The Seattle P-I reports this morning about the new (Paul Allen) Vulcan development on South Lake Union, called 2200. Among the earliest tenants are two (apparently) gay men sharing a condo. They will operate a bakery below, for dogs, perhaps bringing goodies home for their two shiba inus. Facials, massage, bed turn-down service and gourmet take-out will be available for owners of the 261 condo units, which will range from 600 square feet ($250K) to 2,600 s.f. ($2 mill.). Two 15-story towers are to be named, respectively, Arte and Azur; an 18-story tower will be called Aria. A fancy, 160-room hotel is part of the deal. I have no beef with gays, upscale condos, hotels and the free market. But I wonder. As the future unfolds, will "diverse" Seattle be increasingly inhabited by monied childless couples, plus, say, the progeny of secreted, fecund Islamists and "undocumented" immigrants? City schools in freefall add to the child-unfriendly atmosphere in Seattle. I can't tell you how many private school parents I've known here who've moved to the burbs for tolerable public schools. At the least, 2200 exemplifies that much of what passes for visionary "density" in Seattle is also code for "families not welcome here." Concurrently worrisome is the cramming of new housing units into backyards city-wide, which seems a harbinger of rezoning other single-family tracts for multi-unit housing. Density has its place(s) in Seattle, certainly. But there is a mania to it that bears much closer examination.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at November 03, 2006 08:08 AM | Email ThisThe more "high-density" a place becomes, the less I want to do with it. Having seen many, many examples of what passes for an "urban lifestyle", I know that I want little to do with it. The noise, pollution, bums, crime, cramped living spaces, lack of privacy, and exhorbitant cost are just the beginning of what is wrong with living close to the downtown of any major city.
Posted by: H Moul on November 3, 2006 08:18 AMYou can call it social engineering if you want, but the fact of the matter is that nobody is forcing anyone to live in downtown Seattle. There is obviously a *large* demand for this type of housing, so what's wrong with a) promoting it and b) privately developing it? It's called the free market, people.
Posted by: Eric on November 3, 2006 09:02 AMLeft out the bolded part. The main financiers of the liberal agenda don't have the same vision, at least for themselves - Kerry, no-windmills-in-my-view Kennedy, Steisand and her keep-off-my-beach Malibu crowd, Gates, etc., etc. etc.
Posted by: Right said Fred on November 3, 2006 09:06 AMThere are more half-million dollar postage sized condos being built downtown than you can shake a stick at, and they are selling out before they are being finished. Obviously there is a demand, so what is your beef?
Posted by: Splinter on November 3, 2006 09:16 AMBut as long as Seattle (and therefore King County) wants to restrict how I can use my property under the GAO (65 percent of a parcel in rural KC can't be developed or even built on) and fine me every time I want to rip out some blackberry bushes, I will point out the stupidity of Seattle politics. As long as Seattle politics wants to regulate how one should live outside Seattle to "preserve" nature for city dwellers who choose to live downtown (it's a free market afterall), your arguments don't fly.
But, what I don't like is when public property- parks, ports, etc.- get quasi-sold or leased so the government can get in the housing business. Ports are prohibited by law from doing that, but they think they have found a way around it and have a friendly legislature and governor. They also have Eric of SP.
Posted by: swatter on November 3, 2006 09:25 AMNow the city is in desperate need of tax revenue as the demographics now don't supply nearly as much as those nasty old businesses and are scared as hell about raising them on the citizenry. If they do raise them, it would have to be by quite a bit and that scares the politicians.
I see Seattle is heading the same way. Blade Runner anyone?
Libs: do what we say, not where we throw OUR money!
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 3, 2006 10:05 AMI hear they're part of the international conspiracy to use fluoridation to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids, too.
Posted by: eponymous coward on November 3, 2006 10:38 AMBut in Bellevue, it isn't an either/or situation. The homes around here are still selling quickly, and for full asking price. The school district will keep the families in the neighborhood.
Posted by: Janet S on November 3, 2006 10:48 AMI do believe that we need to have smart growth planning - not sprawling out to undeveloped/under-developed areas without requiring the appropriate transportation infrastructure (roads and transit). Driving around any far flung suburb will show that has not occurred.
Should you be allowed to subdivide your personal property and use it as you wish? Sure. Should you be on the hook for infrastructure improvements? You bet.
I think the county as gone too far, but I agree in principle that there needs to be controls around growth. I would hope the pendulum would swing back to a more sensible approach, but in this county, I doubt it.
Posted by: eric on November 3, 2006 10:53 AMThere's very few, if any, single family homes going up in the Seattle neighborhoods close in to the city. Those that do are well out of the affordability for most middle class families. I have a friend who lives in Wallingford, and there's nothing but multi-family units going up around there, including the one that was set ablaze near his home.
As for this high-rise, it's private development and if they can sell the units, so be it. Capitalism at work. Hopefully, Seattle learns the lesson of Vancouver, BC and doesn't drive the businesses out of downtown because they are so in love with condos.
Posted by: Palouse on November 3, 2006 10:54 AM(Canada was angsting like crazy about the brain drain, esp. the doctor drain, to the United States back in the nineties.)
Maybe Arte and Azur can pay them in week-old biscottis, which can be taken home to their squalling brats.
Win-win.
Posted by: Rey Smith on November 3, 2006 11:56 AMI don't get it.
Yeah, but they leave a mint. And maybe an animal made out of towels.
Posted by: Ryan on November 3, 2006 01:03 PMIf my comment about Koreans and dogs was perceived as "....race baiting" and thoughtless I apologize. I should have been more thoughtful and included people from The Philippines, New Guinea, and anywhere in Asia and Africa where dogs fill in for KFC.
Posted by: Emily Litella on November 3, 2006 01:31 PMOh yeah.... that's what brings people to live and shop downtown.... all the precious children.
Good lord.
Posted by: Capt Sarcastic on November 3, 2006 02:14 PMit was called a ghetto; spanky new when built. beautiful. elevators, paygrounds, all the comforts of life.
soon, the density issue was it own undoing.
people who could, fled. bad elements entered. toilets ripped out of walls. brand new sinks trashed as indoor BBQ's.
basically, given a choice, humans don't like to be gerbils packed in a cage.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 3, 2006 04:42 PM