Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Rizk 1
Akeem Rizk
Dr. Erik
English 205
13 December 2017
Unintended Consequences: The Amazon Effect
The city of Seattle is getting younger and richer. Seattle’s population is growing
at a rapid pace, but the demographic of this population growth is having unforeseen
negative effects on the region. The effects researched are increased housing cost,
increased homelessness, and urban sprawl. Housing cost, percentages of homeless, and
amount of urban sprawl are not the only markers of the health of a region, but each of
these has seen a noticeable change in the time frame researched, so connections to causes
will be easier to draw.
To start with, Amazon is a leading online shopping company that has always been
based in Seattle, but only recently expanded operations immensely. These efforts began
with the building of a state-of-the-art headquarters in the South Lake Union
neighborhood of Seattle in 2010. Amazon is now the largest private employer in Seattle,
employing 40,000 Seattleites (“Our Urban Campus”). Seattle started to see a substantial
population increase around the opening of Amazon’s South Lake Union headquarters.
The opening of Amazon’s headquarters in South Lake Union has increased the
population of young, highly paid workers, and the resulting growth has raised the cost of
housing due to highly motivated and wealthy buyers, who prefer to live directly within
city limits. A higher cost of housing has displaced lower-income residents, while
Rizk 2
increasing homelessness and enacting a larger urban sprawl than ever before seen in the
Seattle area.
The next step is understanding the type of people moving to Seattle, and the
desires of this new population. Gene Balk finds, “From July 1, 2015, to July 1, 2016,
Seattle had a net gain of nearly 21,000 people — 57 a day, on average” (“Seattle Once
Again”). Seattle is one of the fastest growing large cities in America, but more
importantly one of the fastest growing young cities. The age range 20-44 made up 45.6%
of Seattle’s population in 2010, and 46.5% in 2016. There was an especially big growth
in ages 25-34, making up 20.5% of Seattle in 2010 and increasing to 22.2% in 2016 while
the age range of 55-59 decreased in this time (“Your Geography Selections”). The
younger age group moving to Seattle is bringing with them specific desires from their
cities. According to Ilona Serwicka, “Young people tend to prefer having good access to
leisure facilities, culture, transport and jobs” (“Why Do People”). Young people need job
opportunities more than older people, and Seattle was made up of more 25-34-year old
people in 2016 than it was in 2010 (“Your Geography Selections”). Young people are
moving to Seattle because of the employment opportunities they desire.
The ages of Seattle’s population growth are the same ages employed by Amazon,
which distinguish Amazon as the main employer causing population growth. Differing
industries represent different ages. Stephanie Forshee explains, “Boeing's Washington
state workforce declined more than 2 percent last year, from 81,939 in 2013 to 80,199”
(“Washington State Loses”). Boeing is one of the largest employers in the Seattle area,
and a loss of this many jobs should decrease population growth. However, Seattle’s year
over year population growth increased from 9,742 between 2011 and 2012, to 11,765
Rizk 3
between 2012 and 2013 (“Your Geography Selections”). Population grew at an even
faster rate, despite the loss of jobs from Boeing. This is because Boeing is a
manufacturing company, and manufacturing jobs are not representative of the jobs
attracting people to Seattle right now. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics finds the median
age of manufacturing jobs is 44.5, versus 34.7 for jobs attributed to electronic shopping
(“Employed Persons by Detailed”). Electronic shopping is a blanket term for people
employed by websites that allow people to shop online. The age disparity in population
growth points to technology jobs like the ones offered by Amazon being the main draw to
Seattle, rather than manufacturing jobs offered by Boeing. Continued population growth
despite loss of jobs by other employers and industries distinguishes Amazon as the main
employer causing this population growth.
Amazon’s new headquarters in South Lake Union has been established as a cause
for younger population growth, but how has housing cost changed alongside this growth?
Data for home prices to compare alongside population growth in Seattle is crucial. Mike
Rosenberg notes the median price of a home is currently over $700,000 in Seattle. This
represents a double in median home price over the last five years (“Seattle’s Median
Home”). Without any type of context, home prices and population growth are strongly
related, but population growth is not the only thing to account for when it comes to cost
of housing. There are three main components to factor into the cost of housing: supply of
houses, interest rates of mortgages, and the number of eligible buyers. A combination of
these factors is working in unison to raise housing costs.
There is at least one issue that Amazon has not directly influenced in Seattle:
supply of homes. While there are too many people for the available homes, building more
Rizk 4
homes seems an easy solution. However, zoning is a big deal in Seattle that has led to a
lack of housing. Dan Bertolet asserts, “The root cause of Seattle’s soaring housing prices,
leading to displacement, monster commutes, and community disruptions, is a shortage of
housing; to keep prices down for everybody, we need more homes of all kinds. Building
market-rate homes is good for affordability” (“Seattle’s Flawed Plan”). More homes
being built would result in lower prices. The city of Seattle has laws restricting the
proximity that homes can be built to businesses, how closely houses can be built to each
other, and even how many people a house can realistically hold. According to Danny
Westneat, “The draft report notes that “Seattle (single-family) zoning has roots in racial
and class exclusion and remains among the largest obstacles to realizing the city’s goals
for equity and affordability” (“Get Rid of Single”). A lessening of restrictions regarding
