It does not appear to me that the McGinn crowd has the creative class in mind on most of what it is up to. It appears to me mostly about single minded focus on some pretty radical environmental dreams using tactics Karl Rove would applaud. There was also an element of radical approaches to social justice - the best example being McGinn's refusal to enact Council passed measures to enhance public safety in Seattle, using similar tactics.

Richard Florida surely did not have McGinn's methods in mind when describing the rise of places that attract the creative class. Florida advocates growing great places where smart people want to live.

Seattle can embrace the creative class, and has, without losing its sole or its manufacturing base. It already has. McGinn represents something far different - and poses a real threat to the future of the waterfront, downtown jobs, manufacturing jobs, and the city's overall reputation for a few more years.

How true what you write. I have told my son that there are only three career paths as I see it, as of this moment, that cannot be outsourced, and with your article I should add one more. They are construction; everyone needs a place to work, sleep and eat. Education; everyone need some form of education. Health care; everyone gets sick. Now, shipping; goods come in and perhaps good go out.

It is an unfortunate fact that the successor to Steve Ballmer at Microsoft could uproot the company and send it off shore. This can happen with any intellectual rights company. We as a people tend to get caught up in any fad or new idea as the end all, be all of society. We do need a mix. Bicycles are not the answer for everything. When I go to work, I may travel from 5 miles to 50 miles one way. And, I carry around 100 pounds of tools. I need a vehicle. If the mayor wants to just close the viaduct and force people onto different modes of transportation, as it appears, great. Watch the price of construction go up, as will food and any other commodity.

But hey, we can all go out, get drunk 24 hours a day, if we can afford the beer. And, just bicycle home. Remember, a DUI on a bicycle does not go on your driving record....

I don't necessarily see a "culture war" as being the main problem. We have a situation where families tend to move to the Eastside, and also north to Shoreline, Lynnwood, etc. in order to escape the cost of living, which many Seattlites find prohibitive once they decided to have kids and stop living in apartments. I actually think it works fairly well. It is more appropriate for Seattle to think of the Puget Sound region cities as partners, rather than competitors, since increasingly the real competitors are in other countries.

What doesn't work well, though, is neglecting the basics that a city needs to prosper. The complacency we see toward public safety, road repair, and the city's business climate are very worrisome things. And of course we won't have a successful Puget Sound economy without appropriate transportation infrastructure.

Seattle's rising population and higher square foot prices suggests that it's attractive to a lot of people, and doing an ok job (though not enough in my opinion) to absorb much of our region's growth.

I'm a centrist on road capacity. We need to maintain 99 et al to keep the traffic off surface streets. This will allow the surface streets the option of "road diets" in some cases.

As for the Burke Gilman, the industrial businesses don't get it...there are already tons of bicyclists through Ballard, and it's currently dangerous. The trail would help the majority of bicyclists at least get through the neighborhood in a way that's predictable and largely out of the way for trucks, and doesn't involve wrecking bikes on train tracks and bad margins.

It's important to remember that McGinn and the Stranger are demagogues who need each other. Throw in the mix the fact that neither of them are trustworthy and you have the possibility of a number of things that simply are not so.

Jordan has risen to the bait here, but that doesn't work out either, as can be seen when we find Macy's skybridge thrown in the mix. The city skybridge policy is of long standing, and the $300 fee is obviously long overdue for a change.

The problem we're dealing with is not a problem of artists vs. working class, but of how a democracy deals with a demagogue and a demagogic 'newspaper'. It's a problem that will be with us, on all levels of government, for quite a while.

New Urbanism philosophy is the apex of professional attempts to rectify the Machiavellian flaws of the previous urban planning school of thought which began with the introduction of automobiles and was recognized as unsustainable years before the Great Depression. Cars first overran cities and short decades later overrun entire metropolitan regions, no matter how many boulevards, highways, freeways and parking spots are built to accommodate them.

Mayor McGinn is right to support the surface/transit replacement because it incurs less environmental impact than the deep bore tunnel and less risk of catastrophic failure, nevermind cost overruns. In the long-run, New Urbanism predicts significant reductions in overall cross-county traffic are possible and likely, an amount surface streets would be able to handle.

The replacement option that best serves working waterfront industries is the cut/cover tunnel, whether those interests care to admit it or not. The DBT elimination of access to SR99 in Lower Belltown presents a severe impediment to commercial traffic, and redirecting it via the steep hill of narrow Mercer Place through a mostly residential corridor is a non-starter which WSDOT fairly admits by designating the route "TBD" (to be determined); another way of saying they don't know how it can work. the Mercer West project is entirely bogus.

A simple bridge over the RR tracks at Broad Street would help survive construction of a cut/cover tunnel and be useful indefinitely. The central stretch of Alaskan Way could use a 2-lane frontage road on the east side to divide thru-traffic from motorists looking to park. This article's focus on divisive politics and its lack of suggestions that may resolve Seattle's notorious traffic problem are not helpful.

Jordan is bouncing around here trying to define a cultural split that really doesn't exist. People from all walks of life have various opinions that are hard to so neatly categorize.

As for the issue of transportation and our industrial base, let me observe that most of our transportation problem in Seattle is during peak commute hours. At other times of the day and night, and on weekends, most all streets and highways flow freely.

Instead of opposing "road diets" and industrial segments of bicycle trails, our industrial businesses should be looking at ways of shifting freight traffic in Seattle to the non-commute hours, when traffic congestion is mostly nonexistent.

I never drive the Alaskan Way viaduct during weekday rush hours so for me, it's always been a 50-mph ride, with traffic volumes at a level that could easily be accommodated on a surface Alaskan Way boulevard.

When I asked "where's the demand" for the expensive tunnel options then being discussed, the responders all pointed to weekday rush hours when the viaduct is full of single-occupant commute cars. That was and remains the real reason we're building the big-bore tunnel -- to accommodate traffic volume created by SOV rush hour commuters.

The final fatal flaw in the current tunnel project is the absence of ANY on- and off-ramps. The much-vaunted industrial traffic between SODO and Ballard, one of the main selling points of tunnel cheerleaders, won't be depending on the tunnel to get around Seattle, not without ramps at Elliott and Western.

That traffic has only two routes to the tunnel: the steep, narrow, two-lane Mercer Place, the quiet residential street that connects Elliott Avenue with the expanding Mercer corridor, and the other is N. 39th Street, another relatively quiet two-lane residential arterial that connects Leary Way and Aurora Ave. These are two detour routes that add time and mileage to drivers, not to mention the toll that will be imposed by the new tunnel.

Every time I read someone comment on the rancor of local politics in Seattle, I wonder what world they live in. What would they make of the politics of Chicago or New York City? There is a low bar in this city for what counts as civilly disagreeing with someone, and it is something that city shares with the state. I am not sure that the current mayor is on the right track, but I do think the focus on the viaduct is appropriate. It's a big expense, it's a handout to the labor/business coalition that drives politics in Seattle and the state, and it is not even good one since it won't provide downtown access for trucks serving businesses. It's big public project which will not make anyone happy until it is done, but what's been decided I don't like. But where this column really goes off the rails is in its suggestion that Seattle needs to be more like Bellevue to preserve its "soul." I am afraid that those who want to live on the Eastside and elsewhere for the amenities listed here are a lost cause. They already imagine that this city is Singapore or darkest New York, and they are not at all interested in the manufacturing or craft jobs that the viaduct would support. The biggest reason Seattle is perceived as antifamily is because it is a relatively dense city that yet emphasizes single family housing. This is not fixable or least not in way that continues the emphasis on small houses, so the energy goes to thinking about transportation. Those who stay adjust to the dual, almost contradictory aspects of the city, but better transportation is going to mostly lure people in to support retail and other sectors. It's not going to change the character to the city, which is much closer to McGinn than it ever was to Nickels.

I really enjoy reading Jordan's articles. He appears to be diplomatic when writting about delicate issues relating to class & values.

It's worth paying attention to how people in this area have historically behaved when the economy goes bad and when new industries eclipse the old ones.

It really does seem like history is repeating itself. Seatle's character changed drastically when gold was discovered in Alaska in the 1890's. ANd again, when the railroads came in the 1900's. Seattle changed again in the 40's during WWII, and it's changing again right now.

Before Microsoft, the Goodwill games, 'Sleepless & Seattle' and Grunge Seeattle was a very different place. Arguably more vulnerable and volatile. I'd love to hear Jodran's thoughts on that.

Before Seattle became a hip & cool brand, it was a rainy national afterthought. I remember way back in the day, when Bumbershoot was basically free music for the masses. Today it costs a fortune to get in. Is this an example of the culture war Jordan talks about?

This article brings to mind his earlier one about the Waterfront needing to reflect Working Class values. Sigh...if only the 'working & creative classes' can continue to afford living in Seattle, instead of having to commute in from outside the city limits.

Cities are at bottom dynamic social experiments where thousands/millions of people continuously strive to work out ways of making it all work within a given culture. I smelled within the article a clash between the golden chalice of Richard Florida's new urbanism and Jane Jacob's intellectuals rubbing up against the factory loft business workers of NY. What I do disagree with is the 24/7 Initiative that really highlights in an almost subliminal way, the "right" of the "nighttime" class to own the City.
The driving force within the nighttime wars is money. The City's role here surely is to hold the safety of all those who live and work in the city equally and as the number one priority. The 24/7 Initiative does not do that.

In seattle there is a clash, but it's not cultural. It's a clash between different business communities and their priorities. The high tech / knowledge based sector has been getting it's way for many years, sometimes at the expense of the blue collar manufacturing sector. Paul Allen has received everything he's asked for and more from the previous City administration, while manufacturing concerns in Ballard and Interbay have been largely ignored. The "clash" is not between the hipster liberal intellectuals and the blue collar joe six-packs, it's between the enormously wealthy software and biotech firms and the not so wealthy boat building companies. And guess who wins every time?

R on Beacon Hill:
David Brewster (June 22, “Can Seattle Make a Great Waterfront Park?”) nailed it on the prevailing rationale for a waterfront tunnel: “Keep in mind, the reason we are digging that big tunnel is the park”. Accommodating SR99 traffic to/from downtown and west and north of Queen Anne evidently didn't make the list of priorities.

What people seem to deliberately overlook, is that the DBT will NOT provide for that commercial traffic one iota. In fact, it will make it LESS friendly, and will increase congestion, despite the attempts at mitigation on the table.

The other thing overlooked is the surface + transit plan provides for a dedicated frieght corridor from the port to I-5, where the vast majority of freight goes directly to anyway, not along 99.

Royer should know this.

First of all I completely agree with your basic premise: It should certainly be our civic ambition to create a city that provides for a multitude of different individuals, families, and businesses. I also agree that, sadly, a divide has developed in this city that has seriously limited our ability to do any long-range planning and contributed to the stereotypical concept of "seattle political gridlock". But far from putting the blame on the "New Urbanist" crowd for being too ideological, I think the problem is coming from the other side, and this Op-Ed is a perfect example of the kinds of ideas that exacerbate the division in our community.

To begin with, Seattle's industrial woes are far from unique. In the same PSBJ article that you cite, it states that a whopping 98 out of 100 metro areas in the USA lost manufacturing jobs in the past decade. 17 of those areas lost over 40% of those jobs, double Seattle's 21% decline. These issues stem from 21st century developments in globalization and federal policy and have nothing to do with our local infastructure quibbles.

Thus, the idea that road diets and bicycle paths are somehow problematic to industry is a complete straw man argument. Last I checked, studies showed that both the Nickerson St. road diet and the completion of the BG missing link would have negligible impacts on traffic, and the statistical data from Stone Way should prove this point. Similarly, the studies of a surface/transit solution to the viaduct showed that travel times would only increase by a few minutes at most; please show me any evidence that these tiny changes would force businesses to move out of the region.

Next, your story about the loss of the Fun Forest has an identifiable point, that we can't lose sight of the low cost activities that attract families to the city, but it is completely incoherent. That's great that you had fun with your kids, but unfortunately not enough people did and so the failing businesses didn't renew its lease. If anything creating a no-cost natural area for kids to play and explore seems at least in the same vein as the Fun Forest (heck you could even give it the same name)especially when compared to a high cost art display.

And I promise you that many of the "New Urbanists" you deride were in favor of the park concept. In fact, many of the recent policies of that contigent seem to be aimed at exactly what you suggest, keeping families in the city of Seattle. Certainly the reasons you propose (lower taxes, good schools, etc.) play a role in where a family chooses to reside, but let's be honest, the number one factor is the cost of living. Because Seattle is the center of a +3 million metro region, land prices are extremely high. The backyard cottages legislation and the new townhome regulations were put in place to address these financial realities while protecting the integrity and charm of Seattle's neighborhoods.

Similarly, the constant push for better public transit instead of more roads would certainly be a boon to the many working class families in this city. As someone who has worked low paying jobs in the downtown core for over 5 years I can tell you that a $4 round trip bus ticket is a heck of a lot cheaper than the $10 needed to park (unless of course you have a dedicated parking space in a downtown office building, in which case you're probably not the blue collar worker discussed in the above article). I also fail to see why transit negatively impacts industry. Sure, some industrial jobs require constant movement, but many are at a fixed location and transit would work just as well (In fact I lived for a year with a carless man who was a member of the local sheet metal union and worked on projects throughout the region.) Even for those that need to drive (truckers, painters, plumbers, etc.) wouldn't getting more cars off the roads and reducing congestion be a good thing?

Finally, if there is any hope for the industrial and manufacturing sectors in the current economic climate, it is in the market for hyper-local handmade goods...otherwise known as the "creative class". If we really want to stimulate our local manufacturing, it isn't going to be through wider roads and deeper harbors, its going to be through progressive land use policies and creative business incentives. We should be fostering the ambitious, creative individuals who need a little help getting their small business off the ground. I think the new urban agriculture legislation is a good start (someone producing, marketing, and selling food grown in their own neighborhood is about as "blue collar" as it gets) but we could do better. More flexible land use policies and small business incubators would do wonders for all those people trying to make a living off selling their hand-made clothes, furniture, food, kitchen ware, art, or other goods that make life necessary and worth living.

Mr. Royer, I appreciate you concern and your thoughts about keeping Seattle as a beautiful and productive place to live, but I have to say, we are not living in 1952. In the global economy of the year 2010 we need to be thinking outside the box when it comes to an economically and environmentally sustainable city. In the face of a world plegged with many unprecedented challenges, there are some really interesting solutions out there that would help us create healthy human environments that are much different than what we have seen or experienced in the past. Sadly yours and others constant laments for the outdated economy of the past is a huge obstacle to achieving a healthier, stronger, and happier place for our communities to live.

If the sign of a good article is that the commentary on it is at a very high level, this one gets a prize. Such thoughtful remarks!

There is only so much land that we want to see urbanized in our region, and there are some sweet spots that we're bound to fight over the use of, like Seattle Center and the central waterfront. It is interesting that schools, bar hours, panhandling, and the Panama Canal, all come out in the discussion. If Seattle was like Shoreline, or even Redmond with its 2 jobs for every resident, the debate not be half as interesting or difficult. That's because Seattle is not as simple as those places. So glad that we have a populace that is well-educated, knows the value of making things, and is willing to debate these issues.

I am not convinced that these are mutually exclusive values, even though it looks that way from a distance at times. I think it will take creative people to keep our relatively healthy industrial base strong. It will take an environment that fosters small businesses that will generate jobs and ideas that will keep the big businesses competitive in the global market. And it will take a great city to keep the kids that do get educated here interested in staying here after they have grown. All the good that Seattle creates could just fly away in a generation if we don't keep thinking about making it better for the next generation.

Marksp, surely you know that the tunnel will accommodate trucks. Maybe not the tankers but everything else will be fine. That's why some industrial groups are getting behind it. It might not be their favorite option but it does most of what they want.

The City is obsolete.

I live in an apartment by a road way.

I have the internet.

I go to mall for culture.

Yesterday I saw an African drum band at a park. The park was no where near what you would call a "downtown".

The only war is between people who want to stay in the 20th century and those who have moved on or see the future of the 21st century.

We are acentrists. We are multinodal. We can travel, blog and stream over Wimax. One day we will be off grid with hydrogen fuel cells. We can put a symphony in a forest and don't need 3rd avenue buildings if we want to.

The people who live in the 20th century want to tax the rest of us to keep their party (small p, as in vodka and ice) going. This is the sole reason for the election of Obama. He is there to protect the past...from the future.

Believe it or not, but Whidbey Island is looking for disgruntled companies who have had it with Seattle. Please contact any of the South Whidbey Port Commissioners.

We are eager for jobs, eager to do business, have no money to offer, and real estate prices and a gorgeous lifestyle like you won't believe. And we have a commuter train 5 days a week to downtown Seattle. 50 minutes flat.

www.portofsouthwhidbey.com

Mhays, re Marksp's comment about the tunnel not accommodating trucks (actually, he said "commercial traffic"), I think what he means is that very little commercial freight needs or wants to go between Aurora Avenue and SODO. He's echoing my point about the absence of mid-tunnel connections and the severe limitation that puts on freight mobility.

Yes, most freight trucks will be allowed through the tunnel, subject to tolls of course (which brings up a point, how high will truck tolls be? We hear talk of costs up to $4 for automobiles...), but that's not where most of the freight wants to go.