By Josh Feit
5,250 > 778
Here’s a rejoinder to those who complain that Seattle’s taxes on big business are going to send major companies fleeing to Bellevue: Seattle has nearly 40 percent more cafes, retail shops, bars, arts and cultural spaces, community centers and food spots per capita than Bellevue.
Known as “third places,” these kinds of public living rooms are considered essential for attracting uniquely mobile high-tech workers away from competing cities.
Last week, the Seattle Department of Economic Development published a new, comprehensive report about the need for Seattle to foolproof its economy by fostering a more varied set of businesses that participate on the national and international scale. The report, which was written by local economic consultants, cites Seattle’s impressive map of third places as a must-have. “Seattle offers a remarkably rich environment for these connections due to its high concentration of third places mixed into its built environment,” the report states as part of its thesis that third places are an asset for drawing the creative class that’s necessary to resuscitate our flagging startup culture.
The report’s comparison point for what we don’t want to be? Bellevue.
“The difference between Seattle and a less third place-rich region like Bellevue is stark. Seattle has substantially more third places than Bellevue (5,250 vs. 778). Part of this, of course, is a matter of population. But Seattle also has more third places per square mile (63 vs. 23) and per capita than Bellevue (71 vs. 52 per 10,000 residents).”
“Stark” is not hyperbole. When you look at the specifics of Seattle’s 40 percent per-capita advantage over our neighbor across Lake Washington, you can see why young workers would be miserable in Bellevue. While Seattle has more third spaces overall—libraries, community centers, cafes, and gyms, for example—the advantage is stunning when you look at spots that you traditionally associate with “going out.” More than three times as many bars. One-hundred sixty percent more cultural arts venues. Sixty-five percent more shops. Forty-nine percent more dining options.
And, upending stereotypes, Seattle also has more places of worship—by a reverent 42 percent.
Bellevue does beat Seattle in an important category, though. And it’d be good for policy makers at city hall to take note of this. When it comes to parks, Bellevue beats Seattle by 14 percent—7.1 to 6.1 per every 10,000 people.
10 pm > 6 pm
The report doesn’t say how late Seattle’s third spaces stay open on average. That’s important. While people want to move to a city where there’s places to hang out, they likely don’t want to move to a city where there’s a stopwatch ticking on how long they can. And anecdotally, I can tell you: Shops close too early. This is true in Bellevue as well, but Seattle’s lackluster evening economy is a noteworthy problem in its own right.
From coffee shops to corner stores, from retail to social services, Seattle needs a more energetic nighttime ecosystem. I wrote about this problem decades ago, and I wrote about it again a few years ago, because it’s a defining and persistent shortcoming here. Seattle is too soporific. Newsflash to the rest of country: Seattle is not woke!
A sleepy city undermines equity. The nighttime isn’t just about socializing. If it was easier to take care of business after 5 pm by having greater access to the practical stuff that’s traditionally closed or diminished at night—government services, retail, drug stores, administrative offices, buses, rental visits—people, particularly working-class people, would face fewer barriers to the economic opportunities here.
38 percent > 30 percent
Another thing missing from the report: The evidence to support the consultant’s contention that the creative class workers we need actually gravitate toward third places. I’m not saying I disagree with the report’s thesis. I want it to be true. And it’s certainly logical to assume that creative, young techies like to be out and about.
But is it?
According to a dispiriting essay titled “America is Becoming a Nation of Homebodies,” which urbanist Diana Lind wrote last year, “Americans now spend an average of 99 more minutes at home each day than they did in 2003, while this generation of 15- to 24-year-olds spends 124 more minutes at home than their counterparts two decades ago. Meanwhile, just 30 percent of Americans spent time socializing and communicating in person on an average day, down from 38 percent in 2014, according to [an] American Time Use Survey.” And another recent report found that Americans are also speaking less—and that the issue is especially pronounced among people younger than 25.
Numbers detailing Seattle’s penchant for being out and about—and how those numbers are trending—would be helpful to have if urbanists want to backup the OED consultant’s third-place advocacy for “face-to-face communication” and “connections.”
The World Cup social scene may have been an aberration. But compared to the crowds I’m seeing at art walks, game days, Saturday night on Capitol Hill, lines at popups, music and cultural events, and crowded coffee shops these days, it wasn’t a huge aberration. Seattle seems like it’s hopping. It’d be nice to know if that’s true.
Josh@PubliCola.com
Bellevue is the business up front, Seattle the party in the back of this metropolitan mullet 🙂 Locals can have their cake, and eat it too by hopping light rail or driving/biking across the bridge. Thanks, urbanism!
Great article! We were just reflecting the other day – at brunch – that there are 4 places we can easily walk to from home for oysters on the half shell. Depending on which of their distinctive other strengths we were most interested that day. Seriously great.
Having lived significant portions of my life in both Seattle and Bellevue, it’s certainly true Bellevue is comparatively buttoned up, boring, and hostile (or at least suspicious) towards those who enjoy public life. But it’s easy to look with a skeptical eye at this relative difference; Seattle is also fairly boring and buttoned up compared to many other cities, and is becoming moreso every year. Just take a trip to Portland, for instance, where every single neighborhood has a concentration of these “third places,” and Portland isn’t alone.
Third Places are a nice idea — even the measure of a decent city— but government can’t do much to promote them except to not get in the way of ALL businesses…
But I’m a little bit skeptical of your assumption about the importance of “uniquely mobile tech workforce”…. please tell us a little bit more about who these people are and how many there are and did they ever grow up and settle down?
Governments could pass rent control on commercial spaces. Soaring rents drive a lot of “third places” out of business.
No, government can make a difference through zoning policy. See: Portland, as I mentioned in my comment above.
So, specifically, what is Portland doing that Seattle is not doing by way of zoning to promote third places?
Google (at least in this single case) is your friend:
https://lgiu.org/portlands-20-minute-neighbourhoods-a-u-s-pioneer-in-walkable-urbanism/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7rlGZh04Hc
https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/1bqrgch/jeff_speck_urban_planner_talks_about_how_portland/
https://www.portlandmaps.com/bps/designguidelines/#/map/
Google (at least in this case) is your friend. It appear having too many links causes a comment to get rejected, so here is just one:
https://lgiu.org/portlands-20-minute-neighbourhoods-a-u-s-pioneer-in-walkable-urbanism/
sam98144, I have to push back on the idea that Portland’s zoning somehow created its compact urban neighborhoods. For the most part, those all predate Portland having a zoning code at all and Portland has broadly similar land use regulations to Seattle (i.e., mostly former SFH now middle housing zones in the quiet residential areas, mostly apartments and mixed use on transit corridors and arterials). If there’s a difference, I’d say that it’s Portland’s commercial streets are longer but Seattle has more “clusters” if that makes sense. But that’s a minor difference in form, not in kind.
I lived in Portland for ~5 years before moving to Seattle ~1 year ago, and while Portland does a lot of things great in the restaurant/bar/cafe space that Seattle can struggle on, I would say the limiting factor here is more economic than zoning. Obviously, those are related to an extent, but if the goals is more third places, then emulating Portland’s zoning is not a great way to get there. We should have a better zoning code, but I think there are limited lessons that Portland can provide and that comparisons to other places sort of flatten a lot of nuance while ignoring some of the major issues that other place faces.
Gosh, it’s not like Bellevue is a 100 miles away from Seattle. There’s even a light rail line connecting them!
What’s going to happen is over time is, Amazon and other big companies are going to transfer jobs over to Bellevue to avoid paying taxes to Seattle. Doesn’t mean anybody is moving, it just means people are going to commute to work in the opposite direction than they have for past 50 years. What’s the current vacancy rate for Seattle office space? What’s the vacancy rate for Bellevue? The numbers don’t lie.
Cities traditionally run on property tax and sale tax money. There’s a very simple reason taxes on income and jobs don’t fund cities in the USA. Mayor Wilson is going to learn this the hard way I’m afraid.
It’s funny how this notion that companies/rich people “flee” cities when taxes are too high/regulation is too strong/socialism isn’t treated as terrorism seems to only get strong among true believers the more evidence piles against it. It’s become a form of spiritual teleology. I’m so old I remember when Mamdani was elected as the mayor of NYC, and a doom cult popped up around how the holy and virtuous wealthy were going to flee, companies would flood out, and the city would be left to the poor, lacking in virtue, and doomed to stagnation without the presence of their betters. As gross as such view are, turns out they aren’t even correct, IRS data shows millionaires have increased under Mamdani:
https://groundworkcollaborative.org/news/millionaires-love-ny-new-irs-data-shows-new-yorks-millionaire-population-grew-years-after-the-state-raised-taxes-on-the-rich/
Personally, I’d call belief against evidence religion. What would you call it?
Sheesh! Mamdani and Wilson haven’t been in office a year, so I wouldn’t jump to judgement either way. But I wouldn’t dare compare Seattle to the Great NYC. Gotham City has everything, starting with staying power. Seattle is just a second tier regional city that has a long history economic boom and bust cycles. I think there’s plenty of evidence that the Emerald City is headed for a bust because the tech industry is changing. Like it or not, the JumpStart tax handcuffed the fortunes of Seattle with the tech Big Boys like Amazon. After a few rounds of layoffs, when the tech bosses suggest you work in Bellevue, the answer is going to be “Thank You Sir!” How about you move to Tennessee? “Thank You Sir!” Hard times humble people. As a guy who flipped burgers in his 40s, believe me.
I lived in Seattle during the last bust cycle and in some ways the city was better back then. Renting an apartment in say, 1978, was easy. Beer was cheaper. Seattle will go on after the latest gold rush, just like the past. Economic prosperity isn’t everything.
I don’t know Mr. Feit’s backstory, so maybe he is a native Seattle homer? Ms. Barnett certainly isn’t from the PNW and many of the people reading Publicola are so recent arrivals. One thing I do know is when the gold is gone, the rush is over. I suspect many of the younger “urbanists” will flee Seattle when the bust really hits. The City owes them nothing and why not just move on to greener pastures?
While there is indeed plenty of evidence that shows folks are unlikely to “flee” states or even regions based on increased taxes on the wealthy, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be concerned that folks might easily simply move across a small lake, now connected to Seattle by light rail, to a city that is increasingly focusing on density, safer streets, and recreational activities, and which has many of the same types of coffee houses, restaurants, and stores (if not, actually locations of them) within its city limits.
Besides, the “property tax/sales tax” issue you mention isn’t because of Wilson, it’s because the libertarians who are violently opposed to expanding the tax options in Washington. There’s really nobody else to blame but them.