Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« 'We Shit Disturb': The Olympics and… | Jesus Loves Trains, Traveling, The… »

Monday, February 22, 2010

Boom The Suburbs Also Have to Take Responsibility for the Suburbs

Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:23 AM

In a post below, Will asks why Seattle's urban design enthusiasts ("urbanists") don't provide more constructive criticism to eyesore developments in the suburbs. I'll hazard a guess: because those folks don't live in the suburbs. A gaggle of urban planning geeks going to comment on an Issaquah plateau development would be welcomed like an Oklahoma church group giving out relationship advice on Broadway. And while it would be swell if the suburbs stopped permitting strip mall parking lots bordered by 10-lane arterials, many of the folks who live in the suburbs do like 'em. And those folks really don't want to hear from urban folks—that is, urban folks who are all wearing "expensive black frame glasses"—so it would be a little, um, awkward to tell 'em how they should build their city. Instead, folks who do live in the suburbs and want better design should pipe up. (That said, there is plenty of room for advocating for better design—through transportation improvements, transit-oriented devlopment incentives, and nonprofit pressure.) Folks who live in Seattle, meanwhile, should make sure we avoid the mistakes that suburbs make.

That Dearborn Street project, to cite Will's example, was a shopping mall the size of seven Westlake Centers with 2,300 underground parking spaces. It wasn't near a light-rail station. And car-oriented shopping malls are dying all over the county. The mall builder who wanted to build the Dearborn Street project filed for bankruptcy. Of course the city balked. Thank eyewear everywhere that it was canceled.

So opposing those sorts of project is hardly an example where "there are no shortage of Seattle-based urbanists to complain." Lots of folks—like myself, who could probably use a pair of glasses, admittedly—cheer for good new devlopment: building taller housing around light-rail stations, constructing towers downtown by the train station, converting old buildings, using new materials, or constructing small, affordable apartments.

Comments (20) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Speaking as somebody whose eyeglasses cost a thousand bucks, I'd sooner eat a week's worth of my beloved Capitol Hill's collective pube trimmings washed down with vanilla soy milk than give up a moment of the endless amusement I get cheering on and poking fun at my homegrown, Seattle-obsessed new urbanists.

Posted by gloomy gus on February 22, 2010 at 11:37 AM

You paid too much for your glasses.

Posted by Gordian on February 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM

That is a fact, Gordian. Shoes are a problem also.

Posted by gloomy gus on February 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM

i scoff at your attractive frames with their unscratched lenses, as i no longer require them. the real elitists have had LASEK.

Posted by Max Solomon on February 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM

@4 The real elitists get glasses with plain glass lenses, purely for the style of looking like they need glasses

Posted by vooodooo84 on February 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM

The real elitists wear cheap frames like Snooky does.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on February 22, 2010 at 12:01 PM

The Northgate Target complex is about as auto-oriented as it gets, and seems to be doing a lot better than the Ave or Broadway.

Posted by Mr. X on February 22, 2010 at 12:03 PM

The Suburbs?

They're good at chemistry and that's about it.

Posted by pg13 on February 22, 2010 at 12:04 PM

I saw the gestating exurbs on the far east side, and now I have a lot of questions. The biggest one: what choices could Seattle have made to prevent this?

Posted by SM9 on February 22, 2010 at 12:14 PM

"..many of the folks who live in the suburbs do like 'em.."

And a huge number don't. Do you realize that virtually every (Ok, very many) affluent suburbs across the USA are attempting to urbanize themselves? It's true. A lot of people hate suburban commercial strip development.

Posted by David Sucher

on February 22, 2010 at 12:32 PM

@5: i do not believe that any of these people exist.

Posted by Max Solomon on February 22, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Max, I hate to break it to you, but it's true that people with fine vision have started getting plain-glass frames as an accessory. Just yesterday I read how a NY Times reporter posed as an average person to see if someone off the street could get into the Fashion Week tents at Bryant Park - to appear stylish enough to rate admission she got a fashion makeover that included... big fake eyeglasses.

P.S. I'm envious of your not needing glasses any more - my particular astigmatism puts that option out of reach.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/nyregi…

Posted by gloomy gus on February 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM

@ 10) And those folks who don't like 'em--and live there--are the ones to oppose terrible development.

Posted by Dominic Holden on February 22, 2010 at 12:55 PM

I too wear oversized, ironic designer frames and pass endless judgment on what the burbs decide to build, but I was totally behind the big box retail that was going to be on Dearborn. Yeah, it would have been huge, ugly commercial monoliths (and true, the concept was financially built on rumor and inneundo) but people forget that Rainer valley really is one long stretch of strip malls, commercial centers and immigrant identities. With the exception of Columbia City, it's unlikely that we'll see Rainer turn into a Ballard in the next few years (unless we some how route all 1-90 exits to go through Leschi only).

Posted by yerbamatty on February 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM

This is what I wanted to say under Will Kelley-Kamps's post, but the self-seriousness of the comment section drove me batty. It's up to local residents to fix what's broken.

Posted by laterite on February 22, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Oh, and somethingsomething hipster glasses mumblemumble.

Posted by laterite on February 22, 2010 at 1:07 PM

I'm glad you're encouraging engagement and activism. But why do you suggest that people in Seattle (you mean those who live south of 145th street, west of Lake Washington, north of wherever, etc.?) should not get involved with planning or development north of 145th street, east of Lake Washington, south of wherever, etc., etc.? Instead, "suburbanites" should see to that? And who are these mysterious suburbanites who have mysteriously different tastes than you? On Friday I went to dinner at Open Satellite in Bellevue. Thirty people or so attended and spoke about Bellevue's landscape and potentials. I'm from Portland, but no one dissed me. Half the people there lived on one side of the lake and worked on the other. Surprise, the commuters were mostly Seattlites who work in Bellevue. Fucking gas-guzzlers... My point is that everyone talks about "suburbanites" specifically because they don't want to talk about real people living in real, complex, dynamic landscapes that don't end at municipal borders. Go out to Bellevue if you care about planning. You will be welcomed and listened to. If you're not, don't tell me it's because the "suburbanites" have biases.

And one last note about writing. Any time you find yourself tempering your stereotypes by calling people "folks," take a second look at what you're writing. "Folks" is the linguistic sugar writers toss in to mask their most bitter complaints. It reminds me of police who call their suspects "gentlemen."

Posted by Matthew Stadler on February 22, 2010 at 1:18 PM

I know three people who work in Bellevue or Redmond, but they all take the bus, @17. However, they probably didn't have time to go to that dinner, as the bus runs less frequently past a certain point.

Man up and build some light rail, then you can criticize us.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on February 22, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Both Bellevue and Issaquah have more jobs than people. We're not suburbs, we're not exurbs. And we abide by the Growth Management Act just like everybody else, which both requires that we take in a certain number of people in whilst simultaneously proscribing sprawl.

Posted by Big Sven