City Revelations from Seattle Mag (No, Really)
posted by on September 21 at 11:07 AM
I picked up a copy of Seattle Magazine on the way to the gym the other day because, well, I can’t do something as boring as working out without something, anything, to read. The choice was made out of desperation as much as anything. But I’ve gotta say, I was surprised and impressed by the quality of the writing and the choice of stories: A piece on a goat-rental service for contractors called Rent-A-Ruminant; a feature on urban fishing spots; a story about humane mobile slaughter facilities for sustainably grown beef and pork in Washington; a piece by my former coworker Philip Dawdy about the prevalence of domestic violence in Washington. Pretty impressive stuff for a magazine I’d always assumed was little more than fluffy filler surrounding the inevitable monthly list of advertisers (“Seattle’s 101 Best Realtors/Doctors/Organic Small-Batch Cheesemakers”).
Then I flipped to page 92, and found an ad for three condo projects in South Lake Union: the Rollin Street Flats, Enso Lofts, and the Veer. (Fair warning: Each web site features an incredibly obnoxious theme song.) Condo ads aren’t uncommon in high-end consumer magazines; what caught my eye was the way they were being sold. Under a satellite photo of the earth was a headline that read, “Your mother called. And once again she has an opinion about where you should live.” The rest of the ad is a pitch for “green” living: “pedestrian friendly,” “everything within easy walking distance,” “healthy, green living,” etc. It’s something we’ve been saying all along—living densely is better for the city and the environment—but it’s nice to see the environmental benefits of density go so mainstream that even developers are using them as part of their sales pitch.
wow! where'd they find such a knowledgeable genius for the urban fishing article! color me impressed!
That publishing group knows talent--the sister magazine in Portland's got Ben Jacklet working for it.
Doll, if you're able to read while working out, you're not working out hard enough.
this 'density' though is also driving up affordable housing...many of our low income families are going either north or south king county were services such as health are lacking or more distant. so density and green living for the well to do.
I have to agree with Boomer @3, except for the "doll" part. The sweat doesn't get on the pages?
Vulcan marketing aside, anyone able to compare the carbon footprint of building and occupying new construction vs. buying or renting existing housing stock? Seems more and more as though green is as green does. New construction requires diesel-powered demolition and shipment for disposal of any existing structures including pavement. Laying a foundation requires diesel-powered excavation, trucking and disposal of earth. The building itself requires nonrenewable resource extraction, processing and shipment to the site of enormous quantities of concrete (for a local touch, perhaps a dash of Maury Island gravel), steel, copper, etc. Assembling all this requires dozens of workers using power tools for another year. While recycled materials will be used for some interior finishes, all the structure itself will be new, fresh from South American mines and Chinese smelters.
I love density, and am not unhappy to see some additional nonrenewable resources spent to achieve its civic benefits for my fair hometown. I think it's worth it in the long run. But its green-ness is as murky as sending my '89 Jetta to the junkyard so I can buy a freshly-manufactured sparkly Prius.
@6: It's a one-time "expense" to make the building. And as the population increases, more housing needs to be made. I seriously doubt that making a house for every individual has less of an impact on the environment than making apartment buildings and condos. Not to mention increased efficiency in waste collection, and the fact that you'll likely be able to walk to the store instead of driving there.
And I wonder how the the total emissions from an '89 Jetta over a period of 18 years compares to the environmental impact of creating a more fuel-efficient vehicle.
"Vulcan marketing aside, anyone able to compare the carbon footprint of building and occupying new construction vs. buying or renting existing housing stock? Seems more and more as though green is as green does...."
Blah, blah, blah....
Why is everyone in this town such a one-trick pony w/r/t environmentalism?
Wake up, people! There are real problems!
OT - regarding carbon offset purchasing, you might like this site:
http://www.cheatneutral.com/
@6 - When i lived in the capitol building on broadway, the radiator would turn my apartment into a sweat box in december. Because it was impossible to regulate the temperature, i'd have to open windows. My current apartment was built in the 60s and has single pane windows and leaks heat. My old rental house in ballard was from the turn of the century, used oil to heat, and was as insulated as a wood shack. one-time building requirements aside, the carbon footprint of a new building is preferable to the "existing" heap(especially if it is "dense", i.e. has more people living on the same patch of dirt than the previous structure).
whatever. the stranger's pro-density language has never been much different from developers'. i'm surprised you're only just noticing. vulcan has been talking about sustainability for a decade.
They're not going to hire you either, Erica.
How many Stranger staffers applied for the P-I Arts editor job?
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).