Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The usual and ridiculous slant in this forum about Seattle's growth is too predictable, and misleading to the occasional sincere person posting here about an upcoming move to Seattle. So much so that it isn't even fair to those posting with sincere inquiries about making the move here.
From one who has been in Seattle for it all, and has witnessed it all, there are lots of reasons why this whole new wave of interest in moving to Seattle makes sense, with or without Amazon.
First of all, Seattle is better insulated against real or imagined threats of "global warming" in that the long-time norm here has plenty of buffer zone to withstand higher temperatures and still function reasonably well. (We're just ending what is very probably "the warmest May ever recorded in Seattle", and did it really harm any humans?) If Seattle could know "global warming" only during the winters, it would likely become weather utopia.
Second, the outdoor surroundings here offer far more variety than most of the places which most of the newcomers left in order to move here. If you don't like the new crowds, you can easily get out of town to a vast range of locations for a short while, be it a weekend or a week's vacation.
Speaking of town, Seattle's population has increased by about 26% since 1960 - which is nothing on the grand scale of population growth hotspots. The planet as a whole has seen its human population increase by 150% during that same time period.
Amazon? Well first of all, can I just recognize the cuteness of their "Community Banana Stand", which offers free bananas to anyone at their banana cart located on Terry Avenue North between Republican and Harrison Streets. The bananas are so fresh it seems they fell off of the banana plant and into your hand. The free bananas are served by banistas! (talk about Amazon making every effort to fit-in locally)
It is true that their workforce is predictably altering a whole lot of the northern landscape of downtown Seattle, but I contend that it is the rush between yesterday and tomorrow, and not actual fear over what tomorrow in Seattle will be, that has so many long-time residents up in arms.
The second Amazon headquarters makes complete sense for a company not wanting to have all of its eggs in one basket and ripe for some unpredictable natural disaster to stop their infrastructure in its tracks for at least a short while. The second Amazon headquarters was never going to be immediately around here and thus it was rather dumb for local politicians to give it another thought.
Seattle over the long run has been relatively undiscovered by the masses, and thus it makes every bit of sense that some large companies would open/move here and optimize so much of what has always been here. If not Amazon, then it would have been any number of other large employers. The Amazon people certainly aren't the bad guys and, like it or not, real estate values and population shifts have fluctuated since the beginning of time. It simply isn't wrong that the relative value of various living quarters goes up and up.
And nobody really has a right to live in a place they can't afford to pay for (regardless of whether or not they once could afford it)... even if that cost is to simply maintain a free cardboard/wooden box provided by the city. Nor is there any necessity by a neighborhood or its city to maintain whatever passed for the norm over the previous several decades.
It is probably true that with this large influx of new residents, some of the dilapidated (or merely outdated) structures which once meant something to this town will be replaced with something new and vibrant - and that's fine, as it benefits everybody in the long run.
There is just too much weight placed on nostalgia at web forums like this one, and I too could sit here and yearn for the days of Dags, Jay Jacobs, the Bubblator and the Fun Forest, with Westlake Mall being much different than the shopping center it has become. It isn't at all as if Amazon raced in and swiped-away your childhood and its memories, and to an objective person, what's coming in the future to replace it all will likely be much more efficient and user-friendly than most of the randomness which too many like to label as old Seattle.
It's just that, even in order to get from the ancient and potentially dangerous Viaduct to the eventual new tunnel, you just have to live several weekends without a fast path along the Seattle waterfront while society transports you from your past to your future. (and that's where your local society is at present)
Those reading here, and contemplating/plotting their strategic move to Seattle should certainly first do diligent math comparing their income and likely living expenses, and if those match one another well, then some strategy should be employed when selecting a neighborhood.
The riff-raff we all keep reading about on City Data tend to frequent the same spots in similar numbers every day - they are as predictable as are most of the disgruntled people on this forum. That riff-raff resists hills with every ounce of their collective being. So a premium should be placed upon living on a hill, particularly for people not likely facing a daily walk up that hill.
Seattle is unlike most American cities in that the concentration of humanity which makes for the worst neighborhoods in U.S. society just about cannot occur in Seattle because their are so many hills. The wealthier people want to live on the hills mostly for the views, and with area hills so sought-after by the wealthy, the pockets of poor dotted around just can't take up enough space to attain the concentration of poor known to the terrible neighborhoods in other cities.
You may not be the wealthy people who can afford the home on/near the bluff with the great view, but you don't need that... you just need to be strategically situated so as to keep your family and your possessions relatively safe. Look for the spots where few people make it a regular habit of passing by your home on a daily basis. Most crime is opportunity crime... and if you live on a hill in an area where very few bother to just happen by your house, then you have helped yourself a great deal over the entire duration of your residence there.
I would venture to guess that 2018 Seattle offers far more variety in most every way than 1970's Seattle could have ever begun to imagine. While many of us will have to leap over our resistance to trying new things, it is certain that lots of great experiences are out there if only we would go out and find them all around us. The local media can't even keep-up with the new and varied cuisines available at nearby eateries, often thanks to the influx of different cultures.
To the stubborn among us, perhaps it will work better if you just imagine yourself in the midst of a long, drawn-out wait for the social equivalent to the new Alaskan Way tunnel. Better things are on the way, even IF they arrive several years behind schedule!
The usual and ridiculous slant in this forum about Seattle's growth is too predictable, and misleading to the occasional sincere person posting here about an upcoming move to Seattle. So much so that it isn't even fair to those posting with sincere inquiries about making the move here.
From one who has been in Seattle for it all, and has witnessed it all, there are lots of reasons why this whole new wave of interest in moving to Seattle makes sense, with or without Amazon.
First of all, Seattle is better insulated against real or imagined threats of "global warming" in that the long-time norm here has plenty of buffer zone to withstand higher temperatures and still function reasonably well. (We're just ending what is very probably "the warmest May ever recorded in Seattle", and did it really harm any humans?) If Seattle could know "global warming" only during the winters, it would likely become weather utopia.
Second, the outdoor surroundings here offer far more variety than most of the places which most of the newcomers left in order to move here. If you don't like the new crowds, you can easily get out of town to a vast range of locations for a short while, be it a weekend or a week's vacation.
Speaking of town, Seattle's population has increased by about 26% since 1960 - which is nothing on the grand scale of population growth hotspots. The planet as a whole has seen its human population increase by 150% during that same time period.
Amazon? Well first of all, can I just recognize the cuteness of their "Community Banana Stand", which offers free bananas to anyone at their banana cart located on Terry Avenue North between Republican and Harrison Streets. The bananas are so fresh it seems they fell off of the banana plant and into your hand. The free bananas are served by banistas! (talk about Amazon making every effort to fit-in locally)
It is true that their workforce is predictably altering a whole lot of the northern landscape of downtown Seattle, but I contend that it is the rush between yesterday and tomorrow, and not actual fear over what tomorrow in Seattle will be, that has so many long-time residents up in arms.
The second Amazon headquarters makes complete sense for a company not wanting to have all of its eggs in one basket and ripe for some unpredictable natural disaster to stop their infrastructure in its tracks for at least a short while. The second Amazon headquarters was never going to be immediately around here and thus it was rather dumb for local politicians to give it another thought.
Seattle over the long run has been relatively undiscovered by the masses, and thus it makes every bit of sense that some large companies would open/move here and optimize so much of what has always been here. If not Amazon, then it would have been any number of other large employers. The Amazon people certainly aren't the bad guys and, like it or not, real estate values and population shifts have fluctuated since the beginning of time. It simply isn't wrong that the relative value of various living quarters goes up and up.
And nobody really has a right to live in a place they can't afford to pay for (regardless of whether or not they once could afford it)... even if that cost is to simply maintain a free cardboard/wooden box provided by the city. Nor is there any necessity by a neighborhood or its city to maintain whatever passed for the norm over the previous several decades.
It is probably true that with this large influx of new residents, some of the dilapidated (or merely outdated) structures which once meant something to this town will be replaced with something new and vibrant - and that's fine, as it benefits everybody in the long run.
There is just too much weight placed on nostalgia at web forums like this one, and I too could sit here and yearn for the days of Dags, Jay Jacobs, the Bubblator and the Fun Forest, with Westlake Mall being much different than the shopping center it has become. It isn't at all as if Amazon raced in and swiped-away your childhood and its memories, and to an objective person, what's coming in the future to replace it all will likely be much more efficient and user-friendly than most of the randomness which too many like to label as old Seattle.
It's just that, even in order to get from the ancient and potentially dangerous Viaduct to the eventual new tunnel, you just have to live several weekends without a fast path along the Seattle waterfront while society transports you from your past to your future. (and that's where your local society is at present)
Those reading here, and contemplating/plotting their strategic move to Seattle should certainly first do diligent math comparing their income and likely living expenses, and if those match one another well, then some strategy should be employed when selecting a neighborhood.
The riff-raff we all keep reading about on City Data tend to frequent the same spots in similar numbers every day - they are as predictable as are most of the disgruntled people on this forum. That riff-raff resists hills with every ounce of their collective being. So a premium should be placed upon living on a hill, particularly for people not likely facing a daily walk up that hill.
Seattle is unlike most American cities in that the concentration of humanity which makes for the worst neighborhoods in U.S. society just about cannot occur in Seattle because their are so many hills. The wealthier people want to live on the hills mostly for the views, and with area hills so sought-after by the wealthy, the pockets of poor dotted around just can't take up enough space to attain the concentration of poor known to the terrible neighborhoods in other cities.
You may not be the wealthy people who can afford the home on/near the bluff with the great view, but you don't need that... you just need to be strategically situated so as to keep your family and your possessions relatively safe. Look for the spots where few people make it a regular habit of passing by your home on a daily basis. Most crime is opportunity crime... and if you live on a hill in an area where very few bother to just happen by your house, then you have helped yourself a great deal over the entire duration of your residence there.
I would venture to guess that 2018 Seattle offers far more variety in most every way than 1970's Seattle could have ever begun to imagine. While many of us will have to leap over our resistance to trying new things, it is certain that lots of great experiences are out there if only we would go out and find them all around us. The local media can't even keep-up with the new and varied cuisines available at nearby eateries, often thanks to the influx of different cultures.
To the stubborn among us, perhaps it will work better if you just imagine yourself in the midst of a long, drawn-out wait for the social equivalent to the new Alaskan Way tunnel. Better things are on the way, even IF they arrive several years behind schedule!
I would venture to guess that 2018 Seattle offers far more variety in most every way than 1970's Seattle could have ever begun to imagine. While many of us will have to leap over our resistance to trying new things, it is certain that lots of great experiences are out there if only we would go out and find them all around us. The local media can't even keep-up with the new and varied cuisines available at nearby eateries, often thanks to the influx of different cultures.
1970's Seattle was great for the counterculture and the lumpen proletariat. Cheap rent (I paid $75 for a one-bedroom) and a bunch of the greatest dive bars ever: The Gas Light Tavern, Elite Tavern, Comet Tavern, 206 Tavern, Broadway Tavern, Belmont Tavern, Tally-Ho Tavern, Eastlake Zoo, Buckaroo Tavern, Blue Moon Tavern, Century Tavern, Pig Alley, the Streamline, the original Red Robin, etc. Not to mention all of the great "geezer lounges" (Ernie Steele's, the Jade Pagoda, Sorry Charlie's, the Mecca, Ozzie's, the Palm Room, and many, many more). Traffic flowed and the trails were empty...
Nice to hear another POV beyond the typical disgruntled doomsday stuff. Or 'it will never be the same' as it once was rants. Time marches on as the city continues to grow. All large cities have their share of challenges, crime, political problems, traffic, congestion, pro-growth vs. environmental impact issues, etc... Hopefully there will be those who will jump in and direct its course in positive ways as Seattle moves forward. Regression isn't an option.
I find this observation interesting: "It is true that their workforce is predictably altering a whole lot of the northern landscape of downtown Seattle, but I contend that it is the rush between yesterday and tomorrow, and not actual fear over what tomorrow in Seattle will be, that has so many long-time residents up in arms."
So you are suggesting its less about fear of future and more about the rate of change - old to new? I interact with many change adverse people in my line of work. And I always wonder why they dislike it so much and are so slow to adopt things (technologies in this case) even when at times it's for the better.
However, I'm not suggesting that all growth is necessarily good as I've also seen the downsides in SoCal (LA/OC/SD). But that doesn't mean Seattle can't do things better even if making mistakes along along the way.
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 05-28-2018 at 07:48 PM..
I like your post quite a bit and you are correct about the hills. I walk my butt up and down First Hill all the time and it’s striking how the homeless tend to fall off the higher up you go. You still see them transiting through from time to time but it’s really nothing compared to areas closer to the waterfront in the lower elevations.
Of course, with so many hospitals and medical centers up here you have the trade off with frequent sirens but it’s still a better place to be IMO. Of course, I still don’t dare park my car on the street.
So you are suggesting its less about fear of future and more about the rate of change - old to new? I interact with many change adverse people in my line of work. And I always wonder why they dislike it so much and are so slow to adopt things (technologies in this case) even when at times it's for the better.
Better for whom? For many renters, working service/retail jobs, for instance, it is the very real fear of being pushed 1) out to the sticks (Lynnwood or Federal Way, ugh), 2) into a postage stamp apartment or roomshare, or 3) onto the street because they can't afford to get laid off, get sick or injured, or pay another big fat rent increase. If the future is a steamroller rolling right at you, just staying put (and welcoming it) is not an option.
Better for whom? For many renters, working service/retail jobs, for instance, it is the very real fear of being pushed 1) out to the sticks (Lynnwood or Federal Way, ugh), 2) into a postage stamp apartment or roomshare, or 3) onto the street because they can't afford to get laid off, get sick or injured, or pay another big fat rent increase. If the future is a steamroller rolling right at you, just staying put (and welcoming it) is not an option.
Sure, there will be a demographic which benefits more. There will definitely be winners and losers. Then there will be those in between who benefit from certain aspects like increased job opportunities including the chance to earn greater pay, launch a new business, career, etc... Yet their rise in income may still be disproportionate to the increased COL or they simply hate their daily commute. Hey, I know what that's like growing up in LA! Then there will be those who have relatively static incomes like service workers who you mentioned. Its like that in the Bay Area right now to an even greater extent where folks can have low six figure incomes and still find it hard to get ahead. This is the case for many large cities especially on the east and west coasts.
Whether that future is a steamroller or an opportunity is very relative to the individual, their skills, goals, ambitions and ability to adapt. I think one of the main points is there is no go backwards in time to the days of old - no rolling back the clocks. If this is really true, then what other options are folks left with going forward? While some will see it as an opportunity to do something new, bigger, better with their lives others will feel pushed out. Its a bit like natural selection, unfortunately. Then there will be those who weigh the pros/cons and simply say 'no thanks.' Let's face it, it will not fit everyone. I don't think there is a 'rightness' or 'wrongness' to it. The fact is Seattle has changed quite a bit and will continue doing so going forward. Can things be done to help steer its course in a better direction or is it simply a high speed train going off the tracks? Will some benefit from moving in while others do better by moving on? Absolutely.
Derek
Last edited by MtnSurfer; 05-29-2018 at 08:49 PM..
1970's Seattle was great for the counterculture and the lumpen proletariat. Cheap rent (I paid $75 for a one-bedroom) and a bunch of the greatest dive bars ever: The Gas Light Tavern, Elite Tavern, Comet Tavern, 206 Tavern, Broadway Tavern, Belmont Tavern, Tally-Ho Tavern, Eastlake Zoo, Buckaroo Tavern, Blue Moon Tavern, Century Tavern, Pig Alley, the Streamline, the original Red Robin, etc. Not to mention all of the great "geezer lounges" (Ernie Steele's, the Jade Pagoda, Sorry Charlie's, the Mecca, Ozzie's, the Palm Room, and many, many more). Traffic flowed and the trails were empty...
That was only a short while removed from Seattle's last GOP mayor, 'Dorm' Braman (left office in 1969). I wasn't here then, but read about the era inSeattle Vice, excellent book by Seattle Weekly investigative reporter Rick Anderson. I bet you would like the book!
Dorm pursued a 'tolerance policy' in which gambling, prostitution, etc. were tolerated, purportedly to keep east coast mafia types from moving into the city. The cops had an elaborate payoff system where they went around to the shady businesses and picked up envelopes of cash. The Teamsters (local 117) delivered to all of these business, so they helped run the town.
That was only a short while removed from Seattle's last GOP mayor, 'Dorm' Braman (left office in 1969). I wasn't here then, but read about the era inSeattle Vice, excellent book by Seattle Weekly investigative reporter Rick Anderson. I bet you would like the book!
Dorm pursued a 'tolerance policy' in which gambling, prostitution, etc. were tolerated, purportedly to keep east coast mafia types from moving into the city. The cops had an elaborate payoff system where they went around to the shady businesses and picked up envelopes of cash. The Teamsters (local 117) delivered to all of these business, so they helped run the town.
Dorm Braman was basically a nebbish who tried to keep the lid on all the slime that was flowing through the city on his watch. He was pretty powerless in the face of the cops, the Teamsters, and, while it got little publicity at the time, the influence of the Filipino cannery workers' union Local 37, who controlled the Filipino community (which was much more influential at the time) through dispensation of jobs in Alaska canneries, and which was controlled by Marcos' people in Manila. He was also hopelessly ill-prepared for the anti-war and civil rights turmoil that engulfed the city in the late 1960s. He got bailed out by Nixon, who appointed him to a position in the Department of Transportation, despite his demonstrated incompetence in anything having to do with transportation.
You can't imagine how different a place Seattle was in 1969 than it is today. Almost unrecognizable.
The "corruption" went back to the founding fathers, who posed as saints, north of "the deadline" (Yesler Street), but were nose deep in the "sin trades" south of it.
On the other hand, every major seaport back then had its "wild side".
The "scene" had moved from the "coffee houses" on the Ave up onto "the Hill" and out to Fremont. Much of the rest of Seattle (except for the CD, the ID, and Beacon Hill) was "lily white" and quite conservative. Ballard, where I live today, from the view of a denizen of the Hill, which I was then, might as well have been a foreign country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then there will be those who have relatively static incomes like service workers who you mentioned. Its like that in the Bay Area right now to an even greater extent where folks can have low six figure incomes and still find it hard to get ahead. This is the case for many large cities especially on the east and west coasts.
