Dense city? These maps show just how spread out Seattle actually is

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I'm surprised this other thread didn't gain any traction. For a demographics geek like me, I found this interactive tool to be very fascinating. I’ve literally wasted hours comparing cities. In particular, I found the population density graph to be the most interesting (unfortunately you have to scroll down to the bottom for it). When you look at Seattle, you can see how the downtown population density has exploded over the past 25 years, while the rest of the metropolis has remained relatively stable. There are a lot of cities that look like that – mostly the boomtowns. In rust-belt cities like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, etc., you find reduced density in the core. There are some surprises. Apparently downtown Minneapolis has really been booming. I never see Minneapolis mentioned in any of the countless articles about the booming downtowns of America, so I had no idea. I assumed Minneapolis had been a stable, low-growth city in recent years – sort of like Milwaukee. Speaking of Milwaukie, it’s much denser than I realized. And there are cities like Kansas City that have shockingly less density than I expected (Kansas City’s density never gets above about 3200 per square mile at any point on the graph).

I’m not completely sure about the accuracy of the data, and I don’t know if they accounted for bodies of water, etc., but it’s fascinating to look at anyway.

this is getting off on a bit of a tangent, sorry, but you just made me think of something as its a suburban take on this. in cleveland's case, putting the city's serious rustbelt era depopulation issue aside, its not the city, but the suburban metro that has an issue kind of like denver has with the denver airport. there is a large 50+sq.mi. national park between cleveland and akron. the suburban stuff has to sprawl around it. although, like your airport, and like big bodies of water in some cases, these are quite important amenities to have!

[ue]

Originally Posted by mhays

True, much of the city of Tacoma, city of Everett, etc. is spread-out suburbia. The Seattle metro grew heavily in all the bad decades of sprawl.

But my point is that the long, skinny orientation of the metro is due to the string of cities. Our sprawl is generally not far from an old urban core of some kind, or at least the newer job centers of Bellevue/Redmond.

I think you're missing the point. There are clear geographic reasons for the elongated nature of Seattle-Tacoma, and how it hugs the Puget Sound. If those conditions and restrictions weren't there, and Seattle had the same size and economy, sure, it wouldn't have the same long, narrow strip of urban development. Instead, it'd just sprawl in all directions like Dallas, Las Vegas, Atlanta, Minneapolis, etc. The shape of Seattle's sprawling orientation doesn't change the fact that Seattle sprawls a lot more than its urban reputation lends. What the other poster mentioned about the size of the lots and underutilized land of the region is the key difference that sets Seattle apart from Vancouver.

[mhays]

Partially. We haven't built the volume of highways like those cities, and we've had growth management for 25 years in King County and a good portion of that in every urban county. Further, or white collar job centers have remained centralized in Seattle and Bellevue/Redmond, which has encouraged population growth to also remain a bit more centralized. But yes, if we have a reputation for being urban, it's not aided by subdivisions and hobby farms dotting our nearby forests.

Vancouver's only parallel in the US might be San Francisco, where newer sprawl has been land-efficient for decades.

[ue]

Let me just say freeways like the I-5 don't even really exist in Vancouver. The only parallels to that I can think of in Canada are in Toronto and Montreal, which are much larger cities. So, while there may be worse cases vis-a-vis freeways, coming into Seattle from the north on the I-5 and seeing LA-level backed up traffic, with little high-rise development until the uber-dense CBD of Seattle hits you, Seattle felt very suburban and very different from Vancouver both times I was there, at least in vernacular. There are a lot of similarities otherwise.

Now don't get me wrong, I agree there are far worse cities than Seattle. It has an extremely healthy downtown and string of central neighbourhoods, which are vibrant and walkable. The suburban old town centres are also a nice asset, as is the newer suburban downtown of Bellevue. There's a lot of new, exciting development going into central areas of Seattle. But it simply doesn't feel as urban as it ought to be and as much as it's hyped up to be. It feels very American in its set up of a dynamic, imposing CBD of skyscrapers that immediately drops off beyond the downtown freeways to extremely unsustainable sprawl. It's still no Phoenix or Dallas or Cleveland, in fact it's probably got one of the healthiest urban communities in the States, but it visually doesn't feel very urban beyond that immediate core like Vancouver does.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Originally Posted by ue

Let me just say freeways like the I-5 don't even really exist in Vancouver. The only parallels to that I can think of in Canada are in Toronto and Montreal, which are much larger cities. So, while there may be worse cases vis-a-vis freeways, coming into Seattle from the north on the I-5 and seeing LA-level backed up traffic, with little high-rise development until the uber-dense CBD of Seattle hits you, Seattle felt very suburban and very different from Vancouver both times I was there, at least in vernacular. There are a lot of similarities otherwise.

Now don't get me wrong, I agree there are far worse cities than Seattle. It has an extremely healthy downtown and string of central neighbourhoods, which are vibrant and walkable. The suburban old town centres are also a nice asset, as is the newer suburban downtown of Bellevue. There's a lot of new, exciting development going into central areas of Seattle. But it simply doesn't feel as urban as it ought to be and as much as it's hyped up to be. It feels very American in its set up of a dynamic, imposing CBD of skyscrapers that immediately drops off beyond the downtown freeways to extremely unsustainable sprawl. It's still no Phoenix or Dallas or Cleveland, in fact it's probably got one of the healthiest urban communities in the States, but it visually doesn't feel very urban beyond that immediate core like Vancouver does.

Greater Vancouver seems to sprawl quite a bit in my opinion. It's a long way from Downtown to say Langley and most of that area is rather low density with lots of single family housing. What differentiates Vancouver from Seattle is the very high density in pockets of high rise housing. Vancouver has a very unique situation with over a half a million East Asians moving in during a short period of time who not only tolerate, but seems to prefer, high density living.

[ue]

The single family housing is more densely packed, with some New Urbanist communities, and with huge gaps in sprawl due to the ALR.

[tablemtn]

The Vancouver area doesn't feel particularly dense. It sprawls all the way out past Abbotsford, and mostly reminds me of anywhere else in North America once you get a bit outside of the core. It's also unaffordable in large sections for average Canadian incomes, so, it seems like more of a showpiece in a lot of areas than a "real" city that actual Canadians might be expected to live in.

If you want "European"-style density for average people, in North America, you'd have to go to Mexico. And that, of course, is not "European" in many other regards aside from density...

[ue]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

The Vancouver area doesn't feel particularly dense.

- Transit-orientated, walkable suburban downtowns all connected by heavy rail.
- Agricultural Land Reserve which severely inhibits suburban sprawl
- Tightly packed single family homes
- Towers being built next to farms
- Smaller parking lots in major suburban shopping centres
- Far less land area used than Seattle despite only about 1 million more in the metro

It sprawls all the way out past Abbotsford, and mostly reminds me of anywhere else in North America once you get a bit outside of the core.

Abbotsford is not apart of the Vancouver CMA. It would be more analogous to Olympia or Bellingham than Federal Way or Redmond.

And sorry, but areas like this, this, this, this, or this is not typical North American fare.

It's also unaffordable in large sections for average Canadian incomes, so, it seems like more of a showpiece in a lot of areas than a "real" city that actual Canadians might be expected to live in.

This has nothing to do with how dense Vancouver is or is not vis-a-vis Seattle. And even with the unaffordability, it is still Canada's 3rd largest city, home to more people than the entire provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, and the Maritime provinces. In many ways, it's more "average Canadian" than Moose Jaw or Edmundston are.

If you want "European"-style density for average people, in North America, you'd have to go to Mexico. And that, of course, is not "European" in many other regards aside from density...

I never called it "European-style". Now you're putting words in my mouth.

[dc_denizen]

Think there are probably a couple things going on w Seattle.

1) the inner city is built out, there are no major abandoned tracts to just built 4-5 story woodframe en masse on cheap land as is the case in Dallas or Houston.

2) the inner city is healthy with strong pricing; as a result, NIMBYs infest the city's neighborhoods and make redeveloping even the crappiest 2 story building into highrises difficult.

2) vancouver like Honolulu and Miami is a store of value for global rich people, whereas Seattle is not. eg this area (Ballard) would have at least 20 Hong Kong and PRC Chinese-financed 10-20 story condo towers if it were in Vancouver (or Miami):



3) Seattle also does have vastly more freeways than either Portland or Seattle and the result is more patchmark development in the exurbs and surrounding towns

4) the agricultural land reserve sounds like a great idea, the outlying exurbs south and east of seattle in contrast seem to have developed with low-population, low density housing. however, this is land w/ large lot housing accounts for a tiny share of the population of the region so shouldn't really be held against the city too much.

5) Seattle lacks interesting secondary centers/commercial strips, compared to say Portland. Where are the long walkable commercial strips in Seattle? north seattle's only main street seems like big box-lined 10 mile nightmare (see here). why can't this be redeveloped into something more walkable and urban, given the progressive population? Meanwhile the secondary urban centers beside Bellevue and Tacoma are quite working class and spare.

Vancouver and Portland have a lot more in common from an urban "bones" standpoint, except for the Chinese / global rate estate factor. Most of this (except towers/farms) applies to Portland very well:

Transit-orientated, walkable suburban downtowns all connected by heavy rail.
- Agricultural Land Reserve which severely inhibits suburban sprawl
- Tightly packed single family homes
- Towers being built next to farms
- Smaller parking lots in major suburban shopping centres
- Far less land area used than Seattle despite only about 1 million more in the metro

[ChargerCarl]

^thats a great picture. Seattle has a ton of potential if they can get the regulations right. Even though it looks like most of that is single family housing its already pretty dense. If you could redevelop those into apartment buildings you'd have some great walkable neighborhoods that you could serve with mass transit.

[ue]

Yeah, Portland is a closer analogue to Vancouver. That being said, Portland's transit ridership is lower than Vancouver's. The city is beholden to the same NIMBY forces Seattle has, which declare the old bungalows a sacred cow. Furthermore, Portland still has more freeways than Vancouver; it's entire downtown is hemmed in by freeways.

[mhays]

That's a good photo (Ballard neighborhood) but much of the commentary is way off.

Seattle has WAY more walkable secondary nodes and walkable commercial and mixed-use mileage than Portland. I love Portland but it's not a question. Downtown Ballard is an example (in photo) with more than 3,000 new housing units since 1998 in about 200 acres.

Portland might beat us on freeway miles per capita.

Seattle has patchwork development outside the developed areas because (a) some happened before growth management, or was grandfathered before growth management, and (b) growth management focuses some growth in cohesive new towns vs. dispersed patterns.

Our secondary urban centers (which I'll call tertiary, like central Ballard) are often not working class at all. Central Kirkland, Downtown Redmond, Downtown Mercer Island, and Downtown Bothell are examples that are middle to upper-middle oriented. Some like Kirkland and Redmond have thousands of units of new six-story housing each.

Seattle wishes it has the transit commute share of Vancouver, and Portland wishes it has the share of Seattle.

[jtown,man]

Besides the issue of affordability, I think that picture Seattle would be my ideal density. Maybe Seattle is great how it is?

[memph]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

The Vancouver area doesn't feel particularly dense. It sprawls all the way out past Abbotsford, and mostly reminds me of anywhere else in North America once you get a bit outside of the core. It's also unaffordable in large sections for average Canadian incomes, so, it seems like more of a showpiece in a lot of areas than a "real" city that actual Canadians might be expected to live in.

If you want "European"-style density for average people, in North America, you'd have to go to Mexico. And that, of course, is not "European" in many other regards aside from density...

Not sure what you mean by sprawling past Abbotsford when probably over half the land between downtown Vancouver and Abbotsford is undeveloped, and much more than half undeveloped if you're looking at the area between Abbotsford and Surrey or Langley.

Originally Posted by Pavlov's Dog

Greater Vancouver seems to sprawl quite a bit in my opinion. It's a long way from Downtown to say Langley and most of that area is rather low density with lots of single family housing. What differentiates Vancouver from Seattle is the very high density in pockets of high rise housing. Vancouver has a very unique situation with over a half a million East Asians moving in during a short period of time who not only tolerate, but seems to prefer, high density living.

A lot of the large SFH lots aren't really single family though. Many of them are more like 2-3 family McMansions. There's "SFH" city blocks in Surrey where if you check the census data, will have an average of 12 people per "house". Surrey as a whole averages out to about 6-7 people per "house", which is part of the reason why much of it is around 8-10k ppsm despite the relatively abundance 1/6 acre lots. Along those large-ish lots, you also have lots of tightly packed townhouses, small lot (<0.1 acre) SFH and lowrise apartments.

[M II A II R II K]

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Besides the issue of affordability, I think that picture Seattle would be my ideal density. Maybe Seattle is great how it is?

Thats all well and good if you're wiling to accept the city becoming increasingly unaffordable as has happened in SF.

It's a tradeoff.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Originally Posted by memph

Not sure what you mean by sprawling past Abbotsford when probably over half the land between downtown Vancouver and Abbotsford is undeveloped, and much more than half undeveloped if you're looking at the area between Abbotsford and Surrey or Langley.



A lot of the large SFH lots aren't really single family though. Many of them are more like 2-3 family McMansions. There's "SFH" city blocks in Surrey where if you check the census data, will have an average of 12 people per "house". Surrey as a whole averages out to about 6-7 people per "house", which is part of the reason why much of it is around 8-10k ppsm despite the relatively abundance 1/6 acre lots. Along those large-ish lots, you also have lots of tightly packed townhouses, small lot (<0.1 acre) SFH and lowrise apartments.

Is that a product of the high proportion of South Asians who are used to (perhaps prefer to) live together as an extended family?

[Pavlov's Dog]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Vancouver and Portland have a lot more in common from an urban "bones" standpoint, except for the Chinese / global rate estate factor. Most of this (except towers/farms) applies to Portland very well:

I think Seattle and Vancouver are more similar than Portland and Vancouver. Portland is striving for a medium density built form and all over town 3-5 story buildings are densifying former streetcar line neighborhoods. I don't think there is the same kind of market forces yet that lead to a large number of high rise towers. Portland isn't a high rise city and isn't trying to be a global cosmopolitan city like Vancouver and Seattle. It is competing in a different game and doing well enough at it. Seattle is so constrained geograpically that it will undoubtedly get much denser than Portland. It has a much stronger employment market and property values that will ensure very high density going forward.

[ue]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Thats all well and good if you're wiling to accept the city becoming increasingly unaffordable as has happened in SF.

It's a tradeoff.

Compared to SF or Van, Seattle's affordability issues are nil. Not to say it won't get worse, but for such an attractive (albeit sprawly) city, it's still not bad. What's more is that Seattle actually has a legitimate skilled labour market, predominantly white collar, which is an issue in Vancouver as well. Even more, with Seattle, you also have Tacoma, which is a fully functioning, quality urban locale within easy access of Seattle's amenities, and shows little sign of getting unaffordable at this juncture.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Pavlov's Dog

Is that a product of the high proportion of South Asians who are used to (perhaps prefer to) live together as an extended family?

I can say that in the NYC area, the largest household sizes are in South Asian areas.

It isn't really that they have particularly large families, but rather that multiple generations live together, moreso than other groups.