Comments

1
i find the idea of 3128 new high-rise housing units being developed on that site to be laughable.

but as to affordability: it is not public housing. it is privately owned. can the city require a 1:1 replacement as a condition of the rezone? i doubt it.

2
"...11200 1st Ave NE,..."
You need to double-check this. This location is the off-ramp from I-5 on one side of the road and the entrance to the parking lot for Northgate Mall on the other side.
3
@2 I think Google Maps is just wrong about that. The description in the pdf makes it clear it's the complex north of Northgate Way.
4
Sorry Cienna -

Google Maps is wrong; you had the address correct.
5
@1: Absolutely the city can. That is well within the city's purview. We have enabling legislation on the books and plenty of Supreme Court precedent to uphold it.

This is a fascinating case. I'm so glad you're covering it, Cienna.
6
What will be most interesting is the reaction from the usual pro-density neo-urbanist blogosphere types. I'm not a big fan of litmus tests in land use because there are always nuances in land use, but this seems to be a pretty easy one.

Are Seattle's neo-urbanist bloggers actually advocates for affordable, community-oriented development around LINK stations? Or are they advocates for "whatever the hell the developer who pays my architect salary wants to do"?

Soap opera is right, and it's just now starting to get interesting... Nice article, Cienna. Thanks for shining some light on this.

David
7
I've always thought that neo-urbanists trace their lineage to Jane Jacobs, and as such are in favor of affordable housing. I think this is really just an old-fashioned boondoggle, where the developer's lawyers find a loophole and exploit it. That's as old as the history of the first nuisance laws governing land use, in merry olde Englande.

What's really commendable here is the Maple Leaf neighborhood council. That they're aware of the subtleties of this boondoggle is impressive. May the force be with them in this fight.
8
well, if Burgess isn't reading this, not only does he look exactly like a baby vulture, he acts like a vulture too.

my bet is he'll side ultimately w big development, neighborhood be damned. he started the Roosevelt ball rolling...

as far as David Miler's pondering about our new "City Builder" class, my bet is on them fucking over the poor with their density=affordability mantra.
10
@5: has a 1:1 replacement condition already been done to a private developer in the city? i know the SHA made that part of their redevelopment proposals, which sought federal funding, but i don't know of any instances where 1:1 has been required on private property.

@9: are you asserting that those ticky-tack barracks have a value on par with historic structures that Jacobs valued? if you think that new urbanists don't value historic structures, you're wrong. but costs & benefits are part of any analysis - its why the awesome brick barracks building at magnusson park sits moldering with its downspouts stripped by metal thieves, while non-profits build brand new low-income housing on empty space elsewhere in the park.
13
@10, SHA may have made that part of its pitch, but it has never yet done a 1:1 replacement on any of its redeveloped projects.

There's something uncomfortably brown-shirt-ish about the phrase "new urbanist".
15
"Development wants, development gets / It's official
Development wants this neighborhood gone so the city
Just wants the same" -- "Cashout" Fugazi
16
@6 -- I have often quibbled with David Miller, but I think he is spot on with this one. As @7 said in the second paragraph, excellent work.
17
@14: The entire point of HOPE VI is to DISPERSE poverty so you don't end up with blocks of concentrated poverty/crime/hopelessness. SHA was never going to do 1:1 replacement of ON-SITE low-income units because HOPE VI is a MIXED-income initiative. The low-income housing is meant to be spread out in the city and what was once a hellhole of poor despair is now a mixed-income, utopian community (in theory).

None of that is controversial. It's a federal program and similar themes are found in the criteria the city uses to decide which affordable housing projects get housing levy funds.

What I'll say next is controversial: It's a good idea because anything that works to destroy concentrated poverty is working to destroy a community/CULTURE of poverty. The idea of a culture of poverty has been off limits since the 1960s but very recent academic literature is catching up to our common sense. Maybe you don't believe a drunk poster, but you might believe the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/us/18p…
18
NY Times, October 17, 2010, ‘Culture of Poverty’ Makes a Comeback
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/us/18p…
19
It's kind of pissing me off the way every media outlet in town, the Stranger included, is confusing "Affordable Housing" with "Low Income Housing". I keep seeing them used as synonyms. They are not synonyms.

By definition, "Affordable Housing" is not Low Income housing. It is directly tied to the exact center of the middle class. It is 2-3 times the cost of Low Income housing. It has rents over $1000/month.

The purpose of the affordable housing rules is to avoid having every new apartment building built in the city to be exclusively high-end luxury apartments. Which is what the market typically builds - the rental business cycle is:
1) build for the high end, set rents high enough to absorb a high initial vacancy rate
2) rake in the dough when the building fills
3) allow rents to stagnate as the building ages
4) when you reach the bottom of the market, kick everyone out, remodel, and repeat.

Stage 3 is where "affordable housing" is naturally found. Stage 4 is where Low Income housing is naturally found, if the property owner cannot get financing for a rebuild.

However, zoning has restricted new rental construction so badly over the past quarter-century that we don't have hardly any buildings entering stage 3 any more. We've got a bunch moving from stage 1 to stage 2, and most of our stage 3's are on their way to stage 4 or already being redeveloped. There's a donut hole here.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.