Comments

1
This is just another in an endless litany of complaints from people who simply can't handle change: changing buildings, changing neighborhoods, changing cities. Change is just scary; you lose a few familiar landmarks and suddenly it's the Death Of Civilization As We Know it.

But, it's okay. These people will eventually die off, unable to adapt to the new circumstances, and will be replaced by people who never known anything BUT the new circumstances, which of course to their minds will just be THE circumstances. Some of them will perpetually cling to them, just as their predecessors did, but most, like most of us around today, will simply acknowledge this as the way of things.
2
The shitty music kids listen to these days... why can't it be really good, like it was when I was in high school?
3
Only places that change very little are dying.

Does Pam really want to compete with the wealthy for available housing stock?
4
I think that anything that begins with a command to "Wake Up" is not worth reading.
5
@Paul: "email". Not "e-mail". "EMAIL". Call me on your cellular telephone if you disagree.
6
If you're against a lot of people living closely together in large buildings, there are many other places (places in the greater Seattle area, even!) where you can live.

But they want to live in Lesser Seattle!

Can we just recycle some of Emmett Watson's articles instead of this tripe?
7
Seattle will be successfully dead when a Jersey Shore-like mega EDM club opens and we have even more fist-pumping brogrammers walking the streets to the strain of Lil' Jon's "Shots".

http://www.vice.com/read/this-american-b…
8
I regret posting after @2, when that is all that needs to be said on this topic.
9
it's not dying, it's changing. for the worse.
10
DAMN KIDS! GET OFF MY LAWN!
11
Head south. Or head north. Just get the fuck off the hill and go find some new fun.

Whiny bitches.
12
I've been struck by how vital Ballard and other neighborhoods feel. There's a lot of foot traffic and a lot of local businesses that seem to be doing well. The places hawking $18 burgers which will close after the minimum wage is hiked seem to be doing well.

In contrast South Lake Union just seems depressing like Bellevue. A lot of sterile blocks filled with expensive restaurants and little pedestrian traffic after the dot coms empty out. There's little vitality even if money is dripping off everything. Will the oyster bars survive the minimum wage hike? I don't know!

Is E.E.Robbins considered local?
13
We have poor people?
14
They're not building luxury condos, Paul. They're building 'luxury' apartments. That you rent, not own.
15
@12 give SLU 50 years to age in and it'll be just fine. Man, we've gotten soft in the 21st century. The city literally burned down in 1889 and all they did was rebuild it with stone and brick (too bad they didn't know about seismology back then).

Now, a few high rises get built, and a precious coffee shop or two disappears and everybody starts rending their garments. Sheesh.
16
Bah, Seattle died the day they tore down Henry Yesler's sawmill.
17
@14 All "luxury" means is that it's new construction and has a hip name (Gatsby, Three20, etc.). Same old Hotpoint appliances, same old greedy management companies, new higher prices.
18
@ 13 Yep plenty of them, not like we are the suburbs here.
19
How much retail-on-the-ground-floor does Seattle need?

I don't know, but more if more people are actually allowed to live here.

Even worse, all of the construction is aimed at the wealthy, and in today's America, we all know that there are only a limited number of wealthy people to go around.

More people want to live in Seattle than there are currently housing units for, and this has been true for a long time. When you restrict supply of a product relative to demand, those that produce that product will almost certainly focus on the high end of the market. If only a small fraction of the market for cars were allowed to be met, do you think anyone would make a Ford Focus?

Furthermore, every new luxury unit takes one rich person out of the bidding for a slightly less fancy unit, and so on and so on. So they do play a role in stabilizing rents (as we saw when more units went online in 4Q 2013).

Where is your analysis that shows that some of this development is doomed to fail? "Feels bubbly" isn't persuasive. Finally: if some high end developments don't get the rents they want for residence or retail, they'll lower prices. Good for renters and independent businesses.

People are just conservative--change makes them uncomfortable so they make up stories about how bad it is. That's what Pam is doing. It's reactive, irrational, and insofar as it has a politics it's pro-sprawl, anti-environment, and anti-renter. We need to learn to stop listening to people like this.
20
My objections have nothing to do with nostalgia or even social justice. I embrace change, I think density is fantastic and I think trying to hold down the cost of living in a booming city is pissing in the wind. My issue is an aesthetic and experiential one. I think it has to do with an imbalance in the values driving the growth. A place born on the spreadsheet of a developer bent on maximizing profit will leave us cold even if they retain part of the old brick facade or add budget for a sculpture outside the Qdoba. We deserve more thoughtfulness, diversity and interest in our urban fabric. Less Robert Moses, more Jane Jacobs, please.
21
Gameworks killed Seattle.
22
Fuck you you fucking transplants.
23
@12: This faux nostalgia regarding SLU is absurd. This area had nothing 20 years ago: no restaurants, no coffee shops, no grocery stores, run-down buildings and just a sad feeling. You're right, it feels a bit sterile now, but there's a lot going on, and more people are moving in. It will get there.
24
Paul, one of the reasons construction is so intense *right now* is because a sizable volume of building projects that were put "on hold" during the recession are now able to be built. It may remind you of a speculative bubble, but it's really just developers catching up on their backlog. Many of these projects have been partially or fully designed for years, it's just that now they can actually get financing to build them, which they couldn't in, say, 2009.
25
@23,

I don't know that #12 was claiming that SLU used to be better, just that it isn't good now. As far as it getting better, I'll believe it when I see it. The development that's going on over there is not conducive to a vibrant neighborhood.
26
Oh, and fuck this "Pam" person, along with whoever agrees with her assessment. Those of us who work in the A/E/C industry are very happy to have some employment stability again. All this development you complain about keeping thousands of good, living wage, working/middle class jobs in our city. That's worth more than your nostalgia.
27
Finally: if some high end developments don't get the rents they want for residence or retail, they'll lower prices.


That'll happen when they go bankrupt, not a moment sooner. The loan requirements for that kind of construction requires that developers charge a specific rent. That's why, even when the real estate market crashes, you'll see empty "luxury" units with unchanged rents, while the owners are trying to lure in tenants with bullshit incentives (gift certificates, first month's rent free, waived credit check fees).
28
After having spent five years in Spokane, I can heartily recommend to Pam that she move there. In Spokane, nothing ever changes. She'd probably love it.
29
So many whiny complaints wrapped up in one post. Let me see if I can address them all:

Seattle isn't as cool as it was -- I wonder how many of these people are as old as me and grew up in this town. Not many, is my guess. You probably would have been bored as hell here. Unless you hiked, the city had very little to offer. Ballard was interesting (very Scandinavian) and the U-District had lots of used record stores and coffee shops (long before Starbucks) but that was about it. There really wasn't much nightlife in the city (nothing like what you can find now on Capitol Hill).

Seattle works for rich people now, not poor people -- Welcome to America. After we elected Reagan, the middle class was doomed. What @19 said about housing prices (unless we build, rent will continue to go up really high). The best way to lower rent prices is to get rid of zoning restrictions, especially those preserving parking.

How much ground floor retail do we need? A lot more than we have. We have huge retail deserts in this city. Talk to someone who operates a restaurant or bar -- rent isn't cheap.

The new architecture is ugly -- Yeah, OK, you have a point there. It has been worse (the duplexes in the 1980s were really ugly). Some of the blame has to go into ridiculously restrictive zoning laws. Ironically, it is because of complaints like these. "Blocking out the sun" fears lead to six story limits. Pretty soon, everyone builds to six stories. Fear of "oppressive buildings" and "lack of open space" lead to set backs, which again, lead to boring buildings. Worse yet, they lead to really high prices, and the inability to build next to existing buildings. This gives developers the incentive to tear down an old building (e. g. one taking up a quarter of a lot) and replace it with another boring (six story) building. Even with all that, there are plenty of nice new buildings that exist -- walk around the Cascade neighborhood instead of South Lake Union. We should try and preserve existing buildings (especially when they provide for density) but the idea of preserving the existing style of a neighborhood is counter-productive, and simply leads to boring and expensive housing.

31
Definitely not a dying city, but I will say that a lot of the new construction could have done with some architectural innovation. Seattle has a vibrancy that most cities of this size can only dream about.

BUT, I can understand the lamenting of the loss of intimate older neighborhoods. Change can be difficult but it's up to residents to make their voices heard if they want to make sure the character remains. Attend city council meetings.

Rents will go up, it's up to the city council to be vigilant in making sure there is affordable housing. Many other cities dropped the ball on that and are now finding it very painful for all involved to make it right.
32
Definitely not a dying city, but I will say that a lot of the new construction could have done with some architectural innovation. Seattle has a vibrancy that most cities of this size can only dream about.

BUT, I can understand the lamenting of the loss of intimate older neighborhoods. Change can be difficult but it's up to residents to make their voices heard if they want to make sure the character remains. Attend city council meetings.

Rents will go up, it's up to the city council to be vigilant in making sure there is affordable housing. Many other cities dropped the ball on that and are now finding it very painful for all involved to make it right.
33
@11 Head south or north? Where exactly do you mean? There is no fun to be had in the north except at the Rickshaw and Pinehurst, and neither of those have live music. There's lots of fun to be had in Georgetown, but no rental housing. If you want to go out and see a band, then stumble home on foot, Capitol Hill is still your best bet.

But I remember when the "heart" of Capitol Hill was much farther north, on Broadway. Then that area seemed to fall into decline, while Pike/Pine took off. But now PP is in serious danger of Belltowning itself into irrelevancy.

So far, the only Seattle neighborhood that I've seen "die" is Pioneer Square -- it was THE major night spot neighborhood back in the 80s/90s days of the joint cover. But it's been sad and neglected for a while now -- I blame stupid landlords. Seriously, who drives out Elliott Bay Books in favor of... an empty building where Elliott Bay Books used to be. A few years ago, the Smith Tower sat 70 percent empty.

But it's an old neighborhood and it's been through this cycle before. It's probably already due for a comeback.

The big problem with new development is that the buildings are ugly and frequently terribly constructed, with envelope rot problems and such. It sort of breaks the cycle of new/expensive, old/inexpensive, because the new development won't stick around long enough to become old and affordable.
34
If Pam doesn't like new housing construction, she is welcome to move to San Francisco and see how that's working out.
35
I don't mind the new construction, for the most part. But what I do mind is that most of the buildings are so plain and featureless. We live in a city of beautiful brick buildings with subtle touches of ornamentation. I wish that these new buildings at least made a halfhearted attempt to inject some style into them. Most of them are basically giant storage containers with windows.
36
You can't complain about how sterile and empty SLU is and then bemoan too many street level retail spaces under apartments in dense neighborhood hubs. Without the latter, you will have the former. SLU has some but too little, too far apart retail spaces that don't invite people to stroll the area sidewalks as much as they should.

Like someone else said, without change, the city truly is dead. If you want to make a difference, make efforts to shape the change by supporting the businesses and community leaders that share your views. Don't undercut your beliefs buying that nondairy half caff macchiato BS as you stand on your soapbox.
37
Putting aside gentrification and the hallmarks of an economy that, you know, exists- I have to agree that it's more difficult to be poor in Seattle than it ever has been before. I grew up in north Seattle, mostly in Wallingford and Fremont, and lived in the U-District right up until I moved away for college and then later to repatriate to Canada, and coming back to Seattle to see friends is actually kind of painful for me. Where they might've lived in Northgate or Green Lake before, they now are being pushed out further and further out into Lynnwood and Shoreline, because rental costs are rising past where they can get a one bedroom apartment to house two people. Yes, rail transit is being constructed, but it's a slow process and bus service is being severely cut in the outer suburbs of Seattle. Given that Seattle itself is the economic hub of the region, it seems totally nonsensical to me that the work force is being pushed further and further out of the city, and isolated in transit dead zones.

38
@23: Lake Union Pub, motherfucker!
39
I miss the Big Scoop that was across the street from the Broadway Bowl. That's back when vanilla was still considered a flavor.
40
The people who move into those new luxury condos typically move out of other housing, which gets sold to people in the next tier down, who move out of other homes which get sold to the next tier after them, etc, etc, under you get all the way to the bottom. Every new condo helps relieve gentrification pressure.
41
Oh no, people who aren't as hip as you are moving in. Get over it. And then get over yourselves.
42
Growth can't be all bad - maybe we'll get a Planet Hollywood!
43
Courtesy of Airbnb, I've been spending a couple of days here in Yaletown, a very urban residential area inside Vancouver BC. For less than a hotel room I got a whole townhouse, 1 bedroom. While new, the street facing entrance to the sidewalk is very Upper Westside. There are more espresso places and restaurants than you can shake a stick at within blocks, and a beautiful waterfront, bike trail and two sports arenas and a Sky train stop. The price? I saw a 2 bedroom in a high rise selling for$1M.

The really sad thing is that with all the money and infrastructure spending, Seattle still has nothing as nice as this. But really, there is nothing special about here. You could take the streets and copy it building for build anywhere, even into the suburbs. My question is always, why don't they?
44
EE Robbins still exists, they just changed the name to "Robbins Brothers". The rest of this whine is just as out of touch.

Go ahead and hate me, I feast on your tears.
45
Purchasing property is insanely expensive in Vancouver in large part because it's the North American home of choice for all manner of Hong Kong/Macau/Beijing rich dudes. Rents, however, are cheaper than Seattle.
46
Yuppie Caucasian males ruined Seattle.

Listen to Macklemore. When the weed shops open they will sell schwag for 400 a oz. Seattle sucks!!!!!
47
I find these sorts of rants pretty tiresome. I'm sure people complained when Seattle stopping being a muddy logging outpost, too.

I am all for ground floor retail. I just wish they designed it better and deeper with bigger windows. Too bad so many people suffer terrible conniptions at the thought of a new building without 100 parking spots to go along with it.
48
what @20 said.

Amazon has an opportunity to blow our minds here...
49
People named Pam are always a bit high-strung.

I am fine with density. Most of the things I originally loved about this town are long gone anyway. But today, Mr. Vel-DuRay and I were working in the yard when a developer came by and started chatting us up about selling Chez Vel-DuRay. It was both titilating and unsettling. Even sleepy Beacon Hill is getting transformed.
50
Vote for a republican in 2014 and 2016 and see how fast the development will stop. There will be a recession that will probably ruin Seattle and most other big cities in the U.S.A. The economy will backslide so quickly that it will boggle the minds of everyone. Please vote for any Democrat in 2014 and 2016.
51
It seems to me, the vast-majority of commenters (and the author) are on one of two extremes. This scares me more than the wealthy developers who don't care about the looks/lastability of the buildings they put up, let alone the communities they're tearing down. I need to repeat that: The fact that y'all are so opinionated and unwilling to think about it from deeper perspectives is *SCARIER* than the people who don't give a flying fuck and just want to make money at whatever/whoever's cost.

Learn some middle-ground, people, and you'll find that there's more to this than "live neighborhood" == "night-clubs", "those who complain" == "conservative change-fearers", and quite a bit more.

Example 1: Capitol Hill, quarter-block building demolished. Older dude living there for *decades* killed himself. Replacement building is dang-near *exactly the same*. (How many of you even *think* about *decades*, past or future? And how many of you "clubbing=living-neighborhood" types imagine you'll still be clubbing every night after work, well into your seventies?).

Example 2: Families in older neighborhoods have lived there for *generations.* The grand-children have *no hope, whatsoever* of one-day buying their neighbor's place, or even inheriting grandma's house and living in the neighborhood their parents, families, and communities grew up in; grandma's house now has a property-tax suited for a 4-plex that's dang-near the mortgage she paid off before she retired, among other things.

Here I was hopeful an article like this would inspire some thought, instead I see it's just a sounding-board for ignorant people.
52
I don't have any nostalgia for SLU, but it feels very cold now. I rode through on the useless streetcar (yes, it is faster to walk, I tested it on the way back) and it feels like an office park. Maybe something will humanize it, but I think it's gone over to commuters for the foreseeable future. It is possible to do better.

53
Different thing deemed worse than old thing.
54
Seattle died when I moved away. Sorry about that.
55
Seattle must be dead, I moved to Shoreline. I never really was attached to the cool kids on Capitol Hill but I miss the Fremont and Ballard of my youth. Oh well, downtown Edmonds is actually a happening place now and an easy bike ride away.
56
@23, way up there, what South Lake Union had 20 years ago was rentals that non-rich people could afford. It was a neighborhood of those rentals. Nothing like that exists in vaguely-downtown Seattle now.
57
@52, it IS an office park. That's what it was designed to be, by Paul Allen. He's happy with it and that's all that counts, because it's his town.
58
"Allentown" is a neighborhood in north Tukwila along the Duwamish River. In Allentown there used to be this weird mural on the side of a garage on S 133rd St. It was of two phrenology busts facing each other, one male, one female. They were about six feet tall and had an odd cartoonish character-- big lips and eyes, pencil thin necks expanding into broad shoulders.

It was painted over this summer. I don't think anyone complained that Allentown was dead after that. I'd say that as long as people are calling SLU "Allentown," completely unaware that another Seattle neighborhood has born that name for around a century, the real Allentown is alive and well.
59
Any post about density, new construction or whatever should include this PDF

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/gis/…

60
I just found a three volume book of Seattle history at work today. That's over 1000 pages. It was written in 1916. Seattle has been knocked down and rebuilt over and over and yet it still thrives. Get over yourselves and embrace change.
61
I'm not saying SLU is a hip, vibrant, cool neighborhood. It probably will never be. But it's not as if they destroyed a charming old neighborhood to build it. They took a decaying neighborhood with very few buildings worth saving and made it into an area that contributes hugely to the city's economy. Not every neighborhood has to be Capitol Hill.
62
Proud to be a non-hipster urban WASP, who helped displace some old mossback when I moved to my shiny new townhouse in the hood. I drive my car to work every day to my dev job, making a$$loads of cash while laughing like Mr. Burns all the way to the bank.

Thanks Old, Crusty, Dead Seattle!
63
@60: "Seattle has been knocked down and rebuilt over and over" Hah! And yet here I sit in a building that's older than that publication, older than the Denny Regrade, older than anyone you will ever know, and still in better physical condition than the vast majority of those built for and since the World's Fair. And it's not even a designated "Historic Landmark." Get over YOURself.

If anyone cares, it is a landmark, you've probably seen it on Stewart. Its proposed demolition is soon: https://sites.google.com/site/williamsbu… or "Save Williamsburg Court" on Facebook. Yay advertising!
64
Well, I notice the U district hasn't changed much at all in the last 10 or maybe even 20yrs. Although the cool little home I lived in 10 years ago in the U, which was a totally fine and perfectly functional house, has been wiped out for a big ugly condo. Eventually the whole damn city is just going to be the same old, same cold characterless condo. And I find it hard to imagine any bar, restaurant, etc developing its own little soul, and rich community as, say, the dead and dying dive bars of this city.
66
"...it's all aimless, unfocused construction of the kind where everyone is building the exact same type of building over and over again."

Sounds just like the aPodments that Slog and Publicola shill for on a daily basis.
67
We deal with enough of these whiners here in the Bay Area, and they have some _real_ cost of living issues to deal with.

Twentysomethings, please take note now: The community you live in and love will not look like what you remember it as forever, and it probably shouldn't. Cities aren't museums of your youth. When you get older, accept this with dignity and keep building.
68
We will be the one of the last major cities with drinkable water. Of course the poor will get squeezed out. We are all too stupid to quit having babies so this is what we get. Population density here will be like Tokyo in 10 years. But if we keep developing and building on our watersheds, we won't have enough water, so it's actually better to squeeze all the population into cities. That way when the next plague hits, it will do the planet some good.
69
Example 1: Capitol Hill, quarter-block building demolished. Older dude living there for *decades* killed himself. Replacement building is dang-near *exactly the same*. (How many of you even *think* about *decades*, past or future? And how many of you "clubbing=living-neighborhood" types imagine you'll still be clubbing every night after work, well into your seventies?).

Example 2: Families in older neighborhoods have lived there for *generations.* The grand-children have *no hope, whatsoever* of one-day buying their neighbor's place, or even inheriting grandma's house and living in the neighborhood their parents, families, and communities grew up in; grandma's house now has a property-tax suited for a 4-plex that's dang-near the mortgage she paid off before she retired, among other things.


I have no idea what point you think you're making with these two examples, but insofar as each of them seems to gesture toward a coherent point, they're working at cross purposes.

One of the reasons Grandma's house is so damn expensive is that housing is artificially scarce region wide, due to restrictions on development of the sort that example 1 is designed to manipulate us into supporting.

Furthermore: the grandkids place an extremely high value on remaining in the neighborhood they grew up in, but it's become much more popular and expensive in the meantime, one practical solution would be to convert grandma's house into a 4-plex or otherwise develop the property and rent the units they don't live in. But, at the behest of anti-change "neighborhood activists" (possibly including Grandma) there's a good chance that isn't permitted because of onerous anti-development zoning.

I can't feel too sorry for the grandkids--they can sell the house for big bucks and use the windfall to buy in the slightly less trendy neighborhood nearby--but a big part of the reason they can't live in the neighborhood of choice is the kind of policy your first example is attempting to emotionally manipulate us into supporting.
70
Nostalgia is tricky. We love to think back on "the good old days" but during those days people were complaining too.
71
Pretty sure Steinbeck had the same complaint. In 1962.
There are too many people here who think that how it was the day they moved in is how it's always been, and how it always should be.
72
If only they were building condos. They're not. They're building overprices apartments. If they were building condos they'd at least get people planning on staying around for longer and who would actually invest in their community. The city needs to stop approving apartment towers and instead approve condos.
73
David, if you read the precursor to those examples, you should be able to discern that you reached *exactly* the point I was making, without having paid attention to the point I had clearly spelled-out; that these issues are much more difficult than the simple one-sided opinions most people seem to be posting here. "The Solution" doesn't necessarily exist, but it seems "the solutions" being implemented are often touted as "The Solution" for individual problems, wherein exactly what you describe is what happens; people come to a solution for a problem, but that solution affects (and possibly creates) other problems, that now need solutions, as well.

Again, the very point is that one-sided blunt opinions with no reasonable amount of effort on the part of the stater to understand the problem just creates more problems.

I applaud you for your response, and I'd go so far as to suggest that you may have "A Solution" in you that might be better-suited to the *various* scenarios than any "The Solution" to any one scenario.

One thing I, personally, consider important in any of these scenarios/solutions is to keep in mind the people affected. E.G. Grandkids may be so lucky as to be able to sell Grandma's house for a huge profit, or grandkids may find that grandma's house had to be sold at horrendously low prices long before grandkids were anywhere near able to inherit it, just for the shear sake of the property-tax skyrocketted due to nearby development.

You can call it "emotional manipulation" if you so desire, but I knew these people, and in fact am one; I'm just passing on the stories the city itself has more than "emotionally-manipulated" me with... at some point it's more like "emotional-abuse."

-------

Morosoph: "The community you live in and love will not look like what you remember it as forever, and it probably shouldn't." Indeed. Growth is necessary and beneficial in many regards. OTOH, again, your conclusion is very one-sided. ... "Keep building" doesn't have to imply "demolish." As someone else said, roughly, "This city's been torn down and rebuilt several times," but all you have to do is look around your city to see that that's a totally leading statement. There're buildings here that've existed since the 1800's, there are bookstores which were at the forefront of national cultural revolutions akin to the suffrage-movement that only now is becoming mainstream. Why shouldn't we make some exceptions to "The Rule(s)" to at least *try* to keep these things around as long as possible? (E.G. exceptions to zoning, property-tax, maybe even "incentives", whatever else, this is where my knowledge of politics is dwarfed by others').

In my case, we're talking a 100 year old building that probably has another 50 years in it, as-is, before it's even remotely condemnable, probably another 200 if there was enough budget to fix a few things... And it's literally surrounded by 50% parking-lots, and several *completely unused* buildings. Seems to me, in cases like this, there should be some motivation to try to use the surrounding unused land *first*. Something that can benefit nearly everyone (though maybe not as much as they'd've hoped?). And, yahknow what, the way they're building these new structures, now, this building c/would probably *still* be standing long after the nearby 20-story cookie-cutter box crumbles or gets replaced.
74
Seattle died from plastic overdose in 1988. 90's grunge was its eulogy. I moved to Portland in 1992, and happily so. One thing I'd like to mention: I remember Seattlites having a severe insecurity complex regarding Portland (whether or not this condition still exists in the culture, I don't know). But I would like to say that it is not, nor was it ever, a mutual condition.
75
@49 -- I kinda love your assessment of people named Pam.
76
Growth will always be at the behest of the developers and their indentured servants the city council and Mayor. Seattle is, imo, not serious about the problems of density and gentrificaton, but rarely a city is.

It's "build now and worry later" about the problems of crime, high commercial vacancy rates, displaced residents, etc. When the bubble bursts, and it always does, the developers will have long ago made their money, and it will be the city and residents left holding the bag, in the form of increased crime, blight and empty sidewalks.

This is not to say that development is not a worthy goal in and of itself. It increases the city's tax base, which in theory leads to increased services. The problem is that development almost always serves its own ends (read: money in the hands of the capitalist owners) and not the needs of the city or its neighborhoods.

Seattle would do well to look at NYC and SF, where rents have risen so high that the middle and working class cannot afford to live within a reasonable commute of the city center, let alone in the city itself.

Seattle has a ways to go before it's that bad, but if it continues on the path of development for development's sake, it will lose its soul, for the benefit of a few extra coins in the pols and devs pockets.
77
Seattle's not dead. It's just a seething hell monster that wants to eat your soul and leave you a crumpled, dry husk.
78
@76, it is funny you should mention New York City. Dan Savage has admitted turning Seattle into NYC is one of his biggest desires, as he wants to move to NYC but his boyfriend refuses to leave Seattle.

To the people causing irreparable damage to Seattle's culture and standard of living, NYC is a place that should be emulated.
79
Tell who ever sent that letter to move to wenatchee wa. And see what a dead place to live is quit your bitching at least you live where there is stuff to do!
80
I think we may be wise to take a step back and have a discussion on what defines a community, why are some better than others, as well as why and how you best maintain longevity/livability.

This is an important ongoing issue in any city or town, large or small, thriving or failing.

Also, putting other people down does little to strengthen your argument or further this conversation.
81
In my opinion :::
Seattle has become sterile, boring, over-priced and just simply uncool.
If you really like the way it is now, you're probably relatively new in town and have no concept of what once was.
Change happens and there is no denying that.
But when that change leaves out the things that make a city fun, interesting and even funky, that city becomes a generic collection of buildings.

82
#46 - Yes, I hear Detroit doesn't have all those awful caucasian white males that have made Seattle such a horrible place to live.
83
Containing the sprawl in unincorporated King county is what raised the prices. Tenements without parking and blocking sunlight are what's killing neighborhoods.
Not fixing the roads is killing bikes.
Not maintaining the parks is just sick.
A $15 minimum wage will kill social services and restaurant's.
And I agree with a lot of you getting off the fucking Hill and take your shit with you so we can live a decent life.
84
Containing the sprawl in unincorporated King county is what raised the prices. Tenements without parking and blocking sunlight are what's killing neighborhoods.
Not fixing the roads is killing bikes.
Not maintaining the parks is just sick.
A $15 minimum wage will kill social services and restaurant's.
And I agree with a lot of you getting off the fucking Hill and take your shit with you so we can live a decent life.
85
New Seattle isn't dead, it just sucks.
86
@23: Not ~exactly~ SLU, but I do miss the Funhouse :(
87
> I think we may be wise to take a step back and have a discussion on what defines a community, why are some better than others, as well as why and how you best maintain longevity/livability.
> This is an important ongoing issue in any city or town, large or small, thriving or failing.

"Why are some better than others" is a bit leading, they needn't be "better" or "worse" but just different. Regardless, comparison/discussion about their merits is definitely worthwhile in this era.

Maybe the difficulty is that we're trying to talk amongst readers of The Stranger... While it's been one of the few paper reading-materials I've picked up for nearly two decades, it doesn't seem the readership/writership has grown with me in that time.
88
@87,

I think that's because the Stranger pretty much caters to a demographic that has no historical memory of Seattle, and that thinks that all that is new is necessarily good (if these people had been in power in the 70's and 80's, the Pike Place Market wouldn't exist. Successful and well-regarded historic districts such as Ballard and Georgetown would be impossible to establish in Seattle today).

I considered the possibility that maybe I'm just being an old fart, but then I realized that 22 year-old me would have been just as quick or quicker to tell these privileged yuppie assholes with New Urbanist trappings to go fuck themselves as 47 year old me is.
89
I need to reread the comments, there're certainly a few that're worthy of revisiting.
90
The Seattle I knew and loved is certainly dead. Low rent where one could even work at minimum wage and still afford to rent a decent 2 bedroom flat on Capital Hill and still have money left over for bills, food, entertainment. Those who remember how easy it was to get around back then. How easy it was to talk to people on the street before the Seattle Freeze set in due to density. Going to the Market or the Folk Life Festival without feeling like your being hearded like cattle.
91
I'm mostly endlessly crippled by nostalgia, and don't react well to change initially, but I'm over the hump re: the development thing. The Denny Triangle / SLU stuff is excitingly urban.

My only worry is that when everything is built there'll be these semi-private micro-neighborhoods and this kind of shit will happen: http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2014/03/27…
92
It's only dying in the opinions of bored Post GenX types who can't allow themselves to actually enjoy anything, lest their jaded friends think they're becoming a sell-out. Ballard, Georgetown, and all those other neighborhoods are just fine, thanks, if you're not so faux-uber cool that you can't say a positive word not couched in seven layers of irony.
93
Soon Seattle will be nothing but condos and apartments:
Which means the developers and Seattle government WINS,
and we all become sharecroppers in a city that was something different, and better.

Remember when Alki was not a walled city?

Now taking a walk there is like walking down Fourth Ave on a Friday afternoon.

California Ave was nice to walk down and back from Alaska to Admiral.

Now it has some of the wonderful magic of any six blocks around Westlake park on the same Friday afternoon you did not enjoy on Fourth Ave.
94
Two words... Major Earthquake
95
Seattle is so dead that there is already a big mural/ad painted on the wall on 12th & Pine, across the street from the cop shop advertising "Portland, it's happening", or some shit like that.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.