I live in NYC currently. Besides living in Seattle (2 yrs) I've also lived in San Francisco, Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Waterloo, and London (Ontario, not the cool one).
I've seen a lot worse than what happens in downtown Seattle, and yeah, SF has it a lot worse. A lot worse.
I also have an intense dislike for the urban one-upsmanship that seems uniquely American in my experience. As if having seen/lived through worse crime is a badge of honor, and that people living/working in elevated crime areas (just less elevated than some other places) should just suck it up. SF is the absolute worst in this regard (far worse than Seattle), where any criticism about the state of poverty and crime in the city elicits a "hurrr go back to the midwest then hurrrr".
A spade is a spade, even if there are bigger spades out there. The fact that Seattle's urban planning cockups are less severe than San Francisco's should come only as a very mild, very cold comfort.
Part of Seattle's problem - one that I touched on but didn't expand on earlier - is that it feels less safe than it actually is. When it comes to quality of life though, perception of safety is equally important as actual safety. The vast stretches of nothingness at night presents a huge perception problem that I don't think can be conquered by simply telling people "yeah, that nearly empty street with no businesses and a lot aggressive panhandlers making catcalls at you isn't so bad, statistically your odds are good!".
Seattle isn't that dangerous of a city - I made that clear earlier. The downtown is mildly sketchy, the homelessness problem is acute but not as bad as some other places, but the complete void that fills downtown after work is a huge problem that prevents any major progress on this front.
By the way, Seattle is a pedestrian ghost town. Even Pioneer Square on a busy night is ghostly compared to every other urban core in North America I've ever been to. Downtown Seattle (qualified as Olive/Pine all the way down to Yesler or Jackson, and west of I-5) is completely f'ing deserted at night.
> I also have an intense dislike for the urban one-upsmanship that seems uniquely American in my experience.
That's fair, but you're talking about normative comparisons, and I'm talking about relative ones. I think relative comparisons are more useful in a country that, all things considered, has pretty safe cities. I don't mean to dismiss all of Seattle's problems, but it helps give perspective.
> Part of Seattle's problem - one that I touched on but didn't expand on earlier - is that it feels less safe than it actually is.
That's fair.
> Seattle is a pedestrian ghost town.
No, it's not. Downtown is, yes, but Seattle as a whole has many options for a pedestrian's nightlife. Capitol Hill is one of them, and it's an easy walk from downtown even.
I think that goes back to my last point. I just don't perceive the negatives of Seattle's "urban planning cockups" in nearly as dramatic of fashion.
I'm not from here, I'm not a homer. I just find much fewer problems here than I have anywhere else. I know you don't like relative comparisons, but when choosing a place to live relative comparisons are my most helpful tool.
IMO relative comparisons are misplaced here. I'm talking about Seattle's problems, as they pertain to Seattle residents - that SF or Atlanta has it worse only is a factoid mainly tossed around to try and minimize the problem or suggest inaction. I am not suggesting that Seattle, on the whole is a bad place to live - please don't draw the wrong conclusion. I am suggesting that the city has deep planning problems and despite its relative peace compared to the rest of the country, needs to aggressively address them.
Seattle's downtown core is horribly planned, in a pattern that is sadly typical of American urban cores post white-flight. Its urban planning awfulness is hardly unique to itself, and like every other city that employed the disastrously myopic single-use zoning strategy, it needs to change.
Or at least, not continue - but before I left Seattle I saw the exact same pattern in Belltown, South Lake Union, and Capitol Hill. The failure to learn from the failure of downtown Seattle IMO threatens to turn perfectly fine neighborhoods into empty, unfriendly, unpleasant shells. Every point I mentioned - large full-block developments, insufficient requirements for retail frontage, and little planning around pedestrian dead zones - is demonstrated in new developments stretching out of downtown.
Note that I am not anti-gentrification or anti-development. I support building upwards and increased density. I support urban renewal. But the developmental policy and requirements that have been the city's norm for decades supports buildings that serve to enlarge the "dead zone". The city - and its voter base - has evidently not learned its lesson, or hasn't ever been to a long-term successful urban neighborhood. Now is not the time to compare yourself to crime hotspots like SF and Detroit and feel good about yourself. There is a problem, and it needs fixing, even if it isn't the same scale of a problem like San Francisco's gigantic urban fuckup.
Well I appreciate your perspective, and will think about as I move about the city and decide where I'm going to five years from now. I do very much disagree on the value of relative comparisons though.
Ultimately, I just don't see nearly the extent of "urban fuckup" as you do even in normative terms, which is perhaps why the voters you admonish haven't responded as you think they should. I won't forget your comments though, and perhaps a in a year's time I'll be singing a different tune.
I've seen a lot worse than what happens in downtown Seattle, and yeah, SF has it a lot worse. A lot worse.
I also have an intense dislike for the urban one-upsmanship that seems uniquely American in my experience. As if having seen/lived through worse crime is a badge of honor, and that people living/working in elevated crime areas (just less elevated than some other places) should just suck it up. SF is the absolute worst in this regard (far worse than Seattle), where any criticism about the state of poverty and crime in the city elicits a "hurrr go back to the midwest then hurrrr".
A spade is a spade, even if there are bigger spades out there. The fact that Seattle's urban planning cockups are less severe than San Francisco's should come only as a very mild, very cold comfort.
Part of Seattle's problem - one that I touched on but didn't expand on earlier - is that it feels less safe than it actually is. When it comes to quality of life though, perception of safety is equally important as actual safety. The vast stretches of nothingness at night presents a huge perception problem that I don't think can be conquered by simply telling people "yeah, that nearly empty street with no businesses and a lot aggressive panhandlers making catcalls at you isn't so bad, statistically your odds are good!".
Seattle isn't that dangerous of a city - I made that clear earlier. The downtown is mildly sketchy, the homelessness problem is acute but not as bad as some other places, but the complete void that fills downtown after work is a huge problem that prevents any major progress on this front.
By the way, Seattle is a pedestrian ghost town. Even Pioneer Square on a busy night is ghostly compared to every other urban core in North America I've ever been to. Downtown Seattle (qualified as Olive/Pine all the way down to Yesler or Jackson, and west of I-5) is completely f'ing deserted at night.