Speaking of Seattle – or at least its metropolitan neighbour across the lake – Crosscut columnist Knute Berger makes an interesting comparison:
.
For decades, people have wondered what Bellevue would be when it grew up. Would it simply be an affluent “Greater Seattle” neighborhood? A Twin City, a suburban St. Paul to Seattle’s Minneapolis? Would it be the Anaheim of an Eastside Orange County? The San Jose of the Silicon Forest?
.
Vancouver is closer and perhaps more relevant, though all major West Coast cities are being shaped by Pacific proximity. The Eastside’s immigrants, like Vancouver’s, include many affluent and well-educated people from Asia. They seem to have brought a kind of entrepreneurial energy that captures the classic spirit of communities determined to improve their lot. …
The scale of change in Vancouver, however, is even beyond the impressive leaps of the Eastside, and gives a hint at what could be in Bellevue’s future. An analysis of Vancouver’s demographic course predicts that not only will the metro area’s white population be a minority by 2031 but that only one out of four Vancouverites then will even have a grandparent who was born in Canada. Sixty percent of the metro area’s population will be non-white, most from China, South Asia, the Philippines, Korea or West Asia.
The report is based on trends and birthrates, but the internationalizing of Vancouver that we’ve witnessed since Expo ’86 only seems to be accelerating, and the impact is almost unprecedented in North America, says the Vancouver Sun.
Full story here.
Interesting article. Will there be problems if the different groups are segregated across language, cultural or “racial” boundaries and are we doing anything to help? I can imagine that new immigrants would find it easier in the short term if they can live here surrounded by people that share a language, food and cultural background but I imagine that can also restrict their opportunities and lead to ghettoes.
Without relying too heavily on stereotypes, I woinder if the concentration is related to the concentration of software industries in the area (i.e. Microsoft in Redmond).
On a planning note – Bellevue just approved the allignment for the Eastside Link (LRT) in a short tunnel under downtown with a “cut” station at a portal next to City Hall (think Stadium Station on Skytrain).
http://seattletransitblog.com/2013/04/23/bellevue-makes-its-cost-savings-picks/
http://seattletransitblog.com/2013/04/26/st-board-rubber-stamps-bellevue-decision/
However, it is bizzare (to me) that one of the major property owners in the area (Kemper Freeman – who owns Bellevue Square mall & Lincoln Center) opposes the LRT and that’s essentially why the route is several blocks to the east of Bellevue Square.
There’s a chicken and egg difference, but imagine if Metrotown Station was several blocks north of Kingsway!?!
I also find it bizarre that Link to SeaTac also misses SouthCenter mall. Don’t they think of ridership when they plan their lines?
You really have to wonder, what kind of major commercial owner/developer would actually oppose having rapid transit built directly to their property? What is the logic there? It really boggles the mind…
WRT SouthCenter – apparently TUkwila wanted the line to go to SouthCenter, but Sound Transit said it was too expensive.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020629&slug=tukwila29m
Tukwila did want Link to go to SouthCenter, and it was in the initial plan but that part was cut when Sound Transit had to cut costs to save the project. I’m sure that Sound Transit does want ridership but it is constrained by its technology choices, the budget, the voter initiatives and the highly political transportation planning process in Seattle. That process shows up again in the Bellevue station location.
The light rail line was initially planned to to run on the surface in Bellevue, but the council and Kemper Freeman et al were concerned about the traffic impacts and asked for a tunnel. Bellevue agreed to kick in some extra money for this. Then to cut costs the tunnel route was shorted, then shortened again to run along the edge of the downtown. Then finally just last week the underground station was cut and replaced with that half underground, half elevated station that Guest describes above. However, that new station location is only about 100 – 150 metres closer to the the Bellevue Transit Centre than an entirely elevated route that skirted the downtown would have been. So the 200 million dollar cost of the downtown tunnel now only brings riders about 150 metres closer to the transit centre and the rest of Bellevue’s downtown. This really isn’t very far short of insane. But to make it worse, that tunnel also adds some distance to the line and introduces three extra 90 degree turns that the trains can’t take very fast. So from a time perspective, the 200 million may amount to absolutely nothing. The Seattle Transit Blog had some quotations from some Sound Transit board members that voted for this, and they basically did not defend it, but said that they were glad to get a deal done.
Kemper Freeman’s opinions would be bizarre in the Vancouver context where Skytrain is popular and carries a lot of people, but they are less bizarre in Seattle because there is plenty to criticize about the Link light rail. The part under construction now from downtown Seattle to UW will probably be useful and popular, but the current route is not that well used yet still very expensive. Sound Transit’s 2010 financial plan shows that Sound Transit will spend $13 billion to 2023 building the two lines and will spend around $300 to $500 million every year to operate and pay bond interest. They only expect about 33% farebox recovery of operating expenses on the light rail system by 2023 which demonstrates the lack of public enthusiasm to actually ride the thing. If I lived in Seattle, I would be hard pressed to support this. Of course it is silly to Kemper Freeman to try to block this, it can only help his mall and other properties, but as a taxpayer, his position makes more sense.
To bring a response back on main topic, that may address the heart of the linked article where the author remarks on dramatic demographic changes in Metro Vancouver and Bellevue:
When there is a visible, overt critical mass of Asian faces in a geographic area either living/working/travelling through(the area! For Pete’s sake.) or shopping, there is an assumption there could be a problem soon. I must have contributed to the ghettoization by merely having an Asian face and shopping in the area. Hmmm. Yea.
Why is it really a problem, concern over…. what?
As an example: To address the unspoken white elephant looming in the room, over the recent Chinese language signs in Richmond BC.:
To me, it is really wallpaper designs. I can’t read Chinese, like many Pricetag readers here. Just as lost as if I met a shopkeeper if they couldn’t speak English. It’s ok. Lots of other people on the street who can speak English to help out if you are desperate.
Think of it this way..maybe Vancouver..is becoming closer to Hawai’i in its dramatic demographic changes. If white minority in Vancouver later should ever feel lost or threatened, see it more positively as reinjecting a changed identity for a city …..well, probably a different story in Hawai’i where identity, race and culture are fused in ways different than mainland US.
When I went to Hawai’i..I felt this is what Vancouver will become in 20 years, still separate groups, but interracial mixing more and more deep and broadly into families.