How come Seattle isn't a world class city? (Vancouver, Woodland: best city, theatres)

[Gentoo]

LA, Chicago, Philly, Washington, Miami, SF, Boston, Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Seattle, Atlanta,

uuhhggg! You did not just put SF in the same catagory as Houston and Atlanta LOL!

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by seattlenextyear

as they type these messages on their Windows machines....

while opening packages sent by UPS that may have been ordered from Amazon that were flown on a Boeing aircraft LOL

[Gentoo]

This is actually the attitude of not just Seattle, but the West Coast in general. They don't want you there, they don't want more people, they don't want to develop.

I mean, it's no judgment on my behalf; it is what its citizens wanted it to be, and currently it's working. But being a "world class city" would mean developing in a way that is counter to all of the values Seattle has. And, really, NoCal.

As it is, it is still a "boutique city": sort of a city, but mostly canvas to LOOK like a city without actually having to DEAL with a city. The amenities are sort of the same but dramatically scaled down

The west coast does not want to develop??? Did you actually say that and mean it? There are way too many people crammed into our metro area already. Seattle and Portland are the last two that can still curb the tide so why wouldn't they want to?

Not wanting to develop. That would mean that these metro areas don't have a lot of people now. Los Angeles county has somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million people. There are many states that don't have that many people! The San Francisco Bay Area has over 7 million people. San Diego County has over 3 million in an area slightly smaller than the Seattle metro area. That means Seattle is densely populated.

See, we on the west coast have this attitude because...well...our birthrates are no where near that high. However all of these places I've mentioned have populations largely from other parts of the country. We are growing too fast and in most cases don't need to grow anymore. Not everyplace wants to be another New York although it's too late for LA. But that's the point, we want to prevent "Los Angelization".

[shoegal111]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

The west coast does not want to develop??? Did you actually say that and mean it? There are way too many people crammed into our metro area already. Seattle and Portland are the last two that can still curb the tide so why wouldn't they want to?

Not wanting to develop. That would mean that these metro areas don't have a lot of people now. Los Angeles county has somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million people. There are many states that don't have that many people! The San Francisco Bay Area has over 7 million people. San Diego County has over 3 million in an area slightly smaller than the Seattle metro area. That means Seattle is densely populated.

See, we on the west coast have this attitude because...well...our birthrates are no where near that high. However all of these places I've mentioned have populations largely from other parts of the country. We are growing too fast and in most cases don't need to grow anymore. Not everyplace wants to be another New York although it's too late for LA. But that's the point, we want to prevent "Los Angelization".

I hate to tell you this but Seattle was designed to be a mini New York City by it's founding fathers.

[eskercurve]

Originally Posted by shoegal111

I hate to tell you this but Seattle was designed to be a mini New York City by it's founding fathers.

Not to sound too incredulous but ... wha? Got any evidence to back that up?

On one hand it makes sense as it is closest to Asia, which America has always seen as the second major trading sector since the mid to late 1800s (hence why we conquered Hawaii, Philippines and many other archipelagos and forced Japan and China to open their borders to trade). That combined with large populations of Asians who've emigrated to this region looking for work would make Seattle ideal and a secondary waypoint besides SF or LA.


But this is all nice and well ... but why is this debate being revived 7 months after the previous last post was put in? Seattle IS a "world-class" city based on the impact of its local corporations (Boeing - gave the USA and allies the air power to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese and ushered in the commercial jet age; Microsoft, which launched the digital revolution like 'em or hate 'em, together with Apple; a number of .com companies which changed the way we do business, book travel, among other things; ZymoGenetics, which pioneered genetically engineered drugs and nanotech; I could go on).

It's also a well known international cultural haven in the 1960s (Jimi Hendrix the most well known to come from here) and more recently (Nirvana and the STP). Many British, German, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Phillippino, and other nationalities I've encountered elsewhere in my travels in the USA have at least heard of Seattle.

Granted it's not the scale nor universal knowledge of as NYC, but you're comparing one of the cities that is where America got started vs. a city which just recently got renowned.

[Ira500]

Not to sound too incredulous but... wha? Got any evidence to back that up?
Yes, as a matter of fact. From Wikipedia:

The Denny Party landed at Alki Point November 13, 1851, and platted a settlement of six blocks of eight lots. The original name of the settlement was "New York Alki," "Alki" being a word in Chinook Jargon (Wawa) meaning "eventually" or "by and by."[2]

[texastrigirl]

Originally Posted by shoegal111

I hate to tell you this but Seattle was designed to be a mini New York City by it's founding fathers.

Heard it myself on the Underground Tour. Fun way to learn a bit of Seattle's history I might add.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by shoegal111

I hate to tell you this but Seattle was designed to be a mini New York City by it's founding fathers.

I know it was designed for that, but that's not what it is.

[shoegal111]

Originally Posted by eskercurve

Not to sound too incredulous but ... wha? Got any evidence to back that up?

On one hand it makes sense as it is closest to Asia, which America has always seen as the second major trading sector since the mid to late 1800s (hence why we conquered Hawaii, Philippines and many other archipelagos and forced Japan and China to open their borders to trade). That combined with large populations of Asians who've emigrated to this region looking for work would make Seattle ideal and a secondary waypoint besides SF or LA.


But this is all nice and well ... but why is this debate being revived 7 months after the previous last post was put in? Seattle IS a "world-class" city based on the impact of its local corporations (Boeing - gave the USA and allies the air power to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese and ushered in the commercial jet age; Microsoft, which launched the digital revolution like 'em or hate 'em, together with Apple; a number of .com companies which changed the way we do business, book travel, among other things; ZymoGenetics, which pioneered genetically engineered drugs and nanotech; I could go on).

It's also a well known international cultural haven in the 1960s (Jimi Hendrix the most well known to come from here) and more recently (Nirvana and the STP). Many British, German, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Phillippino, and other nationalities I've encountered elsewhere in my travels in the USA have at least heard of Seattle.

Granted it's not the scale nor universal knowledge of as NYC, but you're comparing one of the cities that is where America got started vs. a city which just recently got renowned.

I wasn't comparing anything. I just wanted to give you some additional information related to the statement you made about Seattle not being NYC.

[Gentoo]

Nirvana and the STP

If by STP you mean Stone Temple Pilots, they're from San Diego. Understandable though as SD is the other alternative rock city after Seattle.