Do you consider Seattle a "must see" city in the U.S.?

[GoBlueInSF]

Originally Posted by

Seattle definitely has the feeling of a big city that is vibrant. It definitely is notches above Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Pittsburgh, and Minneapolis.

Plus, it still has some of the density and urban canyon feeling.

Seattle actually has the same population as Washington DC and Boston(Each of the three cities have 600,000-650,000).

More important for the original poster though isn't just raw population size comparisons, but - as someone upthread mentioned - population density. From what the context of what the OP asked, it sounds like the kind of city he'd/she'd like to visit would be one with high population density. Put it this way, Boston and Seattle have about the same population, as you noted. However, Boston's population density is almost 5 times that of Seattle. Which is a big part of why Boston - in spite of its relatively small size - feels very urbane and lively when walking down the street. Contrast with Houston, which at over 2 million is almost 4 times that size. But its population density is a 1/3 to a 1/4 that of Boston - making it feel like one big sprawling suburb outside its downtown office core. Which is essentially what it is.

[GoBlueInSF]

If you've been to Chicago, SF, Boston, NYC and DC and you like "urban", I'd say you should visit LA. A lot of people think of LA as just endless sprawl. Its partially true, but its also very much untrue. Its the second largest city in the country and as much of a cultural gumbo/melting pot as NYC, but with a far stronger Latin and Asian flavor - which is part of its charm. It has a very urban pulse, much like NYC - its just that its a SoCal version of it and takes a few days of really exploring LA to find it.

If not LA, then I'd say New Orleans. There's no other city in the entire country anything like NOLA at ALL. Its this completely alien (from the context of the rest of U.S.) hybrid of French/Spanish colonial meets swamp meets African slave culture. Lets put it this way - when the popular local danceclub music is a hip hop style performed by black drag queens with lyrics that 99% involve singing about butts, you KNOW you aren't in Kansas anymore. (and for the uninitiated, that would be "sissy bounce" music)

[Eric433]

Seattle is the upper echelon of the 2nd tier of urban cities in the US. NYC, DC, SF, Chicago, Boston, LA (yes, LA) and Philly are the first tier.

Seattle is the top of the next tier, which includes Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Denver, etc. It has plenty of urban areas, but as a whole it's not connected or consistant enough to be up there with the other.

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by Eric433

Seattle is the upper echelon of the 2nd tier of urban cities in the US. NYC, DC, SF, Chicago, Boston, LA (yes, LA) and Philly are the first tier.

If it's an urban experience you are after, then maybe I'd go along with your "first tier" rankings ? But none of those cities, even SF, have the sheer physical beauty and natural vistas of Seattle IMO. Actually standing in downtown Seattle, it's the only large city I've been in where I felt I was in the middle of a National Park and could look in one direction and see the Puget Sound/Olympic range and look in another see Mount Rainier, etc.
Now I lived and worked at the south end of the PS for about 7 months and realized I wouldn't want to live in the PAC NW over the long-term, but for a vacation destination, you're tour of US cities/regions wouldn't be complete without going to Seattle. Truly spectacular place !

[Go9ers]

To answer the question, yes, hands down, its a 4 star if not 5 star city and its a great image of the NW in general

Originally Posted by Eric433

Seattle is the upper echelon of the 2nd tier of urban cities in the US. NYC, DC, SF, Chicago, Boston, LA (yes, LA) and Philly are the first tier.

Seattle is the top of the next tier, which includes Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Denver, etc. It has plenty of urban areas, but as a whole it's not connected or consistant enough to be up there with the other.

Well I am from New York City and I disagree with you.

I feel like Seattle makes the first tier cities to me and all of the first tier USA cities are must see cities to me.

This is the first tier USA cities to me: New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Boston, Los Angeles.

Second tier cities include San Diego, Denver, Houston, Dallas, Portland, Austin, and Minneapolis.

Second tier cities are still nice cities but just a notch down from first tier cities and are still nice cities to visit but not as "must visit" as first tier USA cities.

Originally Posted by GoBlueInSF

More important for the original poster though isn't just raw population size comparisons, but - as someone upthread mentioned - population density. From what the context of what the OP asked, it sounds like the kind of city he'd/she'd like to visit would be one with high population density. Put it this way, Boston and Seattle have about the same population, as you noted. However, Boston's population density is almost 5 times that of Seattle. Which is a big part of why Boston - in spite of its relatively small size - feels very urbane and lively when walking down the street. Contrast with Houston, which at over 2 million is almost 4 times that size. But its population density is a 1/3 to a 1/4 that of Boston - making it feel like one big sprawling suburb outside its downtown office core. Which is essentially what it is.

Well, Seattle still has some great pockets of density and has a nice skyline which is good for a city's image.

I find it fascinating that Boston is more dense than Seattle but has such a lame skyline while Seattle has a better skyline. And Seattle also has much better nature scenery than Boston.

I generally find Seattle more impressive than Boston.
I feel like they are both must visit USA cities but I still like Seattle more.

[GoBlueInSF]

Originally Posted by

Well, Seattle still has some great pockets of density and has a nice skyline which is good for a city's image.

I find it fascinating that Boston is more dense than Seattle but has such a lame skyline while Seattle has a better skyline. And Seattle also has much better nature scenery than Boston.

I generally find Seattle more impressive than Boston.
I feel like they are both must visit USA cities but I still like Seattle more.

My data source was off on the density - it included metro area figures. I've re-checked and its more like Boston is twice as dense at Seattle. Which is still quite significant.

I don't find it that surprising - Boston is geographically more compact than Seattle. It also features an urban built form where the dominant residential type is the brownstone (generally 4-12 units)organized in zero-lot line rows and the classic New England triple-decker (3 units) on narrow lots, along with denser apartment buildings along the main corridor spines. As an older city, Boston saw a lot of the development of its neighborhoods during the late 19th and early 20th century streetcar suburb era, which allowed for compact development.

Seattle by contrast has a lot more of its built form featuring single family homes & bungalows. In addition, Seattle lacks a substantive light rail system, which tends to limit opportunities for denser development

As for the skyline, keep in mind that outside of Chicago and NYC, for most cities, the bulk of the high rises are commercial buildings not residences. So, the skyline of a city is in large part of function of how its downtown office district developed. After the Great Depression, Boston saw pretty much no high rise development for decades upon decades. Even today, the high cost of construction in Boston combined with limited available sites combined with Boston's notoriously difficult planning approval process really limits office development, except for brief periods in the business cycle when square foot rents go high enough to make it worth the risk.