Redmond and the rest of the eastside are very much part of the Seattle area. Many people commute both ways. I agree that when you go as far North as Everett and as far south as Tacoma those are different areas.
That's not really true. Seattle doesn't exist in a vacuum, they are all part of the same metro area. So sure, Portland is not the same city but you can't say Bellevue is entirely separate.
Of course it's true. The city of Seattle is a thing, and it doesn't include the eastside. And sure, they're part of the metro area, but so is Tacoma. Eastsiders are always trying to pretend they live in Seattle.
Eastsiders are always trying to pretend they live in Seattle.
Don't flatter yourself, Eastsiders "pretend" out of convenience to those that don't obsess about Washington geography. I say "Seattle" because I don't expect someone from Iowa to have any clue where Redmond is. Just like I'd tell people "Charlotte, NC" when I really lived in Gastonia; nobody knows where the hell Gastonia, NC is, and being 20 miles away, "Charlotte" is close enough. I otherwise am quite content to have nothing to do with the city of Seattle proper, nor pretend that I am a resident.
Sure, and that makes total sense when you're talking to someone who doesn't know the area. But disagreeing with me when I say that Bellevue isn't part of the City of Seattle is just weird.
You're twisting my words. Of course Bellevue is not part of the City of Seattle but they are very much codependent. The obsession over the city line is pointless here. This is important in a conversation about office space. The obsessive focus on a subset of the City of Seattle's office space serves to advance a specific narrative and ignores the reality of the situation.
I think the place we're missing each other here is that people who literally live in Seattle care about Seattle as a separate entity from the metropolitan area.
Yes, that is where we are missing each other because fixating on some subset of the office space in the area ignores the reality both for the metro area and Seattle proper. The metro area is what matters economically and office space should be evaluated in that context. We can discuss the impact to the city itself of its share of office space in the metro area but focusing on this little piece of the puzzle is a distraction.
Well... a Seattle city newspaper wrote an article about the city of Seattle. It's a valid lens to examine Amazon's impact to Seattle. Your insistence on being included in a conversation about a city you don't live in is kinda weird.
Also note that I agreed with your post above, and just pointed out that Bellevue is "not part of the city." It literally is not. That's all I said.
How do you know where I live? Not that it matters but I moved to Seattle in 2011 and I have lived and worked in both Bellevue and Seattle.
ST is fixating on one aspect of Amazon's impact to the city of Seattle to advance their desired narrative. They use a hyperbolic headline to perpetuate a negative image of Amazon then correlate office space with economic contribution. Nothing in the article convinces me that Amazon has turned Seattle into a "company town'.
You response to my post was literally (emphasis mine):
> I agree. But they're not at all part of the city.
My point is that Belleuve and the rest of the eastside is much more closely related to Seattle than a place like Everett or Tacoma and so a conversation about office space should acknowledge that. People and companies are mobile between the eastside and Seattle much more than they are to the north and south. This is relevant in a conversation about office space, even if you are evaluating it from a position of what's best for Seattle itself.
But disagreeing with me when I say that Bellevue isn't part of the City of Seattle is just weird.
Fair enough, and assuming that you've met such folks, that is weird...and kind of stupid. Me, I'm content with a certain sense of smugness about living in Redmond and not Seattle. :-)
