Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

McGinn Group Funded by Seattle's Biz Establishment

This article was originally posted on Friday.

Mayoral candidate Mike McGinn

Mayoral candidate Mike McGinn

Mayoral candidate Mike McGinn is best known as an environmentalist and biking enthusiast. He founded the green urbanist group Great City; he served as head of the local Sierra Club; and his campaign slogan is “Mike Bikes.” Support for his grassroots, all-volunteer campaign comes largely from environmental leaders (Tim Gould of the Sierra Club; Gary Manca from Friends of Seattle; bus proponent Jack Whisner; etc.) and people who admire his green ethos.

So it may come as a surprise to some of his idealistic supporters that the group that financed McGinn’s Great City—in addition to environmental groups like the Cascade Bicycle Club and the Bullitt Foundation—includes many of the city’s biggest developers, law firms, and builders.

“I’m really proud of my ability at Great City to bring together businesses and environmentalists and neighborhood leaders who donated to the organization,” McGinn said.

Although neither McGinn nor current Great City head Joshua Curtis would reveal the exact contributions Great City received from its funders (and the group has not yet filed a 990 form with the IRS, because it has long been funded, until this year, through the Cascade Land Conservancy), the group has posted a list of the companies and organizations themselves that funded the group’s creation.

The most prominent company on the list  is Vulcan, Paul Allen’s South Lake Union development firm. Although McGinn wouldn’t say specifically how much Vulcan had contributed to Great City, he does concede that the developer is among the organization’s top two or three contributors, along with Bullitt and the Land Conservancy.

Several of McGinn’s positions on big city and development issues line up closely with Vulcan’s: He supports a version of the proposed $290 million “Mercer Mess” fix (although he says “we have to figure out a way to make it cheaper”), and he wants to make “incentive zoning” (a scheme in which developers get to build taller buildings in exchange for investing in amenities like affordable housing) more flexible than current guidelines mandate. (In 2007, Vulcan successfully lobbied the city to exempt it from some incentive zoning requirements for one of its developments in South Lake Union).

Great City’s contributors also include real estate developers like Triad Development, Lorig, the Bloom Company, and Harbor Properties, which collectively own hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of downtown and South Lake Union real estate and frequently lobby the city for breaks on development regulations; architecture firms like GGLO, Mithun, and VIA Architecture; and conservative advocacy groups like the Master Builders’ Association, which lobbies against green regulations on development and has generally supported Republican candidates. (For example, the Master Builders backed Republican Dino Rossi in 2008, opposed stormwater restrictions that same year, and has opposed restrictions on development in the state’s environmentally critical areas.)

Interestingly, most of the companies that funded McGinn’s group have also been staunch political and financial supporters of lame-duck Mayor Greg Nickels, and very few have given to McGinn.

Now that Nickels is out of the running, will they support his former rival? That remains to be seen, but my guess is that it will take more than a pro-development attitude to woo business leaders into the former Sierra Club leader’s camp. Business insiders suggest that were it not for McGinn’s position on the proposed $4.2 billion waterfront tunnel, they’d be far more likely to back him than his opponent Joe Mallahan, who has shown little familiarity with business—or any other—issues.

A partial list of Great City’s backers is below the jump.

Jake Blumgart contributed to this report..

Vulcan, the mammoth Paul Allen-funded South Lake Union developer and Number One bad guy for anti-gentrification, anti-density Seattle activists. Vulcan and its employees give generously to city candidates and causes; since 2003, Vulcan and its employees have made around 200 contributions to city candidates, much higher than any other developer. Vulcan is a longtime Nickels supporter.

Triad Development, another large downtown developer who has supported Nickels in the past.

Lorig and Associates, another real estate developer;

The Blume Company, a developer in South Lake Union that’s building a 776,000-square-foot office and retail complex in the neighborhood;

Geoengineers, a company that aims to “apply earth science and technology to improve the world we live in”;

Harbor Properties, which owns more than $200 million worth of real estate around the city. Harbor lobbied current mayor Greg Nickels successfully against a downtown upzone that could have blocked some views at its downtown Harbor Steps development;

The Master Builders Association, a member group of the generally right-leaning Builders Industry Association of Washington, which lobbies against green regulations on development;

Opus NW, another real-estate developer and construction firm; and

Pemco Insurance, a Seattle-based insurance company.


  • Kathryn

    The fingerprints were there for anyone with half a brain to see from the beginning. Thanks for getting the identification on them.

  • Kathryn

    The fingerprints were there for anyone with half a brain to see from the beginning. Thanks for getting the identification on them.

  • Kathryn

    The fingerprints were there for anyone with half a brain to see from the beginning. Thanks for getting the identification on them.

  • Kathryn

    The fingerprints were there for anyone with half a brain to see from the beginning. Thanks for getting the identification on them.

  • Kathryn

    The fingerprints were there for anyone with half a brain to see from the beginning. Thanks for getting the identification on them.

  • eddiew

    Jack Whisner – light rail OPPONENT!!!!!!!!

  • http://twitter.com/fattailed Fat-tailed

    If this is the Geoengineers you’re talking about, I think you’re mis-stating what line of work they’re in:

    http://www.geoengineers.com/Cases.aspx

    What you describe is a kind of geo-engineering applied (crazily) to a particular issue. It’s not necessarily what geo-engineering is about. What you’re doing is like citing Intelligent design as if it illustrates what an industrial designer does. Same word, yeah, but not quite the same thing.

    But that’s just a quibble about a good, valuable article. Would love to hear McGinn explain how/if he departs from Great City on any of these issues.

  • http://twitter.com/fattailed Fat-tailed

    If this is the Geoengineers you’re talking about, I think you’re mis-stating what line of work they’re in:

    http://www.geoengineers.com/Cases.aspx

    What you describe is a kind of geo-engineering applied (crazily) to a particular issue. It’s not necessarily what geo-engineering is about. What you’re doing is like citing Intelligent design as if it illustrates what an industrial designer does. Same word, yeah, but not quite the same thing.

    But that’s just a quibble about a good, valuable article. Would love to hear McGinn explain how/if he departs from Great City on any of these issues.

  • http://twitter.com/fattailed Fat-tailed

    If this is the Geoengineers you’re talking about, I think you’re mis-stating what line of work they’re in:

    http://www.geoengineers.com/Cases.aspx

    What you describe is a kind of geo-engineering applied (crazily) to a particular issue. It’s not necessarily what geo-engineering is about. What you’re doing is like citing Intelligent design as if it illustrates what an industrial designer does. Same word, yeah, but not quite the same thing.

    But that’s just a quibble about a good, valuable article. Would love to hear McGinn explain how/if he departs from Great City on any of these issues.

  • http://twitter.com/fattailed Fat-tailed

    If this is the Geoengineers you’re talking about, I think you’re mis-stating what line of work they’re in:

    http://www.geoengineers.com/Cases.aspx

    What you describe is a kind of geo-engineering applied (crazily) to a particular issue. It’s not necessarily what geo-engineering is about. What you’re doing is like citing Intelligent design as if it illustrates what an industrial designer does. Same word, yeah, but not quite the same thing.

    But that’s just a quibble about a good, valuable article. Would love to hear McGinn explain how/if he departs from Great City on any of these issues.

  • http://twitter.com/fattailed Fat-tailed

    If this is the Geoengineers you’re talking about, I think you’re mis-stating what line of work they’re in:

    http://www.geoengineers.com/Cases.aspx

    What you describe is a kind of geo-engineering applied (crazily) to a particular issue. It’s not necessarily what geo-engineering is about. What you’re doing is like citing Intelligent design as if it illustrates what an industrial designer does. Same word, yeah, but not quite the same thing.

    But that’s just a quibble about a good, valuable article. Would love to hear McGinn explain how/if he departs from Great City on any of these issues.

  • http://peacetreefarm.org N in Seattle

    He supports the proposed $290 “Mercer Mess” fix

    If it actually costs that little, hell, I’ll write a check tomorrow.

    light-rail proponent Jack Whisner;

    Ummm, Metro’s king of bus routes backs LRT?? And here I thought job security was something to be cherished.

  • http://peacetreefarm.org N in Seattle

    He supports the proposed $290 “Mercer Mess” fix

    If it actually costs that little, hell, I’ll write a check tomorrow.

    light-rail proponent Jack Whisner;

    Ummm, Metro’s king of bus routes backs LRT?? And here I thought job security was something to be cherished.

  • http://peacetreefarm.org N in Seattle

    He supports the proposed $290 “Mercer Mess” fix

    If it actually costs that little, hell, I’ll write a check tomorrow.

    light-rail proponent Jack Whisner;

    Ummm, Metro’s king of bus routes backs LRT?? And here I thought job security was something to be cherished.

  • http://peacetreefarm.org N in Seattle

    He supports the proposed $290 “Mercer Mess” fix

    If it actually costs that little, hell, I’ll write a check tomorrow.

    light-rail proponent Jack Whisner;

    Ummm, Metro’s king of bus routes backs LRT?? And here I thought job security was something to be cherished.

  • http://peacetreefarm.org N in Seattle

    He supports the proposed $290 “Mercer Mess” fix

    If it actually costs that little, hell, I’ll write a check tomorrow.

    light-rail proponent Jack Whisner;

    Ummm, Metro’s king of bus routes backs LRT?? And here I thought job security was something to be cherished.

  • http://www.publicola.net/ ECB

    To the comments above: Noted, and fixed. Thanks!

  • http://www.publicola.net/ ECB

    To the comments above: Noted, and fixed. Thanks!

  • http://www.publicola.net/ ECB

    To the comments above: Noted, and fixed. Thanks!

  • http://www.publicola.net/ ECB

    To the comments above: Noted, and fixed. Thanks!

  • http://www.publicola.net ECB

    To the comments above: Noted, and fixed. Thanks!

  • Timothy

    Even if some of these groups hold opinions opposite to McGinn’s, this revelation, in my mind, strengthens McGinn as a candidate for Mayor. It shows that he’s been able to bring different groups to his table to discuss and work on issues facing Seattle.

    It is naive to think that one can work politically in this city without talking to many sides and gathering many viewpoints on issues.

  • Timothy

    Even if some of these groups hold opinions opposite to McGinn’s, this revelation, in my mind, strengthens McGinn as a candidate for Mayor. It shows that he’s been able to bring different groups to his table to discuss and work on issues facing Seattle.

    It is naive to think that one can work politically in this city without talking to many sides and gathering many viewpoints on issues.

  • Timothy

    Even if some of these groups hold opinions opposite to McGinn’s, this revelation, in my mind, strengthens McGinn as a candidate for Mayor. It shows that he’s been able to bring different groups to his table to discuss and work on issues facing Seattle.

    It is naive to think that one can work politically in this city without talking to many sides and gathering many viewpoints on issues.

  • Timothy

    Even if some of these groups hold opinions opposite to McGinn’s, this revelation, in my mind, strengthens McGinn as a candidate for Mayor. It shows that he’s been able to bring different groups to his table to discuss and work on issues facing Seattle.

    It is naive to think that one can work politically in this city without talking to many sides and gathering many viewpoints on issues.

  • Timothy

    Even if some of these groups hold opinions opposite to McGinn’s, this revelation, in my mind, strengthens McGinn as a candidate for Mayor. It shows that he’s been able to bring different groups to his table to discuss and work on issues facing Seattle.

    It is naive to think that one can work politically in this city without talking to many sides and gathering many viewpoints on issues.

  • hey you guyses

    If The Whis is a light rail PROPONENT, then thats a big change from 2007, when he joined McGinn and other greens in opposing light rail to Tacoma.

  • hey you guyses

    If The Whis is a light rail PROPONENT, then thats a big change from 2007, when he joined McGinn and other greens in opposing light rail to Tacoma.

  • hey you guyses

    If The Whis is a light rail PROPONENT, then thats a big change from 2007, when he joined McGinn and other greens in opposing light rail to Tacoma.

  • hey you guyses

    If The Whis is a light rail PROPONENT, then thats a big change from 2007, when he joined McGinn and other greens in opposing light rail to Tacoma.

  • hey you guyses

    If The Whis is a light rail PROPONENT, then thats a big change from 2007, when he joined McGinn and other greens in opposing light rail to Tacoma.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @6,

    Erica’s article doesn’t merely demonstrate that McGinn “has been able to bring different groups to the table” … it shows that his non-profit group aligned itself with a specific constituency, Seattle’s business and developer crowd.

    That’s not a necessarily a bad thing, but it’s noteworthy given his image as lefty.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @6,

    Erica’s article doesn’t merely demonstrate that McGinn “has been able to bring different groups to the table” … it shows that his non-profit group aligned itself with a specific constituency, Seattle’s business and developer crowd.

    That’s not a necessarily a bad thing, but it’s noteworthy given his image as lefty.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @6,

    Erica’s article doesn’t merely demonstrate that McGinn “has been able to bring different groups to the table” … it shows that his non-profit group aligned itself with a specific constituency, Seattle’s business and developer crowd.

    That’s not a necessarily a bad thing, but it’s noteworthy given his image as lefty.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @6,

    Erica’s article doesn’t merely demonstrate that McGinn “has been able to bring different groups to the table” … it shows that his non-profit group aligned itself with a specific constituency, Seattle’s business and developer crowd.

    That’s not a necessarily a bad thing, but it’s noteworthy given his image as lefty.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @6,

    Erica’s article doesn’t merely demonstrate that McGinn “has been able to bring different groups to the table” … it shows that his non-profit group aligned itself with a specific constituency, Seattle’s business and developer crowd.

    That’s not a necessarily a bad thing, but it’s noteworthy given his image as lefty.

  • http://twitter.com/fattailed Fat-tailed

    For the record and my own sense of my own sanity, I swear that my comment @3 above actually made sense before the article was updated.

    Good to see these kinds of fixes happening promptly these days. A big deal for publicola’s credibility in the long run, I think.

  • http://twitter.com/fattailed Fat-tailed

    For the record and my own sense of my own sanity, I swear that my comment @3 above actually made sense before the article was updated.

    Good to see these kinds of fixes happening promptly these days. A big deal for publicola’s credibility in the long run, I think.

  • http://twitter.com/fattailed Fat-tailed

    For the record and my own sense of my own sanity, I swear that my comment @3 above actually made sense before the article was updated.

    Good to see these kinds of fixes happening promptly these days. A big deal for publicola’s credibility in the long run, I think.

  • http://twitter.com/fattailed Fat-tailed

    For the record and my own sense of my own sanity, I swear that my comment @3 above actually made sense before the article was updated.

    Good to see these kinds of fixes happening promptly these days. A big deal for publicola’s credibility in the long run, I think.

  • http://twitter.com/fattailed Fat-tailed

    For the record and my own sense of my own sanity, I swear that my comment @3 above actually made sense before the article was updated.

    Good to see these kinds of fixes happening promptly these days. A big deal for publicola’s credibility in the long run, I think.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    For the Mercer “Fix”, against the tunnel?
    Wow.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    For the Mercer “Fix”, against the tunnel?
    Wow.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    For the Mercer “Fix”, against the tunnel?
    Wow.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    For the Mercer “Fix”, against the tunnel?
    Wow.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    For the Mercer “Fix”, against the tunnel?
    Wow.

  • Zelbinian

    “If The Whis is a light rail PROPONENT, then thats a big change from 2007, when he joined McGinn and other greens in opposing light rail to Tacoma.”

    To what do you refer? The RTID debate? If so, you are grossly characterizing.

  • Zelbinian

    “If The Whis is a light rail PROPONENT, then thats a big change from 2007, when he joined McGinn and other greens in opposing light rail to Tacoma.”

    To what do you refer? The RTID debate? If so, you are grossly characterizing.

  • Zelbinian

    “If The Whis is a light rail PROPONENT, then thats a big change from 2007, when he joined McGinn and other greens in opposing light rail to Tacoma.”

    To what do you refer? The RTID debate? If so, you are grossly characterizing.

  • Zelbinian

    “If The Whis is a light rail PROPONENT, then thats a big change from 2007, when he joined McGinn and other greens in opposing light rail to Tacoma.”

    To what do you refer? The RTID debate? If so, you are grossly characterizing.

  • Zelbinian

    “If The Whis is a light rail PROPONENT, then thats a big change from 2007, when he joined McGinn and other greens in opposing light rail to Tacoma.”

    To what do you refer? The RTID debate? If so, you are grossly characterizing.

  • eddiew

    2, 4, and 5: I do not practice a modal religion; I walk, bike, row, bus, and drive; I have been a strong proponent of LRT to Northgate; I have also been active with the Democrats, Legalvoice, NARAL, Sierra Club, FeetFirst; I joined the Sierra Club in opposing the joint ballot measure in 2007.

  • eddiew

    2, 4, and 5: I do not practice a modal religion; I walk, bike, row, bus, and drive; I have been a strong proponent of LRT to Northgate; I have also been active with the Democrats, Legalvoice, NARAL, Sierra Club, FeetFirst; I joined the Sierra Club in opposing the joint ballot measure in 2007.

  • Timothy

    @8 Josh…

    Well, we already have McGinn’s resume and actions to show that his designation as a lefty are legit; this revelation can’t possibly undermine the work of the man over the years. Therefore, what it can show us is his ability to work across divides to bring otherwise antagonistic groups to the table.

    This is THE question that one wants answered when a candidate is painted as a 1-dimensional advocate, and this revelation seems to answer that very question.

  • Timothy

    @8 Josh…

    Well, we already have McGinn’s resume and actions to show that his designation as a lefty are legit; this revelation can’t possibly undermine the work of the man over the years. Therefore, what it can show us is his ability to work across divides to bring otherwise antagonistic groups to the table.

    This is THE question that one wants answered when a candidate is painted as a 1-dimensional advocate, and this revelation seems to answer that very question.

  • Trevor

    “Grassroots” environmental groups, business leaders, and developers are forming an alliance to open up the city to more density? I’m shocked!

  • Trevor

    “Grassroots” environmental groups, business leaders, and developers are forming an alliance to open up the city to more density? I’m shocked!

  • Progressive Prism

    “McGinn has not yet returned a call for comment.”

    ECB, it’s so cute how you write with subtle bias. McGinn blows you off and you are cheerily optimistic he’ll get back to you ASAP. Mallahan doesn’t call you back (or tries repeatedly but you don’t pick up–to be fair, that was Josh though) and it’s all doom and gloom and conspiracy theories. Are you dating a Faux News commentator? Cause you’re certainly channeling them.

  • Progressive Prism

    “McGinn has not yet returned a call for comment.”

    ECB, it’s so cute how you write with subtle bias. McGinn blows you off and you are cheerily optimistic he’ll get back to you ASAP. Mallahan doesn’t call you back (or tries repeatedly but you don’t pick up–to be fair, that was Josh though) and it’s all doom and gloom and conspiracy theories. Are you dating a Faux News commentator? Cause you’re certainly channeling them.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @15,

    Mallahan has never repeatedly tried to call me back.

    His spokeswoman Charla Neuman has called me back. And I’ve talked to her at length.

    She called me yesterday, in fact, around 8pm, and I picked up immediately.

    “Cheerily optimistic” ? You read quite a bit into the sentence “McGinn has not yet returned a call for comment.”*

    *McGinn eventually called back, and he’s now quoted in the story.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @15,

    Mallahan has never repeatedly tried to call me back.

    His spokeswoman Charla Neuman has called me back. And I’ve talked to her at length.

    She called me yesterday, in fact, around 8pm, and I picked up immediately.

    “Cheerily optimistic” ? You read quite a bit into the sentence “McGinn has not yet returned a call for comment.”*

    *McGinn eventually called back, and he’s now quoted in the story.

  • Cook

    I agree with #13. And even if McGinn was beholden to these business interests, then why would they donate so heavily to Nickels, like ECB states? The reporting as a whole is sound, so hopefully it will detract from those who say Publicola treats McGinn with kid gloves.

  • Cook

    I agree with #13. And even if McGinn was beholden to these business interests, then why would they donate so heavily to Nickels, like ECB states? The reporting as a whole is sound, so hopefully it will detract from those who say Publicola treats McGinn with kid gloves.

  • South Downtown

    @14 ““Grassroots” environmental groups, business leaders, and developers are forming an alliance to open up the city to more density? I’m shocked!”

    i think you mean “greenwashed astroturf groups that are really developers and folks on the hyper-development gravy train”, business leaders and developers… that would be less shocking.

    @15 no, ECB is dating another pundit for McGinn (http://hugeasscity.com/2009/08/31/think-global-vote-local/)

  • South Downtown

    @14 ““Grassroots” environmental groups, business leaders, and developers are forming an alliance to open up the city to more density? I’m shocked!”

    i think you mean “greenwashed astroturf groups that are really developers and folks on the hyper-development gravy train”, business leaders and developers… that would be less shocking.

    @15 no, ECB is dating another pundit for McGinn (http://hugeasscity.com/2009/08/31/think-global-vote-local/)

  • Progressive Prism

    @16

    I’m referring to the story in the primary where you said the Mallahan campaign hadn’t returned your call and then Charla posted in the comments that she tried to call you several times before you posted the article but wasn’t able to reach you. You later affirmed her statement, I think in an Update of the story.

    “not yet” = optimistic. Call me crazy, but that seems to imply ECB is optimistic she’ll get the call. This is exactly the matter of tone I’ve spoken about previously regarding your coverage of the mayors race. Truly, it’s a shame.

  • Progressive Prism

    @16

    I’m referring to the story in the primary where you said the Mallahan campaign hadn’t returned your call and then Charla posted in the comments that she tried to call you several times before you posted the article but wasn’t able to reach you. You later affirmed her statement, I think in an Update of the story.

    “not yet” = optimistic. Call me crazy, but that seems to imply ECB is optimistic she’ll get the call. This is exactly the matter of tone I’ve spoken about previously regarding your coverage of the mayors race. Truly, it’s a shame.

  • Timothy

    @19…I’m not optimistic that I’ll ever hear from Mallahan rather than Neumann. Perhaps the reporting is reflecting something that is real; I get the sense, reading lots of different reporters who are covering this story, that McGinn is quick to respond, in person, to requests for information, and that Mallahan is slow to respond, and that mostly Charla Neumann returns calls, and even then, has to check on her candidates position and then call back again.

  • Timothy

    @19…I’m not optimistic that I’ll ever hear from Mallahan rather than Neumann. Perhaps the reporting is reflecting something that is real; I get the sense, reading lots of different reporters who are covering this story, that McGinn is quick to respond, in person, to requests for information, and that Mallahan is slow to respond, and that mostly Charla Neumann returns calls, and even then, has to check on her candidates position and then call back again.

  • Good Grief

    Anyone who doesn’t think Publicola is completely in the bag for McGinn is nuts, and as has been noted, that fact is clearly reflected in the innuendo and subtle wording choices that go into each story about the race. Perhaps Mallahan doesn’t respond quickly to Publicola because he and his campaign are sick of your version of “objectivity”?

    That being said, Mallahan has seemed stuck since the primary and unable to launch any sort of a campaign buzz for the general. If McGinn hadn’t been harping on and on about the tunnel all this time he probably could walk away with this. While that issue got him through the primary it may be more of a ball and chain when trying to court some of the Nickels supporters.

    Either way it goes, it’s looking more than ever like whoever wins will have a steep learning curve. I was growing up in Portland when Bud Clark was elected — at least it was entertaining…

    Lastly, I’d like to echo Fat-Tail and commend you on the quick correction…

  • Good Grief

    Anyone who doesn’t think Publicola is completely in the bag for McGinn is nuts, and as has been noted, that fact is clearly reflected in the innuendo and subtle wording choices that go into each story about the race. Perhaps Mallahan doesn’t respond quickly to Publicola because he and his campaign are sick of your version of “objectivity”?

    That being said, Mallahan has seemed stuck since the primary and unable to launch any sort of a campaign buzz for the general. If McGinn hadn’t been harping on and on about the tunnel all this time he probably could walk away with this. While that issue got him through the primary it may be more of a ball and chain when trying to court some of the Nickels supporters.

    Either way it goes, it’s looking more than ever like whoever wins will have a steep learning curve. I was growing up in Portland when Bud Clark was elected — at least it was entertaining…

    Lastly, I’d like to echo Fat-Tail and commend you on the quick correction…

  • insider baseball

    I was wondering when someone would put this information out there. I always thought it was interesting that people would diss Mayor Nickels as a tool of Paul Allen and then creme themselves over McGinn as though they had no idea Vulcan was/is a major funder of Great City. You did a nice job of spelling out why it matters.

  • insider baseball

    I was wondering when someone would put this information out there. I always thought it was interesting that people would diss Mayor Nickels as a tool of Paul Allen and then creme themselves over McGinn as though they had no idea Vulcan was/is a major funder of Great City. You did a nice job of spelling out why it matters.

  • Seamus O

    The Mercer Project is only the half of it.

    The forthcoming upzone proposals for South Lake Union land owned by Vulcan are the other half of the equation. Where do the two candidates stand on that? Some proposals go as high as 400 feet.

  • Seamus O

    The Mercer Project is only the half of it.

    The forthcoming upzone proposals for South Lake Union land owned by Vulcan are the other half of the equation. Where do the two candidates stand on that? Some proposals go as high as 400 feet.

  • Wells

    Paul Allen tried between 1995-97 to dedicate his land holdings in SLU to a large quandrant of public park blocks. The early design shows a lowering of Mercer below grade, capped and leading to Broad Street tunnel. A later design reduces the scale of the park and drops the underground Mercer idea. It could be that both designs ran up against the Mercer Mess quagmire of how the hell can this traffic mess be fixed. And it looks like the current traffic plan fails as well.

    I like the idea of Valley becoming a low-traffic waterfront street with development overlooking Lake Union – very European. It seems like good land-use to me. McGinn supports walking/bicycling/mass transit, things the area sadly lacks. The City could see a return on its investment there, but sensible traffic management planning at SDOT has gone off the rails, even with the Streetcar line, no big surprise.

  • Wells

    Paul Allen tried between 1995-97 to dedicate his land holdings in SLU to a large quandrant of public park blocks. The early design shows a lowering of Mercer below grade, capped and leading to Broad Street tunnel. A later design reduces the scale of the park and drops the underground Mercer idea. It could be that both designs ran up against the Mercer Mess quagmire of how the hell can this traffic mess be fixed. And it looks like the current traffic plan fails as well.

    I like the idea of Valley becoming a low-traffic waterfront street with development overlooking Lake Union – very European. It seems like good land-use to me. McGinn supports walking/bicycling/mass transit, things the area sadly lacks. The City could see a return on its investment there, but sensible traffic management planning at SDOT has gone off the rails, even with the Streetcar line, no big surprise.

  • Trevor

    @18: quotation marks and sarcasm…

  • Trevor

    @18: quotation marks and sarcasm…

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    I like the idea of not spending sidewalk improvement money on the billionaire’s project.

    Endorser’s remorse?

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    I like the idea of not spending sidewalk improvement money on the billionaire’s project.

    Endorser’s remorse?

  • norbert hebert

    Please. Developers and PEMCO used Nickels like a pawn. Those interest groups own your beloved Ed Murray outright. This “cities” group lacked power and gravitas, and it accomplished nothing.

    Why do you shill for Mallahan? He’s a punk.

  • norbert hebert

    Please. Developers and PEMCO used Nickels like a pawn. Those interest groups own your beloved Ed Murray outright. This “cities” group lacked power and gravitas, and it accomplished nothing.

    Why do you shill for Mallahan? He’s a punk.

  • joshuadf

    ECB, thanks for the article. As someone who’s been following SLU closely for a few years it’s not news to me, but this writeup is a good summary. In my opinion in remains to be seen whether people like McGinn and Matt Roewe can school Vulcan on urban form or not; they’ve tried.

    Whoever you think was pulling the strings, together Nickels and Vulcan are currently building what one neighbor calls “an extension of downtown“: think M-F 8-5 office buildings. Nickels wanted that Amazon deal for his resume, not for the neighborhood, but I’ve seen good evidence that McGinn is more thoughtful; for example, he came by the Cascade People’s Center this week. By the way, there will be a public meeting on the SLU Urban Design Framework at 7PM on September 21, 2009 at the Cascade People Center.

    Another thing to add: companies like Mithun, Via, and Lorig have done some of the best urban form projects in Seattle, including both center city as you mention but also in the U-District and Northgate. They’re not perfect of course, but unlike sixpack townhomes or breadbox office buildings they’re trying.

  • joshuadf

    ECB, thanks for the article. As someone who’s been following SLU closely for a few years it’s not news to me, but this writeup is a good summary. In my opinion in remains to be seen whether people like McGinn and Matt Roewe can school Vulcan on urban form or not; they’ve tried.

    Whoever you think was pulling the strings, together Nickels and Vulcan are currently building what one neighbor calls “an extension of downtown“: think M-F 8-5 office buildings. Nickels wanted that Amazon deal for his resume, not for the neighborhood, but I’ve seen good evidence that McGinn is more thoughtful; for example, he came by the Cascade People’s Center this week. By the way, there will be a public meeting on the SLU Urban Design Framework at 7PM on September 21, 2009 at the Cascade People Center.

    Another thing to add: companies like Mithun, Via, and Lorig have done some of the best urban form projects in Seattle, including both center city as you mention but also in the U-District and Northgate. They’re not perfect of course, but unlike sixpack townhomes or breadbox office buildings they’re trying.

  • tpn

    The green developer lobby comes full circle, which was very predicable; the facade has finally been removed; all that is left to do is replace the Publicola banner ad with one from Vulcan. But McGinn will be forgiven, because he is a one issue candidate around these parts. In two years time, if elected, he will be hated as much as Nickels, because once those interests fill your wallet, you have to run their game; just ask the last three Mayors.

  • tpn

    The green developer lobby comes full circle, which was very predicable; the facade has finally been removed; all that is left to do is replace the Publicola banner ad with one from Vulcan. But McGinn will be forgiven, because he is a one issue candidate around these parts. In two years time, if elected, he will be hated as much as Nickels, because once those interests fill your wallet, you have to run their game; just ask the last three Mayors.

  • http://www.jasonosgood.com/ Jason Osgood

    I haven’t kept on this issue, so please fact check/correct.

    I supported the Seattle Commons. Getting federal monies to help fix the Mercer Mess was reason enough.

    When it lost on the ballot, we (the people) lost a seat at the table. Vulcan has been developing the Westlake – South Lake Union corridor without the guiding vision of a master plan. For example, look at the trolley car.

    I’m pretty cranky about this state of affairs. But I’d rather something happened than nothing at all.

    As for campaign donations: hate the game, not the player. Sure, there’s a line. It’d be weird if McGinn or Mallahan accepted money from the BIAW or Selig.

    But anyone who has a problem with it should first give their candidate money (reducing the need for corporate money) and then continue working for public campaign financing.

  • http://www.jasonosgood.com Jason Osgood

    I haven’t kept on this issue, so please fact check/correct.

    I supported the Seattle Commons. Getting federal monies to help fix the Mercer Mess was reason enough.

    When it lost on the ballot, we (the people) lost a seat at the table. Vulcan has been developing the Westlake – South Lake Union corridor without the guiding vision of a master plan. For example, look at the trolley car.

    I’m pretty cranky about this state of affairs. But I’d rather something happened than nothing at all.

    As for campaign donations: hate the game, not the player. Sure, there’s a line. It’d be weird if McGinn or Mallahan accepted money from the BIAW or Selig.

    But anyone who has a problem with it should first give their candidate money (reducing the need for corporate money) and then continue working for public campaign financing.

  • http://www.jasonosgood.com/ Jason Osgood

    Note that I’ve personally spotted candidates McGinn and O’Brien on their bikes around town. With a candidate’s schedule, this requires serious commitment.

    (And I feel ashamed that I was still in my car. Working on that…)

  • http://www.jasonosgood.com Jason Osgood

    Note that I’ve personally spotted candidates McGinn and O’Brien on their bikes around town. With a candidate’s schedule, this requires serious commitment.

    (And I feel ashamed that I was still in my car. Working on that…)

  • Mikos

    This is good reporting. You can’t always know the politician by knowing his/her donors but it’s a good place to start. The connection between greens and developers should be of concern to everybody who is considering McGinn for mayor (as I am). People should also be concerned about the disconnect between environmental issues and issues of social justice (see Licata vs. Israel; Bloom vs. Bagshaw). Even though it is easy to look at Mallahan’s foibles and business background and say McGinn is the progressive choice, as Erica points out, it’s never that simple.

  • Mikos

    This is good reporting. You can’t always know the politician by knowing his/her donors but it’s a good place to start. The connection between greens and developers should be of concern to everybody who is considering McGinn for mayor (as I am). People should also be concerned about the disconnect between environmental issues and issues of social justice (see Licata vs. Israel; Bloom vs. Bagshaw). Even though it is easy to look at Mallahan’s foibles and business background and say McGinn is the progressive choice, as Erica points out, it’s never that simple.

  • http://joshuadf.blogspot.com/ Joshua Daniel Franklin

    Jason, I’ve only been here 6 years (so no Commons for me) but I believe you’re absolutely right about the seat at the table. That’s why LUOA was formed and the point of the SLU Urban Design Framework.

  • http://joshuadf.blogspot.com Joshua Daniel Franklin

    Jason, I’ve only been here 6 years (so no Commons for me) but I believe you’re absolutely right about the seat at the table. That’s why LUOA was formed and the point of the SLU Urban Design Framework.

  • Zach Wily

    As a biker, I just can’t help wondering why McGinn is so…”solid” when he is supposedly cycling nonstop.
    I know it’s not correct to ask…but can we talk???

  • Zach Wily

    As a biker, I just can’t help wondering why McGinn is so…”solid” when he is supposedly cycling nonstop.
    \I know it’s not correct to ask…but can we talk???

  • Timothy

    @32 Mikos…Nice misdirection. :-)

    By all means, evaluate McGinn holistically. But, you can’t evaluate McGinn without evaluating Mallahan. And, Mallahan has no record of social justice, environmental work, or even any Seattle or Washington State work on his record.

  • Timothy

    @32 Mikos…Nice misdirection. :-)

    By all means, evaluate McGinn holistically. But, you can’t evaluate McGinn without evaluating Mallahan. And, Mallahan has no record of social justice, environmental work, or even any Seattle or Washington State work on his record.

  • Chris Stefan

    @32 & 35:
    Mallahan has taken money from John Stanton which is all I really need to know. Given the other candidates, initiatives, and think tanks he’s funded anyone who takes his money is not someone I can vote for.

    On the other side of the coin I really don’t think McGinn can be bought no matter how much you may have donated to one of the nonprofits he’s been involved with or to his campaign.

    As a further point, why all the Vulcan hate? Sure Paul Allen is rich. Sure he owns a lot of property in the area. But from what I’ve seen Vulcan do with its developments they do a much better job than many developers, especially those who seem only interested in making a quick buck as cheaply as possible.

  • Chris Stefan

    @32 & 35:
    Mallahan has taken money from John Stanton which is all I really need to know. Given the other candidates, initiatives, and think tanks he’s funded anyone who takes his money is not someone I can vote for.

    On the other side of the coin I really don’t think McGinn can be bought no matter how much you may have donated to one of the nonprofits he’s been involved with or to his campaign.

    As a further point, why all the Vulcan hate? Sure Paul Allen is rich. Sure he owns a lot of property in the area. But from what I’ve seen Vulcan do with its developments they do a much better job than many developers, especially those who seem only interested in making a quick buck as cheaply as possible.

  • Chris Stefan

    @23
    And what is so bad about 400 foot or taller buildings in South Lake Union or the Denny Triangle? I’d much rather see that then several thousand new housing units out on the edge of the urban growth boundary or several million square feet of new office space in Issaquah or Auburn.

  • Chris Stefan

    @23
    And what is so bad about 400 foot or taller buildings in South Lake Union or the Denny Triangle? I’d much rather see that then several thousand new housing units out on the edge of the urban growth boundary or several million square feet of new office space in Issaquah or Auburn.

  • why

    why should there be any limit on height?

    WE need to focus on bigger setbacks at street level to open up our narrow rights of way.

    And rules clustering the taller buildings in the middle of the block and not at the corners, this would open up all the intersections to light and space.

    People have a love hate with density, we need to make density less ugly and predictable and the main way it’s ugly in this town is because of our narrow street right of way and how buildings of ANY height creep right up to the right of way and rise straight up. We end up with canyons built out of boxy boxes. Doesn’t really matter if the canyon wall is 6 stories or 40 or 100, it’s depressing.

    A wider sidewalk and a bigger setback, full of benches or plaza or cafe tables or some public amenitiesin maybe a little fountain from time to time is what’s needed. Even row houses in other cities have bigger setbacks than what we have here, it opens up the street.

    Having 12 buildings on one square block, 3 on each side, that are only 6 stories but that crowd up to the public right of way and rise straight up like a wonder bread loaf makes a very depressing environment. Seriously, one to 4 60 story buildings on the block but with with 10-15 setbacks along each sidewalk would be far more livable and inviting.

    (And the higher it is the less the per unit cost to the builder; you certainly can require some smaller low income units too, 400SF next to the elevator shafts or overlooking the airshaft, without views and without parking, indeed, why even require a full kitchen when for many a simple kitchenette will do, as in seniors homes. A sink, a microwave and a hotplate. People don’t really bake turkeys all the time).

  • why

    why should there be any limit on height?

    WE need to focus on bigger setbacks at street level to open up our narrow rights of way.

    And rules clustering the taller buildings in the middle of the block and not at the corners, this would open up all the intersections to light and space.

    People have a love hate with density, we need to make density less ugly and predictable and the main way it’s ugly in this town is because of our narrow street right of way and how buildings of ANY height creep right up to the right of way and rise straight up. We end up with canyons built out of boxy boxes. Doesn’t really matter if the canyon wall is 6 stories or 40 or 100, it’s depressing.

    A wider sidewalk and a bigger setback, full of benches or plaza or cafe tables or some public amenitiesin maybe a little fountain from time to time is what’s needed. Even row houses in other cities have bigger setbacks than what we have here, it opens up the street.

    Having 12 buildings on one square block, 3 on each side, that are only 6 stories but that crowd up to the public right of way and rise straight up like a wonder bread loaf makes a very depressing environment. Seriously, one to 4 60 story buildings on the block but with with 10-15 setbacks along each sidewalk would be far more livable and inviting.

    (And the higher it is the less the per unit cost to the builder; you certainly can require some smaller low income units too, 400SF next to the elevator shafts or overlooking the airshaft, without views and without parking, indeed, why even require a full kitchen when for many a simple kitchenette will do, as in seniors homes. A sink, a microwave and a hotplate. People don’t really bake turkeys all the time).

  • Seamus O

    @37–nothing’s wrong with 400 feet, except not talking about it during a mayoral election campaign. That’s wrong.

    I can’t blame McGinn for not bringing it up, he did well on Capitol Hill. Now, about those views…

  • Seamus O

    @37–nothing’s wrong with 400 feet, except not talking about it during a mayoral election campaign. That’s wrong.

    I can’t blame McGinn for not bringing it up, he did well on Capitol Hill. Now, about those views…

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    There are Bridging the Gap funds being used in SLU as part of that project, not sure I would have supported that had I known that so much of it would be funneled to Vulcan’s project.
    Will every developer have me pay for their sidewalks too?

    The Gap appears to have been between the mayor’s hand and my wallet.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    There are Bridging the Gap funds being used in SLU as part of that project, not sure I would have supported that had I known that so much of it would be funneled to Vulcan’s project.
    Will every developer have me pay for their sidewalks too?

    The Gap appears to have been between the mayor’s hand and my wallet.

  • joshuadf

    @36, I don’t hate Vulcan but their buildings have not impressed me so far. It doesn’t help how they treated condo buyers after the meltdown (I was not one, but read the articles in the P-I and so on).

    @38, you are basically quoting McGinn on these issues:
    http://www.sluchamber.org/Default.aspx?pageId=176634

  • joshuadf

    @36, I don’t hate Vulcan but their buildings have not impressed me so far. It doesn’t help how they treated condo buyers after the meltdown (I was not one, but read the articles in the P-I and so on).

    @38, you are basically quoting McGinn on these issues:
    http://www.sluchamber.org/Default.aspx?pageId=176634

  • ivan

    Chris Stefan @ 37 says:

    And what is so bad about 400 foot or taller buildings in South Lake Union or the Denny Triangle? I’d much rather see that then several thousand new housing units out on the edge of the urban growth boundary or several million square feet of new office space in Issaquah or Auburn.

    I’m trying to break it to you gently, Chris. There is no, repeat, NO cause and effect relationship between increased density in the Seattle urban core and any slowdown in development in subruban cities.

    That battle is over and you have lost. Those cities will continue to grow because they will have ever-increasing needs for tax revenue, because jobs and businesses are moving there because PEOPLE CAN FUCKING DRIVE THERE AND PARK, because a whole lot of people would rather live there than in Seattle, and because they can still afford to.

    I mean, have you BEEN in Auburn lately? In Silverdale? In Puyallup? I have. You should go, really you should.

    One of the entire premises of this “new urbanism” is that it will reduce sprawl. Please pardon me if I’m not convinced. People like to say “oh, well, when gas becomes $6 per gallon those places will become ghost towns.” We’ll see.

    There doesn’t seem to be much debate that the population of the three-county area will grow about what, 30 percent in the last 30 years? All those people will have to live SOMEWHERE, and it’s a damned solid bet that for about half of them, Mike McGinn’s Seattle won’t be their first choice, or their final stopping place.

  • ivan

    Chris Stefan @ 37 says:

    And what is so bad about 400 foot or taller buildings in South Lake Union or the Denny Triangle? I’d much rather see that then several thousand new housing units out on the edge of the urban growth boundary or several million square feet of new office space in Issaquah or Auburn.

    I’m trying to break it to you gently, Chris. There is no, repeat, NO cause and effect relationship between increased density in the Seattle urban core and any slowdown in development in subruban cities.

    That battle is over and you have lost. Those cities will continue to grow because they will have ever-increasing needs for tax revenue, because jobs and businesses are moving there because PEOPLE CAN FUCKING DRIVE THERE AND PARK, because a whole lot of people would rather live there than in Seattle, and because they can still afford to.

    I mean, have you BEEN in Auburn lately? In Silverdale? In Puyallup? I have. You should go, really you should.

    One of the entire premises of this “new urbanism” is that it will reduce sprawl. Please pardon me if I’m not convinced. People like to say “oh, well, when gas becomes $6 per gallon those places will become ghost towns.” We’ll see.

    There doesn’t seem to be much debate that the population of the three-county area will grow about what, 30 percent in the last 30 years? All those people will have to live SOMEWHERE, and it’s a damned solid bet that for about half of them, Mike McGinn’s Seattle won’t be their first choice, or their final stopping place.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @42,

    If we don’t increase density in Seattle they will all move to the suburbs. Disaster.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @42,

    If we don’t increase density in Seattle they will all move to the suburbs. Disaster.

  • tikunolum

    @42

    Flight to the suburbs is something to minimize – you do that with density planning, affordable housing, and transit. Not with a transportation infrastructure plan that increases car miles.

  • tikunolum

    @42

    Flight to the suburbs is something to minimize – you do that with density planning, affordable housing, and transit. Not with a transportation infrastructure plan that increases car miles.

  • ivan

    @ 43, 44:

    It’s not like I’m IN FAVOR of suburban sprawl. I’m not. It’s not like I’m invested in being “right” about it. I’m not.

    I do question what appears to be an almost cult-like belief that forcing greater urban density as a matter of public policy WILL, unequivocally, reduce suburban sprawl.

    There’s no evidence that this is the case, or that it WILL be the case, although it’s clear that a lot of people who read this blog accept it as given.

    I’m not wrong to question that basic assumption. There might be other reasons to support greater urban density as public policy, but “it will reduce or inhibit suburban sprawl” should be re-examined for its validity.

  • ivan

    @ 43, 44:

    It’s not like I’m IN FAVOR of suburban sprawl. I’m not. It’s not like I’m invested in being “right” about it. I’m not.

    I do question what appears to be an almost cult-like belief that forcing greater urban density as a matter of public policy WILL, unequivocally, reduce suburban sprawl.

    There’s no evidence that this is the case, or that it WILL be the case, although it’s clear that a lot of people who read this blog accept it as given.

    I’m not wrong to question that basic assumption. There might be other reasons to support greater urban density as public policy, but “it will reduce or inhibit suburban sprawl” should be re-examined for its validity.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    Ivan @45,

    You’re also lacking the data that proves your negative: People are not NOT moving to the suburbs because of housing opportunities in the city.

    Currently, with 70 percent of the available residential zones in Seattle zoned Sing Family, there’s no way to pass judgment on the relationship between increased density in Seattle and suburban sprawl. We simply haven’t put that policy to the test.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    Ivan @45,

    You’re also lacking the data that proves your negative: People are not NOT moving to the suburbs because of housing opportunities in the city.

    Currently, with 70 percent of the available residential zones in Seattle zoned Sing Family, there’s no way to pass judgment on the relationship between increased density in Seattle and suburban sprawl. We simply haven’t put that policy to the test.

  • tikunolum

    Smart growth and urban borders are very effective at combating sprawl. Sprawl reduces water and land quality and quantity, is connected to obesity, and costs municipalities more in infrastructure costs to connect low density areas. outlying suburbs are single use zoned and are low in walkability usually.

    The obvious and proven tools are mixed use zoning, tax incentives, housing strategies, zoning and development strategies, green spaces (parks levy), and smart transit infrastruture (no RTID, no Tunnel).

    It’s NOT just about density – it’s about the whole package. Greater urban density is a result of the smart city leadership and planning.

  • tikunolum

    Smart growth and urban borders are very effective at combating sprawl. Sprawl reduces water and land quality and quantity, is connected to obesity, and costs municipalities more in infrastructure costs to connect low density areas. outlying suburbs are single use zoned and are low in walkability usually.

    The obvious and proven tools are mixed use zoning, tax incentives, housing strategies, zoning and development strategies, green spaces (parks levy), and smart transit infrastruture (no RTID, no Tunnel).

    It’s NOT just about density – it’s about the whole package. Greater urban density is a result of the smart city leadership and planning.

  • ivan

    Josh @ 46:

    I’m not trying to PROVE anything, don’t you get it? Unlike the two of you, *I* don’t claim to KNOW.

    You bet there’s no way to pass judgment. You bet they haven’t put that policy to the test. But if they do, and they decide to allow high-rise development along some single-family street that isn’t on an arterial, and the neighbors get out the torches and pitchforks in protest, you’ll be the first to call them NIMBYs and all but brand them as ebemies of the state.

    @ 47:

    Sprawl causes obesity? Does it also cause AIDS and cancer? I’m supposed to take you seriously?

    Proud of killing that RTID, are you? All those roads will be built anyway, either by the Legislature or by the Feds. I hope you’re proud of killing light rail from Tacoma to the airport.

  • ivan

    Josh @ 46:

    I’m not trying to PROVE anything, don’t you get it? Unlike the two of you, *I* don’t claim to KNOW.

    You bet there’s no way to pass judgment. You bet they haven’t put that policy to the test. But if they do, and they decide to allow high-rise development along some single-family street that isn’t on an arterial, and the neighbors get out the torches and pitchforks in protest, you’ll be the first to call them NIMBYs and all but brand them as ebemies of the state.

    @ 47:

    Sprawl causes obesity? Does it also cause AIDS and cancer? I’m supposed to take you seriously?

    Proud of killing that RTID, are you? All those roads will be built anyway, either by the Legislature or by the Feds. I hope you’re proud of killing light rail from Tacoma to the airport.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    43-48

    Our region is losing the race against sprawl
    http://crosscut.com/2009/08/27/real-estate/19188/

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    43-48

    Our region is losing the race against sprawl
    http://crosscut.com/2009/08/27/real-estate/19188/

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    Seattle has almost zoned itself into becoming a suburb, at this point we have McGinn greasing the development skids with my tax money to overcome the multitude of restrictions.

    There is a demand for housing, the supply should not be artificially counter-balanced with even MORE tax money to pay somebody to underbuild and underprice.

    When I hear the density talk, it almost always revolves around tax money for developers, one way or another. I am sick of it.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    Seattle has almost zoned itself into becoming a suburb, at this point we have McGinn greasing the development skids with my tax money to overcome the multitude of restrictions.

    There is a demand for housing, the supply should not be artificially counter-balanced with even MORE tax money to pay somebody to underbuild and underprice.

    When I hear the density talk, it almost always revolves around tax money for developers, one way or another. I am sick of it.

  • Timothy

    @50…I think there are several flaws in Doug MacDonald’s reasonsing, as demonstrated by this post that I am quoting following his article there…

    I don’t understand MacDonald’s logic here. According him, our bus- and highway-centric transportation network has failed to generate the needed density. So rather than break with that paradigm, MacDonald’s solution is more of the same.

    I just don’t understand the attitude of self-identified transit “advocates” like MacDonald. He wants to contain sprawl, but spends all his time slagging density-supporting infrastructure like light rail. Meanwhile, highway spending — which dwarfs light rail spending and actually encourages sprawl — gets a free pass. It’s fitting for the former head of the state highway department, that never saw a problem that couldn’t be solved by pouring more asphalt.

    — MHD

  • Timothy

    @50…I think there are several flaws in Doug MacDonald’s reasonsing, as demonstrated by this post that I am quoting following his article there…

    I don’t understand MacDonald’s logic here. According him, our bus- and highway-centric transportation network has failed to generate the needed density. So rather than break with that paradigm, MacDonald’s solution is more of the same.

    I just don’t understand the attitude of self-identified transit “advocates” like MacDonald. He wants to contain sprawl, but spends all his time slagging density-supporting infrastructure like light rail. Meanwhile, highway spending — which dwarfs light rail spending and actually encourages sprawl — gets a free pass. It’s fitting for the former head of the state highway department, that never saw a problem that couldn’t be solved by pouring more asphalt.

    — MHD

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    Ivan @ 48,

    You do claim to “know” something.

    You state as a fact that “There is no, repeat, NO cause and effect relationship between increased density in the Seattle urban core and any slowdown in development in subruban cities.”

    I’m asking you: Where’s the data for that claim?

    The 1 claim I made in this thread was a response to your statement:

    “There doesn’t seem to be much debate that the population of the three-county area will grow about what, 30 percent in the last 30 years? All those people will have to live SOMEWHERE, and it’s a damned solid bet that for about half of them, Mike McGinn’s Seattle won’t be their first choice, or their final stopping place.”

    Setting aside your incoherent statement that the area will grow 30 percent in the last 30 years (huh?), I said: “If we don’t increase density in Seattle they will all move to the suburbs. Disaster.”

    I’m not claiming to “know” anything other than the obvious: If you don’t build it, they won’t come. Or: They can’t come.

    Anyway, sorry for the elaborate re-cap, but you seem a little slow today.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    Ivan @ 48,

    You do claim to “know” something.

    You state as a fact that “There is no, repeat, NO cause and effect relationship between increased density in the Seattle urban core and any slowdown in development in subruban cities.”

    I’m asking you: Where’s the data for that claim?

    The 1 claim I made in this thread was a response to your statement:

    “There doesn’t seem to be much debate that the population of the three-county area will grow about what, 30 percent in the last 30 years? All those people will have to live SOMEWHERE, and it’s a damned solid bet that for about half of them, Mike McGinn’s Seattle won’t be their first choice, or their final stopping place.”

    Setting aside your incoherent statement that the area will grow 30 percent in the last 30 years (huh?), I said: “If we don’t increase density in Seattle they will all move to the suburbs. Disaster.”

    I’m not claiming to “know” anything other than the obvious: If you don’t build it, they won’t come. Or: They can’t come.

    Anyway, sorry for the elaborate re-cap, but you seem a little slow today.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    @51

    well, the next line in that thread provides the link to the data.

    I see King County grew 13%, Seattle about half that.
    Look as the data, draw your own conclusions, solutions.

    Here’s a link to the data:
    http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/default.asp

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    @51

    well, the next line in that thread provides the link to the data.

    I see King County grew 13%, Seattle about half that.
    Look as the data, draw your own conclusions, solutions.

    Here’s a link to the data:
    http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/default.asp

  • ivan

    Josh @ 52:

    Here’s what I do know. The Pierce County Council is firmly under control of Republicans who wake up every moerning thinking of new ways to suck developer dick. They are throwing shit up as fast as they can, and it shows no sign of slacking off.

    I want you to tell me — because you think I’m so fucking slow — exactly what effect density infill in the Seattle urban core is likely to have on that.

    In Snohomish County there is a County Executive, Aaron Reardon, who calls himself a Democrat, who likewise is trying to free developers of controls. Tell me how your “new urbanism” religion is going to save us from that. He wants the developers’ “mini-cities” to be laws unto themselves.

    I meant to say “next 30 years,” obviously. So I mistyped. I grovel in mortification for my transgression.

    But don’t you think it just MIGHT help you get a better handle on this issue if you got the hell out of Seattle a little more and actually LOOKED at what’s going on around the three-county area? Just to see what you’re up against?

    They’re building like mad out there, and they’re going to fill those units. And if you think they’re not, you’re dreaming.

  • ivan

    Josh @ 52:

    Here’s what I do know. The Pierce County Council is firmly under control of Republicans who wake up every moerning thinking of new ways to suck developer dick. They are throwing shit up as fast as they can, and it shows no sign of slacking off.

    I want you to tell me — because you think I’m so fucking slow — exactly what effect density infill in the Seattle urban core is likely to have on that.

    In Snohomish County there is a County Executive, Aaron Reardon, who calls himself a Democrat, who likewise is trying to free developers of controls. Tell me how your “new urbanism” religion is going to save us from that. He wants the developers’ “mini-cities” to be laws unto themselves.

    I meant to say “next 30 years,” obviously. So I mistyped. I grovel in mortification for my transgression.

    But don’t you think it just MIGHT help you get a better handle on this issue if you got the hell out of Seattle a little more and actually LOOKED at what’s going on around the three-county area? Just to see what you’re up against?

    They’re building like mad out there, and they’re going to fill those units. And if you think they’re not, you’re dreaming.

  • Trevor

    The Josh/ Ivan debate points to the need for data not just from Seattle, but from other cities that have already tried upzoning as a cure-all. We know that displacement is happening at a serious rate. And we know that global warming is happening. We have data on that. But contrasting different cities, especially in an international context, could provide some interesting info to assess different policy proposals.

    The gist of the debate seems to me to be fundamentally about affordability and the reality of power politics which make pro vs anti-density debates really unproductive.

    Here is what happens if environmentalists follow the path of least resistance (greenwash): Wealthy homeowners are not going to allow low-income housing or even rentals in their little exclusive hamlets like Madison Park and their exclusive public schools supported by wealthy PTAs. The rezones, if they happen at all, will promote limited density, target the least powerful/ most poor neighborhoods. And because developers want to maximize profit, and most low-income housing has been zoned out of existence, new development will be skewed to condo ownership and high income rentals. A few non-activist low-income housing developers will be given a few hundred units to develop to offset thousands of lost units, and this will be called progress. Low income people’s displacement will fuel exurban development that “density” is supposed to prevent.

    The unlikely alternative: environmentalists stand up against greenwash, affordable housing advocates drop opposition to ALL redevelopment, and both groups find greater common ground by seeing real affordability and sustainability as interdependent.

  • Trevor

    The Josh/ Ivan debate points to the need for data not just from Seattle, but from other cities that have already tried upzoning as a cure-all. We know that displacement is happening at a serious rate. And we know that global warming is happening. We have data on that. But contrasting different cities, especially in an international context, could provide some interesting info to assess different policy proposals.

    The gist of the debate seems to me to be fundamentally about affordability and the reality of power politics which make pro vs anti-density debates really unproductive.

    Here is what happens if environmentalists follow the path of least resistance (greenwash): Wealthy homeowners are not going to allow low-income housing or even rentals in their little exclusive hamlets like Madison Park and their exclusive public schools supported by wealthy PTAs. The rezones, if they happen at all, will promote limited density, target the least powerful/ most poor neighborhoods. And because developers want to maximize profit, and most low-income housing has been zoned out of existence, new development will be skewed to condo ownership and high income rentals. A few non-activist low-income housing developers will be given a few hundred units to develop to offset thousands of lost units, and this will be called progress. Low income people’s displacement will fuel exurban development that “density” is supposed to prevent.

    The unlikely alternative: environmentalists stand up against greenwash, affordable housing advocates drop opposition to ALL redevelopment, and both groups find greater common ground by seeing real affordability and sustainability as interdependent.

  • Seamus O

    If we don’t increase density in Seattle they will all move to the suburbs. Disaster.

    Evidence, please.

  • Seamus O

    If we don’t increase density in Seattle they will all move to the suburbs. Disaster.

    Evidence, please.

  • tikunolum

    Ivan,

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that single use zoning, long commutes, low walkability and other factors being discussed here lead to sedentary lifestyles.

    Once in a while, you might bother to actually know WTF you are braying about.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050909220354.htm

  • tikunolum

    Ivan,

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that single use zoning, long commutes, low walkability and other factors being discussed here lead to sedentary lifestyles.

    Once in a while, you might bother to actually know WTF you are braying about.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050909220354.htm

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/ Gomez

    Nice find, ECB. And your former employer is curiously quiet about this development.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com Gomez

    Nice find, ECB. And your former employer is curiously quiet about this development.

  • Timothy

    @53 Mr. Baker…I’m not disputing the data. I’m disputing the conclusions that MacDonald draws from the data.

  • Timothy

    @53 Mr. Baker…I’m not disputing the data. I’m disputing the conclusions that MacDonald draws from the data.

  • ivan

    @ 57:

    Now you’re just being dishonest. The article that you cite states clearly that the cause and effect between urban sprawl and sedentary lifestyles work both ways. Do you think I can’t read or something? Or did you expect me not to read the link you cited?

    When you have to misrepresent the researchers’ findings because they don’t fit your preceonceived dogma, it shows me you got nothin’, chump.

  • ivan

    @ 57:

    Now you’re just being dishonest. The article that you cite states clearly that the cause and effect between urban sprawl and sedentary lifestyles work both ways. Do you think I can’t read or something? Or did you expect me not to read the link you cited?

    When you have to misrepresent the researchers’ findings because they don’t fit your preceonceived dogma, it shows me you got nothin’, chump.

  • http://www.jasonosgood.com/ Jason Osgood

    Hi Ivan.

    Are there policies which effectively reduce sprawl? I assumed the Growth Management Act and Critical Areas Ordinance were supposed to help direct development. Are they ineffective? (In your opinion…)

  • http://www.jasonosgood.com Jason Osgood

    Hi Ivan.

    Are there policies which effectively reduce sprawl? I assumed the Growth Management Act and Critical Areas Ordinance were supposed to help direct development. Are they ineffective? (In your opinion…)

  • ivan

    Jason @ 61:

    I do not consider myself qualified to answer your question. I am only questioning the validity of the apparently faith-based assumption that promoting density in the Seattle urban core will cause a diminution in suburban sprawl in the three-county area.

  • ivan

    Jason @ 61:

    I do not consider myself qualified to answer your question. I am only questioning the validity of the apparently faith-based assumption that promoting density in the Seattle urban core will cause a diminution in suburban sprawl in the three-county area.

  • tikunolum

    Again, Ivan, it’s not just about density. It’s about parks, walkable neighborhoods, density, and affordable housing ALL with a transit wraparound.

    Commuters spend 25% of their income on transportation. If the urban area is designed for a work/life solution, it’s attractive to live there. The threshold for fiscal parity is that living in the city is 25% more than outlying areas. Most people can reasonably see their way clear to live in the urban core because they are willing to put their money into a urban lifestyle that includes walkability, parks, etc and will edge up to a bit more than the 25% mark.

    So, while technically correct (density alone doesn’t do the trick) your argument here doesn’t show a sophisticated understanding of land use policies and how they affect quality of life.

    Yes, RTID was not the solution to achive a vibrant urban core. It’s a good thing that it’s not in play. The parks levy was critical. The tunnel is another example of spending loads of money with net effect of increasing car miles and doing nothing to draw people to live in the city. It has a huge social justice component, as well. After all, if fancy tunnels are the answer, why isn’t there one running under MLK to carry the light rail?

    Reducing sprawl is difficult – preventing it is the first step.

    Do you agree with Smart Growth plans and urban boundaries?

  • tikunolum

    Again, Ivan, it’s not just about density. It’s about parks, walkable neighborhoods, density, and affordable housing ALL with a transit wraparound.

    Commuters spend 25% of their income on transportation. If the urban area is designed for a work/life solution, it’s attractive to live there. The threshold for fiscal parity is that living in the city is 25% more than outlying areas. Most people can reasonably see their way clear to live in the urban core because they are willing to put their money into a urban lifestyle that includes walkability, parks, etc and will edge up to a bit more than the 25% mark.

    So, while technically correct (density alone doesn’t do the trick) your argument here doesn’t show a sophisticated understanding of land use policies and how they affect quality of life.

    Yes, RTID was not the solution to achive a vibrant urban core. It’s a good thing that it’s not in play. The parks levy was critical. The tunnel is another example of spending loads of money with net effect of increasing car miles and doing nothing to draw people to live in the city. It has a huge social justice component, as well. After all, if fancy tunnels are the answer, why isn’t there one running under MLK to carry the light rail?

    Reducing sprawl is difficult – preventing it is the first step.

    Do you agree with Smart Growth plans and urban boundaries?

  • http://www.jasonosgood.com/ Jason Osgood

    Ivan @ 62

    Cool. On that, I agree. I’m in favor of density in Seattle because it’s more efficient and more interesting.

    I did learn something from this thread: Vancouver requires 25% of new housing units to be for families. It’d be great if young families could live in the city. Let them make the choice where to live vs the choice being made for them.

    Regardless, people are coming here. We’ll see more development. Everywhere. As you pointed out, I like what Kent, Auburn, and even Bellevue are doing with their downtowns. That trend will continue.

  • http://www.jasonosgood.com Jason Osgood

    Ivan @ 62

    Cool. On that, I agree. I’m in favor of density in Seattle because it’s more efficient and more interesting.

    I did learn something from this thread: Vancouver requires 25% of new housing units to be for families. It’d be great if young families could live in the city. Let them make the choice where to live vs the choice being made for them.

    Regardless, people are coming here. We’ll see more development. Everywhere. As you pointed out, I like what Kent, Auburn, and even Bellevue are doing with their downtowns. That trend will continue.

  • We Support Commuters

    We end up supporting long commutes for a couple of reasons. One is that Seattle takes the lions share of the housing growth in a bid for municipal dominance. The other is suburban zoning laws that create office parks, strip malls and bedroom communities.

    Why can’t we get better regional planning? Planning that takes what we have already — no ‘new’ towns — and makes them all balanced as far as work and life. The city of Seattle is pretty well zoned for what we need to support the people that work here. What would be wrong with densing up the MSFT campuses and creating a ‘great city’ there?

  • ivan

    @ 63:

    All very nice. All very “sophisticated.” All assumes that all the jobs are in the urban core, that all workers are commuters TO the urban core, and that all residents in the three-county area are somehow obliged to buy into prioritizing a “vibrant” — whatever the fuck that means — urban core.

    Questioning those assumptions hardly bespeaks a lack of understanding of how land-use decisions affect quality of life. Certainly the Growth Management Act and the Critical Areas Ordinance have enhanced the quality of life for MY pasty white rural ass in MY particular community.

    My question remains: As a political matter, why should suburban and rural residents share YOUR priorities if they perceive those priorities to come at THEIR expense?

    A case in point is one of the line items in the RTID package, the extension of State Highway 509 from S 188th St., immediately south of the airport, where it ends abruptly, to connect with I-5 somewhere between S. 200th St. and S. Military Rd.

    This would relieve congestion on 518, S. 188th St., and I-5 by thousands of cars a day. All you have accomplished by defeating RTID is to delay its inevitable construction, and to force the cost of that eventual construction to increase.

    Either the Legislature will fund the 509 extension, or the Feds will. You can’t, and you won’t, do jack shit to stop it, and Seattle legislators won’t vote against it.

    Good luck convincing people who are forced to drive through that mess every day that prioritizing your “vibrant urban core” is more important than their needs, and that they should just get out of their cars or move into the city.

    So while what you’re telling us might make perfect sense to YOU, there’s no reason, and certainly no guarantee, that it will make sense to everyone who has a vote. And your apparent wonderment that anyone could even question, much less push back against, what you so blithely take for granted, evinces a certain lack of political sophistication on YOUR part.

  • We Support Commuters

    We end up supporting long commutes for a couple of reasons. One is that Seattle takes the lions share of the housing growth in a bid for municipal dominance. The other is suburban zoning laws that create office parks, strip malls and bedroom communities.

    Why can’t we get better regional planning? Planning that takes what we have already — no ‘new’ towns — and makes them all balanced as far as work and life. The city of Seattle is pretty well zoned for what we need to support the people that work here. What would be wrong with densing up the MSFT campuses and creating a ‘great city’ there?

  • ivan

    @ 63:

    All very nice. All very “sophisticated.” All assumes that all the jobs are in the urban core, that all workers are commuters TO the urban core, and that all residents in the three-county area are somehow obliged to buy into prioritizing a “vibrant” — whatever the fuck that means — urban core.

    Questioning those assumptions hardly bespeaks a lack of understanding of how land-use decisions affect quality of life. Certainly the Growth Management Act and the Critical Areas Ordinance have enhanced the quality of life for MY pasty white rural ass in MY particular community.

    My question remains: As a political matter, why should suburban and rural residents share YOUR priorities if they perceive those priorities to come at THEIR expense?

    A case in point is one of the line items in the RTID package, the extension of State Highway 509 from S 188th St., immediately south of the airport, where it ends abruptly, to connect with I-5 somewhere between S. 200th St. and S. Military Rd.

    This would relieve congestion on 518, S. 188th St., and I-5 by thousands of cars a day. All you have accomplished by defeating RTID is to delay its inevitable construction, and to force the cost of that eventual construction to increase.

    Either the Legislature will fund the 509 extension, or the Feds will. You can’t, and you won’t, do jack shit to stop it, and Seattle legislators won’t vote against it.

    Good luck convincing people who are forced to drive through that mess every day that prioritizing your “vibrant urban core” is more important than their needs, and that they should just get out of their cars or move into the city.

    So while what you’re telling us might make perfect sense to YOU, there’s no reason, and certainly no guarantee, that it will make sense to everyone who has a vote. And your apparent wonderment that anyone could even question, much less push back against, what you so blithely take for granted, evinces a certain lack of political sophistication on YOUR part.

  • lara

    Hello — I just wanted to share something that is happening north of the border for @63 and @65 to their growing suburban neighborhoods – under a policy regime that is now prioritizing transit and less GHG emissions. Great precedents!

    This is what I think the mayoral race — isn’t that what this thread is about — could do with a McGinn in the office. First I think he understands good urban form. Second I think he understands that part of achieving better urban form is having a good relationship with those that build it, and raising the bar – and having a strong ability to educate people who fear change.

    NO matter which way you slice it – efficient and walkable residential land uses make sense for the 1/3 of the US population that doesn’t drive. If you get lost in density, you lose the idea that its really about choice…

  • lara

    Hello — I just wanted to share something that is happening north of the border for @63 and @65 to their growing suburban neighborhoods – under a policy regime that is now prioritizing transit and less GHG emissions. Great precedents!

    This is what I think the mayoral race — isn’t that what this thread is about — could do with a McGinn in the office. First I think he understands good urban form. Second I think he understands that part of achieving better urban form is having a good relationship with those that build it, and raising the bar – and having a strong ability to educate people who fear change.

    NO matter which way you slice it – efficient and walkable residential land uses make sense for the 1/3 of the US population that doesn’t drive. If you get lost in density, you lose the idea that its really about choice…

  • lara

    sorry (con’t @67) I don’t know why the link disappeared its the City of Coquitlam new undertaking for increased housing choice.

    http://www.coquitlam.ca/Business/Developing+Coquitlam/Maillardville+Update/Housing+Choices+Study.htm

  • lara

    sorry (con’t @67) I don’t know why the link disappeared its the City of Coquitlam new undertaking for increased housing choice.

    http://www.coquitlam.ca/Business/Developing+Coquitlam/Maillardville+Update/Housing+Choices+Study.htm

  • http://www.jasonosgood.com/ Jason Osgood

    ivan @ 66

    So while what you’re telling us might make perfect sense to YOU, there’s no reason, and certainly no guarantee, that it will make sense to everyone who has a vote.

    Right. Telling people how to conduct their business isn’t likely to succeed.

    I like Sustainable Ballard’s strategy: do better and live by example. We in Seattle (Bellevue, Tacoma, Enumclaw) should do better for ourselves, just because. If we’re successful, then others will join us. Let the marketplace of ideas and action win the day.

    Oddly, the eastside (Bellevue, etc) seem to the be tail that wags the dog, actively working against Seattle doing things for ourselves. Maybe it’s just rivalry. But it feels like sabotage. It’d be nice if we had some leverage and pushed back. Water comes to mind.

  • http://www.jasonosgood.com Jason Osgood

    ivan @ 66

    So while what you’re telling us might make perfect sense to YOU, there’s no reason, and certainly no guarantee, that it will make sense to everyone who has a vote.

    Right. Telling people how to conduct their business isn’t likely to succeed.

    I like Sustainable Ballard’s strategy: do better and live by example. We in Seattle (Bellevue, Tacoma, Enumclaw) should do better for ourselves, just because. If we’re successful, then others will join us. Let the marketplace of ideas and action win the day.

    Oddly, the eastside (Bellevue, etc) seem to the be tail that wags the dog, actively working against Seattle doing things for ourselves. Maybe it’s just rivalry. But it feels like sabotage. It’d be nice if we had some leverage and pushed back. Water comes to mind.

  • joshuadf

    Small note: Vancouver requires 25% of new housing units over a certain number of units to meet their design guidelines (“High-Density Housing for Families with Children”. The number actually being used by families is lower (under 20% IIRC).

  • joshuadf

    Small note: Vancouver requires 25% of new housing units over a certain number of units to meet their design guidelines (“High-Density Housing for Families with Children”. The number actually being used by families is lower (under 20% IIRC).

  • We Support Commuters

    Another small note. 30 years ago there was nothing but farms and small towns between the border and the city of Vancouver. While good on you Vancouver and Canada for dealing with having the right humane economic views, the run from the border is now all sprawl.

    A city throws off sprawl. Unless there is a regional design we are screwed.

  • We Support Commuters

    Another small note. 30 years ago there was nothing but farms and small towns between the border and the city of Vancouver. While good on you Vancouver and Canada for dealing with having the right humane economic views, the run from the border is now all sprawl.

    A city throws off sprawl. Unless there is a regional design we are screwed.

  • joshuadf

    I know this thread is now ancient history, but it’s been bugging me all day. It’s bugging me because Ivan is absolutely right: the safe and easy thing to do is still tract housing, big box, strip malls, and giant free parking lots. We’ll probably end up with the Cross-Base Highway. The problem is that we’ve already seen the costs. I’m not talking about climate change and runoff pollution, which we may or may not be able to fix with improved car technology. I’m talking about stuff like this:

    “This [shopping mall] is something that we the people wanted very badly [in the 1960s],” he says. “What we didn’t know is as you build more of it, you decrease the quality of life.”

    The good news to me is that market surveys show strong demand for shorter commutes and walkable retail. I’m most excited about places
    like Orenco Station (a small walkable oasis on Portland’s western sprawl) or the planning for Mountlake Terrace Town Center. The thought of $6/gal gas doesn’t make me happy, it makes me worried. Some of my friends live out there.

    @71: Vancouver is quite aware that BC is “completing the transportation vision of the 1960s.”

  • joshuadf

    I know this thread is now ancient history, but it’s been bugging me all day. It’s bugging me because Ivan is absolutely right: the safe and easy thing to do is still tract housing, big box, strip malls, and giant free parking lots. We’ll probably end up with the Cross-Base Highway. The problem is that we’ve already seen the costs. I’m not talking about climate change and runoff pollution, which we may or may not be able to fix with improved car technology. I’m talking about stuff like this:

    “This [shopping mall] is something that we the people wanted very badly [in the 1960s],” he says. “What we didn’t know is as you build more of it, you decrease the quality of life.”

    The good news to me is that market surveys show strong demand for shorter commutes and walkable retail. I’m most excited about places
    like Orenco Station (a small walkable oasis on Portland’s western sprawl) or the planning for Mountlake Terrace Town Center. The thought of $6/gal gas doesn’t make me happy, it makes me worried. Some of my friends live out there.

    @71: Vancouver is quite aware that BC is “completing the transportation vision of the 1960s.”

  • eddiew

    Jack Whisner – light rail OPPONENT!!!!!!!!