Seattle Population and Demographics Thread

[mhays]

Seattle is built on world-beating companies that happen to be doing well right now. Plus the military, same story. All of that is money coming in from elsewhere. Nike and Intel aren't on the same scale.

[xyagentguy]

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/m...in-a-year.html

I'm not really sure what the numbers mean in themselves. The article seems to imply this is an impressive showing. Seattle population grew 2% from 2010 to 2011. It doesn't seem like we are alone, as most major western cities seem to have enjoyed at least this much growth. San Francisco is, surprisingly, missing, though. As is Las Vegas, less surprising.

I think most cities are seeing an influx in population as urban living becomes more popular and sustainable across the nation. Something still pulls on me so much in wanting Seattle to somehow outshine other areas, with concrete numbers showing this area thrives, grows, and booms, despite "the weather." lol.

Denver is HOT on our tail though, that be a shame if they bypassed us. Of course, would it really matter in any real-world application? Of course not. It's just Seattle pride

[Matt the Engineer]

I've heard San Francisco is having a tough time growing. Not from lack of desire to live there, but from the same restrictive zoning issues we have here. Much of the Bay Area sprawl seems to exist because large parts of San Francisco refuses to build up.

[alexjonlin]

Well, San Francisco is already extremely dense, the second densest large city in the country. There aren't a whole lot of vacant or low-quality single family lots to build up on.

[cameronrex]

Originally Posted by alexjonlin

Well, San Francisco is already extremely dense, the second densest large city in the country. There aren't a whole lot of vacant or low-quality single family lots to build up on.

Actually a lot of low quality and older buildings in SF. The anti anything forces in SF makes Seattle's anti anythings look like amateurs. Lived there for many years and it's amazing how just about every development of any size is fought.

[Ginkgo]

Originally Posted by xyagentguy

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/m...in-a-year.html

I'm not really sure what the numbers mean in themselves. The article seems to imply this is an impressive showing. Seattle population grew 2% from 2010 to 2011. It doesn't seem like we are alone, as most major western cities seem to have enjoyed at least this much growth. San Francisco is, surprisingly, missing, though. As is Las Vegas, less surprising.

I think most cities are seeing an influx in population as urban living becomes more popular and sustainable across the nation. Something still pulls on me so much in wanting Seattle to somehow outshine other areas, with concrete numbers showing this area thrives, grows, and booms, despite "the weather." lol.

Denver is HOT on our tail though, that be a shame if they bypassed us. Of course, would it really matter in any real-world application? Of course not. It's just Seattle pride

Was a time (a century ago) that Seattle would have been the West's third largest city, after SF and LA. But as has been mentioned before, inner city size doesn't "mean" as much as the metropolitan area. I think Seattle-Tacoma-Everett is today fourth largest in the West.

[RMacherat]

When Seattle schools became so toxic that anyone who could get out moved to the burbs and then incorporated, our size fate was sealed. We might make a million in the far distant future, but cities with lots of kids and room to expand will bypass us (Portland - very soon; Fresno too) just like the others have. At least we'll have the most vibrant core if we don't screw up by trying to make ourselves into a Florence or Copenhagen.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Ginkgo

Was a time (a century ago) that Seattle would have been the West's third largest city, after SF and LA. But as has been mentioned before, inner city size doesn't "mean" as much as the metropolitan area. I think Seattle-Tacoma-Everett is today fourth largest in the West.

Our inner city is easily the third largest in the Western US. By "inner city" I'm referring to built form, not administrative boundaries.

It's impressive that despite a much smaller land area than Denver (even without airports) or Portland (even without Forest Park and river wetlands), we've kept up in population growth. Denver does it with moderate infill in existing neighborhoods plus reuse of vast empty tracts (Stapleton, Lowry, Central Platte Valley). Oddly I have less understanding of how Portland does it, but it's less focused on true urbanity than Seattle.

[RMacherat]

I agree with m, well put by the way. Our problem, if you can call it that, is our development possibilities are finite. Furthermore, the few areas of potential expansion we do have, north and south of the core, are restricted by small, short-term thinking.

[mhays]

Thanks. We thankfully have sizeable areas where 4s and 5+1s are allowed, which is apparently not the case in some cities to the same extent. Seattle has also become much more comfortable with infill than it was in 1990 or so, when the urban village plan was a big controversy.

I don't agree about schools. They're not great and do have problems, but they're ok by the standards of any central city.

[Doomgoggles]

Well our land area is 85ish sq miles. Portland's is 143. However, keep in mind that San Francisco's is 46.

Seattle has an incredible amount of space in which to densify. Also our Metro is 3.5M vs Portland's 2.2M. (SF is 4.3M).

As far as growth RATE, it's hard to predict. Portland was rocketing up through the past couple decades, but has started to slow down. Seattle has had fair growth and is starting to pick up.

[mhays]

I think some of Portland's "rocketing" was annexation, not growth.

[alexjonlin]

"Our inner city is easily the third largest in the US." I'm a big Seattle booster but I wouldn't go that far, you got at least NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, and DC ahead of us, maybe a couple more. But I do agree that our "degree of urbanity" to size ratio is very high.

[mhays]

The word "Western" was alongside "US."

[alexjonlin]

Oh I'm sorry I didn't see that. Yeah that's true.

[testdrive]

oooops wrong thread

[Doomgoggles]

Originally Posted by mhays

I think some of Portland's "rocketing" was annexation, not growth.

Well that makes more sense then.

[JiminyCricket]

In a real since Seattle is still the 4th largest in the west, as the media market is slightly bigger than phoenix, and its economy is well ahead of all cept LA and Bay Area of course

[mhays]

Wouldn't that mean third largest?

[Doomgoggles]

Originally Posted by mhays

Wouldn't that mean third largest?

Guess that depends on San Diego.