Seattle reaching 1,000,000 people? (Vancouver, Bellevue: apartments, condos, townhomes) - Washington (WA) -Seattle and King County Suburbs - City-Data Forum

Gentoo · 08-23-2010, 01:53 PM

When do you all think Seattle might reach 1,000,000 people? At just over 600,000 people, Seattle is already larger than Miami, New Orleans, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Oakland and Las Vegas and just behind Boston to name a few.

What do you think this might mean for the city?

Ira500 · 08-23-2010, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gentoo

When do you all think Seattle might reach 1,000,000 people? At just over 600,000 people, Seattle is already larger than Miami, New Orleans, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Oakland and Las Vegas and just behind Boston to name a few.

What do you think this might mean for the city?

I just don't think it'll happen. But if it did, it will require a lot more density, so some neighborhoods that are now single family homes will have apartments/condos/townhomes, etc.
It will also require that some neighborhoods now considered fairly undesirable will get the brunt of new housing to be developed.
What I mean is this:
There are a bunch of nice, single family homes in Seattle neighborhoods, and the residents there will not allow more than a bit more density. Think top of Queen Anne, North Capitol Hill, Ravenna, Phinney, etc. There are enough wealthy residents in those neighborhoods to be able to successfully combat much more density. The neighborhoods that aren't as well organized may not be able to fight it, mostly south and southwest neighborhoods. and if it did happen, downtown will see more density. They've already converted some office buildings to apartments.

newguy416 · 08-23-2010, 02:02 PM

I think it will be a while...
Cost of living
Space to put 400k people

motor80 · 08-23-2010, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gentoo

When do you all think Seattle might reach 1,000,000 people? At just over 600,000 people, Seattle is already larger than Miami, New Orleans, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Oakland and Las Vegas and just behind Boston to name a few.

What do you think this might mean for the city?

It will be a very very long time before, or even IF, this happens.

Gentoo · 08-23-2010, 05:01 PM

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.

BB_206 · 08-23-2010, 06:24 PM

I don't see Seattle hitting 1M in population. The density isn't there currently and I don't see that changing a whole lot. Seattle is known for bungalows and single family homes. I wish that Belltown and CapHill were the norm for density within the city limits but I just don't see Seattle approving that any time soon. I would imagine that Bellevue will increase density just as fast as Seattle (per capita) but I don't see either hitting 1m in population. I think LA is the only west coast city to have that kind of sustained density and infrastructure to support it. Even SF and Vancouver fall short in this respect. Do I want Seattle and Bellevue with LA density, though? That's a whole other thread...what would DT Seattle and DT Bellevue look like with an LA style makeover? Hmm..anyone with input?

Gentoo · 08-23-2010, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BB_206

I don't see Seattle hitting 1M in population. The density isn't there currently and I don't see that changing a whole lot. Seattle is known for bungalows and single family homes. I wish that Belltown and CapHill were the norm for density within the city limits but I just don't see Seattle approving that any time soon. I would imagine that Bellevue will increase density just as fast as Seattle (per capita) but I don't see either hitting 1m in population. I think LA is the only west coast city to have that kind of sustained density and infrastructure to support it. Even SF and Vancouver fall short in this respect. Do I want Seattle and Bellevue with LA density, though? That's a whole other thread...what would DT Seattle and DT Bellevue look like with an LA style makeover? Hmm..anyone with input?

Actually SF is denser than LA, second only to Manhatten. It's just small but is already over 800,000.

I wonder if Seattle can make it to 800,000 and perhaps pass SF for population?

mea-oh · 08-23-2010, 07:14 PM

I've been to NYC and SF, but I live in Columbus, Ohio and to me Seattle is still very dense compared to Columbus. I know it's not on the level of NYC or SF but it's relatively dense. I like it because it combines density with beautiful nature.

We went house shopping earlier this month (we're moving sometime in the next year) and we saw quite a few new condos where two condos were built on a former single lot. There seems to be a lot of that going on in certain parts of town. That's something I've never seen in Columbus.

I guess my point is that while some of you are saying Seattleites won't accept density, it's already much denser than a lot of cities.

Gentoo · 08-23-2010, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mea-oh

I've been to NYC and SF, but I live in Columbus, Ohio and to me Seattle is still very dense compared to Columbus. I know it's not on the level of NYC or SF but it's relatively dense. I like it because it combines density with beautiful nature.

We went house shopping earlier this month (we're moving sometime in the next year) and we saw quite a few new condos where two condos were built on a former single lot. There seems to be a lot of that going on in certain parts of town. That's something I've never seen in Columbus.

I guess my point is that while some of you are saying Seattleites won't accept density, it's already much denser than a lot of cities.

In a way, I think you have a point that there will be more of this happening in Seattle. However, I also agree with what some others have said; neighborhoods like Queen Anne will definitely resist such a thing as will Phinney, Magnolia likely will too. However this is in part why I asked this, I think it's uncertain so far which direction Seattle will take.

eskercurve · 08-23-2010, 07:57 PM

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.