daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > North American Skyscrapers Forum > Metropolis & States > Seattle



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 10th, 2012, 11:29 PM   #81
Matt the Engineer
Registered User
 
Matt the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 447

@flo I think it's more complex than that. City prices go down if we up supply. People are happy to waste their lives driving because suburban homes are cheaper than city homes, but everything is a balance. More people might move into a smaller home with no yard, if it comes with a walkable neighborhood they're close to work - especially if it's the same price as a place in the suburbs. In fact, I'd be willing to bet there's someone that's willing to make that change for every home you build in the city. Overall, every home you build in the city equals one home not built outside the city.

Last edited by Matt the Engineer; February 11th, 2012 at 12:58 AM.
Matt the Engineer no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old February 10th, 2012, 11:48 PM   #82
mhays
Journeyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 10,301
Likes (Received): 505

Quote:
Originally Posted by flotown View Post
2012 and 2013 will shatter the records for multifamily units delivered in seattle; 3,000 was the previous peak and as it looks at present 5,000 will be passed in each year.
Not multifamily, just rental apartments.

Overall, construction volumes are still below the last boom within the city limits, and pretty moderate overall for the metro.

The 5,000 figure is probably metro or county? Seattle itself doesn't have 10,000 units underway or just finished, even including dorms. I napkin counted over 8,000 units underway within city limits in 2006 or so, with a huge number in the suburbs as well.
mhays no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2012, 12:21 AM   #83
mSeattle
Registered User
 
mSeattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,040
Likes (Received): 56

It's no question that PDX and YVR have upped their game significantly and continue to. I think Seattle was on a roll in the 80s-90s after the Goodwill Games and into the Tech Bubble/Grunge. All that is in the past now. Meanwhile YVR built a major media industry, held an Olympics festival and PDX found its EURO style (and simply alternative to Seattle market).

I think that's great! It's a challenge to stay relevant. Not even NYC or LA can afford to rest on the accomplishments of the past or hype or reputations. They both are working mightily to transform and be attractive for today and tomorrow, and that's not speaking of the others (MIA, DFW, HOU, SF, DEN, ATL...).

One thing about Vancouver and Canada in general, aren't they growing at a faster rate than the US in terms of immigration?
__________________
Too Much DOUBT - Troy Davis ExecutionYOU are Commander In Chief of your body. Remember Bradley Manning.
mSeattle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2012, 12:56 AM   #84
mhays
Journeyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 10,301
Likes (Received): 505

Seattle is on a roll currently. We're adding density at a great pace. We're growing world-beating companies like Amazon, which is very rare, and unique in the Northwest. The Gates Foundation is totally unique. Movies and TV shows want to be set in Seattle even if they don't film here. Portland and Vancouver are great cities with their own great PR, but Seattle is doing fine.
mhays no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2012, 01:49 AM   #85
mSeattle
Registered User
 
mSeattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,040
Likes (Received): 56

I think PR has something to do with it. But I also think the experience does too and a big part of that is the experience of getting about in the city or nearby.

I'll be glad when Link is built out more and the CH/FH/ID trolley is completed and running. That will be the start of real city train travel not just to and from the airport to downtown. And of course, if we build/upgrade amenities like better parks, plazas, promenades, green streets etc... SLU park is better. Grow that and make a connection between it and downtown. The waterfront will be better, make a connection from it to the ID or that park south of the stadiums that someone was dreaming of in recent years. If the state adds more lids over I-5 as part of its upgrades then that would be awesome too!
__________________
Too Much DOUBT - Troy Davis ExecutionYOU are Commander In Chief of your body. Remember Bradley Manning.
mSeattle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2012, 04:17 AM   #86
InlandEmpire
Mixologist
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 243
Likes (Received): 12

I don't think we need to worry too much about Portland or Vancouver.

Does it matter perception wise that San Francisco is smaller than San Jose? Doubtful. Population is not everything.

We are growing our population and corporate base. Truthfully, the Seattle metro is so much larger than the other PNW cities that there is very little chance they'll ever catch up. Our GDP is much larger. That's not to say that the other cities aren't fantastic places to live. They have been for a long time. Things will probably continue as they have, whether Portland and/or Vancouver grow larger that Seattle proper.
InlandEmpire no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2012, 04:20 AM   #87
kathie robert
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 28
Likes (Received): 0

tejas for sale
pics

www.**********************************
kathie robert no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2012, 05:34 AM   #88
Capitol Hill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,680
Likes (Received): 880

Okay, I'll throw this out there. Who cares? I don't feel diminished in the least if Vancouver or Portland are larger than us. Detroit is also larger than us, but what does thatbget them. Vancouver is a beautiful, vibrant city that serves a purpose for it's nation that Seattle doesn't need to.

Portland also is a lovely city, but I'd rather have our economy right now than theirs.

I think of the bay are of California. San Jose is larger than San Francisco, but I believe more people think of San Francisco as the preeminent city of the region.
__________________
I always say that overindulgence is soooooooo underrated
Capitol Hill no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2012, 03:44 AM   #89
bgwah
honk!!!
 
bgwah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 2,084
Likes (Received): 155

As I pointed out earlier in the coffee shop thread, Seattle actually grew faster over the past five years.

It's apples and oranges of course, though. Seattle only has more people because it has a much larger land area than Vancouver.

It's the opposite for suburbs. Vancouver's suburbs are much larger in land area than ours are --- Surrey is 122 square miles, while Bellevue is only 31 square miles.
__________________

vrsprng liked this post
bgwah no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
population

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu