If there's anything to be learned from the history of governments trying to influence economies, it's that governments tend to be much more successful in getting results when they try to indirectly create the conditions for those results rather than directly mandating those results. In fact, the more governments try to tinker with economies to directly create an outcome, the more likely their tinkering is to backfire.

I'm fearful that in this situation the more funds developers have to put into an "affordable housing" pot, the less affordable the city becomes for everyone. The developers have to charge so much for condos to make up for this special tax, we end up with a two-tiered residential downtown: one exclusively for rich and poor, with no middle. If there's any one "class" our city should be trying to attract to the downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods, it's the middle class, especially families with school-age children.

Many of these housing advocates seem to view poor people as a static interest group rather than looking at the potential for poor people to rise up out of poverty. I'm under no illusion that a greatly expanded supply of downtown housing is going to lower prices enough that condos there suddenly qualify as affordable housing. But I have no doubt also that a thriving residential downtown is a rising tide that can lift a lot of ships. And what about the affordability factor of being able to live somewhere where you don't have to drive a car everywhere? I've read how for other major cities, it costs $9,000 or $10,000 a year to own a car with all the related expenses.

Also, with Sound Transit building light rail to the south end, isn't there enormous potential for extra affordable housing to be built along that route? With light rail, a great number of downtown service workers could have a quick and easy commute to downtown. Just look at the kind of density Vancouver has been able to achieve with SkyTrain.

what about some condos downtown for middle class people?

the options aren't great for anything over 1,000 sq ft - enough for a couple to get away from each other, or have a kid - unless you pull down about $200k a year

why does everything have to be luxury downtown these days?

What about some money for me? Me! Me! Me!
No, not you! Me!

Jesus! What a bunch of selfish people.

Erica is asking good questions.

If there's anyone whose instincts I trust -- to be wrong -- on an issue like this, it's Peter Steinbrueck. Steinbrueck is the kind of liberal who has a track record of liberal means that achieve conservative ends.

Steinbrueck is the same person who championed building-height limits in the first place. What has that accomplished except to drive businesses and residences to the suburbs? If there's anything an environmentalist should be supporting, it's urban development. It's a wonder to me that Steinbrueck can still pass himself off as an environmentalist when building-height limits is entirely in sync with the Kemper Freeman/Tim Eyman agenda. I guess "lesser Seattle" NIMBYism still provides a cloak of acceptability in this town.

Re: "not even legal"

ECB do you know for a fact that SMP could not issue an RFP for bidders to bid upon a purchase that would meet certain goals?

For instance the 1998 (99?) SLU RFP for the 20 odd city-owned properties specified that the successful bidder would bid upon all properties as a package and their use would accomplish a particular set of goals (housing, cultural amenties, open space, etc).

Also, it's not fair to say that subsidizing housing downtown affordable (about $600/month) to people at about 45% median income (the $24K that Mr. Allen makes yearly) is equal to meaning that anyone has "the right to march downtown and appropriate Henry Aronson’s penthouse." Tsk. That's a crappy way to argue a point.

Cressona,

If you think existing downtown building heights are what created the suburbs, you are missing the point so completely I can't even get my brain around it. The real estate markets are fundamentally different - and suburbanites moved out there precisely to avoid high density downtown living (many of these people also avoid downtown parking and congestion like the plague, and shop at malls - including Seattleites who'd rather go to Westwood and Northgate than try parking in the U-District or on Capitol Hill).

Believe it or not, the Growth Management Act applies to cities too - and if more than half of the people who live downtown still drive (and they will), it is actually against the GMA to drive traffic counts up to the point that intersection levels of service and roadway capacity limits are exceeded (Ron Sims got in trouble for just this when the County fudged traffic studies to allow development in the Sammamish area).

If all of the working stiffs who clean office buildings and serve lattes to downtown residents have to commute from Kent because they can't afford to live in the City, let alone in what's left of the $1100/month downtown apartments that are being torn down to build luxury highrises, how is that environmentally sound, let alone socially just?

The implicit elitism (move downtown or fuck you) of urban "environmentalists" is profoundly troubling.

Mr. X, you're providing an excellent example of the inability to recognize gray areas:

• Did building-height limits "create" the suburbs? Of course not. Did they contribute to some extent to suburban sprawl? How could they not have? Taller buildings would not have happened in a vacuum without having ripple effects. One of those ripple effects would have been a greater demand for transit and a greater desire among businesses to locate downtown.
  
• Are all suburbanites people who strive to avoid urban living like the plague? Of course not. There's a good number of suburbanites who couldn't imagine living otherwise, and there's a good number who could.
  

Also, it seems you're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you say people living way out in Kent and commuting downtown is bad for the environment. Agreed. On the other hand, you say that people living downtown still drive and so they're bad too. Well, the more that people live downtown and in other dense places, not only do they drive less but they drive shorter distances. Congestion in fact is a good thing, and perhaps the Growth Management Act, for all its good, was not handed down from Mount Sinai.

For me, the elitism here is the desire to manipulate the housing market. Basic question: why are there some places where rich people live and other places where poor people live? Because some places are more desirable than others, hence they're more expensive. It's not elitist to say, "Only rich people can drive fancy cars." If there is a more equitable way to distribute BMWs and Lexuses, let me know. People move to the places where it is in their personal self-interest to move.

If you want to create more affordable housing downtown, your best approach might be to start a gang war and get a lot of people killed. Then rich people will move to Bellevue, and then we'll be asking the question, "Why can't Bellevue have more affordable housing?"

The real measure of social justice is not whether we try to artificially cure the disease of rich places and poor places. Why? Because this inevitably fails. The real measure is:

• The opportunities we provide to poor people, perhaps to help them even lift themselves out of poverty.
  
• The extent to which we serve the inevitable poor areas, such as through convenient mass transit (like light rail). Eventually, these poor places become less poor. But then someone will inevitably complain about gentrification.
  

This is not a zero-sum game here, folks. It's not a choice of (A) "Poor people, F*** you," or (B), "Rich people, F*** you." It's a lot more complicated than that.

Cressona,

You continue to conflate apples with oranges. In the 10 years since the City Comprehensive Plan was adopted, lots and lots of buildings have built downtown (as well as throughout the City), yet most of the new growth in King County was outside of the City - and Snohomish County is growing even faster on a per capita basis. We could have built 5 new Columbia Centers in that time, and given the cost of housing in the City - let alone downtown - most of those workers would still live in outlying areas. San Francisco is often cited by density proponents as a good model - but it has some of the most expensive housing in the US, and new development in SF hasn't done a thing to prevent the sprawl of the East Bay (just like Manhattan hasn't prevented New Jersey, either). You said, and I quote, that the lack of big buildings drove people to the burbs, and I think that is demonstrably B.S.

You say I'm trying to have it both ways, but I think it would be more accurate to say that I choose to see the world as it is - rather than how I want it to be. Unfortunately, the City of Seattle seems to take the latter approach. For example - the success of the City's Urban Village plan is predicated on a major increase in the use of public transit (and, to a lesser extent, walking and bicycling). However, in the 10-year Complan review, it became apparent that this shift is not occurring. Rather than ratcheting back growth targets (now called estimates, which is a better term) to reflect the limits of our transportation infrastructure, the City instead chose to hide the ball and change the way it counted trips. The GMA is the law, and transportation concurrency is part of it-ie-new development is not allowed if it results in gridlocked intersections and failing levels of service on local roads (Ron Sims and King County were sued successfully over just this sort of funny business with their traffic studies for the eastside). In short, growth management isn't just about cramming as many people into as small an area as you can. Wishful thinking is not a transportation strategy.

While some people - mostly affluent empty nesters and well-off young professionals without children - will move downtown, most suburbanites simply won't - and I think the rate of growth outside of the City speaks for itself.

With regard to light rail, it has already had a negative effect on existing affordable housing. I happen to think City policy ought to take into the account the needs of people who already live here rather than pander solely to the newer more upscale residents it is trying to cater to, and if that makes me a lesser Seattleite, I'll wear the term proudly. For all of the Complan's lip service to preserving existing housing and mixed-income neighborhoods, when the rubber hits the road, the City undermines these policies time and again in response to developer demands.

By the way, your statement that "Congestion is a good thing" is exactly the sort of elitism I'm talking about. It shows no regard for the real world quality of life of hundreds of thousands of people in this region - many of whom can't afford to live in the City, let alone downtown, but still have to work here.

Vancouver BC hits developers with fees that would make William Justen have a coronary, and it hasn't prevented people from doing business there. Making developers foot some of the bill for the social costs they create in exchange for upzones that substantially increase their property value is just good public policy.

If a 25% rate of return for a developer istead of a 27% rate of return isn't good enough for a developer, they can take their overpriced ugly buildings elsewhere, thank you very much.

I think it is time the Stranger Started "Blog-Idol" and have the Mr. X and Cressona's of Seattle rant their rant's to a live audience. I think the explicit epithets would be much better in person. The so called "winner" could be quasi officially recognized as Seattle's crankiest. Charge 5 bucks, serve beer and play that old-time Star Trek fight music.

Okay Mr. X,
So with the combination of a crappy downtown, building-height limits, and a lack of mass transit (not to mention a highway running right past the waterfront), downtown development has been dwarfed by suburban development in recent years. Well, that speaks to my point. If we had had a liveable downtown and all those good things, sure, there still would have been a lot of suburban sprawl, but not as much. To try to excuse Peter Steinbrueck by saying that his building-height limits have had zero effect on the development patterns of this region is a bit like saying that the fact that the City of Seattle is overwhelmingly zoned as single-family residential has likewise had zero effect on development patterns.

Portland and Vancouver have done a great job of concentrating growth in their urban cores. And yes, remarkably enough they still have suburbs, but they're not Los Angeles or Phoenix either.

If, as you say, Vancouver has been able to impose far heftier fees on downtown developers and still sustained downtown development, then great. To me, that's a sign that Nickels and Steinbrueck need to work out some kind of compromise. Still, to me the greater challenge is how to attract families to urban cores, or at least more families to the so-called "urban villages."

Finally, I'm happy to be called an elitist for saying that congestion is a good thing. It's a common Republican practice to use the "E" word on anyone who calls for some kind of collective sacrifice for the common good:

• Substantial federal gas tax? Elitist. The common man who has to drive to work will bear the brunt of the burden.
• Toll roads? Elitist. Same deal.
• Growth management? Elitist. Why should poor people have less access to a Wysteria Lane lifestyle than rich people?

Any serious solution to land use and transportation problems inherently requires hard choices and a recognition that not everything can be free. Once we get past the name-calling, I'm inclined to think we have some common ground. I just hope Greg Nickels and the City Council can be just as mature.

Cressona,

Look it up - BC charges impact fees that dwarf what Steinbrueck is proposing. In fact, he did the research, and his recommendations (which you dismiss out of hand) reflect the facts on the ground there.

Good luck getting families to move into a $500,000 downtown condo. By the way, our downtown has a lot more to offer than Portland, and you can count the buildings there that exceed 300 feet on one hand (most of the vaunted Pearl District is 6-10 stories. Side note, my dad just moved from Banks to Hillsboro and had to pass on Portland because it was way too expensive. You'll be happy to hear he moved near a MAX stop, though).

We differ on why, but I think most real estate experts share my view that people are voting with their feet and moving to the suburbs for a host of reasons - and that this is a fundamentally different real estate market than that for in-city highrises (which, at best, compete for residents with projects like Lincoln Square in downtown Bellevue rather than the lower density housing further out).

The Puget Sound region is largely urbanized from Everett to Olympia (and most of the main suburban cities are almost as old as Seattle) along the I-5 corridor - so that train has already sailed (and Democrats like Ron Sims gerrymandered the urban growth boundary so far out on the Eastside that they rendered it largely irrelevent).

By the way, your brand of urban elitism is exactly the reason the Democrats are on their way to becoming a minority party - D's ignore working class voters at their peril.

I remember the good old days when my fellow Democrats saw developers for what they are - self-interested economic actors out to make a profit who should be negotiated with as such.

Oh yeah, and I also remember when Democrats rejected trickle-down economics and (at least publicly) regarded gentrification as a bad thing.

As someone once said, the notion that all growth is intrinsically good is the mindset of a cancer cell.

LH,

I'm all for subsidized housing. I just don't think people have a "right" to live in a specific neighborhood. A better analogy might be me saying I have a "right" to live in Medina, where Bill Gates lives. I agree that everybody has a right to decent housing, including the low-income and the homeless. I don't agree that that right extends to specifying neighborhoods.

As for the monorail, the SMP has a legal obligation to the taxpayers to get the best possible return on its property sales and disband the agency as soon as possible. Taxpayers have to pay the tax for as long as two more years to pay off the debt the monorail agency has already accrued, assuming the properties are sold at market value. Imagine the outcry if the SMP sold the land for less than market value and, as a result, extended the tax for years longer!

ECB - who said anything about less than market value?! Yeesh. I believe that there could be a competitive bid with an RFP that required the properties, once purchased, to be developed as housing. The bid that fulfilled the requirements AND met SMP's price gets to buy the property. Again, this is how the SLU property RFP and sale was structured. LIHI as a matter of fact was one of 2 bidders on the SLU parcels in 1999 which is probably why Sharon made the suggestion! LIHI lost to Vulcan's bid then.

Re: right to housing...I still think you are being unfair. Mr. Allen says that he should be able to live where he works. This is a non-wonk's way of saying that housing opportunities should exist for all income people in all neighborhoods of our city. And don't throw in Medina...I'm talking about how I want *Seattle.* The fact that there will always be places that are unaffordable to almost everyone we know does not mean that we can not strive to have a city where people can afford to live where they work.

ECB,

I don't think you're necessarily wrong on the philosophical (not to mention legal) issues with saying people have a right to live in an existing neighborhood - but in the case of downtown it is certainly different than Medina in that this was a place where poor Seattleites have lived for a long, long time. Where this differs to me is that developers are getting something of real value (a significant upzone in an area that is already experiencing considerable growth), so there is a direct nexus to the existing low-income downtown residents their projects will displace - or the need to publicly subsidize additional units to ensure that downtown does not become an exclusive enclave of the (very) rich.

And my point was simply that distilling his perspective to be an expression of a legal (or philosophical) right to live in some multi-millionaire's house or neighborhood is dismissive and it's an example of why some people say what they say about the Stranger.

You're on shaky ground when you argue that poor people have a right to live in any particular place. Instead, the easier argument is that it's simply in the city's best interest to have a downtown that's easily accessible to the service workers who have to work there. There's another way to accomplish that besides having low-income housing downtown, and that's by making the downtown easily accessible by transit. Sound Transit's Central Link provides one great opportunity for that. Am I advocating for zero low-income housing downtown? No, I'm advocating for a more dynamic mix of solutions.

Some quick responses to Mr. X... (I feel like I've just stumbled onto Bill O'Reilly's show, and when I say I agree with O'Reilly about something, he gets even more combative.)

I agree that developers are neither saints nor sinners, but interests to be negotiated with. But Mr. X, let me ask you this, would you be open to negotiation and a compromise between the Nickels and Steinbrueck proposals?

You're dismissive of the potential for the downtown to absorb families, and yet at the same time you view Vancouver as a model, and rightfully so. Well, Vancouver has had some success in attracting families to its downtown. Steinbrueck, to his credit, has highlighted that. Believe it or not, not every American couple, when they have a child, suddenly has the suburb gene switch on. (Even so, I think the easier places to sell families on a dense lifestyle are the neighborhoods like Ballard and Greenwood.)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say: "The Puget Sound region is largely urbanized from Everett to Olympia (and most of the main suburban cities are almost as old as Seattle) along the I-5 corridor - so that train has already sailed." It's largely suburbanized. A friend once remarked to me that, flying over Seattle, the city looked like a small city surrounded by a vast village. There's a lot of room for greater density, especially with light rail on the way. And I'll be the first to allow that there's a huge difference between smart density and just any-old density.

As for whether my "brand of urban elitism" is the reason the Democrats are a minority party, actually, I'm not so much interested in reviving the Democratic Party as I am in voting for candidates of any party who are willing to give the voters some "straight talk" (to borrow a phrase from John McCain) and champion some tough solutions and tough compromises.

Anyway, I'm not sure urbanism is such a loser for the Democrats after all. Consider Christine Gregoire's gubernatorial strategy of patronizingly kissing up to anti-tax suburban/ rural voters while distancing herself from urban voters. The voters she coveted never returned the fake affection, and it almost cost her an election she should have won easily. (Gregoire's "moderate" stance was just mentioned in this same blog today.) In fact, what you describe as "urban elitism" is a political philosophy that has been espoused most eloquently in the pages of The Stranger itself. Look up the post-2004 election piece, "The Urban Archipelago."

Anyway, Mr. X, I hope you'll find it in your heart to respond and, of course, to work in another "E" word.

Simple answer - the City of Seattle cannot solve the problems of the Puget Sound region, and lacks the funding for basic infrastructure to serve existing neighborhood and transportation needs, let alone those that come with not merely accomodating growth, but trying to prime the pump for it.

I'm all with you on squishy centrism being bad for Dems in general, but neither would I say that it's a good thing for working stiffs to suffer hours of traffic congestion (which will continue whether light rail is built out or not - and light rail ain't going south of SeaTac for decades, if ever) so urban planning types can say neener neener neener.

BTW - the reverse commute out of Seattle has reached the level of the commute into the City thanks to the fact that hundreds of thousands of residents work in places like Redmond, Lynnwood, and the Kent Valley, and all of the suburban cities also have comprehensive plans that slate them for growth under the GMA, too.

Oops, probably should have used a different figure for out-of-city employment among residents, but it is very high.

"Simple answer - the City of Seattle cannot solve the problems of the Puget Sound region,..."

So since Seattle cannot completely solve all the problems of the Puget Sound region, it should do nothing to solve these problems? This is not a 0 or 1 world. This is a world with a 0% and a 100% and a whole range of values in between. (And that's looking along just one continuum.)

Seattle is the major city in this region, situated in the most prime location in this region, and the decisions we make here -- whether it's building-height limits or building monorail/light-rail systems or viaduct replacement or the decision to build or refurbish sports venues -- have an effect across the region that cannot be dismissed. You look at a city like Vancouver that has a strong core and more controlled suburban growth, and then you look at a city like Phoenix wih a weak core and endless exurban sprawl, and you can see that downtowns do make a difference. Not 100%, not 0%, somewhere significant in between.

As for light rail not extending south of SeaTac for decades, I'm confident it will extend south a lot sooner. But just for argument's sake, suppose it doesn't. The magic of really convenient mass transit is that you don't need to extend it so far for it to be a sponge for growth. I'm sure the Sound Transit planners will tell you that they expect Central Link to absorb a great number of low-income workers heading downtown, as well as not-so-low-income workers.

The reason there isn't much housing in the core of downtown is because commercial office space seems to rent for at least double (per square foot) what housing rents for. In addition, it's more expensive to build housing (you need more bathrooms, showers, kitchens, etc. which are expensive).

I think it would help if the height limits were raised in the areas close to the core, like Belltown, Pioneer Square, the International District, and First Hill - which are mostly residential and retail.

Also, although the parking requirement was reduced to .5 spaces per unit, I don't see why developers should be required to build parking at all. If people really want to park, they will pay for it, and developers will build it. We should be making it harder to drive downtown, not easier.

I live in the International District and there is a bit of new housing being constructed in the neighborhood, but it's only getting built 5-7 stories high, with basement parking. The transit here is as good as it gets in Seattle (and you can walk to work from here anyway), and I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to build 30-40 stories (or more) and ditch the parking.

And keeping the "historic" buildings around here is counterproductive. The ones in Pioneer Square are kinda nice, but the ones where I live are mostly pretty ugly. Not to mention mostly empty.

Cressona,

I mostly agree with your last post, but I think Seattle would be doing well to try for 50 on a 100 scale instead of shooting for 85 (under the original Complan) or 110 (after Nickels broke the promises made to neighborhoods when the Complan was discussed that the proposed levels of growth could be accomplished within existing zoning).

ST was originally conceived as a regional system, but has morphed into a development tool (surface rail through the Rainier Valley) that mostly gets current bus riders onto trains rather than moving people out of their cars - which is an OK thing, as a bus stuck in traffic is still a bus stuck in traffic, but it isn't going to make a dent in traffic congestion in the City, let alone regionally.

And don't even start me on the stadiums!

My childhood was in prima, suburban Bellevue. The best of the best of the best. Space, animals, good schools, big house, lower middle class but a wonderful childhood.

Today I like Beacon Hll.

The best idea here so far is housing for moderate income on the Sound T. stops.

The supply of rehab sites is now in the International and off P. Square.

Let downtown build 100 story towers. Who cares? Or are people thinking they can somehow turn the clock back 20 years.

Sorry, only on
TV.

There's something I just realized, and this speaks to the power of language in politics. Notice the term being used: "affordable housing," not "low-income housing."

When you think about it, "affordable housing" is not only a euphemism but also virtually meaningless. Affordable for whom? Average wage earner, median wage earner? I have a couple well-paid co-workers who went ahead and bought suburban houses that are not, by any prudent standard, affordable to them. But I guess, by definition, if you can buy it, you can afford it.

Nice site