I like the article Knute, but I have to nitpick: the "big city" attitude is not new. Rememeber "New York Alki" and our founders, who Bill Speidel so aptly named "Sons of the Profits"? We also did go in for some shortsighted urban renewal, too, including the razing of the ethnic Cascade neighborhood for I-5/Mercer and UW's southwest campus land grab. Sad, but truly not Cabrini Green.

seeing seattle from madison park is like seeing california from carmel-by-the-sea! only high class pooches are taken for a walk by the beach there. no ghettos? where has mossback been? mossback needs to take his weight for a walk down south seattle all the way to georgetown. right now of course it is difficult to gripe with the second great summer in 15 years! the forest fires across the cascades can't be far off!

Good contrast to this weekend. The Mayor claimed disproportionate credit, as did train riding "VIPs" who had nothing to do with bringing the rails to fruition.

I agree with Berger that all this rhetoric about Seattle "growing up" is a bit overblown, but "wanking over pictures" of New York and Chicago????

Come on!!! Even for the normally tasteless Berger, that is a bit too childish and over-the-top analogy for this website.

Nickels, like any politician, is taking excessive credit for a major project in an election year. What is really wonderful for this region is that our collective leaders had the tenacity to see Light Rail through to this weekend's opening. But Berger will use any opportunity, any foil, to hijack Seattle's glorious past for his own editorial agenda and harrumph about the present.

Light rail isn't about being grown up or copying any other city. It is about bringing something that works and incorporating it into an increasingly populated metropolitan region, precisely so that we can preserve the unique flavor that is the Puget Sound region.

All cities compare themselves. Seattle is pretty typical in this regard.

Vancouver slams themselves a remarkable amount. They say "sure we're the garden of eden, but our lack of (X) is a serious problem."

Portland's papers seem willing to go to any lengths to avoid talking about Seattle, except to cast their (excellent) city in a favorable light. Sort of like a younger or smaller sibling who quietly excels in some admirable ways, but gets less notoriety except from teachers, and resents it.

The Denver Post routinely writes headlines like "Company opens office; Denver to be in national spotlight." Their paper, at least, is downright obsessive about Denver's "profile."

LA and SF compare themselves constantly regarding who's the real leader of the West Coast. As LA grows, Chicago appears to be borderline obsessive about being the true "second city."

Back to Seattle. I rarely hear "world class" as a reason to do something. Politicians might use it at ribbon cuttings, but it's just a convenient term when the speakers' purpose is to inspire as well as introduce a new piece of equipment.

Seattle is changing. Skip stays ever the same.

Does anyone remember the mayoral race Nickels ran against Sidran? Nickels portrayed himself as a consensus-driven guy who wanted to run things "the Seattle way" - making decisions only after extensive input from every possible stakeholder, and trying not to hurt any feelings. In contrast, his opponent was portrayed as a strongman type who was unafraid to push people around to get his way.

I wanted Sidran to win because you can't run a major city with a namby-pamby "everyone gets to have a say in how we do everything" approach. Despite Nickels' various mistakes (i.e. plowing), I'm glad his governing style turned out to be more like Sidran's than the one he promised.

I live in unincorporated Snohomish County. I have no runner in the Seattle Mayor's race. I'm not a big Nickels fan. There are more pot holes in my brother-in-laws Wedgewood neighborhood roads than at Warm Beach. The millionsto be spent on 'the Mercer mess' to achieve absolutely nothing but a beautification project is staggering.

Unfortunately, except for Licata, there is no adult supervision on your City Council.

In politics, you can't beat somebody with 'nobody'. So far, the opposition is toothless and ineffective. Neither Berger nor any of the candidates has an issue that matters. Low-grade carping does not win elections.

Right now, I'd say the odds favor Nichols winning another term.

Rosss Kane

Skip---As we discussed---at least a light rail system (flawed as this may be)is finally up and running. Once the self-congragulations die down the system may well turn out to be an important urban asset and turning point in how Seattle grows---let's see how the next 2 or 3 years of light rail use and related commuting, working and neighborhood growth shakes out.

I don’t understand why people keep calling Nickels a forceful, tough guy mayor? Tough leadership is serving a broad section of your constituency in a fair, even handed way even when they all have different agendas. But it’s not being tough when you choose to sell out to a few powerful special interests who hand you a “to do” list that becomes the platform for your tenure.

The people who confuse this kind of leadership with being tough are the same people who think sophistication is being rude to a waitress.

No incumbents…how hard can it be?

Seattle has always compared itself to other cities, as joshuadf mentioned the original settlement's name was "New York Before Long". But there was a difference in attitude.

I love the Seattle Evening Press article which was reprinted in the New York Times on September 8, 1889 as "Seattle Booms Herself." It doesn't just say that Seattle's going to be a big city someday like Chicago, New York, St. Louis, and Washington, DC. There's a clear understanding of what differentiates Seattle from those cities, and a sense of purpose for the citizens in grabbing an open opportunity. The article seeps energy and confidence like water from a slumping hillside, something that seems missing in our second-guessing civic discourse today.

Skip coulda just saved us all a bunch of time, and stated what makes him such a has-been / light rail critic: Mossback doesn't WANT Seattle to 'grow up'.

Do you really think car-obsessed Lesser Seattle would spend so much time assailing real mass transit if they thought it wouldn't be effective?

Skip's following of neighborhood 'activists' and defenders of cul de sac living hate the train for its transformative powers.

It's funny they will admit that, while King of the NIMBYs Mossback won't.

Instead, he just nuances the subject to death. It's almost painful to watch.

This story is not about the pros and cons of light rail. Seattle has a light rail system now. That's a fact. As Kenan Block says, I hope we make the best of it. I've long been of two minds about it. I even voted for it a time or two. But I was disillusioned by the execution and cost. Nevertheless, I'm eager, as I said in this column, to see how it is integrated into the city fabric. This story is about the values of Seattle, and how those values shape the city. They are the crucial thing in any light-rail driven transformation. I spent a chunk of today riding the line and checking out some stations. No question: it's a great ride. I'll be writing about it.

The trouble with Seattle mayors (remember Schell?) is that they yearn to strut across a larger stage than the one Seattle affords. They are so eager for national recognition that they forget why they were elected in the first place. We have the light rail, which I applaud, but what about the rest? The streets are a mess, our relations with the rest of the state are terrible, parents fret about sending their kids to Seattle schools, a gang and juvenile crime problem has been allowed to fester for the last two years.... never mind the snow fiasco. How often have we had to hear that dreaded phrase "world class"? It means much more than a shiny train or a profile in Vanity Fair.

I forgot one of the epic "comparison" debates happening now. A couple provincial semi-known cities that aren't sure of themselves yet -- New York and London. Each lays loud claim on being the "financial capital." Actually they each have a high opinion of themselves, and don't like playing second fiddle to the other. Finance is simply the largest of numerous aspects they debate.

Well, the joke's on them because it's going to be Shanghai.

"What could be less grown up than a city constantly comparing itself with its others"

Knute, I think pulling your head out of the moss and learning from the world around you is grown up. Much more so than the provinciality and entitlement of the "I was here first, so screw everyone else" crowd.

What a sour bit of backward bullshit!

If Seattle's an adolescent, Knute, then you're a permanently a child, always wanting the comforts of routine and repetition and always suspicious of any change that happened after about 1955. Get over yourself. The City has moved on, and Mossback's reactions to change are not only irrelevant, they're downright antique.

One aspect of Seattle’s civic culture which I have always admired is the extent to which its citizens are willing to critically analyze their city. Throughout history Seattle has consistently struggled to become the next big thing, believing that success and world class status are just over the horizon.

I would argue that this constant struggle is in fact a rather healthy and mature perspective. I currently live in a city south of Seattle characterized by the smug complacency and self riotousness of its citizenry. This particular city not only goes to great lengths to avoid comparing itself to other cities (except of course to demonstrate its perceived superiority), but also avoids any critical analysis of the status quo. Surely this is the true indicator of civic immaturity, or bitter old age.

Seattle’s constant struggle to reinvent itself and to attain “world class” status is what keeps it relevant. The real threat to cities is never change but rather stagnation.

One thing should be made clear- the Seattle of the past bore no relation to Knute's florid memories. For example, the Olmstead plan was never implemented, and, while Jim Ellis was a great leader, the major problem he attacked was the pollution of Lake Washington that had made it too toxic to swim in.

In Knute's mind there was little crime, in reality, the government of the city was a shifting coalition of gangsters ensconced in the Fire Department, City Light, the Police Department, the City Council, and in City Hall. One example is the illegal granting of permits to Roanoke Reef, which eventually resulted in the city paying the developer a hefty sum for building a concrete platform in the lake which then needed to be torn out.

Ironically, at the time the Fire Department and the Building Department were trying to get rid of the houseboats. Ultimately the Roanoke Reef site became a moorage of new (and improved) houseboats.

As for the idea that there were no slums, by 1975 basically everything south of Madison had been made into a slum by redlining. During the 70s and 80s much of this cheap housing was rehabbed by people who, because of discrimination and prejudice in the employment practices of those times, couldn't afford to live elsewhere. Knute may object that those were beautiful homes, and I'll agree with that- they were beautiful homes made cheap by redlining and being described as "in the ghetto".

If Knute had ever seen unarmed citizens murdered by policemen who shot them in the back, and then were cleared by "police review" of any wrong-doing and sent back to work in two days, or if he had ever been leaned on by the politic-playing Fire Department of that time, or if he had seen businessmen allowed to squat on city property and convert it to private use, he might have more appreciation for the improvements we've seen in governance since those days. The memories he offers are sappy, rose-tinted, and false.

Serial-cat: I'm not arguing that Seattle of old was utopia. I've spent countless column inches over the years writing about the city's dark side. The point I'm making here is about being a "grown-up" city, and if being a grown up city is complicated and messy, you're helping to make my case. What I'm saying is that much of the urban fabric which makes the city "livable" today came from people who were grown up, sophisticated and mature, whether you agree with them or not. It came about in the transition Seattle went through from frontier city to big city. Seattle made the leap to grown-up long ago. That's far different from saying we were perfect. Many of those civic genes are still present and still working and they should not be dismissed as being the nostalgic invention of small-minded folks. Also, the Olmsteds' legacy is throughout the city--the Olmsted Plan was only part of it. Their influence was huge. And you marginalize Jim Ellis by saying the Lake Washington clean-up was his major contribution. Besides creating Metro and building the convention center, look at the Forward Thrust measures that passed: parks, the aquarium, the Kingdome, new roads, etc. Even mass transit got more than 50% of the vote, and today everyone's saying that Sound Transit's new light rail system is the fulfillment of Ellis' original vision, that we're correcting the voters' mistake of '68. Ellis; contributions have been very grown up.

If Seattlers were realistic leaders toward a visionary future, they would recognize that inner-city Seattle is only the central hub of a growing metropolitan area whose traffic miasma is due to a lack of sensible planning far outside central city.

Light rail offers obvious and invaluable lessons for guiding regional growth, but most Seattlers, including most area pundits and elected officials, have no idea, not even a clue how their best laid plans have gone awry.

Which light rail expansion has more potential: boring a multi-billion dollar tunnel beneath UW all the way to Northgate? Or, extending south from Seatac Airfield to Federal Way? This is a trick question. The answer is the extension to Federal Way, but my point is that you, dear reader, most likely have a hard time understanding why anyone would make this claim. You have been told the answer is the tunnel, and you believe it without question. So, ask yourself why the Federal Way extension is more productive and think about it.

Nice catch, Knute, but I'm having trouble with some of the text. For example, in your article you tell us Seattle is a streetcar city, and then you tell us it was fashioned one handmade craftsman house at a time. Certainly it can be both, but a large number of small American cities were, and it doesn't prove anything, it's just some of the stuff that happened.

In a few other paragraphs you suggest that aping our betters is no way to city status, and then laud the Olmstead plan. But Olmstead was hired to do for Seattle what he'd done for other cities! And then the city didn't do it! It's been largely in the past thirty years that the Olmstead plan has been rescued from the mire of neglect- and that would include the 20 years you speak so disparagingly of.

The present difference between Seattle and Tacoma, especially considering Tacoma's favored status in the early running, is striking and might be instructive. I'm guessing that the U of W and the Boeing company were, at root, more responsible for the differences today than the systems of governance or the individuals involved.

In any case, I don't think we should forget the bad governance of the 50s and 60s, lest it return to bite us again.