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.
LA is straight up continuous dense sprawl through and though, LA's urban area is nearly triple Boston’s urban area in both population And density wise Look at the hold dynamic.
I see what you're saying but what I'm saying is I think theres a difference between knowing a city is large as apposed to feeling like you're in a large city. For example, if I didn't realize how big Los Angeles was area-wise, and I was just walking through a neighborhood with single family homes, I'm not going to think it's some HUGE city. If I'm walking through a neighborhood in Boston but don't know that it's smaller but it's still very urban Chicago-like or New York-like I'm going to think it's a bigger city. Just my thoughts though.
I actually loved seattle because I like a city with a little greenery and man that city was green Im not crazy about the whole, incredibly dense gigantic concrete slab kinda city. I like them especialy to visit, but im not just nuts about nuthing but concrete everywhere and it doesn't ruin the city feel to me to see a tree or two. But this one is definately fairly close. Although I maintain that there isn't a place as of now in houston as nice as the waterfront in seattle, although if you want that there is still a nice little boardwalk here on the bay. And even with that Houston actually feels like the bigger city by a good bit, but not any nicer. There both very green though which I love.
what on earth are you trying to say? there are zillions of trees in both cities and both have huge parks.
As much as I love Seattle's skyline, I'd give that nod to Houston.
Just take away the mountains....
God forbid a tsunami ever hit Houston, Texas...It would do some major damage. Most of Houston including downtown Houston would be sitting under water. There are no hill or boundaries to stop such a force but anyway I voted for Houston.
God forbid a tsunami ever hit Houston, Texas...It would do some major damage. Most of Houston including downtown Houston would be sitting under water. There are no hill or boundaries to stop such a force but anyway I voted for Houston.
Houston is too far inland. If Houston is under water then Manhatten would have water up to the 40th story in skyscrapers. You have to realise that tsunami's need long distances of ocean to build up and Houston is two bodies of water away from any Ocean. If you don't know this, The Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea separates Houston from the Atlantic. The entire florida peninsula would be flooded, most of Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisianna would be under water too if a Tsunami would be able to flood Houston.
So don't act like Houston is the most vulnerable place for Tsunamis.
Seattle is probably 20 times more vulnerable than Houston. especially since it is so close to Volcanoes and faults
Houston is too far inland. If Houston is under water then Manhatten would have water up to the 40th story in skyscrapers. You have to realise that tsunami's need long distances of ocean to build up and Houston is two bodies of water away from any Ocean. If you don't know this, The Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea separates Houston from the Atlantic. The entire florida peninsula would be flooded, most of Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisianna would be under water too if a Tsunami would be able to flood Houston.
So don't act like Houston is the most vulnerable place for Tsunamis.
Seattle is probably 20 times more vulnerable than Houston. especially since it is so close to Volcanoes and faults
The Texas coast is a flat as a pancake a strong enough Tsunami would go pretty darn far into Texas. The Haiti earthquake is a pretty darn good example of why anything is possible ...If that Haiti earthquake had sparked a tsunami I think it would have more than enough time to pick up steam before it go to the gulf coast...but yes Seattle is more vunerable than Houston no argument there..
I see what you're saying but what I'm saying is I think theres a difference between knowing a city is large as apposed to feeling like you're in a large city. For example, if I didn't realize how big Los Angeles was area-wise, and I was just walking through a neighborhood with single family homes, I'm not going to think it's some HUGE city. If I'm walking through a neighborhood in Boston but don't know that it's smaller but it's still very urban Chicago-like or New York-like I'm going to think it's a bigger city. Just my thoughts though.
I agree with you for the most part. San Francisco and Boston feel like the 3rd and 4th biggest cities in the country in terms of urbanity, but theyre nowhere close in terms of population.
That said, LA does have its urban stretches. Check this video out. Id call this "urban", although a very different kind of urban than SF or Boston:
Yeah thats a good video, I'm not saying LA doesn't have it's urban areas. I'm just saying there are smaller cities that have more urbanity that make them feel larger.
The Texas coast is a flat as a pancake a strong enough Tsunami would go pretty darn far into Texas. The Haiti earthquake is a pretty darn good example of why anything is possible ...If that Haiti earthquake had sparked a tsunami I think it would have more than enough time to pick up steam before it go to the gulf coast...but yes Seattle is more vunerable than Houston no argument there..
yeah, and the Haitian earthquake didn't make a ripple.
And this thread is comparing Seattle to Houston, so if Seattle is more vulnerable to Tsunamis then why bring it up as a Houston negative?
It does not matter how flat the Texas coast is, Houston is not on the coast and thus the tsunami will have to be really big and really powerful to reach that far. Something that big would take out the entire south east before getting to Houston.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,461 posts, read 44,074,708 times
Reputation: 16840
Quote:
Originally Posted by developnsustain
Calling Madrona a walkable "neighborhood" is a stretch. It's like 3 blocks of commercial surrounded by residential.
Overall, I agree, there are a lot of walkable neighborhoods in Seattle, more than you listed even. But many of them (outside of the urban core and inner neighborhoods) are walkable islands. Commercial strips or areas, varying in size, surrounded by suburban-like residential or sprawly industrial. Nothing like SF, Chicago, Boston, where the neighborhoods connect and there are walkable "neighborhoods" between neighborhoods (if that makes sense). In Seattle, the areas between neighborhoods (not in the urban core) are sometimes pretty large and not very walkable (e.g. the area between Ballard & Fremont, the area between Northgate & Greenwood, the area between Columbia City & Georgetown, etc, etc.)
Im not sure if youve spent much time in Chicago, SF, Boston, etc but these cities are lined with wall-to-wall walkable neighborhoods. (Chicago has indusial areas that arent walkable, but it has a HUGE area that is walkable and connected)
Also, many of Seattle's walkable neighborhoods are more like--as the city program implies--urban villages. Town centers spread out across the city. This is not the same as a connected city with literally dozens of walkable, urban neighborhoods butting up against each other.
Yes, more walkable neighborhoods than Houston. But per capita? You do realize Manhattan and San Francisco are smaller in area than Seattle, right?
Yes, you make a very good point about the 'island' nature of many of Seattle's neighborhoods, which I can see would facilitate the creation of walkable urban pockets. Also, your 'urban village' description is a very apt one.
Yes, I have spent plenty of time in the cities that you list. Still, I have always been impressed with the number of walkable neighborhoods Seattle has relative to its' size, some seemingly quite distanced from the urban core. It is, after all, a metro of only 3.4 M...not even in the top 10 US metros. It would be difficult to find another city of that size that has a similar collection of 'walkable urban villages'.
Yes, you make a very good point about the 'island' nature of many of Seattle's neighborhoods, which I can see would facilitate the creation of walkable urban pockets. Also, your 'urban village' description is a very apt one.
Yes, I have spent plenty of time in the cities that you list. Still, I have always been impressed with the number of walkable neighborhoods Seattle has relative to its' size, some seemingly quite distanced from the urban core. It is, after all, a metro of only 3.4 M...not even in the top 10 US metros. It would be difficult to find another city of that size that has a similar collection of 'walkable urban villages'.
In some ways two come to mind, Pittsburgh and Baltimore
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.
