[Hub for an Empire]

I take back what I said about Kootenai County Unemployment rate being higher that Spokane County. Guess I should of read the article more slowly.....I guess it had to do with the relative percentage "increase" over the last few months being higher in Kootenai County over the 2 percent relative increase of Spokane County. Found within the last month the total Unemployment rate of Kootenai County being 8 percent and 9.1 percent in Spokane County. Hope I didn't offend anyone! :) Sorry!

I really do think it's time for both counties to get together to move the Metro area ahead. Not sure why they pretend the other county doesn't exist!
Also, I think the growth at Airway Heights/West Plains should balance, to a small degree, the county population-wise and help maintain a stronger Spokane.

Let's hope Light Rail takes off , with the recent stories on the news!

[mSeattle]

Also, I think the growth at Airway Heights/West Plains should balance, to a small degree, the county population-wise and help maintain a stronger Spokane.

Let's hope Light Rail takes off , with the recent stories on the news!

Light rail?

We're not going to see many more high rise skylines in this state, especially east of the Cascades if there continues to be more sprawl than density. You can do better than what Puget Sound did. Half of the sprawl over here should not exist (i.e. there should be more high rise skylines).

[FireFighter74]

I don't see Spokane getting light rail ever! People here don't like the idea. I have no idea why. I bet in 10 years or so people will finally decide to go with light rail and it will cost us five times as much and it won't be built. I haven't read anything new about light rail in our area. I do know STA would be on board with light rail if they had public support.

[Contrarian]

Spokane no more needs light rail than a hole in the head. Seattle and Portland don't need it either.

The reason people in Spokane don't support light rail is obvious --- it is because they don't plan to use it. They see it as nothing more than a new, gold-plated featherbedding scheme for bureaucrats and transit unions. They support STA, reluctantly, only because they believe the community must provide some means of transportation for people who cannot use automobiles, for one reason or another. Bus transit meets that need more flexibly and inexpensively.

The test of whether a community "needs" light rail, streetcars, etc., is whether such a system can be self-supporting, i.e., whether farebox revenues will cover operating costs. If they don't, and require heavy subsidies, that is a sure sign that the "need" is phony (the city's bus transit system is also gold-plated).

What Spokane needs is economic development. You don't get that by raising taxes to support trendy boondoggles.

BTW, mSeattle, highrises and "sprawl" tend to go together. People build highrises because the land beneath them is valuable. It becomes valuable because there is a large customer and service base surrounding it, i.e., "sprawl."

[FireFighter74]

Have you ever lived somewhere that has light rail? I'm from PDX and I rode the MAX everyday and I owned a car, a new car. I don't think anyone can say PDX doesn't have a successful light rail system. That shows me PDX does need light rail. Have you see their ridership? I can agree that Spokane might not have the population or tax base to sustain light rail at this time, but why not plan ahead. If there is federal tax dollars available, why not use them. Roads, freeways, and many other local projects are partly federally funded. Are you not ok with that? If someone has doubt about light rail, ask some one who lives in PDX. I can't speak for Seattle.

[Contrarian]

Well, FireFighter, you normally don't count an enterprise as "successful" when it must rely on government subsidies to cover 80+% of its costs. Would you count a McDonalds as "successful" if the government was supplying 80% of the revenue needed to keep it afloat? Do you today count General Motors as "successful?"

Portland's transit system carries a mere 7.6% of daily commuters, which is less than it carried in 1980 before the MAX lines were built. If those passengers were obliged to pay full fare that percentage would fall to zero.

Federal dollars, BTW, are not the only sources of subsidies for Portland's transit system. That boondoggle consumes much local revenue also --- especially revenue which could be used for improving roads, which carry 90+% of daily commuters. Moreover, federal funds used for roads, like state road funds, are not subsidies --- they are paid for by the users of those roads, through fuel and excise taxes and licensing fees. Auto users subsidize transit riders, heavily.

And no, I have no economic interest in auto v. transit travel. Just think public transportation revenues ought to be used to improve and maintain the modes the public actually prefers and uses, not the modes preferred by Greenie ideologues.

(I lived in Portland for 10 years, though before the MAX scheme was concocted).

[mSeattle]

And no, I have no economic interest in auto v. transit travel. Just think public transportation revenues ought to be used to improve and maintain the modes the public actually prefers and uses, not the modes preferred by Greenie ideologues.

(I lived in Portland for 10 years, though before the MAX scheme was concocted).

Hee hee, the sheep clothes slip?

Roads get some sort of state/federal funding beyond taxes: Seattle Viaduct, 520 bridge, I-90, Hood Canal bridge.

Shouldn't gas tax and fees increase so that road conditions can improve? Maybe put tolls on major streets and turn freeways into tollways.

[Contrarian]

It is true, mSeattle, that road projects have become favorites for Congressional pork in the last couple decades, i.e., the "bridge to nowhere," etc. But road users still pay nearly all the costs of their mode. Transit users, by comparison, here in Spokane pay a mere 7%.

Fuel taxes and other use fees must indeed keep pace with the costs to maintain the system. But it would help if the fees they already pay were not diverted to overpriced and little-used transit boondoggles.

[urbanlife]

It is true, mSeattle, that road projects have become favorites for Congressional pork in the last couple decades, i.e., the "bridge to nowhere," etc. But road users still pay nearly all the costs of their mode. Transit users, by comparison, here in Spokane pay a mere 7%.

Fuel taxes and other use fees must indeed keep pace with the costs to maintain the system. But it would help if the fees they already pay were not diverted to overpriced and little-used transit boondoggles.

you do realize the idea of transit isnt to make profit but to give people alternatives to driving? Another way to look at it, the more people that ride bus, light rail, and bike, the number of people dependent on cars decreases, even if it is only by a percentage...then when that happens, traffic congestion begins to reduce and the need to expand roads lessens...thus the implication of alternative forms of transportation would be effecting the metro as a whole, and not just the "mere 7%." Thus is where the "mass transit" comes into play, it is a system that is designed to help the city as a whole, unlike the car which is a system to benefit the individual.

Sorry that the "greenies" of the country want to actually make a difference in reducing the damages we do on the planet.

[Contrarian]

Yes, urbanlife, I do realize that the idea of transit is to "give people an alternative to driving." The trouble is, 90+% of those people do not want an alternative to driving, and will not use it. They will continue to use their automobiles, for perfectly rational and understandable reasons --- because they are more comfortable, more convenient, more flexible, offer more privacy, and because their schedules, routes, itineraries, traveling companions, and travel conditions are under their control, not the control of bureaucrats. I.e., all the reasons why the private automobile supplanted mass transit systems in the first place.

Modern day transit systems are a classic example of bureaucratic arrogance --- the notion that politicians and bureaucrats know better what is in people's best interest than the people themselves.

The argument that transit systems reduce congestion is a loser --- it costs roughly 4 times as much per passenger mile to build rail transit systems than to expand or extend roads. While you're wasting money building "politically correct " systems 90% of commuters are never gonna use, the road congestion those dollars could have relieved continues to hamper the economy and air quality.

[Contrarian]

BTW, no public policy (or private policy, for that matter) benefits "the city as a whole." That is a communitarian myth. All of them benefit specific persons, if they benefit anyone. The PSU student who rides the streetcar in Fareless Square for nothing benefits from Portland's transit system. The driver who is stalled in traffic on the Minnesota Freeway every afternoon does not --- but he's the guy paying for it.

[mSeattle]

Modern day transit systems are a classic example of bureaucratic arrogance --- the notion that politicians and bureaucrats know better what is in people's best interest than the people themselves.

The argument that transit systems reduce congestion is a loser --- it costs roughly 4 times as much per passenger mile to build rail transit systems than to expand or extend roads. While you're wasting money building "politically correct " systems 90% of commuters are never gonna use, the road congestion those dollars could have relieved continues to hamper the economy and air quality.

Congestion is the creation of road users not transit systems. The cost of roads doesn't end with roads. There is cost of sprawl -- lost local agriculture, forest and green space, and cost of new roads/streets/emergency/sewer etc. which are subsidized (users do not pay the real cost).

Back to the "people's best interest". Density with green spaces -- and a healthy collection of alternatives to driving (walking/biking/transit) -- is the ideal design for metropolitan areas, not ever expanding miles of sprawl and driving.

Miles of rail can help sprawl as well, when there should instead be increased housing including housing around schools for families with grade-school age kids.

Maybe this is being conservative/conservationist or maybe progressive about natural resources and such. I don't know.

[mSeattle]

BTW, people who've killed their cars enjoy not having to pay for parking, insurance and maintenance. They often realize that a lot of stuff they've stuffed their lives with is really unnecessary distraction and crazy-making.

They enjoy the fact that they "really didn't need to go there anyway" or that "it can wait another day" or maybe "I'll downsize the house so I don't have to work that second job" AND still not have to pay for parking, insurance, fines, tickets......

[urbanlife]

BTW, people who've killed their cars enjoy not having to pay for parking, insurance and maintenance. They often realize that a lot of stuff they've stuffed their lives with is really unnecessary distraction and crazy-making.

They enjoy the fact that they "really didn't need to go there anyway" or that "it can wait another day" or maybe "I'll downsize the house so I don't have to work that second job" AND still not have to pay for parking, insurance, fines, tickets......

And to add to that, the other joy of mass transit, who here loves tearing down buildings for parking garages and surface parking lots?? Well, without public transit to promote alternative use, the demand for parking downtowns increase...and even worse, the lack of dependency on downtowns because you can drive anywhere, thus making office parks much nicer options, thus killing a downtown even more.

Portland has very little surface parking lots downtown which is easy to say it is because of its transportation options, Portland has less of a need to build parking garages all over downtown to handle all of those cars. One wonders how many buildings wouldnt of been needed to be turned into surface parking lots if their streetcar system had survived.

You can go on and on about how horrible you think public transportation is Contrarian, but I grew up in a very suburban east coast city that had almost no public transportation where it took over a half hour of traffic to drive anywhere, now I live on the edge of downtown and able to walk to work because the house I live in wasnt bulldozed for a parking lot.

[Contrarian]

Congestion is the creation of road users not transit systems.

Certainly not. *Traffic* is created by road users. *Congestion* is created when the bureaucrats responsible for maintaining the road system fail to maintain it in equilibrium with demand. Suppose every time you boarded a bus or train, all the seats were taken --- there was standing room only. Would you blame the passengers, or the operators of the system? Odd, isn't it, that this problem of overuse seems to be unique to public institutions. If McDonalds discovers that one of their stores cannot accommodate its customers, they expand it or build another nearby. They don't whine that they need government subsidies, or propose that the customers find an alternative place to eat.

The cost of roads doesn't end with roads. There is cost of sprawl -- lost local agriculture, forest and green space, and cost of new roads/streets/emergency/sewer etc. which are subsidized (users do not pay the real cost).

They do in this area (and I'm sure they do in Seattle too). When a new subdivision is developed the developer installs the streets, sewers, water lines, and every other needed utility. If additional lanes or signals are needed on connecting streets he pays for those also.

[Contrarian]

And to add to that, the other joy of mass transit, who here loves tearing down buildings for parking garages and surface parking lots??

Well, we're on the same page on that point. No one despises downtown surface parking lots more than I do, and we certainly have our share of them here. But it is a mistake to blame the automobile. Surface parking lots are a low-investment, low-return land use. No one tears down a fully leased out building to create a surface parking lot. The buildings are torn down because there is not enough demand for the space in them to justify maintaining them. Spokane has an abundance of those lots because its downtown area underwent a major contraction beginning in the 50s and extending to the 70s. The buildings could not be leased, and hence could not be maintained and preserved. The choices were to transform them to parking lots or leave them as vacant lots. You can be sure that those lots will be redeveloped for more profitable uses as soon as the demand for them appears.

Portland has very little surface parking lots downtown which is easy to say it is because of its transportation options, Portland has less of a need to build parking garages all over downtown to handle all of those cars.

Downtown Portland had few surface parking lots even when I lived there, when Rose City Transit still operated the rickety bus system. That's because, while it had periods of slow growth, it never experienced a contraction similar to Spokane's.

[urbanlife]

Certainly not. *Traffic* is created by road users. *Congestion* is created when the bureaucrats responsible for maintaining the road system fail to maintain it in equilibrium with demand. Suppose every time you boarded a bus or train, all the seats were taken --- there was standing room only. Would you blame the passengers, or the operators of the system? Odd, isn't it, that this problem of overuse seems to be unique to public institutions. If McDonalds discovers that one of their stores cannot accommodate its customers, they expand it or build another nearby. They don't whine that they need government subsidies, or propose that the customers find an alternative place to eat.

I for see all this going ugly very quickly...I should welcome you to the forum, I have been on this site since its beginning, and I am more than happy to debate topics, but I expect a level of detail to back up sayings...with that said, I have to take issue with this statement.

You are first comparing a private company that is out to make money to a public service that is out to provide infrastructure...the two are completely different and should never be considered the same. In your second quote in this post, you mention that you are in support of transit to prevent the need for extra parking downtown, but this two points of view cannot be separated because of how linked they are to each other.

The city cuts through an old historical neighborhood with a highway during the highway moment (which happened in just about every city in this country), then the city grows and traffic can no longer be handled by this 6 lane highway...so the city has three choices, expand to 8 to 12 lanes and destroy more of this historical neighborhood (possibly erasing the entire neighborhood), increase alternative modes of transportation to prevent the need for expansion, or do nothing. Yes, there is alot of bureaucratic mess but that comes from both ends, not just politicians but citizens as well...take that historical neighborhood, do you expect people to willingly give up their 100 yr old house for the expansion of a highway?

So you cannot make a statement like that thinking that it is such a simple answer to correct the problem.


Well, we're on the same page on that point. No one despises downtown surface parking lots more than I do, and we certainly have our share of them here. But it is a mistake to blame the automobile. Surface parking lots are a low-investment, low-return land use. No one tears down a fully leased out building to create a surface parking lot. The buildings are torn down because there is not enough demand for the space in them to justify maintaining them. Spokane has an abundance of those lots because its downtown area underwent a major contraction beginning in the 50s and extending to the 70s. The buildings could not be leased, and hence could not be maintained and preserved. The choices were to transform them to parking lots or leave them as vacant lots. You can be sure that those lots will be redeveloped for more profitable uses as soon as the demand for them appears.

Downtown Portland had few surface parking lots even when I lived there, when Rose City Transit still operated the rickety bus system. That's because, while it had periods of slow growth, it never experienced a contraction similar to Spokane's.

Again, this is not a simple answer. There are alot of factors for surface lots, the migration to the suburbs and the changing of the needs for buildings downtown. The fact that it is cheaper to tear down a building for a surface lot than it is to renovate the building...this is still the case today. Plus there is the urban renewal movement that happened, which is more the case for Spokane than contraction (in cases like Cleveland, that is a different story). The surface lots along Spokane Falls Blvd was the product of trying to attract the Expo, the Expo was a way for the city to tear down several blocks of buildings that were "old and rundown," but as we have all seen, something that is rundown looking can almost always be renovated and become old and classic.

Which on the topic of urban renewal, it was a way to tear down old buildings to replace them with new buildings, which did not always happen. Portland's Old Town suffered this way of thinking, the mayor at the time said he was willing to tear down the entire Old Town if that meant bringing new jobs to Portland.

So in a sense, it is reckless to think that there is little to no benefit to having mass transit in a city, as well as trying to compare the public sector to the private sector because they both have entirely different goals. Also there is the factor for those who are either too poor to own a car or those who wish not to own a car, when a city is focused around the car it creates an added expense that one cannot get around, but when a city is focused around public transportation, this issue no longer has such a strong control over someone's financial state.

I ask you, would you enjoy living without a car in Spokane, have a short walk from your home to a bus or train stop, a short ride downtown or to any of the many other stops, that are each their own unique urban and walkable area? The hope for a more urban city cannot happen when it is focused around the car because their is little need to have an urban city when everyone commutes by car and does not have the option for public transportation.

Again, this is a topic I have been very interested in for the past 15 years and have studied alot about it the past 5 years in college. So just to let you know alittle more about where I am coming from on this topic.

[mSeattle]

They do in this area (and I'm sure they do in Seattle too). When a new subdivision is developed the developer installs the streets, sewers, water lines, and every other needed utility. If additional lanes or signals are needed on connecting streets he pays for those also.

Actually, this is not correct. Developers do not pay the full cost of installing and maintaining infrastructure. Cities/counties contribute through tax breaks, deferrals and what-not. The cost doesn't disappear, city and/or county governments (bureaucrats or rather tax-payers) take up the slack. The question is what kind of environment/infrastructure do different types of tax payers what to fund?

[Contrarian]

Urbanlife,

"You are first comparing a private company that is out to make money to a public service that is out to provide infrastructure...the two are completely different and should never be considered the same."

The notion that transportation systems are part of "infrastructure" and therefore should be publicly provided is very much a latter-day idea. No transportation system in the US was developed or operated by governments until the late 1950s-early 1960s --- not airlines, trains, streetcar systems, or city bus lines. They were all developed privately and were privately operated until, in the cases of passenger rail and urban mass transit systems, they were obsoleted by the automobile and jet aircraft. At that point municipalities (and eventually the federal government) decided to try and revive the dead horse. The feds took over intercity rail (Amtrak) and cities took over their urban transit systems.

I don't deny the need for some kind of public transportation system in urban areas. Many people can't operate automobiles for one reason or another; there is some need there. Had governments not become involved what likely would have emerged in most cities is some kind of privately-operated small-scale system, such as van services, operating over regular routes and schedules, i.e., a system scaled to the actual demand and requiring no public subsidies. What we have instead in Spokane (and many other areas) is 72-seat articulated buses clogging the streets carrying 4 passengers (STA's load factor is 5.2%, according to the National Transit Database) because UMTA is footing the capital costs. And we have Amtrak --- a system so heavily subsidized that the government could buy every passenger a first-class airline ticket and save money.

Some densely populated cities, to be sure, require and could support a more intensive system. New York's subway system is essentially self-supporting. So is Toronto's.

Roads --- public rights-of-way --- are part of "infrastructure." The automobiles, trucks, trains, streetcars, buses, bicycles, and feet that travel over them are not.

"In your second quote in this post, you mention that you are in support of transit to prevent the need for extra parking downtown, but this two points of view cannot be separated because of how linked they are to each other."

What!? I said no such thing! What I said was that I disliked surface parking lots. But those only occur because no other profitable use of the land at the time was feasible. When the land is valuable and in demand for other uses, parking is provided in multi-storey buildings (usually with retail on the ground floor) and underground. There is not a thing wrong with such facilities.

"The city cuts through an old historical neighborhood with a highway during the highway moment (which happened in just about every city in this country), then the city grows and traffic can no longer be handled by this 6 lane highway...so the city has three choices, expand to 8 to 12 lanes and destroy more of this historical neighborhood (possibly erasing the entire neighborhood), increase alternative modes of transportation to prevent the need for expansion, or do nothing."

I agree that can be an unwelcome experience. But it applies to all public projects benefitting from eminent domain --- parks, military bases, police and fire stations, as well as roads. Light rail lines often require eminent domain also (not to mention all the destruction wrought by planners in the 60s in the name of "Urban Renewal," such as Portland's Little Italy).

Gold-plated urban transit systems have become the boondoggle of choice for city planners and local politicians, as was "urban renewal" in the 60s and 70s. The resulting systems make no economic sense.

[urbanlife]

Urbanlife,

"You are first comparing a private company that is out to make money to a public service that is out to provide infrastructure...the two are completely different and should never be considered the same."

The notion that transportation systems are part of "infrastructure" and therefore should be publicly provided is very much a latter-day idea. No transportation system in the US was developed or operated by governments until the late 1950s-early 1960s --- not airlines, trains, streetcar systems, or city bus lines. They were all developed privately and were privately operated until, in the cases of passenger rail and urban mass transit systems, they were obsoleted by the automobile and jet aircraft. At that point municipalities (and eventually the federal government) decided to try and revive the dead horse. The feds took over intercity rail (Amtrak) and cities took over their urban transit systems.

I don't deny the need for some kind of public transportation system in urban areas. Many people can't operate automobiles for one reason or another; there is some need there. Had governments not become involved what likely would have emerged in most cities is some kind of privately-operated small-scale system, such as van services, operating over regular routes and schedules, i.e., a system scaled to the actual demand and requiring no public subsidies. What we have instead in Spokane (and many other areas) is 72-seat articulated buses clogging the streets carrying 4 passengers (STA's load factor is 5.2%, according to the National Transit Database) because UMTA is footing the capital costs. And we have Amtrak --- a system so heavily subsidized that the government could buy every passenger a first-class airline ticket and save money.

Some densely populated cities, to be sure, require and could support a more intensive system. New York's subway system is essentially self-supporting. So is Toronto's.

Roads --- public rights-of-way --- are part of "infrastructure." The automobiles, trucks, trains, streetcars, buses, bicycles, and feet that travel over them are not.

"In your second quote in this post, you mention that you are in support of transit to prevent the need for extra parking downtown, but this two points of view cannot be separated because of how linked they are to each other."

What!? I said no such thing! What I said was that I disliked surface parking lots. But those only occur because no other profitable use of the land at the time was feasible. When the land is valuable and in demand for other uses, parking is provided in multi-storey buildings (usually with retail on the ground floor) and underground. There is not a thing wrong with such facilities.

"The city cuts through an old historical neighborhood with a highway during the highway moment (which happened in just about every city in this country), then the city grows and traffic can no longer be handled by this 6 lane highway...so the city has three choices, expand to 8 to 12 lanes and destroy more of this historical neighborhood (possibly erasing the entire neighborhood), increase alternative modes of transportation to prevent the need for expansion, or do nothing."

I agree that can be an unwelcome experience. But it applies to all public projects benefitting from eminent domain --- parks, military bases, police and fire stations, as well as roads. Light rail lines often require eminent domain also (not to mention all the destruction wrought by planners in the 60s in the name of "Urban Renewal," such as Portland's Little Italy).

Gold-plated urban transit systems have become the boondoggle of choice for city planners and local politicians, as was "urban renewal" in the 60s and 70s. The resulting systems make no economic sense.

Where does one even start with this, first thing, the history of the streetcar is alot more complex than becoming a "dead horse" due to the automobile...the car industry, in an attempt to increase sales bought up many of the streetcar lines and let them deteriorate. Again, you shouldnt act as if something has a simple reason for what happened.

I dont recall ever sitting in road clogged streets in Spokane that is blamed on STA...I am pretty sure the traffic issues in Spokane have more to do with cars themselves.

Why are surface parking lots more feasible than renovating the old buildings that were once on them? Renovation is costly, there is little cost in maintenance with surface lots, they generate funds very easily because of the number of people driving. If you dont see the relationship between cars and surface lots, then you shouldnt be shocked to see the parking lots along Spokane Falls Blvd stay parking lots for decades to come. Those lots have high profit and little overhead, so why would the owners of those lots ever wish to build on them unless the need for parking downtown was limited? Also the idea that these lots will somehow be replaced with parking garages is also a slim chance of ever happening because the high cost of parking garages.

Thank you for pointing out Little Italy here in Portland...thanks to the city's increase of of public transit, the urban renewal that happened within the south end of downtown didnt just become a sea of surface parking lots for PSU...though saying that, I am aware that there still is too many surface lots for my taste around PSU...which is slowly changing for the better. But again, that is another point that is much more complicated than that.

"Gold plated urban transit systems?" Could one of said the same thing about the highway systems? Which is nothing more than a buzz word, urban renewal was about tearing down an entire neighborhood in order for something new to possibly be built in its place. Transit is about connecting areas together...not sure how you could compare the two?


So I ask, why would the private sector want to provide transit if there is no profit to be made in it? So if no one is willing to provide transit, then how does a city handle its poor? Just because you dont use transit means that no one uses it. Also to go off that idea, how would someone get from South Hill to Northtown Mall if they had to deal with several private companies that offered their own shuttle systems that had their own rates and didnt work together? They would be better off hitching a ride with a random stranger.

Also, if rail and transit was such a dead horse, then why does it work well in other countries? or have they not gotten the "dead horse" memo yet?

[grayproduct]

Small point of clarification, but I believe the STA only operates 6 60' articulated buses that typically run out to EWU from various park and rides (anecdotal evidence suggests these have a high load factor). Not exactly "72-seat articulated buses clogging the streets carrying 4 passengers".

I find myself with conflicting interests here as someone who very much so enjoys the workings of machinery and infrastructure but at the same time as someone in agreement with most of Contrarian's points as a matter of practical application of ideology. What it really comes down to is; do we attempt to change people's actions in choosing what method of transport to use via social engineering, or allow the aggregate of those actions to determine the course of transit planning (in a mostly non-centralized manner). There is an obvious public "good" to be gained by encouraging (passively or not) usage of alternative modes of transportation, but at to what extent that should be forced (through tax----> subsidy) is certainly the point of contention. I do not believe that we can quantify effectively the impact on public transit development when one accounts for opportunity costs and other factors both positive and negative that most certainly do end up in the "what is not seen" category. If someone can provide insight into these issues, I'd certainly be all ears.

[mSeattle]

I find myself with conflicting interests here as someone who very much so enjoys the workings of machinery and infrastructure but at the same time as someone in agreement with most of Contrarian's points as a matter of practical application of ideology. What it really comes down to is; do we attempt to change people's actions in choosing what method of transport to use via social engineering, or allow the aggregate of those actions to determine the course of transit planning (in a mostly non-centralized manner). There is an obvious public "good" to be gained by encouraging (passively or not) usage of alternative modes of transportation, but at to what extent that should be forced (through tax----> subsidy) is certainly the point of contention. I do not believe that we can quantify effectively the impact on public transit development when one accounts for opportunity costs and other factors both positive and negative that most certainly do end up in the "what is not seen" category. If someone can provide insight into these issues, I'd certainly be all ears.

Everything is "social engineering", not just creative compact clustering. Auto-dependent and sprawl-expanding roads/transit are social engineering too.

[grayproduct]

Yes, but with the advent of automobile transportation, consumers largely chose to enable sprawl and reduce usage transit usage. While that move may have been partially guided by public policies, it appears to have been mainly a function of consumers responding to a more efficient (considering the perceived individual's needs) system coupled with other technological advances. The degree of social engineering done by policy makers (to not even say anything about private developers) with roads is much lower, they more or less follow demand when its time to build new ones. You are the pilot-in-command of your transportation machine, you pick the destination.

I like public transit. I'm currently carless in Seattle, but sometimes I wonder about the true costs of service. Because of the ease of access in where I'm living (U-district) and direct subsidy (U-Pass), I'll continue to use transit for awhile yet.

I'll be in Spokane next week and will get around to taking some nice pictures from around town (driving to and fro of course).

[urbanlife]

Yes, but with the advent of automobile transportation, consumers largely chose to enable sprawl and reduce usage transit usage. While that move may have been partially guided by public policies, it appears to have been mainly a function of consumers responding to a more efficient (considering the perceived individual's needs) system coupled other technological advances. The degree of social engineering done by policy makers (to not even say anything about private developers) with roads is much lower, they more or less follow demand when its time to build new ones. You are the pilot-in-command of your transportation machine, you pick the destination.

I like public transit. I'm currently carless in Seattle, but sometimes I wonder about the true costs of service. Because of the ease of access in where I'm living (U-district) and direct subsidy (U-Pass), I'll continue to use transit for awhile yet.

I'll be in Spokane next week and will get around to taking some nice pictures from around town (driving to and fro of course).


But to add to that thought, both mass transit and individual car has a true cost that is much higher than one would think...much like the difference between suburban and urban living.

Going off this line of thought though, living carless in Seattle, you find yourself without the need of a parking spot for that car, which reduces the amount of space you need for living. Now if you needed a car there, you would need to park it someplace. If everyone in that neighborhood also needed a car to get around because their was no transit, where would all that additional space come from to occupy all of those added cars? This is where it become profitable to tear down buildings for parking lots.

Part of the reason Seattle is the way it is, is because of its transit. What it the true cost of that? Well a portion of that can be measured, where one breaks down the costs of transit and the investments that are made in it, but one cannot add a price tag to the urban preservation and density it enables to the city.

In the case of Spokane, there would be a more increase in transit ridership if there was more of a focus on their urban centers plan that was released several years ago, but I worry that Spokane leadership isnt willing to put forth the effort in moving Spokane forward in a more progressive manner.



Also, what people "chose" was home ownership in a new house. Again, our current system of sprawl was government forced. After WWII is when the suburban sprawl really took off. This was because the soldiers returning from the war were given the G.I. Bill that allowed them to own a home, the problem was, it had to be a new built home (the reasoning was that it would prevent us from returning to the Great Depression by increasing jobs in construction), and at the time this made sense. Also at this time, laws and zoning was changing, mixed use zoning was being removed for single zones (which also had its own social reasoning). These two elements gave suburban sprawl that we know today a green light, and dont forget to throw in the car manufacturing industry to fuel this fire. So just because our current state is a car focused society, doesnt mean it has to stay that way forever.

[Contrarian]

"Why are surface parking lots more feasible than renovating the old buildings that were once on them?"

Because there is no demand for the leasable space. When that occurs, the land is redeveloped for a less intensive use, typically a parking lot. When demand for space in a CBD is strong and land values are high, land is not used for parking, except in multi-storey structures or on the lower and below-grade floors of highrise buildings. Building owners do not maintain or renovate old buildings just for aesthetic reasons, Urban, even though most of them would prefer to do that rather than demolish the building and redevelop the land for a parking lot. But they have to be able to lease the resulting space.

"Those lots have high profit and little overhead, so why would the owners of those lots ever wish to build on them unless the need for parking downtown was limited?"

Because the prospect may arise for a more profitable use of land than for surface parking. All of those owners would happily build highrises on their parking lots if they thought they could lease the space.

"So I ask, why would the private sector want to provide transit if there is no profit to be made in it?"

There is a profit to be made in it, provided the system is scaled to the actual demand.

"Also to go off that idea, how would someone get from South Hill to Northtown Mall if they had to deal with several private companies that offered their own shuttle systems that had their own rates and didnt work together? They would be better off hitching a ride with a random stranger."

That question reminds me of one once asked of the New York Produce terminal, where farmers bring their produce every morning for sale to buyers from wholesalers and grocery chains. "How can this possibly work? Who coordinates and plans all this? How do the farmers know what to bring, and how much? How do the buyers know how much to buy?" Yet, despite the lack of any central planning or bureaucratic oversight, New York shoppers consistently find plenty of tomatoes, celery, onions, lettuce, etc., on the shelves of their favorite market. There is never a sign reading "No tomatoes today" (such signs were very common in centrally planned Soviet grocery stores, however). Markets solve those problems very efficiently, Urban.

"Also, if rail and transit was such a dead horse, then why does it work well in other countries? or have they not gotten the "dead horse" memo yet?"

Transit systems work well in densely populated areas. European cities are much more densely populated than most N. American cities, especially Western US and Canadian cities; they are much older, more tightly clustered, and average living units are much smaller. (The average American occupies over 2000 sq. ft. of living space, the average European about 1000). Incomes in the EU are also about 60% of the US, which means than many Europeans cannot afford cars. I.e., most Europeans today live in conditions similar to those of East Coast Americans of the 30s and 40s, when those urban Americans also used transit.

BTW, I've never suggested that transit systems don't work, or can't work well. They just don't (and can't) work as well as the private automobile for most people, which is why over 90% of urban trips are via auto.

" . . . but one cannot add a price tag to the urban preservation and density it enables to the city."

That is probably true, but it is not the key issue. I (like you, and probably everyone else using this forum) am an urban junkie. I relish the variety, vitality, and novelty one can constantly encounter in healthy urban centers. They offer endless surprise and delight. But not everyone shares that interest. Even many people who work downtown every day are indifferent to that environment or even uncomfortable in it; at the end of the workday they are happy to escape it and retreat to their suburbs. I don't believe they have any obligation to compromise their lifestyles and surrender their preferences to make things more interesting for me.

"In the case of Spokane, there would be a more increase in transit ridership if there was more of a focus on their urban centers plan that was released several years ago, but I worry that Spokane leadership isnt willing to put forth the effort in moving Spokane forward in a more progressive manner."

Healthy, vibrant cities are not the creations of urban planners; they are the creations of thousands of autonomous individuals --- some visionary, some inspired, some eclectic, and some just nutty --- all "doing their own thing." What results is an urban texture that is entirely unpredictable, novel, and endlessly dynamic. Architects, builders, and entrepreneurs don't need "leaders" to herd them along some preferred path professional planners have absorbed from textbooks. They are quite capable of deciding where they want to go and getting there under their own power and by following their own compass. Malls are the products of planners. Healthy downtowns are *unplanned* --- they are the spontaneous products of thousands of free agents who have established a natural equilibrium.

BTW, I'm always amused when champions of mass transit systems --- a 19th century technology --- describe their proposals as "progressive."

I'm enjoying the dialogue. It's raised some issues sorely in need of discussion.

[urbanlife]

In a perfect world a land owner that can make more money by building a building on their parking lot to make more money they would, but this isnt a perfect world and it is much easier to own a parking lot than it is a building...that is the reason for most of the surface lots in cities...Portland has several lots that the owner is not willing to build anything on them, nor sell them...thus those parking lots will be there for years to come....Spokane is in that same boat. Spokane Falls Blvd is the highest land values in the city, it is a key name street in the city, but many of those parking lots are owned by people who have no plans on selling or building anything on them.

I also find it amusing when someone thinks:
"I'm always amused when champions of mass transit systems --- a 19th century technology --- describe their proposals as "progressive.""

I point this out because building construction has been the same for much longer than the train...do you scoff when someone comments about how modern a post and beam building looks?

Just because something was created in a past century doesnt mean it loses its "progressive" title...also, I ask are the trains identical to the ones of the 19th century?

Also, I must remind you, Portland is probably one of the best planned out city, much of the movements that have happened in this city are thanks to forward thinking with planners. But one must keep in mind that planners are just one category to what makes a city run...one shouldnt toss their opinion aside for haphazard development....even Houston, with no zoning laws still has planners.


I dont feel that a city should be completely urban, but I do think that a city needs urban cores that are linked together and to the downtown. Which planners can easily be used to target these locations...often times, these locations are the same locations that were created thanks to the train. Spokane was once full of streetcar tracks and still has several areas that can return to more pedestrian friendly urban areas, but they cant happen without the proper movements in the right directions.


Also calling trains a "dead horse" makes one believe you feel the technology is obsolete....which I refer back to post and beam, that is still a functional technology...also, you confirm my point with Europe, so that region has more dense urban cores than this country, so that means why bother? Do you think what you see will always look like that in the future? Seattle has changed drastically since the 80s...the entire Pearl District in Portland was built in the last 10 years. Cities change, and it is wrong not to think about what can be done to make it better and what changes could be make the city move in the right direction.


And seeing that I grew up on the east coast in a city that decided to wipe out almost their entire downtown for new shiny buildings that took over 50 years to come (which most of those parking lots were built on in a huge risk shopping mall). The historical factor of the architecture is actually a value, like anything that you would put a value to, much like a valuable trading card, if that card is torn in half, could you make a new one and say it has the same value as the original card? Buildings are the same way, the craftsmanship of an older building cannot be replaced and once it is gone it is gone.


I will point out, the way you think, based off of what I am reading is very close to the planning vision that LeCorbusier had. Personally, I think that would be a horrible move for any city to take, and cities like Spokane have only a small stock of historical buildings left that should not be torn down for a quick profit idea.

[Contrarian]

Since there are no projects to speak of presently underway to discuss, perhaps some suggestions for future projects are in order.

There has been some discussion over the years of the possibilities for redevelopment of Railroad Alley --- none official (as far as I know) and none which have attained any momentum. But the possibilities there are intriguing (a hint of those possibilities is already visible at Monroe St.). It is a narrow, intimate stretch, ideal for such pedestrian-oriented businesses as cafes, nightclubs, craft shops, galleries, used book and clothing shops, and other low-rent, offbeat retailing. Perhaps the owners of properties along that alley, from Washington to Cedar Sts., would consider creating an LID to provide lighting (probably wall-mounted) and perhaps some distinctive pavers along its length, and ponder how they could create small, affordable, leasable spaces in their buildings facing the alley. You'd want to discourage vehicles in the alley, but some existing businesses presently depend on that access for deliveries. Some way would have to be found to accommodate that.

Just a thought.

[grayproduct]

After seeing that Northtown Square development a few times now, it is severely lacking. My ideal setup would have been to construct a pedestrian bridge over division for that development to use the Northtown parking garage since mall "attendance" has been in decline for awhile. The extra space freed up on that lot could have been used to create something more creative, i.e, apartments with retail below. The standard cinder block strip mall/huge parking lot idea is kind of old and not very appealing.

On another note, what is the difference in parking stall sizes in Spokane versus Seattle? It's very apparent when parking, but does anyone know the actual dimensions?

[grayproduct]

Pictures as promised:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=170609

[Contrarian]

Inland Empire commented in the "Spokane, WA: Number One" thread:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=170609

"Great thread....Spokane is often overlooked but has a really great urban feel to it. Its downtown is really impressive; it was a very prominent city at the turn of the century and has retained much of its character especially downtown and on the South Hill. You don't find buildings like the Davenport Hotel and Paulson building preserved to such a degree even here in Seattle. Hope to see more of it represented here. I was going to take pictures when I was home in Coeur d' Alene last month, but didn't get the chance."

I decided some followup comments might fit better here.

Inland Empire is right --- in 1910 Spokane, with a population of 104,000, was the 6th largest city west of the Rockies, trailing only Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Seattle and Portland. It was the 11th largest west of the Mississippi --- larger than any city in Texas, far larger than such towns as Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, San Jose, Sacramento, and San Diego. It was served by 5 transcontinental railroads, the largest rail hub west of Omaha and St. Paul. And it was swimming in money, from its position as a transportation hub (and the warehousing, manufacturing, and distribution activity that goes with it), but mostly from the Coeur d'Alene and Anaconda mining districts to the east. Much of that wealth was invested in first-class architecture. So it has a coherent downtown core typical of Eastern and Midwestern cities (as do Seattle and Portland) and a legacy of of historic buildings which few cities in the West can match (because they are not old enough).

Unfortunately, the wealth that made all that possible has dissipated. Spokane now needs a way to draw it back.

[Dazzeetrader]

How such a gorgeous 4 season town could just be stifled seems a bit hard to figure out. I suppose it has something to do with the Newspaper and it's family. Most things in Spokane somehow seem to trickle back to them.

I am in town for the 4th visitng the folks. I know that before the economic downfall, there was a tenant trying to make the property at the old Hostess property it's national headquarters. Big project too. There was some movement in Spokane toward that. I don't know if the project will be rekindled when/if the economy perks up.

It seems this mid sized city has everything needed to move ahead..except manufacturing. As it sits ow, not to much in new. Service jobs built to maintain and trade dollars but no new infusion of money. I see Joe's went bust but Cabelas is doing fine across the border. I wonder if anyone noticed that it just might be the tax structure in Idaho that brings new businesses for goods and manufacturing type things. Also though, how did this Gov generate $9.2 Billion in debt so fast!!<--this one kills me. How'd she hide it during the campaign just 7+ months ago? :shrug:

Anyway, I'm glad to be home. Nice weather this week. Get outside and get some of this fresh air. Winter was a tough one here. It's time for Sun and carefree Summer. :tup:

[Contrarian]

It was broader economic forces, Dazee. The development of air travel and better highways --- spurring the growth of truck traffic --- after WWII reduced the importance of the railroads, and allowed allowed national firms with manufacturing or distribution operations in Spokane to consolidate them in Seattle, or even Chicago. The closure of Continental Baking's plant in Spokane, that you mention, is a fairly recent example. And the wealth generated by the Idaho and Montana mines disappeared, as richer, lower-cost mines opened in 3rd World countries.

Unfortunately, Spokane never produced a Bill Boeing or Bill Gates to replace those original endowments.

[Dazzeetrader]

Wasn't there a plan in place to bolter and develop SPokane's economy? I thought SIRTI and WSU RIverpoint (although having different functions) were trying to generate some activity. Certainly the GSI hasn't done much.

WSU was specifically to generate some medical industry type work through research. Nothing so far. Even their big plans we see in the online versions of the newspaper and business journal has been curiously quiet. Despite being funded with taxpayer money...and to the gills...not much has materialised. Does anyone know different? Is Something going on? I know some of the heart docs that focus on research and they know of no activity.

I thought this was to be the new jewel in the crown. WSU sure has eaten up some prime land and developed big buildings. Outside of the nursing function, where is the progrss that might develop Spokane?

[Contrarian]

Dazee,

> Wasn't there a plan in place to bolter and develop Spokane's economy?

Heh. There have been a hundred plans to improve the city's economy. The results, as you note, have been minimal. That is because economic development does not derive from bureaucrats' plans; it occurs when local entrepreneurs are free to pursue their ambitions and where the political and economic climate is perceived by outsiders looking to move or expand as being friendly and encouraging to business. Most economic activity in most cities is home-grown; Bill Boeing, Bill Gates, and the founders of Nordstrom and Starbucks were all Seattle natives; the founders of Nike, Pendleton, White Stag, Jantzen, Tektronix, and Omark in Portland were native Oregonians. Spokane's pols cannot do anything to conjur up a Bill Gates or a John Nordstrom. They can only try to assure that if one should appear, he or she will not be driven to greener pastures because of the local tax and regulatory climate.

There are some positive things the city can do, however. It can make it a priority to establish a full-fledged, full-curriculum campus of WSU at Riverpoint. And it can also lobby to establish a full campus of the U of W Medical School in Spokane. The latter should be easy --- Spokane already has 3/4 of a medical school --- students can today complete their 1st, 3rd, and 4th years of med school in Spokane, as well as residencies in most specialties. They have to go to Seattle only for the 2nd year. Both Sacred Heart and Deaconess are certified teaching hospitals and tertiary care centers. WSU will move its school of pharmacy to Spokane next year (I believe).

Earlier this week a group of leftist ideologues submitted petitions with something over 5000 signatures to place a City Charter amendment establishing a so-called "Bill of Rights" on the November ballot. Of course, it is actually a bill of free lunches --- it would create fiat "rights" to housing, health care, and "affordable and renewable energy," which the City would be obliged to pay for, and compel businesses to pay "living wages" ($14.10/hr) and hire a specified number of apprentices on construction projects valued at over $2 million. It also would endow rivers, trees, and soil with "rights" which any person could bring suit to enforce against anyone perceived to be violating them (such as by erecting a building). It also attempts to render the likely targets of these suits --- businesses --- impotent to defend themselves: "Corporations and other business entities shall not be deemed to possess any legal rights, privileges, powers, or protections which would enable those entities to avoid the enforcement of these rights, or which would enable them to nullify these rights." The measure would also allow neighborhood NIMBYs to block virtually any development proposal, and require employers to remain "neutral" when labor organizations attempt to unionize their employees.

I have no idea how this silly measure will fare in November, but the mere fact that there are at least 5000 persons in Spokane whose mothers never advised them that the world does not owe them a living --- that they are entitled to compel others to serve them and to the products others' labor --- is not a fact which local entrepreneurs and others considering Spokane as a place to do business are likely to find encouraging.

[urbanlife]

Dazee,

> Wasn't there a plan in place to bolter and develop Spokane's economy?

Heh. There have been a hundred plans to improve the city's economy. The results, as you note, have been minimal. That is because economic development does not derive from bureaucrats' plans; it occurs when local entrepreneurs are free to pursue their ambitions and where the political and economic climate is perceived by outsiders looking to move or expand as being friendly and encouraging to business. Most economic activity in most cities is home-grown; Bill Boeing, Bill Gates, and the founders of Nordstrom and Starbucks were all Seattle natives; the founders of Nike, Pendleton, White Stag, Jantzen, Tektronix, and Omark in Portland were native Oregonians. Spokane's pols cannot do anything to conjur up a Bill Gates or a John Nordstrom. They can only try to assure that if one should appear, he or she will not be driven to greener pastures because of the local tax and regulatory climate.

There are some positive things the city can do, however. It can make it a priority to establish a full-fledged, full-curriculum campus of WSU at Riverpoint. And it can also lobby to establish a full campus of the U of W Medical School in Spokane. The latter should be easy --- Spokane already has 3/4 of a medical school --- students can today complete their 1st, 3rd, and 4th years of med school in Spokane, as well as residencies in most specialties. They have to go to Seattle only for the 2nd year. Both Sacred Heart and Deaconess are certified teaching hospitals and tertiary care centers. WSU will move its school of pharmacy to Spokane next year (I believe).

Earlier this week a group of leftist ideologues submitted petitions with something over 5000 signatures to place a City Charter amendment establishing a so-called "Bill of Rights" on the November ballot. Of course, it is actually a bill of free lunches --- it would create fiat "rights" to housing, health care, and "affordable and renewable energy," which the City would be obliged to pay for, and compel businesses to pay "living wages" ($14.10/hr) and hire a specified number of apprentices on construction projects valued at over $2 million. It also would endow rivers, trees, and soil with "rights" which any person could bring suit to enforce against anyone perceived to be violating them (such as by erecting a building). It also attempts to render the likely targets of these suits --- businesses --- impotent to defend themselves: "Corporations and other business entities shall not be deemed to possess any legal rights, privileges, powers, or protections which would enable those entities to avoid the enforcement of these rights, or which would enable them to nullify these rights." The measure would also allow neighborhood NIMBYs to block virtually any development proposal, and require employers to remain "neutral" when labor organizations attempt to unionize their employees.

I have no idea how this silly measure will fare in November, but the mere fact that there are at least 5000 persons in Spokane whose mothers never advised them that the world does not owe them a living --- that they are entitled to compel others to serve them and to the products others' labor --- is not a fact which local entrepreneurs and others considering Spokane as a place to do business are likely to find encouraging.

I would have to say you are about half right with this post...I do think it is important for city and state governments to put in play programs that help people start small businesses and allows them to grow because that is where fortune 500 companies come from.

The whole bill of rights thing, sure, some of the things on there are a bit much, I have never been a fan of the far right or far left...personally I think people that sit on the far ends are a bit full of themselves...republicans and democrats....though I will say, I grew up in a right to work state that paid federal minimum wage and had some of the lowest pay in the country because if you didnt like it, you should find another job...I think if a company wishes to hire an employee to work full time for them, then they should be required to pay that person a wage that one could live off of and not be in need of government assistance. I think that is a fair assessment, you of all people should agree with that because I do believe you are against government assistance...

But a word of advice, you really should avoid the whole "leftie" and other name calling things to address the party you clearly do not support...I have no problem with which ever way someone wishes to vote, I just have a hard time caring what they have to say when they resort to name calling...and that goes for everybody.

[Contrarian]

Hmmm. I was not aware that the adjectives "left" and "right" were considered to be insults, or using them to be "name-calling," urban. I thought they were fairly standard and well-understood terms for characterizing positions along the political spectrum. I do realize that leftists these days prefer not be described as "leftists" or "socialists," given the unfortunate association of those terms with the late, unlamented USSR, preferring the inaccurate euphemism "progressive" instead, but that is mere political correctness --- a rhetorical smokescreen no more informative or illuminating than name-calling.

There is no need for governments to "put in play programs that help people start small businesses and allows them to grow because that is where fortune 500 companies come from." None of the companies I mentioned, nor (likely) any of the Fortune 500 companies, arose or developed because of programs put into play by local or state governments. Entrepreneurs are perfectly capable of launching successful businesses without the guiding hand of a paternalistic State. The best the State can do is see that rights are reasonably well protected (I refer to bonafide, common-law rights here, not fiat rights of the sort advocated on the ballot measure mentioned), that public infrastructure is reasonably well-maintained, and that the tax and regulatory climate does not discourage investment, anbition, and the exercise of imagination.


An example of the latter would be a political dictate that employers pay "a wage that one could live off of." Employers will pay what the proffered services are worth to their businesses. If an employee decides he cannot live the lifestyle he desires off that wage, his recourse is to improve his skills so that he can offer a service worth more; it is not to run to a politician and demand that the employer be forced to pay more than the employee's services are worth. Nor is it the job of government to offer the dissatisfied employee "assistance," i.e., a handout paid for with taxes on the more productive members of the community. That discourages the both the employee and his unwilling benefactors --- the employee has no incentive to improve his own skills, and the productive will find somewhere else to do business.

[urbanlife]

Hmmm. I was not aware that the adjectives "left" and "right" were considered to be insults, or using them to be "name-calling," urban. I thought they were fairly standard and well-understood terms for characterizing positions along the political spectrum. I do realize that leftists these days prefer not be described as "leftists" or "socialists," given the unfortunate association of those terms with the late, unlamented USSR, preferring the inaccurate euphemism "progressive" instead, but that is mere political correctness --- a rhetorical smokescreen no more informative or illuminating than name-calling.

There is no need for governments to "put in play programs that help people start small businesses and allows them to grow because that is where fortune 500 companies come from." None of the companies I mentioned, nor (likely) any of the Fortune 500 companies, arose or developed because of programs put into play by local or state governments. Entrepreneurs are perfectly capable of launching successful businesses without the guiding hand of a paternalistic State. The best the State can do is see that rights are reasonably well protected (I refer to bonafide, common-law rights here, not fiat rights of the sort advocated on the ballot measure mentioned), that public infrastructure is reasonably well-maintained, and that the tax and regulatory climate does not discourage investment, anbition, and the exercise of imagination.


An example of the latter would be a political dictate that employers pay "a wage that one could live off of." Employers will pay what the proffered services are worth to their businesses. If an employee decides he cannot live the lifestyle he desires off that wage, his recourse is to improve his skills so that he can offer a service worth more; it is not to run to a politician and demand that the employer be forced to pay more than the employee's services are worth. Nor is it the job of government to offer the dissatisfied employee "assistance," i.e., a handout paid for with taxes on the more productive members of the community. That discourages the both the employee and his unwilling benefactors --- the employee has no incentive to improve his own skills, and the productive will find somewhere else to do business.

I am thankful I do not live in your world...the use of the words "left" or "right" are not offensive, but but if one were to say "all you righties believe the government should do nothing," well that can be seen as it is. And I hope you understand that I mean it in a sense, if you wish to have people listen to what you are saying, it is not wise to start out calling them names...now if you said "left" or "democrat" then that would be fine...also the use of the word "socialist" from a republican is nothing more than a tag word meant to spark emotion...this is not a socialist country, nor will it ever be.

So you think the Small Business Administration is a bad program to have? I am sure it has helped plenty of small businesses get off the ground by providing resources and loans to people who may not of been able to afford them on their own because they didnt have enough financial capital to back it up...which the SBA is a government controlled program. I believe more investing in that is needed to help more businesses start up.

Your belief towards living wages in this country suggests you might want to think about living in a state that is a "right to work" state, I think Washington might be the wrong home for you.

I wish to ask you an important question that I find flawed in your statement. If one doesnt make a living wage with their job, how are they to afford the ability to improve their skills? Also, if an employer doesnt pay a living wage, how does one make enough money to live without asking for government assistance?

This do nothing approach that you seem to be for does not fix any problems. Are you aware of how many full time, 40 hours a week, employees at Walmart are below the poverty line? Thus means that a company's own employees are in need of government assistance because they cannot afford to survive with the job they have...or should this person reduce their quality of live and work 80 hours to make ends meat? Which would increase family instability in this country. So I am confused on what direction your point of view is aiming.

I will say this, I probably do agree with you on the damages unions have done to this country...I do think it is wrong for a union to ask for demands beyond a company's means which has forced most of the manufacturing jobs overseas...also unions have a habit of promoting laziness amongst workers because of looking at one's longevity over one's performance levels. I think if a newer employee works harder than an older employee, the newer employee should be the one getting the promotions.

[Contrarian]

I am thankful I do not live in your world...the use of the words "left" or "right" are not offensive, but but if one were to say "all you righties believe the government should do nothing," well that can be seen as it is.

So "left" is not offensive, but "leftist" is? Isn't a person on the left of the political spectrum a leftist, *per force*? I think that derivative form follows simply from the rules of English grammar. It is true, as I mentioned, that leftists prefer not to be denoted with that term, or with the term "socialist." But that is because those terms, and the ideology to which they refer, acquired unpleasant connotations over the course of the 20th century, due to the brutalities of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. Contemporary leftists hope to evade those connotations without abandoning the destructive ideology they denote. So they attempt some rhetorical sleight-of-hand by adopting euphemisms, hoping no one will notice that the underlying ideology remains unchanged.

One is not indulging in name-calling by referring to an adherent of Buddhism a "Buddhist," a person who plays piano a "pianist," or a follower of Henry George a "Georgist." That is just the way English works, urban. Nor do speakers have any duty to avoid such standard and accurate terms simply because some of the persons designated with them prefer some concealing euphemism. It would be an insult only if the persons referred to were not, in fact, leftists.

So you think the Small Business Administration is a bad program to have?

It is "bad" to the extent that it takes money from people who have earned it in order to give it to others who didn't. I.e., instead of allowing each person to decide for him/herself which small businesses merit their patronage and investment, the government relieves them of their money by force and distributes it in accordance with the judgments of bureaucrats. So it hurts some businesses to the precise extent it helps others. In fact, it is a negative-sum game, for two reasons: first, there is a deadweight loss, since 10-20% of the money seized is captured by the bureaucrats and the downstream contractors, "consultants," NGOs, lawyers, and other groupies who tend to flock around any government program. Second, the money is taken from persons who have demonstrated --- merely by having it --- an ability to earn it and given to persons with no comparable track record. The money thus seized and transferred is thus likely to be less productive than it would otherwise have been.

And of course it is totally unnecessary. It would be interesting to know how many of the Fortune 500 companies, or of the (say) 20 largest businesses in any city, ever received an SBA loan. I suspect the fraction is negligible.

I wish to ask you an important question that I find flawed in your statement. If one doesnt make a living wage with their job, how are they to afford the ability to improve their skills? Also, if an employer doesnt pay a living wage, how does one make enough money to live without asking for government assistance?

Geez, urban, that problem has been faced millions of times, by millions of people, virtually all of whom solved it --- without any government program. The most typical scenario is that young people take minimum wage jobs while still in high school and college, while continuing to live with their parents or in dorms or rooming houses with other impoverished students. By the time they graduate they have acquired both work experience and training, which enables them to secure more remunerative employment. For millions of immigrants to the US during the 19th and early 20th century, however, those options were not available. They arrived not only with no money, but without friends, family, or the ability to speak the local language. Yet most of those groups attained income parity within 1 generation, and exceeded it within two. Needless to say, there were no government programs upon which they could rely (and thus become dependent).

I will say this, I probably do agree with you on the damages unions have done to this country...

It is actually not the unions which have done the damage, but the government's demands that employers deal with them.

[urbanlife]

So "left" is not offensive, but "leftist" is? Isn't a person on the left of the political spectrum a leftist, *per force*? I think that derivative form follows simply from the rules of English grammar. It is true, as I mentioned, that leftists prefer not to be denoted with that term, or with the term "socialist." But that is because those terms, and the ideology to which they refer, acquired unpleasant connotations over the course of the 20th century, due to the brutalities of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. Contemporary leftists hope to evade those connotations without abandoning the destructive ideology they denote. So they attempt some rhetorical sleight-of-hand by adopting euphemisms, hoping no one will notice that the underlying ideology remains unchanged.

One is not indulging in name-calling by referring to an adherent of Buddhism a "Buddhist," a person who plays piano a "pianist," or a follower of Henry George a "Georgist." That is just the way English works, urban. Nor do speakers have any duty to avoid such standard and accurate terms simply because some of the persons designated with them prefer some concealing euphemism. It would be an insult only if the persons referred to were not, in fact, leftists.


Well to focus more on you thinking the democrat party is more of a socialist program, which it is not...you dont mind me referring to the republican party as a fascist party? Which of course if you are referring to socialist as being a communist, thus would mean all "rightist" must mean they are all populists thus would make them all fascist, which would only be fitting to assume if you think that "leftists" are all socialists. Which as we all know, nothing is black and white and one cannot assume that just because someone disagrees with them, then it must make them the polar opposite on the political spectrum.


It is "bad" to the extent that it takes money from people who have earned it in order to give it to others who didn't. I.e., instead of allowing each person to decide for him/herself which small businesses merit their patronage and investment, the government relieves them of their money by force and distributes it in accordance with the judgments of bureaucrats. So it hurts some businesses to the precise extent it helps others. In fact, it is a negative-sum game, for two reasons: first, there is a deadweight loss, since 10-20% of the money seized is captured by the bureaucrats and the downstream contractors, "consultants," NGOs, lawyers, and other groupies who tend to flock around any government program. Second, the money is taken from persons who have demonstrated --- merely by having it --- an ability to earn it and given to persons with no comparable track record. The money thus seized and transferred is thus likely to be less productive than it would otherwise have been.

And of course it is totally unnecessary. It would be interesting to know how many of the Fortune 500 companies, or of the (say) 20 largest businesses in any city, ever received an SBA loan. I suspect the fraction is negligible.

So let me get this straight, you do not support taxes? Because isnt that what taxes are, we give the government money to help pay for programs and needs of the country? Also Fortune 500s aside, do you honestly believe Spokane would have the number of businesses that it has without SBA? Or do you prefer the only businesses that should be allowed to do anything are the ones that have money already? Thus meaning the rich get richer while the poorer never gets ahead. Also, if a small business isnt able to start up because they do not that the deep pockets bigger companies have to acquire a loan, then how would patrons be able to go to a small business that doesnt exist? Or do you prefer only shopping and eating at chains because they can afford to do business?


Geez, urban, that problem has been faced millions of times, by millions of people, virtually all of whom solved it --- without any government program. The most typical scenario is that young people take minimum wage jobs while still in high school and college, while continuing to live with their parents or in dorms or rooming houses with other impoverished students. By the time they graduate they have acquired both work experience and training, which enables them to secure more remunerative employment. For millions of immigrants to the US during the 19th and early 20th century, however, those options were not available. They arrived not only with no money, but without friends, family, or the ability to speak the local language. Yet most of those groups attained income parity within 1 generation, and exceeded it within two. Needless to say, there were no government programs upon which they could rely (and thus become dependent).



It is actually not the unions which have done the damage, but the government's demands that employers deal with them.

So let me get this straight, one can survive and make great pay off of just a high school education because 100 years ago immigrants made it with less...with that analogy, the Mexicans coming to this country must be profiteering hand over fist. This statement is void of inflation, education demands, costs of added education, change in job opportunities, as well as parents having to afford the costs of their children staying at home longer or rising costs of tuitions. Also to go along with this is the living conditions in the 19th and early 20th century were outrageously poor. NYC for example had people living in unsafe tenements. Seriously, who wants to go back to that kind of lifestyle?

I fail to see how this idea of do nothing, dont help your neighbor, dont tax anyone plan would make this country run better....this isnt the 19th century, immigrants didnt have to deal with the technology that we have today. By the way you describe things, the only ones who should be able to do anything in this country are the ones that have the money to do it, thus would mean you paid for your house up front and without any loans?

[Boiseguy]

Pictures as promised:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=170609

beautiful pictures of a beautiful city.. my sister use to live in spokane a few years ago.. such great architecture and promise... the spokane river and the falls are absolutely stunning...

[urbanlife]

beautiful pictures of a beautiful city.. my sister use to live in spokane a few years ago.. such great architecture and promise... the spokane river and the falls are absolutely stunning...

As for promise, every time I go back home to visit, I always seem to learn about new things in the city or assets that are becoming more popular there. The city has really changed alot for the better over the past 5 years. I have a feeling there is going to be quite the buy local and small business growth there in the coming years.

[Boiseguy]

As for promise, every time I go back home to visit, I always seem to learn about new things in the city or assets that are becoming more popular there. The city has really changed alot for the better over the past 5 years. I have a feeling there is going to be quite the buy local and small business growth there in the coming years.

I could see that happening as well....they just need to really get more people living downtown

[urbanlife]

I could see that happening as well....they just need to really get more people living downtown

That will be the tricky part because that will have to happen mostly through new developments which is a costly risk to take and would only make more expensive units available to people that live there....and if you can afford to live in Browne's Addition for $400 or so, chances are one isnt going to pay $1200 in rent.

But the more renovations that happen the better, all along the railroad tracks through downtown, many of those old buildings have been converted into apartments and condos, which is a good move.

The downtown does need a bold and massive move to happen along the parking lots on Main, I have always felt that is what hurts the city the most and could easily change the dynamics of the city having that area built up and flowing with activity.

[Contrarian]

Well to focus more on you thinking the democrat party is more of a socialist program, which it is not...you dont mind me referring to the republican party as a fascist party?

It would be inaccurate to describe Democrats without qualification as "socialists." Some of them are, many are not. It would also be inaccurate to describe Republicans as "fascists" for the same reason (although I wouldn't much care what you said about either one). But I said nothing about Democrats. I mentioned "leftists," meaning persons who subscribe to and champion political positions characteristic or definitive of "the Left."

So let me get this straight, you do not support taxes? Because isnt that what taxes are, we give the government money to help pay for programs and needs of the country?

I certainly think that persons who benefit from public programs have an obligation to help pay for them, to the precise extent to which they benefit. E.g., motorists who use public highways cannot legitimately complain about paying fuel taxes; a person who is not burgled because many of the burglars are in prison cannot complain about paying taxes for police, courts, and prisons. But no one has any duty to pay for government programs which they have not requested, do not desire, and from which they receive no benefit.

Countries, BTW, and other defined group entities (societies, communities, cities, species, etc.) do not have "needs," except metaphorically. Any needs (and goals, interests, preferences, tastes) to be found in them will be the needs, interests, etc., of some actual individuals within them, and will differ --- often greatly --- from individual to individual. It is a common fallacy among the Left to refer to such defined, abstract statistical entities as though they are concrete moral agents --- persons --- and impute properties to them which only apply to persons. Often the properties imputed actually apply to very few --- if any --- of the actual persons making up the defined group.

Also Fortune 500s aside, do you honestly believe Spokane would have the number of businesses that it has without SBA?

It would likely have more --- or, at least, those it had would be more dynamic and profitable, since they were not being dunned to support that particular government boondoggle.

Or do you prefer the only businesses that should be allowed to do anything are the ones that have money already? Thus meaning the rich get richer while the poorer never gets ahead.

Urban, almost everyone who started any business, including the founders of most of the Fortune 500 companies, were "poor" at the outset. If you lack sufficient capital of your own to launch a business --- as most entrepreneurs do --- you have to obtain it from someone else. At that point you have two options --- you must either convince other private citizens that your business proposal and plan has merit, and induce them to willingly invest their own money in it, or you have to convince a bureaucrat that it does, who will invest, not his own money, but money seized from third parties by force. Which method do you suppose will be more likely to spawn successful businesses?

So let me get this straight, one can survive and make great pay off of just a high school education because 100 years ago immigrants made it with less...with that analogy, the Mexicans coming to this country must be profiteering hand over fist.

Yes, they are, by comparison to the opportunities open to them at home. That's why they're here. And those who remain and settle, rather than work here a few years and return home, will, in another generation, attain income parity, just like their European predecessors.

[urbanlife]

I certainly think that persons who benefit from public programs have an obligation to help pay for them, to the precise extent to which they benefit. E.g., motorists who use public highways cannot legitimately complain about paying fuel taxes; a person who is not burgled because many of the burglars are in prison cannot complain about paying taxes for police, courts, and prisons. But no one has any duty to pay for government programs which they have not requested, do not desire, and from which they receive no benefit.

Countries, BTW, and other defined group entities (societies, communities, cities, species, etc.) do not have "needs," except metaphorically. Any needs (and goals, interests, preferences, tastes) to be found in them will be the needs, interests, etc., of some actual individuals within them, and will differ --- often greatly --- from individual to individual. It is a common fallacy among the Left to refer to such defined, abstract statistical entities as though they are concrete moral agents --- persons --- and impute properties to them which only apply to persons. Often the properties imputed actually apply to very few --- if any --- of the actual persons making up the defined group.

First off, do not assume that it is only the "Left" that are pushing through programs in Capitol Hill that benefit very few people...that is something that knows no political boundary and effects both sides. I do not disagree with you on that, I think there are many things that get pushed through that shouldnt of been allowed in the first place, but often times those things happen to buy people's support....which is a sad fact in politics.

Though I dont wish to break down every program with you that has been passed, I just wish to point out that this is not a "Left" issue like you are claiming....neither party is perfect.



It would likely have more --- or, at least, those it had would be more dynamic and profitable, since they were not being dunned to support that particular government boondoggle.

Do you have proof of this? An example maybe where a city the same size of Spokane that does not have an SBA? Also, the SBA doesnt just loan money, it also guarantees loans, thus making it easier for someone without a wealthy background to obtain a loan to help start their business. Also, the SBA provides information and classes on how to successfully start a business...I fail to see how that could hurt Spokane...does it bother you that I and millions of others owe the country money for our college loans? Because much like the SBA, FAFSA was designed to help those go to college who do not have the financial backing from their parents....it is the same thing that applies to different fields.



Urban, almost everyone who started any business, including the founders of most of the Fortune 500 companies, were "poor" at the outset. If you lack sufficient capital of your own to launch a business --- as most entrepreneurs do --- you have to obtain it from someone else. At that point you have two options --- you must either convince other private citizens that your business proposal and plan has merit, and induce them to willingly invest their own money in it, or you have to convince a bureaucrat that it does, who will invest, not his own money, but money seized from third parties by force. Which method do you suppose will be more likely to spawn successful businesses?

I singled this section out to talk about this idea of "force." You make it sound like you are forced to give away your money to help others...I do not recall the government banging on my door to raid my piggy bank. I am well aware that I pay state and federal income taxes that then gets divided up to different programs that use that money to pay for its function...which again, I do not wish to get into that spectrum of programs because for almost all of them, there are reasons why we have them.

But I wished to point out that it is unnecessary to talk about our government as if it were some form of mob, this isnt Iran.


Yes, they are, by comparison to the opportunities open to them at home. That's why they're here. And those who remain and settle, rather than work here a few years and return home, will, in another generation, attain income parity, just like their European predecessors.

But you fail to point out that we as Americans are in the same situation as we were in the 19th Century...one cannot compare our current time to that time and say it is the same...if it were I should be able to by a loaf of bread for a nickel....and again, early settlers did not need a college education to get ahead then...nowadays a high school diploma is almost completely worthless....which again comes back to the rising costs of tuition.


There are many holes in the claims you are making, but the foundation in which you believe in is fine...I have no issue with someone disagreeing in what I believe in, but I will always be a supporter of helping out our fellow Americans, if that means helping someone be able to start a business, go to college, feed their family...those things are things we as Americans should be willing to help with, so that if there comes a time when I need help, I will know there are others their for me....I look at my college degree I just finished, I could not of done it without the help of FAFSA, and based off of your ideology, that program would not of been there for me if this country was shaped in the way you wish it to be.

[mSeattle]

We might end up with a string of cities in similar size on that side of the state, though Spokane has advantages of a bigger city center and the big river/falls going through it.

[Contrarian]

Rich Hadley, president of Greater Spokane, Inc., the Spokane area's regional chamber of commerce, says that Spokane will have a "full 4-year medical school . . . within five years."

Growing up on a farm in Iowa, I never thought much about rural health care. Dr. Murphy was in the big city of Fredericksburg with a population of 600. When we moved off the farm into town, I dated Dr. Murphy's daughter, Diane. That is as close as I ever got to pursuing a health care career!

There are dozens of small rural towns in Eastern Washington that would love to have a Dr. Murphy, but just can't recruit them to this part of the world. I expect that to change when Spokane has a full four-year medical school that graduates 100 physicians each year - many in family and primary care. There may be a fund developed to support medical students with high education costs in turn for serving in those rural towns in this region.

Yes, we are on that path through a project that involves UW, WSU, and GSI. In September we’ll visit the medical school at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC and their branch campus in Victoria. They are one of the models we are considering. By the end of the 2009 we will have calculated what it will cost to have "our" medical school within five years. Wow!

http://launchpadinw.ning.com/group/healthcareandlifesciences/forum/topics/rl-a-fouryear-medical-school

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Spokane already has 3/4 of a medical school.

[grayproduct]

This is precisely the sort of thing that Spokane needs. A mini UW Medical Center type system would do wonders for the already dominant health care sector.

[Smentek]

What is going on down across the street from the Convention Center. It looks like there is some sort of construction about to take place or something.

[Contrarian]

A larger surface parking lot. *Sigh*

[Hub for an Empire]

They bought the block across the street from the Opera House (INB Performing Arts Center) for expansion of the Convention Center.
Sadly, the buildings they tore down were the last remnants of Spokane's Chinatown from the late 1800's/early 1900's!
Let's hope they use the block to it's fulliest advantage, when they do get around using it!

[Smentek]

Mobius lease approved.

Link: Any thoughts?

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/aug/07/mobius-deal-approved/

[urbanlife]

Mobius lease approved.

Link: Any thoughts?

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/aug/07/mobius-deal-approved/

sounds like a good idea, no harm in letting them see if they can do this...besides, this is Spokane, is there anything else the city could or would do with that land any time soon?? My guess is it would sit vacant anyway, so might as well make a buck off of it.

[Contrarian]

I've always seen that site as an optimum spot (former Park Maintenance bldgs) for a permanent flea market/farmer's market.

[urbanlife]

I've always seen that site as an optimum spot (former Park Maintenance bldgs) for a permanent flea market/farmer's market.

personally I have always thought the warehouse next to the tracks on E Riverside would make a perfect market building because of its length, which would make it easier to have a line of vendors, plus it is an existing building which would mean it would be much easier to do because no construction of a new building would be needed....plus it could easily tie into the university district plan the city has been wanting to do.

[Contrarian]

That would have been a good site too, Urban. In fact, it was used for that purpose for a couple of years (I happened to be involved with that project). Those bldgs are now scheduled for demolition, however, to make way for the extension of Riverside Ave, which will replace Trent as the major arterial and truck route through the U-district area. Trent will become a campus blvd.

[Dazzeetrader]

Did the Parks Dept really have to lease the rights for 50 years.....I mean 50 years!!!???!!! C'mon. Things do change plenty in 50 years.... and I doubt that the site would have just sat for that long. I've seen a different plan for that 5.7 acres. Somebody DID have something on the boards. Parks Dept made a quick deal when nobody knew enough to offer an alternative idea.

Because the Parks Dept answers to nobody, they were free to quietly proceed with who? Who's going to pay for the lease? Who leased the site and for how much? Who stands behind Mobius...and did they really need all the acreage for...? Has anyone seen a site plan ever? I don't know the answers but Parks needs to be reined in. Change the charter if necessary but somebody needs to bring this group under control and get some accountability. How about the Council? Swim fees anyone?

Did anyone know the proposed sale price last year was $19.5 million? So what would the lease rate be? I don't know but the new lessors snagged a prime piece of land on the edge of that beautiful park. Guess who???

[Dazzeetrader]

"Quick details of the lease include rent of $1 a year in exchange for Mobius building the $29.5 million complex. If Mobius develops commercial structures on the property, the city gets 15 percent. Mobius also has to pay $12,500 a year for parking."

From the "FriendsofFuhrman" blog <---I didn't know there was such a blog.

Seems like Barry Russell wouldn't give up the terms and told the Blog owner to file a FOI but one of the City's lawyers turned it over. I thought the Mobius thing couldn't be supported last time. I wonder what's changed.

It's a lot of money to fund a Children's center. It seems they might have thought of other options for the site.

[FireFighter74]

http://www.mainmarket.coop/zlcms/editor/uploads/images/New%20building%20rendering%20medium.jpg

http://www.mainmarket.coop/6,staytuned

[FireFighter74]

http://www.spokanecity.org/services/articles/?ArticleID=1982

http://media.spokesman.com/photos/2009/01/17/spokane-annexation-paths__t210.jpg?74a72ef94756bccc16ea1c78066b52f96b62dbc7

[urbanlife]

http://www.mainmarket.coop/zlcms/editor/uploads/images/New%20building%20rendering%20medium.jpg

http://www.mainmarket.coop/6,staytuned

I have noticed this more organic movement that has been going on in Spokane during my last few visits...that area of Main is really starting to develop into something good for the city, and much of it is thanks to the Community Center Building that is there.

[James Bond Agent 007]

http://www.spokanecity.org/services/articles/?ArticleID=1982

http://media.spokesman.com/photos/2009/01/17/spokane-annexation-paths__t210.jpg?74a72ef94756bccc16ea1c78066b52f96b62dbc7
Ooo that would be a nice new chunk of territory!

[grayproduct]

http://www.decadentgamer.com/grayproduct/galleries/Spokane/IMG_3767.jpg

http://www.decadentgamer.com/grayproduct/galleries/Spokane/IMG_3768.jpg

http://www.decadentgamer.com/grayproduct/galleries/Spokane/IMG_3769.jpg

http://www.decadentgamer.com/grayproduct/galleries/Spokane/IMG_3770.jpg

http://www.decadentgamer.com/grayproduct/galleries/Spokane/IMG_3771.jpg

http://www.decadentgamer.com/grayproduct/galleries/Spokane/IMG_3772.jpg

http://www.decadentgamer.com/grayproduct/galleries/Spokane/IMG_3773.jpg

http://www.decadentgamer.com/grayproduct/galleries/Spokane/IMG_3826.jpg

http://www.decadentgamer.com/grayproduct/galleries/Spokane/IMG_3944.jpg

[James Bond Agent 007]

So, is anything interesting going in the former parking lot across from the convention center?

[FireFighter74]

awesome pictures! Most Spokane shot are weak. As for that giant dirt lot, its going to be another parking lot for now. I know that the convention center will build an expansion one day, at least that's the plan.

[JDRCRASH]

Whats the status of the Seattle/Spokane HSR route? I haven't seen it in the 10 federal designated HSR corridors map.

[grayproduct]

Whats the status of the Seattle/Spokane HSR route? I haven't seen it in the 10 federal designated HSR corridors map.

It's probably a good thing it is not included, as there are much more important and less expensive rail corridors that need to be upgraded to HSR before it is even considered for Seatte-Spokane.

[James Bond Agent 007]

awesome pictures! Most Spokane shot are weak. As for that giant dirt lot, its going to be another parking lot for now.
I was afraid of that. But not surprised.

[urbanlife]

Which if you are wondering 007, that dirt lot will more than likely become a parking garage for the convention center that might also house some conference space as well...but that wont happen until the convention center needs to grow more or the parking lots around the convention center get redeveloped and they are in need of more parking.

[5zero9]

http://www.rockwoodretirement.org/gallery-rendering.asp?SubnavID=42

Nothing too exciting...but it looks like Rockwood is planning an expansion

Went and checked out the Post St Ale House last night and definitely a good place to get some good/ well priced food and drinks.:tup:

[FireFighter74]

There is a new owner of Kendall Yards. Here is some info

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/nov/12/kendall-yards-plan-revised/

http://www.krem.com/news/local/Kendall-Yards-69889462.html

http://www.greenstonehomes.com/communities/Kendall-Yards/

:banana:

[grayproduct]

On this link http://www.greenstonehomes.com/communities/ , Kendall Yards is listed under "Single Family Homes". An "urban subdivision" is the last thing I'd like to see there. Sure something is better than nothing, but it could be a lot better with a site like that.

[5zero9]

http://www.spokanejournal.com/article.php?id=5415
http://www.spokanejournal.com/article.php?id=5414
http://www.spokanejournal.com/article.php?id=5439

Hillyard getting another needed upgrade....

CI shannanins would be better if it were located more centerally downtown

[James Bond Agent 007]

http://www.spokanejournal.com/article.php?id=5415

[...]

CI shannanins would be better if it were located more centerally downtown [/FONT]
I had always wondered about that place. It seemed like the convention center "should" take it over.

[5zero9]

http://www.spokanejournal.com/article.php?id=5503

Another smaller project on the east side of downtown. Nice rendering could help fix that area up. Seems to be more action on that part of town. Hopefully some more projects get started seems a little slow as of late.:rolleyes:

[Dazzeetrader]

Not much going on these days. From my vanatge point, Obama hasn't done much. The country is shrouded by darkness. Not much construction nor the will to figure something out. Sunny in my old hometown from the webcams.

Where's Batman when we need him;) D:yes:

[Hub for an Empire]

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND WISHING SPOKANE A PROSPEROUS 2010!

Glad to hear about the public market in the eastern part of downtown.....it was encouraging to hear about them thinking about taking a vacant parking lot.....one less parking lot in downtown! Let's hope some activity in Kendall Yards in the near future. Would be nice to see a new highrise in downtown in the next few years.

Guess, we all should be thankful that Spokane is in a better position with the current economic situation than some cities and regions! Nice to see sun this Christmas.....so much better than all the snow from last year! :)

Happy Holiday to you!

[James Bond Agent 007]

Not much going on these days. From my vanatge point, Obama hasn't done much. The country is shrouded by darkness. Not much construction nor the will to figure something out. Sunny in my old hometown from the webcams.

Where's Batman when we need him;) D:yes:
Hey, they're building the north-south freeway. That's something. ;)

[Trebor of Spokane]

http://greenstonehomes.com/communities/kendall-yards/PUDDocs/PUD%20Narrative.pdf

and some other info (might need to sign up for account but there is a lot of links about details here:

http://greenstonehomes.com/communities/kendall-yards/pud.html

[Smentek]

It's kind of sad to think that the neighborhood will be dominated by 2-story buildings like the rest of Spokane...:yuck:

Edited to add: Was doing some snooping on the Spokane Planning website. Looks like the Riverview Condos is back in the planning stages. From what I remember from the original plan, it looks like they're moving it up the bank.

Link: http://spokaneplanning.org/Current%20Planning/pend_cur_apps/Active%20Applications/Z2009-039-CUP2%20%28Riverside%20Condos%29DBC.pdf

Link to map of the building: http://spokaneplanning.org/Current%20Planning/pend_cur_apps/Active%20Applications/Z2009-39%20Riverside%20Condos/Request%20for%20Comments%20%20Z0900039-CUP2%20Site%20Plans.pdf

[urbanlife]

Actually it looks like it is still roughly the same plan, there will be a cluster of buildings that would range in heights between Maple and Monroe, then everything west of Maple would be single family homes and townhouses. I hate to say it, but this sounds more realistic for Spokane and that portion of the city.

[Smentek]

^^^^^^^^Probably, but it seems it is going to be much less of the "urban village" Chesrown proposed and more of a subdivision with 3 or 4 towers. I just get that vibe. Greenstone produces a good product, but I feel like the produce a good suburban product, not and urban one. I really do hope that I am wrong.

[James Bond Agent 007]

I liked the previous plan better, but this is still not too bad.
http://greenstonehomes.com/communities/kendall-yards/PUDDocs/PUD%20Narrative.pdf

and some other info (might need to sign up for account but there is a lot of links about details here:

http://greenstonehomes.com/communities/kendall-yards/pud.html

[mattlovescda]

Does anyone know anything new on the Vox Tower. I saw the designs for it and got really excited but I haven't heard anything new in a while.

[Smentek]

I just don't think that the VOX Tower would fulfill a realistic demand in Spokane to be honest. I think that the cost of the tower, the lack of real demand, and the city not really being helpful to the developer (who requested a height variance) really killed the project. There has been no news on the tower since probably 2007 and seems all but dead along with some of the other hopeful projects that fell through (151 S. Wall, the 17-story building with the car elevator, YWCA condos, YMCA condo building, and the tower next to the Flour Mill). At least it seems like McDowell's project has experienced rebirth as they have re-applied and moved the tower up the bank (I think that's how they wouldn't have to deal with PV residents) and Kendall Yards seems to be making a comeback.

[mattlovescda]

I guess I'm just a huge fan of tall buildings and being that the Vox Tower would be a full 10 stories taller than anything else in the area, I was a little excited. There are probably many better ways to meet Spokanes growing need for urban housing.

[Contrarian]

Smentek has it right. The market for downtown condos is probably saturated. To raise the demand for downtown housing you need more downtown workers --- something like a major expansion of the U district, or Avista deciding to build a new HQ building downtown.

[Dazzeetrader]

It's a workable plan. Not much highend housing. Density is reduced but the Hotel idea on the Monroe corner isn't appealing to me at least.
I wondered from the beginning where all these new homeowners will come from. Abandoned housing? Not many new job clusters in Spokane so the new buyers will have to come from somehwere.

Months ago, Greenstone indicated that they would build a little at a time. They claim they will begin construction of 17 new homes within 6 weeks. We'll see. Hard to imagine where the money will come from considering the period we're in right now. SO where DID this money come from? The Family has worked with Greenstone before out in Liberty Lake. Something tells me the Family is at it again and is supporting much of what Spokane will see.

He didn't know it but Chesrown's project was doomed from the beginning. Good try though...and he did clean up the acreage in preparation for the new developers. Hope something good comes from all this.

[urbanlife]

New developments in Spokane have definitely been slow to come in. If I am not mistaken, the new organic market on E. Main has either opened or just about to open. It is a redevelopment of a closed down auto shop that has been converted into a little grocery store.

Along that portion of E. Main, it has really taken off, there is alot of new activity in that area. Also, some new little bar along S. Perry in the Perry District that is worth checking out. I met the owner the last time I was there and had a great conversation with him, great place for Spokanites to drink some rare alcohol and beer for that city.

Redevelopment along W. 1st has been growing as well...it seems like with every visit, a new building further west is being renovated and/or new things are starting to fill once vacant storefronts.

It seems to me that Spokane is currently filling up what it already has available. I wouldnt be surprised with the next upswing in the economy, Spokane might see a new tower or two being constructed in its downtown. If it is a commercial upswing and the city really gets on board with the sustainability growth, it could be something relating to that.

Either way, I will be back up there at the end of March. I really enjoy my short visits to Spokane over the years.

[InlandEmpire]

I used to work for Greenstone in their construction department, and while I think that the build quality of their products is high in comparison to other local homebuilders, they are just that - a homebuilder. I am bummed for Spokane that Chesrown doesn't own that parcel anymore just for the pure fact that I really doubt Greenstone has any true intentions for that property other than low rise suburban style development. There were plans for substantial urban villages in Liberty Lake, Post Falls, and Coeur d' Alene 5 years ago, but those are dead for now. Maybe they will try again with Kendall Yards. Vox tower is unfortunately DOA too I believe - I don't think it's even on Miller Stauffer's (CDA based architect who did DD concepts for it) website anymore. Sad - it would have been a great addition to the skyline.

[5zero9]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/mar/03/original-bidder-wants-ymca/

This YMCA property seems to continue draging on. I personally wouldn't mind having a tower there. I would emagine it would go to Mark Pinch or Ron Wells. The third proposal sounds like a long shot.

[5zero9]

http://www.krem.com/news/local/Proposed-Peaceful-Valley-condos-move-out-of-the-neighborhood-87022677.html

Damn Peaceful Valley residents...lol...I hope they cant stop the condos from being built this time around! Video sounds somewhat positive.

[5zero9]

http://www.kxly.com/news/22795142/detail.html

Kendall Yards finially underway! Scaled down version looks good and reasonable for that area. Hopefully they get started on a tower sometime soon.

[grayproduct]

Finally! Thanks for the updates. I'll be in Spokane in a couple weeks so I'll have to check things out if anything is happening.

[James Bond Agent 007]

http://www.kxly.com/news/22795142/detail.html

Kendall Yards finially underway! Scaled down version looks good and reasonable for that area. Hopefully they get started on a tower sometime soon.
:banana:

[urbanlife]

My recent trip to Spokane, I didnt have my camera with me and didnt have the time to take any photos anyway, but I did notice in several of the neighborhoods in the city there were a number of small projects going on. Hillyard has a new little urban building under construction right now, which is a big deal for a basically dead old urban street. Noticed a few things along the lower northside as well. A really cool CoOp grocery store opened up on Main St just recently. Second Street Gallery opened up a few months ago, which could lead to more things popping up along 2nd Ave as things within the city become more popular.

Definitely fun to take these trips to Spokane from time to time and getting to see all these little changes going on, they are definitely building a foundation that could amount to some huge changes for the city.

[chepe]

A long, long time coming. Obviously starting small but at this point seeing any true development of the site is a huge positive step:

http://www.krem.com/news/local/Permits-approved-for-Kendall-Yards-90701764.html

[ghost22]

So, is anything interesting going in the former parking lot across from the convention center?

In those pictures it is dirt. Now it is a parking lot and a dead spot of height in downtown

[Trebor of Spokane]

As a new owner of a Townhome that I will be moving into at the end of summer I was happy to get this twitter message on my phone this morning:

"Vertical construction is starting today at Kendall Yards."

:banana:

[FireFighter74]

Congrats! :cheers: How many homes have been started? I live in West Central, so I'm pumped about this project.





As a new owner of a Townhome that I will be moving into at the end of summer I was happy to get this twitter message on my phone this morning:

"Vertical construction is starting today at Kendall Yards."

:banana: