Is Seattle a "vast suburb" by Bay Area standards? (Bellevue: apartments, condos)

[overunder12]

These comments were posted on an article about Seattle in the San Francisco chronicle. Obviously, they are exagerrations, but do you feel there is any truth to them at all? Or did these people just not see the 'real Seattle'?

"Seattle, unlike SF, is predominantly a low-density city, with all the lack of diversity that entails. Seattle is mile after mile of cute little bungalows on quarter-acre lots, where apartments and condos are the exception, rather than the rule. By Bay Area standards, it's nothing more than a vast suburb. Perhaps as a consequence, the infrastructure, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is catastrophically lacking. Ever try getting from West Seattle to Bellevue during rush hour? It simply can't be done -- not in less than 2 hours anyway."

"Seattle is borrringgg! No North Beach. No Mission. No Haight. Their hippest street is like a mini watered down College Avenue on the Elmwood end. If that's your idea of a good time, go for it."

"I was not impressed with Seattle. A small DT that reminded me at times of San Jose. A density that is closer to that of Sacramento than SF. Transit that covers maybe 10% of the city well. I really don't see any similarity aside from pike market and the fact that it borders the ocean. I am not dissing it, it just doesn't remind me of SF in the slightest"

[durf]

Overunder 12, don't insult San Jose because its downtown is way more interesting and less gritty than Dt. Seattle. Please visit Dt San Jose before blogging off from the old mentality of hickville San Jose of 1960's.

[tobester]

"Ever try getting from West Seattle to Bellevue during rush hour? It simply can't be done -- not in less than 2 hours anyway."?

"it borders the ocean"???

who cares if SF is not like Seattle or vice versa?

[Inkpoe]

Originally Posted by overunder12

These comments were posted on an article about Seattle in the San Francisco chronicle. Obviously, they are exagerrations, but do you feel there is any truth to them at all? Or did these people just not see the 'real Seattle'?

"Seattle, unlike SF, is predominantly a low-density city, with all the lack of diversity that entails. Seattle is mile after mile of cute little bungalows on quarter-acre lots, where apartments and condos are the exception, rather than the rule. By Bay Area standards, it's nothing more than a vast suburb. Perhaps as a consequence, the infrastructure, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is catastrophically lacking. Ever try getting from West Seattle to Bellevue during rush hour? It simply can't be done -- not in less than 2 hours anyway."

... Evidently said by whoever has NOT visited Seattle. The little bungalows are *not* on quarter-acre lots and there are many many many apartments and condos.

West Seattle to Bellevue during Rush hour would take 40 mins or so. So... yes it *can* be done.

Originally Posted by overunder12

"I was not impressed with Seattle. A small DT that reminded me at times of San Jose. A density that is closer to that of Sacramento than SF. Transit that covers maybe 10% of the city well. I really don't see any similarity aside from pike market and the fact that it borders the ocean. I am not dissing it, it just doesn't remind me of SF in the slightest"

10%.. grotesque simplification.

... It's "Pike Place Market" and Seattle actually doesn't "borders the ocean".

Good riddance to those people... they probably couldn't hack it in Seattle one way or another.

[southking500]

It sounds like this written by someone who hasn't ever been to Seattle and is relying on second hand info. There is no "mile after mile of cute bungalows on quarter acre lots", Seattle is one of the more densely populated cities in the US, downtown is not small, in fact it's quite large with plenty of interesting things, it does not take 2 hours to get from West Seattle to Bellevue etc. etc.
San Franciscans are notorious snobs.

[vandygirl]

The snobs at the Chronicle are just upset that SF people are leaving for Seattle. SF is shrinking everyday as former residents realize that the lack of jobs and sky high living expenses are not worth the trouble of living in a scaled down version of NYC with hills and fog. As someone who worked there I should know.

Originally Posted by overunder12

These comments were posted on an article about Seattle in the San Francisco chronicle. Obviously, they are exagerrations, but do you feel there is any truth to them at all? Or did these people just not see the 'real Seattle'?

Yep, they totally missed the real Seattle. Just as visitors don't get a sense of the real SF by going to (the sorry) Peer 39 for souvenirs, riding by Sutro Tower on a tour bus and taking pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge, neither can a San Franciscan get a sense of Seattle just by trouncing through Pike Place Market, swinging by the Space Needle on a Duck and snapping pictures of Mt. Ranier.

Originally Posted by overunder12

"Seattle, unlike SF, is predominantly a low-density city, with all the lack of diversity that entails. Seattle is mile after mile of cute little bungalows on quarter-acre lots, where apartments and condos are the exception, rather than the rule. By Bay Area standards, it's nothing more than a vast suburb. Perhaps as a consequence, the infrastructure, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is catastrophically lacking. Ever try getting from West Seattle to Bellevue during rush hour? It simply can't be done -- not in less than 2 hours anyway."

Seattle is not SF. That's what gives it its charm. It is a craftsman's kind of city. It has houses that were built by turn of the century loggers unlike SF's similar buildings that once stood but burned down in the fire of the 1906 earthquake. Seattle has a more frontier feel to it, not planned painted lady row houses. It is a shame that the silver spoons at the Chronicle cannot appreciate the beauty of ruggedness. The fact that it is harder to get around has to do with its topography more than anything. BTW, try driving from Berkeley to South San Francisco during rush hour. SF Bay Area ranks the 3rd worst traffic in the U.S.

Seattle is hardly a suburb by Bay Area standards. Most San Franciscans haven't been to the East Bay in years. They wouldn't know a suburb if it slapped them in the face.

Originally Posted by overunder12

"Seattle is borrringgg! No North Beach. No Mission. No Haight. Their hippest street is like a mini watered down College Avenue on the Elmwood end. If that's your idea of a good time, go for it."

Seattle is boring? North Beach is not all that special. I only went there to eat at Mama's on Washington Square and watch the scene-stealing double decker buses go by. The Mission used to be a Latino neighborhood but is now overrun by White hipsters, and they complain that Seattle is too White. The Haight ain't what it used to be either. The hippies were replaced by homeless people trying to sit while sleeping because of a city ordinance that makes it illegal to lie down on a park bench. Elmwood? Please. Chinatown is impressive. I'll give them that but they didn't mention it. SF: Taking Chinatown for granted for over 150 years.

Originally Posted by overunder12

"I was not impressed with Seattle. A small DT that reminded me at times of San Jose. A density that is closer to that of Sacramento than SF.

This comment goes to show just how out of touch the writers are at the Chronicle. San Jose has a sprawling downtown. Try driving to the city center at rush hour. It's a nightmare. Of course, San Jose is 45 minutes from SF which means it is another place San Franciscans rarely bother to visit. Sacramento is an extreme example of urban sprawl. Seattle is locked in by water on both sides. No comparison.

Originally Posted by overunder12

Transit that covers maybe 10% of the city well. I really don't see any similarity aside from pike market and the fact that it borders the ocean. I am not dissing it, it just doesn't remind me of SF in the slightest"

Transit that covers maybe 10% of the city well? OK, transit can use some work but at least we don't have MUNNI light rail drivers running down pedestrians. With all the accidents and shootings on board MUNNI buses and rails I'll take my chances with Metro being 5 minutes late.

Originally Posted by overunder12

I really don't see any similarity aside from pike market and the fact that it borders the ocean.

SF has nothing like Pike Place Market. No American city does so I don't know why they bother to pretend that SF has an open air market.

Originally Posted by overunder12

I am not dissing it, it just doesn't remind me of SF in the slightest"

Why does the author of the last quote need Seattle to be similar to SF in order to be satisfied? Why can't the author accept the city on its own terms? Yeah, it has an ocean but it also has enormous lakes, house boats, yachts and local seafood that is safe to consume, things that a lot of people like which SF doesn't have.

[pw72]

Everyone, SF media taking shots at Seattle is nothing new. In fact, SF only takes shots at cities they feel are competing. This has been going for decades, perhaps even a century or so. It is a mindset that is uniquely San Francisco, that being, we are the best, and anyone who tries to compete is foolish. They do the same thing to L.A. So just use it as entertainment and realize all they are really trying to do is get a "rise" out of Seattleites. La di da...

[Hemlock140]

Thanks for that post, it was certainly good for a few laughs. Really did sound like someone arguing for a losing cause that didn't know any facts so made up stuff. Probably many of the SF readers won't know any better, but who cares.

(I was born in SF, moved here in 1993)

[vandygirl]

Originally Posted by vandygirl

Yeah, it has an ocean but it also has enormous lakes, house boats, yachts and local seafood that is safe to consume, things that a lot of people like which SF doesn't have.

I mean it has a sound. It is not actually on the ocean.

[Inkpoe]

Originally Posted by pw72

Everyone, SF media taking shots at Seattle is nothing new. In fact, SF only takes shots at cities they feel are competing. This has been going for decades, perhaps even a century or so. It is a mindset that is uniquely San Francisco, that being, we are the best, and anyone who tries to compete is foolish. They do the same thing to L.A. So just use it as entertainment and realize all they are really trying to do is get a "rise" out of Seattleites. La di da...

I think most of everyone gets that, but simply responding to the OP's question (which could be baiting... but oh well):

Originally Posted by overunder12

These comments were posted on an article about Seattle in the San Francisco chronicle. Obviously, they are exagerrations, but do you feel there is any truth to them at all? Or did these people just not see the 'real Seattle'?

The potshots/mindset aren't exclusive to SF however. I noticed even some NY'ers have the same attitude.