
Seattle now decade’s fastest-growing big city in the U.S. - spking
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/114000-more-people-seattle-now-this-decades-fastest-growing-big-city-in-all-of-united-states/
======
jseliger
It's fast-growing, but the land-use policy is still oddly parochial in may
ways: [https://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-
fut...](https://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-future-in-
seattle-do-millennials-have-a-future-in-any-superstar-cities).

The vast majority of the city is still zoned for single-family housing:
[https://www.theurbanist.org/2017/10/23/the-path-to-
eliminate...](https://www.theurbanist.org/2017/10/23/the-path-to-eliminate-
single-family-zoning-in-seattle). Just allowing multi-family housing and
eliminating property requirements would do a huge amount to alleviate
affordability and income inequality problems.

~~~
taurath
Its REALLY intense living here - I lived in the bay from 2004-2014, and moved
up here for better COL. I'm riding the wave now, but its getting ever higher
and my income needs to increase by the same amount. I'm a developer, but not a
superstar - I make more than the median dev income, but that is not enough to
afford any sort of permanent housing much of city limits.

I am hoping for an economic shock at this point - anything to shake loose all
the people holding onto their investment houses while the values are going up,
and maybe then all the brand new apartment buildings that wouldn't be able to
find tenants might convert to condo's. Supply is desperately needed - even
renting is a bloodsport (far more than NYC or even the SF bay, if a little
cheaper).

Its literally my #1 concern about the area. If the wave rises to the point
that I can never achieve housing stability without a 1.5 hour commute, I'll
move (just as so many of my friends here have). Colorado and Portland are
next, but even there the whispers of NIMBYism are getting louder. I'm
beginning to think at this point that the economy is out to get everyone who's
under 35 - the only place there are jobs that pay well enough to afford
anything are vastly more expensive.

~~~
doublerebel
We're still more affordable per sqft than most top international cities and
many US cities -- I think the mentality of needing a large sqft unit, or yard,
or single-family home in Seattle needs to change. We have a ton of parks if
anyone needs space. For the quality of life, I still think Seattle is very
affordable.

That being said, I completely agree that zoning needs to be overhauled.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Only a few cities are more expensive than Seattle ATM, like LA, SF, NYC,
Boston maybe.

It isn't as simple as upscaling zoning, you need roads to go with it. West
Seattle has horrible traffic these days because they built a bunch of high
density housing around California Avenue. They did add rapid bus transit, but
everyone still drives even if they have an apartment.

~~~
doublerebel
Yes we're between 5th [0] and 7th [1] depending on the measure, which is think
is appropriate. Most of the places I'd rather live globally are more expensive
[2].

[0]:
[https://nested.com/research/rental/2017/us/all](https://nested.com/research/rental/2017/us/all)

[1]: [https://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/real-
estate/T006-S001-mo...](https://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/real-
estate/T006-S001-most-expensive-u-s-cities-to-live-in-2018/index.html)

[2]:
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/admin/1000000054865...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/admin/100000005486592.embedded.html)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
As far as international cities go, very few offer better than Seattle salaries
for software engineers. Maybe maybe Zurich, but definitely not Paris or
London.

~~~
taurath
And yet, in the mid 100s in salary one can’t afford a place here.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Compared to other international non-US cities? Seattle is still very
affordable. Places in Zurich aren’t cheap. Heck, even Vancouver is more
pricey.

------
slm_HN
At this point Seattle is a fairly crummy city in a fairly nice location. The
region and climate are nice but the traffic is hell, the crime is bad and the
housing costs are astronomical. The tech salaries are high, but it doesn't
make up for the otherwise poor quality of life.

~~~
Camillo
Is the climate actually nice? I could not live in a place where it's cloudy
most of the year.

~~~
anonymous5133
Seattle has the highest amount of rainfall per year of any mainland region.

~~~
curtis
This is just flat out wrong. We do get more cloudy days than any major city in
the U.S. but we don't actually get that much heavy rain. This is at least
partly offset by the fact that the temperatures are much milder year round.
Seattle barely gets any snow in the winter, and rarely gets very hot in the
summer.

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle#Climate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle#Climate).

------
maxharris
It won't be for long! Taxes and spending in Seattle have shot way, way up, far
in excess of the recent population growth.

~~~
Analemma_
The insistence that Americans migrate away from high-tax areas doesn't seem to
be supported by the facts. Connecticut and the Bay Area are losing population,
but so are heartland states like Kansas. Seattle is the fastest-growing area
in the country, but close behind is Texas. I don't think partisans on either
side of this question have an empirical leg to stand on.

~~~
adventured
Kansas isn't losing population and neither is the heartland. Both have been
growing slowly and non-stop since the mid 1960s. Kansas hasn't had a single
population decline, year over year, in about 50 years.

Kansas:

2000: 2,694,000

2010: 2,859,000

2017: 2,913,000

These are all consistently increasing year after year:

Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio.

Illinois is hit or miss, however it's up a million people over 20 years.

Michigan is the only one that has particularly struggled. Its population
remains above where it was 20 years ago; it's about 50k people (~0.5%) below
its 2004 record high.

Connecticut is definitely struggling, they've seen zero growth over seven or
eight years, and comparatively little growth over 40 years despite being an
affluent state.

~~~
ardme
I disagree with this in spirit. The rustbelt is not losing population but it
is stagnating compared to rest of the nation. I'm from Ohio and I noticed
something startling looking at population stats - before 1970 population was
increasing at double digit rates many decades. After 1970, very low single
digits (some decades less than 1% growth). In 1970 the population was
10,652,017, while in 2017 it is estimated at only 11,658,609. The population
is barely replacing itself.

If you look at other rust belt states you will see a similar trend, and I
believe it is due to people moving away looking for work, starting in the 70s.
The decline of the auto and manufacturing industries here is likely to blame.
The same trends generally apply for Illinois, Michigan, Kentucky and Indiana.
In Pennsylvania the trend started much earlier which maybe follows the steel
industry decline. Anecdotally much more than half of the people I keep in
contact with from high school and college in Ohio have moved away, myself
included.

~~~
adventured
That's why I was very specific when I pointed out that the population growth
has been slow. There was no confusion about rapid growth (although some of
these states are growing quite solidly, Minnesota for example).

The parent was clear about the claim: Kansas and similar heartland states are
losing population. It's false.

Over decades there's a massive difference between gaining 0.3% (or similar)
population per year and losing 0.3% per year. Kansas gained 1/3 more people
over 50 years. Had that gone the other direction persistently, they'd barely
exist as a state today. Contrast that with Germany over that time, which has
seen maybe 5% growth. Germany would have loved to have 33% growth over 50
years. Or the Baltic states, which are more comparable in size to a Kansas -
zero net growth over 50 years. Now that's stagnation.

Or put it into more concrete economic terms. With the additional 1/3 more
people, Kansas has an extra $38 billion in annual GDP output today, a total of
~$160 billion. Had they gently gone the other way, and declined slowly over
time, it would be more like $60 or $70 billion today. It's a huge difference.
They have a GDP per capita higher than Sweden, so when you can organically add
1/3 more people to that, it's a very meaningful economic result.

~~~
lazyasciiart
The parent was specifically speaking about migration patterns, and Kansas is
losing population through migration. It is currently able to make up for that
loss through having babies, but that isn't very relevant to the argument on
whether Americans are more likely to move to or from high-tax locations.

