Seattle in Progress(seattleinprogress.com)
seattleinprogress.com
Seattle in Progress
https://www.seattleinprogress.com/
88 comments
I think this map is not that up to date? Checking on some points I walk by a lot, there are several projects from as far back as 2013 that I know are done. Maybe I am missing something.
I think it's up-to-date in terms of new projects that get added, but there are definitely some completed ones whose status isn't updated. (But also some recently completed projects are removed, so I'm not sure why it's inconsistent. Potentially an issue with the data source?)
A lot of projects on that map have been completed for a few years now, at least in Ballard where I live. It is also missing projects that I see in progress on my morning walks.
It says completed projects only stay on the map for one year.
They can claim that, but they have Google’s Fairview office on there and it opened in 2019 or 2020.
Could it be that it hasn't yet passed final inspection? (Or did in 2022)
Maybe there is retail churn.
Maybe? Could also be that latency is visible in the map without major impact on throughput.
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.
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.
You can filter by "Approved", so you're not seeing in-progress applications
In-progress applications is the most important thing to monitor. While some applications will need to take time, most should be fast. That is the review should be a clerk checking that it is allowed by current code (takes only a few minutes) and approving. There will always be a few requests to change the zone or a special variance to the code, but even then many at one time suggests you have a problem of it being too hard to build.
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.
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.
Another fun Seattle site is the permit record search: https://web.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/
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)
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)
That is really awesome. I've been watching this building be assembled every time I drive by, but now I will appreciate it so much more. I didn't know about the great pool(s!) on the roof.
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.
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.
Fascinating, thanks for sharing. Now I can easily snoop and find out which neighbors actually applied for permits for their DADUs ha
I actually wrote the feature that they (probably) used to create this map!
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.
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.
The city of Seattle has their own version of this data that doesn't charge you to to see additional project details, contact information, permit schedules and more: https://web8.seattle.gov/sdci/shapingseattle/buildings
Is this built on top of google maps?
Isn’t that cost prohibitive, curious if there’s another alternative, open street maps perhaps.
Isn’t that cost prohibitive, curious if there’s another alternative, open street maps perhaps.
CBC did a similar thing showing how old Montreal's buildings are: https://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/montreal-375-buildings...
Wow, from this I learned that a property directly adjacent to mine recently obtained permits to build a DADU.
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.
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.
As another commenter said, go here, input the address and you can probably find all the same details: https://web.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/
Here is a separate argument I wish to pick with city governments + planners, especially if you are claiming to be liberal, pro-living-wage, etc. all these kinds of things (and by no means is this a new criticism, I acknowledge)
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.
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.
Plenty of people have written books about the issues you're talking about - they're well understood by many policymakers. But there's nothing illegal about discrimination against low income people, and older homeowners are about twice as likely to vote (and like 100x as likely to donate to candidates) as the people who are impacted.
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.
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.
>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.
Same, and I've only found one which works.
Move.
At least in Seattle, a lot of the voters who are impacted don’t understand or agree with or possibly even care about how hard it is to get a building permit. If you run for city council in Seattle and promise to streamline building permits, maybe some older middle income homeowners will vote for you. But it turns out you can also win by talking about rent control or nationalizing Boeing and converting it to build city buses, or just accusing all your opponents of being shills for right wing billionaires. In an environment like that, even when the demagogues don’t actually take over the city government, they exert enough pressure on the Overton window that the more reasonable moderates have their hands tied.
Seattle and the Seattle Area has built a lot of housing over the last couple of decades. Whatever problem they have in SF, it isn't a problem here. Whenever people say "Seattle doesn't build enough", they mean in relation to rapidly growing demand, not in absolute numbers.
Seattle here. Unfortunately, "a lot" isn't useful - as you point out, it's relative to demand. Sure, it's not AS BAD as SF, but it's still very bad. I believe I saw an estimate that the city alone would have 200k more bedrooms now if not for all the morass of crap that stops upward growth. And that also means there'd be tens of thousands fewer homes built out at the edges, saving farmland, reducing energy costs of transportation, reducing CO2...
No, we have a lot of the same problems as SF.
We have much more construction than SF. We built roughly 60k units in the last 10 years, a 19% increase. And that is just for Seattle.
> 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.
> 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.
If you want to be mindlessly simplistic, we have the exact same problem as SF: we are not building enough units to meet demand.
Otherwise, we have many of the same underlying problems that are preventing us from building enough units. Zoning, permitting, design review, building codes...
> Have you ever noticed that fancy new condos or rich people's houses are able to be built
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.
[0]: https://www.freedominthe50states.org/land
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.
[0]: https://www.freedominthe50states.org/land
> 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).
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).
Progress causes unhappiness. It's understandable to avoid, especially when the government makes it illegal to deal with directly.
An interesting revelation I had was realizing that culturally speaking all Boomers were conservative, they just picked different things to be conservative about.
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.
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.
Wanting to preserve what you have, even at the expense of others, is not limited to people born within certain timeframes.
By contrast, any system that relies on benefiting others at the expense of the self as a core foundation seems doomed to instability, by human nature itself. Requiring a class of expendable people, expected to deprive themselves for the benefit of the group, the utilitarian price to pay for the needs of the many.
It’s immoral and it’s just plain flawed design.
It’s immoral and it’s just plain flawed design.
It's funny hearing the generation of the civil rights movement, free love, recreational drug use, and anti-war protests, to name just a few of their cultural achievements, described as "conservative."
Well, that same generation as a whole is probably accurately described as conservative now! After all, it's well-known that people become more conservative as they age.
That generation was a lot more divided into lefties and righties just like other generations, and those divides have largely remained (my dad as a lifelong liberal didn't become a conservative before he died at 70, his brother was a conservative, but was his entire life). However, the younger generations are currently less polarized (mostly lefties), which is why they come off as being more left than aging baby boomers.
Every generation is.
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.
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.
Yesterday's liberals are today's conservatives.
an important question to ask is, who is ultimately allowed to control their living environment (i.e. neighbourhood)?
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
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
An equally important question to ask is, who is ultimately allowed to control their living environment, i.e. their land, house, and property?
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.
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.
> An equally important question to ask is, who is ultimately allowed to control their living environment, i.e. their land, house, and property?
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'.
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'.
I was in Seattle this weekend (not for Taylor swift), and it felt like every single street had been torn up for redoing pipes or whatever. All of us were just baffled at the sheer volume of simultaneous projects going on.
Two of the core tourist streets (Pike/Pine) are getting redone to be more pedestrian friendly: https://waterfrontseattle.org/waterfront-projects/pike-pine-...
That's a shame. You missed an awesome show.
By "every single street" you must mean in the center of town? Most of the city doesn't have anything going on.
For a similar project in Australia (that covers most of Australia) see https://www.planningalerts.org.au/
I have no insight into Seattle. This is a genuine honest question.
Why is Seattle growing? The news appears to illustrate it as a drug infested homeless encampment. The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone and the related killings did not help that narrative. So honest question, what's really going on there?
When you find that your news sources don't match what's actually happening in the real world, it's time to check on the agenda of those news sources.
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.
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.
I mean Capitol Hill really was seized and people were killed and stores were looted. Crime really is escalating along with the homeless population. Plus there is a drug issue. So the news I am consuming is not the issue. Thus the answer is that in spite of these things the city is growing, hence my question.
No need to lob insults in some sort of misguided political crusade. Thanks!
No need to lob insults in some sort of misguided political crusade. Thanks!
You keep citing a protest from more than three years ago and a trend of rising crime and homelessness that is affecting Seattle, as well as almost every major city in America.
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.
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.
If you look at the comment I was responding to, they posted in an attacking manner. I was responding to that. I agree it was 3 years ago, but all those people likely still live there and it was a pretty damn big deal. Several city blocks were seized and lawless. So again I clearly communicated that this is what the news I saw was conveying and then asked for the reasons it was growing as this is all the info I have. No idea why everyone is incredibly insulted that I asked a question.
> but all those people likely still live there and it was a pretty damn big deal
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).
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).
Fair enough, thank you.
You are factually wrong and also your news sources are factually wrong. If you find that insulting, that's a you problem.
cool cool, what part am I factually wrong about?
The growing homeless population?
The drug problem?
The growth in violent crime?
The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone and the related killings?
I lived on the hill during the protests. I walked through the 'capitol hill autonomous zone' with my children numerous times and never felt unsafe. 15-20 years ago I used to catch a late-night bus at Pike and 3rd which was considerably sketchier than anything that's ever happened on Capitol Hill and even that was tame compared to other large cities I've visited.
Friend, respectfully... 5 people were not shot over a few days on the late night bus. I'm glad you felt safe and that you were able to walk your kids through it but lets not down play what really happened to the people that were shot and killed in that small area during that short window of time.
I don't watch a lot of news so I can't really speak to the facts you're citing, but I've also spent some time living southeast of Capitol Hill in the Central District where people actually routinely get shot and where I've been mugged at gunpoint so it's possible my 'safety tolerance' is just different from yours. By comparison, nothing I saw on the hill during the 'CHAZ' even came close, it was mostly drum circles and graffiti-art.
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.
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.
I've never heard of anyone getting mugged at gunpoint in Seattle before. I'm not doubting your experience, but usually they try to steal your bike or pirate your packages, crimes that the SPD usually just ignores, pulling a gun on someone is rare, since the SPD doesn't really ignore that. My maternal aunt from Alaska did claim to be mugged by a black guy in Seattle in the 70s, but she was also kind of racist, so I'm not sure if her story was true or not.
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).
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).
There used to be a protective Pride patrol in Capitol Hill because there were regular physical attacks on LGBTQ people in the street. I moved here in 2009 and I remember multiple incidents where people were mugged at gunpoint on the Hill just that year. Pulling a gun on someone is not frequent, but it's also not a once-a-year headline act.
If it helps your collection of anecdotes, I gave the mugger my wallet while remarking that I was sorry there was no cash in it but I had $150 on the EBT card and he handed it back and said 'that's all right, have a safe night' and ran away.
Oohf, ya, mugging people these days is tough. No one carries cash around anymore.
I live in Capitol Hill and no, it wasn't "seized". CHAZ was on the same level of disruption as this weekend's annual music festival, which fenced off several city blocks (and they were blocks filled with stores people wanted to go to, not just the park). The news you are consuming is absolutely the issue, but I get the impression that you consume it because it tells you what you want to hear.
The news you are getting is wrong is the simplest explanation.
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.
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.
> 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.
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...
> 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...
Almost all cities are run by Democrats, especially if they are big. I can think of exceptions like Fairbanks AK and Mesa AZ, but those places have their own crime problems. Most of the really bad cities (New Orleans, St. Louis, Jackson Mississippi) are blue cities in red states, but that is more to do about historic poverty, and Jim Crow's legacy, than anything else.
Most cities are democrat. Of the top 100, only 24 have republican mayors. So it stands to reason that there will be more democrat run cities with high murder rates. Conversely there will be more democrat cities with low murder rates. I wouldn’t classify any of those cities as decidedly lefty, all three of them are in swing/red states. That’s just my opinion and not really the point, though.
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.
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.
I understand (and made a similar point regarding most cities being liberal), but parts of Chicago really are especially dangerous, because the violent crime rate is not evenly distributed throughout city limits. For young men, living in certain parts of Chicago (e.g. 60624) was in fact more dangerous to their life than being deployed to Afghanistan[0]. I hesitate to describe that as a trope; more a travesty that needs to be addressed.
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/...
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/...
You could synthesize a contiguous area of Chicago that would lead the nation in per capita homicides (an easy thing to do here would be to just take Englewood, with its 48 homicides and 29,000 population). But of course, you'd be comparing Englewood to all of (say) St. Louis, which is also quite a livable city overall.
wonderwonder(1)
If the question was "Which city has the most murders", the answer is Chicago... by a lot. So you can use the numbers to paint whatever picture you like.
Yes Chicago has the most murders, but in the real world the denominator matters, and we both know that.
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.
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.
Friend, I honesty was not trolling. Look at the posts to which I responded. All of them appear emotionally unstable and outraged that I would dare ask a question that mentioned some of the advertised negatives about their city and then asked what positives are clearly out weighing these negatives as the city is growing.
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
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
As a Seattle resident, I'm all for bad news discouraging growth. Unfortunately, I can't convince out-of-towners that it rains 400 days a year here and that all the sidewalks are filled with fentanyl tents.
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).
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).
lol, I did forget about the rain.
I've always though Seattle must have great suburbs with the wealth and climate.
Is crime something you see a lot of down town, or if you are not looking you really dont notice?
Is crime something you see a lot of down town, or if you are not looking you really dont notice?
Seattle has an above average property crime rate and a below average violent crime rate. This is always how it has been, since my parents met in the city in 1960s, at least.
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).
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).
I don't notice crime anywhere in Seattle besides the occasional homeless in any city. I got some Korean food in cap hill a few weeks ago, it was pretty good. Most of my time outside around town is spent going on runs around lake union or riding my bike in the green lake area. Just yesterday I was in downtown near pike place to do some clothes shopping. I got lunch at a Filipino place. I did not notice any thefts, murders, or trespassing.
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.
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.
I live in Capitol Hill and walk around there and Downtown and no, unless you count graffiti or looking visibly homeless, there isn't much visible crime. The actual worst impact of crime on us is that our car, parked on the street every night, has now been broken into twice in five years, and the local QFC and Safeway have both closed their secondary entrance and have more stuff locked away when you go shopping.
It's a beautiful city with a temperate climate, nearby mountains and ocean, thriving arts and music scenes, good schools, sports, unique and walkable neighborhoods, and a bunch of other things that people look for when they decide where they want to put down roots. Yes, there is a drug problem, and parts of the city are quite bad, but if you walked around Capitol Hill today you'd probably enjoy yourself and feel quite safe!
[deleted]
Amazon is based in Seattle, Microsoft is based nearby. Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. all setup offices there as a result. There’s a concentration of wealth, talent, and offspring startups.
Thank you for an unemotional, factual response, much appreciated.
The news is wrong. Especially about the CHAZ. Source: live here.
That is exactly what I saw when I drove through.
Quite a bit will be changed the day after this happens.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big...
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.