Lookout Landing

I'd take the risk of a simultaneous earthquake/eruption over 115 degree heat every FUCKING DAY.

Something powerful thinks that Phoenix is an abomination.

marc w - June 15, 2009 reply

Have you seen the way that city is laid out?

Whatever it is is right.

Population in 1950: 100,000

Population now: Almost 5 million. Urban Growth Boundawhatnow? Plus their arterials are like small freeways.

waldo rojas - June 15, 2009 reply

Population density, 2007:

New York CIty-27,264/square mile
Seattle-7,086/square mile
Portland-4,288/square mile
Houston-3,828/square mile
Bellevue-3,947/square mile
Lacey-3,239/square mile
Phoenix-2,937/square mile

That’s not a city, it’s the world’s largest exurb.

The thing I don't get about Phoenix

Okay, well, one of the things. When the white man was coming across the country to settle the West, what on earth prompted them to get to Phoenix, survey the flat, moon-like landscape, feel the searing heat, and go “OK, this looks great! Let’s stop here!” I mean, Denver I can understand – you’re coming west, you look up, you see some big-ass mountains, and you go “OK, I’ve gone far enough”. But Phoenix? Gah.

pdb - June 15, 2009 reply

Or even the high plains desert cities like Flagstaff where it doesn't get nearly as hot.

I understand that some people love living in the desert so I get Palm Springs and stuff like that but five million people?

This is what cheap property has begat

Throughout the 90’s you could get 4+ BR and 3000ish SF in the Phoenix area for $200K. People believe that property is the be all end all of life, so they went where the land was cheap.

pdb - June 15, 2009 reply

Same deal with Vegas

White people like sun.

Go figure.

waldo rojas - June 15, 2009 reply

Sun != 120 degrees in the shade

Nobody wanted anything to do with Arizona until after WWII (probably because of the advent of affordable air conditioning.)

Look at these census figures for Arizona. There wasn’t even anyone who wanted duing the Civil War era.

1860 6,482
—
1870 9,658 49.0%
1880 40,440 318.7%
1890 88,243 118.2%
1900 122,931 39.3%
1910 204,354 66.2%
1920 334,162 63.5%
1930 435,573 30.3%
1940 499,261 14.6%
1950 749,587 50.1%
1960 1,302,161 73.7%
1970 1,745,944 34.1%
1980 2,718,215 55.7%
1990 3,665,228 34.8%
2000 5,130,632 40.0%
Est. 2008 6,500,180 26.7%

Las Vegas’ demographic growth follows a similar pattern, as ac pointed out (hey – ac and AC!)

Decatur - June 15, 2009 reply

I am unbelievably cool.

Flagged

Dewey N - June 15, 2009 reply

I don't doubt it one bit!

Eye rolling commences.

Kirsten Schlewitz - June 16, 2009 reply

The Rio Salado used to have water is my guess.

Sec 108 - June 16, 2009 reply

Another thing about the Pheonix area

is how bad their water situation is. With 6 million+ people in the middle of the desert, they are seriously hurting for water down there, which is why I wouldn’t ever even contemplate living there.

As of two years ago

they were still building exurbs in the Las Vegas area even though they knew full well that the new areas did not and would not ever have water rights. Which is insane. Phoenix isn’t much better, either.

In general

this is the case for most of those cities down there with rapid growth in the middle of the desert. I was just using Phoenix as an example since it was being talked about already. I have no clue why anyone wants to live down in Phoenix, Los Vegas, Los Angeles, ect. because of the history of wildfires, and the problems with water availability.

Hot chicks.

LA has a completely different lifestyle from anywhere else on the West Coast

and many people enjoy that sort of life

Doesn't mean it

can’t be on the list of stupid places to live based on natural hazards and resource availability.

Also, LA rarely has wildfires

you’re thinking of San Diego.

You need trees to have fires, right?

Not really.

Vegetation, I should say.

Or maybe not.

Oops.

Better link.

Honestly, what the hell is wrong with these people?

They are Lakers fans.

Evereyone riots when they win the title

remember when Michigan State almost burned down East Lansing?

Yes. They lost.

Houses burn too.

Especially when you douse them in gasoline and fire up a flamethrower in the driveway

but I’ve said too much.

Ok, Guy Montag.

joof - June 16, 2009 reply

It really still says titile?

Mariner John - June 16, 2009 reply

Maybe folks in KC don't look at the intertubes much.

Forget it, KDC_1988. It's Chinatown.

Is Seattle really 2nd on that list?

I guess everything does seem to be pretty close to each other.

Fin - June 15, 2009 reply

That would explain the traffic

OlSalty - June 15, 2009 reply

Only for illustrative purposes.

Seattle is fairly dense

but Chicago, Boston, Philly, DC, Pittsburgh, San Fran, Miami (?), LA and Baltimore are denser.

The reason Seattle is dense is that it's not terribly large compared to other cities

I thought it was the excellent public transit system.

The Ancient Mariner - June 16, 2009 reply

Vice versa, I think.

Actually a big part of the reason Seattle is dense

is because it did have excellent public transportation prior to highway expansion and increased car ownership. In most cities neighborhoods like Ballard, Roosevelt, Phinney, etc. would have developed as almost exclusively single-family zoned suburban neighborhoods but because Seattle had an excellent streetcar system the suburban areas of Seattle developed in a similar manner to small cities.

Is this based on something you can refer me to, or is this just a good theory of yours?

It's pretty well documented.

I can’t think of a specific source right now because it was generally accepted as common knowledge when I was studying the history of urbanization in the PNW.

MOHAI's a good source for Seattle history

not sure that it’s all available online but it’s well worth a visit.

Well if it's a popularly held belief it must be true.

It is a popularly held belief by people who study urban history and urban planning for a living.

People who actually know what they’re talking about. And given my knowledge of urban history and planning there is absolutely no reason to think that this is not the case. If you can give me a valid reason why I should listen to you and not people who actually know what they’re talking about maybe I will care what you have to say.

That was a joke.

I’m not disagreeing or questioning you. I just found it funny to see an appeal to authority in a forward-thinking baseball blog like this, that’s all. Let’s be friends.

That's not appeal to authority.

Appeal to authority would be arguing that someone with actual evidence against your claim is wrong because someone in a position of authority disagrees with them, such as “the Adam Jones trade is good because Bavasi is an MLB GM and you aren’t.”

My point was that the belief about Seattle’s development is so widespread that I read it in pretty much every account of the history of Seattle’s urban development. Those are two very different things.

Fine, we won't be friends.

Your definition sounds to me like cases in which an appeal to authority is a fallacy. My understanding is that an appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy if the authority is, in fact, an appropriate authority. But whatever.

It's a clear argument from authority

It may in fact be true (this is likely even), but given that people who study urban planning for a living often disagree, and given there have been several ‘schools’ or movements within the discipline, well… maybe a source would be nice.
In this case, the reasoning would be that having a developed mass-transit infrastructure that predates highway expansion does NOT separate Seattle from other cities (like Tacoma). Maybe it’s the infrastructure and something else, like how aggressive a city was with annexation or geography (and I can see THAT being important in Seattle’s case).

marc w - June 16, 2009 reply

Fair enough I suppose.

But the idea of streetcar suburbs leading to density is pretty much universally accepted. It isn’t the only factor obviously, but Seattle was a city of streetcar suburbs while Tacoma and Portland were not. And annexation was a huge part of it, but the areas annexed were large suburban areas (Ballard for example) that were exceptionally dense (for suburban areas) along the streetcar line.

Seattle,

The town when mass transit regressed instead of progressing.

Sec 108 - June 17, 2009 reply

At least we're not L.A.

They used to have a fully functioning subway system and then whoopsadoodle!

OlSalty - June 17, 2009 reply

That's how it happened in many (most?) cities

Replicating Tacoma’s old mass-transit lines would take billions. Covered a hell of a lot of ground, including a line that went all the way to Steilacoom. That’s covering a shit-ton of ground.

Hell, think of the Interurban connecting Everett to Seattle… in 1910. This was everywhere.

marc w - June 17, 2009 reply

All to support an industry

That we are now bailing out. That isn’t aggravating at all.

Sec 108 - June 17, 2009 reply

At the behest and great corporate expense of said industry!

Aaron Campeau - June 17, 2009 reply

Buh?

It’s not, but that’s not really why it’s dense.

Well I mean in that Seattle isn't nearly as large population-wise as a Phoenix/LA/Chicago

but since the area is smaller, the density is higher.

Chicago and LA are both denser than Seattle.

And Seattle has the population it does because it developed in a way that promoted density (or higher density than a lot of other cities of its age) not vice versa. Portland and Tacoma are both examples of what Seattle would look like in terms of density had it not been for its transportation network and the streetcar suburbs.

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you

Jose Lopez is a little girl.

Oxygen is good.

If this is true why does everyone keep talking about Lawrie playing in the Major League like it's some big deal

Dewey N - June 16, 2009 reply

Because she's a big girl?

Matthew - June 16, 2009 reply

San Diego and Orange Counties have similar-sized streets

most of our main thoroughfares are at least three lanes on each side, if not more.

Yakima, WA

I read not too long ago it’s the safest place in the country.

Not safe because you won’t get stabbed by a gang member, but safe because natural disasters pretty much don’t happen there. Off any big fault lines, out of range of any volcanoes, the terrain and weather doesn’t lend itself to tornadoes, out of the hurricane belt, not close enough to major water for flooding, yada yada yada.

I think I remember reading about this in a news article related to why big companies were building IT disaster recovery centers there. I’d look it up, but I’m too lazy.

seattlecougar - June 15, 2009 reply

Are you serious? This seems completely counter intuitive to me.

But then I was butt deep in ash once, and the only two earthquakes I’ve ever felt happened there. Perception is a bitch.

Kermit. - June 15, 2009 reply

There were quite a few Pacific North West cities on that list

Those IT companies may need to rethink building disaster recovery centers in the region though.

Frosty Raptor - June 15, 2009 reply

Mt. Rainier + Yakima +eruption+ Naches River = Lots of Dead Yakimians

It wouldnt near be as bad as the Kent/Auburn/Puyallup Valley….but…..the dead people will be the ones who dont think they have anything you worry about.

It may have been 120 years since the last eruptive activity….
Just because no one has died in the last 120 years, doesnt mean its Safety-nation in Yakima

Just make sure you are 200 Feet above the River level and you should be fine.

CSD - June 15, 2009 reply

Greater probability

Mt Rainier erupts, tornado, hurricane, flood, earthquake, tsunami.

Um, yeah.

seattlebruin - June 15, 2009 reply

Unless you live on a hill overlooking Puyallup/Orting valleys. South Hill says suck it!

JAH - June 15, 2009 reply

Historically

Mt. Rainier has erupted to the Northwest side of the mountain, so this actually wouldn’t be that big of a problem, unless it goes against any other previous piece of geological evidence, which is entirely possible.

But there would still be lahars in all of the rivers right?

The snow would still melt everywhere on the mountain?

Mariner John - June 16, 2009 reply

I am so annoyed that someone already named a band Lahar.

What a perfect opportunity for a LaHair pun and you blew it

OlSalty - June 16, 2009 reply

I 1. Don't wish to get banned and 2. am not Fogel

Mariner John - June 16, 2009 reply

How much does that historical evidence actually figure in, though?

Couldn’t the pressure build at another area in the mountain?

Kirsten Schlewitz - June 16, 2009 reply

The Gary Busey gremlins could come from anywhere.

Forbes’ Safest and Least Safe Places in the U.S.

I wonder if it's because Yakima is on the edge of a giant lava flow about a mile thick that covers central Washington.

Kermit. - June 15, 2009 reply

Let's not jump to conclusions.

Lanky - June 15, 2009 reply

Oops I should have clarified, I was keying on the fault line part of seattlecougars statement.

With it’s close proximity to the Cascades it didn’t make sense to me that Yakima isn’t sitting on a fault line, or close enough to be a problem.

Kermit. - June 15, 2009 reply

I dunno

I was just going off of something I vaguely remember reading once. I’m feeling more inclined to go try and find that article now.

seattlecougar - June 16, 2009 reply

That wasn't so hard after all...

Yakima, Wash. #4
2004 Pop.: 229,100
Tornado: 0
Hurricane: 0
Quake: 15
Wind: 0
Hail : 0
Brush fires: 0
Extreme weather: 25
Total* 40
* The lower the total, the safer a place is and vice versa. Click here to read more about the methodology in our introduction.

seattlecougar - June 16, 2009 reply

I love it that three of the top ten are in Eastern Washington

and five of the top ten are withing 200 miles of each other.

I noticed that the Tri-Cities don't have any mention of radiation problems.

My brother-in-law's dad worked at Hanford from 1944-1980something

and if you ask him there’s no radiation problem at Hanford. I have learned not to ask him.

Gang violence?

Drugs?

Random acts of violence?

The Hills Have Eyes?