Seattle as model city

[randy_byers]

Edward L. Glaeser's NYTimes article "How Seattle Transformed Itself" has many hallmarks of an ideologue promoting a pet theory, but it's still an interesting overview of the evolution Seattle's economy has gone through in the past 130 years. It's undeniably true that the city is much more economically diverse than when I moved here in 1984, and that urban planning has undergone fairly radical changes. One thing he doesn't mention, however (since it would ruin his pretty picture), is that sprawl has happened at the same time as increasing density.

Comments

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Item: He calls 1960-80 Seattle's 20 tough years, but when I moved there in 1980, sprawl, overgrowth, and the invasion of outsiders were already hot topics. It was around that time that Microsoft established itself on the Eastside, because that's where the room and the hot growth were.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

Clearly everything changed in 1980! Ahahahahaha.

[wrdnrd]

I didn't get to read that whole article (downside of working in news is that while i'm aware of everything, i only ever get to skim stuff), but i did get a good laugh at the cutline on the photo. "Good public transportation," and they show a picture of the streetcar??? It's a streetcar to nowhere!! It's a Paul Allen toy train!

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

Hm. I'm not anti-S.L.U.T. I believe Portland has a similar streetcar that just circulates between the Pearl District and the core downtown area. I do hope that more streetcar lines are developed, however.

[wrdnrd]

Oh, i'm not anti-streetcar. Tho' i will point out that Portland's streetcar service is more than just the 1 line that goes in and out of the Pearl District. But Seattle's current streetcar service doesn't really seem to serve anyone except Paul Allen. I'm lukewarm on extending streetcar service thru'out Seattle, thanks to having attended the meeting the other year about creating a streetcar line into the U-District. It was fascinating, and also appalling! Jan Drago seemed absolutely uninterested in anything anyone in that room had to say either for or against.

Also, if i may ask a favor, i'd be grateful if you could not call it the SLUT in reply to comments from me. I find that highly offensive. I'm not even sure where the "T" came from, except to make an offensive acronym, seeing as otherwise i hear most everyone calling it a "streetcar." I don't think i've ever heard anyone just call it a "trolley."

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

I'll do my best to remember not to use the acronym in responses to you! I think we disagree about the rest, or are at least coming from very different positions.

[wrdnrd]

Thanks!

Possibly we're coming from different angles? I'd love to hear more about yours, if you feel like chatting more. I am certainly PRO public transportation. (I don't have a car. I love our new light rail. I take Amtrak to Portland. And so forth.) I think what i hate more is Seattle's approach to doing ... well, anything, but transit in this instance.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

Well, to step back a bit, I'd start by saying that I think dense urban development is good. Perhaps more controversially I would further say that what Paul Allen is doing to develop his properties in South Lake Union will result in dense urban development, which is good. I think the streetcar is part of a goal to make that neighborhood friendly to people who don't own cars, which is not only good but means to my mind that the streetcar is not a toy. Furthermore, the fact that all of this will enrich Paul Allen does not to my mind mean it *only* benefits Paul Allen. I think the model of pulling businesses like Amazon into the urban core is good for the city in general, on a lot of different levels. I feel the same way about Susie Burke's developments in Fremont.

So that's part of my angle on things. You've got next.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I knew nought of this streetcar; it wasn't difficult to google its website, though it was somewhat more difficult to find a map of the streetcar route thereon, but when I did, I know Seattle well enough that you're right: it doesn't go anywhere I could imagine needing to go. That's pretty pathetic. Double its length at either end, however, and then you're talking.

[janetl.livejournal.com]

You see articles gushing about Portland's urban growth boundary and great transportation, but the writers must not get outside of downtown much. Don't get me wrong -- I love Portland -- but I was able to afford to move to one of the old streetcar suburbs, and have been able to find jobs downtown. As long as you're within the part of the city that evolved before WWII, you're golden. My husband and I manage just fine with only 1 car, and drive <5,000 miles a year. But once you're in the suburbs that grew up after the car, mass transit gets dicey. That's not the fault of the transportation agency -- it's just not a grid, and it's not dense. Once you're outside of the area that developed pre-WWII, it's strip malls and masses of cars. The urban growth boundary keeping lot sizes small has helped curtail the sprawl a bit, but only a bit.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

What I remember from the first leg of Max is that it helped Tigard grow immensely. Don't know if that was true of the westward line as well, since Beaverton was already pretty big, like Bellevue up here.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Every time I pass through Tigard, the song "The Wonderful Thing About Tigard" from the Winnie-the-Pooh movie starts running obnoxiously through my head.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

And of course I woke up at 3:30 this morning realizing that I meant Gresham, not Tigard.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Gresham's Law: the bad drives out the good.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

In my defense, Gresham and Tigard have three letters in common. Ahem. Or in this case, "Arg!"