IMO if Seattle plans its urban development well (Renton: apartments, homes)

[dozener]

...and infills properly it's the American city that could most resemble a Japanese or Korean city in terms of built environment and urban experience

[leastprime]

My visit to Japan was too short to know what a Japanese city looks like. No idea for a Korean city.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by dozener

...and infills properly it's the American city that could most resemble a Japanese or Korean city in terms of built environment and urban experience

Seattle has been in-filling since around the late 80's, or early 90's, and the result is what you see today: freeways that become like parking lots within two hours each side of the commute time (5 p.m.), and that even during non-commute hours look like other cities' commute hour. City streets that are similarly clogged, as commuters struggle to approach freeway entrances.

And you're suggesting more infill? Cities are great about creating infill. They're terrible about planning for the additional traffic the infill creates. Seattle outgrew its freeways long ago. How would you propose to effectively resolve that?








Well? We're waiting....

[homesinseattle]

Originally Posted by dozener

...and infills properly it's the American city that could most resemble a Japanese or Korean city in terms of built environment and urban experience

I don't know. I love Seattle but I've been to Japan and Korea and their cities do mass transit/trains so much better than we do here.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by homesinseattle

I don't know. I love Seattle but I've been to Japan and Korea and their cities do mass transit/trains so much better than we do here.

Yup. People also live in little box-like "studio" apartments in Tokyo.I've been on the trains there, during rush hour, and people were packed in so tightly, I couldn't breathe. I almost barfed on the commuters around me. They need to work on ventilating the cars better.

And if the West Seattle tunnel project is an example of how the city plans to handle transit issues in the future, Seattle's doomed. No more infill should be allowed, until they come up with a workable massive people-moving plan, and the money to fund it.

[CrazyDonkey]

The main issue is, because of the Monorail fiasco, that mass transit needed to justify current development in West Seattle (Admiral, the Junction, Alki, tc.) and northwest Seattle (Ballard, Fremont, Green Lake, Queen Anne, etc.) won't be delivered for 12 (2030) to 17 years (2035). Instead, we get the C- and D-Lines as sops. That's all that the local tax burden will bear, even though the need is long past due.

Renton is being even worse served, with mass transit not even on the drawing board.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

The main issue is, because of the Monorail fiasco, that mass transit needed to justify current development in West Seattle (Admiral, the Junction, Alki, tc.) and northwest Seattle (Ballard, Fremont, Green Lake, Queen Anne, etc.) won't be delivered for 12 (2030) to 17 years (2035). Instead, we get the C- and D-Lines as sops. That's all that the local tax burden will bear, even though the need is long past due.

Renton is being even worse served, with mass transit not even on the drawing board.

Well, I'm not sure what "the local tax burden" and its limitations means, but it seems, logically (if logic has anything to do with it), that if employers are attracting hordes of workers to the area (you know which ones those are), they should chip in a little extra, to help the city cope with accommodating their workers and their transit needs.

Could you explain a little more about the Monorail fiasco, and how that relates to the West Seattle project? And what is in store for Green Lake, Queen Anne and Ballard, in 12-17 years? Sorry, I'm out of the loop. do you mean: light-rail extensions to NW Seattle?

Of course, all of this should have been done back in the 70's/80's, but....oh well. That goes back to "what the local tax burden will bear".

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Well, I'm not sure what "the local tax burden" and its limitations means, but it seems, logically (if logic has anything to do with it), that if employers are attracting hordes of workers to the area (you know which ones those are), they should chip in a little extra, to help the city cope with accommodating their workers and their transit needs.

Could you explain a little more about the Monorail fiasco, and how that relates to the West Seattle project? And what is in store for Green Lake, Queen Anne and Ballard, in 12-17 years? Sorry, I'm out of the loop. do you mean: light-rail extensions to NW Seattle?

Of course, all of this should have been done back in the 70's/80's, but....oh well. That goes back to "what the local tax burden will bear".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Monorail_Project

Ballard and West Seattle weren't included in the light rail plans, because we were going to get the Monorail (the Green Line).

Seattle Monorail

[mhays25]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Seattle has been in-filling since around the late 80's, or early 90's, and the result is what you see today: freeways that become like parking lots within two hours each side of the commute time (5 p.m.), and that even during non-commute hours look like other cities' commute hour. City streets that are similarly clogged, as commuters struggle to approach freeway entrances.

And you're suggesting more infill? Cities are great about creating infill. They're terrible about planning for the additional traffic the infill creates. Seattle outgrew its freeways long ago. How would you propose to effectively resolve that?


Well? We're waiting....

More infill. You have the results backward. In a growing city, infill is how we can accommodate growth the most easily.

Infill generally makes commutes shorter, and it's part of why drive-alone commutes have fallen below 50% among residents within city limits (Census 2017 ACS).

Not to mention we don't sprawl as much, which is crucial on a bunch of fronts.

[CrazyDonkey]

You need a balance of centrifugal (outward) and centripetal (inward) forces. A surplus of available surrounding land drove suburbanization, decaying the center, but in-fill out to the edge, sprawl, eventually turned easy commutes hard, leading to the reflux of re-urbanization and gentrification, which, however, escalates the price of land closer in, simply because there is so much less of it, casting out those who can no longer afford it. Transit (buses, trolleys, BRT, light-rail, subways) and alternate modes (bike-paths and urban trails) serve only to delay the process, but ultimately only further intensify the differential between the rich, in the castle, who are served (the masters) and the poor, in the fields, who serve (the slaves).

A missing element that might lead out of this trap: high-speed/high-capacity rail, leapfrogging sprawl/in-fill to create out-lying residential/job satellites on readily available, and cheaper, land. (Along the rails (or hypertubes), fiber-optic networks could be spread.) This restores the centripetal/centrifugal balance, creating choice, which will. ultimately, pull down "take it or leave it" urban prices, leading to a new egalitarianism, rather than to the same-old slave plantation, of the future. When measured against costs saved, and freedoms gained, the price, while high, will be well worth it.