This, right here, is what drives me the most nuts about all of the complaining. Of the handful of native-born Seattleites I know (yes, yes, anecdotes don't make data, I get it), they're split about half and half between "meh, who gives a rat's butt" and "holy shit my family is rich for the next nine generations because my parents got divorced in the mid-90s and both of them bought a house in [Ballard | LQA | Capitol Hill | Magnolia] and they've said that's my inheritance."

There's a poster on reddit who typifies this to a T. He regularly whines and moans about the construction, traffic, noise, and people around his place on Capitol Hill. The thing is, in his rants, he gripes about how things were so much different when he moved here 20ish years ago. He refuses to see that HE was also a "dirty gentrifier" considering people didn't move to the Hill in 1997 who weren't looking for that hippy cool vibe and bar doors you could get all kinds of exotic diseases by simply walking past.

Cities change. They always change. Sometimes they change in ways a particular person likes; sometimes they don't. But this whole business of "good Seattle" is just crap.

> everyone in the region knows the "new Seattle" is Tacoma

I've been to Tacoma several times. They can keep it.

Sometimes I think people on the west coast seem to think of a city as a place that's supposed to stay the same forever ("forever" being defined as starting at about 1960).

The lower east side was a German neighborhood, then a Jewish, Italian and Ukrainian. Dutch before that, of course. Then the Italians moved to Little Italy. It mostly became a Hispanic neighborhood. The Ukrainians mostly moved away and the Jews mostly moved away. The north of the neighborhood sort of became Japanese and Chinatown sort of started encroaching on the south and Little Italy slowly declined. Artists and then eventually giant condos started moving in. As you walk around you can still see marks left behind by the groups that departed many decades ago. For example, a few buildings still have prominent German inscriptions on the front, from Little Germany's high point in the 1880s – the Germans were gone by around 1900. You have no doubt whatsoever that your turn there is temporary. A city is a place of constant change. You are every bit a part of that constant change. But the city will slowly move on without you.

Don't expect anything to last longer than 10 years.

No, forever is defined as "the day after _I_ moved in"

But that’s why we have to be very clear about rejecting the complaints this mood inspires. I don’t want to tell people they’re wrong to have these feelings. They are perfectly valid and normal feelings. But those feelings don’t outweigh the benefits of allowing the functional and unavoidable change that happens in neighborhoods over time.

And when you really start to dig deep into the types of things people want to do to stop this change, you end up with well-meaning, but ultimately counterproductive interventions. And that’s the nice way to say it; much of what incumbents want to do to prevent the free flow of people into and out of neighborhoods is positively dystopian.

I am sure there are reasonable things we can do to help more people afford and benefit from booming cities like Seattle, New York, and San Francisco. (For starters, we can build more housing!) But the language of gentrification is such that one new luxury tower in a sea of affordable housing is now opposed in cities like Cleveland and St. Louis on the grounds that it will change its immediate neighborhood.

That sort of stuff isn’t just nonsense; it’s harmful nonsense.

It turns out that it's really hard to be against communities democratically controlling their own destinies and not look like a monster. Local governments and the policies they make to preserve their built environments are about as pure and non-corrupt as democracy gets.

Does any place in America have high-density market-rate construction because the community genuinely supports it? Far as I can tell, it's only possible to have a city in America when the government is sufficiently corrupt / community is sufficiently disempowered that developers can cram it through.

I'm grateful for these places. I'm happy to live in one. But you have to recognize that cities in America are only possible to the extent that America is corporatist and undemocratic. Any strengthening of our communities, our democracy, or local government has always and will always reinforce the overwhelming majority support for sprawl and "fuck you, I got mine."

I know what I sound like when I get deep enough into a rant about the way in which Americans fetishize local control. But I still think that what I am proposing would generate the best outcomes for the most number of people.

In my experience this isn't a west coast thing - it's just the cities here are "newer" (compared to the east coast) so haven't quite graduated to the density and usage characteristics that modern large metropolises have.

I find that what you're describing is the standard Boomer longing for the "good old days" applied to the cities they probably showed up in during their 20s. Or how they pictured them anyhow.

Usually they're the worst NIMBYs.

It’s a joke, but it’s also true: my high street had two pubs that had been around from the 1700s, a tourist information center that’s from the 1500s, and - in the middle of the shopping center - a ruined chapel from the 1130s.

That some places here are all excited about being founded in the 1850s took some adjusting to when I first moved. For me that was the age of my friends small houses...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OV2PbKpsMRk

Now, you have displacement, but few people feel prosperous. You also have old signals of nice neighborhoods disappear as people don’t marry, push back having babies, and utilize daycare. There is zero new construction, zero, that is with reach of a median income family. The old ethnic neighborhood where you knew your neighbor is dead. But we have that image burned into our consciousness.

The Seattle subreddits (both of them, because drama) are particularly toxic as far as city forums go. Not exactly sure why, but there seem to be a lot of people who have nothing better to do than post angry rants all day. I had to unsubscribe.

It’s mostly accepted. Growing up we learn to ignore it, avoid these people, or enjoy getting caught up in sterile discussions.

Maybe if you are talking about which vibe is your favorite. But cities can definitely go the wrong direction on quality of life, with increased pollution, decreased walkability/bikeability, safety, access to nature, and so on. And that might be objectively bad/good.

I echo this sentiment here in Boise, Idaho, and we seem to be in the middle of this change. Companies all over being recruited into the Treasure Valley, and the cities here are dealing with these growing pains of being an attractive place to live that has jobs and low unemployment.

Some of the "locals", however, seem to think we can have economic prosperity and growth without the negative externalities that sometimes accompany it. I think the "locals" would be happier in small towns a few hours outside of Boise, where they're not really changing (although brain drain is a bit of an issue in rural America).

Living in a growing city is much better than living in a dying city. Ask Detroit or the hundreds of them in middle America. They'd swap in a hot minute.

Then there are forgotten cities, that have good employment and affordable housing, but aren't as sexy such as Minneapolis, Raleigh-Durham, maybe even Chicago.

I'm currently in LA and the exodus is real. It sucks for people that grew up here since the wages aren't great in most jobs, housing is out of reach, and they want to be around their family.

Seattle has been dying before, particularly when it was more dependent on Boeing who would go bust every 10 or so years. Seattle will probably die and be reborn again.

Thing is, I remember the 'old' version of the city. Almost zero tech jobs. One of the current most popular places for hanging out, restaurants and bars was a place you never went after dark (or much in the day time). Infrastructure was much worse (one of the more popular places to live now had a sulfur problem with the water so it smelled and tasted horribly). I understand the frustration with growth, but I like the new version city much better than old, and hope it continues.

  Almost zero tech jobs. 

I moved here in 99, part of an influx at Microsoft. I interviewed there on a Friday, stayed the weekend to get familiar with the area, and flew out on Sunday. As we are leaving, my wife and I sat at the airport gate wondering why we would ever want to sell our full two-story, 2800-sq-ft brick Tudor in our hip east coast neighborhood to pay $300 more per month for an 1100-sq-ft 2br apartment in Seattle. Three other couples within listening distance were doing the exact same thing, with a few of the ladies in tears. Everyone was struggling with the same thing -- a job offer in hand (I got mine same day), but how can we ever afford to live there?

We decided to come to Seattle. We bought a house in the confluence of Wallingford, GreenLake, and the U-District. On a bus, it was 15-20 minutes downtown -- and that includes stopping in Fremont and getting stuck at the bridge every day. The south side was much more sketchy (our impression) and we didn't really know anyone who recommended that side of town.

Nowadays, the commute is much longer and the houses around us are all much nicer. Few can afford to move, so everyone is remodeling their existing house.

This notion of "old Seattle" being wiped out has been happening for a long time, and it didn't start with Amazon -- they're just the latest flavor to blame.

As somebody who's lived there my whole life, :(

I know we were just ranked the most violent city in Washington (or something) but tbh it's never _felt_ that way.