Seattle = London?
Today Alex Steffen at World Changing points out that this city has a density problem that no one seems to know how to solve, largely because we don’t build enough mixed-use buildings and that leads to sprawl. (One wonders if the 296 square foot condos they’re building downtown are part of the answer or a bigger problem.) A bit of rezoning in SoDo and an end to the strange prejudice against grandma flats would certainly help, says Steffen, as well as a better transportation infrastructure.
The proof that a livable high-density city is possible is, apparently, London. “London is one of the best, most dynamic, most interesting and even comfortable cities in the world.” I’ve never been to London, which is why I need your opinion. How fantastic is it? Could Seattle be the new London? Ought we even want to be?
Related posts:
an interesting thing about London that flies in the face of some of the lazy “tall buildings = great cities” mentality often expressed here is that there are hardly any skyscrapers there. Another point in their favor — British accents. If we could only adopt this convention in Seattle, we’d be well on our way to world class.
I’ve only been to London once for a few days, but I’ll reinforce what Josh said–outside The City there are not a lot of skyscrapers. You can accomplish a lot of density with block after block of buildings 4-6 stories high, and they do.
It’s also worth noting that London is really more a collection of villages that grew together than a city. “London” proper is the City of London, the one-mile square financial district. Many of the famous tourist spots are in the city of Westminster. Each village has its own character and its own self-sustaining services, and they’re united by one of the world’s best transportation systems.
I haven’t been to New York, but I expected London to have the kind of urban bustle I associate with the great American city. But instead, I found each neighborhood built on a human scale that was friendly and accessible. I immediately wanted to move there.
Also consider that London is pretty much an unplanned city. It mostly just happened, and efforts at grand urban design mostly failed, Christopher Wren aside. I get the impression that the process of change there is diametrically opposed to the way we try and fail to do things in Seattle.
If we wanted to learn from London, we’d make each neighborhood work on its own terms, and we’d favor mixed-use development on this kind of human scale, leaving super tall buildings for the financial ghetto downtown. We could focus on converting one-story strip malls to 4-story mixed-use, which would add density without touching our single-family neighborhoods. We’d also work on discouraging cars on downtown streets and making streets work for pedestrians. London had the advantage of centuries of pre-automobile development, but if we stop catering to the car we should be able to get some of the same benefits.
I’ve lived in the downtowns of Boston, Seattle, and Montreal and have spent time in London, NYC, and a bunch of other big cities. The key difference between Seattle and these other places is effective public transport and grocery stores. Without these it’s nearly impossible to be carless and without that, it’s very hard to have the density. To most people, it’s not worth paying higher rent to live downtown AND having to have a car to get groceries or to work some place to where the bus is painful. I found downtown to be really, really frustrating to live in and capitol hill only marginally better (but at least there were grocery stores).
I highly agree with Josh’s comment. I am Seattle native that lived in London for 3 years. Local human scale neighborhoods (villages), with small markets, post offices, and restaurants were what made the city magic. Local shops combined with relatively reliable public transportation made it easy to live without a car. This is rare in Seattle. I agree that replacing strip malls with mixed use buildings would be a step in the right direction.
Well, shit. Now I really want to take a vacation and go check London out.
I think it’s a little silly to say that London doesn’t have sprawl. They do. People are living beyond the M25. Reading is now just a London ‘burb rather than a town of its own. Some people have hour-plus commutes every day from well outside of Greater London.
But London — and all of the Southeast — has a multi-modal transit system built on high-capacity train and Tube. And the tickets are interchangeable. You can buy a ticket into London that includes a Tube zone ticket for cheap.
But yes, London has have a lot more local businesses packed in with housing. Flat blocks have cornershops. The city is full of markets, tourist and otherwise. And the Tube allows you to go across the city to shop easily.
London isn’t vertical the way NYC or San Fran are, yes. But London has so much culture and life going for it — and a real sense of reasonable density — that it doesn’t feel as sprawly as it really is.
But London is truly a world-class city. It really feels like an living entity. Here, I think we’re still too xenophobic.