Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Seattle stinks (was Re: [mythsoc] re: not finishing)

Expand Messages
  • Ernest Tomlinson
    ... From: Jason M. Abels To: Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 1:34 PM Subject: RE: [mythsoc] re: not finishing
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 28 4:21 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jason M. Abels" <jason@...>
      To: <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 1:34 PM
      Subject: RE: [mythsoc] re: not finishing

      > Sorry. I do love your city. The only other place in the world I'd want to
      live
      > besides home.

      If it weren't for Dale and my thin wallet I'd move out in a second. This
      place is too expensive, too pretentious--I will _never_ pay five bucks for
      coffee, I don't care how much chocolate or sugar syrup or imitation milk you
      put in it, has worse metro rail than San Diego or Los Angeles (and _that's_
      an accomplishment), has worse _drivers_ than San Diego or Los Angeles (and
      that's an even _bigger_ accomplishment), grand total of one affordable
      university that's not a two-hour commute away, a joke of a public library
      system, more New Agers than Christians walking the streets, that whackjob
      Paul Allen trying to prove with his money that he's not a nerd but really a
      cool guy who likes football and Jimi Hendrix (overrated), Dan Savage, Tim
      Eyman, Bill Gates, Charbucks (not a typo), and, worst of all, no jobs any
      money unless you like either computers or airplanes. I should have moved to
      Portland, which has its numerous flaws too, but at least has affordable
      housing and a highway network consisting of more than Interstate 5 and the
      (soon to be demolished to make way for million-dollar waterfront condos)
      Alaskan Way Viaduct.

      Other than that, Seattle is a fine place to live.

      Ernest.
    • David S. Bratman
      ... I ve lived in Seattle, and I never paid even one cent for coffee. I don t drink coffee. (I live in California, yet I have never surfed nor worked for a
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 28 5:30 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        At 04:21 PM 2/28/2003 , Ernest wrote:

        >If it weren't for Dale and my thin wallet I'd move out in a second. This
        >place is too expensive, too pretentious--I will _never_ pay five bucks for
        >coffee

        I've lived in Seattle, and I never paid even one cent for coffee. I don't
        drink coffee. (I live in California, yet I have never surfed nor worked
        for a dot-com.)


        >I should have moved to
        >Portland, which has its numerous flaws too, but at least has affordable
        >housing and a highway network consisting of more than Interstate 5 and the
        >(soon to be demolished to make way for million-dollar waterfront condos)
        >Alaskan Way Viaduct.

        Ugly as the condos may be, they can't be any more ugly and disfiguring than
        the Viaduct, and nowhere near as dangerous. I'm pleased to hear they're
        getting rid of it. I've always avoided that thing, because I didn't want
        to be on it when a major earthquake came. San Francisco used to have an
        equally disfiguring and view-blocking waterfront elevated highway, the
        Embarcadero Freeway. It was torn down after the 1989 earthquake, despite
        being little-damaged, and _everybody_ cheered.

        - David Bratman
      • Jason M Abels
        ... Well, coffee with chocolate or sugar syrup or whipped milk is $5.00 anywhere. The cheap stuff can be found all over, even in seattle, and seattle has
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 28 9:47 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          > This place is too expensive, too pretentious--I will
          > _never_ pay five bucks for coffee, I don't care how much
          > chocolate or sugar syrup or imitation milk you put in it,

          Well, coffee with chocolate or sugar syrup or whipped milk is $5.00
          anywhere. The cheap stuff can be found all over, even in seattle, and
          seattle has spread to the world.

          > has
          > worse metro rail than San Diego or Los Angeles (and _that's_
          > an accomplishment),

          Rail? You have one 40 year old rail. Indianpolis just build an equally
          useless rail line (it connects two hospitals). If you want good public
          transportation, go to Washington DC or Phoenix. (both equally crappy places
          to live).

          > has worse _drivers_ than San Diego or Los
          > Angeles (and that's an even _bigger_ accomplishment),

          My wife says you lie. She says "I can merge in Seattle"

          > grand
          > total of one affordable university that's not a two-hour
          > commute away,

          Ditto in Indianapolis (and better than most other places)

          > a joke of a public library system, more New
          > Agers than Christians walking the streets,

          Well, that makes for more liberals, which is a plus.

          >that whackjob Paul
          > Allen trying to prove with his money that he's not a nerd but
          > really a cool guy who likes football and Jimi Hendrix
          > (overrated), Dan Savage, Tim Eyman, Bill Gates, Charbucks
          > (not a typo), and, worst of all, no jobs any money unless you
          > like either computers or airplanes.

          Works for me!

          > Other than that, Seattle is a fine place to live.

          It's also quite pretty. There are trees! And water! And lots and lots of
          homeless people (okay, that isn't so good). I think the beatnick/new agey
          culture would probably end up getting to me before too long. Still, I've
          found no place (yet) that fits my idea of a better place to live than home.
          (San Fran might, but I can't live in a place that expensive).

          --
          Jason M. Abels
        • Lisa Deutsch Harrigan
          I lived in San Francisco a number of years before the earthquake and avoided the waterfront as it was dank and ugly. Now I enjoy driving along the Embarcadero,
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            I lived in San Francisco a number of years before the earthquake and
            avoided the waterfront as it was dank and ugly. Now I enjoy driving
            along the Embarcadero, now a boulevard, which is sunny and shows off the
            old wharfs, water, and views wonderfully. I wouldn't mind living in that
            area of the city. May Seattle see as wonderful a change in environment.

            Mythically yours,
            Lisa

            David S. Bratman wrote:

            >Ugly as the condos may be, they can't be any more ugly and disfiguring than
            >the Viaduct, and nowhere near as dangerous. I'm pleased to hear they're
            >getting rid of it. I've always avoided that thing, because I didn't want
            >to be on it when a major earthquake came. San Francisco used to have an
            >equally disfiguring and view-blocking waterfront elevated highway, the
            >Embarcadero Freeway. It was torn down after the 1989 earthquake, despite
            >being little-damaged, and _everybody_ cheered.
            >
            >
            >
          • Ernest Tomlinson
            ... From: Lisa Deutsch Harrigan To: Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 10:24 AM Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: Seattle
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Lisa Deutsch Harrigan" <lisa@...>
              To: <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 10:24 AM
              Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: Seattle stinks


              > I lived in San Francisco a number of years before the earthquake and
              > avoided the waterfront as it was dank and ugly. Now I enjoy driving
              > along the Embarcadero, now a boulevard, which is sunny and shows off the
              > old wharfs, water, and views wonderfully. I wouldn't mind living in that
              > area of the city.

              The trouble is, you can't, unless you're filthy rich. And that is whom the
              destruction of the Alaskan Way Viaduct will benefit--the filthy rich. Not
              being filthy rich, the Viaduct is for me the only good alternative to
              ploughing through downtown traffic on my way from Ballard or Fremont to the
              South. Also, there's no better view of Seattle to be had than from the
              northbound deck of the Viaduct. Yes, the Viaduct is old and liable to
              earthquake damage, but why not simply _repair_ it? That must be cheaper
              than the ludicrous notion of wrecking it and replacing it with a tunnel
              _under_ Alaskan Way, a notion that puts the lie to all of the developers'
              fits over the Viaduct's unsafety: it's all fill under Alaskan Way, and a
              tunnel through it isn't going to be any more earthquake-safe than the top of
              the Viaduct.

              No, the only people who really care about pulling down the Viaduct are
              wealthy developers slavering to get their hands on the last bit of
              waterfront land in Seattle. They talk a line about "revitalizing the
              waterfront"--as if people like me are going to be able to afford even to
              shop there! This boondoggle going to cost billions, disrupt downtown
              traffic for years, and result in just another downtown tourist trap to be
              got through on the way to something actually worth seeing or doing in
              Seattle.

              Ernest.
            • Stolzi@aol.com
              In a message dated 3/1/2003 12:44:44 PM Central Standard Time, ... Sounds like the Big Dig in Boston - how long has =that= been going on? But I m afraid
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 3/1/2003 12:44:44 PM Central Standard Time,
                thiophene@... writes:


                > This boondoggle going to cost billions, disrupt downtown
                > traffic for years,

                Sounds like the "Big Dig" in Boston - how long has =that= been going on?

                But I'm afraid we're straying offtopic, unless one could consider these as
                boondoggles of, ahem, MYTHIC proportions :)

                Diamond Proudbrook



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David S Bratman
                ... I can think of a few as good, including some that don t require one to be in a moving car to enjoy them. Some of these also are not themselves unsightly.
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 1, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 10:37 AM 3/1/2003 -0800, Ernest wrote:

                  >Also, there's no better view of Seattle to be had than from the
                  >northbound deck of the Viaduct.

                  I can think of a few as good, including some that don't require one to be
                  in a moving car to enjoy them. Some of these also are not themselves
                  unsightly. Duwamish Head, just to name one. Ever been out
                  there? Unfortunately much of its view of Seattle is blocked by ... the
                  Viaduct.


                  > Yes, the Viaduct is old and liable to
                  >earthquake damage, but why not simply _repair_ it? That must be cheaper
                  >than the ludicrous notion of wrecking it and replacing it with a tunnel
                  >_under_ Alaskan Way, a notion that puts the lie to all of the developers'
                  >fits over the Viaduct's unsafety: it's all fill under Alaskan Way, and a
                  >tunnel through it isn't going to be any more earthquake-safe than the top of
                  >the Viaduct.

                  That depends entirely on how the tunnel is built. It's not the ground that
                  makes construction earthquake-unsafe, it's how you build in that
                  ground. The Viaduct is not in disrepair in some way that could be fixed
                  for less money than building something new: it is unsafe in original
                  construction down to its foundations. This was already well-known when I
                  was living there, 20 years ago, and it's long past time to do something
                  about it. It couldn't be "repaired" without tearing it down to those
                  foundations and rebuilding it from scratch. Which is what they're going to
                  do, only the new version will be less unsightly.

                  I love it when ignorant amateurs complain that the professionals don't know
                  what they're doing.

                  - David Bratman
                • Jane Bigelow
                  ... Sounds like the Big Dig in Boston - how long has =that= been going on? But I m afraid we re straying offtopic, unless one could consider these as
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 1, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > This boondoggle going to cost billions, disrupt downtown
                    > traffic for years,

                    Sounds like the "Big Dig" in Boston - how long has =that= been going on?

                    But I'm afraid we're straying offtopic, unless one could consider these as
                    boondoggles of, ahem, MYTHIC proportions :)

                    Diamond Proudbrook

                    Ernest and Mary,

                    Well, we could try to imagine Tolkien's reaction to these boondoggles.
                    Would the fact that in San Francisco and Seattle people are actually
                    removing superhighways please him? Or would he be too disgusted by the
                    whole nonsense to care? I don't know whether Tolkien ever expressed his
                    opinion of superhighways or not, but I'll bet he didn't care for them, and
                    I'll also bet that someone on this list knows whether or not he ever
                    commented in writing on the topic.

                    Jane
                  • Yvan <tinidril@yahoo.com>
                    ... Portland?... have affordable housing?? hahahahaha... only if you also have Seattle-level income to pay for it! But we *do* have excellent public
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 1, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ernest wrote:
                      > I should have moved to Portland, which has
                      > its numerous flaws too, but at least has
                      > affordable housing and a highway network
                      > consisting of more than Interstate 5 and
                      > the (soon to be demolished to make way for
                      > million-dollar waterfront condos) Alaskan
                      > Way Viaduct.

                      Portland?... have affordable housing?? hahahahaha... only if you also
                      have Seattle-level income to pay for it!

                      But we *do* have excellent public transportation... Which you need
                      because the streets are really overburdened, narrow, old, etc... at
                      least near the center of town.... and pretty good libraries. Central
                      library has the most wonderful collection of old books! One summer I
                      followed a mythopoeic trail of authors (before I knew
                      what "mythopoeic" was) through those old tomes which included George
                      McDonald and Charles Williams and a bunch of others I don't recall
                      now.

                      God bless! Tinidril
                      http://www.xanga.com/tinidril
                    • David S Bratman
                      ... Of course Tolkien had comments on this subject. For instance, in Letter 181, comparing England to the pre-Scouring Shire: I would not say that we had to
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 2, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 03:46 PM 3/1/2003 -0700, Jane wrote:

                        >Well, we could try to imagine Tolkien's reaction to these boondoggles.
                        >Would the fact that in San Francisco and Seattle people are actually
                        >removing superhighways please him? Or would he be too disgusted by the
                        >whole nonsense to care? I don't know whether Tolkien ever expressed his
                        >opinion of superhighways or not, but I'll bet he didn't care for them, and
                        >I'll also bet that someone on this list knows whether or not he ever
                        >commented in writing on the topic.

                        Of course Tolkien had comments on this subject. For instance, in Letter
                        181, comparing England to the pre-Scouring Shire:

                        "I would not say that we had to suffer the malice of Sharkey and his
                        Ruffians here. Though the spirit of Isengard, if not of Mordor, is of
                        course always cropping up. The present design of destroying Oxford in
                        order to accommodate motor-cars is a case."

                        The "present design" to which he was referring to was a plan to run a new
                        highway through the beautiful Christ Church meadows south of central
                        Oxford. Tolkien was totally opposed; so were a lot of other people; and it
                        was never built. But it's worth noting that the only alternative presented
                        at the time was the status quo: constantly clogged traffic jams in central
                        Oxford itself. Only a few years earlier he complained in Letter 135 that
                        he had decided to move:

                        "This charming house has become uninhabitable -- unsleepable-in,
                        unworkable-in, rocked, racked with noise, and drenched with fumes. Such is
                        modern life. Mordor in our midst."

                        And that was the result of traffic going past his front door that the
                        meadows highway would have relieved. Ironic, isn't it? When I first
                        visited Oxford some 25 years ago the traffic situation was pretty much
                        unchanged from when Tolkien wrote in the '50s, and still very bad. Since
                        then it's improved somewhat, due to planning more intelligent than the
                        meadows highway design.

                        I don't recall anything about Tolkien cheering when various ugly modern
                        constructions were torn down, but not much of that was yet being done in
                        his day. He certainly had a lot of complaints about new construction going
                        up, though. Somewhere in Carpenter's biography is a reference to Tolkien
                        moaning "There goes the last of England's arable" whenever he saw new
                        buildings replacing a field. He owned a car during the 1930s, but after
                        World War II decided not to do so again, largely out of principle. (Though
                        he was perfectly willing to ride in other people's cars.)

                        - David Bratman
                      • Ernest Tomlinson
                        ... From: To: Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 9:39 PM Subject: [mythsoc] Seattle stinks ... Well, the few people
                        Message 11 of 11 , Mar 2, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: <tinidril@...>
                          To: <mythsoc@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 9:39 PM
                          Subject: [mythsoc] Seattle stinks


                          > Ernest wrote:
                          > > I should have moved to Portland, which has
                          > > its numerous flaws too, but at least has
                          > > affordable housing and a highway network
                          > > consisting of more than Interstate 5 and
                          > > the (soon to be demolished to make way for
                          > > million-dollar waterfront condos) Alaskan
                          > > Way Viaduct.
                          >
                          > Portland?... have affordable housing?? hahahahaha... only if you also
                          > have Seattle-level income to pay for it!

                          Well, the few people I know in Portland pay considerably less for housing
                          than I and most people I know here...although it's debatable whether, say,
                          the Sellwood neighborhood is really Portland. I think that it's probably
                          easier to get away with living some distance from the Portland city center
                          because there are more options for getting into town than (the Seattle
                          equivalent of) slogging your way down crowded I-5 or even more crowded
                          I-405. I drive to work at 5:30 to 6:30 in the morning, depending, and
                          already by the time the southbound commute from Snohomish County down I-5 is
                          stop-and-go. By 7 am it's a parking lot.

                          The biggest downside to Portland at least at the moment is that it's still
                          got the highest unemployment in the country, or near to it. But Seattle
                          isn't much better.

                          Ernest.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.