This is almost entirely an artifact of the financial instruments used to pay for these buildings, regardless of any Seattle policy changes. The Seattle Times has always been a conservative rag, and their editorial board hates the new mayor, so they hit the "Seattle is dying" story as often as possible. They've got a long history of this whenever there's leadership they don't like, ask me about it!
In Bellevue, office vacancies are low because most have long term tenants - even if the spaces aren't full of workers, the companies paying for them can continue to do so.
In Seattle, most office space is leased by smaller companies. We have diversity in availability, which is great, we have tiny office leases available as well as big ones. I believe those smaller spaces also often had shorter leases.
There are some spaces in Seattle where an anchor tenant (Indeed with 11 floors in the 2+U building at 1201 2nd Ave is a good example) shrank the footprint they use, and quickly sublet floors they aren't using. Those sublets can be priced appropriately for the market, and the main tenant keeps paying the original lease price.
However, when a space loses a tenant, the bank can't just drop the price for the owner, the same as you can't just pay less on your mortgage if you get a lower paying job. That has to go through a long, painful process, and usually the building will end up sold before pricing can change.
This is lag. It's easy to correlate it with a choice by Amazon or with new taxes, but there's quite a bit of demand for office space in Seattle, just not at the prices the owners are forced to ask with their financing instruments.
We just saw another building turn over, US Bank Center. The new owner bought it at a price where they'll be able to lease it competitively, and it won't sit empty. We'll see that continue to happen.
My understanding is a lot of the loans have gone PIK or otherwise essentially aren’t serviceable at current prices. Do you think that’s resolvable somehow or just lagging implosion?
In another 10 years downtown Seattle will be aligned with the rest of the market again.
(I mean the classical definition not the watered down modern one)
Why would this be different in Seattle than in other cities? Many downtown office towers are bought or built using a lot of debt throughout the U.S. What do you think makes Seattle special?
> We just saw another building turn over, US Bank Center. The new owner bought it at a price where they'll be able to lease it competitively, and it won't sit empty. We'll see that continue to happen.
The news story mentions the U.S. Bank Center example. What it says that you're leaving out is just HOW big that discount is:
> The new owner of the U.S. Bank Center, having paid just $280 million, or less than half of what the building went for in 2019, presumably can afford to lower rents enough to fill the place, which is now 45% vacant, according to CoStar.
A discount of more than 50% is a bubble bursting. It's great that the new owner can offer fire-sale rent, but where does that leave the old owner, if they were truly as leveraged as you suggest they were likely to be?
> The Seattle Times has always been a conservative rag, and their editorial board hates the new mayor, so they hit the "Seattle is dying" story as often as possible. They've got a long history of this whenever there's leadership they don't like, ask me about it!
OK, I'll ask you about it. This "Seattle Times = Blethen family propaganda" line has been tiring for the 25 years I've been hearing it. What exactly are they not covering about Seattle's downtown today that you think they should be? Why do you think that their opinion staff influence the news coverage so much? In short, if the Seattle Times has a conservative bias in its news coverage, why does the Wall Street Journal famously have a liberal-biased newsroom?
Look up the old owner and you'll realize why it doesn't really matter that they're taking a massive loss, and why I don't really care. I left it out because it's already a long comment and that's not really relevant.
They could have written an article about how foreclosures on office buildings take a long time and that sublet offerings in Seattle are turning over at a healthy rate. And the owner of a company in media absolutely influences that coverage, why do you think everybody's worried about CBS, or for a long time Fox News?
Commercial real estate valuation is based entirely on its ability to produce income. Lower the rent, lower the value. And that's a problem because most commercial leases are long (5-20+ years) so you're locking in an asset writedown for a long period of time. So it can be better to leave it vacant and pretend the value hasn't changed.
You can still run into problems with this (eg servicing the loan). So I don't think it's quite the issue that banks have to approve lowering the rent so much as the owner might lower their asset value and have problems with the LTV and DSCR so the bank may then require you to refinance or add capital.
By the way, we've gone through this before. Up until the 1990s, law firms were by far the largest tenants of office space because they had very large law libraries. Then that went online and they downsized. This was an acpolaypse in the 2000s combined with the dot-com bust.
I think the lag you're talking about is on banks essentially foreclosing on a building and selling it off, allowing the new owners to charge less because they paid less.
It was also fun to check out the company-city that is Redmond, not far away.
Seattle's a great city, and it's got great tech presence. I'm optimistic for its recovery.
SLU and Denny Triangle are amazing now. Those are some of the few places with restaurants open into the evenings. Amazon, like them or not, does a great job prioritizing local businesses in the retail spaces in their buildings. They can't all survive, but they've had a good track record.
now where should data centers be constructed, rather than arable farmland?
The reason being that they had a huge number of old, grandfathered-in clients with old systems from ten or fifteen years ago which were using massive amounts of power for the work they were doing; newer systems could do the same work for a tenth the power or less, but the customers have no reason to upgrade so they don't.
Getting any more power into the building, I was told, would require having BC Hydro replace the transmission lines coming into the building, which would expand out to a modernization of a lot of the transmission lines in the neighbourhood. For obvious reasons it was cheaper for them to just build a new data centre somewhere else, though they wouldn't say where at the time.
When it comes to the hyperscale data centres that are all the rage these days, it's very likely that downtown Seattle doesn't have the power infrastructure to support very many, if any; couple that with the claim from this random website I've never heard of that hyperscale data centres could be up to 10 million square feet and you'd probably have to bulldoze half of downtown Seattle to build the infrastructure required.
Despite the graph shown in the article, I have to wonder if this is really a new problem.
Have we reached "peak office" at last?
How many people in offices does society really need, anyway?
Or are you misunderstanding the context and talking about employment or something?
Or maybe "large swaths" is too imprecise to quibble over. Certainly some industries are better in person, but who can say how many? I think my precise point is that I don't think the industries that have gone remote are worse for it and don't need to to back, and many more can afford to go remote.
The die was largely cast when Amazon called Seattle's bluff during COVID and relocated, but so much needs to be done to make the city itself an attractive place to live and work, and there is so little planning, zoning or effective change happening it seems likely to be decades before I could imagine a truly vibrant city core. Even when I write that, it seems unlikely. As we speak, Seattle is aiming to become the highest tax jurisdiction in the country, higher even than NYC, because ... revenues are down. It's a disappointing response to a serious urban problem.
I'm not aligned with the new mayor's business-hostile policies. But as far as making the city better for walking, things are going very well. We've been narrowing crossing distances, improving sidewalks, putting in concrete separation for bike lanes, we even finally kicked cars out of Pike Place Market. There are parks improvements in progress across the city to improve restrooms and fix dangerous spots. And the number of people in tent encampments has dropped dramatically, it's become rare and short lived in most of the city.
I suspect that we will continue to recover, despite the capital gains tax. It'll just be slower than Bellevue.
Do you have any data to support this claim?
From over 700 tents in 22 to under 200 by the end of 24.
Removals, regardless of how you feel about whether this is good policy, are continuing unabated when reported: https://www.kuow.org/stories/is-seattle-sweeping-more-homele...
What you've linked to is a very different measurement than tent encampments, so it's hard to compare them. Tents are still way down.
It is an example of piss poor planning and urban design.
There was a 1993 initiative that seriously fucked up our planning process, and created 'design review', which is designed to add a year or two to building a building by having architects and retirees shit on everything. It's very hard to roll those things back, because many people believe public input is inherently good.
Pioneer Square is its own mess - it's that we have too much control, so we made it nearly impossible to build more market rate housing there to support evening and weekend destinations.
[...]
>greener pastures (literally) east across the bay
Well obviously you haven't lived in Seattle because if you did you would know the body of water separating Seattle and Bellevue is Lake Washington. Not a bay.
Also you just admitted that you don't live in Seattle. So I rest my case.
Seattle has trappings of a city, but socially it doesn't feel like one in the way Chicago and NYC are (ok they're bigger, but hear me out -- it's not the size, it's the people). To me, Seattle feels like Cleveland but with more money.
I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but I would visit different neighborhoods from Capitol Hill to ID to Northgate to Ballard (I liked Ballard the most) almost every weekend, and everything just felt so subdued compared to a city that is truly alive. I had to take trips to Vancouver -- a similar city but more alive -- just to get my dose of city energy. Even Lynnwood WA -- a suburb -- had more energy.
The city itself has too much monoculture -- predominantly tech bros or hipsters or nature people -- but that's not enough diversity to create true energy.
The food scene was uniquely mediocre relative to its wealth and size. It had pockets of good stuff, but overall just very little risk-taking and experimentation in the restaurant industry because of the economics (min wage is $21.30 which is fair to workers but hard for small business owners) and insufficient population density to turn tables at a high rate (the land is fragmented by water and mixed elevation), and high proportion of food-as-fuel population.
Seattle attracts who it attracts because of what it is -- introverted, nature loving, affluent in a countercultural way. But this does not create a vibrant city.
Seattle's social energy resembles that of a paradoxical population who want to live in a city but are secretly suburban people.
I'm sorry but this is so beyond the pale.
Also your comment complains about the energy of the city (that it is too suburban feeling) and then you say you like Ballard the most -- which is by far the most suburban of the neighborhoods you mentioned.
Finally we've been hosting the world cup and news writers from around the world have been exclaiming that Seattle has absolutely peak energy and culture as a host. E.g. https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/2026/06/22/keith-dug...
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.
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.
Short term, Bellevue is a better place to have your office. Mid term, the big winners are Texas, Vancouver (CA) and India. A little longer term, the lower end of all those jobs are gonna anyway in a puff of tokens.
Modern office buildings have deep floor plates and sealed windows, relying heavily on HVAC and artificial lighting to make the center of the building habitable. Bedrooms require exterior windows, so an optimal floorplan is a ring of bedrooms around the outside which leaves gobs of low value square footage in the middle.
Thing is, it takes years to move so it will be a while until we see the results. Regardless of which side you tend to be on, it seems like it will be a useful experiment!
I strongly disagree.
Not sure the incentives will bring a useful change.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Washington’s real GDP rose 1.1% to almost $730 billion between the fourth quarter of 2025 and the first quarter of 2026 -- substantially ahead of the overall pace in the US. Anthropic just signed a least for a 113,000-square-foot space in the South Lake Union neighborhood.
I don't want to pretend Seattle's perfect. It is very difficult to build new housing here thanks to well-meaning regulatory reform; as someone else noted, you used to be able to build fairly small apartments and that's not legal now. It'd also help a ton if the liberal centrist business-oriented cohort and the progressive wing could figure out how to work together without all the finger pointing. But it's an excellent city.
I’m sure the factors are different for every city but I think remote work and companies preferring to build campuses outside of major cities is a big driver.
> The city of Seattle estimates that, with aggressive incentives, conversions could generate up to 6,000 housing units over the next seven years. At a rough approximation, that would use around a fifth of the city’s present office surplus.
> But “potential” is doing a lot of work here.
> Newer, larger office buildings, like the U.S. Bank Center, are hugely impractical for conversion, thanks to massive floor plates, centralized plumbing and other utilities and a host of other constraints.
> The preferred candidates are typically smaller, older buildings, especially those with C- or E-shaped floor layouts, which make it easier to create smaller units with adequate windows.
> But these buildings can be prohibitively costly to bring up to seismic and energy building codes, said Jen Pasquier, a Seattle developer who wants to convert the 10-story Liggett Building, at Fourth and Pike, into 93 apartments.
Plumbing and sewerage turns out to be a huge headache. Large office buildings often have all the plumbing and sewerage in a small vertical core. The rest of the building is just flat slabs on columns. Adding a sewer line means punching through the floor and hanging pipe in the space above the apartments below. If you're in SF and want to see what that looks like, park in the 4th and Mission garage on the lower level, where you can see the plumbing from the restaurants above hanging from the ceiling. Also, sewer lines are gravity fed, with a 2% slope typical. Long pipe runs get lower along the run, so you probably have to put them along a wall. Then you have to hide and soundproof that stuff, although you might be able to get away with leaving it exposed if you market to hipsters or sell it as low-income housing. If the original building has enough ceiling height, it's easier.
Then there's HVAC, exhaust ductwork for kitchens and bathrooms without windows, partitioning the electrical distribution for the individual units, fire breaks between units, etc. Overall, it's maybe 30% cheaper than a new building, and all custom work requiring experienced people. If botched, it can be more expensive than a new building.
One company that does such conversions admits they're building tomorrow's slums.
And then there's the fundamental problem that if jobs are leaving the downtown core, why have more housing units there?
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/analysis-heres-what-it-...
Can also combine with capsule hotels.
It's a bit like how suburban commercial areas are now in trouble because there are fewer companies interested in the big box anchors, and without them many a strip mall stops making economic sense. But there at least the anchor is just a big empty box, not an 8 or 9 digit investment.
If they can’t rent the interior for much, that’s going to make replacing it with a new building look better because it’s more efficient.
This is weird regulation to me. Why it is not allowed for apartment, but it is OK for office? Both buildings are sheltering humans, just during different stage of being awake.
Even if that's solved the bigger problem is earthquake code. These older buildings aren't up to modern code and significant renovations would require structure changes.
If they sign a lease at a new lower rent it basically triggers a re-check of "can they repay the loan based on their rental income?", which comes back as "no". That trigger _doesn't_ occur if you just leave the building empty, with _no one_ paying rent, because your last mark to market rent was high enough.
Fundamentally changing the type of tenant in the building would presumably trigger that check as well.
It's a shell game that eventually leads to the loan defaulting, but both the bank and the building owner are happy to pretend they can't see the train coming down the tracks at them.
For an example of this in Seattle that everyone was calling years ahead of the collision, see the Martin Selig sagas https://deepnewz.com/real-estate/seattle-developer-selig-war...
Giant, vacant towers locked by some asshole sitting in their second home in Nantucket, while hordes of homeless mill around the bottom.
Add in required shrubbery, section 8 housing set-asides, rent control, etc., it becomes unattractive -- especially if the jobs have moved to business friendly suburbs