Cascadia Report

We have money -- but no good way to send it

Sending money between the U.S. and Canada ranks with border delays and underdeveloped transportation infrastructure as obstacles facing regionally minded Cascadia citizens.

Recently I tried to pay a bill in Canada by sending C$113 from Seattle to Victoria. Apparently I ran afoul of post-9/11 inconvenience, anti-money-laundering worries and maybe even technology. I can accept some confusion, but there's got to be a better way.

When I went to a Washington Mutual branch asking for a money order, payable in Canadian funds, the teller looked at me like I was crazy. Bank of America said they could order a money order in about a week. Western Union was willing to help me for a hefty fee, but only if I wired the cash to an individual, who then would have to pick up the cash at another Western Union outlet.

Desperately seeking a good money changer, I called the Canadian consulate in Seattle. Here's what happened: the single main phone number leads to choices in the automated system that all lead to a dead ends. After nearly three minutes of messages in English and French, I picked tourism. Then the message said there is no longer a tourism office and suggested calling immigration. The immigration line said they no longer take telephone inquiries.

My solution was to find a friend who happens to have an account in a Canadian bank -- a move he took post-9/11 in order to handle details related to his Whistler rental. He says his bank puts a 45-business-day hold on USD checks (even if he writes it to himself) so he's resigned to simply planning way ahead. It's nearly enough to keep us on our respective sides of the border.

Rail deal a big step toward mobility

The Seattle area took a big step toward better mobility with a deal to put a railroad line through the Eastside under public ownership.

The old freight line is the only unused corridor straight through the booming suburbs, so preventing it from being sold in pieces was step one. Now there needs to be a plan to add transit and a trail, in conjunction with tolling on the existing roads.

Most important, the region needs to encourage future demand for transportation to grow around this corridor. Transit shouldn't simply serve the density that exists now. After all, today's Eastside grew up around structures that were planned in the 1950s.

Don't think the rail route would work as transportation? A project in Bellevue was announced just this week that would locate thousands of residents and workers within walking distance. In Renton the route could be connected to the Sounder trains, light rail and density near Southcenter. In the north, the corridor serves Woodinville and Snohomish -- booming areas where focusing development around transit infrastructure makes more sense than massive new roads.

Consider this report about one way transit could be added sooner rather than later.

Doing right thing for the waterfront (finally)

Politicians and media appear to be coming around (finally) to the idea that Seattle's waterfront viaduct shouldn't be replaced with another freeway.

Cascadia Report made the case last winter for a combination of transit and comprehensive street improvements to replace the earthquake-damaged eyesore. Gov. Gregoire and Mayor Nickels were among those who poo-pooed the idea by insisting that any replacement had to accommodate the same number of vehicles as the current viaduct.

Now, Gregoire has changed her mind. Several agencies have pledged to work together for a comprehensive fix. Today even the Seattle Times editorial board -- a mostly suburban group that generally supports roads over transit -- came out in favor of transit + road fixes.

It's about time. Now let's get to work on a long-term fix that values the waterfront heart of the region's biggest metro area.

Death and life of great cities

A few weeks ago, during a long weekend in New York, I found myself wandering Manhattan on a Monday. All the usual museums were closed so I tried a small gem of an exhibit on the life and accomplishments of Jane Jacobs.

Jacobs is the activist who helped save swaths of Manhattan from freeways and urban renewal through the 1960s. She's often credited with the basic idea that walkable neighborhoods inhabited by residents are healthier than impersonal housing projects on "super blocks."

It's a great lesson that's been internalized by planners worldwide. But I couldn't help think the pendulum has swung too far. Instead of protesting for strong neighborhoods it seems neighborhood activism -- often under the guise of Jacobs' lessons -- is simply against development, period.

This describes Seattle, where investment in new buildings in a close-in neighborhood is scorned. The Seattle P-I wrote in sympathy of neighbors of a University District coffee shop who didn't want a parking lot developed because a new building would cast shade on a patio! Never mind the benefit of more residents, workers or customers in the neighborhood. Of course, there's also some backlash to development in Portland and Vancouver.

Even in New York, the protest and NIMBY movement is strong. I choose to remember the row of old two-story buildings being torn down in favor of the Santiago Calatrava-designed transit hub. Instead of hand-wringing, the New York Post brushed off concerns of the tenants, calling the buildings "scuzzy."

So where's the middle ground? I'd vote for transparent development rules and design review. But most important is leadership that can make a clear case for what the city gains from development.

Critics of tall Seattle buildings have it backward

Critics of plans for taller buildings in Seattle's South Lake Union area have it exactly backward.

If anything, the city should encourage more building in the area, creating demand for transit rather than encouraging sprawl. Instead critics want to soak the developer to pay more into a fund to create "affordable" housing.

Now, zoning in the area requires special permission to build even 12 stories. Why not require that buildings be at least that tall? Set design review standards, sure. But let's build the workplaces for thousands of employees and new residents.

What's wrong with a supposedly sweetheart deal between developers and the mayor, as long as the city gains? Among the benefits: More housing supply in the city should lower overall prices and make transportation options feasible.

Of course the city should negotiate to get the best terms in this area, but better those rules be streamlined and transparent to encourage more, better building instead of hinder it. Unfortunately the potential benefits are totally lost in today's story and the reader comments.