?

Log in

No account? Create an account
casual synchronicity
Linkage: Manage Links | LJSeek | Joule | IMEEM | Piperka Webcomics | Space Needle Webcam | Chore Wars | FriendFeed Syndcates: | Del.icio.us | Last.FM December 2010
 
 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
 
aaangyl
aaangyl
YES WE CAN HAS!
Wed, Jun. 18th, 2008 08:35 am
// Gumption. /

4CommentReplyFlag


aaangyl
aaangyl
YES WE CAN HAS!
Wed, Jun. 18th, 2008 04:27 pm (UTC)

I think it's called "progress". ;)

But, this is something of a hot issue throughout the history of Seattle. Developers want to push on with bigger, better, more density, and occasionally people hold out. There are some amazing photos from the regrading days of hold-out houses up on huge dangerous peaks with all the land around them torn down and regraded. On the other side of the equation, though, the greater density DOES help reduce the city's carbon footprints, and helps people afford housing in markets that growth has priced them out of. I just wish a) the vesting law would get killed - that allows developers to abide by the planning laws that were in effect when they got their permit, even if it was 30 years ago and the codes have changed dramatically since then b) the developers would set aside a little money for making their mammoth structures somewhat attractive or visually interesting, and add some green, like roof gardens or courtyard parks or whatever. I chafe at the notion that progress and efficiency must also be ASS-UGLY.


ReplyThread Parent