Spokane: what Seattle used to be
Mossback becomes enamored with a city he once regarded with disdain and considers what it would be like to move there. It reminds him of pre-1970s Seattle, before the yuppies ruined it.
One of the great things about travel is having the right to develop a crush on another city. You can enjoy the skylines and charming alleyways without thinking of the inconvenience of commutes, provincialism, or the local tax burden. If I bought an apartment in every city I'd been smitten by in my travels, my annual orbit would include San Francisco, Seville, Siena — what is it about cities that start with "S"?
The latest is Spokane. Weird, huh? Like most native Seattleites, I grew up with a strong prejudice against anything to the east, starting with Bellevue and continuing across Eastern Washington all the way to New York City. Forward-thinking Seattleites were raised to look west, to the Pacific Rim, or north to Alaska, or upward to a sky dominated by Boeing and the Space Age. The east was always yesterday.
That's part of the reason the Cascade Curtain dividing Washington has been so impenetrable. As wetside cities grew, the dryside towns became old news — fading farm towns, atomic waste bins, burgs full of left-behinds. I remember the superiority I felt toward Spokane in 1974 when it hosted a world's fair. Spokane was the smallest city ever to host a modern fair, and having one there seemed to cheapen the very idea. I chose not to attend, because I could not imagine that it had anything to offer that we hadn't already seen at the '62 fair in Seattle. Why on earth would anyone go to Spokane?
My view has changed over the years. I read many articles touting Spokane's rise from mediocrity but have been skeptical, just as I am when Tacoma announces every five years or so that it is having a "renaissance." It's had more rebirths than the Dalai Lama. But in June, I went to Spokane as a delegate to the state Democratic convention. I saw the city in a whole new light.
It's called sunlight, which was scarce in Seattle last spring, the coldest since 1917. While Seattle was chilled, Spokane had blue skies and 70-degree days. It was enough to seduce the soggiest of mossbacks.
Driving in on Interstate 90, the city that emerged from the pine forests was modest, not megapolitan. The high rises weren't too high, and the skyline was marked with old church towers and well-preserved or restored 19th-century brick buildings. The streets were broad and easy to navigate, and through the city spilled the lovely namesake river — the best central fountain a city ever had, with its park and pathways; a civic center that is walkable and where nature is alive, flowing and making music.
I was struck by the familiarity of the city's scale. Spokane reminds me of the 1950s-'70s Seattle where I grew up: a gorgeous natural setting, an urban zone that didn't overwhelm with towers and pretension. A livable city before Yuppiepalooza took over.
Which isn't to say Spokane doesn't have its yuppie charms. There are good restaurants, local microbrews (I sipped a very tasty one from nearby Coeur D'Alene, Idaho), and a thriving club scene — some blocks were packed at 2 a.m. on a Saturday night — not the scene I remember of the old railroad town of yore. At the convention, I met a cadre of the city's growing Democratic Party. Democrats now dominate the city's delegation to the Legislature in Olympia and the City Council. The Inland Empire might be red, but its capital is now purple, and turning bluer.
Spokane seems like a blast from Seattle's past, but in a good way. Not retro, but progressive, urban, close to nature — for example, the Idaho wilderness lies just beyond. Moose still occasionally invade urban neighborhoods. The city is also more affordable and scaled to Northwest sensibilities.
What's wrong with this picture? To a traveler's eye, nothing. Sure, Spokane has its share of problems and scandals (remember the late accused molester-mayor, Jim West?). But another thing gave me a queasy feeling. The booster ambitions that drive western cities also tend to spoil them by overreaching. As the region's inland cities, like Spokane, Boise, Bend, and Walla Walla, grow and mature, I hope they realize there are wise limits. What they offer is an alternative to the idea that more is always better. Create a city that's just right and stick with it. That way, Seattleites will always have a place to visit, and remember.
Comments:
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 6:46 a.m. inappropriate
Ah, yes, the good old days: I'm guessing Knute isn't gay or a woman (I say that rhetorically), because the 1970s in Seattle and the 2000s in Spokane are not necessarily great places for people who are different from straight, white, men. It's too easy to forget the very real and important gains that society has made over the past 30 years, not just in civil rights, tolerance, and quality but also in technology, environmentalism, etc. (Progress that Jim West wasn't able to benefit from so that he maybe could have led a much different life than he chose to in Spokane.) This kind of straight, white, male masturbatory fantasy of "paradise lost" is complete BS whether waxing nostalgic for Old Seattle, or for the 1950s, or for the 1920s...
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 7:28 a.m. inappropriate
Try Boise: If you like Spokane you will adore Boise.
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 8:49 a.m. inappropriate
-: Wide roads are a good thing?
Seattle in the 70s was full of parking lots, nowhere near as diverse culturally as it is now, and nowhere near the scale I prefer. Living an urban lifestyle in Greater Downtown was cheaper, but nowhere near as hospitable.
Of course I'm one who likes change, meaning watching Seattle grow into a bigger city. It's been fun to watch for all these decades.
I'll take the Seattle of today, and tomorrow.
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 9:47 a.m. inappropriate
Spokane's pretty nice-: Yes Knute- Spokane's pretty nice. While born here, I spent my first 14 years over East of the mountains.
When I get back there (not often enough) it seems still to be a right-size, right-speed family-oriented community. I do admire the way the Spokane riverfront has been transformed from messiness to loveliness. This should be a clue to how to renovate our misbegottenwaterfront- starting with tearing down the ugly, ugly, ugly bifurcating Viaduct.
Jerry Gropp Architect AIA PS
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 10:01 a.m. inappropriate
whichever way you cut it, the mossback: had his head stuck in the ground like a true seattlelite then and now...VOTE WHITE-VAN AUKEN FOR REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/elec-s13.shtml
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 10:14 a.m. inappropriate
GOOD OLD DAYS: I think Knute is observing a fact. Seattle was a better place to live in 1970 than it is now (and even better in 1960 before I-5). Relatively slow growth has granted some grace to Spokane (as it has to Portland).
Can anyone name a city west of the Rockies that wasn't better in 1970 than it is now? well, Portland, maybe, maybe not. In the late 60s LA was a great place. San Francisco even better.
No city has gotten better. Rapid urbanization is an expensive curse that no one knows how to deal with.
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 11:51 a.m. inappropriate
What he said, and moreover...: I second the things said by the first commenter. I was born and raised in Spokane and return regularly to visit family still there. It's not easy to live there if you're anything that isn't white, or Christian or hetro or unusual in any way. Much like any other town in the Midwest, which is basically what Spokane is, folks there don't cotton to the ideas of tolerance or multiculturalism like coastal cities do.
One fact about Spokane that is frequently overlooked: it's the largest metropolitan area from Seattle to Minneapolis/St. Paul, and Salt Lake City to Calgary--an area of over 961,000 square miles. Yeah, it's hard to belive. Look it up and do the math for yourself.
What this means is that Spokane is the ultimate example of a big fish in a small pond. Being the place that everyone turns to as the "city" leads to a self perception of Spokane's residents that it's a destination. Um, no. This provincial attitude constricts the public discourse on everything from it's "boosterism" efforts to managing the shifting demographic changes that are leading to it's "blueing" politics.
Yes, Spokane has it's good points: four predictable seasons, getting across town (either direction!) in 20 minutes, housing that can actually be purchased by mere mortals.
For me, I'll take Seattle, warts and all, thank you very much.
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 12:26 p.m. inappropriate
Before the yuppies ruined it?: Everyone gripes about the changes that big money brings (i.e. Microsoft), but nobody really wants to go back to being poor (the Boeing Bust). Note to Skip and Kieth: You were both 25 years younger in the 1970s, which helps in keeping all your memories rosy. But, by all means, reminisce away...
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 12:28 p.m. inappropriate
RE: GOOD OLD DAYS: Tacoma is unquestionably better now than in 1970. Not even a comparison.
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 1:36 p.m. inappropriate
RE: GOOD OLD DAYS: Portland has not "grown slowly" populationwise, but it has in terms of it's urban footprint. It's called LAND USE PLANNING. Comparing whether Seattle (metro and the city limits) is "better" or "worse" now than in 1970 is not the point--it coulda been one heck of a lot better than it is now if the developers had a tight leash on 'em.
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 2 p.m. inappropriate
RE: whichever way you cut it, the mossback: I wonder how many socialists there are in Spokane?
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 2:43 p.m. inappropriate
RE: GOOD OLD DAYS: I think this is nothing more than simple nostalgia at work. Well, and the fact that in 1970 Seattle was a denser, less suburban metropolis than it is today. Seattle's in-city population peaked some time around 1960 and only reached that level again in the last decade. That re-densification of the city core has brought new vitality to the city, at the same time that some of our older suburbs are becoming satellite cities of their own.
I miss some of the old Seattle that I remember as a lifelong resident since 1969, but people like Knute forget or romanticize the city's decline between 1970 and the late 1980s. I'd rather live in Seattle now and in the future than at any other time in my life. It's a better place to live now.
The unspoken issue here that plays a role even with so-called liberals is race. Like many cities, Seattle declined as white flight took root, and it is reemerging from that period as white people start to move back into the city and others move out, increasing diversity both inside and outside the city proper. The city is also less segregated than ever before in its history. Before 1960, the minority population was almost entirely contained in the International District and South(east) Seattle. That really started to change in the 1980s, and continues today.
We're more tolerant in general, with greater acceptance of gays and lesbians. We are more conscious of ecological and environmental issues. We've got more forward-thinking transportation policy. We've got better restaurants, better arts and culture across the board, and a hell of a lot more things to do. In relative terms, this is true of our suburbs and small cities, too.
We could do better at creating a good city for educating and raising children and living as families, but even that is improving compared to the nadir of the 60s, 70s, and early 80s.
Enough with the gloom and can't do attitude! This is a great time to live in Seattle. Let's stop looking at the past, appreciate our present, and start looking to build a better future! And if you can't get over your nostalgia, you do have the option of hiding from the future in a place like Spokane.
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 3:09 p.m. inappropriate
For me, the economic factor is a big one, and I wager for many others. Cheaper is better and I'd trade it for many urban amenities.
The racial and ethnic diversity in Seattle now is one of the ways the city has improved--I absolutely agree with that. It's also one of the ways in which the suburbs have improved too.
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 3:22 p.m. inappropriate
Race was not the only reason people fled to the suburbs--that was a national trend. People could find better homes for less, better schools, be closer to nature and employment: jobs moved out of the city too. It was the era of the office park.
The decrease in the number of people per household has been a problem. The Seattle neighborhood I grew up in was full of kids, small neighborhood groceries and shops within walking distance, etc. etc. Today's smaller households and the hunger for square feet per person, a city of singles and empty nesters in the extreme, means that density comes at the price of massive development. I have suggested in the past that we look for ways to increase density--the number of people per household--without emphasizing new construction. In places like Copenhagen, they have done that by attracting families back into the city from the suburbs by offering things like free daycare.
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 4:48 p.m. inappropriate
RE: -: To me, wide streets are car-dominated, unsafe to cross, and generally inhospitable. Most of my favorite places have narrow, even tiny streets, whether they're arterials like 5th through the retail district, or the windy lanes of an Aegean hill town.
For me it's similar to how some people (not me) consider height in terms of "human scale". The narrow ones have it, and the wide ones usually don't. The exceptions tend to be places like First Ave in Pioneer Square, where medians give pedestrians safety and trees provide a shady, enclosed effect.
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 4:52 p.m. inappropriate
3rd generation Spokane Democrat: Born and raised on the South Hill. Knew every inch of Manito Park.
My dad, Ray Goodner, owned the "Lewis and Clark Drug Store" on 2nd and Howard. Besides Du Barry Cosmetics he served venison sandwiches at his soda fountain from the deer my Grandpa hunted on his land near Sandpoint, Idaho. Take that Sarah Palin!
I miss Spokane but winters can be a bit dark and air quality can get nasty.
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 5:01 p.m. inappropriate
RE: GOOD OLD DAYS: I agree with much of what you said. But as a demographics nerd, I have to point out that the "denser, less suburban" point depends on what you mean.
We sprawled outward horrifically in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, slowing down fairly recently. But if you look at the areas already developed in 1970, we've grown.
Population is part of the story. But the number of households is a bigger part. I don't have numbers in front of me, but generally Seattle went from about 3 people per household a few decades ago (perhaps 1960) to about 2 per household today. With that in mind, it's remarkable that we've even kept our population at 1960 levels, let alone increased it. Based on my guesstimated numbers, we'd have to have grown by 50% in occupied housing units.
Whether we were more suburban is subjective. In 1960, the boundary of "central city" (in functional terms, not governmental) was closer in. Jobs and retail tended to be more centralized, as the suburbanization of these functions was just beginning. On the plus side, houses tended to be smaller and the average household had fewer cars.
Posted Fri, Sep 19, 6:11 p.m. inappropriate
RE: -: San Francisco is an example of a city with widish streets and great scale in the residential neighbs which are mostly without towers. Cities with high-rises and narrow streets can make me claustrophobic. But I'm with you on narrow streets if the scale is right (as I said, I love Siena) and especially if you're not on soul-killing grids.
Posted Sun, Sep 21, 1:49 a.m. inappropriate
tolerance doesn't mean we all have to agree: Sure, I'm missing some local historical perspective here, but I had to laugh at some of the commenters' suggestions that present-day Seattle is some sort of hotbed of "tolerance" and "diversity".
I've spent plenty of time all over the eastern seaboard, the south, and the midwest, and I haven't found a more intolerant, non-diverse place in the US than Seattle. Entertainingly enough, I have also never found a place that speaks so frequently of its own tolerance and diversity as Seattle. :)
Interesting (if admittedly starry-eyed) piece, as a recent long weekend in Spokane made me feel sentimental working class cities I'm familiar with, Pittsburgh and Baltimore specifically, though the latter has seen drastic yuppie-centric redevelopment in recent years as well.