyone would only discuss cities they are truly familiar with, these threads would be less controversial.
People need to learn to read for context and understand what the OP really meant to say instead of being overly literal and looking for ways to get offended.
What he wrote wasn't esoteric in the least. It's right there in black and white. How can somewhat misinterpret was was plainly written?
I disagree with that statement. Providence is grittier than Portland, but in no way does it feel more urban to me...
I agree with you as far as downtown is concerned and I rightly stated as much. But outside of Portland's downtown did not seem more urban to me. Maybe a lot more of "new urbanism" development, but not more compact, dense and urban as PVD outside of DT, IMO.
I stand corrected, you are right about that. Much of the NE and SE quadrants in Portland arent that urban, while Providence outside of downtown is fairly urban.
However, I still feel like Portland is more urban overall because of it's downtown. A walkable, dense core goes a long way, and Portland's downtown is larger than most people think... Downtown Providence didn't seem to come close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladt
I agree with you as far as downtown is concerned and I rightly stated as much. But outside of Portland's downtown did not seem more urban to me. Maybe a lot more of "new urbanism" development, but not more compact, dense and urban as PVD outside of DT, IMO.
I can see your point, but overall what youre saying is a huge over-generalization...
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.
