SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the should-really-be-in-space-or-undersea dept.
When Apple finishes its new $5 billion headquarters in Cupertino, California, the technorati will ooh and ahh over its otherworldly architecture, patting themselves on the back for yet another example of "innovation." Countless employees, tech bloggers, and design fanatics are already lauding the "futuristic" building and its many "groundbreaking" features. But few are aware that Apple's monumental project is already outdated, mimicking a half-century of stagnant suburban corporate campuses that isolated themselves—by design—from the communities their products were supposed to impact.
In the 1940s and '50s, when American corporations first flirted with a move to the 'burbs, CEOs realized that horizontal architecture immersed in a park-like buffer lent big business a sheen of wholesome goodness. The exodus was triggered, in part, by inroads the labor movement was making among blue-collar employees in cities. At the same time, the increasing diversity of urban populations meant it was getting harder and harder to maintain an all-white workforce. One by one, major companies headed out of town for greener pastures, luring desired employees into their gilded cages with the types of office perks familiar to any Googler.
Rockstar coders don't do suburbs?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @05:18AM
I lived in Denver, then Seattle, and now Denver again. Here are a few things I have observed.
Neither city has a particularly large black population. Denver is mostly white and Latino, Seattle is mostly white and Asian. Because of that neither city has experienced the race-related problems of cities such as Detroit, Baltimore, or St. Louis. Regardless of your position on WHY there are race-related problems, you have to admit that there ARE race-related problems. While "just don't have a lot of black people" is no kind of solution, it is an explanation.
Both cities' recent economic booms are primarily driven by technology. Much as industry was growing in the 50s, tech has been growing in the 21st century. People with high-paying jobs don't cause social problems, at least not directly.
Although Denver is not a "West coast" city, both do have the laid-back style associated with the West coast. There is just less anger and tension floating around in the air. Denver has gotten significantly worse about this over the past decade or two, but it is still a whole lot lower-key than cities in the North and East. Seattle is more passive-aggressive, but at least it's passive aggressive. When you don't believe everyone else is out to get you, you are less likely to cause trouble.
Both cities are of moderate size. The statistics are a little confused, especially for Seattle because the "metropolitan" area is considered to include Tacoma but Tacoma is really a totally separate thing. But neither city has much more than three million people in and around it. It is generally just easier to manage a small city than a large one.
This also means that there was enough spare capacity in the city to absorb some population growth. The price of a modest but clean and safe apartment in Denver has risen from about $500 per month 20 years ago to around $1000 per month now. A modest but clean and safe house will cost about $250K to $300K, also about twice as much as it would have 20 years ago. While this is a big rise, it's still affordable on a middle-class salary. You do not have anything like the housing pressures found in large cities. Seattle housing prices are about 50% more, but that is still manageable.
Because housing is lower-cost, it's harder to get trapped. If your neighborhood doesn't suit you, you can leave.
Both cities spent the 50s through the 70s generally being backwaters, especially with regard to manufacturing. Seattle had Boeing but not much else, and Denver never really had a lot of manufacturing (there is some, of course, but it was never a manufacturing-driven city). As a result they did not experience the large population migration of other cities (followed by manufacturing decline) resulting in large decaying urban areas. That said, both cities DID have some decaying areas, which brings me to:
Both cities, especially Denver, have had outstanding urban renewal programs. Denver did it by demolishing the worst dump of a neighborhood downtown and putting a baseball park there, and then surrounding it with related businesses. And it's close enough to downtown that people can walk, or take public transit, a short distance there to see the game after work. This contrasts to, say, Atlanta, which put its new baseball stadium in a bad neighborhood but did not properly integrate it into the city as a whole. Now it's far and it's still in a bad neighborhood. Now another run-down industrial neighborhood to the north is undergoing the same transition.
Both cities have quality public transit, although they have taken different approaches. Seattle public transit can take you *anywhere* and within a reasonable time frame. Denver's is focused more around park & rides and getting commuters efficiently downtown for work, while assuming you will have a car to take you on your personal business. Denver has one of the best light rail systems in the country, and it's continuing to expand. Both cities also have a strong bicycling culture. It's certainly possible to waste a lot of time in traffic in Denver, but if you plan carefully, you don't have to. Less time commuting means more time with your kids and less stress and better quality of life.
That said all is not milk and honey. Both cities do have an increasing homelessness problem. Although some have pointed the finger at housing prices, I don't think that's it, because a modest apartment in Denver is affordable even on minimum wage. And if you couldn't manage minimum wage before, you were probably homeless already. I think it's more a matter of having demolished all the vacant property and put condos on it. While this has, in the short term, helped hold housing prices down, it has also flushed the homeless out of their old areas and into the downtown area. Both Seattle and Denver now have substantial homeless camps. It's just that now they are in the middle of town where you can see them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @03:28PM
You've been out of Seattle too long. Your estimate of house prices is definitely low, unless you're including run-down places on the fringes.
If you include old condos and apartments, you might be closer. But an actual house? No.
As for Seattle's public transit, I've taken it. A lot. It can take you ... well, almost anywhere. But a reasonable time frame? Only if you're not in a hurry, and have something constructive to do while you're waiting. Obtaining a cheap motorcycle saved me hours every day compared to their buses.