Talk:South Lake Union, Seattle, Washington
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Incorrect Information
The statement "Vulcan Real Estate is developing another 50 units of low-income apartments, called the Borealis Apartments, at the corner of Dexter and Denny (former site of the Deja Vu). Alley24 has 20% of its units set aside for those earning less than 60% of the median income." is incorrect. They are set aside for those earning less than 80% of the median income. And I would hardly call them "low-income apartments." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.119.66 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Link farm
Seems to me that this has turned into a bit of a link farm. - Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- A bit? It's a huge link farm.. Not to mention a nice advertising service. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Refactoring between this and Cascade, Seattle, Washington
We have an article on Cascade, Seattle, Washington. It seems to me that much of what is specific to Cascade—especially before the "South Lake Union" identity began to be pushed (maybe circa 1985/1990?) belongs in that article, with an explicit section in this giving maybe a 2-paragraph summary. Unless someone specifically objects, that is what I plan to do. - Jmabel | Talk 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Or perhaps Cascade should be merged into this one. At this point in time there really isn't enough content to justify having two different articles. Definitely include a distinct section for the history of Cascade and another for the transition of Cascade and SLU merging into one, but I'm not sure that two articles is necessary. Another benefit of having two distinct sections for the history is that once there is enough content in the Cascade section, it can be split off again in summary style. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think some work I've been doing at Cascade, Seattle, Washington may postdate your comment, but right now I believe it is the more fleshed-out (and certainly the more solidly cited) of the two articles. - Jmabel | Talk 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, you've definitely added quite a bit of information to the article since I last looked at it, so leaving a short summary here on this article for the Cascade article is fine by me. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
