NY Times article about Seattle, in Midst of Tech Boom, Tries to Keep Its Soul (Tacoma: 2015, apartments)

[phoenixmike11]

NY Times article about Seattle struggles in trying to keep its "soul"

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/te...=top-news&_r=0

[Seacove]

Thanks for posting this - what a timely article. I travel to the Bay Area regularly. It is a dense, crowded metropolis jammed into a beautiful geography. The ugly signage along the highways, the crowded - everything - it's sad to see. We definitely do not want to be that. At the same time, we do want this type of economy, that focuses on intellectual, non-polluting jobs; it's a fine line. I think we really need to expand our focus of growth and support Tacoma more.

[tifoso]

Originally Posted by Seacove

Thanks for posting this - what a timely article. I travel to the Bay Area regularly. It is a dense, crowded metropolis jammed into a beautiful geography. The ugly signage along the highways, the crowded - everything - it's sad to see. We definitely do not want to be that. At the same time, we do want this type of economy, that focuses on intellectual, non-polluting jobs; it's a fine line. I think we really need to expand our focus of growth and support Tacoma more.

If you are against crowding and density, get out of Seattle NOW. Every level of government, be it the state, the county, the Puget Sound Regional Council, and especially the city of Seattle, are hell-bent on encouraging growth and increasing density. And other than areas focused on agriculture or tourism, show me somewhere that's not. Seattle's always embraced growth more than other areas (check out PDX for a local contrast) and the political and economic powers in this area will ride this current boom as long as they can. They will make a lot of noise about addressing inequality, displacement, and congestion, but in the end all they will be able to do is make modest changes on the margins. And those changes will come with massive price tags for current residents unless they are very rich (no state income tax) or very poor (eligible for government funds). What will ultimately, if only temporarily, solve the problem will be another recession. Despite the common conceit that we can have a booming economy, working-wage jobs for all, decreased congestion, and affordable housing, we can't.

As for the comment that we need to focus on "intellectual, non-polluting jobs", well, at least the Mayor agrees with you on that. Hizzoner's public posturing to the contrary (that he wants to maintain those blue collar jobs down in SODO and the port) may have convinced the NYT, but it falls on deaf ears here. Other than flapping his lips, he's done nothing to encourage that at all. Like too many people around here, he apparently wants the benefits of industrial activity and none of its costs. The solution: send those messy, dirty blue collar jobs elsewhere. Perhaps to Tacoma, as you suggest. SF outsourced their working waterfront to Oakland; the recent move to combine the Seattle and Tacoma ports will surely send more shipping to the City of Destiny.

[rmkiefer07]

I love Seattle, but I fear that the city we used to know is already gone. Working class people are being priced out. When I moved here over twenty years ago, it was relatively easy to get a job without a degree and afford a home and have a little extra to enjoy - not anymore.

I'm in between jobs after seventeen years at a local Medical Center and one would think with a low unemployment rate, I could easily get another with the experience I've garnered - not true! I could get work tomorrow easy enough, but $15 an hour isn't going to cut it in the city. I fear that if something doesn't give soon, we will have to sell and move back east.

Several of my neighbors are also feeling the pinch - working class, cost outpacing income, all we do is work and sleep. We're fortunate in that we all own our houses and the values have doubled or tripled from when we bought. One couple down the road is selling their house and moving back to Tucson. Another is looking to move to the Midwest where they can buy a house for cash after selling theirs. We will probably do the same if an opportunity doesn't present itself in a few months. My savings will only last so long.

I love Seattle and the PNW, but the reality is we and many other working class people can't afford it anymore. Nothing against newcomers (I was one back in the day), but to see many of the dismissive attitudes to these concerns is quite disheartening. I think the city and region has already sold out. It's really sad.

[GatsbyGatz]

NY Times seems to love posting a new article about Seattle every other week. Glad our city is making such a splash.

[CrazyDonkey]

Seattle has always been a boom-and-bust economy. Right now, we're in the boom, with the bust yet to come (Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon?). If we can leverage the growth to prioritize preservation, increase net affordable units, and create non-SOV transportation links, then we could end up just fine, especially if we figure on grossly over-building luxury apartments (rather than el cheapo "townhouses" in the housing crisis), which should eventually trickle down to us "lesser folks". I'd rather become Copenhagen or Amsterdam than San Francisco.

[seasallyttle]

Maybe it's just me but I don't think Seattle is really trying to keep its soul. Soon Seattle will just be wealthy people, single techies living in apodments, students near the Universities and people on government assistance and/or homeless people. And I would say the homeless are beginning to rival the wealthy in terms of numbers. Every day driving through the city I now pass two mass dumps of homeless people's camp items just strewn everywhere next to 5N. Every single patch of open land by the freeways in Seattle is covered in tents from homeless people. Go to the waterfront parks near downtown and the smell of urine is so strong that it is amazingly not washed away by the rain and will most likely limit the time you want to spend there. And don't step on the grass or sit on it as you very well may hit a used needle. Also, you can't stop at a red light (metered entrances) at any freeway without someone standing 5 feet from your window asking for money.

The working class of Seattle is quickly on the way out. Working class people can't pay 600k+ and rising for a basic house and people who bought their houses many years ago will eventually get priced out of their places via annual rising property taxes that outpace most people's pay raises. So then you are left with the rich, the poor and the very poor.

And I am a bleeding heart for the poor, mentally ill, drug addicted, etc. but the amount of it left undealt with in Seattle gets to me. Like San Francisco, Seattle often feels like an open psychiatric ward and drug addict haven, with open drug deals being a creepy and accepted part of the ambiance. Unlike San Francisco, Seattle does not have the great cultural offerings, the great mass transit, rent control, and limited increases in property taxes that San Francisco has - the latter of which help people that have lived there for years be able to stay in their home city.

[angelenogirl]

Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz

NY Times seems to love posting a new article about Seattle every other week. Glad our city is making such a splash.

We're famous! We're famous! It's our birthday! It's our birthday!

[mkarch]

I don't really understand the comparison to SF. If you look at the number of new homes and apartments built in Seattle over the past few years it's something like 10 times as many as were built in SF. We don't have the constraints on building that the Bay Area does. Even if you look at outlying areas like Oakland, they aren't building much in the way of new housing in any of those areas, so the tiny bit that does get added tends to be at the ultra high end.

Seattle isn't like this, and won't become like this unless the city really cracks down on developers and stops offering 90% of building permits. Just look at Ballard. Thousands of new units built in the past few years in just one neighborhood, and if that wasn't enough they even added hundreds of regulated and unregulated tent camping sites. With that diversity of housing available from tent camps and apodmemts all the way up to luxury homes there's something for everyone, even if it isn't quite what everyone wants at that price point.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by mkarch

I don't really understand the comparison to SF. If you look at the number of new homes and apartments built in Seattle over the past few years it's something like 10 times as many as were built in SF. We don't have the constraints on building that the Bay Area does. Even if you look at outlying areas like Oakland, they aren't building much in the way of new housing in any of those areas, so the tiny bit that does get added tends to be at the ultra high end.

Seattle isn't like this, and won't become like this unless the city really cracks down on developers and stops offering 90% of building permits. Just look at Ballard. Thousands of new units built in the past few years in just one neighborhood, and if that wasn't enough they even added hundreds of regulated and unregulated tent camping sites. With that diversity of housing available from tent camps and apodmemts all the way up to luxury homes there's something for everyone, even if it isn't quite what everyone wants at that price point.

I agree. Great comment.