Amazon Has Swallowed Downtown Seattle
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Now, has Amazon invested enough in infrastructure to help the swelling population they are partly to blame for increasing (not to mention lack of houses, housing prices, student class sizes, etc.)? No, not really - but that's the price of being one of the fastest growing cities with the lowest unemployment in the country. But in terms of the city buildings and neighborhood - so much better.
The complaint about the changes Amazon and other companies are making is not about keeping the city in a state of disarray and filthiness, it's about control over the tone and feel of the city, preferring that a single corporate entity not be able to set or dictate the tone/feel to accommodate their interests. Even if there is a net positive as a result, the local residents have no choice in the matter - as was written in the article, those parts of the city are no longer Seattle in some people's minds, it's Amazon's territory.
I'm not condemning or condoning this position - I did live in the Seattle area for about 5 years, and while I loved it, didn't really have the same historical attachment most Seattle folk have, and they love their city, what it was, is, and what it can be.
It's not too difficult to empathize with the position either; suppose, in a rather silly example, that a wealthy business whose owners had a love for early 1900's german expressionism moved to your city (which you feel a connection to); over the course of a few years, a large part of your city begins to take the form of stills from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari or from Metropolis. The owners clean up the area very well and bring in new trendy restaurants that meet their aesthetic vision. Even if you agree that the area has been changed for the better in terms of infrastructure and economics, are you really satisfied with having expressionism forced on you?
Again, this isn't to say that feelings should override progress with civil infrastructure improvement, but there's a bit more to the gentrification effect, specifically from the tech world, than just a bunch of grumpy people angry about losing their run down and decrepit land. People have seen what happened with San Francisco and they're scared, and rightfully so; while the standard of living in Seattle is decent, the average wages are no match for SV style tech money.
Plus, Amazon is not the only player here. Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook, and Disney are all in the area as well. Google is also building a new office in the SLU area as well.
The exodus in the 70s really did a number on the area.
I'm sure many of the higher ups there don't have any ill-will, but they have unintentionally (or maybe intentionally; I dunno) become America's new Wal-Mart. That's a bad thing.
Consumerist culture erodes long term sustainability. Laptop/cellphone replacement cycles need to be 10 years, not 2. Old electronics need to be recycled--like actually recycled and not shipped to Africa where teenagers rip out and smelter what components they can.
I'm not saying Amazon is intentionally causing more consumerism, but it is a result of their type of industry. And the effects bleed out in a way you can see in its home city of Seattle.
As someone who does pricing strategy for a living, no it does not seem unlikely.
For cellphone replacement cycles, I have absolutely no idea where you get the idea that Amazon has anything to do with this. AFAIK, most Americans still "buy" cellphones at cellphone stores run by the big 4. You can blame them for the 2-year subsidization scheme. And phones are lasting longer now. I have a 3-year-old Galaxy S4 that works great. For a while, there were huge changes in the hardware, but it's plateauing now.
For laptop replacement cycles, again I have no idea why you'd blame Amazon in particular, but here especially, people simply are not replacing laptops in 2 years like they did 10+ years ago. It's a real "problem" for the PC industry in fact, because people are keeping their PCs around a lot longer than they used to. I've got a few laptops ranging from probably 4-6 years old, and lots of people have desktops quite a bit older than that. New computers just aren't any faster than old ones, they only consume a little less power.
Consumerism is something you can only really blame society in general for. And these days, with this crummy economy, I think it's probably less than it used to be: with rents so high nationwide, and salaries stagnant, and underemployment rampant, people aren't spending as much on trinkets and junk as they used to. Some things still are popular to spend on, like phones (but not computers), but overall I would imagine there's less "consumerism" right now than there was back in 1999 because we are not in a booming economy. When people have extra money to spend, they spend more; when things are tight, they don't.
As for valid (IMO) complaints about Amazon, here's my list:
1) they jerk their prices around a LOT. I have stuff in my "save for later" cart that keeps jumping up and down by huge factors (one pen in particular keeps jumping between $5-something and $9.99). Many things seem to start out at a low price, and then when I put them in my cart but don't buy them right away, they just keep going up and up and up. It really feels like a ploy to extract more money.
2) their prices are frequently not that low anymore. I always try to shop around for stuff, and will frequently (but not always) find better deals at smaller sellers.
3) a lot of stuff they sell is junk shipped from China, and it's not immediately obvious that it's being shipped from out of the country.
For a lot of small knick-knacks that I need (for instance, I needed a new windshield washer nozzle recently), I'm finding that Ebay is actually the best place to go, strangely enough. Independent online stores (even ones owned by companies selling on Ebay) usually cost about the same, maybe slightly less, but then have high shipping charges which isn't helpful if you're only buying one thing, and it's really easy to punch in a part number and find something on Ebay. You can find it on Amazon too, but it usually seems to be a much worse deal, though I'm not sure why. I wonder if Ebay has lower fees for large-volume sellers than Amazon. The main thing Amazon is really, really good for is the reviews. And even these are suspect these days because for certain classes of items, many of the reviews are shill reviews, or at least suspect, because someone was given the item at a reduced price in exchange for writing a review.
The phenomenon you're viewing is usually the opposite of what you're suggesting. Amazon is trying to let you opportunistically buy things at a lower price by allowing prices to change frequently.
Part of the appeal of Amazon is being able to get something on your doorstep in two days at the click of a button -- if this isn't something that interests you then services like Ebay might be better -- but the sheer convenience of being able to not plan out bulk orders and having a near 100% reliability with no hassle is great.
When I was purchasing things on Ebay, shipping was frequently late, or entire items would be fraudulent, which I've heard has gotten better, but I'd prefer to offload that stress for a few dollars a year.
What I do see these days is counterfeit stuff. It's really easy to avoid this stuff though: there's a checkbox on the left that lets you filter results to show only US sellers or North American sellers. Filter out the Chinese sellers and the counterfeit stuff goes away. I've never had a big problem with late shipping, but if you're the type who demands stuff ASAP I can see how you'd be unhappy. The big thing you can do on Ebay is be careful who you buy from and look at the feedbacks. Huge-volume sellers with good feedback are usually pretty safe, and ship quickly. Low-volume occasional sellers with 100% feedback are safe. Foreign sellers with spotty feedback are to be avoided unless it's something really cheap and you're willing to take a gamble on it being junk (if it doesn't show up at all, Ebay will refund your money). It's really not that different from Amazon in this regard, since so much stuff on Amazon is sold by "affiliates", a bunch of whom are Chinese sellers, or otherwise independent companies that ship themselves rather than outsourcing that to Amazon.
3) No other stores sell stuff from China? Or maybe you're not used to seeing the cheap import items displayed next to the regular items?
Amazon is inarguably the new Wal-Mart.
1) Putting local stores and shops out of business
2) Abusing their power as a distributor and treating their suppliers/partners like crap
3) Lower than average salaries for most employees
4) Treating employees terribly
Seriously, there are more similarities than differences.
I think you're right about the need for real recycling, and consumerism is a debate worth having, but I don't see how fragmenting the marketplace works towards a solution.
We missed out on a chance to have a giant urban park ("Seattle Commons": http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&...), but credit to Paul Allen for executing an unbelievable plan B.
[Bloomberg's article focuses more on Amazon's new HQ in downtown Seattle, but Amazon's impact today is mostly in South Lake Union. Background: http://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/amazon-will...]
(Source: Born in Seattle and have lived within ~0.5 miles for 10+ years)
I remember SLU in the 90's, it was shady and dying. But when I think about SLU today, and how close it is geographically to the heart of the city, it seems like such a lost opportunity that it's now just a sprawling office towers instead of something more vibrant. After 7pm, the whole area from Denny to Capitol Hill just shuts down.
Golden Gate is a little out of the way, Central Park is super accessible by subway.
For reference I've worked in SLU for the better part of a decade, first at Rosetta Biosoftware (ISB is in that building now) and at AWS for the last 8 years.
OTOH they're talking about having space for 50k employees at SLU so I'm not sure why the author thinks Amazon is advancing downtonw...
That all being said, I find the project fascinating and it fits in very well with the space needle, the balls should be glimpsable from the (useless) monorail.
Have they been to Seattle during the months of November to June?
Edit: to the response below, this was back in 98 or 99, something like that. I've looked up the historical weather, and it must have been that it felt like 70's to me, coming from Chicago (so it was probably more like 50's). I just remember not needing a jacket for most of the time I was there, and it "feeling good" when the sun came out.
Source: 20 year Seattle resident who loves it anyway.
http://weather-warehouse.com/WeatherHistory/PastWeatherData_...
I lived in Bellevue for about 21 years, so I've got a bit more perspective.
It's not really that rainy, but it's grey 9 months out of the year for sure.
It never gets above 26C here. There are plenty of other cities like this (London just had a record heatwave .. of 29C; seriously that's too hot for them. People were passing out in the toobs. Wellington, another coastal city, has people bitching when it gets up to 27C as too hot), but the difference is they do get warm .. for an extended period of time. From May through August (opposite in Wellington cause hemispheres), you know you can put your jacket away. You don't need it. At worst it's gonna be a little refrigerator like if you stay out too late.
In Seattle, it could be mid-June and you might need that jacket...at noon, and then the next day you'll be burning up.
I miss seasons.
"On average London will see 31 days above 25 °C each year, and 4.2 days above 30.0 °C every year."
(I've lived in Seattle over 10 years.)
I have to disagree: it depends on how you define "great". If you think Seattle in the winter is bad, try spending a winter in North Dakota or Minnesota. Or even the northeast, such as upstate NY.
I'll take dreary over -40 any day.
Because no one else has that ever? That seems pretty normal, pretty silly to consider a perk and personally pretty useless.
Also, the only places around the country where it isn't dreary, damp, and grey from late fall through spring is California or the South. Compared to the Northeast or the midwest, Seattle's winters are incredibly mild.
I do miss Charlotte, NC, though (though recently passed laws make me pine less for NC than I used to). My first winter there, I remember asking a coworker, "does the sun EVER stop shining here?"
Edit: Ok, fine, 2:30pm.
Nevermind, I found it myself: http://www.duckdodge.org/index.php
Although this year it sure looked like we started early.
I don't know what the food trucks are like in Seattle, but in SF they are as expensive (or more so) than regular restaurants. So if I'm going to go out for food, I'd rather go someplace where I can sit down and eat.
It's Amazon, you're expected to both pay for your lunch and stay at work to "enjoy it". Or stay late to make up for having to eat.
Way worse where I am now, 25 minute lunch break. ugh.
Regardless, I can't see this as a selling point to anyone but college grads. Anyone with experience will probably know that the novelty of eating off a food truck on a sunny day will pale in comparison to other considerations (starting with Amazon's reputation as a workplace).
People live in Detroit, Job is scarce. Moving to Seattle to get a job especially if it pays well might be the best move instead of being unemployed.
People live in East Louis and South Chicago, Moving to Seattle to escape the violence because you want to raise your kids in a better place is not bad.
I'm not from Seattle, but I just want to say there are many valid reasons to move to Seattle. I say this because every time Seattle comes up, this discussion of the weather comes up, I don't see that when folks talk about London tho.
Really‽ I'm from London, and pretty much everyone I meet makes some comment on the weather there.
I've had people insist to me that London is rainy and foggy for months on end. I think this comes from the usual depiction in cinema, which is pretty much opposite to the weather in TV series set in the countryside surrounding London. The reality is closer to the sunny weather, fog is very rare.
There's a ceiling made of what seems to be solid clouds 10 months a year, including light rain as the default weather status throughout. This June has been atrocious (we just had the heating on for a while this evening) and last year we didn't have summer bar a week at the end of June.
But yeah, fog is very rare. It's just clouds, always. Grey grey grey and wet wet wet. OTOH you don't have to constantly suffer 30°C with 80% humidity for +4 months a year, which is nice if you're not on holiday.
Off-hand, the places that were really wildly creative during the 20th century were pretty standard offices and workshops, weren't they? Think of Xerox PARC, Bell Labs, and Bletchley Park. They all accomplished wild things. But the buildings were unremarkable.
I don't have a copy of The Idea Factory[1], where I recall reading this handy, but that's my best recollection.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Idea-Factory-Great-American-Innovatio...
"Hallway conversations" have become "constant conversations"
The first is simply that it's cheaper to have an open office. Modern office buildings tend to have large spaces -- nearly whole floors -- that are open, but can be subdivided. But subdivision costs money. Paying carpenters to put up walls isn't cheap, and even cube systems can be surprisingly expensive. Plus managers are accountable for costs. So they choose the cheap option.
The second is that open office plans are good for communication and collaboration, though less good for individual silent work. Managers are essentially all about communication and collaboration, which is why they love these open offices. Unfortunately while programmers need to both communicate and work alone, they need to communicate and collaborate much less than managers do, which is why office plans that are selected by managers make things difficult for the programmers.
That particular building was demolished in 2005.
http://mit2016.mit.edu/campus-cambridge/evolving-frontier/ma...
(Having an office was not so freaking unusual 20 years ago.)
Cheap burgers and beer! A 1/4 lb cheeseburger + fries at Brave Horse is $13.50. Beer prices are not listed on the online menu. Presumably if you have to ask you can't afford it.
15% of a city's commercial inventory seems like a lot. Any comparable levels to companies in other cities? Is this typical for one company to own/lease such a large percentage of commercial real-estate or is the statistic misleading?
[edit] removed duplicate quote
Seattle is tiny. So is SF. I'm amused by how small the core of all of the West coast cities seem to be when people try to convince me that there's dense urban living to be found outside of the East Coast.
I'm not sure it's that unusual, statistically. If anything, one large company per city is maybe closer to the historic norm (especially if you count old fashioned company towns and more modern might as well be company campus towns like Redmond, WA) and something of the median or mode of city existence, at least in the US.
> Inevitably, the company's growing presence is making it a scapegoat for common urban woes such as traffic jams and rising rents
> New, luxury, one-bedroom apartments packed with amenities that appeal to young urban tech workers fetch upwards of $4,000 a month, putting them out of reach of the Starbucks barista.
This makes it sound like only luxury apartments are becoming expensive and baristas are upset because they feel entitled to that privilege. Rent at all levels is raising dramatically, 12% per year on Capitol Hill where I live. http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2014/09/seattle-rents-risi...
A lot of my friends work odd jobs as book editors, community managers, etc. and they are being priced out of the area. This is a real issue that warrants attention, unless you want everyone to move out of your neighborhoods except the well-to-do.
> To some long-time Seattleites, the new South Lake Union feels sterile, like an open-air mall. Wide sidewalks are devoid of cigarette butts and shattered beer bottles. Street people banging bongos and strumming acoustic guitars with mangy dogs in tow, a common sight in Seattle’s retail and financial districts, are conspicuously absent.
So the complainers are lamenting the lack of "beer bottles and cigarette butts," nobody "banging bongos" on the streets? Apparently failing to notice the "wide sidewalks?" What's wrong with them?
South Lake Union feel sterile because it's jammed between Denny, Mercer, I-5, and 99, four major throughways. Nobody has tried to urbanize that area for a reason. More power to Amazon for building it up though, and I hope it gains a neighborhood feel over time. I'm a bit skeptical; it feels to overwhelming, noisy, and overly corporate, cut off from the rest of the city.
> Meanwhile, the Space Needle's owners have complained that all the towers being thrown up by Amazon and developers hoping to house its workers are crowding out views of the aging tourist attraction.
I guess it's important that our iconic Space Needle is "aging." Yeah, nobody wants to see old stuff!
I mean, the article could have been called "Amazon Turns Blighted Blocks Into Shining Urbanity."
Sure, but Amazon's only contribution in that area is employing lots of people and paying them well. Not exactly cardinal sins.
If living costs are too high, that's likely on government policy around land use (although some increase in living costs is inevitable in an economic boom).
Both Google and Microsoft have urban and suburban offices and run commuter shuttles. I don't think it would hurt Amazon to do the same.
In a story on Arthur Sulzberger, Mark Bowden wrote in
Vanity Fair, "Whether owing to hubris or sheer
distraction, the erection of a new headquarters often
seems to spell trouble for corporations."
Anecdotal experience tends to lead many people in the
technology industry to suggest that growth (or newly
“sexy”) companies rapidly head into difficulties at
about the same time as they move from the seedy garages
and crumbling buildings they started in to shiny new
office buildings.
https://medium.com/halting-problem/zyngas-offices-now-worth-...
Editor's note: SFGATE has removed this story after reviewing Zynga's company valuation. The initial report was based on the enterprise value of Zynga compared to its cash reserves and property value. The latest company financial data as of May 6th, 2016, however, indicates an overall market valuation of $2.2 billion, with cash reserves of $987 million, putting its enterprise value at $1.21 billion, which is significantly more than the projected value of the company's real estate holdings at 8th and Townsend Streets in San Francisco.
Sure probably not the same bananas, but maybe one day it will be cheaper to grow in a local greenhouse or greenwall than to ship them from another hemisphere.
reminds me of jankyscroll (https://github.com/benzweig/jankyscroll)