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.
This is the Seattle Freeze thread not the Austin v. Seattle, it came up because someone wrote that people from smaller towns will notice a freeze and people from big cities will not. As I posted earlier, I grew up in LA - and spent 18 years in Seattle and culturally, Seattle is different than just about any other big city I've been in. I've spent considerable time in both Boston and NYC because I lived 5 years in the NE. Having lived in big cities (and whether you like Austin or not or think it has nothing on Seattle in terms of culture, it's still a big city), I recognize that there is a cultural phenomenon that some journalists have labeled a freeze. That's my point, you can still be from a big city, have visited several big cities and still thing Seattle has the freeze.
BTW, different people have different priorities at different times in their lives. I will tell you, we are happier here than in Seattle because this family of three is very comfortable living here on 100K a year. We felt like we struggled in Seattle on that because of housing, groceries, and fuel. Plus we really like the sunshine here and the local culture. Less financial stress = happier existence.
I understood your point completely, and I agree with you. It's not really debateable that people in different regions of the country live by different social norms. I lived in eastern Washington for 9 years, and for the rest of my life I have lived just outside of San Francisco. Though I cannot comment entirely on the western side of the state, I can say that people here are by and large much more open and friendly than they were in eastern Washington.
Your quote a couple posts back about the conversation in the elevator sums it up perfectly. That type of social interaction is a good thing, in any situation, IMO, and some places are just flat out more open to that sort of thing than other places are. A lot of us spend 8+ hours a day at work burried in paperwork or behind a cubicle, and our social interaction is limited. Then, a 45+ minute commute home, then home to cook dinner, so it's important to interact on a basic human level during the day.
Even the most social and gregarious person has limited time to spend with the people that one would actually consider a "friend", so it's good to be in a place where you can hold on a conversation with someone at the grocery store, at the coffee shop, etc.
I think it's rediculous that some people label these normal every day interactions as coming between a "stranger" or someone that "wants something from you" . . . I can tell withing 15 seconds if someone is approaching me trying to sell me something or trying to panhandle.
Austin is in no way a bigger city than Seattle. That is just delusional if you believe that. It's 1/3 as dense and less than half the metro population. Secondly, who says we're uncomfortable about engaging with others? Call it aloofness, call it not wanting to expend energy on pointless small talk, but it's certainly not about being uncomfortable.
Interesting premise:
Austin, Population 743,074, Density per square mile: 2,610.6
Seattle, Population 594,210, Density per square mile: 6,714.8
Okay, given and you use that as logic to say that Seattle is a "bigger city" than Austin based on the density per square mile metric. I'm following, but, with your same logic you can compare:
Los Angeles, CA Population 3,834,340, Density per square mile: 7,876.4
and
Paterson, NJ 146,545, Density per square mile: 17,764.5
Interesting, so, by using your same quantifiers, then Paterson, NJ is a "bigger city" than Los Angeles.
Also, with the same metrics, our pals in Minneapolis with its population of 377,392 but urban density of 6,969.4 can rest assured that they're living in a sightly "bigger city" than Seattle -- hey, they are "more literate" and "better educated" to boot, there don'tchaknow.
Or, could it just be that you're so biased about Seattle that you'll go to any length to try to put it in a superior light?
Who's to say?
I'm neutral toward both Seattle and Austin (and have been to both places, my at a glance observation is that they both seem to be about the same amenities-wise, but neither of them are destinations that I'd pick to live permanently if given a choice).
The fact that this discussion even exists and that there are people so hung up on Seattle's image that listening to them talk about it is like listening to a recording programmed by the chamber of commerce is part of why I find Seattle dull, provincial, and annoying.
Interesting premise:
Austin, Population 743,074, Density per square mile: 2,610.6
Seattle, Population 594,210, Density per square mile: 6,714.8
Okay, given and you use that as logic to say that Seattle is a "bigger city" than Austin based on the density per square mile metric. I'm following, but, with your same logic you can compare:
Los Angeles, CA Population 3,834,340, Density per square mile: 7,876.4
and
Paterson, NJ 146,545, Density per square mile: 17,764.5
Interesting, so, by using your same quantifiers, then Paterson, NJ is a "bigger city" than Los Angeles.
The post you quoted said "It's 1/3 as dense and less than half the metro population." I am wondering why in your retort you chose to only focus on the density factor and didn't mention the metro population. The truth is you can't compare the size of any two cities without mentioning both.
Since you seem to be an intelligent person, I am sure it was a simple oversight by you. Now please go on and provide the statistics of metro area populations for Paterson, NJ and LA.
The post you quoted said "It's 1/3 as dense and less than half the metro population." I am wondering why in your retort you chose to only focus on the density factor and didn't mention the metro population. The truth is you can't compare the size of any two cities without mentioning both.
Since you seem to be an intelligent person, I am sure it was a simple oversight by you. Now please go on and provide the statistics of metro area populations for Paterson, NJ and LA.
I was pointing out the whole "urban density" fallacy that whatshisface was brinigng up; now you want to debate metro area population.
Since you seem to be like a pedantic and defensive person whos is pathologically insecure about how other people (who are entitled to their own opinions) view your little town here, I'll say this: counting metro area, and the suburbs does not make the city itself any "larger" or more urbane per se. In fact, the Puget Sound metro area, as that population is counted, includes places like Woodinville that resemble small towns and aren't part of Seattle proper.
Okay, why not then extrapolate that to which state has the highest population to prove which is a "bigger city" between Austin and Seattle?
Of course the original point was that someone said that people who think there is a "Seattle freeze" must be hayseeds from small towns who aren't used to city life (you know, if it's something bad, it happens EVERYWHERE, but if it's good, it's just so uniquely "Theattle!" And of course, if it's bad, the problem lies with the observer, but if it's good, then it must be a fact. Did you all get indoctrinated in grade school to think this way about "Theattle"?)).
Someone replied that, contrary to being a hayseed, they live in Austin and they think it's a bigger city than Seattle (I suppose just going from population within city limits, but, really, if you want to be literal, a city that takes up more square mileage than another is technically "bigger" from a sheer geometric standpoint).
Oh, but of course, the hissing and wrist wringing then ensues and whatshisface decides that, well, such a comment cannot stand and so brings up this urban density counterpoint -- of course (and conveniently to his side of the conversation) completely distracting from the original debate premise that the only people who experience the "Seattle freeze" are bumpkins from rural Kansas or something.
Now, condescendingly, you want to try to point out the whole metro area population as a comparison as to which city is bigger, Seattle or Austin.
I suppose factors in some regard but, since Seattle finds Everett and Bellevue anathema anyway, I suppose it's merely convenient to this discussion to add them in to pad the proverbial "Seattle shorts" with a population statistic since you are all so insecure that any intimation that Seattle isn't a utopian bubble that is better than any other given U.S. city drives you into a pedantic little tizzy.
However, on any given other day, the Theattleites look at Everett as the other side of the planet. Forget Tacoma, which also factors in. You don't want their crime stats but you'll take their population in a pinch to show just how "first class" Seattle is right?
Aside from it being cathartic to debate with a member of the Seattle booster club, I don't find it productive to further converse with you; so go have a nice day (somewhere else) yourself.
I don't want you to take this the wrong way, since my intent is not to offend, but I find it simply amazing how some people can write essays that rival Encyclopedia Brittanica in size and yet, say so amazingly little. Metro area size does matter when comparing the size of two cities, it's that simple. Again - do you think Indianaplis is the same size as San Francisco ?
Now, on to your post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRef
Since you seem to be like a pedantic and defensive person
Nice
Quote:
I'll say this: counting metro area, and the suburbs does not make the city itself any "larger" or more urbane per se.
In fact, the Puget Sound metro area, as that population is counted, includes places like Woodinville that resemble small towns and aren't part of Seattle proper.
Yeah, in the same way I guess Daily City isn't part of Frisco proper. I guess Frisco really is same size as Indy, according to your logic.
Quote:
I was pointing out the whole "urban density" fallacy that whatshisface was brinigng up, now you want to debate metro area population?
That's easy, since "whatshisface" mentioned metro area population in the same sentence as urban density and you chose to ignore it.
Quote:
Okay, why not then extrapolate that to which state has the highest population to prove which is a "bigger city"?
Because state and metro area are two different things and they weren't being debated.
Quote:
Of course the original point was that someone said that people who think there is a "Seattle freeze" must be hayseeds from small towns who aren't used to city life (you know, if it's something bad, it happens EVERYWHERE, but if it's good, it's just so uniquely "Theattle!" And of course, if it's bad, the problem lies with the observer, but if it's good, then it must be a fact. Did you all get indoctrinated in grade school to think this way about "Theattle"?)).
Someone replied that, contrary to being a hayseed, they live in Austin and they think it's a bigger city than Seattle (I suppose just going from population, but, really, if you want to be literal, a city that takes up more square mileage than another is technically "bigger" from a sheer geometric standpoint) followed by this whole urban density counterpoint.
Oh, but of course, the hissing and wrist wringing then ensues and whatshisface decides that, well, such a comment cannot stand -- of course (and conveniently to his side of the conversation) completely distracting from the original premise that the only people who experience the "Seattle freeze" are bumpkins from rural Kansas or something.
Quiet a colorful summation of what had transpired in this thread; sadly it has nothing to do with my post.
Quote:
Now, condescendingly, you want to try to point out the whole metro area population as a comparison as to which city is bigger, Seattle or Austin.
*shrug* Advise you look up the dictionary definition of "condescending". But yeah, that's exactly what I want to try to point out.
Quote:
I suppose factors in some regard
Breakthrough ! But you just had to keep typing, didn't you ?
Quote:
but, since Seattle finds Everett and Bellevue anathema anyway, I suppose it's convenient to this discussion to add them in to pad the proverbial "Seattle shorts" with a population statistic since you are all so insecure that any intimation that Seattle isn't a utopian bubble that is better than any other given U.S. city drives you into a pedantic little tizzy.
Going off on a tangent here that resembles some sort of a soapbox of someone with a chip on their shoulder. Without casting any judgement on whatever issues you may have with Seattle or their residents - No, I actually don't think Seattle is a utopian bubble, I am not from Seattle, and I do think there are places that are better than Seattle. But again, this has nothing to do with my previous post so I am not sure how we find ourselves in this discussion.
Quote:
However, on any given other day, the Theattleites look at Everett as the other side of the planet. Forget Tacoma, which also factors in. You don't want their crime stats but you'll take their population in a pinch to show just how "first class" Seattle is right?
Right.
Why would I want anyone's crime stats and where did I ever claim Seattle was first class ? And above all, what does any of this have to do with the metro area comparisons of Seattle vs. Austin and Patterson vs. Los Angeles (which, you know, my post was about?)
Quote:
Aside from it being cathartic to debate with a member of the Seattle booster club, I don't find it productive to further converse with you; so go go have a nice day (somewhere else) yourself.
What's that you were saying about being "condescending" ?
Have a beautiful holdiay weekend.
Since Austin, metro are population around 1.7M is within 100 miles of San Antonio, which is another principal city with a metro area of around 2M people,and Austin and San Antonio's metro areas are directly adjacent -- compared to Seattle, which is basically the only large city (population >200,000) in the Northwest until you get to Portland, OR, it's arguable that the metro area size really counts in this comparison.
I was pointing out the fallacies in the urban density point, but thank you for giving me an opportunity to refute the "metro area population" equating to a "bigger city" misconception that you seem to harbor.
I hope this knowledge helps you somehow in your quest to muddle through reality.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am aware of the definition.
Quote:
Since Austin, metro are population around 1.7M is within 100 miles of San Antonio, which is another principal city with a metro area of around 2M people,and Austin and San Antonio's metro areas are directly adjacent -- compared to Seattle, which is basically the only large city (population >200,000) in the Northwest until you get to Portland, OR, it's arguable that the metro area size really counts in this comparison.
It's not a bad point. I disagree that metro area only counts in this comparison, but I would definitely say that it goes to show that Texas is a far more dense and populous state than Washington.
Here is a wiki table of the largest US metro areas, for yours and anyone else's reference:
I was pointing out the fallacies in the urban density point, but thank you for giving me an opportunity to refute the "metro area population" equating to a "bigger city" misconception that you seem to harbor.
I agree that urban density alone does not make a city bigger. But noone on this thread has stated that.
Quote:
I hope this knowledge helps you somehow in your quest to muddle through reality.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am aware of the definition.
It's not a bad point. I disagree that metro area only counts in this comparison, but I would definitely say that it goes to show that Texas is a far more dense and populous state than Washington.
I was saying that metro area population doesn't factor in as much here when people posit that Seattle is a "bigger city" than Austin based on comparative metro area populations, rather than city population.
To the point that geography area is supposed to factor in.
Metro area land area comparison:
Austin metro: 4,285 sq mi
Seattle metro:5,894 sq. mi
Now, I'm not arguing that, because Seattle has a larger metro landmass than Austin that it's a big factor in comparing the metro populations, but it turns the logic right back on those who said that Austin, with a higher population than Seattle, is a "smaller city" than Seattle, since it is more of a sprawling city and Seattle is more concentrated (comparing literal city square mileage).
Then, to come back and say that Seattle is a bigger city due to metro area population, when you factor in relative square miles arbitrated to said metro areas, cycles right back to same argument people were trying to make in calling Austin a "smaller city." That, irrespective of population, since it covers a wider square mile area, it's in effect "smaller."
People basically called that woman a moron for saying that Austin is a larger city than Seattle -- and the point she was trying to make was that she's not from some small town and it's just "big city life" that makes her think there's such a thing as the "Seattle Freeze" when she looked at what is probably the most straighforward and common sense statistic: population of the city itself.
That no one else stepped in and challenged the logic of the people whose motives seemed to be just to sling insults, I found annoying; hence my soapbox pontification.
Of course the original point was that someone said that people who think there is a "Seattle freeze" must be hayseeds from small towns who aren't used to city life (you know, if it's something bad, it happens EVERYWHERE, but if it's good, it's just so uniquely "Theattle!" And of course, if it's bad, the problem lies with the observer, but if it's good, then it must be a fact. Did you all get indoctrinated in grade school to think this way about "Theattle"?).
I'm sure you will get a ton of grief for this post, but it made me laugh out loud. Your observations match my Seattle experience.
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.
