3 ms·

They really should use the money to instead build more remote offices, where housing is already affordable, develop the technologies/processes to support that d

They really should use the money to instead build more remote offices, where housing is already affordable, develop the technologies/processes to support that distributed culture, invest in making those other cities more livable, and thereby bring economic opportunity to a more diverse set of cities/cultures. I am personally not in favor of more density here because my lifestyle, and those of many I know, is better suited to the lower density we have on the east side. The balance we have now is one of the main reasons many of us choose to live here, in the PNW. It feels to me like this growth will be good for new transplants at the cost of those who have made a life here already.

femiagbabiaka 8y ago
Cities change. Populations swell and subside. It would be nice if the places we hold dear could stay the same as we have always known them, but they can’t. If that is what you’re after moving farther away from urban centers will be the key.
pishpash 8y ago
I'm guessing you're a transplant too. Native Seattlites don't want you here either and would prefer the PNW to be a lumber, fishing, and shipyard town. /s
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Kalium 8y ago
> They really should use the money to instead build more remote offices, where housing is already affordable, develop the technologies/processes to support that distributed culture, invest in making those other cities more livable, and thereby bring economic opportunity to a more diverse set of cities/cultures. You're absolutely right! That's a very real set of problems and a very desirable set of goals you've correctly and wisely identified. With that said, is this something that companies are best positioned to address? Do we think Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook will do the best job possible at building out the smaller, more affordable towns to achieve your laudable goal of increased opportunity and geographic diversity? Could it be possible that there might be other structures, already in place, better able to address this problem? Perhaps in ways that are already designed to be democratic and participatory? Do we want corporate behemoths pushing Seattlization on whichever smaller, more affordable location they choose? Again, you've rightly and wisely identified both very real problems and very real solutions. There just might be some room for nuance around implementation.
greedo 8y ago
I grew up in a sleepy coastal SoCal town where it wasn't too expensive. I have the best memories of that time, but they're gone. The house I grew up in was $73K when my folks bought it, now it's over $1M because it's 2 miles from the ocean. As much as I'd love to move back to the area, there's no way for me to financially. And the place has changed as well. Trying to keep a city or town "preserved" is impossible.
Voloskaya 8y ago
They are also doing that. Azure is ~30% remote employees for example. There is still a lot of room for improvement but there are way more remote employees than just 5 years ago.

femiagbabiaka 8y ago

Cities change. Populations swell and subside. It would be nice if the places we hold dear could stay the same as we have always known them, but they can’t. If that is what you’re after moving farther away from urban centers will be the key.

pishpash 8y ago

I'm guessing you're a transplant too. Native Seattlites don't want you here either and would prefer the PNW to be a lumber, fishing, and shipyard town. /s

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Kalium 8y ago

> They really should use the money to instead build more remote offices, where housing is already affordable, develop the technologies/processes to support that distributed culture, invest in making those other cities more livable, and thereby bring economic opportunity to a more diverse set of cities/cultures. You're absolutely right! That's a very real set of problems and a very desirable set of goals you've correctly and wisely identified. With that said, is this something that companies are best positioned to address? Do we think Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook will do the best job possible at building out the smaller, more affordable towns to achieve your laudable goal of increased opportunity and geographic diversity? Could it be possible that there might be other structures, already in place, better able to address this problem? Perhaps in ways that are already designed to be democratic and participatory? Do we want corporate behemoths pushing Seattlization on whichever smaller, more affordable location they choose? Again, you've rightly and wisely identified both very real problems and very real solutions. There just might be some room for nuance around implementation.

greedo 8y ago

I grew up in a sleepy coastal SoCal town where it wasn't too expensive. I have the best memories of that time, but they're gone. The house I grew up in was $73K when my folks bought it, now it's over $1M because it's 2 miles from the ocean. As much as I'd love to move back to the area, there's no way for me to financially. And the place has changed as well. Trying to keep a city or town "preserved" is impossible.

Voloskaya 8y ago

They are also doing that. Azure is ~30% remote employees for example. There is still a lot of room for improvement but there are way more remote employees than just 5 years ago.