David Scherer Water is a treasure; there is no question about that.

But I take exception to his recent piece on Interstate 5 and our community, specifically how he frames the highway’s impact on Tumwater. David leans on the familiar “Interstate 5 destroyed Tumwater’s downtown” narrative.

David and I both explore the highway’s impact on Tumwater and Olympia, but our conclusions diverge sharply. Where David frames I-5 as a transformative and destructive force, I argue that Tumwater’s decline predates the interstate, shaped by earlier infrastructure decisions and geographic shifts.

David portrays I-5 as the villain: a “highway that destroyed Tumwater” and created Lacey, altering traffic patterns and dooming downtown Olympia. He emphasizes the dramatic, almost cinematic effect of concrete and asphalt cutting through established communities.

In contrast, my analysis situates I-5 as one of many forces affecting Tumwater. The town’s commercial decline had already begun with the construction of Capitol Way in 1938, which bypassed the original downtown area and redirected commercial activity to new locations. By the time I-5 arrived, the downtown core was largely abandoned, not obliterated by the highway. In my view, I-5 is less a destroyer than a marker of trends already in motion.

These distinctions matter. Before diving deeper, it’s worth noting that David and I already plan to take a walk together to discuss our differing approaches. We’ll record the conversation, which will appear in a future episode of The Olympia Standard podcast.

So why does this myth endure? Why does it matter to understand what really happened?

1. Understanding the impact of car culture on Thurston County

Interstate 5 was hugely significant. Aside from the 1950s Lemon case, which forced the state to relocate offices back to Olympia, I-5 was probably the most consequential development in our community since colonization. Lacey likely wouldn’t exist as a city, and Tumwater may not have grown as large without it. More broadly, the question of how car culture shaped our cities remains unresolved. A nuanced understanding of I-5’s impact is crucial for comprehending the complete story of regional development.

2. Robert Moses vs. Jane Jacobs

Urban planning scholars often frame debates through the Jacobs-versus-Moses lens. David casts the highway as a transformative, almost destructive force, emphasizing the top-down power of planners and officials to remake (or bury) downtowns, much like Robert Moses reshaped New York at the expense of neighborhoods.

Even though no Robert Moses operated in Thurston County, our debate mirrors this classic frame. David emphasizes centralized, dramatic change; I emphasize organic, context-driven shifts. The contrast highlights the tension between imposing grand designs and respecting the lived realities of communities.

3. Misunderstanding Tumwater in 1950

Tumwater did double in population between 1940 and 1950, but context is key. The town had fewer than 1,000 residents in 1940, roughly comparable to Rainier in 1990. By 1950, it had over 2,000 residents, more than doubling in size. This wasn’t due to increased density; Tumwater grew by sprawl, much like Rainier today. During the 1940s, the town was engaged in annexation disputes with Olympia over the Carlyon neighborhood and was building its first subdivisions south of Trosper Road.

4. Imagining what could have been

Tumwater today is spread across multiple nodes, with disconnected districts, much of its footprint suburban and car-centered. Unlike Olympia, Elma, or Shelton, it lacks a traditional “town” feel. Yet the idea that Tumwater once had a central, walkable downtown lingers in our imaginations.

We think of Issaquah and its salmon hatchery integrated into the civic landscape. Or we think of Steilacoom’s hillside rooftop dining, or Shelton’s cozy, somewhat forward-moving downtown. These towns were all bypassed by highways, but most had significant downtown cores before the interstates arrived. Lacey, by contrast, may have had a small commercial strip before I-5, but no one ever called that “downtown Lacey.”

The myth that I-5 single-handedly destroyed Tumwater obscures these deeper structural and historical realities. Understanding the nuances doesn’t diminish the highway’s significance; it helps us appreciate how communities evolve and the choices that shape them.