Seattle in Progress
seattleinprogress.com
seattleinprogress.com
This means that the process being slower will make it look like there's actually more change, when in reality a process being slower will usually lead to less change (since slower processes mean more money and hassle).
To use an extreme hypothetical to illustrate the point, imagine if permitting and building only took a day each: the map here would be nearly empty.
That is, you have to argue to unrealistic extremes of building taking a day to get the imagination for an empty map. Latency is a fact of all delivery. How much is the question. Combined with realistic build times, it may be this is the optimal map?
Realistically, extra latency will have some advantages in many cases.
The purpose of a city is to collect a lot of human activities in a relatively small space. Most of those occure indoors so if people can't build what they want/need your city is failing.
If you put in an address for many newer projects (say 1200 Stewart St), and then sort by document size largest to smallest, the largest documents will include blueprints. (Example: https://web.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/GetDocument.aspx?id=7613996)
It's fun to open in Preview.app (not Chrome!) and page through the myriad floors of 2bd layouts which are all the same but see the curvy exterior form morph organically as you ascend.
You can start with a CSV with either lat-long pairs, or street addresses, and load it in. The hard part of the UX is giving error feedback.
This is some test data I would have loved to have. I had several files of bike accidents.
Isn’t that cost prohibitive, curious if there’s another alternative, open street maps perhaps.
I almost considered doing a trial of their subscription to get more details, but at $89/month it's way beyond what I'd be willing to pay for this.
More than just the slowness of development or lack of housing that results -- the amount of red tape, approvals, and permits (for honestly ridiculous aspects of aesthetic considerations) that a city imposes, the more it discriminates against middle income / low income people.
What you find in our most liberal cities is that the more that entrenched old populations who got there first want to keep the city to be a certain character by making the permitting process difficult, the more it is that only rich people can afford to get through those processes.
Have you ever noticed that fancy new condos or rich people's houses are able to be built, while the average homeowner throws up his/her hands at the amount of permits and hearing necessary to get a simple remodeling done? It's really discrimination against anyone but the rich, who have the money to hire people who can navigate this system that's been created. I once randomly sat in a building permit hearing where the committee members seemed to out of obligation, require certain changes to any application that came along just to seem to be doing their jobs. The color of a door, the location of a chimney. Absolutely ridiculous.
Maybe the city has good intentions, but like so many things left on unintended autopilot, it has become a conservative force. The family of 4 who could either get much more out of their house in living space, upgrade their life, or at least sell it for more, are forced to give up those plans when confronted with the ridiculous permitting/approvals process.
So you end up with cities where only the rich can afford to apply for a permit and succeed at it.
We would do well to confront what we've incentivized, and whether they're living up to our claimed values.
Maybe that’s just an attribute of old people maybe not, I haven’t seen enough generations up close to have an opinion yet. We’ll see how my generation (Gen X) does I guess.
It’s immoral and it’s just plain flawed design.
Note that liberal and conservative are not actually opposites. While are media often pretends they are, you can be both in different areas. People love to claim to be whatever makes them fit in.
I'm open to any theory of change - I've been trying to come up with one for a decade, and I've had thousands of conversations about it.
Same, and I've only found one which works.
Move.
> Among the 50 U.S. cities with the largest number of housing units in 2010, Seattle ranks third for the rate of growth in housing.
See https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/central-seatt...
We build as well as any Texan free for all city does.
I think it can be easy to try and draw a circle around NIMBYism and call it a class issue. I think it could be that in part. But I also think that if people like the environment they live in, they will naturally try and protect it, and that doesn't necessarily constitute discrimination. in some ways, I'd say middle/low income people in san francisco have done more to destroy affordability in their neighbourhoods than they've done to help it by torpedoing every new development.
It is no mistake that the community holds so much power in a city like San Francisco. Look up Jane Jacobs and her book. it's a blueprint for anti-densificiation
Why should the group of neighbors who speak loudly and have the time to attend planning meetings on a Tuesday afternoon get to decide what I can build on my own property? Why does the municipal bureaucratic tangle have the right to prevent a landowner from getting the full market value of their property if they decide to sell? Why is it ok to use a terrible permitting process to stop people from modifying their own houses?
There certainly are things that a person can build or do on their property that harm the neighbors. But at the moment, most American municipalities are privileging the loud group of neighbors who oppose any change over the rights of the landowner and over the social benefits of actually building stuff.
Society is. This is literally the basis of society--we reach consensus (in some fashion, even consensus is dictated), and abide by the laws.
There's this weird attitude in the united states, something along the lines of, "well this property is mine, ergo, i can do whatever the hell i want with it." It's weird because it's actually unfounded. Maybe more true in rural areas. The use of land has always been governed. And the more humans that are nearby, the more governance and consideration of your neighbours there must be.
I actually hold no opinion on the 'correct' way to govern land use, other than to point out that maybe the reason it's hard to change the character of the city is because it was done so intentionally.
Thankfully we have a way to get progressive permitting done with you having to perform your civic duties on a tuesday afternoon! it's called voting. And perhaps if there's not enough votes to install leaders with progressive permitting views, then perhaps it is not a prevalent view.
edit: Fascinating I'm getting downvoted, I wish people would explain other than 'I don't like the words you're saying'.
It's basic economics: the more regulatory hurdles (red tape, approvals, permits, etc.) a construction project has to overcome, the more expensive it becomes, to the degree that the only projects that are economically viable are things like luxury condos.
Several of the Southern states rank very highly in land-use freedom[0]; that is, the freedom of the owner of a parcel of land to do what they please with it, including building higher-density housing. House prices and rents are reasonable in those states.
If you exclude the Seattle Area, housing prices are reasonable in Washington state. If you exclude Austin and parts of Dallas, housing prices are reasonable in Texas. Turns out supply and demand drives most price movements: more desirable places to live will be more expensive (compare Austin to Houston, for example).
It's also a good idea to look at macro trends and not get distracted by anecdotes with high emotional or political payloads.
My experience:
A desirable place to live. Mild climate, beautiful scenery, a wide variety of cultural and recreational activities, top-ranked universities.
A growing job market. The job market in Seattle is growing rapidly, with a number of new businesses and industries opening up in the area. This has created a lot of new job opportunities, which has attracted people from all over the country and the world.
A strong transportation system. Seattle has a well-developed transportation system, which makes it easy for people to get around the city without a car. The city has a light rail system, a bus system, and an extensive network of bike paths and trails.
A vibrant arts and culture scene. Seattle has a vibrant arts and culture scene, with a number of museums, theaters, and concert halls. The city also hosts a number of festivals and events throughout the year.
Seattle culture is welcoming and accepting, attracting people from all over the world. This diversity creates a rich cultural tapestry that can be found in the city's restaurants, shops, and neighborhoods.
No need to lob insults in some sort of misguided political crusade. Thanks!
It seems like you aren’t actually curious why people move to Seattle, and just want to believe what you already think you know. The person responding to you had not a hint of personal attack or insult, they merely pointed out that your news did not match reality. It is a good idea to evaluate your sources if that is what is happening.
You aren't going to get much sympathy for your position from those people who lives in Capitol Hill, they tend to be very young and very left in their ideology. Yes, FoxNews showed that picture of the teleporting guy with the gun (before they started marking such pictures as illustration), and yes, the homicide rate was slightly above average during the CHAZ. Most of us who live in Seattle never actually experienced it (I didn't), and when I finally got around to visiting Capitol Hill during the pandemic, it was long over and a perfectly normal place (albeit with slightly more restaurants closed).
I remember feeling a similar disconnect between the news cycle and my lived experience during 'Occupy Wallstreet' when I watched a crowd of hundreds of people walking two blocks from in front of Westlake to protest at the Bank of America stop and wait for every pedestrian signal.
An extended family member did get shot outside of an SLU bar a few years ago. I'm not really clear on what was going on, they didn't catch whoever did it, and he wasn't seriously wounded, but it was scary that someone I knew was shot at at all, since this place isn't really know for that (and I worked at Third and Pine McDonalds for a year in the mid-90s, so have seen some crazy sh*t).
It has a homeless problem, just like every large city in America, maybe worse than some, definitely better than some.
The CHAZ was a protest 3 years ago. That area is now basically indistinguishable from before, which is to say that it is a counterculture hotspot in the city, but still very safe. There are two colleges within a block of where the CHAZ was that are thriving, and it is a great place for shopping, a night out, seeing a show, etc.
It is a city where housing is much more affordable than many parts of California, but you can still get access to major career opportunities. There are beaches in the city, and skiing, hiking, glaciers, etc within an hour or two. The cultural scene is thriving.
People think that big lefty cities are dangerous without having ever been there.
If I asked you which of the following cities has a higher murder rate than Chicago which would you select: Cleveland, Las Vegas or Kansas City.
The answer is all of them have a murder rate 30% higher than chicago.
The point is that the news likes to pick on certain places, but you should look to more reliable sources.
You asked your question claiming it was “genuine and honest” but you are hitting talking points in your reply to my comment and others that line up with a very specific agenda. I rather doubt it is coincidence. Please stop trolling.
By the same token, you seem upset that your witty trick question about murder rates is upended by the fact that through sheer weight of numbers, Chicago dominates. No matter how you choose to look at it.
I am responding very forcefully to banal and mindless attacks from people that just don't want to answer my question in the spirit it was intended.
Look through the replies. So far out of a dozen, only one answered unemotionally and logically.
edit: 2 now
> If I asked you which of the following cities has a higher murder rate than Chicago which would you select: Cleveland, Las Vegas or Kansas City.
For what it's worth, you've listed four "big lefty cities", with all four cities having voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in all of the last six elections, most with big margins. (Though to be fair, it's hard to find any big cities that haven't, considering that the largest political divide in the country is on urban vs. rural lines.)
Chicago should be considered a peer city to NYC and LA, and it does suffer quite a bit in its murder rate compared to those two[0], even though they were all once comparable.
Of the ten most dangerous (highest rates of violent crime) cities in the US[1] of any size, only one, Springfield, IL, voted for the Republican presidential candidate more than half the times of the last six elections. All but two of the remainder were solidly Democratic for all six cycles. So while there may be some truth to your idea that people unfairly believe "big lefty cities" are dangerous, there is also some truth to those people's idea, as well.
[0]: https://www.chicagobusiness.com/crains-forum-safer-chicago/c...
[1]: https://www.populationu.com/gen/most-dangerous-cities-in-the...
My point was more to the effect that there is a trope, especially in right wing circles, that Chicago in particular is especially dangerous, which isn’t really the case. It was a point to illustrate that talking points like “Chicago is super murder happy” and “Seattle is Dying” keep getting repeated despite their lack of grounding in truth.
Of course, if you're a tourist five miles away at Navy Pier or the Bean, Chicago isn't dangerous at all, and there's all of the rest of Chicago that you quite correctly state brings down the overall murder rate (to only 10th highest in the nation). But it's not like there's a wall separating the less violent parts of Chicago from the more violent parts, and as a tourist who doesn't know the different areas of the city well, the fact that Garfield Park has a higher murder rate than the most violent city in the world might make you shy away from the whole city. So I don't think it's fair to say that there is no ground at all for the claim that Chicago is murder happy.
I'll stop here since I've managed to wander far from the GP's question about Seattle; I just love Chicago and the topic engenders some passion in me.
[0]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/articlepdf/...
Seriously though, Seattle has its problems. We really should fully staff the police department, throw more people into jail (before they kill someone), and just enforce laws on shoplifting and such. That being said, it is still a very nice place to live, and in spite of its problems is still a top tier city compared to other cities in the USA (but you never heard that from me, read the first paragraph).
Is crime something you see a lot of down town, or if you are not looking you really dont notice?
First, Capitol Hill isn't really downtown, it is off to the side I rarely go there unless I have to go to a hospital or something (and even then, that is more first hill). So when you mention Capitol Hill, you aren't really talking about downtown. As for Downtown, it has a lot of unhoused neighbors (think Skid Row in LA), but that was true in the mid-90s when I worked at 3rd and Pine McDonalds (aka Crack-donalds, residents will know the place). They don't do anything, you are more likely to experience property crime in Ballard or Capitol Hill then anything in downtown (well, that isn't completely true, a lot of unhoused people are victims in crime to other unhoused people in downtown, but other people are mostly unaffected). Downtown is also full of cruise ship tourists these days, and the market, which again, you won't notice much crime if you ever need to go there at all (which you don't need to go there, since there isn't much there for residents anymore). You do see people shoplifting at Target a lot though, the security guards will just watch them as they walk out with a bunch of stuff (Downtown is a bit better on this now, but I saw someone walk out with stuff at the Ballard Target the other day, Ballard being nowhere near downtown).
Your line of questioning sounds weird though, like "have you stopped beating your wife?" Please note that CHAZ was a few blocks out of a city of 700k people and hundreds of blocks that was in existence for a few weeks 3 years ago. Nobody cares about it.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big...