Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LisaM

(29,667 posts)
7. No, the problem is that they build new housing and it's all for the luxury market.
Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:25 PM
Jun 2016

I work in downtown Seattle and really ugly glassy towers are popping up everywhere, and they are all advertising that they are luxury apartments. Most of it's really ugly, too, the U District used to have a lot of charm and now it looks like a Soviet Bloc country, except even those ugly buildings have luxury apartments inside them. No rent control, people being evicted, and older building being knocked down to put up apartments that start at about $1600 for a one bedroom.

They are knocking down a successful subsidized housing project that's been here since the 1960s called Yesler Terrace - lots of people being evicted there, too, so they can put up more atrociously ugly buildings with these expensive (yet tasteless) apartments inside.

There used to be two reasonably-priced hotels in downtown Seattle and Amazon took them both - for office buildings.

These companies could do a lot towards rebuilding middle America, but they don't. What do their workers care where they live? They never go outside anyway, order all their stuff online, order all their meals from delivery services. They can get their laundry done at work. They eat all their lunches in the company cafeterias. Why doesn't Amazon build a glittering campus in some place that's losing population? None of it makes sense.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Weeds: the economic r...»Reply #7