City Re: Shorter Pike-Pine Feature for the Attention-Deficient
posted by December 1 at 12:10 PMon
Erica is right that her article is consistent with the Stranger’s longtime POV on density. It’d be one thing if she gave the microphone to Capitol Hill leaders who were bitching that development was displacing single-family housing with multi-family housing, or bitching that development was displacing empty lots … that’s the sort of NIMBYism we’ve condemned in the past. And yes, we’ve even condemned NIMBY resistance to development when that development would change the face of our beloved Capitol Hill.
The kind of urban planning we support already exists in the Pine St. neighborhood, though: A jukebox necklace of jumping independent businesses strung across Pine and surrounded by dense housing…the densest in the city. Erica’s opposition proves that we’re not just pro-development for development’s sake … as some lunkheads contend. It proves that we see development as a tool to create lively, up-tempo, urban communities. And so, rather than ruining that type of community (which already exists around Pike/Pine) with excessive development, we’d rather see infill and density where it can improve neighborhoods. This is what we’ve argued all along.