"Seattle-ization" COL (Tacoma, Bellevue: 2013, apartments, violent crime)

[Returning2USA]

An article on the Seattle COL.


‘Seattle-ization’? American cities fear what’s happened here
Originally published January 2, 2019

You're paying a premium to live here: The cost of living has risen faster in Seattle than in any other American city.


Share story
By Gene Balk / FYI Guy
Seattle Times columnist

How’s this for irony? While we’ve been worried about Seattle becoming the next San Francisco, it turns out other cities have been worried about becoming the next Seattle.

That’s right. “Seattle-ization” is a thing now, at least according to a New York Times article published last week. It’s described as “a particularly dire diagnosis,” and characterized by high housing costs and tech wealth, a combination that’s thoroughly transformed the city in an alarmingly short span of time.


Even in New York City, apparently, some folks are terrified that the planned Amazon campus there could turn the place into “Seattle on steroids,” according to Vice Magazine.

It’s a little unsettling to find out we’ve become other cities’ worst-case scenario. But it’s also understandable, when you consider not just how expensive Seattle has become, but how quickly it happened.


In 2013, when census data showed that Seattle had suddenly become the fastest-growing big city in the nation, it seemed to come from out of the blue. Of course, that turned out to be just the beginning.

But think back to right before then, in 2012. Amazon had consolidated its workforce in South Lake Union only two years earlier. The gears were already in motion, but most of us were oblivious to the tidal wave of change that was about to hit.

I guess we thought of Seattle as a fairly expensive place to live back then, which is a little funny in retrospect. That year, the Cost of Living Index scored Seattle at 115.2, which meant that living costs here were 15.2 percent higher than the national average (100 is the index’s average).


That score ranked Seattle 35th among the more than 300 cities included in the index that year. We were just about tied with Portland. A few of the cities that had higher living costs than Seattle in 2012: Sacramento, Philadelphia and Anchorage, Alaska.

Fast forward to today.

The most recent Cost of Living Index release, for the 3rd quarter of 2018, pegs Seattle at 53.6 percent above the national average. In just six years, our index score jumped by about 38 points. No other city comes close to matching that.

We’re now firmly established as the sixth most expensive place to live in the country, according to the index, a mark we first hit that at the end of last year. And yeah, we’ve left Portland in the dust, even though the Rose City is also in the top 10, with a 13-point gain in its index score.

The Cost of Living Index is published quarterly by the Arlington, Virginia-based Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness, a nonprofit research and policy organization. They’ve been producing city-to-city cost comparisons since 1968, collecting data at the local level on prices for more than 60 goods and services in six major categories: housing, health care, transportation, utilities, grocery items and miscellaneous goods and services.


No one will be surprised to learn that of those categories, housing here has seen the most precipitous climb. In 2012, our housing costs were about 35 percent above average. Now, they’re 113 percent higher.

Because housing is most people’s No. 1 cost, we tend to focus on it. But almost everything in Seattle is much more expensive than it used to be. In each of the index’s six categories, Seattle’s score has gone up. We rank toward the top for the price of nearly every good and service included in the index. From cooking oil to car repairs, from a trip to the dentist to yoga classes, you’re paying a premium to live here.

In 2012, we were actually below the national average in one major category: utilities. In the most recent data, we’re 10 percent above average, which is still a bargain compared with everything else.

In so many ways, Seattle is an amazing success story, thriving and economically vibrant, drawing thousands of people from around the country and the world. When you think about the great American cities that have fallen on hard times, that are losing population and dealing with epidemics of violent crime, Seattle seems enviable.


But we’ve also paid a hefty price for our success. The sudden injection of tech wealth has made Seattle a more exclusive place. It’s exacerbated inequalities, pushing people out of the city or even into homelessness. Rapid growth has taxed our infrastructure, and the debate over where to house all these new people has divided the city.

It’s enough to make you consider towns at the other end of the Cost of Living Index.

The city that’s seen the biggest drop in its index score actually went from having an above-average cost of living in 2012 to one that’s well below average today. And that’s not the only way in which it’s the opposite of Seattle, because, according to the World Meteorological Organization, it also happens to be the sunniest place on earth.

Down nearly 14 points on the Cost of Living Index, that city is Yuma, Arizona.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...happened-here/

[CityWok]

At least housing has cooled down recently. Am curious what happens this Spring as that will be a huge indicator whether things have actually acclimated to increased interest rates (am guessing not)

[Ruth4Truth]

Well, people keep saying, that adding more units, more apartment buildings, will bring housing costs down, but nobody explains how all those thousands of extra people housed in those new units will get to work on freeways that already don't work. There are never any people-moving strategies proposed, for handling higher density. Everyone just keeps complaining about awful traffic.

Whatever happened to city planning, vs. dealing with problems on an emergency basis, each issue in its own vacuum? As if nothing is interrelated?

[Seacove]

Living in Seattle is a choice. If one doesn't like it, one can go somewhere else and are encouraged to do so.

[leastprime]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Well, people keep saying, that adding more units, more apartment buildings, will bring housing costs down, but nobody explains how all those thousands of extra people housed in those new units will get to work on freeways that already don't work. There are never any people-moving strategies proposed, for handling higher density. Everyone just keeps complaining about awful traffic.

Whatever happened to city planning, vs. dealing with problems on an emergency basis, each issue in its own vacuum? As if nothing is interrelated?

From what I see in Redmond; The apartment bldgs are near or along the bus routes. Currently, rush hours inbound buses are only moderately full at the Redmond TC but get full by Overlake. The apartments bldgs along Redmond Way are still pretty much empty, 2 months after completion. Discounts of 1 month rent+, are common. The 545E empties out at Stewart (REI) and downtown stops. The 545E is virtually empty by KingStreet/ID. Transit time from Redmond TC to Kingstreet ~40-45min, rush hours.

[Vincent_Adultman]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Well, people keep saying, that adding more units, more apartment buildings, will bring housing costs down, but nobody explains how all those thousands of extra people housed in those new units will get to work on freeways that already don't work. There are never any people-moving strategies proposed, for handling higher density.

This is not accurate. First, housing prices have dropped dramatically in the last year or so, largely due to the addition of so many new units. Second, Seattle has the largest mass transit investment in the country ($54 Billion) with the recent passage of ST3. We're talking two subway tunnels through downtown, including a new one through Midtown/SLU/QA as well as a total of 116 miles of total rail, which will be largely grade-separated and include lines to places like Bellevue, Redmond, Ballard, West Seattle, Lynnwood, Tacoma, and Everett. Projected ridership by 2035 is over 600K per day.

[Returning2USA]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Well, people keep saying, that adding more units, more apartment buildings, will bring housing costs down, but nobody explains how all those thousands of extra people housed in those new units will get to work on freeways that already don't work. There are never any people-moving strategies proposed, for handling higher density. Everyone just keeps complaining about awful traffic.

Whatever happened to city planning, vs. dealing with problems on an emergency basis, each issue in its own vacuum? As if nothing is interrelated?

Totally agree, Ruth.

I'm a native of the area.

Complaining and discussing how bad traffic is but not realistic way to get people from point A to point B.

[leastprime]

The bigger problem in the next 5 years is the schools.
Portland is reopening schools and upgrading after decades of contraction.

[mhays25]

Good points, Vincent.

[CrazyDonkey]

Seattle has always been a boom-and-bust town. The question is not if the next bust will happen, but when. Hopefully, we'll come out the other end with a housing surplus and a first-rate mass-transit system.