Knute Berger provides a choice critique of Seattle's density zealots, whose religious fervor for their cause is truly as obnoxious as Berger laments, including this shot from Mossback: "They moralize globally while disdaining locally."
That said, as long as the Growth Management Act holds sway in regional planning, density has a logical place in urban areas. It should be encouraged as such, but as Berger castigates, could use some more sensitivity to the character and culture of Seattle and its past.
Count this blogger as one soul who would be living in the urban density in question if my wife and I were kidless. True urban living has a real draw for some people. Yet, the "ecotopian" vision Berger skewers is creepy, moralistic, and an inflationary nightmare. Nothing "topian" of any kind there.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 16, 2007 09:28 PM | Email ThisIf I could afford a mansion on 5 acres I'd do it in a heartbeat. Living in some squalid, paved over hell called "downtown" filled with cramped, overpriced apartments is for people that don't know any better.
Posted by: H Moul on April 16, 2007 11:04 PMAnarchy may not be moralistic, but then, how would you enforce it?
Posted by: Doug Parris on April 17, 2007 03:20 AMMichele's solution is just fantastic:
> Density is fine if that's what they want, but they should stop being so judgmental toward those who don't.
Eh, Michele, these two goals are mutually exclusive.
If you people want to make an ecological catastrophe of your state and cover the place in asphalt, I suppose that someone must stop you. They might also judge you, too.
But given that developers want to destroy the environment and the American hyperconsumers live, essentially to shop, it appears inevitable that the human plague will destroy Washington's environment on behalf of the desolate human ecosystem of the McMansion & the SUV.
Too bad that this particular ecosystem (the oil-addicted obesity-generating American lifestyle) is in the process of dying. When gasoline is $6 a gallon the decline of the automobile culture will become obvious to even the conservatives.
A point will come when gasoline is simply not available at all. Too bad for those people whose lust for the American dream (big house, big SUV, big obese belly) has driven them so far away from the city that such trips become prohibitively expensive.
Developers are the environment's greatest enemy. Developers are seeking to make a profit and therefore don't care about the long-term consequences of their decisions.
We have metastasizing random incomprehensible static from Florida on this thread........
Death wish ramblings from the brain dead.....
Posted by: Hank on April 17, 2007 05:52 AMWhat a great quote.
I also like the term "Ecotopians".
I know a lot of these KLOWNS. Most are TRUSTAFARIANS....they never really worked a day in there lives. They enjoy having a FLAT in the City, a VILLA in the COUNTRY and endless opportunities to VACATION wherever GRANDMA's MONEY takes them.
They delight in talking about Amsterdam....a classic example of a RAT-MAZE for the WHITE TRASH where the wealthy have that FLAT and that VILLA and travel endlessly.
Great thread.
David Matthews--
Are you in a Condo??
I don't consider state-run mental health facilities with bars on the windows and domestic help in little white coats with restraints on their belt for overactive residents to be a Condo.
He says sure the elites have their big cars and private jets (not jet, but jets), but if they can convince millions of people to abandon their own big cars, etc., then we shouldn't make fun of them.
Same thing can be said with 'density' and their mansions.
Eric, you can't have both low density and transit. You need to make your mind up. Which is it? High density and light rail and all sorts of mass transit or low density and more cars?
Posted by: swatter on April 17, 2007 06:44 AMThe Government has realized that using the GMA a a lever, regulatory takings like KC's CAO are possible and indeed preferable to having to compensate landowners fairly for their property. Transfer of Developement Rights is another "tool" to take land out of the inventory of buildable lands, especially in rural areas. Classified as a voluntary program currently, the State is considering making it manadatory. People are finding that their land is being reclassified under GMA sensitive areas designations and to salvage any value at all they sell off their development rights. Government sanctioned extortion, but hey personal property rights are over rated when compared to the needs of government, right?
Posted by: Smokie on April 17, 2007 06:51 AM(Don't do what I do, Just do what I say)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 17, 2007 07:38 AMBut that's what Seattle is all about, isn't it?
The few on the hill, and the many in the vally.
Posted by: John Bailo on April 17, 2007 08:08 AMOn a recent trip to the southeast I actually saw a completely petroluem fuel free car that is being built now (or rather the factory production lines are being built right now) by one of the major Japanese companies. It runs completely on renewable resource. The company hasn't introduced it yet because it is working to make sure that there are enough places to buy fuel for it before they put it on the market. (The Japanese are the kings of long-range planning.) I'm not at liberty to name names, but read your Auto and Electronics buff magazines and you'll find coverage of the car. (I'm not making this up - I'm under NDA.)
This car will take care of the gas side - and as for the "covering the state in asphalt" thing, that is so silly I hardly want to touch it, but they are doing amazing design work on smaller single occupant commuter cars that aren't much bigger than a motorcycle. Their introduction should bring relief to congestion much faster than any planned mass transit that our fearless leaders in Olympia can implement.
David Matthews is the unfortunate end result of a culture that has stopped believing an itself and in God and has instead turned to one of the most inefficient mechanisms in the history of the world - the government bureacracy - for salvation. He seems to have lost what makes a man a man. I feel very, very sorry for him.
Posted by: johnny on April 17, 2007 09:49 AMBike to Forks. Or to Winthrop, Kettie Falls, or a very long list of non-Greater Seattle places.
Over a third of the state is park for crying out loud. This isn't in _any_ danger of becoming New Jersey.
Posted by: Al on April 17, 2007 09:52 AMThis argument about density overwelming Seattle is smoke and mirrors.
I'll bet our region is no more densely developed now than it was a generation ago - I know ten or so years ago it was less densely developed than in the 60's (yes, vastly more land developed now).
Traffic is generated by the number of people we have - an extra million or so traveling on our same road system has an effect.
Do you people seriously define the American Dream as Suburbs, SUVs and Sprawl?
Your reaction implies that obesity and gluttony are fundamental values of the patriotic fundamentalists of the Wal-Mart & Church set.
You people say, "Seattle's got a lot of land, why not allow developers to destroy a little here and a little there?"
Tomorrow, the Developers will continue to ask for "a little here, a little there". Soon enough, Seattle is going to become a hellish desolate asphalt landscape and only the smallest fragments of Nature will remain.
A century ago, Central Florida was a lot like Seattle is now. Forests reached from the Atlantic to the Gulf, wetlands bordered the ocean, swamps dotted the land, and the Everglades was a healthy, functioning ecosystem.
Since that time, Developers have destroyed almost everything, The Everglades are dead (except by virtue of some pumps, the natural water flow is gone forever), and over half of all wetlands have been destroyed.
And the process of destruction continues every day. Last year one of the final privately held forests was eradicated for the sake of some town homes, and a huge chunk of wetlands are in the process of being destroyed for the sake of condos.
Is this the future that you want for Seattle? With the citizens of Washington sacrifice the unique & beautiful ecology of their state for the sake of the mundane and horrendous ecology of the suburb & SUV. Will Seattle replace all of its abundant, diverse wildlife with a monoculture of obese American hyperconsumers?
If you have children, what sort of place do you want them to inherit from you? Will they live in a living, functioning, healthy ecosystem or would you prefer that they inhabit a desolate asphalt wasteland?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 17, 2007 01:39 PMhistory. repeating. Santayana.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on April 17, 2007 07:15 PMYes! I define the American Dream as suburbs. A place I can live without hearing it everytime my neighbor yells at his kids. My own yard large enough play croquet, build a pool, etc. My kids have their own swingsets, farm animals, gardens, etc.
I drive an SUV. (A small one.) It's the best way to move around a family of four with groceries and sometimes suitcases on the weekend.
I do shop at Walmart. I think that the left hatred of Walmart because it found a more efficient way of moving consumer goods around is as silly as being mad at Boeing because they found a better way to build airplanes.
I cut my own grass, grow some of my own food, and I'm 100% sure that my neighbors and I (all of whom own a few acres) take better care of our land because it's ours.
We have great schools out here, a good community center, very little crime, and everyone seems to get along.
I am living the American dream. I'm sure you hate that. Which makes me enjoy it even more.
Posted by: Johnny on April 18, 2007 11:44 AM