Leavenworth! Fer christ's sake, I didn't event think of Leavenworth! I say 40 story highrises all across Leavenworth (with Bavarian details, of course, we wouldn't want to change the character of the place).

All this is what I LOVE about the Seattle Process. If I can't get exactly what I want, well then, I'll just do nothing. Hurray!

Oh and by the way, where the fuck is my monorail!

and NO MORE FUCKING TOWNHOME 6-PACKS!

@7 - I know what you mean. I live in the U-District, and they just built two of those townhome 6-packs on my block.

No shitty ugly condos! No ghettoization of poor people in high-rise tenements! Come on team! We can do it!

Townhomes don't have to be ugyly.
They can be pretty.

Here's the ugly one.

That's my two cents. I'll shut up now.

"From 2000 to 2007 — the first seven years of the Vision 2040 planning period — MacDonald said, only 13 percent of King County's growth went into Seattle and Bellevue, well below the target of 32 percent."

The real world and the fantasy world these urban planners live in are two very different places.

Also, in today's Times, one developer at least had the candor to note that high-rise development and "affordable housing" are mutually exclusive.

And why shouldn't the State put more of its economic development efforts into places like Aberdeen and Spokane?

But getting back to the idea of density, you've got a point Chaz @12, but fact is that the U-District could afford to build a bit taller than 3 stories. If they're going to go as far as razing old single-family homes in favor of these six-packs, they might as well build something taller than what they tore down, which isn't really happening.

Another thought: Watching people stand around and plan the future of Seattle reminded me of the scene in the Devil Wears Prada, where the homely-outfitted protagonist is brusquely informed that the color of her sweater was chosen for her years ago by fashion executives. Likewise, they are currently planning the wardrobe for next year. But, my thinking goes, at least someone put thought into it ahead of time. When it comes to development, biased as the predominant players might be, they are the experts and at least they are planning. I certainly don't want a to live in a region that flies by the seat of its pants when building every new mini mall or state highway. Nor do I want nothing built as a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived threat of what is actually a great thing for our city.

Why would I move my company out to Aberdeen, away from everything, away from an interstate or international airport when I can set up shop in King County and have access to all those things. Nothing is going to get big business, or even rich businesses to move out to shitholes like Aberdeen.

In that regard, Aberdeen is probably a stretch, but why not Bellingham (four-year university, etc.)?

But what's the point ... you'll stick your heads in the sand and think we're going to just take our 2-3 story mixed use commercial/res properties and turn them into 4-6 story mixed use commercial/res properties and leave all the vast single family only residential neighborhoods alone.

And price all but the rich and super-rich out of Seattle.

Wake up. Half measures won't fix things.

You're probably right, though -- it's not going to happen without some additional incentive (like the kind of incentives the state gives Boeing and Microsoft, and the kind Tacoma's dangling in front of Russell to get them to stay). My point is that, although some of the cities mentioned above aren't really suited for this kind of growth/development (Leavenworth?), there are places outside the central Puget Sound that are. Focusing on this tri-County area exclusively is, I think, introducing a planning contraint that needn't be there.

Oh, and @31: I note with some satisfaction that the tallest buildings in the whole room ended up collapsing into the Sound.

And use the extra money to pay for interchanges and roads and sewers and police and fire services that they end up getting from the taxpayers in the urban centers, due to the County tax structures.

your arguments about a "world class city" seem so petty. wake up and smell the roses.

We don't need to upzone anywhere, much less single family, to reach our targets. We simply need to be smarter what we build (one story coffee houses atop zoning for 6-story buildings won't get it done).

You could significantly downzone around most of the singe family areas in the city and still have enough zoning capacity. You won't hear that solution since upzoning puts extra dollars in the pockets of the developer interests who've bought and paid for political leadership in the area.

The overzoning we have now decreases affordability and encourages anti-green development. Is a LEED Platinum development sitting where an urban forest used to be environmentally sound?

"Is a LEED Platinum development sitting where an urban forest used to be environmentally sound?"

translated: I am really an environmentalist. But, I don't want to pay the price for protecting the greater environment. I care more about my personal environment. And, I don't want "those" people living near me. I worked hard to get here and now that I am here, I don't want anyone else to get a piece of it. Mine, all mine.