Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington > Seattle area
 [Register]
Seattle area Seattle and King County Suburbs
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-23-2010, 08:21 PM
 
240 posts, read 533,762 times
Reputation: 90

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve View Post
I think Seattle can get to 800,000 if developers have their way on the south end of the city. There's a LOT of land there which can easily be bought out and developed with much higher density. It's already happening along the light rail. I was astounded by how many new developments were along it when I took the Eastlake shuttle to the Seafair.

I think SF got to the density it is at because people accepted that more people will want to live there and thus built houses literally next to each other. That didn't happen in Seattle as there was enough land to support the single family house with yard model. Imagine if north of Golden Gate bridge there was instead of a park, develop-able land. I would bet a few neighborhoods in SF wouldn't have the density it now has if that were the case.

Anyway, I can see Wallingford, Ballard north of Market, and some other areas getting higher density, but I think development of the suburbs will happen because people still want single family homes rather than condos. I'm one of them - I'm personally fed up sharing walls with noisy, inconsiderate idiots. If I'm gonna yell at people for making too much noise at 4 AM on a Monday morning/sunday night, I want it to be my future kid, not some loser or some kid who doesn't give a damn.
Makes sense. I can see that some areas will continue to densify, while there will simultaneously be more suburban sprawl. Issaquah has plenty of room to grow and there will definitely be people in those areas looking to buy homes (in a few years; not immediately).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-23-2010, 08:27 PM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,588 posts, read 27,322,733 times
Reputation: 9048
Quote:
I think SF got to the density it is at because people accepted that more people will want to live there and thus built houses literally next to each other. That didn't happen in Seattle as there was enough land to support the single family house with yard model. Imagine if north of Golden Gate bridge there was instead of a park, develop-able land. I would bet a few neighborhoods in SF wouldn't have the density it now has if that were the case.
Excellent point, I overlooked this. SF is surrounded by water on 3 sides and is it's own 49sm county. That was out of necessity. I did notice how large Seattle is in land area when I was there, more like that of Oakland which is about the same density as Seattle.

Quote:
Anyway, I can see Wallingford, Ballard north of Market, and some other areas getting higher density, but I think development of the suburbs will happen because people still want single family homes rather than condos. I'm one of them - I'm personally fed up sharing walls with noisy, inconsiderate idiots. If I'm gonna yell at people for making too much noise at 4 AM on a Monday morning/sunday night, I want it to be my future kid, not some loser or some kid who doesn't give a damn.
Being a musician, remind me not to move next door to you if I move to Seattle lol

That said, I too kinda like the single family homes more than condos. It's in part why I'm moving from a condo in San Diego to a house in Chula Vista. No more sharing paper thin walls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2010, 09:45 PM
 
1,292 posts, read 4,696,981 times
Reputation: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo View Post
Interesting responses. I was asking because Seattle seems to have grown very quickly over the last two decades. It's good to know that there's a limit on how huge it can get.

Well Seattle is kinda expensive, with the "recession" do you think the population will actually see a decline now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2010, 10:33 PM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,588 posts, read 27,322,733 times
Reputation: 9048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anders15 View Post
Well Seattle is kinda expensive, with the "recession" do you think the population will actually see a decline now?
I don't think it will decline. During the recession cities that are even more expensive like San Diego and stupidly expensive San Francisco actually saw population increases. Seattle is cheaper than both of those cities. Unfortunately for those who may not like us, this could mean an increase in Californians if anything. At least many are now telecommuting and using Seattle and Portland as a base. In time, many of these people may just settle there altogether.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2010, 12:20 AM
 
5,595 posts, read 19,020,095 times
Reputation: 4816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo View Post
Interesting responses. I was asking because Seattle seems to have grown very quickly over the last two decades. It's good to know that there's a limit on how huge it can get.
I'm with those who think the population of Seattle proper will probably never reach 1-million because of its geographical restrictions. The population of King County may continue to explode but, in my opinion, Seattle's population growth will be limited by its geography.

In my lifetime, the population of the city hasn't really fluctuated by much.

Around the time I was born in the early 50's, Seattle had a population of just under 470,000.

Early 1960's: 557,000

Early 1970's: 531,000

Early 1980's: 494,000

Early 1990's: 516,000

Mid 1990's: 525,000

Early 2000's: 563,000

Late 2000's: 617,000


As you can see, not much of a fluctuation during the time when I lived in the area. In fact, the population declined and growth stalled in the late '70's through the mid 90's.

I believe that the population of King County and the entire Seattle/Bellevue/Everett/Tacoma MSA can continue to pick up population way into the distant future but Seattle itself is limited in its population growth, IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2010, 12:40 AM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,588 posts, read 27,322,733 times
Reputation: 9048
Quote:
Originally Posted by scirocco22 View Post
I'm with those who think the population of Seattle proper will probably never reach 1-million because of its geographical restrictions. The population of King County may continue to explode but, in my opinion, Seattle's population growth will be limited by its geography.

In my lifetime, the population of the city hasn't really fluctuated by much.

Around the time I was born in the early 50's, Seattle had a population of just under 470,000.

Early 1960's: 557,000

Early 1970's: 531,000

Early 1980's: 494,000

Early 1990's: 516,000

Mid 1990's: 525,000

Early 2000's: 563,000

Late 2000's: 617,000


As you can see, not much of a fluctuation during the time when I lived in the area. In fact, the population declined and growth stalled in the late '70's through the mid 90's.

I believe that the population of King County and the entire Seattle/Bellevue/Everett/Tacoma MSA can continue to pick up population way into the distant future but Seattle itself is limited in its population growth, IMO.
Wow, that is a rather slow growth rate especially considering that was already a rather large city in the 60's. Perhaps 800,000 will be the max for Seattle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2010, 12:44 AM
 
5,595 posts, read 19,020,095 times
Reputation: 4816
Yes, as you can see, even during that 40-year period from 1960 to 2000, the population hadn't increased much at all. But also, remember, that in the 1960s, the population of King County wasn't much at all compared to to today so there was explosive growth in King County and the more inclusive Seattle MSA during that time period even though Seattle itself didn't increase in population by much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2010, 01:05 AM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,588 posts, read 27,322,733 times
Reputation: 9048
Yes I see that trend in your list for sure. The thing is, how much can those suburbs really grown outward? I would think that if there's a high enough demand in Seattle that something would have to give?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2010, 06:53 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
297 posts, read 1,033,605 times
Reputation: 264
Gentoo-

I think Seattle proper will hit 1 Million in 30 years or so. Alot of the new construction sites are residential high rises that can house a thousand or more people per building. That can add up to alot of people really fast.

On my recent trip to Hong Kong I looked at the map and the Central part of the city is about the size of Sausalito, CA. If HK were flat and residential it would be a small town. Yet because it's all high rises, it's one of the most densely populated cities in the world.

It's important to note that those fluctuations in Seattle's population in the 60's and 70's were before the city went to the high rise model.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2010, 10:27 AM
 
191 posts, read 509,834 times
Reputation: 218
Just as soon as Microsoft can get enough H1-B visas
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington > Seattle area
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:18 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top