[Rainier Meadows]

By the way you need a Microsoft Badge to get this view. :cool:

Lincoln Square
Bellevue, WA
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/3091/img2317rf8.jpg

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/76/img2328ty9.jpg

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/4029/img23201ip1.jpg

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/5830/img2334cl1.jpg

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/3052/img23391qa4.jpg

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6374/img2359bz2.jpg

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/3353/img2361uy3.jpg

http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/2294/img2360ad4.jpg

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/153/img2351pq9.jpg

[KevinFromTexas]

Nice. Those new residential buildings are slick. Thanks for the pics.

[ltsmotorsport]

Lookin' damn fine.

[skyline]

That city amazes me! A bigger skyline than lots of cities half their pop.

[whatsthepoint13]

WOW! lots of development...
The Seattle-Tacoma area, it wouldnt surprize me if it became Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue

[Top Of The Park]

impressive!

[alexjon]

Great pictures!

WOW! lots of development...
The Seattle-Tacoma area, it wouldnt surprize me if it became Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue

It is for purely statistical purposes.

[PA Pride]

Not bad.

[Okstate]

Not bad at all

[Urban Zombie®]

By the way you need a Microsoft Badge to get this view.

May we use yours then? :D

Rocking shots!

[denveraztec]

Wonderful shots!

[NYC4Life]

Great shots of a small city, but with a nice little skyline.

[ColDayMan]

Nice shots, Raider.

[mhays]

It's not a small city. It's a "node" that exists in Seattle's orbit. Bellevue's population isn't related to the size of the skyline.

[arbeiter]

Bellevue for all intents and purposes is the 2nd city of Seattle metro. Tacoma is seen as a separate "metro" by most people. Fantastic pictures - I am interviewing at a job in that building in a week or two.

[alexjon]

It's a boomburb, more precisely. Municipally speaking, Bellevue has more in common with towns like Yelm or Ellensburg. Growth-wise, Bellevue is in the vein of Vancwa but does not have the fantastic growth of other true "second cities" like Fort Worth.

[OhioGuy]

Looks good! :)

[Fiat Lux]

It's a boomburb, more precisely. Municipally speaking, Bellevue has more in common with towns like Yelm or Ellensburg.

What?

[alexjon]

What?

It was incorporated with a government structure of a small town and maintains that to this day. And actually, it's not like Yelm, which is a Mayor-Council city.

Bellevue is basically run by elected consultants and a city manager with a mayor who exists as basically an extra vote. Were it a larger city or a smaller city with the capacity to become such, its structure would be more expansive. As it stands, however, it has a very very limiting governmental structure.

Also, as a boomburb, it has the population of but not the character of a small rapidly-growing city. This is evidenced by its developer-driven core and diffuse identity. It's like Irving, TX or the soon-to-be The Woodlands, TX but with the glaring exception that it had been incorporated long ago.

Not a dig on the town, of course, but certainly of the way its run and the way it tries to present itself. I'm guessing however that most of its public image is from businesspeople and not the town government.

The discussion, of course, is about the skyline. Which is purdy :B

[Fiat Lux]

I wouldn't quantify Bellevue as a boomburg. 25 years ago, sure, but it is an inner ring suburb these days and is evolving into a second urban center in the central Puget Sound core.

[alexjon]

I wouldn't quantify Bellevue as a boomburg. 25 years ago, sure, but it is an inner ring suburb these days and is evolving into a second urban center in the central Puget Sound core.

Bellevue has only 3% of the region's population, lacks a direct interstate link, has no ports or shares in ports, lacks the governmental framework for growth and outside of the region is not widely known.

The idea of Bellevue being a second city is a purely regional distinction and contrary to the facts established by agencies that handle municipal matters and definitions.

[erasercut]

Nice shots from an angle I've never seen before.

[arbeiter]

Bellevue has only 3% of the region's population, lacks a direct interstate link, has no ports or shares in ports, lacks the governmental framework for growth and outside of the region is not widely known.

The idea of Bellevue being a second city is a purely regional distinction and contrary to the facts established by agencies that handle municipal matters and definitions.

Isn't Interstate 90 a direct interstate link?

Also, Seattle's only about 15% of the region's population. Just sayin'.

In terms of cooperation and economic synergy, Seattle and Bellevue are much closer to each other than Seattle and Tacoma are.
And what governmental framework for growth are you referring to? Regardless of who has framed the work, so to speak, Bellevue is taking on growth better than most cities its size are - it's welcoming high-rise construction and it wants mass transit badly.

[alexjon]

Isn't Interstate 90 a direct interstate link?

Also, Seattle's only about 15% of the region's population. Just sayin'.

In terms of cooperation and economic synergy, Seattle and Bellevue are much closer to each other than Seattle and Tacoma are.
And what governmental framework for growth are you referring to? Regardless of who has framed the work, so to speak, Bellevue is taking on growth better than most cities its size are - it's welcoming high-rise construction and it wants mass transit badly.

Okay, bad example on I-5, I forgot what a major economic contributor I-90 was!

Bellevue is totally the Troy of the Seattle area-- insistence that they are THE second city when they are, as mhays stated, a node. Nobody in any great numbers outside of the region even know what Bellevue is. Quite a few people know Redmond, but Bellevue? Nope.

Troy and Bellevue share so many things in common, right down to the attitudes people hold about them.

[Fiat Lux]

Bellevue has only 3% of the region's population, lacks a direct interstate link, has no ports or shares in ports, lacks the governmental framework for growth and outside of the region is not widely known.


Bellevue is on the interstate and is within 40 miles of two of the largest ports in the country. The port of Seattle, Sea-Tac Airport etc. are easily accessible. City limit lines are arbitrary. To understand downtown Belleuve, ignore the lines on the map. Also, population and govt, structure are arbitrary too. In the not so distant past, downtown Seattle's population was tiny, but that did not prevent thousands of jobs to locate there.

Bellevue is not a boomburg, it is an inner ring suburb that happens to be home to the developing 2nd urban center in the metro's core. If downtown Bellevue fell within Seattle proper, would you think differently about it? You shouldn't.

[Fiat Lux]

Okay, bad example on I-5, I forgot what a major economic contributor I-90 was!

And 405? It is the interstate too. Think of it as I-5 east, because that is functionally what it is.

Bellevue is totally the Troy of the Seattle area-- insistence that they are THE second city when they are, as mhays stated, a node.

Exactly. Stop thinking of downtown Bellevue being in Bellevue, think of it of what it is; the #2 urban core of the area.

Nobody in any great numbers outside of the region even know what Bellevue is. Quite a few people know Redmond, but Bellevue? Nope.

And how does that change anything, functionally?

[alexjon]

More people work in downtown Seattle than live in Bellevue, fact.

The 3 densest portions of the state are in Seattle, fact.

Calling Bellevue the second city or second downtown or #2 urban core is incorrect, especially considering the lack of a functional port, non-existent transportation hub and lack of what makes a "#2 urban core" a #2 urban core.

That's Tacoma and will be Tacoma for years to come.

[urbanlife]

great shots and thank you for sharing a view that none of us will get to see in person. Just throwing this thought out, I was out and about on my bike today here in Portland, and have to say the South Waterfront here in Portland sort of reminded me of what is going on in Bellevue...mostly it is the shiny new glass towers.


No one really knows about Bellevue outside if the northwest, that is true, but does it really matter? More people know about Seattle than they do Portland.

I think it is important for regions to develop more than one core downtown. While it would be nice to have all these buildings in Seattle to make it bigger, it would then force more commuters into the city core and create an even larger problem. It is important for a metro the size of Seattle's to develop a number of urban cores to help limit commute times for people. So on that note, I have to say good for Bellevue.

[alexjon]

What really really really bothers me is the insistence that Tacoma is getting demoted, or since Bellevue is so close it's the second downtown.

[Fiat Lux]

More people work in downtown Seattle than live in Bellevue, fact.

How many people work in Bellevue? Again, population is irrelevant since city limit lines are arbitrary. I worked in Bellevue about a decade ago, but lived in Seattle.



Calling Bellevue the second city or second downtown or #2 urban core is incorrect, especially considering the lack of a functional port, non-existent transportation hub and lack of what makes a "#2 urban core" a #2 urban core.

Belleuve is the #2 core and it does have easy access to a functional port, airport, and transportation. Ever hear of Sea-Tac airport? Believe it or not, people in Bellevue use it too. Ignore city limit lines, they are arbitrary!

That's Tacoma and will be Tacoma for years to come.

Tacoma is not within the central core like DT Bellevue is. Consider DT Bellevue an uptown to DT Seattle's downtown. Tacoma is more off on its own.

[Fiat Lux]

What really really really bothers me is the insistence that Tacoma is getting demoted, or since Bellevue is so close it's the second downtown.

Tacoma is off on its own for the most part while DT Bellevue and DT Seattle compete against and complement each other since they are 10 miles apart. DT Seattle and DT Bellevue are growths from the same animal. Again, would you think differently of DT Bellevue if it were within the city limits of Seattle?

[alexjon]

Tacoma is off on its own for the most part while DT Bellevue and DT Seattle compete against and complement each other since they are 10 miles apart. DT Seattle and DT Bellevue are growths from the same animal. Again, would you think differently of DT Bellevue if it were within the city limits of Seattle?

It would be uptown or midtown but it would not be the CBD. That is why it's called the CENTRAL business district. And it's NOT in the city limits of Seattle so that argument falls on deaf ears. It wouldn't be the densest part of the city, either. And the center of Bellevue is a GIGANTIC MALL COMPLEX.

The Eastside and Bellevue are not interchangeable by any stretch of the imagination, although that's what a lot of people are trying to imply.

Tacoma and Seattle are interdependent-- I don't know why you say it's "off on its own for the most part" since it's the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, the region's commuter rail ends in Tacoma and the Port of Tacoma, as the largest port by volume in the region, lends itself heavily to the Port of Seattle through service sharing deals. Through Pierce County, Tacoma even has its own ferries and its own UW campus.

And I think it's funny that someone claimed that Bellevue is clamoring for transportation when Kemper Freeman owns most of the property around the primary alignment Sound Transit had planned for Link. You don't spit in Daddy's soup and expect Dessert. He fights against Link hard! He isn't even for buses though he claims to be.

Haha, wow.

Just admire it for its skyline-- don't puff your chest and say "THIS. THIS IS THE SECOND CITY OF THE REGION!"

It's a beautiful suburb.

[Fiat Lux]

It would be uptown or midtown but it would not be the CBD. That is why it's called the CENTRAL business district. And it's NOT in the city limits of Seattle so that argument falls on deaf ears.

For the third time, CITY LIMIT LINES ARE ARBITRARY!

Tacoma and Seattle are interdependent-- I don't know why you say it's "off on its own for the most part" since it's the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, the region's commuter rail ends in Tacoma and the Port of Tacoma, as the largest port by volume in the region, lends itself heavily to the Port of Seattle through service sharing deals. Through Pierce County, Tacoma even has its own ferries and its own UW campus.

How many people commute from Tacoma to Seattle, and vice versa? What about Seattle and Bellevue? Also, the UW is almost as close to DT Seattle as it is to DT Bellevue, ditto Sea-Tac airport. Also, the ferries don't serve anywhere near DT Tacoma.

Again, you are too hung up on fake, arbitrary things. Again, what if Bellevue, Seattle, Shorline, Kirkland, Tukwila, etc. consolidated. Would that change your opinion? Again, it shouldn't.


Just admire it for its skyline-- don't puff your chest and say "THIS. THIS IS THE SECOND CITY OF THE REGION!"




Who's talking about Bellevue proper? We are talking about one part of Bellevue, it's DT, which is the #2 urban center in our region. Again, stop obsessing with the arbitrary.

[Urban Zombie®]

^
How many arbitraries does it take to screw in a light bulb, incidentally? If only you got paid to use that word...Bear Sterns would be asking you for a bail out.

Ok, seriousy, why can't we just enjoy Ranier's pics...eh, comrades!

[alexjon]

Who's talking about Bellevue proper? We are talking about one part of Bellevue, it's DT, which is the #2 urban center in our region. Again, stop obsessing with the arbitrary.

I think it's altogether arbitrary to declare "towers equal bustling urban core". Federal Way has Weyerhaeuser which rakes in billions each year-- should they be the other urban core of the city, too? Redmond has Microsoft-- should they be the other urban core of the city, too? The contributions of these cities far outweigh the contributions of Bellevue. The region could do just fine without Bellevue, which, I imagine, is the true measure of a city's worth.

However, thanks to a retail and developer-driven core we have beautiful buildings to admire. Which is what we should be doing here.

[krudmonk]

I wish our Golden Triangle looked more like Bellevue.

[Hoodrat]

What a view! Thanks for the pics.

[Ex-Ithacan]

I don't care what kind of city you call it, it has a nice skyline (especially jutting up out of the tree cover, and a beautiful backdrop. Thanks for the nice set of pics.

[Aleks]

Wow, I just came here to see the pictures. I don't really care much if Bellevue is a boomburg or whatever.

[arbeiter]

I find it baffling and odd that an urban enthusiast would be so blind or perhaps even express antipathy towards Bellevue - it used to be a lot of what you describe, but it's changing quite rapidly.

[alexjon]

I find it baffling and odd that an urban enthusiast would be so blind or perhaps even express antipathy towards Bellevue - it used to be a lot of what you describe, but it's changing quite rapidly.

A "#2 urban core" being less than 10 miles away from a region's primary city is so far from everything we've known about "urban" that I'm wondering what exactly the end-result people are wanting from Bellevue's growth. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of being a #2 urban core? Being hemmed in and so reliant upon other cities?

Notice how all the movers and shakers on the eastside fight against transit, fight for suburban amenities (highway expansions, for one) and try to distance themselves from "the Seattle way"?

It's a pretty town and marginally self-sufficient, but again, it has not proven itself as anything more than a suburb. I have given examples of suburbs that have done what Bellevue is trying to do. I failed to mention that these same suburbs harp on and on about the same things Bellevue Boosters do, that they're the new big guy in town, that they're a mover and shaker, that they're truly urban, etc.

[mhays]

Being the "second core" doesn't mean it's independent. Downtown Bellevue is totally dependent on the rest of the region, as is Downtown Seattle. Both live off the whole metro.

[alexjon]

It may be another urban core, but it's not #2. Its contribution is nowhere near what I personally would call the contribution of a #2 core. Moving the goal posts will not change the boomburb designation, nor will it make it the #2 core