Comments on Draft Darryl!

I realize that statement will probably disqualify me from holding any public office in this city in the future.

No it won’t!

Sure it will. There are about 120,000 people living in the five densest zipcodes in Seattle. Pretty much everyone else lives in single-family housing. They moved here for the single family housing: for the quiet residential streets lined with old Craftsman houses and trees and on-street parking. They moved here so their kids could play touch football in the street and walk to the nearest elementary school.

I happen to think those people are all deluding themselves, but if you think they wouldn't stand in line to vote against a "pro-density" candidate who's already talking about opening the zoning in single-family neighborhoods, you should maybe ride your bike up Crown Hill and take a good long look around.

Increases in density will have to happen organically, by forcing low-income bohos into single-family neighborhoods where they can price low-density occupants out of those big craftsman houses by turning them into group housing. A top-down approach will only stir up the hornet's nest.

So, ECB, just what does "more (and better) housing in single-family neighborhoods" look like? 8-pack townhomes built on zero-lot line floor plans with ridiculous 100 square foot "lawns"? How about dropping 8-story apartment buildings smack dab into the middle of single-family zones? In any case, let's be sure to take it to bad, greedy, selfish people who dare to want to live in the city in a house with a yard.

Whoa.

Gee it sure sounds a lot like someone is calling for 100-story (or at least 40-story to start) residential rental aparment buildings, inexpensive ones at that, built near transit hubs.

Now where did I hear that one ...

The sleeper must awaken. Global warming is now, and it's not a question, it's a reality.

Um, right, and then when you upzone all of those SF neighborhoods, the people who moved there to live in a SF neighborhood will move out of the City to the 'burbs because that's the kind of community they wanna live in.

The notion that the City of Seattle can solve the region's growth problems is pure fantasy - but it IS driving people of moderate means further and further afield as the City Govt. lets developers run riot and tear down what is left of the affordable housing in Seattle.

The worst of both worlds, really....

@2 - "Greedy, selfish" people? No, just unrealistic. If you want to live in Manhattan and also insist on a big yard for your kids to play in, you're totally deluded. Seattle is going the same route, like it or not; given the economic growth and geographic constraints, it's inevitable. Get used to it.

Not upzone all the neighborhoods.

Build - only in proximity to major transit hubs (e.g. 3 blocks from light rail or 1 block from bus or streetcar) - along major arterials, 100 story (or at least 40 story) inexpensive residential apartment buildings with mandatory public (not fenced, with kid playground elements) greenspace.

Then upzone the transition zone to 10 story (e.g. core is 40-100 story, next block is 10-40).

Pretty easy to do. Most are already zoned for 4 story apartment buildings, or at least 3 story.

Jesus God, Will, will you stop with the 100-story Corbusier towers? It's literally THE MOST FATUOUS thing I've ever heard on Slog, and I've heard it a hundred times from you. Just STOP.

If Erica, or Darryl, had ever actually set foot in any of these "neighborhoods" they keep going on about, they'd know that multi-unit housing is EXACTLY what's going up in them, all over the city. They far outstrip new detached housing starts in city neighborhoods; they are EVERYWHERE.

It's hard to trust the views of people who don't know what the city they're commenting on really looks like.

While multi-units do in fact increase density, and maybe, MAYBE keep another single-family unit from going up in the distant exurbs, but they don't impact transportation or greenhouse gas reductions in-city much at all. You still have to drive to the store if there isn't a store nearby, and increased density by itself doesn't make bus routes any easier -- harder, in fact.

And the Seattle City Council has fuck-all to do with the real growth, which is single-family houses in Orting and Arlington and places like that.

I'm sorry, Will, how are you making the leap from "already zoned for 4 story apartment buildings or at least 3 story" to "100 story (or at least 40 story)? And where are you going to get the people to put in these mega-buildings? And who's going to build them? And what are they going to build them out of?

Look, nothing that extreme is required. Basically we just need to invert our priorities: establish building codes that require new multi-story apartment buildings to be built to a higher code (building exteriors are particularly problematic in this climate) and a loosening of zoning regulations in areas where population density begins to creep up past single-family numbers.

So, for example, the strip between Ballard and Freemont, going north on 8th up to about Market Street. There are tons of group houses in that area, lots of unofficially converted multi-family housing. Rezoning that area to allow for terraced housing or small-lot apartment buildings would allow the neighborhood to expand for its current population while also keeping the lot prices low enough that developers could be convinced to build better buildings (rather than the ugly and poorly-constructed mega mc-apartments they're building down near Ballard's commercial core). The rezone would meet less resistance because the people who live in that area now are refugees from Capitol Hill who actually like apartment living.

Then, then years from now, do it again a little further north and west. And so on.

It's not that hard.

@1: There are already more units of multi-family housing in Seattle than single-family housing.

That said, there are more people living in single-family housing than multi-family housing because the average household size is larger in single-family housing.

I don't know which kind of housing more registered voters live in (kids presumably account for some of the bigger households in single-family housing), but it's not unreasonable to believe there are more multi-family dwellers voting.

Ummmm, run for what office in 2008? The next City Council and mayoral elections will be in 2009.

While multi-units do in fact increase density, and maybe, MAYBE keep another single-family unit from going up in the distant exurbs, but they don't impact transportation or greenhouse gas reductions in-city much at all. You still have to drive to the store if there isn't a store nearby

1) New multi-family units are not about keeping another single-family unit from going up in the distant exurbs. People moving to the distant exurbs don't want to live in multi-family units.

2) They do impact transportation and greenhouse gases in a wide variety of ways: reduced impermeable surface area, smaller utility grid, less run-off, lower heating costs, fewer construction supplies &c.

3) More importantly, they increase the number of voters who have a vested interest in investing in high-density infrastructure. Right now we're outvoted by the single family and suburban voters. The only way to change that is to increase the number of high-density voters proportional to the number of low-density voters. So it has less to do with whether or not we can prevent someone from moving to the exurbs than it has to do with whether or not we can cancel out their vote next time we try to build a monorail.

4) Stores weren't just dropped out of the sky by the gods. Corporations will build grocery stores to serve customers. The more density a given area has, the more grocery stores corporations will want to put there. There are about five times as many grocery stores in a 20 square block area of Capitol Hill than in a similar area in Ballard because there are about 5 times as many people in a 20 square block area of Capitol hill than there are in a similar area in Ballard. Increase the density enough, corporations will build stores that people can walk to.

Jeez N Seattle - details details remember this is advocacy journalism not plain old journalism.

@10

I wasn't just talking about what kind of building people live in. A person living in a multi-family duplex or triplex in Ballard, or even in one of the rare (pre-big-box) apartment buildings in Ballard still basically considers themselves a beneficiary of the sedentary single-family neighborhood vibe. I knew a lot of people who lived in Ballard apartments when I was a kid, but they still drew a sharp distinction between their neighborhood and Capitol Hill or First Hill or Downtown or wherever.

Otherwise, I take your point.

I'd have to investigate Darryl (who the hell is he?) to determine my vote, but I like what he said there.

"...multi-unit housing is EXACTLY what's going up in them, all over the city. They far outstrip new detached housing starts in city neighborhoods; they are EVERYWHERE."

Absolutely right, Fnarf. Haven't seen a new SF project going up in quite a while now (remodels and additions excluded).

If he ran and won, Darryl would just be one voice on Council in 2009. However, if he ran for mayor, well, that would be another story. A mayor who gets it and could get things done.

Or, just maybe, he might be nominated to replace a possibly-resigning member of the Council?

this is the same Darryl Smith that led the xenophobic fear-mongering campaign against Casa Latina correct? Or is there another one around?

Judah @12: Once again, theory meet practice.

If the grocery store is what got torn down to make room for the multi-unit, then it doesn't work. That's what's going to happen in Green Lake, where the Albertson's shut just as about a million new units came online. The old store is going to go, for a new condo or apartment building.

The "density = demand = stores" equation is incredibly simplified, and misses out more than half of the inputs, like the age of the buildings, amount of rent, etc. etc. As it is, there are many, many thousands of apartment buildings and condo buildings in Seattle that are not served by nearby grocery shopping or adequate transit, and there have been for decades, because density alone does NOT equal car-free culture, and there are many, many factors you're ignoring when restricting your thinking to Capitol Hill.

What Erica, and Darryl, are talking about is making all parts of Seattle more like Capitol Hill. That's not likely to happen, for many, many reasons, few of which Erica or Darryl seem to have a handle on.

I'm not arguing against density; I'm just arguing FOR realism.

You guys were arguing about single-family housing - I pointed out the areas I'm talking about AREN'T zoned for single-family housing.

They're R-3, R-4, MU-4, MU-6, MU-8, and C-8 or so.

That ain't single family housing.

Sure you're not talking about MU-100?

@20

The "density = demand = stores" equation is incredibly simplified, and misses out more than half of the inputs, like the age of the buildings, amount of rent, etc. etc.

I'm sorry, are you looking at some kind of special checklist of "inputs"?

Of course there are variables. Grocery stores -- particularly lower-end grocery stores like Albertson's and Safeway -- were put into low-density areas during the '60s and haven't been able to sustain themselves since. That's why the Safeway in downtown Ballard was demolished, the one on 8th closed and their operations were combined into the big box store on 15th. I suspect that one will eventually go the way of the dinosaur as well, but it'll take a while.

The Albertson's near Greenlake wasn't shut down by density, it was shut down by gentrification. In the last 10 years there's a new Whole Foods in Ravenna and a new PCC on Aurora, just across the lake from Albertson's, both of which serve the new wealthier residents of the neighborhood. The Albertson's wasn't able to compete and the real estate was probably too valuable -- with its lake view and all -- for another operation to be willing to go into an area where it would have to go up against two established businesses. But between Whole Paycheck and PCC, the total number of grocery stores in that area has still basically increased. And as the density around that lake increases, I think you will see a new grocery store going in. It will just need to be in a mixed use building with underground parking. That old Albertson's used its space really badly.

Take a look at Fremont -- the PCC there is new. There didn't used to be a grocery store there at all. And Market Time has done much better with the influx of business from down the hill. Or take a look at South Lake Union -- the new Whole Foods going in there.

The overall pattern here is an increase in the density of amenities.

Judah @12: Once again, theory meet practice.

Whatever. I'm not impressed.

Here! Here! I'm the newest member of the Darryl Smith fan club. I just bought a house from him at Rainier Vista and beyond being the most ethical realtor I've ever met (I liked him a lot better than my own realtor), I got to know him as a serious thinker about how communities develop, what makes them livable and how to promote ethnic and income diversity within evolving communities. He's been a big force behind the Hope VI projects at New Holly and Rainier Vista, which are both big successes. He also puts a lot of work into ensuring that Columbia City survives its inevitable transformation with its ethnic/racial and income diversity intact. No, not just intact, but strengthened.

There is no reason to fear the kind of density Darryl promotes. He's not pushing a density of sameness and sterility, but a density of vibrancy and diversity. Run, Darryl Run!!!

"The overall pattern here is an increase in the density of amenities."

No, the overall pattern here is brand-new supposedly mixed-use buildings going up all over the city but not being able to fill the supposedly retail space with anything more useful than tanning salons real estate offices, and cell phone stores -- major chain operations only need apply. The actual "vibrancy and diversity" goes down, because too many of the buildings are new.

Sally beat him for the appointment. But ,,, keep trying

I totally agree with you, Erica, about drafting Darryl--he had some great things to say last night. But I'd disagree that the audience was "largely change-averse." Maybe that's true for some of the more vocal audience members, but several of us were cheering to hear what he had to say.

"There is no reason to fear the kind of density Darryl promotes. He's not pushing a density of sameness and sterility, but a density of vibrancy and diversity. Run, Darryl Run!!!"

Fighting the sameness and sterility of white single family north end Seattle will be a tough nut to crack. Most of those residents like it that way. Instead of saying they don't want people of color, poor people, or hipsters, they'll just use the Seattle code words of "we want to preserve the character of the community." That being said, I hope Darryl runs and raises this important issues of vibrancy and diversity.

One objective of the forum was to look at the choices we face in fighting global warming. There is a direct connection between providing housing in walkable neighborhoods and the amount that people drive -- the biggest challenge to meeting our local goals on global warming. Kudos to Darryl for directly raising the issue of attitudes towards new housing in the city. He is right, we need to talk about how to be more generous in providing housing -- and have higher expectations for good design and public investment into neighborhoods that are growing. If the argument devolves into development vs. the neighborhoods, we miss the bigger picture and we all lose. We need to be open and honest about all the issues -- neighborhood character, affordability, regional sprawl, and global warming -- if we are to have any hope of our actions measuring up to our good intentions.

No, the overall pattern here is brand-new supposedly mixed-use buildings going up all over the city but not being able to fill the supposedly retail space with anything more useful than tanning salons real estate offices

Okay, that's kind of a sharp left turn from what we were talking about, but whatever.

Most new mixed use buildings allocate commercial space to national chains because developers are required to have solid commitments to lease a certain percentage of their total retail square footage before they can get financing from their investors. Only national chains have the stability and the capital to commit to a lease a year ahead of time, and developers are happy to have them because it helps them get the funding they need to go ahead and build. But those national chains are not necessarily going to last in those spaces because, for one thing, after their initial lease runs out they'll have to compete with small local businesses that can subdivide the retail spaces and end up significantly increasing the rental revenues per square foot.

So the shift is hardly irrevocable, and certainly not doctrinal. If local businesses can compete, landlords in new buildings will be happy to rent to them. Meanwhile, keeping the old crappy buildings around can only protect them for so long.

I think Darryl's 'fear-mongering' was overblown. Just because he opposed having Casa Latina take over the former Chubby'n'Tubby site without telling anyone doesn't mean he's hated Latinos. He's a real estate agent. I'm sure he wanted some sort of retail or some other for-profit business to go in that space, not a non-profit.

For those who don't know who this guy is, he was one of the many who ran against former City Councilmember Judy Nicastro in 2003. He didn't win, but impressed many with is poise and clean campaign. He's a trained actor so he's good at speaking smoothly in front of groups. He's credited with helping revive Columbia City.

The Seattle Weekly did a good story (gasp!) on him a couple years ago that was worth reading.

It's not a left turn. It's germane to my point, which is (a) the actions that Darryl and Erica are advocating are already taking place without their help, and (b) while they have benefits, reducing GHG or auto dependency aren't among them. If they were, then auto dependency would be going down, not up, even in the areas that are seeing large increases in high-density buildings.

Even your examples bear this out: you want underground parking at any new store in Green Lake, why is that? The new Safeway in Ballard is visited almost entirely by cars, not on foot or by bicycle. Ditto the Fred Meyer in Ballard, the PCC on Aurora, and Whole Foods in Roosevelt (whose underground parking lot has the highest concentration of super-sized SUVs in the known universe, playing pinball in the narrow spaces).

We DO NOT KNOW how to make great walking neighborhoods and vibrant communities. We recognize them when we see them but we can no more duplicate the phenomenon than we can carve new human beings out of soap. The idea promulgated here by Darryl Smith, that you can solve all these problems by "thinking about housing" or just plopping six-story mixed-use all over the place, is fallacious. It doesn't take into account any of the zillion other factors.

You want a list? There is no list. But you could start with blocks that are too long and streets that are too wide. A regional economy -- make that a national economy -- that REQUIRES the free movement of people and stuff over long distances.

If you want to get people out of their cars, you're going to have to do it the hard way: 50% unemployment might do it. And, of course, even if you had a giant magnet that could pull every single motor vehicle out of the City of Seattle, you wouldn't come anywhere near 80% GHG reduction.

We DO NOT KNOW how to make great walking neighborhoods and vibrant communities. We recognize them when we see them but we can no more duplicate the phenomenon than we can carve new human beings out of soap.

Okay. That's a pretty shocking assertion, but I'll take one more stab at this.

I guess I'll start out by saying that we do, in fact, know how to make great walking neighborhoods. "Vibrant communities" is pretty subjective, so I won't get into that. But great walking neighborhoods we can do.

The main requirement is that amenities be within walking distance and that employment be accessible by a quick and reliable transit grid. The second part, the employment part, requires a coordinated government effort, at least to the county level and possibly higher. And that's part of why Americans have had such trouble with this issue. Nobody wants to do any of the things that would provide an incentive to employers to stay central -- or a disincentive for them to go suburban/rural.

What we have going on in the United States, and particularly on the West Coast, is the exception of urban design, not the rule. Most people who live in cities in most places in the world do, in fact, live in dense walkable cities. And that wasn't achieved through some arcane formula that's been lost to the ages. We actually have a pretty good idea how to create the conditions that encourage that sort of development -- we just haven't been willing to force them to happen.

Maybe energy costs will do it for us. I guess the only question is, will the planet still be habitable in the aftermath.

We do? Name one, Judah -- name ONE good walking community that's been created by urban planners in the last, say, fifty years.

Walking communities are created by untrammeled economic forces (people building stuff) in pre-automobile cultures. They are not designed. The walkable centers of cities like New York or Boston, or any of the ones in Europe (as opposed to the Will-in-Seattle-style concrete towers of most of Europe today), "just happened", in an organic way that took place decades or centuries before automobiles, or professional urban planning, ever existed.

In reality, it is ILLEGAL to duplicate the physical conditions that create walkable centers anywhere in the US, due to regulations that demand streets of a certain width (for emergency vehicles) and so on.

As an early member of the Darryl Smith fan club, it's great to see him get some much-deserved love. When I was helping him in 2003, he was a largely unknown Columbia City activist. After he showed fairly well in a very crowded primary--raising little money but giving very passionate speeches--I joked that he won the vote of every person he spoke to, and probably not many more.

But since that time he has spoken to a lot more people, who understand what a gift Darryl is to our community.

We really do need his passion and perspective on the City Council.

We do? Name one, Judah -- name ONE good walking community that's been created by urban planners in the last, say, fifty years.

Fremont. Twenty-five years ago there was no walking community in Fremont. It was a low-density streetcar suburb built around a defunct lumber mill and a gasworks that had been turned into a park. Density there has increased dramatically, amenities have increased dramatically, and there's new employment and new housing stacked in a new walkable community.

And you're wrong on just about every other point you raise. The "walking communities" of Europe were created by thoroughly trammeled economic forces: tariff walls, guild systems, town councils, lord mayors and so on. Our "free market" has prevented remotely that kind of intervention in American cities, but if the public interest can be sufficiently spun by events like Katrina and the California wild fires, certain kinds of more aggressive planning legislation may be possible.

As to the street width issue -- and I'm not sure why you're so stuck on that one -- streets in many European cities are shockingly wide by American standards. In many countries, such as Wales, Scotland and Ireland, enormously wide main thoroughfares were mandated by law to allow English troops to be transported through the cities to put down unrest. I believe they're referred to as "imperial roads". Newport Road in Cardiff, which isn't even part of their highway system, is a good 120 feet wide and there are plenty of other main thoroughfares similarly proportioned. In any event, narrower streets are possible in American cities if we change our zoning laws to get rid of the requirement to create street parking in some areas.

Fremont? You're joking. The physical layout of Fremont is a hundred years old, and the shopping grooviness that's there now long predates the Adobes and giant condos -- some of which DISPLACED the older buildings. To say that Fremont was created by urban planners is insane. It was revived by hippie entrepreneurs and gentrifiers.

And it's still, as always, a place where almost all the residents get in a car to drive to work, and almost all of the customers of the groovy shops get in a car and drive there. Have you seen the size of the Adobe garage? Fremont today is ten times as dependent on the automobile as it was in 1982, that's for sure.

And you couldn't build a Fremont today; it would be illegal.

It is so typical of the urban-planning profession to take credit for the revitalization of neighborhoods that were actually revitalized by their own residents. I have no doubt that there are several shelves' worth of planning documents on Fremont, but they are not what put Fritzy Ritz there. They might be what drove it out.

What the connection between walking cities and imperial roads is I don't get. Newport Road in Cardiff? Huh? Of course European cities have major thoroughfares; they also (the good ones) have warrens of little streets that come together at funny angles and make for excitement. Uh, sort of like Fremont.

Wide streets? Sure. They also have miles of crumbling concrete housing towers, too, but that's not the kind of vitality I'm interested in.

Narrow streets and short blocks: that's Jane Jacobs 101. Her description of why it matters is literally the first thing in the book.

Look, what I object to is the idea that making a livable city is a simple matter of dropping in a few high-density buildings without a thought to anything else. It's all a formula, isn't it? Plug in the numbers, and take credit for the ones that work and pretend the ones that don't don't.

The REAL examples of the pseudoscience you're advocating aren't in Cardiff or Fremont; they're in laughable attempts to legislate sustainable development like Peter Calthorpe's Northwest Landing, on the high end, and the millions of crappy homes built in modern zoned developments all over the country. Real neighborhoods build themselves, in places that were built out a hundred years ago or longer.

You should see what all the NEW development in "Wales, Scotland, and Ireland" looks like. Orting, for the most part, only in brick. Their tragic historical attachments are different than ours, but just as bad.

The easiest way to prove that what you're saying is untrue is to look at what's actually happening on the ground. It's not Fremont. You keep suggesting it's easy, it's obvious, it's so well-understood -- so why isn't it actually happening? Why are car miles going up twice as fast as the number of cars, which is going up twice as fast as the number of people? What is the source of the disconnect that says "we must reduce GHG by 80%" when GHG is growing at a faster rate today than it was even five minutes ago?

It's like listening to a guy lecture you about the benefits of vegetarianism with a mouthful of hamburger.

To say that Fremont was created by urban planners is insane.

Good thing I didn't say it then, huh? Argue with the points I'm making, not the ones you wish I was making.

Fremont? You're joking. The physical layout of Fremont is a hundred years old,

Wow, really? So all those giant apartment buildings and medium density townhomes in Fremont have been there for 100 years? All mixed use at the main intersection has been there for 100 years? Those giant office buildings where the saw mill used to be have been there for 100 years?

There's more to the physical layout of Fremont than the street grid.

Narrow streets and short blocks: that's Jane Jacobs 101. Her description of why it matters is literally the first thing in the book.

Yeah, that's great. I don't suppose you read the rest of the book, by any chance? Or any of her other books? Import replacement? Technological elaboration? Anything? No?

You're limiting your analysis of Fremont to the street grid without taking into account any of the changes that have taken place there over the last 25 years. I've never claimed that short blocks and narrow streets don't help with walkability, but you're treating them like they're the only variable that matters, and they're not. Neither are they impossible to create in the existing grid, but it would require a commitment on the part of the city government that just isn't there. That doesn't mean density won't increase or that transit models won't or can't change.

Look, what I object to is the idea that making a livable city is a simple matter of dropping in a few high-density buildings without a thought to anything else.

And again: show me where I said that.

The easiest way to prove that what you're saying is untrue is to look at what's actually happening on the ground.

You don't seem to have the slightest idea what I'm saying. You're arguing with points I'm not even trying to make, ignoring points I am making in favor of the ridiculous premise that urban development is too complex to be planned. If that's really what you took away from Jacobs, I suggest you read her again.

As Judah (#9) above says, there are already a lot of semi-legally converted single family houses in Seattle and many other cities. In short, there's a fundamental mismatch between the supply and demand for smaller housing units: cramming a bunch of house-mates together is not exactly the optimal way to house single-person households. (Just ask anyone who lives in one.) A lot of the existing "single family" neighborhoods are really at least partially multifamily already.

The flip side of that equation is that plenty of older "single family" neighborhoods in older cities are filled with well disguised duplexes, triplexes, etc.

Fnarf (#20), maybe you should also consider that supermarkets have a design life of about 20-30 years. They're literally not designed to last much longer. All those aging 1960s-1980s strip malls are more expensive to renovate than to scrape -- and provide ideal opportunities to add housing density (and replacement retail) without increasing traffic, impervious cover, etc.

Most of Seattle's greenhouse gas emissions come from car tailpipes. Someone's got to face down the elephant in the room.