Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Visual Walk Through Amazon's Impact On One Seattle Neighborhood

Posted by Soulskill on from the aside-from-the-all-the-packages-sitting-at-people's-doors dept.

reifman writes: If you live in Seattle, it's easy to see Amazon.com's impact on downtown construction and growth but not everyone sees what's happening in neighborhoods like formerly sleepy Ballard. One by one, traditional Seattle homes are being razed and replaced by 3 1/2 story behemoths without regard for aesthetics of any kind. The new townhomes offer 12 foot wide living spaces for Amazon's brogrammer class. Take a walk with me down my friend's street to see what it's like to live amongst the returns of e-commerce success. Ballard is also home of the late octogenarian Edith Macefield, who refused to sell her house to developers as construction went up around her.

57 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft was better? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't recall people of Seattle complaining about how Bill Gates ravaged their city in the 90's...

    1. Re:Microsoft was better? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      It looks like an efficiency improvement to me.

    2. Re:Microsoft was better? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because with MS most of the Developers bought shiny new McMansions built in Redmond, Issaquah, Bellevue and Mercer Island -- new development that expanded communities in the Eastside rather than tearing down historic neighborhoods that didn't need "revitalizing".

    3. Re:Microsoft was better? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

      No, what's being talked about is the people who WORK for Amazon and other Tech Companies that are "revitalizing" perfectly fine neighborhoods with new development that clashes with the existing community. Plenty of MS employees lived in Seattle -- hell Metro created an entire express Bus Route from the shiny new Bus Tunnel on Olive Way over the 520 right to MS HQ They were happy to buy existing and upgrade homes in Seattle rather than tear them down to build something more "modern" in a neighborhood built and designed at the turn of the 19th century for Middle Class families -- back when middle class meant being a butcher, policeman or other lower skilled worker or tradesman.

    4. Re:Microsoft was better? by whoever57 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      back when middle class meant being a butcher, policeman or other lower skilled worker or tradesman.

      Middle class never meant that. It's only modern usage that has extended the usage of the term towards working-class families.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:Microsoft was better? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My kingdom for mod points!

      What folks not from Seattle and it's environs don't realize is that while Microsoft is often referred to as a "Seattle company", it's not actually in Seattle. It's in Redmond, ten miles to the east. (Though there are satellite campuses all over the place nowadays.) Most of the growth that lead to Seattle's infamous traffic was/is equally to the east of Seattle proper.

      Like most metro areas, Seattle metro covers a huge area... but it's eponymous city is only a small part of that area.

      Downtown Seattle has prospered over the last couple of decades, and that's partly a side effect of Microsoft and the growth of the dot com era, not a direct result.

    6. Re:Microsoft was better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      are "revitalizing" perfectly fine neighborhoods with new development that clashes with the existing community.

      Perfectly fine? If they were perfectly fine, why didn't people just buy the existing houses and move into them? Perhaps because they weren't perfectly fine for the people moving in? Nobody's tearing down houses and putting up new houses "just because."

      rather than tear them down to build something more "modern" in a neighborhood built and designed at the turn of the 19th century for Middle Class families

      What is this hard-on you have for preserving something "built and designed at the turn of the 19th century"? A lot of that old housing is shitty, drafty, inefficient, poorly laid out, and full of toxic materials. New housing will be more energy efficient, better laid out, made of better (and less-toxic) materials, and as durable (if not MORE durable) than the kit houses they're tearing down. They're not tearing down the fucking Parthenon - these houses aren't "precious historical artifacts that need preserving."

      And as far as middle class - if Seattle wanted to preserve living space for middle income families, then they should change the zoning to encourage higher-density apartments and condos (yes, high-rises to replace your precious kit houses), so that plenty of housing could be built, which would keep prices affordable even in the more "desirable" areas. The only way to keep pricing stable in a desirable area is to allow (and encourage) developers to build *up*. Otherwise, you're starting a bidding war for open acreage.

    7. Re:Microsoft was better? by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      My definition of middle class is those people who have to work much of their life for a good living, but have some leisure time, some education, some financial stability, and something to lose if things go bad. The upper class doesn't have to work for a living (although quite a few do). The lower classes don't have financial stability, have trouble making a good living, and generally have little they can lose in a financial problem. The middle class is vital to democracy, since they have the numbers, the ability to pay attention to and participate in politics, and reason to be careful.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:Microsoft was better? by maccodemonkey · · Score: 2

      Most of the growth that lead to Seattle's infamous traffic was/is equally to the east of Seattle proper.

      To be fair, most of Seattle's traffic problems were due to Microsoft being in Redmond, and a giant lake being between Redmond and Seattle, meaning you had few very routes from where people actually lived, to where people actually worked.

      If Microsoft was in Seattle (as Amazon is) I doubt they would have affected traffic to the same degree. But, as Amazon is doing, it would have led to a lot of Seattle's residential neighborhoods, especially North Seattle, going through huge changes.

    9. Re:Microsoft was better? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      You're saying Wallingford isn't middle class? How do you work that out?

      You can afford $1 million for a house on a median wage of $40,000 for a family? ... really?

      I see. And is this with or without the imaginary unicorn garden?

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  2. I work in Seattle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This was not an overnight problem. Amazon is growing, they are buying space where they can. There is no crime there. If Seattle wants to preserve the look of its older neighborhoods, it's had ample time to legislate the building codes.

    The real question is: When do we cross the line when legislating aesthetics. If someone buys the residential land, is it within the rights of the city
              To give them 4 floor plans they choose from? 8? Five outward shapes they can pick? Does the city pick the colors? The plants?

    Nearly everyone knows what looks ugly after the fact, but without building codes unrelated to safety and yet of draconian precision, how to you keep someone from building something ugly in advance?

    1. Re:I work in Seattle by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I really think you don't get that our population will DOUBLE by 2025.

      Not 2040.

      But 2025.

      Time to rezone all arterial blocks to 6-8 stories and stop "preserving" overpriced Single Family Housing that drives all but the Upper Middle Class out of Seattle.

      (caveat - I own my house)

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:I work in Seattle by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      It could be fixed by simply changing the zoning such that only single-family houses were allowed

      This is exactly the sort of crap that leads to urban sprawl, and all the wasted hours on commutes, pollution, oil consumption, etc. We have the same problems in the Bay Area, where SF rejected more than 95% of building permits last year, and 90 minute commutes are routine. If you don't want the sprawl, the only alternative is dense housing in the core city. We need to stand up to the NIMBYs, or even worse, the BANANAs.

    3. Re:I work in Seattle by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      Spreading out won't help - it just increases traffic congestion. I'm specifically referring to the adjacent neighborhoods like Wallingford, Montlake, Capitol Hill, Queen Anne.

      All the arterials everywhere.

      The entire city population - and regional population - is going to double. Pretending it won't is part of the problem, and pushing growth out is part of what led to the current problem.

      I was in the meetings where we decided to upzone SLU to 8 stories. Maybe you missed them.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:I work in Seattle by SnapShot · · Score: 2

      When demand for housing is high, if you zone to restrict change by limiting size and density you will increase the cost. This is great for the established home owner / NIMBYs. It keeps the renters and young people out while inflating the value of their homes. On the other hand, it's terrible for those poorer, younger people and it's also terrible for traffic as they get pushed farther and farther from the jobs. This is exactly the trade-off that San Francisco has made: keep the neighborhoods from changing and keep the existing homeowners happy at the expense of the poorer, younger workers. I'm assuming that Seattle will eventually make that same decision because homeowners have a lot more political clout than renters.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    5. Re:I work in Seattle by hawguy · · Score: 2

      It could be fixed by simply changing the zoning such that only single-family houses were allowed

      This is exactly the sort of crap that leads to urban sprawl, and all the wasted hours on commutes, pollution, oil consumption, etc. We have the same problems in the Bay Area, where SF rejected more than 95% of building permits last year, and 90 minute commutes are routine. If you don't want the sprawl, the only alternative is dense housing in the core city. We need to stand up to the NIMBYs, or even worse, the BANANAs.

      A friend inherited a house in SF (Sunset district) that was in pretty poor shape - he looked at the cost and time to get a permit to tear it down and replace it with a 2 unit duplex that would have fit almost within the same footprint of the existing house. He quickly gave on up that due to the cost and no assurance of ever getting his plan approved -- anyone nearby could tie up the planning process nearly indefinitely and he can't really afford to sit on an unoccupied house for a year or more while waiting for planning approval.

      Instead he opted to do a nearly down to studs remodel back into a single family house. Everyone in SF complains about the cost of housing, but no one seems to want higher density.

    6. Re:I work in Seattle by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In my experience terms like "aesthetics" and "historical integrity" usually translates to:

      1) All I care about is my property values, the rest of the world be damned!
      2) I bought this house decades ago with the assumption that this neighborhood would never, ever, ever, ever change. NO TAKEBACKS!

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    7. Re:I work in Seattle by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Interesting

      in SF

      I think I found the problem.

      Granted it isn't just SF but the whole general area. My wife's grandmother who is 88 still lives in the house they bought out there shortly after WWII in Marin county and it is more cost effective to continue to live in the house and pay people to come and take care of everything than to move into a senior living place. A friend of the family that worked for HP near the beginning until he retired likes to joke that he always wanted to live in a multimillion dollar home, he just didn't think it would be the home he bought when he started at HP a 2 block walk to work. Even in far away places that aren't CA suffer from these things as there was a recent case in St. Paul, Minnesota where a demo permit was issued and then retracted the same day and the owner had to sue the city to demolish his own property.

      As someone who leans fairly libertarian my answer to these people who complain about new development is that if they don't like it they should buy the property. I also believe that people like Edith Macefield should be able to tell a developer to piss off and there isn't anything thing the government can do to force her to give up her property.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    8. Re:I work in Seattle by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2

      Land is so valuable in Silicon Valley you can count on levees being built. We will hire some experts from the netherlands and spend the billions necessary. I expect even Alviso will be saved.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    9. Re: I work in Seattle by chill · · Score: 2

      You just described Celebration, FL. Disney-enforced Leave It to Beaver Land. (Pleasantville in the Hollywood vision.)

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    10. Re:I work in Seattle by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Stand in line to get tickets for the Las Vegas Star Trek Con to celebrate the 100th anniversary of ST:TOS in 2066.

    11. Re:I work in Seattle by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      OK, you've convinced me. But can I still go to the early-bird buffet and play penny slots after?

      Oh, and let's see...in 2066 Wayne Newton will only be 124, so I guess I should think about getting reservations soon.

      https://youtu.be/LRPILZS1hc8

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:I work in Seattle by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      It's not families.

      It's people.

      People are migrating here, and will migrate here, for many reasons: good wages, good minimum wage, no state income tax, no state capital gains tax (except houses above $1 million), we have water (somewhat), we have a green city, and we have top level education that most can afford.

      And we have a lot of tech and other jobs being created all the time.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  3. Urban changes are no surprise by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There was a lot of complaining when the city I live in rezoned some neighborhoods along what years previously had been the main thoroughfare (before the freeway was built and the highway designation was pulled) and the collections of old just-post-war homes and motels and businesses were sold off, razed, and the land rebuilt with three to five storey buildings of mixed commercial and residential use. Another part of town will probably follow suit, as recent changes in law will force landlords to bring their properties up to code compliance if they want to continue renting them out.

    Thing of it is, the strip that has already been redeveloped was in such poor shape that there really wasn't much of value lost in its redevelopment. It wasn't a quaint little neighborhood of chabby-chic bungalos with old landscaping, it was a neighborhood of falling-down buildings, many with real structural faults that would require significantly more than a facelift remodel, with unmaintained grounds or gravel-coated yards so that the maintenance was nothing. The area is also close to the college and to the popular downtown, and is along a major mass-transit corridor that leads to the big city downtown too. In short, the area was simply worth a lot more than its existing use could justify, and most of the occupants were renters, not owners.

    Some call the new buildings ugly. I will agree that some of the new buildings are not to my tastes. What I won't agree on though, is that the new buildings are worse for the area, or that the project was worse for the culture of the area. The old area was a slum. The new area has more residents, has more businesses, and isn't dangerous. Given that eminent domain can't be used in my state to take private land away from private owners to provide to other private owners, if the city had any strong-arming tactics they were probably based on actual infractions on the part of the existing owners (like building and fire code violations) which I can't really fault them for enforcing.

    Simply, if neighborhoods fall into blight and become slums they're ripe for this to happen. It's hard to really call it wrong when that happens.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Urban changes are no surprise by TWX · · Score: 2

      Sounds like the best approach is to get the existing community to show up to those zoning hearings and to weigh-in on what these changes will do to the neighborhood.

      If one doesn't want 12' wide homes, it shouldn't be that hard to put a stop to that, if one actually bothers to try before the commission votes to make the change. They post rather large signage when such hearings are being held, so it's not like it's done in secret.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  4. Somebody sounds butthurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) Complaining about new homes replacing shitty old 1950's houses.
    2) Complaining about modern architecture which is surely a personal preference, not some objective standard meaning "ugly and bad".
    3) Complaining about "brogrammers" simply with a cite of "lots of dudes at Amazon" as supporting evidence for a 'brogrammer' culture.

    Yep, Seattle hipster detected. You should probably move to Portland, where you can keep the dream of the 90's alive.

  5. Is this an article on wealth redistribution? by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ok, so lets recap the article, Amazon needs to lead on diversity, assist low income in the area, change tax codes to be more "fair" in Seattle and Washington state.

    And the article says how horrible interviews are at amazon, but only for a woman. As if people around here don’t realize its a sweatshop, and everyone has to be oncall 24/x and work insane hours. They are burning people to make products, they pay great, sign on bonuses, moving costs, but life sucks there. There is a reason people are leaving after a year in droves.

    Crazy article, ignores many facets of working at amazon and concentrates on social reform outside the company. Agenda much?

    1. Re:Is this an article on wealth redistribution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > There is a reason people are leaving after a year in droves.

      My husband works in HR there, and people aren't leaving Amazon as much as they are leaving Seattle. Many of the new hires are shocked to find-out that fast Internet access is only available in a tiny number of buildings in the region. CondoInternet's fifty buildings is a tiny, tiny portion of the buildings in this area with a population of over 5 million. Also, those buildings are $400-600 more per month in rent. In other words, good Internet access here costs you about $5,000 per year. Too many young men move here then flee after getting tired of not having faster than dial-up access. I know I'm fed-up with that. I've had dial-up since 1994 here in Seattle, and I'm ready to move the hell out of this city.

    2. Re:Is this an article on wealth redistribution? by gabrieltss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I interviewed with Amazon twice - both times told them no thank you. Now I get hit up by their recruiters weekly. I finally told them to stop contacting me. I wasn't interested in their "work your @$$ to death" corporate culture. Just like I told Microsoft I wouldn't work for them because I despised the company.

      --
      The Truth is a Virus!!!
    3. Re:Is this an article on wealth redistribution? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      People are leaving jobs and town because they can't get high speed internet? Color me skeptical. Plus, though I live across the water on the peninsula, I have many friends who live in Seattle and I've heard not once complaint about lack of broadband access - ever.

      On top of which, we just had a report here on Slashdot of broadband access being lost (temporarily) because a fiber was cut. Searching around a bit shows pretty much no significant complaints about lack of faster-than-dialup internet connections. (Many complaints that broadband isn't as fast as it should be... though it's hard to sort out the actual complaints from the unrealistic assumptions about what the service should be.)

      So, I'm moving beyond skeptical right to not buying it.

  6. Great - suburbs are becoming urbanized by wired_parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People have to live somewhere. As Seattle grows, if not from Amazon's expansion from other economic growth, the people moving in will need places to live. Placing those people in townhouses replacing low-rise bungalows is a good thing, in my opinion. The alternative is to expand the city ever outward, creating more suburbs. Instead what seems to be happening is that previously suburban neighbourhoods are becoming urbanized. Increased densification of these neighbourhoods makes public transport more viable, and will likely increase local commerce, making it a more walkable neighbourhood. I might have chosen a different architectural style for those townhouses, but overall I don't see how this is anything but a positive direction of urban development.

    1. Re:Great - suburbs are becoming urbanized by MrRobahtsu · · Score: 5, Funny

      How dare you suggest that housing people want and need to buy and economic growth are more important than Jeff Reifman's delicate architectural sensibilities. You insensitive clod.

      Yeah, call the wahmbulance.

  7. Re:Someone pissed they didn't get hired? by halivar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And "brogrammer"? Seriously? Submitter is an entitled, classist jackass.

  8. Re:Someone pissed they didn't get hired? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every article listed, except for Wikipedia, is from reifman. Jeff Reifman has been on a tirade against Amazon for some time. At this point, we should all just ignore him.

  9. Re:Someone pissed they didn't get hired? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 3, Informative

    She's sexist. Not classist.

  10. Oh Boo Hoo by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People are building houses they want on property they own?

    The infamy!

    I wonder how the whiners felt about the people who lived in the area as the whiners' houses were being built. What, no retroactive self-shaming guilt trips? I am shocked, shocked! to discover egocentric whining.

    --
    Infuriate left and right
    1. Re:Oh Boo Hoo by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

      You cluelessness about libertarians is typical of those who don't want to understand personal responsibility because it scares them. So much easier to assign responsibility to a bunch of strangers, and then to whine about the bad decisions they make, which really means they didn't force you to go along with a decision you haven't got the guts to make yourself.

      --
      Infuriate left and right
    2. Re:Oh Boo Hoo by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2

      Exactly. I was a self styled libertarian when I was a kid and only cared about myself. As I grew up I figured out that you can't form a functioning society on the "F**k everyone else, I got mine" ideals.

      As much as I hate it being true, there's nothing I can change about the fact that other people are selfish and stupid and will stab you in the back just as soon as they shake your hand. That's just part of human nature. And for that reason, "pure" libertarianism can never work. It's the exact same reason why "pure" capitalism won't work. (why shouldn't I exploit the system to take as much as I can from as many people as I can?) It's also why "pure" communism won't work. (why should I work harder if I never receive any benefit?)

      I just wish more people were smart enough to figure that out. But that would require them to give up their willful ignorance, which is one of the most impossible things to overcome.

  11. Cops in Ballard by kjell79 · · Score: 2

    All you have to do to see the difference is search for "Cops in Ballard" on youtube. You're welcome.

  12. Re:Aesthetics by guruevi · · Score: 2

    IMHO they look better. Especially the interiors. I live in an 'old' house like that, it's very cheap to obtain but needs constant repairs and any improvements require major investment (lead and asbestos assessments, if any space renovation triggers the local code it needs to have fire sprinklers and CO/smoke detectors retrofitted).

    If Amagoogsoft wants to buy it at 2 or 3 times the market rate, I'll happily sell it and buy one or two down the street (so they can do the same in a few years).

    Sure it may be a bit more compact so stop driving a freaking tractor to work every day or rent out a space at a neighborhood garage lot.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  13. It's 2015 by Jahoda · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, welcome to every single desirable, thriving metropolitan area in the country right now. Every single one of them.

  14. A fictionalized conversation. by SnapShot · · Score: 5, Funny

    The following is a dramatic representation of a conversation in Seattle.

    Scene: an artesian coffee shop, a late-forties white person is talking to another late-forties white person
    Person 1: When I cashed in my Microsoft shares in 1998 and I bought a house here it was a quiet residential street.
    Person 2: Yeah, I thought it would always be a quiet residential street, but then THOSE people moved in and I can't find parking.
    Person 1: This is the single worst thing that has happened in the history of human existence. You know the first thing the Nazis did when they invaded Poland... took all the parking.
    Person 2: I know, right? I have $500k in equity in my house but I can't find parking. If I sold my house to cash in my equity I'd probably have to move to Lynnwood or Rainier Valley.
    Person 1: I heard there's a new locally grown, gluten free, Vietnamese Banh Mi restaurant in Rainier Valley now.
    Person 2: Really? I heard they have quiet residential streets and plenty of parking. Maybe I should move there.
    Person 1: Good idea. I can cash in some of my Microsoft shares and start a new shade grown coffee shop. Get off the rat race, you know?
    Person 2: Yay! The people of Rainier Valley will really appreciate it. Let's go talk to our brokers.

    --
    Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
  15. What's the problem? by ichthus · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So... I just don't see what the issue is here.

    ... without regard for aesthetics of any kind

    No, that's a contemporary, high density housing style. You might not like it, but there is regard for aesthetics. You just don't agree with the aesthetic value.

    --
    sig: sauer
  16. LOL by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh no, *change* is happening, and it's not in a direction that supports my almost-entirely-unrealistic vision of an affordable bucolic urban hipster paradise.

    SOMEONE STOP IT NOW!

    This part I read with almost glee:
    "...I admit Iâ(TM)m part of the problem. Not only did I come to Seattle for the opportunity to work at a large technology company, but it made me wealthy, as well. Iâ(TM)m not saying that Amazon shouldnâ(TM)t grow and that others shouldnâ(TM)t benefit from the opportunity, I just believe the companyâ(TM)s growing irresponsibly and beginning to have an irrevocably damaging impact on Seattleâ(TM)s character and quality of life..."

    In short, you're a fucking hypocrite. I got mine, so the rest of you stop trying to do what I did because it's just so not want I want.

    Yeah, well, life is change even in the land of non-chain coffee shops, horn-rimmed glasses, and experimental music.

    --
    -Styopa
  17. Re:"It brings density which may be good..." by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    I like city life, but I understand your point of view. I'm currently in the 'burbs on a whopping quarter acre. I occasionally appreciate the peace and quiet in a way that I occasionally missed in the city.

    With that said, zoning law is sufficient to address this "problem". If the zoning allows 3 stories and no setbacks, then that's what you'll get. Zone for 15 ft setbacks and 2 stories, and you'll get smaller boxes. This isn't rocket science.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  18. Re:Someone pissed they didn't get hired? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And "brogrammer"? Seriously? Submitter is an entitled, classist jackass.

    I have never, not once, heard a programmer use the word "brogrammer". I have only heard it used by SJWs when denigrating programmers, and the companies they work for (Amazon in this case).

  19. Seattle has "no zoning" to prohibit this? by boguslinks · · Score: 3, Informative

    Seattle has zoning out the ying-yang, and the streets specifically need to be zoned to townhouse height to build the townhouses. That designation has been spreading over the last decade+.

    As far as aesthetics, just go to a neighborhood Design Review Board meeting, where the dozen or so busybodies in each neighborhood go and throw rotten vegetables at developers for hours, ruthlessly hounding them to get their designs more in line with the aesthetics of the busybody junta.

    (A sufficiently small townhouse project can evade the board, much to the chagrin of the busybodies).

    The problem with the townhouses is not that they're ugly or don't "fit in" but that too many of them get build without parking, as the anti-car elements on design boards and in the gummint browbeat developers into not offering parking.

    I looked at a lot of the new Ballard construction when house shopping in 2013, before buying a condo in another 'hood, they're not bad, the kitchens especially are generally being done very nicely, but you can't please everyone with how they look from the outside, I guess.

  20. Get off my lawn! by Nyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Born & raised in Seattle. Sure, I'd love the good old days of the 80's before Seattle started to get crowded, but whatever, life goes on. We have a bunch more people here in Seattle these days then we ever did. We need space for the people that are here. Ballard has been a little home owning community. People would buy homes, start families there. Well, family homes are not what is needed anymore. You have young single professionals looking for places to work, not young married couples looking for places to start a family. Does it suck because the Ballard I & you remember is changing? Nope, this has been going on all over Seattle. We are NOT the little community we used to be anymore.

    Seattle has grown up and it's time to get it new clothes that fit.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  21. I live here, and I think this is great by Mark+Atwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I live in Seattle.

    I am all for the rebuild and densification of my city.

    The city can't sprawl, and sprawl is wasteful and ugly.

    Seattle was a company-town shithole for most of it's history, and only relatively recently has the nasty streetcrime and the worst of the corruption been mostly eliminated. (Most of the last bits of the bad poltical corruption left when a number of the the 40 year career party apparatchiks were invited to move to DC by their national party) The city is now ok-ish decently-ish well managed and has a thriving multi-centered economy, and so people want to live here. And I welcome them. As long as they are not from California and bring California's social and government pathologies with them.

    99% of the people complaining about people moving here, are either people who moved here themselves, or are the children of people who moved here. You don't get to move someplace, and then start bitching that people should stop moving here after you move here yourself.

    And I look at the buildings that are being demolished, and they made of old dried wood, and brick held together by crumbling mortar. A major earthquake, and they where going to fall down and catch fire. We need to demolish more of them faster, and build more denser buildings that are better able to resist the constant damp and moss, save water and sunlight and energy, made from steel not wood and sand.

  22. Re:Same stuff, different day by tnk1 · · Score: 2

    Everyone seems to have a problem with suburban sprawl. Now the affluent are deciding to move back to the city center and we're complaining that there are too many of them and they want to rebuild and fix up the infrastructure?

    Which is it?

    Yeah, it drives up property value. Guess what, that's what naturally happens when you add services and make the place look better.

    I'm all for maintaining historical housing, but how do you bring people into city centers and maintain the relatively low population density of historical buildings?

  23. Re:Same stuff, different day by Jiro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The reference to "brogrammer" indicates that this is a social justice complaint. They tend to treat tech companies as part of the capitalist enemy, and that transforms "different people use different architecture" into "people with the wrong architecture are disruptive".

  24. 3.5 stories is a behemoth? Ya got to be kidding by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

    Take a look at Paris and Rome. Take a look at cities before elevators and you will find numerous beautiful, liveable areas with buildings in the 50-60 range. That is a good height. You're complaining about a 35 foot building?

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  25. Brogrammer - not a thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sorry, angry millenials, but "brogrammer" is not a real thing. It's a made up word that means nothing, these days it's just something angry feminists call male programmers.

  26. Re:Someone pissed they didn't get hired? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2

    I have never, not once, heard a programmer use the word "brogrammer". I have only heard it used by SJWs when denigrating programmers, and the companies they work for (Amazon in this case).

    I'm a programmer, and I've met some brogrammers in my lifetime. They were easy enough to tell from regular programmers: they're the ones on Caltrain sipping Budweiser and talking about how great it is to work at Zynga and how those people who got their RSUs revoked last week had it coming and don't deserve any sympathy. (Remember that episode?) Typically there's a bit of a scruffy look to them. I cannot make a solid characterization of their actual programming skills (or lack thereof).

    I'd be surprised to find tons of brogrammers at Amazon; it struck me as less "bro" and more "nerd". I am generally dubious of the submitter's characterization.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. "There oughta be a law!!!" by Webmoth · · Score: 2

    Liberties are of utmost importance, whether it be for digital data, sexual preference, religion, property, or any other activity that does not INJURE others.

    When you demand the right to control how your neighbor uses his property, you give implicit permission for him to control how you use your property. And that expands into every other facet of life.

    I don't like the flooding of historic neighborhoods with huge boxes any more than you do, nor would I want my neighbor to build an asphalt plant, but the loss of liberty is of even greater concern to me. If my neighbor did choose to build an asphalt plant, I would complain loudly, but I would also defend his right to do so. I do not have a "right" to not see, not hear, or not smell that which offends me provided it does not injure me. There is no right to not be threatened; no right to "feel safe." And I have no right to guaranteed property value at all. But I do have the right to move somewhere else, and I have the responsibility to accept whatever that costs me.

    --
    Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
  29. Re:Someone pissed they didn't get hired? by zenasprime · · Score: 2

    The irony in this post makes me giggle. Insightful? You bet it is.