Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Ohmigod It's Asparagus Pizza! | The Art of Burial »

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Demand Side

posted by on May 17 at 14:11 PM

Last week, Erica C. Barnett’s column led with an item about a new group in town— Seattle Great City Initiative.

I was at their kickoff event (at Triad Development’s downtown yuppie/green offices) and wanted to second two of Erica’s observations.

ECB noted that civic-minded people like Mike McGinn (the group’s founder and director) used to run for office, but now they start groups instead.

An anecdote from the event: When the charismatic McGinn, former chair the state’s Sierra Club and 47 going on 16 energy-and idealism-wise, jumped up on a coffee table and speechified in his easy manner, an attendee whispered to me: “In two years he’ll be doing this on the election trail.”

Wrong wrong wrong, I protested. That was the story: He’s not running for office. In fact, fixated on the idea, I asked McGinn about it. “Why aren’t you running for office?”

After all, Great City’s biggest accomplishment so far is a legislative one. They, along with the Cascade Bicycle Club, lobbied and helped pass the Complete Streets ordinance, which dictates that any new roads fixes in the city must be designed with pedestrians and bicyclists as part of the equation. If that’s the kind of thing McGinn is focused on, why not run for city council?

“The question,” McGinn, who drops phrases like “We can make a better world” casually and elegantly into sentences, says, “is how to be most effective. I believe it’s ultimately public demand that pushes issues. Politicians in Seattle always tell me they will only go as far as the public will let them go. Well, I’m in the public demand side to demonstrate that the public is ready to make the changes we need to make.”

McGinn’s list for seattle includes retooling car-dominated public rights-of-way. He wants more dedicated bus lanes—and bike lanes, HOV lanes, sidewalks. His to-do list also includes changing design and zoning codes so we can have taller buildings without building butt-ugly condos in our neighborhood urban hubs—housing more people and simultaneously creating prettier ground-floor streetscapes. Additionally, he wants to push what he calls green infrastructure—building sustainable, energy-efficient buildings.

The other observation Erica made is that McGinn, who came up in the neighborhood movement, is helping redefine what it means to be a neighborhood activist. Neighborhood activist used to be shorthand for folks that wanted to limit heights, limit growth, zone against multi-family housing, prioritize cars and parking (using public policy to dictate car-dependent lifestyles.)

Now, folks like McGinn—reclaiming the neighborhood movement— want to throw off the regulations that dictate car dependence; throw off regulations that dictate bad building design; throw off regulations that prevent more people from living in neighborhoods; throw off regulations that dedicate our streets to single-occupancy cars.

The old neighborhood movement accuses people like McGinn—people who want to get stuff done—of turning process into a dirty word. It’s a political ploy, they grouse, meant to silence the neighborhood movement. They’re wrong. McGinn is a pro-consensus, pro-process, pro-neighborhood guy.

What the old neighborhood movement doesn’t like (really) is the consensus McGinn’s building and the impact that’s having on “their” process.

RSS icon Comments

1

That's inspiring.

Posted by Mark Mitchell | May 17, 2007 2:18 PM
2

When you get electeds arguing for more roads like they do for RTID, when everyone and their gerbil understands that Global Warming is NOW, why bother with going thru becoming elected, when one can be more effective on the outside?

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 17, 2007 3:00 PM
3

How exactly would you define the 'old neighborhood movement'?

Posted by Gomez | May 17, 2007 3:09 PM
4
How exactly would you define the 'old neighborhood movement'?
Knute Berger is the epitome of that movement in my mind.

The neighborhood movement sucks. These people are standing in the way of making seattle a better place to live. A more compact city will be a better place to live and work, but these yokels would rather have two cars and a huge yard 20' from the street.

Posted by Angry Andrew | May 17, 2007 3:14 PM
5

Gomez @3,

I took a shot at it in the post.

I wrote: "Neighborhood activist used to be shorthand for folks that wanted to limit heights, limit growth, prioritize cars and parking (using public policy to dictate car-dependent lifestyles.)"

And I should add: and protect the single family neighborhood.

Posted by Josh Feit | May 17, 2007 3:15 PM
6

Quiz - who said "But sometimes so much change happens so fast that it can induce a collective panic, sending a whole neighborhood into shock."

a) Skip
b) Joel
c) Erica

Hint - think Cha Cha, Bimbo's

Posted by whatever | May 17, 2007 3:29 PM
7

@ 6,

We are for density on Capitol Hill.

You can achieve more density on Capitol Hill by doing in-fill development. Bring it on. More people. Taller buildings on Cap Hill.

In fact, we advocated for increased heights on Broadway in Capitol Hill when it was taking out empty stores like the Safeway.

Re: Pine— It's stupid to knock down establishments on a thriving strip that are already part of the density equation, servicing nearby density.

We are also for density and in-fill development in other neighborhoods. Are you?


Posted by Josh Feit | May 17, 2007 3:44 PM
8

Whatever,

I do not go to the Cha Cha. I am 400 years old. Whatever yourself.

Posted by ECB | May 17, 2007 3:48 PM
9

Yes.

But don't take away my views and parking.

Yes.

But don't take away my favorite low-rent places.

Which point of view is better?

Posted by whatever | May 17, 2007 3:52 PM
10

A HUGE boon to density all over the city would be to change the rules in single family zoning to increase the RSL zoning which allows for narrower houses if they would increase the max height to 40' instead of 25', you'd see the density increase by about 40% easily within 20 years.

Posted by Angry Andrew | May 17, 2007 3:56 PM
11

AA - I think allowing apartments instead of the stupid two duplexes on a lot plan would be better. In order for retail to make it significant density is necessary. I don't think narrow tall sfr will create that kind of neighborhood and certainly not quickly.

Posted by whatever | May 17, 2007 4:01 PM
12

whatever,
People want single family homes. So you building San Francisco-style narrow homes, and then you get more density AND keep the single family homes. Win-win.
Most of San Francisco is that sort of development mixed in with apartments, and that place certainly has the critical mass of density to support retail.
Not super-quickly, but by the mayor's 2040 timeframe of 350,000 new seattlites.

Posted by Angry Andrew | May 17, 2007 4:07 PM
13

Josh, you've said this in-fill, build on empty lots stuff before. Exactly how would you propose stopping the building on the Bimbo's block and the forcing of building on the Key Bank parking lot or where you think appropriate?

As I recall you all were behind the zoning that is allowing much of the development you now don't like.

Posted by whatever | May 17, 2007 4:08 PM
14

@8 - um. ok. Did anyone notice they have Salsa Dancing (in the Italian part?) at Folklife, along with Bocce Ball lessons? Wonder if I know the guys (my high school was in Trail, BC).

Also, in reading the original post, I notice that the SLOG talked about "process" as if it was a good thing.

News flash: Process is a BAD THING. In Seattle that's code for making excuses for not doing anything about the problem.

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 17, 2007 4:10 PM
15
Re: Pine— It's stupid to knock down establishments on a thriving strip that are already part of the density equation, servicing nearby density.

Josh, I don’t get your guys’ take on this is issue. The buildings that are slated for demolition along that corridor are-- with, I think, one exception –-totally uninspired single-story buildings. How is that "part of the density equation"? As buildings, they’re a shite use of that space. As businesses, yeah, they’re lovely, but we could stack six or seven hundred more people on top of those lots. And if we do that it’ll create a better market for amenities in the future. I mean, how many people are those businesses employing? How much tax revenue are they generating? What are we, as a community, actually going to lose if they don’t come back? It's not like there aren't other bars and taco stands in the area.

Posted by Judah | May 17, 2007 4:11 PM
16

OK AA,

I don't know how the SF development occurred but I don't think $500,000 houses will be torn down to build two skinny houses in significant numbers. I think it would better and easier to upzone around arterials with commercial areas while leaving more of the SFR intact. JMO.

Posted by whatever | May 17, 2007 4:14 PM
17

@13,

I've also said before that I'm not too freaked out about the condos on the Cha-Cha block. This is what happens in cities. I'm a fan of the Bus Stop (the bar next to Bimbo's) and I'll miss it, but it's not a federal case. I hope lots of people move in to the new condos.

We'll see.

Yes, I was for the zoning changes. And, as I said, I was for the zoning changes on Broadway too. They're doing it right there. There not doing it as I'd like on Pine (although, I like the new Walgren's site).

I'd suggest doing things like sinage regs and laws governing the size of retail on the ground floor to try and get some indie businesses on the street level. We'll see.

The point of my comment was: I don't see much hypocrisy in our position. We like density. The current retail on the Cha-Cha block is thriving and part of the density equation. We like density on Capitol Hill. (Again: We stumped for the Broadway changes.)

We're not against height increases and in-fill development and taking out sites that are eyesores.

We advocate for developing those areas in other neighborhoods. And we advocated for them on Capitol Hill.

Posted by Josh Feit | May 17, 2007 4:19 PM
18
People want single family homes.

People also want SUVs, crack and child pornography. Not every market should be catered to.

Posted by Judah | May 17, 2007 4:21 PM
19

Josh,

First you might want to check out this new anti ST site. I'm not supporting these guys but thought you would be interested - I heard their ad on the radio today.

http://eastsideta.com/congestion.htm

My point was that everyone has some issue with change and that we should understand that. I'm sorry you guys are losing fav spots.

ECB - I'm well short of 400 but some days the aches and pains of neuralgia...

Posted by whatever | May 17, 2007 4:27 PM
20

Density is a good thing. The minimum parking required with them isn't. Neighborhoods like Pike/Pine should have parking maximums instead of lowering the mimimums associated with new developments. That, along with better transit service (more buses, exclusive right of way) to & from the hill would make a great neighborhood even better.

Posted by Rob Johnson | May 17, 2007 4:40 PM
21

Mike McGinn rocks.

And his model is better. He sees the whole picture, but has chosen to work on one part of it. This would be contrasted with one element of the "old" neighborhood movement - let's say Nick Lacata, who started an NGO, but really used it to become a city counsel member, both killing the NGO and giving us a counsel member who is, IMHO, parochial rather than focused.

Also, FWIW, McGinn began dealing with these issues even before working with the Sierra Club. He was the Grad Student Representative to the UW Senate in the early 90s, working on issues such as how the University handled it's land use needs in the context of a vibrant residential/industrial neighborhood.

Posted by rtm | May 17, 2007 4:45 PM
22

Density is a good thing. The minimum parking required with them isn't. Neighborhoods like Pike/Pine should have parking maximums instead of lowering the mimimums associated with new developments. That, along with better transit service (more buses, exclusive right of way) to & from the hill would make a great neighborhood even better.

Posted by Rob Johnson | May 17, 2007 4:48 PM
23

Density is a good thing. The minimum parking required with them isn't. Neighborhoods like Pike/Pine should have parking maximums instead of lowering the mimimums associated with new developments. That, along with better transit service (more buses, exclusive right of way) to & from the hill would make a great neighborhood even better.

Posted by Rob Johnson | May 17, 2007 4:57 PM
24

Josh and Erica made good comments about McGinn.

They and other posters have correctly differentiated McGinn from the more NIMBY-oriented neighborhood activists. Urban density is green. Walk, bike, and transit trips are green.

At the event, McGinn was careful to list transit flow as a priority in the implementation of complete streets. Cascade does not always do so.

The SDOT Transportation Strategic Plan did a good job of listing separate street networks for freight, transit, and now the bike master plan approaches that for cycling and listed many strategies that would improve Seattle. The difficult part is where the networks overlap and suggest priority on the same arterial. The tough political choice will be over parallel parking.

Today, SDOT is suggesting their three-lane road diets for 24th Avenue NW between NW Market and 65th streets and on Stone Way North. They would do it by converting four-lane arterials to three lanes and retaining the parallel parking. This improves flow for left turning autos and bikes, but slows transit. bus stops in pullouts become bus traps with a steady flow of traffic in the single through lane.

Seattle has slowed the flow of transit on Capitol Hill through the restriping of Broadway, Pine Street, and Madison Street.

McGinn might well ask SDOT to be more creative and controversial. The two sides of arterials do not have to be treated identically. Both Stone Way North and 24th Avenue NW are on hills and in business districts. Cyclists can keep up with traffic going downhill, but not uphill. Bikes could be given priority on nearby parallel arterials; in Ballard they could be 20th, 22nd, and 28th avenues NW; in Wallingford, they could be Woodland Park and Walllingford avenues North.

Parallel parking could be removed for a bike lane on one side of an arterial. The short term parking for business could be added on quiet cross streets by making them one-way with diagonal parking. Bus bulbs could be added to allow transit to stop in-lane and to add to sidewalk capacity.

Bikes and cars are both vehicles allowed on all streets. Both freight and transit are limited to arterials with wide turning radii.

Please note that Seattle south of 85th Street developed along streetcar lines. Folks walked to transit and to local stores. The growth in auto traffic accelerated after I-5 was built circa 1963.

Posted by eddiew | May 17, 2007 6:14 PM
25

"His to-do list also includes changing design and zoning codes so we can have taller buildings without building butt-ugly condos in our neighborhood urban hubs..."

Sounds like meaningless SLOG rhetoric.

Posted by David Sucher | May 17, 2007 6:47 PM
26

David, it is meaningless rhetoric--though not just on Slog. A lot of people dream of living in a "real" city, which Seattle isn't.

When people in New York, San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles think of Seattle--which is rarely--they think Portland, only with angst and self-loathing.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | May 17, 2007 7:14 PM
27

"A lot of people dream of living in a "real" city, which Seattle isn't."

Another kind of parochialism: the idea that there is one thing called a city. That sort of chamber of commerce nonsense is supposed to compel us to repeat other cities' mistakes and abandon critical examination of claims to be green, etc.

Posted by Dave | May 18, 2007 10:58 AM
28

"A lot of people dream of living in a "real" city, which Seattle isn't."

Another kind of parochialism: the idea that there is one thing called a city. That sort of chamber of commerce nonsense is supposed to compel us to repeat other cities' mistakes and abandon critical examination of claims to be green, etc.

Posted by Dave | May 18, 2007 10:59 AM
29

"A lot of people dream of living in a "real" city, which Seattle isn't."

Another kind of parochialism: the idea that there is one thing called a city. That sort of chamber of commerce nonsense is supposed to compel us to repeat other cities' mistakes and abandon critical examination of claims to be green, etc.

Posted by Dave | May 18, 2007 11:00 AM
30

"A lot of people dream of living in a "real" city, which Seattle isn't."

Another kind of parochialism: the idea that there is one thing called a city. That sort of chamber of commerce nonsense is supposed to compel us to repeat other cities' mistakes and abandon critical examination of claims to be green, etc.

Posted by dan | May 18, 2007 11:01 AM
31

"A lot of people dream of living in a "real" city, which Seattle isn't."



Another kind of parochialism: the idea that there is one thing called a city. That sort of chamber of commerce nonsense is supposed to compel us to repeat other cities' mistakes and abandon critical examination of claims to be green, etc.

Posted by dan | May 18, 2007 11:02 AM
32

I'm guessin Dan and Dave are the same person - but what does 3 for Dave and only 2 for Dan really mean...

Posted by whatever | May 18, 2007 11:49 AM
33
How exactly would you define the 'old neighborhood movement'?"

The old neighborhood movement consisted of provincial, reactionary populists whose attitude was best summed up by Joey Ramone in I'm Against It.

On any given proposal, they were more concerned with who they perceived its backers to be than with its merits. They were against anything that appeared to have support from "downtown", wealthy people, outsiders (especially newly arrived New Yorkers and Californians), intellectuals, visionaries, Ron Simms, or any other group that makes them feel insecure.

Thankfully, they are vanishing breed.

Posted by Sean | May 18, 2007 2:54 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).