To Those Opposed to Density and Govt. Funded Healthcare

Aww, rats.

9 Responses to “To Those Opposed to Density and Govt. Funded Healthcare”

  1. Amityville

    Why Seattle Won’t Grow as Fast as Planners Say

    The common claim that the city’s population will double by 2040 is bogus. Historic factors and our own failures at building to a broad market are the main reasons.

    Advertisers understand that if a message is repeated often enough it will sell. Repeat a slogan frequently and it is believed. Repeated messages are inherent in advertising, religion, and politics.

    Case in point: Not long ago a representative from Futurewise and a realtor said that Seattle’s population will double by 2040. I heard the same number quoted again at recent public hearing made by an architect builder. At a candidates’ forum several City Council candidates said the same thing, “we must get ready for growth because they’re coming”! “People are coming” is repeated like the mantra in a religious ceremony.

    If Seattle’s current population does double we would reach 1.2 million. Only a fool would fail to prepare for such a population explosion. Surely urban planners and politicians are right on top of all the numbers and wouldn’t mislead us? What could they possibly gain by misrepresenting what could happen?

    Yet those numbers are almost certainly wrong.

    Full story at:

    http://crosscut.com/2009/08/11/seattle/19155/

  2. Amityville

    Why Seattle won’t grow as fast as planners say

    Case in point: Not long ago a representative from Futurewise and a realtor said that Seattle’s population will double by 2040. I heard the same number quoted again at recent public hearing made by an architect builder. At a candidates’ forum several City Council candidates said the same thing, “we must get ready for growth because they’re coming”! “People are coming” is repeated like the mantra in a religious ceremony.

    If Seattle’s current population does double we would reach 1.2 million. Only a fool would fail to prepare for such a population explosion. Surely urban planners and politicians are right on top of all the numbers and wouldn’t mislead us? What could they possibly gain by misrepresenting what could happen?

    Yet those numbers are almost certainly wrong.

    full story at:
    http://crosscut.com/2009/08/11/seattle/19155/

  3. Amityville

    “Why Seattle won’t grow as fast as planners say”

    http://crosscut.com/2009/08/11/seattle/19155/

  4. Sivalinga

    “Did you see that? That little rat called me a LIAR!”

  5. dan cortland

    @1: Perhaps dan will invite Dorsol Plants, who apparently favors further upzoning in the station area overlays, to respond to the numbers in that piece.

  6. dang

    @1 – By the same selective and simplistic metric, Seattle grew at an average rate of 6% per year over its first century. If we sustain that rate, our population will double by 2022. And again by 2040. We shouldn’t be preparing for 1.2MM–we should be preparing for 2.4MM!!

    Now is what I am saying an accurate and valid interpretation of the data at hand? Perhaps, though greatly simplified, highly selective and knowingly ignoring any and all external factors (I’m still drinking my coffee so I am not capable of much more at the moment), but much like the author of the linked article. The thing is, Seattle’s population hasn’t been “steady and moderate” especially over the period Kammerer selected.

    In fact the period selected is hugely suspect–it happens to start at Seattle’s high water mark before its precipitous fall in the 80s and rebound through the present. It ignores any role the explosion of suburbs and something called Boeing had in “moderating” Seattle’s growth during the selected period. It ignores current nationwide urban growth trends. And most importantly, it ignores the growth that’s occurred most recently in Seattle. Why not select 1980 as the starting point, which actually serves as a better indicator of current growth trends? Since 1980, Seattle’s grown by 108,000 people. That’s nearly 2.5 times the number of people in just over half the time that Kammerer cites.

    The other big hole I see in Kammerer’s “argument” is the omission Seattle’s preeminence as the region’s job center, which will play a bigger role in determining where people will locate within the region than just arbitrarily picking “roughly a third of the number.” I don’t have time at the moment to dig any deeper, but I’m sure someone else will.

  7. dorsal finn

    @4,
    what about 450 years ago? Seattle’s population grew by over 100%. In 2450 we will be twice as big? I get it!
    Why not start yesterday? or the day before? What’s the point, really? All can be argued pretty darn well. I get it!

  8. dang

    @5-Did you read my entire post? All can not be argued pretty darn well. All can be argued, sure. You can make a ridiculous claim. You can back it with data. But it’s the interpretation of the data that lends an argument credibility or not. To make a meaningful claim, back it with meaningful information.

    So why not examine Seattle’s growth over a period that would allow you to actually infer growth trends? Why choose to examine Seattle’s growth starting from 1960 versus, 1950 or 1970 or 1980? Well, for Kammerer, its because 1960 supports his argument better than using 1980. 1980 is meaningful because it marks the point when Seattle’s population (per the census) bottomed out and started the rebound that continues to this day.

  9. Kathryn

    Hold onto your hats. Washington State tends to tail the national economy. I think it would be nice if we see lots more people sharing houses, renting out rooms to make ends meet, and creating more community. That’s how I remember it in the 70s…

Leave a Reply