Old Seattle has better stories than New Seattle
It should come as a surprise to absolutely no one that Edith Macefield is my new personal hero.
Edith Macefield is the 86-year-old Ballard woman who has refused to sell her house to developers for $1 million, forcing them to build around her[PI]. She turns up her television or opera to drown out the construction noise, and has made friends with the construction workers–one of them even takes her to doctor appointments and makes sure she doesn’t burn herself while cooking.
In a town where everything is being smashed to the ground and turned into expensive condos in the name of progress, characters like Macefield are sure to stand out. Do we need less single family housing in this town? Sure. But density for density’s sake isn’t good for a city, not when it doesn’t allow for diversity too. Luxury condos and fitness clubs are far less interesting than an old woman who speaks seven languages and ran away to join the war effort as a teenager, a woman who raised 27 war orphans and was maybe a spy. I know that I’m old fashioned, but I’d much rather hear about touring with 1950’s big band leaders than the newest thing out of Microsoft.
She’ll probably lose this battle in the end, of course–her health is failing, and money always wins. But in this battle old Seattle is much more interesting than new Seattle, and I hope that she holds out as long as she can.
I find it rather bizarre that this is being portrayed as some heroic struggle. She was offered $loadsamoney for her house, and turned it down. I don’t see anything about anyone having tried to coerce her - she just exercised her free choice to value the home where she’s rooted more than all that money.
If by lose, you mean die, then yes I suppose someday soon she will lose/die. But she has already won against development. Her house is hers as long as she pays the property tax. Her spot of land will not be enticing to development anymore.
The angle chosen for this blog post is off. It’s possible to have interesting old ladies and tons of urban density. There’s this magical place called Manhattan that has both and isn’t the poorer for it. In fact, if you want MORE interesting old ladies per square mile, you should be pro-density, not against it.
Furthermore, density is better for little old ladies too. Little old ladies who don’t drive anymore need mass transit to get around (to the doctor and to the grocery mart and so on). Little old ladies stuck in low-density single family homes are often dependent on others for mobility and daily life, and that’s got to suck for them. Little old ladies like to yammer with each other too, and they’re more likely to find other little old ladies to yammer with in highly dense areas.
Really short-sighted angle to suggest that urban density and interesting old ladies are somehow opposed. They’re not.
I’m not suggesting that at all. I’m suggesting that Seattle density and interesting old ladies are opposed. I’m all for density when it comes with some measure of low-income housing, which we are distinctly lacking in this town. Very little of what’s being built these days is going to be affordable to the sort of diverse, interesting people that make a city good. Are little old ladies and low-income but still valuable families going to be able to live in a city made mostly of luxury condos?
I think the commenters so far have misunderstood the point of the post here. While yes, it’s technically incorrect to portray it as her personal battle, she is a symbol of the struggle for old Seattle to maintain it’s spirit and history amid the onslaught of development. I think Samantha stated that pretty clearly.
Manhatten is a poor analogy because it’s density and it’s little old ladies (who have rent control btw!) have grown up together.
Yes, she wasn’t coerced, but I recall reading an article a year or two ago, quoting someone from Ballard as saying that at the beginning of the neighborhoohd’s changes many people were lied to by people approaching them to purchase their homes. They were told the buyers loved their cute little homes and wanted to live there, they were given an offer they couldn’t refuse, and then the homes were torn down for townhomes. This brings up the point that although we are not dealing with an eminant domain case in this city’s development, some people may not be able to afford the refusal of the $loads of money.
I am all for increased density if done in a sane way. The last thing we need here is more single family mcmansions in the suburbs. What is actually happening is an insane land grab for profit by investors that have no interest in the welfare of the city. So what does this do for the diversity of the city? Zero.
I think the commenters so far have misunderstood the point of the post here. While yes, it’s technically incorrect to portray it as her personal battle, she is a symbol of the struggle for old Seattle to maintain it’s spirit and history amid the onslaught of development. I think Samantha stated that pretty clearly.
Manhatten is a poor analogy because it’s density and it’s little old ladies (who have rent control btw!) have grown up together.
Yes, she wasn’t coerced, but I recall reading an article a year or two ago, quoting someone from Ballard as saying that at the beginning of the neighborhoohd’s changes many people were lied to by people approaching them to purchase their homes. They were told the buyers loved their cute little homes and wanted to live there, they were given an offer they couldn’t refuse, and then the homes were torn down for townhomes. This brings up the point that although we are not dealing with an eminant domain case in this city’s development, some people may not be able to afford the refusal of the $loads of money.
I am all for increased density if done in a sane way. The last thing we need here is more single family mcmansions in the suburbs. What is actually happening is an insane land grab for profit by investors that have no interest in the welfare of the city. So what does this do for the diversity of the city? Zero.
Please excuse the double post. I’m a little trigger happy when mad.
Suze is right. Seattle has become prohibitively expensive for anyone making less than 50K a year, and I’m sure had she sold her house, her choices would have been severely limited. Where was she supposed to move to? Surely somewhere far from her familiar surroundings, forcing her to be even more isolated and dependent than she may already be. Overpriced condos do nothing for the character of the city.