South Lake Union Success: The Numbers Don’t Lie

Are they counting new jobs created? Or just total jobs in the area? Because Amazon moved several thousand people at least in from other areas of the city…

How much in tax money was spent that would have otherwise been spent elsewhere? That would help decide if it was worth it, too.

No, no, excuse you – Portage bay is miles from Cascade (re-named by some developer as “south lake union”)  this is.  “New Building” means what they tore down and built hoping to convert the place to yuppie heaven.  Biotech has been on the downturn since the damn 90′s. Bullshit, bullshit. Publicola, this is why I don’t read your ass.

Jobs is jobs!

How’s our investment in the Hobo Fund coming along, besides the occasional tourist getting stabbed?

Um, miles? The Portage Bay Cafe is two blocks from Cascade Park. I’m guessing that you don’t read Publicola because you’re illiterate.

Um, miles? The Portage Bay Cafe is two blocks from Cascade Park. I’m guessing that you don’t read Publicola because you’re illiterate.

Well, if you subtract the $25 million tax dollars spent on the SLUT and the $200+ million *and counting) squandered to prettify Mercer Street to Vulcan’s liking, that leaves taxpayers about $220 million in the hole on this little deal (not counting future demands for public dollars to reconfigure Terry Street, build a new substation, underground utilities and heaven knows what else).

And yeah, I suspect that jobs figure includes a whole lot of jobs that were cannibalized from other Seattle neighborhoods as well….

Well, if you subtract the $25 million tax dollars spent on the SLUT and the $200+ million *and counting) squandered to prettify Mercer Street to Vulcan’s liking, that leaves taxpayers about $220 million in the hole on this little deal (not counting future demands for public dollars to reconfigure Terry Street, build a new substation, underground utilities and heaven knows what else).

And yeah, I suspect that jobs figure includes a whole lot of jobs that were cannibalized from other Seattle neighborhoods as well….

How many of the jobs created by the re-development resulted in the hiring of local talent vs. people coming in from other regions to take these jobs?  Does this analysis include recurring operating and maintenance costs for the SLUT (yeah, I know it’s no longer called that, but still…)  which is as useful as the Monorail for mass transit?  The report only looks at the revenue side of the equation, and lacks any balance in terms of cost impacts of the development.

SU is full of d-bag adjunct professors that love this kind of work to network and promote their consulting businesses.

This piece misses the bigger point: why do large corporations (like Amazon) and wealthy individuals (like Paul Allen) need a government handout? They have plenty of money and have lots of credit lines to draw from. There’s no need for the public to subsidize their real estate investments. In those cases where its control of right of ways and zoning mean it has to respond to proposals for new development, it should try to get those who benefit from the changes to pay for them, rather than having the city subsidize private development. Any public-private partnerships should share profits with taxpayers instead of just sharing risk. This is the case regardless of whether private industry’s investments meet or even exceed their predictions.

A useful cost benefit analysis for the City’s subsidy of SLU development would do what Mr. X suggests: add up the costs to the City of the SLUT, 2 way Mercer (an ornamental activity with little transportation rationale), subsidy for MOHAI, the sweetheart land deals the City gave Vulcan, tax and the cost of any other special treatment Vulcan has received by purchasing the last two Mayors and much of the Council. Then contrast it with whether Vulcan has built any of the affordable housing units the Council has required it to, and what kind of net increase in employment and tax revenue has come to the city from SLU development. The question isn’t whether SLU is booming, but whether taxpayers are subsidizing real estate speculation without getting adequate returns on their money.

I doubt any of the decision makers are just now going, “Oh yeah, how much did be subsidize this?” They knew the costs going into it, looked at the estimated benefits, and took a risk. The realized benefits came in higher than expected so their risk paid off better than they expected.

I doubt any of the decision makers are just now going, “Oh yeah, how much did be subsidize this?” They knew the costs going into it, looked at the estimated benefits, and took a risk. The realized benefits came in higher than expected so their risk paid off better than they expected.

well…..the investment pays off only if all this development would not have happened anyway. 

the public investments greased the skids for sure, but really.  Seattle seems unaware that:
1. iit’s a great draw. 
2. it’s downtown is teeny tiny.  one mile walk acrost it.  hardly built out at all.  it’s small.  the locals think it’s soooo dense sooooo crowded really it’s rather small.
3. now, say there’s another mile by mile area north of downtown and next to a lake.  a lake.  a lake in the middle of a freaking world class city.  a lake 20 mintes walk from downtown SLUT or no SLUT. 
4. this area is full of commercial, antique stores, used furniture stores and the like. 
will it develop amazingly?

yes.

will it develop faster with all kinds of government largesse?
of course.

is the government largesse “why” it developed?  no.  only if you believe paul allen buys real estate that will pencil out only if his projects to seek government largesse succeed.  of course he doesn’t. 

do we welcome the jobs and th density and whatnot?  yes.  but we sholdn’t exlaim something pays off when we don’t even add in the costs which one of the commenters has done nor ask the question, “maybe we would have 95% of this SLU development anyway and if we had put the $50 million for the slut and the $200 million for the mercer mess into stuff benefitting all of seatle maybe we’d be EVEN BETTER off.”  you simply can’t make these quantitative judgments when your spreadsheet only reveals 5 out of about 59 cells of data.

well…..the investment pays off only if all this development would not have happened anyway. 

the public investments greased the skids for sure, but really.  Seattle seems unaware that:
1. iit’s a great draw. 
2. it’s downtown is teeny tiny.  one mile walk acrost it.  hardly built out at all.  it’s small.  the locals think it’s soooo dense sooooo crowded really it’s rather small.
3. now, say there’s another mile by mile area north of downtown and next to a lake.  a lake.  a lake in the middle of a freaking world class city.  a lake 20 mintes walk from downtown SLUT or no SLUT. 
4. this area is full of commercial, antique stores, used furniture stores and the like. 
will it develop amazingly?

yes.

will it develop faster with all kinds of government largesse?
of course.

is the government largesse “why” it developed?  no.  only if you believe paul allen buys real estate that will pencil out only if his projects to seek government largesse succeed.  of course he doesn’t. 

do we welcome the jobs and th density and whatnot?  yes.  but we sholdn’t exlaim something pays off when we don’t even add in the costs which one of the commenters has done nor ask the question, “maybe we would have 95% of this SLU development anyway and if we had put the $50 million for the slut and the $200 million for the mercer mess into stuff benefitting all of seatle maybe we’d be EVEN BETTER off.”  you simply can’t make these quantitative judgments when your spreadsheet only reveals 5 out of about 59 cells of data.

We’ve probably spent more on bums in the past 5 years and there’s zero return on that and only a few low skill, low pay jobs.

Josh

I suggest checking the numbers, esp for biotech.

If you leave out the UW and the Hutch, and include the entire area around Lake Union, Biotech has LOST:  Merck, much of the ISB, Zymos, and parts of Amgen.  Other than a small Nova Nordsk faculity, no biotech has moved into SLU o(or Lake Union) except NON PROFITS … the UW, Childrens, SBRI.  Also a lot of what has moved to SLU, has been at the expense of jobs elsewhere in the area (e.g. the Blood Bank may move from Pill Hill, the UW labs  left NW Pacific.  Oh yeh, the new Gates Foundation means they vacated property along Eastlake.

As for Amazon, their move has left huge vacancies on Beacon Hill and new Pioneer Square.   How much of the collapse of Pioneer Square is a result of Vulcanic success?

So VULCAN may be doing well, but is Seattle benefiting?  Do they tell you about the deficit issues at Mirabella?  How well are all those high priced condos selling?

Josh

I suggest checking the numbers, esp for biotech.

If you leave out the UW and the Hutch, and include the entire area around Lake Union, Biotech has LOST:  Merck, much of the ISB, Zymos, and parts of Amgen.  Other than a small Nova Nordsk faculity, no biotech has moved into SLU o(or Lake Union) except NON PROFITS … the UW, Childrens, SBRI.  Also a lot of what has moved to SLU, has been at the expense of jobs elsewhere in the area (e.g. the Blood Bank may move from Pill Hill, the UW labs  left NW Pacific.  Oh yeh, the new Gates Foundation means they vacated property along Eastlake.

As for Amazon, their move has left huge vacancies on Beacon Hill and new Pioneer Square.   How much of the collapse of Pioneer Square is a result of Vulcanic success?

So VULCAN may be doing well, but is Seattle benefiting?  Do they tell you about the deficit issues at Mirabella?  How well are all those high priced condos selling?

“probably”

Meh

Josh, that is just pathetic.

Pump that money in a few other neighborhoods and you get similar results, split all that public tax money into two or three neighborhoods and maybe get better results, we will never know.

I’m not super thrilled that a lot of the money appeared to be straight council decision, or redirected bits of levies that were promoted as benefitting the entire city, not just billionaire’s developing their property with a serous dose of public money.

Great City funders, and (very) temporary mayor suppliers Vulcan got what they paid for, people in office.

Guess this means our SLU stimulus package created more jobs than the Obama-Murray-Cantwell stimulus package that costs nearly a trillion dollars.  Maybe we have the wrong people in the wrong place and our national debt is what it is because of that.

Oh no, non profits, how terrible. Sure, ignore the two largest employers because they don’t meet you definition of jobs just because they’re not for-profit corporations. You’re a capitalist automoton, obviously.

You are both wrong.  There are three Portage Bay Cafes, and none of them are in Portage Bay. 

I can’t believe you didn’t take mass transit or bike there!   Parking, that’s so suburban!

Yes. I would love to see (1) the average household income in SLU, and (2) the number of low-income housing units built in SLU. Subsidizing the wealthy on the backs of the poor. Yeah, great investment.

Charlie Kelly, is that you?

Do you mean pumping money into other neighborhoods like what we did with light rail, the stadiums/Key Arena, the cruise ship terminal, the opera hall, the symphony hall, a massive central library, renovation of dozens of neighborhood libraries, the convention center, Pacific Place, the Sculpture Park, the expansion of SAM, EMP/Gates/Vera/etc? Or do you mean public works projects like the West Seattle Bridge, Improvements to Magnolia/South Park/Ship Canal Bridges, Flood Control projects, Capping of Cal Anderson and other reservoirs, dozens of Housing Levy projects, dozens of Parks Levy projects, etc? Or maybe you mean the billions that we plan to pump into neighborhoods in projects like light rail expansion, the streetcar network and the Seawall Replacement/Waterfront Renovation? Is that the type of public/non-profit spending that you feel is only being done in South Lake Union? 

You claim that Josh (or his post) is pathetic? Coming from someone so obviously bitter and narrow-minded, I think Josh can take your charge as a compliment. 

Yawn….

‘ investing other neighborhoods, such as the south end, might have been better for the city’

THat’s laughable….

Did you change your user name yet again…or is it just a coincidence you sound like another?

No, I do not mean any of that other stuff.
Premise is wrong, your conclusion is flawed.

I mean pumping a high concentration of public dollars into a business park devopment.

As others have repeatedly pointed out, Allen was developing the land he owns, throwing as much public money at it as we did wasn’t going to change that.

No, I do not mean any of that other stuff.
Premise is wrong, your conclusion is flawed.

I mean pumping a high concentration of public dollars into a business park devopment.

As others have repeatedly pointed out, Allen was developing the land he owns, throwing as much public money at it as we did wasn’t going to change that.

exactly.

exactly.

bitter much?  i know paul sommers and he’s not a dirtbag.

bitter much?  i know paul sommers and he’s not a dirtbag.

God, you people hate everything, don’t you?

Jobs, new housing, and new infrastructure are bad? I don’t like the Mercer mess, but hell, SLU is actually turning out to be a thriving pocket in a part of the city that was mostly one story warehouses and….I can’t even remember just 10 years ago.

As for the folks that still chant “Cascade,” it’s still your neighborhood. There are just more people in it now. You have better transit now. You have better pedestrian infrastructure now. You have more restaurants and retail now (not all of it is for rich folks). You have a grocery store now! Hell, and if you are mad about the condos, I feel your pain. I live on Capitol Hill, but at least your condos aren’t as butt ugly as 80 percent of the new develoipment happening up here.

So in other words, you can’t make an argument based on facts or reality.  You don’t really about discovering what works or doesn’t for Seattle and it’s citizens. You just want to rail against someone who has more than you.

Good luck to you in your sad, jealous world. Just do us all a favor by leaving the economic impact analysis and land use decision-making to those who aren’t so broken. 

Should be “You don’t really care about discovering what works…”

Should be “You don’t really care about discovering what works…”

At the time the “study” was initially done, critics noted that it touted benefits without describing costs.  This new “study” does exactly the same thing. 

Paul Allen/Hallivulcan bought a lot of land outside the boundaries of the former proposed Commons project to develop them, and then he bought all of the former Bay Freeway properties with the explicit condition that they be developed, and to the tune of a former Council policy statement that the sale meant that the City was going to live with the Mercer Corridor exactly as is.  $200+ million in public funds later and now you want to say he never would have developed his properties absent these grotesque subsidies?

It’s your economic impact analysis and land use decision making that’s sorely wanting.

So says the King of the bitter old men. Has there ever been a story on development or land use (you know, progress) that you haven’t slagged on PC, Slog, Crosscut?

Hallivulcan? Yeah, I’d trust that you’d evaluate data with an open mind.

“local talent vs. people coming in”

what difference does it make? They all pay taxes, they all shop, they all buy/rent homes.  Jesus, could you sound anymore provincial.

Mann was Nickels’ point person on South Lake Union. He is not a disinterested observer.

Anyone know how many jobs left other neighborhoods for SLU, and how much tax revenues to the City declined as a result? That would provide a fair context for the $5 million claim.

I see name calling, but no actual rebuttal of my factual points.  Color me shocked.

What about the race/class breakdown?  Was this a socially just project?  Yes, I’d rather employ people from the disadvantaged classes in Seattle – thereby lowering our tax and social burden – rather than import people from outside.  That is social justice – when a rising tide lifts all boats!  

Come on Josh.  Yeesh.  Here’s you in 2003:

“Mayor Nickels has been saying that a South Lake Union biotech park will
create 20,000 new jobs. At a half-billion-dollar public investment, that
pencils out to a public subsidy of $25,000 for each job.”

How come you aren’t doing this math now?

many are provincial in seattle; nowhere have i heard the term transplant except here.

generally speaking if you show something works in local politics or transportation becuase other cities do it?  some locals react with the stern response, that doesn’t mean it would work here, we’re different and the undertone of who are you to act like you or anyone knows better then us anything in the world.

a similar level of provincialism i have only found in the deep south.

You consider it a sign of success that you can no longer easily get a parking space so you can have brunch?

I guess our priorities are much different!

that stimulus prevented global economic meltdown and the loss of about 20% MORE of our jobs.

btw you tell me, how did we get out of the great depression?  was it thru smaller gummint lower taxes no  borrowing, the narow minded strict fiscal prudence of FDR under ww2 where he lowered tax rates, reduced the deficit and trimmed governmental workforces and the involvement of gummint in the economy was THAT how we got out of the depression?

you tell me genius.

that stimulus prevented global economic meltdown and the loss of about 20% MORE of our jobs.

btw you tell me, how did we get out of the great depression?  was it thru smaller gummint lower taxes no  borrowing, the narow minded strict fiscal prudence of FDR under ww2 where he lowered tax rates, reduced the deficit and trimmed governmental workforces and the involvement of gummint in the economy was THAT how we got out of the depression?

you tell me genius.

Yes, I spent way too much money on them. I never had Paul Sommers. It was a generalization and there were a few really good ones.

Yes, I spent way too much money on them. I never had Paul Sommers. It was a generalization and there were a few really good ones.

“I’d rather employ people from the disadvantaged classes in Seattle”

I’m not sure how they are ‘disadvantaged’ but I’ll bite, what kinds of jobs? Food service? Plenty in SLU. Janitorial? Plenty in SLU

“I’d rather employ people from the disadvantaged classes in Seattle”

I’m not sure how they are ‘disadvantaged’ but I’ll bite, what kinds of jobs? Food service? Plenty in SLU. Janitorial? Plenty in SLU

I don’t know where to look for average household income in SLU since it’s too small to be covered by American Community Survey. Presumably some marketing firms do that. I do know that the vast majority of new units are apartments, which tend to attract middle income people.

On the housing, courtesy Nick Licata:
http://www.thesouthlake.com/2010/09/29/slu-low-income-housing
“According to the Seattle
Office of Housing “Housing Unit Count” report, in 2009 there were 2940
housing units, of which 1085 are affordable to households with incomes
below 80% of the area median income (AMI).”

2000 units of new housing is not a “business park development”. Granted this article focuses on job growth but that’s certainly not the whole of it. Also in addition to Vulcan’s $1.7b there was also roughly $1b of other development, mainly apartments, about 1/3 of them low income housing.

It’s a fair point and why any kind of demographics is difficult. If you haven’t heard This American Life’s “How To Create a Job” episode it’s great:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/435/how-to-create-a-job

Another number you’ll not see in the Mann/Sommers report is the 1200 jobs that SLU “lost” when the Gates Foundation moved across Aurora (report cleverly includes the new Gates Foundation in SLU which is simply innacurate, as is my spelling):
http://www.thesouthlake.com/2011/06/09/slu-loses-1200-jobs

But to be fair there have been a lot of genuinely new jobs as well. Amazon was bursting at the seams and shuttling between locations was becoming untenable. They *easily* could have done what Apple and Google just did and buy some tired suburban office parks and consolidated there instead. Likewise the non-profit biotechs like Seattle BioMed, PATH, and ISB also needed a lot more space than was available elsewhere.

It’s a fair point and why any kind of demographics is difficult. If you haven’t heard This American Life’s “How To Create a Job” episode it’s great:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/435/how-to-create-a-job

Another number you’ll not see in the Mann/Sommers report is the 1200 jobs that SLU “lost” when the Gates Foundation moved across Aurora (report cleverly includes the new Gates Foundation in SLU which is simply innacurate, as is my spelling):
http://www.thesouthlake.com/2011/06/09/slu-loses-1200-jobs

But to be fair there have been a lot of genuinely new jobs as well. Amazon was bursting at the seams and shuttling between locations was becoming untenable. They *easily* could have done what Apple and Google just did and buy some tired suburban office parks and consolidated there instead. Likewise the non-profit biotechs like Seattle BioMed, PATH, and ISB also needed a lot more space than was available elsewhere.

You might as well count the $4.2b deep bore tunnel while you’re at it. OMG tax money isn’t really an “investment” is it!!!

This is slightly off-topic, but…

Does anyone know what the eventual pedestrian experience in SLU will look like, after all the construction? Because right now, it’s awful. I work at the Hutch, and aside from my commute, I avoid walking as much as possible, because it’s so unpleasant.

Bull!

I work for UW!
I AM OBVIOUSLY A NON PROFIT MAVEN.

But I also live in Seattle and pay taxes. Moving non profit jobs from one place to another here does not do a lot fot our total employmemt or xur tac base.

1/3 low income housing ¿¿???????

Where?

I agree. VULVAN has np interest in creating a liveable neighborhoof

Hmm, so you’ve noticed low income housing is not something Vulcan advertises?

A lot of it is in Cascade (east of Fairview Ave N) and really the Cascade Neighborhood Council is largely to thank for it. There’s family, senior, supportive, etc (Casa Pacifica, Lakeview, Bart Harvey, David Colwell, Canaday House). Also the Denny Park Apartments on 8th Ave. Then there’s also the Multifamily Tax Exemption program (which the Seattle Times hates) which reserves a certain number of units in the market rate buildings for people making 80% of median income, and the Borealis Apartments is also 80%. More low-income housing is also currently planned, two projects on Dexter and one on Pontius. Also it’s worth mentioning that several of the older brick apartment buildings are owned by housing non-profits.

Valley St will be nice in about 2 years, if the Mercer project doesn’t run out of money. Oh, and looks like we’ll be able to walk to Seattle Center on John, Thomas, or Harrison St… in about 15 years, if the Deep Bore Tunnel doesn’t run out of money!

What, were those units given away?

Still, lots-o-public money for something he was bound to do.

Business park.

Joshuadf, 80% of median for two people in Seattle as of June 2011 was a little more than $51,000.   That may be what the City’s MTE allows as far as the developer copout, but it isn’t exactly low-income. 

sarah/sally/neighborhoodactivist/whatever you go by today: The 80% limit is the threshhold for one program. It’s meant to serve an ever increasing slice of the population that has trouble affording market rents, but makes too much to qualify for the units built with the millions of dollars given to non-profit housing developers through Federal, State and Local giveaways (Housing Levy, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Section 8 Vouchers and the like). The limits may seem high to you, but they are by definition 20% BELOW the AVERAGE median income.

There are dozens of programs receiving millions of dollars each year that serve exclusively the population that you define as “low income”. Unfortunately it’s the struggling middle class (those who you would describe as “rich” at 80% AMI) who have no choice but to move to Shoreline, Renton or Tukwilla because our local affordable housing community is only interested in giving a helping hand to the poorest of the poor. 

As the president of a non profit, I assure you non profits do pay taxes, and so do their employees and the businesses in the neighborhood they patronize. By the way, UW is a state institution, that’s fundamentally different than being a non profit.

Not true – as numerous media stories have pointed out, the rental market in Seattle is already producing units that are “affordable” to those making 80% of median without any subsidies.  Where working folks are getting killed is in unsubsidized housing affordable to those in the 50-80% of median income bracket (a fair amount of which has been/is being torn down by developers that cater to a more upscale market).

So you’re suggesting that our local affordable housing developers have failed us. We’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars (and according to more recent media stories, possibly billions) in the past decade on housing that is available only to those making less than 80%. If there is a great unmet demand for apartments by these qualified individuals maybe we should be asking what has been done with the all the money that we handed over to the affordable housing developers.

I’m not suggesting anything of the sort – but it is a fact that most of the actual money for subsidized housing goes to units for those earning less than 50% of median income, which is a fine thing.  The problem for me is giving tax breaks for housing targeted at 80% of median which then have to be underwritten by those of us who live in unsubsidized units that – on the open market – are already “affordable” for working class/lower middle class people making between 50 and 80% of median.

A report by Mike Mann and Seattle University? He was fairly well known for treating the longtime and local residents really badly. Why even believe a report like this? And Nickels seems to have the city in a financial hole – one that has nothing to do with the recent bad economy. I think that the other posts that suggest that we look at how much of this was subsidized by taxpayer money in the first place are correct. In any case, South Lake Union, in its present version is alright, but it seems very gentrified and very vanilla. The real sense of the history of the place, when it included working families and individuals and light industrial businesses that really produced something, is gone. Merely producing bucks and a gentrified and vanilla atmosphere- which may be heavily subsidized – when Vulcan and the like should not need subsidies – does not strike me as such a success. And why do I know people who worked in biotech who lost their jobs and did not find new employment. There may be something fishy about this report.

…and you know why this is?  Because public policy makers (ie – the City Council) have systematically neglected the critical need at 50-80% of median in favor of trying to subsidize higher income households – particularly in SLU but also in other trendy Seattle neighborhoods.  

I’m not saying that developer campaign contributions have anything to do with that….no, wait, yes I am.

“Low income” is actually defined by HUD. And various properties have a wide range of percentages, for example LIHI’s Denny Park Apartments have “Over half the apartments serve households making 30 percent or less of
area median income (AMI); the remainder serves households making up to
60 percent of AMI. ”
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/sustainable_community_building.html

It’s also an area full of strong opinions, you’ll see Mr X below wants more 50-80% while Nick Licata says the biggest need is for 0-30% AMI:
http://www.thesouthlake.com/2010/09/29/slu-low-income-housing

“Low income” is actually defined by HUD. And various properties have a wide range of percentages, for example LIHI’s Denny Park Apartments have “Over half the apartments serve households making 30 percent or less of
area median income (AMI); the remainder serves households making up to
60 percent of AMI. ”
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/sustainable_community_building.html

It’s also an area full of strong opinions, you’ll see Mr X below wants more 50-80% while Nick Licata says the biggest need is for 0-30% AMI:
http://www.thesouthlake.com/2010/09/29/slu-low-income-housing

Just to clarify – if public agencies are putting up actual cash money, it should be for very low income households (ie – at least under 50% and preferably under 30%), but if we’re talking about tax abatement programs, I can live with 50-70% of median – but preferably closer to 50%…

Not me. I only use this moniker (or my real name).

Tough sh*t. I make 80K and had to move out of the city center… hell, out of the city itself… in order to get something affordable AND nice. As I move up income classes, I hope to move back.

Why does everyone think the “working poor” deserve an affordable place to live in the heart of a growing city? It’s called ambition, not a f*cking handout.

Terry Street that Amazon is on is great for walking…peaceful and well landscaped. The Mercer/Lake St work will end up being fantastic for pedestrians. I don’t work down there & I walk all over town…your complaint appears a bit shortsighted & self centered.

Oops–Valley not Lake St. Also.it’s all barely finished, when the retail fills in it will feel better.

In all seriousness, if you can’t live in the city center on 80k you’re doing something wrong. Maybe you’re looking for way too large of a place, or spending too much on food and travel. You can easily find something nice to buy or rent for 1800 or less, which is totally doable on 80k a year.