How would you rate Seattle's urbanness (Woodland: suburbs, title, residential)

I said Seattle "feels" more high density than San Francisco. I actually know that San Francisco is technically more dense than Seattle but Seattle's downtown by far feels more high density and there is more high density there than San Francisco's downtown, as well as Seattle's downtown skyline vs. San Francisco. And most of San Francisco has those victorian like houses while in Seattle someone can find more medium/high density buildings than in san francisco. However, there are more areas of Seattle where someone will find more low density than san francisco too. I would say Seattle's downtown and some surrounding areas are more dense than San Francisco's downtown and surrounding areas but the other areas of Seattle is mostly lower density than San Francisco's other spots as well as other areas of the Seattle metro area vs. San Francisco's metro area.

There is this one city data thread where there was a poll for people to vote which is the most "urban" city in the western US and at the time I saw the results, Seattle came first with 55% voting for Seattle as most urban while 30-35% voted San Francisco as first.

Anyways, a place can easily be awesome if it isnt as "urban."

[AcroJimmy2]

Originally Posted by NaturalUrbanBalence

I said Seattle "feels" more high density than San Francisco. I actually know that San Francisco is technically more dense than Seattle but Seattle's downtown by far feels more high density and there is more high density there than San Francisco's downtown, as well as Seattle's downtown skyline vs. San Francisco. And most of San Francisco has those victorian like houses while in Seattle someone can find more medium/high density buildings than in san francisco. However, there are more areas of Seattle where someone will find more low density than san francisco too. I would say Seattle's downtown and some surrounding areas are more dense than San Francisco's downtown and surrounding areas but the other areas of Seattle is mostly lower density than San Francisco's other spots as well as other areas of the Seattle metro area vs. San Francisco's metro area.

There is this one city data thread where there was a poll for people to vote which is the most "urban" city in the western US and at the time I saw the results, Seattle came first with 55% voting for Seattle as most urban while 30-35% voted San Francisco as first.

Anyways, a place can easily be awesome if it isnt as "urban."

//www.city-data.com/forum/city-...downtowns.html

Notice how SF is voted as the 3rd most urban downtown in the country. Seattle is way below that.

Anyways, you are completely wrong on all counts. Ive lived in both San Francisco and Seattle for extended periods of time. Theyre not in the same league in terms of urbanity, and Ive never heard anyone argue otherwise. SFs downtown is way bigger, denser, more vibrant, urban, etc than Seattle's.

SFs inner and outer neighborhoods (Mission, Haight, Castro, North Beach, Tenderloin) are even denser and more vibrant than downtown Seattle.

Im convinced youve never been to SF if you really think Seattle is in any shape or form more urban than SF. Its three times as dense and it feels about 3 times as urban (downtown and across the entire city)

[AcroJimmy2]

Originally Posted by NaturalUrbanBalence

I would say Seattle's downtown and some surrounding areas are more dense than San Francisco's downtown and surrounding areas but the other areas of Seattle is mostly lower density than San Francisco's other spots as well as other areas of the Seattle metro area vs. San Francisco's metro area.

I know I shouldnt even be responding to this, but come on, really?

Downtown SF and its surronding neighborhoods range from 60,000-120,000 people per square mile (extraordinarily high).

Downtown Seattle and its surrounding neighborhoods are not even half that much.

And SF has nearly twice as many buildings over 400 feet than Seattle. So its much denser in that regard too.

Check your facts before making such absurd claims...

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by caphillsea77

What makes Seattle so liveable is it has a very vibrant and urban downtown, neighborhoods with character, plenty of elbow room, and nature/great outdoors within arms reach. For the most part it's a very walkable city. Standing at Alki Point in West Seattle you can take in a big city skyline, a quaint beach scene, Puget Sound waterfront, and the Olympic Mountains. Seattle has lots of beautiful trees, good air quality, and a nice mix of modern and retro architecture. IMO the best of everything.

I tend to agree with this. While I have not been to the big cities of the east coast, I am familiar with the ones on the west coast and Seattle definitely has a great balance ranging from urban (downtown) to touristy (waterfront) to residential (Magnolia) to suburban-residential (Woodland Park technically not a suburb) to wild and somewhat rugged (Discovery Park). Not too many cities balance so much variety so well within the city limits.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by trunky

"I feel like Seattle feels more higher density than San Francisco and is definitely the most highest density/urban city in the western US"

It's not more dense than SF. SF proper is almost three times as dense as Seattle, population-wise anyway.

True, only New York is more dense than SF.

[Gentoo]

I said Seattle "feels" more high density than San Francisco. I actually know that San Francisco is technically more dense than Seattle but Seattle's downtown by far feels more high density and there is more high density there than San Francisco's downtown, as well as Seattle's downtown skyline vs. San Francisco. And most of San Francisco has those victorian like houses while in Seattle someone can find more medium/high density buildings than in san francisco.

I'm not so sure I agree with this statement. Seattle's downtown is certainly quite dense and very urban feeling, IMHO perhaps even more so than LA's. SF however is so dense that it feels much bigger than it actually is and lots of buildings are very close together. There are grocery stores under tightly packed apartments outside of the downtown area. Very few areas of SF even feel residential, it always feels as if downtown is just a few blocks away. I definitely don't get that feeling from Seattle.

[AcroJimmy2]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I'm not so sure I agree with this statement. Seattle's downtown is certainly quite dense and very urban feeling, IMHO perhaps even more so than LA's. SF however is so dense that it feels much bigger than it actually is and lots of buildings are very close together. There are grocery stores under tightly packed apartments outside of the downtown area. Very few areas of SF even feel residential, it always feels as if downtown is just a few blocks away. I definitely don't get that feeling from Seattle.

Agreed. Seattle's downtown does feel more urban than LA's. But San Francisco's easily surpasses both.

And, yeah, the entire city is not that far off from a "downtown" feel.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by AcroJimmy2

Agreed. Seattle's downtown does feel more urban than LA's. But San Francisco's easily surpasses both.

And, yeah, the entire city is not that far off from a "downtown" feel.

Seattle's Downtown feels very similar to San Diego's or Oakland's but is larger than Oakland's and perhaps a bit larger than San Diego's. It's certainly a bit more urban than Oakland's as Oakland's downtown becomes a ghost-town at night, not much happening there at night. I'd say it's closest to SD's as there are clubs and bars and places where one can go.

In fact, the downtown area and waterfront of Seattle bares an eerie resemblance to SD's; right down to the Anthony's seafood restaurant being located right next to the cruise-ship terminals with downtown looming in the background and it's situated along a body of water on a north/south axis and with another part of the city to the west, (Point Loma in SD and west Seattle in Seattle). The freeway even runs right through both going north and south and there are hills just behind the waterfront area (higher and steeper in Seattle).

Basically what I'm saying is, Seattle's downtown most closely resembles San Diego's.

[pwright1]

For urbanness maybe a 4 out of 10. 10 being more urban. What I do like is its combination of urban density and nice single family neighborhoods. Both can exist in the same city. I for one was a Seattle single family homeowner but just minutes from downtown. That's what I love about Seattle.

[AcroJimmy2]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Seattle's Downtown feels very similar to San Diego's or Oakland's but is larger than Oakland's and perhaps a bit larger than San Diego's. It's certainly a bit more urban than Oakland's as Oakland's downtown becomes a ghost-town at night, not much happening there at night. I'd say it's closest to SD's as there are clubs and bars and places where one can go.

In fact, the downtown area and waterfront of Seattle bares an eerie resemblance to SD's; right down to the Anthony's seafood restaurant being located right next to the cruise-ship terminals with downtown looming in the background and it's situated along a body of water on a north/south axis and with another part of the city to the west, (Point Loma in SD and west Seattle in Seattle). The freeway even runs right through both going north and south and there are hills just behind the waterfront area (higher and steeper in Seattle).

Basically what I'm saying is, Seattle's downtown most closely resembles San Diego's.

I can see that...but Seattle's downtown is bigger and has more distinct sections than San Diego's. I would argue that Seattle's downtown is more urban than San Diego's.