Seattle-area retail discussion

[Bond James Bond]

Originally Posted by kevin_wk

That sucks! Beautiful natural scenery is getting destroyed! But it's not like eventually all the national forest will be smaller 2nd or 3rd gen. trees right?

Kind of ironic that national forests can be logged on. What is the point of the area being a national forest if it can be logged?

Kevin, maybe this will help.


^
The yellow areas are national parks. In national parks, no logging or development of any kind (except for some visitor-oriented stuff - roads, visitor centers, campgrounds and a few hotels, etc.) is allowed. No hunting or fishing is allowed.

The light green areas are national forests. These are *supposed* to be multiple-use areas. They allow logging on some parts, you can go hunting or fishing, you can go camping, some areas are leased to companies to develop ski resorts, some other areas they allow mining . . .

. . . and the dark green areas are "wilderness areas" within the national forests. In these areas there is no development allowed at all, not even roads. No logging or mining is allowed either. Though I think you can go hunting and fishing, and camping is definitely allowed.

But as you can see, the majority of the Cascades is in the light green area, which means they can log on them.

[-KwK345-]

Originally Posted by Bond James Bond

which means they can log on them.

That sucks. So little is protected. At least the trees are replanted.
So what is the point of calling an area a national forest?

[Bond James Bond]

Originally Posted by kevin_wk

That sucks. So little is protected. At least the trees are replanted.
So what is the point of calling an area a national forest?

Just because it's called "national"-something does not mean it's protected.

If it were totally protected they'd call it a "national park," not a "national forest."

[Bond James Bond]

Incidentally, if you're interested, here's a comparison of various "forest" areas in Washington state.

The most intensively logged areas are, of course, the areas owned by timber companies. For example, much of the southwest corner of Washington state is a big giant Weyerhauser tree farm. Here's what it looks like:
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v...8255&encType=1

In national forests, while logging is allowed, it is much less intensive.
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v...1940&encType=1

But in wilderness areas within the national forests, there is no logging at all:
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v...1940&encType=1

Same as national parks (this is part of North Cascades National Park):
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v...1940&encType=1

[Bond James Bond]

Oh yeah - and in some spots you can see a clear boundary between the protected areas and the non-protected areas.

Here's the boundary between Mt Rainier National Park and some Weyerhauser land:
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v...1940&encType=1

[mhays]

There's also protected "wilderness", which can be in a national forest.

[Bond James Bond]

Originally Posted by mhays

There's also protected "wilderness", which can be in a national forest.

I already said that.

[seattleist]

In the Pacific Northwest, trees (forests) are considered a natural resource.

Even the great environmentalists like Teddy Roosevelt, who helped plan the National Parks/National Forests/National Wilderness legislation, acknowledged that it was important to allow some economic activity on this land- but it is in the hands of the government, so logging companies split profits with them. No building is allowed in Ntl Wilderness, roads and other recreational facilities may be built on Ntl Park land, and Ntl Forest land allows for recreational facilities, roads, logging, and mining.

For example, in Washington State, money from the timber industry goes to building schools and prisons.

The checkerboard pattern you see from the sky of forested/clear cut land along the main rail corridor was from the time the transcontinental railroad was being built, and giving up that land to timber companies was a way to raise money to fund its construction.

Until very recently, Plum Creek and Weyerhaeuser, two timber companies, were some of the state's largest corporations, and are still among the top 15. Weyerhaeuser has also started building residential developments on its own former timber land as the Seattle metro area grows closer and closer to their territory. This is done through their Quadrant Homes division and can be seen at Redmond Ridge.

With careful management and selective logging, we can easily preserve our forests for future generations.

[Bond James Bond]

Well OK somehow we managed to go from talking about shopping centers to talking about forests. So let's get back on topic, as interesting as this diversion has been.

[-KwK345-]

Originally Posted by Bond James Bond

In national forests, while logging is allowed, it is much less intensive.

Well that's good

Originally Posted by seattleist

The checkerboard pattern you see from the sky of forested/clear cut land along the main rail corridor was from the time the transcontinental railroad was being built, and giving up that land to timber companies was a way to raise money to fund its construction.

So they used lumber for the railroad?

Originally Posted by Bond James Bond

Well OK somehow we managed to go from talking about shopping centers to talking about forests. So let's get back on topic, as interesting as this diversion has been.

What's the big deal about changing topics?

[taiwanesedrummer36]

Originally Posted by kevin_wk

Well that's good

So they used lumber for the railroad?

What's the big deal about changing topics?

The original intention for this thread is to talk about Seattle shopping centers, not for paranoid tree huggers to diss development. If it weren't for development, you wouldn't have a house to live in. Do you even live in a house?

[taiwanesedrummer36]

Onto new news (i've said that too many times)

What is the possibility that a new regional shopping mall will be built? I mean, the Seattle metropolitan area is expanding quickly, adding new people and extending development further from Seattle. New malls could be built in Marysville, Lake Stevens, Monroe, Issaquah, Sumner, Bonney Lake, and other places I don't know the name(s) of.

[seattleist]

I think that traditional malls work against the goals of density and urban sustainability. This conversation has also been very unproductive- I have given what I think was very insightful information that explained forestry related to development, and the evolution of area shopping malls, but I guess that those unfamiliar with Seattle and its unique ways can just not comprehend.

I don't understand why we would have a forum to talk about the possibilities of building shopping centers in far-flung places like Bonney Lake and Marysville when it is exactly this sort of sprawling development that skyscrapers and urban living (the focus of the website) are trying to end.

This should be kept a forum to talk about real development and news, not far-fetched, hypothetical transit solutions; or pipe dream man-made lakes built over I-5 in downtown, or talk of mega-malls in Asia.

[Bond James Bond]

Originally Posted by taiwanesedrummer36

Onto new news (i've said that too many times)

What is the possibility that a new regional shopping mall will be built? I mean, the Seattle metropolitan area is expanding quickly, adding new people and extending development further from Seattle. New malls could be built in Marysville, Lake Stevens, Monroe, Issaquah, Sumner, Bonney Lake, and other places I don't know the name(s) of.

They're already starting to build a new shopping center at Issaquah Highlands. But I couldn't imagine them building an acutal mall in Issaquah, there's not really enough population, yet. I can't think of a big-enough spot to put it anyway.

Not sure about the other locations.

[taiwanesedrummer36]

Originally Posted by seattleist

I think that traditional malls work against the goals of density and urban sustainability. This conversation has also been very unproductive- I have given what I think was very insightful information that explained forestry related to development, and the evolution of area shopping malls, but I guess that those unfamiliar with Seattle and its unique ways can just not comprehend.

I don't understand why we would have a forum to talk about the possibilities of building shopping centers in far-flung places like Bonney Lake and Marysville when it is exactly this sort of sprawling development that skyscrapers and urban living (the focus of the website) are trying to end.

This should be kept a forum to talk about real development and news, not far-fetched, hypothetical transit solutions; or pipe dream man-made lakes built over I-5 in downtown, or talk of mega-malls in Asia.

Are you making fun of me? I only wanted to ask people their opinions.

[-KwK345-]

Are trees cut down for development used for timber?

So logging is way less intensive in natl. forests?

Is the shopping mall thing the same for Portland, OR?

[taiwanesedrummer36]

Originally Posted by kevin_wk

Are trees cut down for development used for timber?

So logging is way less intensive in natl. forests?

Is the shopping mall thing the same for Portland, OR?

Can someone shut this retard up?

If you would like to talk about the environment, why don't you go post you thoughts on another forum that DOESN'T talk about cutting trees for development? Seriously, let's just keep this forum to talking about real shopping centers in the Seattle metropolitan area.

By the way, does anyone have pictures of Renton's The Landing or the expansion of Southcenter Mall? From the websites I have looked at, The Landing seems very impressive (compared to Mill Creek Town Center) and the new parking garage at Southcenter is absolutely unique (in a good way). But then, I only pass by those areas on I-5 or I-405, so I can't get a very good view.

[-KwK345-]

Originally Posted by taiwanesedrummer36

Can someone shut this retard up?

Go to hell, butthole.

[Bond James Bond]

No more talk about trees in this thread! K?

The next comment about trees will be deleted. If you want to talk about trees, start another thread.

[taiwanesedrummer36]

Originally Posted by Bond James Bond

They're already starting to build a new shopping center at Issaquah Highlands. But I couldn't imagine them building an acutal mall in Issaquah, there's not really enough population, yet. I can't think of a big-enough spot to put it anyway.

Not sure about the other locations.

Issaquah Highlands technically isn't a mall; it's just an urban village, which I really don't consider to be a mall of any kind. Oh well, bye bye shopping malls, hello urban villages!