It will be very interesting to see the demographics in 2010. I’m a young parent and know quite a few other young parents. Some of us have decided to stay in the city, others moved out (due to a lot of factors including jobs… in Bellevue!) I don’t really have a strong guy feeling about whether the city is “family friendly,” though I think the parks have done a really great job via the levy (new playgrounds at Cal Anderson, Cascade Playfield, and Denny Park we have enjoyed many times). A lot of family stuff is somewhat beyond their control–target markets on developments, non-profits like the zoo, availability of child care, etc.

Oh, and you’re imagining me typing this with a smug, self-satisfied look on my face, you’d be right.

Bellevue isn’t a normal suburb now but it was 20-30 years ago. Same could be said for Redmond.

I don’t agree with these statements. What makes a suburb a suburb? What makes a “city” a city? Is it “more people commute in to jobs than commute to jobs outside their city limits”? Parts of Bellevue are residential suburban, parts are suburban commercial, parts are urban residential and parts are urban commercial.

I don’t really know how to say one place is a suburb and another is. But I know this: Tukwila has a 4 to 1 employment to resident ratio and there’s no way I can accept that place is a “city”.

Meanwhile, northeast Seattle looks very suburban east of 15th and north of 75th. Most of it is houses on larger lots than in the inner-city areas, and the 72 runs once an hour on evenings/Sundays. There’s little difference either side of 145th. Likewise south Beacon Hill vs Skyway.

So, Seattle has remained at 500,000 for three decades until five years ago, big whoop. The point is that Pugetopolis has doubled or tripled during that time, and is now around 3.2 million. It’s minorly interesting that population within the city has recently gone up, but on the whole it’s just a political boundary.

As for household size, Seattle is vying with San Francisco as the most childless city in the US. Some years we’re ahead; some years they’re ahead.

There’s a fair number of million dollar plus homes in Bellevue but on whole they do a better job of attracting families with children than Seattle. These neighborhoods of million dollar homes don’t lend well to upzoning (Capital Hill being an exception) so what happens is a loss of density in those areas. This has happened along the eastern edge of Bellevue (i.e. Lake Samammish) but it’s happening to a greater extent in Seattle in places like Leshi, Madrona, Magnolia, etc.

I think the Bellevue comparison isn’t perfect: Bellevue isn’t like a normal suburb. Bellevue, Tacoma, and to a lesser extent Everett are satellite cities. There are totally suburban parts, sure, but Seattle has those as well.

The old streetcar network covered places people thought streetcars could not go. The Trolleybus network that replaced them did a good job, until again, somebody thought, oh, electric transit is obsolete, let’s try this diesel bus out. Now we have Metro facing tough funding woes, suburbs stealing Seattle Bus Service and saying that Seattle should accept the punishment because the suburbs need the service. If Seattle gets broken up like Douglas Tooley suggests, so should Bellevue. As for being divisive, that first sentence of his is divisive in itself.

Getting closer to Opening Day of LINK Light Rapid Transit. It should probably see Seattle grow some more. We may never see $1 per gallon gas again. I doubt Metro will ever pay that little for diesel again either.

Allowing more permits is just a matter of time, but I’ve heard of no one being turned away so far – unless you know someone who’s failed to get a permit?