Skip to content

C200: Embrace Change

2011 May 31
by Gabriel Grant and Allegra Calder

< Capitol Hill light rail station construction; photo by Dan Bertolet - click to enlarge >

In order to remain prosperous, relevant and successful in an increasingly global world, cities must constantly adapt socially, economically, and physically. To paraphrase the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, the only constant in life is change. Humans have known this for thousands of years. So why does the prospect of change in our city—Seattle—and its neighborhoods provoke so much anxiety and ultimately counterproductive resistance?

The extension of a bike path results in a law suit, and proposed neighborhood up-zones near billion dollar transit investments are fought vehemently, resulting in vacant lots and boarded up houses rather than much needed urban housing. Too often, vocal opponents with targeted issues are allowed to dominate our public dialogue, and the city as a whole suffers.

The point is not that all change is good. Clearly, there are choices to be made. However, we should recognize that not only is change inevitable, in many cases it is a direct result of Seattle’s continued growth, vitality and success. There is always room for intelligent debate about what form change takes, but to simply wish for the city to remain as it is (or return to what it was) is both unrealistic and a recipe for mediocrity and a slow civic death.

We live in a city where people choose to move to attend college or start a career, a family, or a company. Plenty of other cities, like Detroit or Cleveland, would love to have our problems. Rather than expend our collective civic energy trying to prevent change, we should embrace our area’s growth and evolution and direct our energy towards becoming the most successful 21st Century city possible.

>>>

Gabriel Grant is a Vice President at HAL Real Estate Investments and Allegra Calder is a Senior Policy Analyst at Berk and Associates.

3 Responses leave one →
  1. May 31, 2011

    “proposed neighborhood up-zones near billion dollar transit investments are fought vehemently, resulting in vacant lots and boarded up houses rather than much needed urban housing”
    When you are not from a neighborhood, judging from a distance can lead to errant opinions. Thirty years or more of neglect of property and disdain for the rest of the neighborhood and for city authority does not make for a candidate that is likely to be embraced by the locals as a visionary to be rewarded. Telling a neighborhood that their hard work and well thought out plan is valueless and others will decided how your neighborhood should grow for you will not be received will either.
    When someone comes along that embraces this neighborhood’s plan, they will be embraced.
    The houses fell apart and were boarded up long before the transit station was a dream.

  2. Mark permalink
    May 31, 2011

    Wait, a real estate investor commenting on whether we should have more real estate? Objective? Hardly. What does Berk do? Disclosures please.

    • Gordian permalink
      June 6, 2011

      In case you haven’t noticed, this blog often reflects the opinion of its founder and its contributors. This should not come as a surprise. Also, I’m confounded by your assertion that
      people who know something about real estate shouldn’t comment on real estate matters. Should we also ask designers to cease their advocating for better design? Perhaps professional engineering groups should refrain from commenting on structural codes?

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS