[wenc]

No it is not. (lived experience as an ethnic minority). Lynnwood had way better restaurants and cafes that opened late.

Liking Ballard doesn't mean I endorse its energy. Ballard is one of the quietest parts of the city (the Nordic Museum is there), but people were also the chattiest, which is why I liked it. It provided a brief respite from the Seattle Freeze.

Ha, those writers don't live in Seattle full time. They're only visiting.

[operatingthetan]

I think you may be the only person in the world who thinks Lynnwood has better energy than Seattle. Complaining about Seattle being too suburban and then praising its suburbs is too contradictory to take seriously.

[wenc]

We can disagree about Lynnwood (that's my opinion).

But Seattle does have very low social wattage.

p.s. I should clarify about Lynnwood since this is contentious for folks. For me, Lynnwood produced more social collisions that I care about than Seattle does. It had a lot of immigrant businesses, actually good restaurants, bookshops, hobby shops, etc. where people lingered, even though it's true you have to drive everywhere. It doesn't have urbanity, but it produced more lived energy than an actual urban place like Seattle did.

I also used "suburban" in two senses: physically suburban versus socially suburban. Lynnwood is physically suburban. But Seattle felt socially suburban: private, subdued and short on spontaneous public life -- at least to me (as someone who doesn't drink). An actual suburb like Lynnwood felt less socially suburban to me, with its late night cafes and things to do.

Same with Ballard. It's a fairly quiet part of Seattle, but the social collisions there were somehow better than say SLU.

[zmgsabst]

Lynnwood is where the fun parts of Seattle moved when rents got too high.