Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Noisy Campaign Contributors | The Morning News »

Monday, July 17, 2006

DADUs, or: What the Hell Is Wrong with Seattle?

Posted by on July 17 at 18:31 PM

Next week, the city council’s urban planning and development committee will take up the ever-controversial issue of detached accessory dwelling units, also known as mother-in-law apartments. DADUs, as they’re acronymically known, are separate living spaces on the same lot as a single-family house; Mayor Nickels proposed allowing them citywide a couple of years ago, but abandoned that plan in favor of a much more limited proposal (in Southeast Seattle only) after neighborhood activists shrieked that the apartments would bring traffic, noise, and—gasp!—density to Seattle’s sleepy single-family neighborhoods.

Reality check: According to a council staffer who works on the DADU issue, a city-commissioned study found that, based on the number of (perfectly legal) attached accessory dwelling units that have been built to date in Seattle (basement apartments, for example), the new legislation would lead to the construction of just 10 to 20 new DADUs across Southeast Seattle. In other words: Yawn. Nonetheless, expect a barrage of opposition from anti-DADU activists at the urban planning committee briefing on this subject next Wednesday afternoon.


CommentsRSS icon

makes you miss judy nicastro.

"Mayberry with high rises."

Perhaps the most apt description of Seattle ever.

Jesus. Seriously? Backyard flats are great: they allow lower-income people into decent neighborhoods (and tend to be strictly managed for nuisance, since you're living in your landlord's yard), but they are so fucking RARE that you can almost never find one for rent. Not to preach to the poster's choir, but this is such stinking, steaming bullshit.

As a poor but tasteful grad student who has searched for these places for years (specifically in Madison Beach and places south), I can tell you, if anyone but a professional single or a well-employed couple lands a granny flat in these neighborhoods, they have gotten really lucky or managed to charm the landlords in a way I never could. And I am REALLY charming.

I don't think cramming more people into purely residential neighborhoods in which everybody drives everywhere is such a good idea. Density is great if it means people walking, biking, and taking public transit. It is not a great thing if it means more cars clogging the streets.

well duh, but that's just part of the whole Mayberry with high rises bit; this is a city that acts like a suburb. We're debating tunnels for more cars and $$ to expand roads rather than just ripping up streets and running light rail down the middle...or building monorails...

I laugh every time I hear people complain about traffic...it's not nearly bad enough obviously. What we need a is a nice precision earthquake to bring down the viaduct and half dozen overpasses.

I have no problem with the detached units, or subdividing city plots, for that matter, AS LONG AS THEY ARE DONE TASTEFULLY.

I wish there were a better word, because "tasteful" sounds Martha Stewart-ish, and that's not what I mean. I just mean some sort of regulations that make sure the construction isn't as ugly and cheap as the owner can possibly make it.

On Beacon Hill (where I live) I have seen some truly awful things arise in spaces that were previously perfectly nice yards. I don't know if these are to code or not (we've traditionally not been that into codes in our part of town, and the city zoning department tends to just let us be) but what they've done is truly awful, sometimes they are gargantuan - bigger than the original house that they are sharing the lot with.

And while we're at it - can we limit the amount of people that live in a house, and get them to stop paving over their front yards for all their ugly cars?

I think for Beacon Hill they should drill a 3rd tunnel, allow people to cave dwell within it, and call it good. Seriously though, MIL's (whoever within the city thought of DADU I hope spends their version of hell in their own tiny cubicle with Celine Dion permanently piped in) should be more of a norm than hard to get. If neighborhoods get too crowded on the street with cars, then good ol' permit parking works wonders and with the outcry you'll see more public transport. As for cars in front yards, I agree... that should only be allowed in places like the snitty part of Magnolia, Madison Park, Medina and other neighborhoods that begin with "M" (I'd add Monroe, but hell, I think you get ticketed there if your car isn't on your lawn)

I miss Judy.

"If God Had Intended For People To Live In Carriage Houses, He Wouldn't Have Invented Carriages."

- Tobias H.R. McGillicuddie

This is just an attempt to create duplex zoning in single family areas. If there were real limits to ensure this didn't happen (for example - that you couldn't tear down an existing structure to create a DADU that is much bigger than the one it replaces, effectively creating a second full house on a lot you otherwise couldn't build on), I could possibly see supporting it. But given DPD's current willingness to bend the land use code into a pretzel to accomodate developers - no fucking way.

And by the way, attached ADU's were formally permitted about 10 years ago, and very few of the thousands of those that are out there have actually gone through the permitting process (as it happens, I testified at a Council hearing back then in support of attached ADU's - among other things - in opposition to the requirement that the ceilings had to be 6 1/2' tall or some such thing - short people don't need tall ceilings!).

Again, though, detached ADU's are a whole different thing - and will seriously undermine the land use code in SF neighborhoods as proposed.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).