Originally Posted by RumbleFish
I personally feel Seattle looks more dense in these pictures based on angles they were shot than how the city really looks in person. Seattle has progressed a lot since the 1980's and there are many projects currently in the pipeline where it will look even denser, but Seattle has a long way to go to catch Vancouver with residential development within its urban core.
I purposely posted pictures of what's left of central Seattle's underused (i.e. 1 stories/warehouses/parking lots, to show some of the places with much more potential. They are disappearing quite fast and as mhays likes to say, it will take a couple more booms to make them all disappear. Compared to 10 years ago, SLU is insanely better.
That being said, Seattle has some truly dense neighborhoods, several 40k+ and 50+ plus ppl/sqm. You can take significant sections of Capitol Hill and Pike/Pine and place it in San Francisco without a noticeable dropoff in urbanism. Of course, Seattle will never have the vastness of San Francisco's version of it nor have SF's highest densities, zoning will largely not permit it from what I've seen, but Seattle should have several nodes of typical SF like midrise density. Plus a few significant highrise residential sections in Belltown, Denny Triangle, First Hill, and even more in the DT core.