Seattle should be denser with more high rises so it can be a world class city (Tacoma: apartments, low crime)

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

All you folks hating the development...remember, increasing more housing supply lessens demand.

We're in a time where the suburban lifestyle isn't so important anymore. An exciting, walkable city with hustle and bustle is the answer. Look how Vancouver is - lots of SFH development but also tons of highrise districts, it's a great balance...and better yet, it feels like a bold, sexy city. We can't hold onto these archaic ideas of everybody needing an acre of land and a mcmansion - it's not good for your health to be driving everywhere, nor is it good for the environment. Auto-oriented development is the bane of nearly all US cities.

The more we allow housing to be built, the more options we'll all have. Look what happened to SF - they tried make development impossible anywhere, and now nobody can afford it.

Seattle is on its way to being a world class city of sophistication, a model city for the US. Embrace it, or get the heck out.

1. Seattle should be exactly like the residents want, nothing more and nothing less. Not everyone wants what you want.

2. Your vision of Seattle would hardly make it more affordable. Your thinking is in fact opposite of reality. Or perhaps I'm wrong and Manhattan is a bargain. Increasing housing will only lessen demand for a very short while. The area is too attractive for it to last long.

3. When I return to the US I'm buying a McMansion on an acre and getting a new Land Rover.

4. You need to go to Europe, visit some of the dense cities with great public transportation and tell me how congested the highways are. Traffic is terrible over here. You can't beat the almighty auto. Nobody has. Deal with it. However many people you take off the roads are quickly replaced by new people commuting ever longer distances.

All that said, I have nothing against development. I am against people forcing their lifestyle on me though. If you want to live in a small box with 1,000 of your closest friends and walk everywhere that is your choice. If I want to live in a McMansion on the water with a big freaking yard that is my choice.

BTW, I think Vancouver is one of the most overrated cities in the world. It looks like the same architect built every damned high rise in the city.

[rmkiefer07]

Originally Posted by Ira500

Um, no. I believe we have something in this country called free speech, and as citizens we are also allowed to participate in the political process. If you don't like the way things are going, don't leave. Get involved! As far as being a "World Class City of Sophistication?" Translated, that means "very expensive."
Honestly, I understand why density in cities is good. At the same time, I don't think it's an "either/or".
The way you make it sound, why don't we just hand over the keys of the city to developers, because they know what's good for us?
Yes, if employment in a particular place is growing rapidly, we need to accommodate that, and having more housing within the city limits is a good thing for all the reasons you mentioned.
But there's also a quality of life in Seattle we are losing, by allowing tall buildings/multifamily buildings everywhere and anywhere.
When I think of what kind of things make me happy, what kinds of places I seek out, " World Class City of sophistication" is the last on my list. What are we supposed to do with all the people who live here who aren't sophisticated? Kill them? Put them all on a train to Puyallup? To me, the mark of a great city is it's diversity, both ethnically/racially and economically.
Does London boast about how they are a "World Class City of sophistication"? Does Rome? Paris?
No. Only cities that either have an inferiority complex, or are trying to justify the actions of the rich to get richer do that.
Again, maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I've got no class instead of World Class. But eating pate and going to the opera appeal to me far less than walking along the water or in the woods.

As usual Ira, you hit it on the nail! Can't rep you enough! Unfortunately, the economic reality is that for some of us to stay and get involved, it may be from a tent under I-5

[LowTune]

Originally Posted by Ira500

Um, no. I believe we have something in this country called free speech, and as citizens we are also allowed to participate in the political process. If you don't like the way things are going, don't leave. Get involved! As far as being a "World Class City of Sophistication?" Translated, that means "very expensive."
Honestly, I understand why density in cities is good. At the same time, I don't think it's an "either/or".
The way you make it sound, why don't we just hand over the keys of the city to developers, because they know what's good for us?
Yes, if employment in a particular place is growing rapidly, we need to accommodate that, and having more housing within the city limits is a good thing for all the reasons you mentioned.
But there's also a quality of life in Seattle we are losing, by allowing tall buildings/multifamily buildings everywhere and anywhere.
When I think of what kind of things make me happy, what kinds of places I seek out, " World Class City of sophistication" is the last on my list. What are we supposed to do with all the people who live here who aren't sophisticated? Kill them? Put them all on a train to Puyallup? To me, the mark of a great city is it's diversity, both ethnically/racially and economically.
Does London boast about how they are a "World Class City of sophistication"? Does Rome? Paris?
No. Only cities that either have an inferiority complex, or are trying to justify the actions of the rich to get richer do that.
Again, maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I've got no class instead of World Class. But eating pate and going to the opera appeal to me far less than walking along the water or in the woods.

I agree with about half of your post, the second half.... I'm not completely sure that moving is a bad thing. The people who run Seattle are either too daft, or too detached from reality to really fix things here and make it a world-class city.

Seattle reminds me of an insecure highschooler who has to pick on others and constantly tell you about how great, cool, and ahead of the game they are in order to feel important.... Instead of just doing it and showing people with action and results that they're great, cool, and ahead of the game.

I'm not sure any amount of protesting or trying to change things will fix the problems here. All it will do is force the leaders of this city to better hide what's really going on and move their corruptions further underground.

This city is producing a lot of instability with it's minimum wage, which will further drive prices up on a city that's already overpriced. With it's new developments ie "The Mark" or whatever it's called despite half the city being homeless and not having shoes or adequate shelter. But on the surface it all looks and sounds great despite really creating further gaps and instability in society. As I've stated before, Seattle is all show and no go.

[CrazyDonkey]

The problem I see is that transit developments are not only failing to keep up with, but are falling behind, increases in housing density. Ballard has housing developments popping up like 'shrooms on a NW lawn after a heavy rain, but will probably have to wait at least a dozen years before it will have even a whiff of rapid transit. The reality is that Ballard needs light rail NOW, as does West Seattle.

One solution is to tap development to help pay for transit. If developers, for instance, want to build a multi-story mixed-use development at NW 65th & 32nd Ave NW (great views), for instance, they should help pay for the return of the #17 bus.

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by LowTune

As I've stated before, Seattle is all show and no go.

But you're going, right? I saw where you are looking for a desert town with female massage therapists, like - Vegas? Seattle was wrong for you from the start. Good luck!

[LowTune]

Originally Posted by Seacove

But you're going, right? I saw where you are looking for a desert town with female massage therapists, like - Vegas? Seattle was wrong for you from the start. Good luck!

I love the weather in Seattle, probably the best in the entire U.S. in my opinion. I just despise almost everything else about it.

Regarding the other thread that I started, it was partially out of curiosity.

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by LowTune

I love the weather in Seattle, probably the best int he entire U.S. in my opinion. I just despise almost everything else about it.

Regarding the other thread that I just started, it was partially out of curiosity.

You have several but that doesn't matter, the point is you are looking for things that aren't Seattle. I hope you find your happy place and if you can discourage others by spreading your displeasure, it can only help our traffic.

[LowTune]

Originally Posted by Seacove

You have several but that doesn't matter, the point is you are looking for things that aren't Seattle. I hope you find your happy place and if you can discourage others by spreading your displeasure, it can only help our traffic.

I do like certain things about Seattle, it's not the worst city in the U.S. by any stretch of the imagination. But there are definitely a few too many things about Seattle that are screwed up, and in my opinion it's expense is unjustified.

[Jiff]

Re, "I am quite sure no one goes to Rome, Paris or even New York to see the many prison-like, multi-use buildings each of which looks exactly like the next so that the city looks like a sterile monochromatic bath of beige concrete."

Right, although Seattle is going to glass and aluminum. If "World Class" means more people and congestion, and canyons of glass boxes replacing interesting or funky mom and pop places like The Fun House, the rows of bars on East Pine and 2nd in Belltown, Mama's, The Hurricane, The Blob, RKCNDY, etc, then "no thanks".

What do more people get the city besides more restaurants and people in the way, including bigger crowds at events and attractions? We already have major sports teams, opera, ballet, theater, symphony. Hopefully people that move to Seattle are the kind of people that will stay there on weekends or maybe go to to the airport, but not crowd the rest of the state. I'm for whatever will impede growth in Western WA, including not improving mobility around Seattle.

Even Pioneer Square is not immune from glass boxes:

[Ruth4Truth]

OP, jamming more people into limited acreage won't magically transform Seattle into a world class city. It'll just add to traffic gridlock. In case you hadn't noticed, the Seattle area already has more people than the freeways and streets can handle. The population has exploded since the city decided to direct growth inward, to "infilling", to save open space outside the city, and also since the tech booms, yet this hasn't transformed Seattle into a world class city.

Seattle is what it is. If you don't like it, move to NYC, LA or the Bay Area.