I don't think that it's a fear of change. It's a fear of losing the parts of the community that make it feel like home. A new brew pub opened up in Lake City, replacing a store that got a lot of my money over the years. But the store it replaced was empty and sad the last few times I was there, and the new restaurant adds a vibrancy and brings people to a shopping district that is well situated to be the next Columbia City. I loved seeing the renovations on Lake City Way that created a median, and the renovations along Aurora in Shoreline. There is good change out there that really improves neighborhoods.

But the kind of change that this project represents isn't going to improve the neighborhood. Locals fear the project because it is replacing a unique block with yet another mixed use building with as much style and panache as a Red Lobster. They fear the loss of community that Bauhaus created and sustained over the years.

This isn't about fear of change. It's fear that we are losing another community touchstone during a time when the things that connect us as a culture are dissolving.

The neighborhood has changed and will continue to change, but we should be fearful when icons of our community are threatened by those who only see the value of a place by how much money it is worth. Converting this block to a multi-use building disregards the significance of it in the life of the community.

"There is something powerful about fear, especially as a tool for social organization."

Mr. Valdez loves to say this. Like people who don't agree with him are cowering in their beds with the blankets pulled up. It's a way of juvenilizing and marginalizing people who don't feel the way he does.

And change? Please, Capitol Hill has seen a lot of change over the years. People don't choose to live in vibrant neighborhoods in big cities because they fear change.

I agree with Talisker; it's about community and the loss of what matters to those who live in it. It's worry that your community won't have any input on what is built, where or what it looks like.

Agree. Sense of place. Neighborhood familiarity are all good things in a city. It's not all about development and density. The city should provide a soul. I can drive through downtown Bellevue, now, and while it has density, it has no soul. The new tower that replaced the wonderful "log cabin" where Orvis was located, is soulless and the new location for Orvis, housed in a "suburban" building next to a swanky spa....density is not an end, but a means to an end, and that end has got to be places that provide people with an anchor. Without the anchor, where you live becomes where you reside.

Calling out people who may oppose the development as "fear mongers" is similar to the cries of NIMBY. Rather, it may behoove density folks to put on their anthropologist hats and try to understand the cultures they are attacking with "developer" name calling.

This piece badly misperceives the fear that the news of the razing of the Melrose block has engendered. Valdez is correct, there is fear about what the loss of this building means, but not because those who are fearful or angry are afraid of change. The community is upset because so much terrible building has cropped up where old buildings have been torn down around the city. These new buildings are an extremely poor replacement for what they have taken away. The developer being from the Eastside isn't the problem, but the kind of buildings he's known for is. As Valdez points out the commercial tenants will very likely not return, and that is a key loss to Capital Hill and to the city. The reason that a developer wants to build there is because its a desirable location, and the reason its desirable is because people come there to spend time and money. They do so because of what's on offer there, what retail establishments have spent much time cultivating. Bulldozing them away is not the way to build a community, of high or low density. Capital Hill is at a nexus, it can ill-afford more trashy so-called 'mixed use ' buildings.

Capitol Hill Seattle's blog posts weren't inflammatory, they were informative and relatively free of authorial cant. Sure, Justin quoted people who were upset, but he gathered a great deal of factual material no other media outlet bothered to, and kept a sense of humor about it all (calling Maintain Capitol Hill "slightly xenophobic", for example).

Funny, it was my beloved Slog that cheerfully ran with few facts and much emotion, but oh, Slog likes to quote you as an authority on stuff now and then, so best leave them unmentioned...

Bauhaus is great! Lots of memories there. If it is truly are a successful business with loyal clientele, not just those who reminisce as they drive/ride/walk by the sign on their way to their new favorite spot, they should have no problem moving into some new digs nearby. Their iconic sign can come with, maybe even with a new coat of paint.

"River City"? Seattle is decidedly not a River City...Roger you must be thinking of Portland or Pittsburgh.

The CHS piece was inflammatory in that called out two Facebook pages that are reactionary. Change is coming...work with the developer to try to get something you like and that meets the needs of the community.

"calling upon our enthusiasm for other people, for our neighbors"

Roger may be new to Seattle but Doublethink is sure not: 'Kids' Place, Emerald City, Sound Transit, Green Factor, Climate Action Now, Quality Growth Alliance, Reality Check, as well as the more generic New World Order, job security, and affordable housing— all calling for the exact thing being expunged.

Me thinks that Crosscut uses Newspeak to check the resistance. Not a bad idea at all provided Newspeak is then contrasted with truthful fuel for open minds.

A modest proposal for Valdez's next reading assignment: used copies of Herb Gans' The Urban Villagers, Expanded Edition can be had for a very modest sum and are extremely informative.

Alternatively or next, how about Seattle own Preservation Green Lab's claim of Fewer Impacts with Building Reuse— http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/sustainability/green-lab/valuing-building-reuse.html

And not to be forgotten there is this from Down Under: "By focusing on settlement patterns rather than consumption levels, green planners engage in a form of class discrimination. The costs of climate change are heaped on outer-suburban working people, who lose jobs, mobility and housing amenity, while the affluent emerge unscathed " —http://www.thenewcityjournal.net/ruining_our_cities_to_save_them.htm

This article is crap. Having lived in the u-district since 1998, most of the unique character has been stripped away to be replaced with boring mixed use architecture. As above commenter stated...exciting as a Red Lobster. The lack of character makes me sad.

Hey, did anyone look at the developer's web site for their mixed use and retail buildings? Is it me or do they all look the same, I kid you not. The rounded entry etc. Take a look at them: http://www.mdgllc.net/projects_mixeduse.htm

Yep, those sure add character! Good job, Roger. I think St. Mark's Cathedral should sell it's parking lot and allow Madison to develop one of their mixed use projects there. Densify North Capital Hill (and think of the profit margins with those views!).

Have you seen the "mixed use" below the new Joule building? Or below The Broadway Building? Most new tenants are large, commercial chains taking away from any neighborhood and making it feel more like I am walking past a strip mall every few blocks. Depressing. Boring. Bad article. Sounds like fear mongering from the other side now. I'll be sad to see Le Frock, Bauhaus and others be displaced.

I'm really confused by Roger Valdez's article. It doesn't meet the standard that I've come to expect on Crosscut.

"Poo poo" is not useful contribution to the discourse. You run the risk of distracting the community from a real problem. Certainly you have no idea if this project is a problem or not, so I just don't know what you're trying to achieve.

There is no new information here. The author did not speak with the developer or consult any source that might refute the supposed fear mongering of the CHS article.

The entire framework of "Just say no..." is false logic. The movie Music Man is used as a comparative model, but where is the comparison? We're talking about a real project. Any fear was caused by the developer sending eviction notices to the much-loved current residents.

If you've got evidence that this property will be like Oddfellows, then include the item-by-item comparison. You'll probably have to prove that the Oddfellows project was more positive than negative, because it certainly wasn't all upside.

What an unfortunate article. To bring up a fictional play like the Music Man and compare it to a real life situation on Capitol Hill. It reads more just like an attempt to bully people on Capitol Hill into accepting the fate of ugly, 'mixed-use' buildings. That block is one of the most charming on Capitol Hill with the small shops that have survived (so far). Too bad he couldn't have written an article about how the developer should incorporate elements of the current architecture into the new buildings. Criticizing people for fearing ugly, 'mixed-use' buildings seems misplaced. He should be cheering them on.

Perhaps Roger should walk a few blocks North to Bellevue Ave and Denny to see the fantasically ugly mixed use building with a siding made of corrugated tin! About as ugly and out of character as you could possibly get for Capitol Hill.

Until we can agree to provide the resources to pay for the infrastructure needed to support European style density here in America, the author should take a hiatus from writing these one-note Johnny articles and do something positive for the community like passing out condoms at high schools or reading to the residents of retirement homes.

with all due respect, Mr. Valdez.. Fuck you. You can go and rant about how us on Capitol Hill are afraid of change, CHS is corrupting our minds with fear, blah blah blah. We're not afraid of change. We're outraged at the fact that so many businesses that we all love and that make the Hill what it is are being torn down, so that a developer from Bellevue can put up a building that looks like every other. Why do we love the Bauhaus building so much? The character, the stories we've all shared there, and the fact that it's unlike any other. If you want to develop Seattle, go down to belltown, where trendy condos and chain restaurants are welcomed with open arms. Give us back our historical buildings, please and thank you.

Roger Valdez is incredibly oblivious to what makes a community "work." He cites the Oddfellows Bldg experience as positive change, but fails to note the difference between preservation/rehabilitation of an existing building, and bulldozing sound structures to be replaced by another bland mixed-use piece of crap. As afreeman notes, the former is far more "green," and it also preserves much of the look and feel if not the actual businesses. Urban development opinion writers need to do the research before putting words on the screen.

Mr. Valdez' uninformed and uninformative columns elicit irritation rather than promote dialogue. Crosscut needs to find a more competent and balanced regular urban affairs writer.

JM Rolls, LoupLoup and others.

I will give you the censorship warning I have given others before.

This is a public forum. You can feel free to disagree with me, call me names, and even use the f-word if you like.

But please don't ask this venue to shut me down. That's not progressive its censorship. You can certainly keep asking the folks at Crosscut to stop taking my writing, but something tells me that in the interests of the free exchange of ideas that you say you want, they won't comply.

Take the time to write up your own post, get your own blog, or keep challenging my ideas in the comments. But don't waste your time criticizing Crosscut for the fact that ideas "elicit irritation."

You lost me at this:

"Capitol Hill without Bauhaus would be like Seattle with[out] the Space Needle, a different place entirely.

But that’s the point. Change is difficult, even for Capitol Hill."

Should I gather from this that even icons such as the Space Needle, should be replaced in the name of density? The "change happens so deal with it" argument isn't going to win a lot of hearts and minds.

Josh,

There is always a thread used by NIMBYs and BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anything Near Anyone) that tries to equate the thing we're fighting to preserve with some unquestioned land mark.

I've already heard the Pike Place Market battle dredged up in this context, and now you've tried to equate the Space Needle with the Bauhaus block.

The Space Needle and the market and Bauhaus block are hardly the same thing, and I won't bother to point out all the differences.

But as I have said already, I'm all for the City getting it's act together, condemning the Bauhaus block, buying it from the new owners, and keeping it just like it is. If you all think you can make that happen I'll write you a check for the campaign.

I think it will fail, because I doubt very much tax payers in Laurelhurst are going to want to take scarce tax dollars to preserve a local icon for Capitol Hillers, anymore than they would want spend money locking down a bombed out block in Roosevlet so somebody can prevent someone neighbors there don't like.

This is private property, and the community has every right to exploit every possible avenue to slow or stop the project. It won't work. If you don't like the zoning laws, demand they be changed. If you think we shouldn't develop specific blocks because they have "character" then find a way to take them out of private ownership.

Imagine buying a house with your hard earned cash, trying to remodel it so you can improve its value, and having the people who owned it before protesting about your changes because they had memories there. Is that fair?

Fight the project if you want, but please don't villify the developer for excercising what they are entitled to do, no matter where they are from.

Edit for above:

I think it will fail, because I doubt very much tax payers in Laurelhurst are going to want to take scarce tax dollars to preserve a local icon for Capitol Hillers, anymore than they would want spend money locking down a bombed out block in Roosevlet so those neighbors can prevent someone they don't like making a profit.

Roger, I'm not equating the Space Needle and Bauhaus block. I was actually pointing out that you had done just that and then subsequently said it doesn't matter.

My point was that you acknowledge the importance of these buildings/spaces/businesses but then your argument is that it doesn't matter because change happens and/or its for some greater good. If your goal is to try and get more people to support more density I just don't find this a very compelling way of going about it.

I have also never villified the developer. I do not know them and I don't criticize them for finding a lucrative oportunity to do what they do best, build a building.

But keep in mind, Capitol Hill's success isn't simply from happenstance development. It is because there is a huge network of people - business owners, artists, residents, workers, local developers, etc.- that work together to protect what they love and improve what they don't. Developers that succeed up here understand that and work with the many stakeholders to find a solution that works for everyone (look at the 14th Ave Porchlight property). In this case, the developer, thus far, has not chosen to do that. That's fine but they should expect to get a heck of a lot of push back, especially on such a high profile block.

I hate the very condescending terms of NIMBY or BANANA in general, but in this case I think it is particular irrelevant. Capitol Hill is the densest community north of SF and west of Chicago. The neighborhood has had more development and change over the past few decades than probably anywhere in the city. But again, because we've built a community power structure and fought for what we care about, we've been able to funnel that change into something great.

Josh,

When you say things like this: "The neighborhood has had more development and change over the past few decades than probably anywhere in the city."

it starts to sound an awful lot like, "People in Roosevelt support density. We just want the right kind of density." or "We've already taken more than our share of density."

I like the Bauhaus block too. I wish I was a billionaire and could buy it myself turn it over to some kind of non-profit community trust. But I'm not. My point is that change is painful. Something WILL be lost with the changes to the block, of that there is no doubt. But cities are not stagnent things, the preserve of we people who live here right now. Sometimes we have to make way for new things with an uncertain benefit, at the expense of somethin we already know is good.

If I argued against the legal, inside the code entitlement for the developer to build there because it's my neighborhood, I'd be called a hypocrite.

I only hope that the folks in Roosevelt walk, bike, ride to join your cause on Capitol Hill, becuase its becoming the same one.

Roger Valdez has a different view of the world than I do.

His writing does not help me understand that view.

Point taken about censorship Valdez…my apology. I should have just said this again…

This “create density and call it Paris” baloney has been slung around since the 80s. It was obvious then that no one understood (or would be truthful about) the fact that there was more required than just cramming people into warrens of high rise dwellings. Things like corresponding levels of taxation; special service districts, cultural/social issues, community health, public safety, human nature, transportation, etc. But 30 years later it continues to be defined in simplistic terms of densification and infill. Just let speculators jam them in and somehow the rest will work itself out.

People who yearn for Paris on Puget Sound should stop daydreaming about creating similarities between that city and Seattle, and start understanding the differences between the U.S. and Europe. Europeans pay significantly more in taxes than we “free market capitalists” would ever tolerate, and thus can allocate more for the infrastructure necessary to make cities work. They also have a different sense of community than we have here in the land of “greed is good.”

It might also help us stifle these delusional growth and transportation projects that disproportionately suck the resources out of the entire city for the sake of a few affluent neighborhoods.

I don't agree with jmrolls. I can tell because he has a clear line of thought from beginning to end, and he doesn't fall into messy logic traps that mislead me. (And I can have a coherent discussion by saying, "hey, your logic applies to suburbs more than dense cities! They're newer and less proven!")

I apparently don't agree with Roger Valdez. Probably, I agree with some of his ideas. But this article and his comments on it have no logical structure for me to follow and decide if I concur with his conclusion. For example, I certainly don't believe that it is good writing simply because it was written! (I'll quote Juana Molina's sarcastic lyric: "I'm righter... that's why I'm writing this song for you")

I am pro-density, but I am anti-Valdez at this point. Since Valdez is pro-density, I am stuck in an endless loop.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the statement "I support density, just the right kind of density". I support global aid, just the right kind of global aid. I support federal transportation funding, just the right kind of funding. Yes our politic system tends to break things into simple pro or anti campaign issues. But the reality is the world is far more nuanced than that.

I think that a community expectation of quality devleopment is exactly the mindset that has helped Capitol Hill grow into such a wonderful place.

What exactly does "pro-density" mean? I have said for years that the most environmentally friendly city is probably NYC. It's dense, it's got great mass transit, and it even had character and soul at one point in time (although SoHo looks suspiciously like U Village these days without the parking). But to be pro-density, what does that mean? And to be "pro" something, it means you are usually "anti" something. In Mr. Valdez's case it seems he is anti traditional Seattle neighborhoods trying to eek out the last bit of neighborhood character and uniqueness. Get rid of the light industry along the ship canal because it's prime real estate and we can pack 'em in. Get rid of Capital Hill business-landmarks, beloved by many, because it's got lots of traffic and the "live/work" or "street retail" coaxes developers from Timbuktu to come in and put down a cookie-cutter high density building.

I think what you stir up in each commentator, Mr. Valdez, is a reaction not to just how you say it but the substance of what you say. Seattle is not Paris. What made Seattle unique and attractive for so many years was precisely our lack of density and the ability for middle class families to own a home where their children could play in a yard. People migrated to Seattle because of that amenity. And I admit that is changing, but the rate of change and the quality of change you and you're colleagues (including the Mayor) advocate is, frankly, sad. For instance, the developer of this proposed project has done nothing, in my opinion, that distinguishes them from every other building in every other urban and suburban area. It looks like they hired an architect for one plan then tweaked entry space just enough for a savvy person to pick each building out of a line-up. Is this what you want to trust developing on one of the most unique buildings in the Pine corridor?

And Mr. Valdez, you're right, cities are not stagnant "things." The organic movement in cities, however, comes not from building, but from people. Lessons learned from the late and not so great Robert Moses and his intent to change NYC by building. Since I am third generation Seattle, the building we all talking about has radically changed its occupants. Yet, there has been something comforting in seeing that building every time (and less frequently I might add because getting around Seattle is way too difficult) I am in that area. I have ben thrilled to see the care given to that structure by all it's occupants. And saddened to think there will be a "facade" of that building, perhaps, with a homogenous rounded entry, live/work space and retail, just like every other building in Seattle. The only good news is perhaps the bursting of the apartment bubble will stop this and other high density projects. A hole in the ground is almost better than bland building.

If we stack everyone in, making not only mobility more difficult, but the sense of community tougher to define, Seattle becomes nothing different than Paris (without, no offense to SAM) some great museums and really really good food at low cost. Already our shopping cores look like every other city with the homogenous chain stores and vaguely similar "small plates" restaurants (and I am talking about downtown, CH, Ballard, Wallingford), Columbia City), so if pro-density means you advocate Seattle becoming what every other city is trying to become....I'd say you're doing a pretty darn good job.

Oh, one more thing. If you are saying someone is calling for censorship, please remember Mr. Valdez, that censorship also comes in the flavor of name calling and attempting to shut down the neighborhood voices (do you happen to remember the old developer tactic of SLAPP lawsuits?). If you are truly open to debate, claiming the CH folks opposing this project are similar to Music Man and then, in your comments, snidely alluding to the Roosevelt folks, you are engaging in a form of censorship. An open debate means respecting those who disagree and that means not calling names. You could begin by saying you are always for a development and that you think neighborhoods should not have much say in what happens next door to them, but the Music Man analogy was way over the top. Opposing censorship also means you should be open to listening to other voices as well.

I have to agree with Rodger on this one--he has critical thinking on his side.

I hate the ugly condos as much as the next guy, but there is no way to stop all development short of a revolution and revoking of property rights. I was talking with my 80 year old neighbor on Beacon hill and he was telling my about the nice ad hoc baseball field that use to be right next to our house. It was there until developers put in a bunch of 1940s war boxes. I would prefer a baseball field.

Sure, it would be nice to have the bauhaus building remain unchanged, but how? What is the plan? Zoning won't work. I suppose we could all pool our money, buy it and turn it into a kind of museum.

I think Rodger's point is that this kind of reactionary, knee-jerk, non-critical thinking is actually hindering the cause for the kind of non-auto centric, livable city many of us want.

I don't know the answer, but I am pretty sure trying to stop all development with these kinds of "we are not Paris" arguments is not it.

It's not about Paris. It's not about stopping all development. It's about supporting density with more than just a box to sleep in.

"Fight the project if you want, but please don't villify the developer for excercising what they are entitled to do, no matter where they are from."

Tell that to the Red Sox fans enjoying the centennial of Fenway this week. A structure beloved by a community, old, uneconomic and decrepit, revivified when the reaction to a planned teardown caused the ownership to pause prior to the sale of club, and the new ownership to respond creatively, making it profitable and saving the park for the fans. No cookie cutter design for them!
Community outrage is the only realistic response to this foolish plan if the private owners are determined to fully exercise their right to destroy a property of value not only to them but also to those who use it, deus-ex-billionaire, civic ownership, and co-op fantasies aside. If the ownership heeds the voices of the Hill and finds an architect with the vision to expand the building while preserving the existing space, they should find themselves with an even more valuable property.
Finally while the Needle / Bauhaus comparison (your own) is a distant one of feeling, you bring up to dismiss but then ignore the comparison with the Pike Place Market. The market is mildly different in scale of size and age, but they are both historic places of personal and commercial activity, both fated for clearing and redevelopment, but one was saved - by a visionary architect who did not shrink from vilifying those who would carry out such plans. A model for those who would profit financially and socially in the present day.

I am sincerely tired of Roger Valdez's churlish tone. Not saying he isn't entitled to it or that Crosscut shouldn't publish him. Just saying his attitude runs counter to the very sort of civil dialogue I believe he and Crosscut hope to inspire.

Dear Roger:

It's difficult to argue with your position here because it was poorly explained to begin with, and has changed several times since you began. As near as I can figure, your initial thesis was that, "The trouble is that all of us, even those of us living in already dense, vibrant neighborhoods, fear change." You likened this fear of change to some sort of xenophobia when you wrote, "New people moving into a community can stoke fear — even in a neighborhood like Capitol Hill." And, of course, the title of your piece regards fear mongering. Combined with your totally nonsensical Music Man reference, I gather that your thesis was something along the lines of, "The local media uses fear-based journalism to incite locals against development projects that are harmless and/or beneficial to the community at large." Then the argument started in the comments section and you fell back to "it's private property so they can do whatever they want with it," and "if you don't like the zoning laws, change them." You also made some crack about how if we don't like what's happening with the block we should buy it back, but I'll file that one under the private property argument.

As someone who's lived on Capitol Hill for 30 years, let me respond to your points as best I can:

1) Nobody on Capitol Hill is AFRAID of change; they are neither cowards nor xenophobes. That's a ridiculous and insulting ad hominem attack dressed up as some folksy observation about the dangers of groupthink. Call it the Rush Limbaugh Effect, after the despicable broadcast radio personality who accused a young woman whose views he disagreed with of being a slut in an embarrassing and ill-conceived effort to side-step her logic by attacking her character. Otherwise, I must simply point out that absolutely everything has changed on Capitol Hill in the last 30 years, and continues to do so. The vast majority of the current residents weren't even here 15 years ago, and most of them won't be here 15 years hence. Meanwhile, schools have closed and been renovated, street plans have shifted, the demographics of the neighborhood have shifted completely, and there's been, on the whole, very little push-back from any of it.

The reason people are objecting to much of the new development is because it's:

A) Ugly (see the Bellagio, the Veduta, and the Summit Condos among many, many others)

B) It is poorly built so it doesn't age well (see the Silver Cloud Inn on Broadway and Madison, the Safeway thing on 23rd and Madison, or the Public Storage building on 12th) and

C) Some of it doesn't actually do much for density. This is a trickier question, but most new developments have much larger unit sizes than the ones they replace, so the actual population density can be quite low for the square footage involved. And this is my only real objection to the development of the Bauhaus Block: There's a perfectly serviceable three-story mixed-use building there (the one Mud Bay is in) that will have almost exactly the same unit count as a new five-story building that would replace it.

2) The very existence of zoning laws demonstrates that the right to develop "private property" within city limits is sharply constrained by the community's interests. Any developer who buys property in a city and claims to be surprised by community involvement in the development process is either an idiot or a liar.

3) The fact that appeals in the Bimbo's Block case caused such a massive delay in the development makes it clear that your "you can't fight this," rhetoric is both disingenuous and inaccurate. One needn't change the zoning laws to affect this project. The existing avenues of feedback may serve quite well.

Finally, I'd like to address this point: "But please don't ask this venue to shut me down. That's not progressive its censorship."

4) Censorship is the *actual* suppression of speech or writing. Saying that you're a hack and that crosscut should stop publishing your incredibly bad writing is not censorship. It's consumer feedback.

Sincerely,

There is a middle ground between the City actually buying real estate to prevent development, and just shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Change is Good".

And that middle ground is arrived at by controlling density, design, and building types and uses thru zoning, building regulation, and, in the case of Seattle, the Design Commission.

The City doesnt have to roll over and play dead and let developers throw up cardboard condos that look ugly.
Many cities in non-socialist countries like the USA routinely affect what gets built.
We can too.

It is absolutely true that the Belltown to Capitol Hill axis has been "blessed" with hordes of poorly designed, "value engineered", new mid rise buildings. Most are not responsive to the neighborhoods, the streetscape, or even to actual rental market needs.

As evidenced by the way local, small businesses are driven out, to be replaced by a mix of empty storefronts and national chains.

Design regulations can change this. They do, routinely, in other cities.

Seattle has a Design Commission?! You're joking, right?

I've lived on Capitol Hill most of my 40 years and watched it change, much of it for the better, some of it for the worse I guess. It's still a vibrant, diverse, interesting neighborhood -- my favorite in the city. Losing Bauhaus and some of the small storefronts around there, should that happen, would make it less so.

Sure, change is hard. But what strikes me about Seattle after I return from travels to other cities is that we seem to bulldoze our own history and inheritance, and we are poorer for it. Thank god Europeans haven't zoned out their history -- the old buildings and shops are charming and give texture and character to their neighborhoods. And that's my impression of Portland (and Tacoma) too, where development seems to have be less aggressive and less voracious, and you see more old-timey houses shops than you do in the Emerald City.

God forbid Capitol Hill goes the way of Fremont. Anyone who's lived in Seattle for more than 20 years knows what I mean. I guess I'm old enough now to be turning into a curmudgeon....