Why Believe In Cities?

The beauty of being one's own publisher/editor is that one (me!) doesn't have to back up one's ideas. While I'm sure my opinion has been influenced by things I've read and conversations I've had, I'm not going to look for and cite data today. But, I've had two conversations over the past day about cities, in particular metro-Seattle, in which I've been called upon to speculate on the long-term viability of Seattle. My thoughts:
Summary:
-I'm bullish.
Why:
-Cities are "greener" than suburbs
-New suburbs are easier to build than new cities. So, when "flight" occurs, it tends to flow either back into cities, or out to new suburbs.
-Traffic (more traffic makes living closer even more appealing)
-Proximity to California (as California gets more expensive, and Californians look for a different pace/better access to nature, they look up and down the coast. North seems the most appealing direction, and Seattle is larger city than Portland).

I think the only real fly-in-the-soup for cities is a concern for personal safety, borne either of fears of terrorism, pandemic, etc. Those issues are so large and hard to deal with, that they are pretty easy to get over.

The cities have it! And, Seattle has it in spades.

Posted on June 22, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Michael Doyle | Category: Uncategorized | Tagged , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *