1. I love the Sound Transit fastasy of multiplying density at train stations. Can you imagine how they would put 2000, much less their anticipated 50,000 at..... the Northgate Mall?

Posted by swatter at February 8, 2010 09:48 AM

2. FAKE

your logic is "seattle resident = environmentalist" so that makes you one as well right Stefan.

View nimbys have existed since the dawn of time.

Posted by meanie at February 8, 2010 10:36 AM

3. To disallow taller buildings within a City is Ridiculous! For a City to be viable, it must accommodate its Citizenry. To do anything less is to Suffocate the convenience and growth of the City. A City needs to optimize the use of its space. That means, to reduce population spread by allowing convenient housing/accommodations within the City along with a small commute to work and other areas of the City. There is such a thing as City Dwellers. Let those people who love Cities, live in their desired high density paradise. In order to accommodate them, let them have the opportunity to do so in the High Rises that modern technology allows.

Posted by Daniel at February 8, 2010 10:47 AM

4. Density is great until the terrorist bomb, or the Richter-8 earthquake, or the new uncheckable virus, or the leftist pogrom against dissidents.

Posted by Insufficiently Sensitive at February 8, 2010 12:06 PM

5. I have no issue with density. If people want to live in boxes, let them. I lived in a high rise condo when I was young and single and enjoyed it most of the time, other times, not so much.

People who gripe about views are nothing new, and they are no less annoying now than they ever were. Unless your view is guaranteed in your property deed, your opinion matters not. Move if you don't like it.

Posted by Palouse at February 8, 2010 01:15 PM

6. Leftists have always enjoyed living in soul-killing Stalinist towers.

Posted by Tomas de Torquemada at February 8, 2010 05:05 PM

7. Light Rail will prove to be unsustainable - not only here but over much of the USA, not to mention the high speed trains Obamy is trying to fund - such an economic retard. The population density is way to low for it to break even, but instead it will continue to plunge into deeper debt and eventually have to be shut down for lack of sufficient ridership.

Maybe in 150-200 years (by 2200 or so - if this planet is still alive) will Light Rail be a worthwhile investment.

Posted by KDS at February 8, 2010 08:41 PM

8. Brian Derdowski was the first elected official who based his entire career on confusing NIMBYism with environmentalism. And he was a Republican.

Swatter @1: are you saying that 50k will need to live at the Northgate Mall in order that they use the train there? Are you serious? Or clueless?

Posted by Gramps at February 9, 2010 08:30 AM

9. KDS: where did you come up with those markers for density justifying rail spending? Make them up? Or, is there a formula I'm not aware of?

And Tomas de Torquemada: "soul-killing Stalinist towers?". That was funny. I'm going to use that, if you don't mind. I wonder if there's a flip version; I mean, for city people who fear rural living.

Posted by Gramps at February 9, 2010 08:43 AM

10. Gramps - Look at the ridership stats for ST. An average of 16K passengers daily. What is your point ? ST is heavily subsidized in case you did not understand and am dubious if you knew that.

Have you bothered to look up how much we owe ST as a repayment for the debt encurred to build light rail here going out 20, 30, 50 years and beyond ? (please include your source) When you do, bring your rebuttal back and we'll attempt to have a civil discourse.

Posted by KDS at February 9, 2010 09:03 AM

11. Gramps or is it Grumps, I was just reporting what the Transit employee traffic troll was mentioning. There were quite spirited technical debates on SP at one time.

Seems the techies at ST were anticipating these huge mega population centers surrounding the bus stations. Seemed to me that most of these areas were highly developed already and would be impossible to get the densities the techies wanted.

And these densities were required to make light rail payoff.

So, don't shoot the messenger as I was just adding what we were told previously.

Posted by swatter at February 9, 2010 09:32 AM

12. Sure glad to see you more active on this blog, Shark!

Posted by marge at February 9, 2010 01:47 PM

13. All those Seattle liberals keep voting for more taxes, more trains, more density. Let them have it. It's their city and why should anyone try to save them from themselves?

If you don't like highrises and light rail in your neighborhood, then you should move. It's a wast

Posted by Clean House at February 9, 2010 07:28 PM

14. All those Seattle liberals keep voting for more taxes, more trains, more density. Let them have it. It's their city and why should anyone try to save them from themselves?

If you don't like highrises and light rail in your neighborhood, then you should move. It's a wast

Posted by Clean House at February 9, 2010 07:28 PM

15. All those Seattle liberals keep voting for more taxes, more trains, more density. Let them have it. It's their city and why should anyone try to save them from themselves?

If you don't like highrises and light rail in your neighborhood, then you should move. It's a wast

Posted by Clean House at February 9, 2010 07:28 PM

16. Sorry that the previous post was sent inadvertently.

Meant to say that it's a waste of time, money and energy to fight in the courts. You always have the option to move if you don't like high density and high taxes.

Posted by Clean House at February 9, 2010 07:32 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?