Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Summit at Snoqualmie development plans
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 999 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostWed May 11, 2022 8:08 pm 
Crystal has figured out staffing issues by bringing in foreign workers on J-1 visas and renting out the Christian Black Diamond Camp near Buck Creek Campground for housing. They bus the workers to the ski area daily.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Dick B
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Jun 2013
Posts: 214 | TRs | Pics
Location: Redmond, Or
Dick B
Member
PostThu May 12, 2022 10:25 am 
Bend is pricing low wage earners out of the rental market also. Average rental price for an apartment is around $1500 per month. Probably the only way most Bachelor employees could afford this cost is to double up and split the expense. How does this cost compare to North Bend, Cle Elum or Ellensburg? Also if you are thinking of coming to Bend to buy a house, you had better have deep pockets. I'm sure this same condition prevails all around the Puget Sound area.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 999 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostThu May 12, 2022 11:33 am 
Dick B wrote:
Average rental price for an apartment [in Bend] is around $1500 per month
Average rent for a studio in Portland is $1,204 and $1,883 for a three-bedroom unit. So about the same as Bend. Do people think rent in places like Bend, Cle Elum, and North Bend should be cheaper than cities like Seattle and Portland? If we want to promote efficient, high density living, the rent should be cheaper in urban areas, and more expensive in places like North Bend, where upper management at Microsoft lives, and Cle Elum and Bend, where upper management at Microsoft has their vacation houses.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
kiliki
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2101 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
kiliki
Member
PostThu May 12, 2022 2:13 pm 
Quote:
Going forward I don't see how the Summit (and other) resorts can resolve the staffing issue because people who want to work there cannot afford to live anywhere close to the resort.
Agreed. I don't know how you are going to get anyone to work there for minimum wage or close to it unless you provide housing. Some ski areas have done an great job with employee housing. Sun Valley has. https://housing.svemployee.com/ Aspen has housing for 800 which is even more than SV. Vail has quite a lot and some you can even buy, which is great for long term managers and such that would still be priced out of Vail.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1338 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostSun May 15, 2022 9:30 am 
dixon wrote:
Meanwhile builders are clearing land by Chinook Lumber for $2.6M+ 5-6 bed homes ... Going forward I don't see how the Summit (and other) resorts can resolve the staffing issue because people who want to work there cannot afford to live anywhere close to the resort.
I thought the chinook lumber clearing was for a 100 or so unit apartment complex? I could be mistaken, last i checked was a couple years ago. Anyway, the college/high school age kids of all the Microsoft/Amazon/Boeing parents in the I90 corridor seems like an obvious labor pool for snoqualmie at least? But ya, north bend prices are crazy. It is such a great place to live though, especially if you you have some sort of part time remote tech/office job. Live surrounded by such easy outdoors access, and that commute is easy if you are only doing it part time. The last couple years saw north bend get "discovered" I think.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 6124 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostFri May 20, 2022 9:09 am 
altasnob wrote:
Do people think rent in places like Bend, Cle Elum, and North Bend should be cheaper than cities like Seattle and Portland? If we want to promote efficient, high density living, the rent should be cheaper in urban areas, and more expensive in places like North Bend, where upper management at Microsoft lives, and Cle Elum and Bend, where upper management at Microsoft has their vacation houses.
Rent is expensive in Seattle because so many people want to live in a finite number of houses and apartments.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 999 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostFri May 20, 2022 9:38 am 
And rent is expensive in North Bend because so many people want to live in a finite number of houses and apartments. And the only way to make that less expensive, in either Seattle, or North Bend, is to increase the number of houses and apartments. But which would you prefer- a 40 floor apartment building filled with micro studio apartments with no on site parking in downtown North Bend, or downtown Seattle? The point is, you are never going to solve North Bend's cost of living problems without first solving Seattle's cost of living problems.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 6124 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostFri May 20, 2022 9:43 am 
altasnob wrote:
But which would you prefer- a 40 floor apartment building filled with micro studio apartments with no on site parking in downtown North Bend, or downtown Seattle?
Either is fine with me.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 999 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostFri May 20, 2022 9:50 am 
I'm guessing you're not an urban planner. Even if you have no problem with a 40 floor apartment with no parking in North Bend, you have to have the infrastructure to make living there feasible. Infrastructure is expensive, so it's better to concentrate that infrastructure is downtown Seattle where it can serve the most people.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 8919 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostFri May 20, 2022 9:58 am 
There are multiple factors that have fueled the rapid growth of housing in Puget Sound City. 1) The success of companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Boeing and others here providing a large and luractive employment base. 2) The growth managment act passed by the legislature in 1990. The act required counties to draw urban/rural boundaries and limit development density in areas designated as "rural". The GMA was passed in response to rapid growth here and in observing how "urban sprawl" has transformed places like SoCal. Without the GMA -- prices likely would not have escalated quite as much -- however places like Ravensdale, Cumberland, Landsburg, Carnation would all be fully suburbanized with single family homes on 1/4 acre lots.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 6124 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostFri May 20, 2022 10:02 am 
altasnob wrote:
I'm guessing you're not an urban planner. Even if you have no problem with a 40 floor apartment with no parking in North Bend, you have to have the infrastructure to make living there feasible. Infrastructure is expensive, so it's better to concentrate that infrastructure is downtown Seattle where it can serve the most people.
It's not an either/or situation. Ten years from now more people will be living in Seattle, North Bend, Snohomish, and everywhere else. The idea that it would be better to concentrate everybody in Seattle is great, but the reality is a lot more complicated than that.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 999 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostFri May 20, 2022 10:22 am 
Randito wrote:
Without the GMA -- prices likely would not have escalated quite as much -- however places like Ravensdale, Cumberland, Landsburg, Carnation would all be fully suburbanized with single family homes on 1/4 acre lots.
True to some extent. And while CA doesn't have a statewide growth management act, they do have a Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, which requires urban planning on a more regional level. OR has what is considered the most stringent urban growth boundary laws in the nation, and is cheaper than WA. And both OR and CA have gotten rid of single family zoning on a statewide level (WA tried in the last legislative session and failed). Bottom line, the GMA plays a minor roll in our expensive real estate here. The benefits of the GMA far outweigh the negatives. We're expensive because people make a lot of money here and there is not much buildable land as we are constrained by both water and mountains. What really transformed North Bend from a meth infested wasteland to high priced McMansions was Bill Gates' decision to put Microsoft out in the country bumpkin land of Redmond. Others followed suit, but Jeff Bezos bucked the suburban tech headquarters trend and went with South Lake Union. But in this day and age where you can make 200k pecking away at your keyboard from Antartica, none of that matters. Does anyone actually like density? Do any billionaires voluntarily live car free in a studio apartment? People live in dense environments because they have no other choice. I think the natural trend is for cities to become more dense, and those who are financially able to leave to places like North Bend, will leave. That's not a problem. Because when the wealthy flee Seattle to North Bend, they will be replaced with the young person just out of college, or the older person on fixed income who can't afford North Bend. Lots of complaints that North Bend is too expensive, Aspen is too expensive, Sun Valley is too expensive. But get used to it. Because now that a huge swath of humanity works from home, there is no possible way to keep these places from being expensive.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 6124 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostFri May 20, 2022 1:24 pm 
altasnob wrote:
I'm guessing you're not an urban planner
I thing you were a lawyer, and we're both not urban planners. Is that not correct?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 8919 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostFri May 20, 2022 7:08 pm 
altasnob wrote:
Does anyone actually like density?
Have you ever lived in a high density area? I grew up in suburbia -- but also lived in Harlem for two years. It was far more livable that I imagined it would be coming from the 'burbs.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
kw
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Sep 2020
Posts: 53 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue
kw
Member
PostFri May 20, 2022 11:15 pm 
Incredible how far off-topic ski area development threads can get so quickly. Getting back to the employee housing subject this tangent began at, is there any suitable land Boyne owns that they could use? The whole area is a bit of a mess of land ownership, so I don't know how easy it would be compared to somewhere like Crystal that just has a single road, a few buildings, and the Forest Service to deal with.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Summit at Snoqualmie development plans
  Happy Birthday detekt!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum