But can we still fill up city wide blocks on a flat surface with 6-7 story buildings?

Personally, I like the views of the Space Needle, and I don't care about density - although if someone wants to divide my parcel and put town homes in the front yard of Chez Vel-DuRay, I would be very interested in hearing from you. I'm tired of yard work.

"...that height could have brought in significantly more money in affordable housing benefits that I was interested in."

And O'Brien knows this how? Promises are one thing, action is another. I have seen nothing that tells me that Vulcan will do what they promise. And, from their hissy fit comments in the Times's article, sounds like they will take their toys and leave if they don't get their way.

They won't and we don't have to budge until there is hard, cold evidence of that "extraordinary public benefit."

One good example? They want a downtown elementary school but the real need is not there nor does the district have any land for it. Give over a couple of floors of one of your new shiny buildings and you can have a school. But Vulcan has to give before it can receive.

anna, is vulcan part of the free enterprise system?

i don't trust those guys too much.

Do people not have any idea how supply and demand work? As long as there are X people who want to live in Seattle, there are Y locations for them to live, and X >= Y; then housing prices will continue to go up. 240 foot towers by definition are going to have more units available than 160 foot towers. Therefore, even if you do nothing; building taller towers will push the housing into a more affordable direction.

Putting 240 foot buildings in an area that lacks sufficient K-12 and preschool and fire and library services should be a non-starter.

However, I find it funny that you call 16 story buildings "small", given that they are four times taller than the current zoning west of Denny in SLU.

Naturally, we should assume all these buildings will pay the necessary property taxes once built, especially since we need to build fire, school, power, and police facilities for them.

These fuckers are one of the greatest barriers to actually become a dense green city. Fuck them and their idiotic concerns about shadows.

If you want cheaper housing you need to allow more housing. If you want fewer people to drive then you need housing near where people work.

If you don't want Seattle to grow, move to Portland.

Are hulking towers on 3 blocks of real estate by the lake going to solve the affordability issue for housing? Of course not. Are >>slightly<< lower towers going to provide a better outcome for the majority of workers and residents who enjoy the lake? Yes.

Civic life is full of compromises. And listening to more voices than that paid flack Roger Valdez who makes his living throwing tantrums on behalf of more density for downtown developers. As for Vulcan? Cry me a river that they can't maximize profits on 3 blocks. They will survive.

The Licata Leap looks better every day in moral principle.

Secondly, I wish the density kidz got just as passionate about providing more affordable housing in Pill Hill, Northgate, Greenwood, West Seattle and Yesler. Ya know...places that don't have kool bars attached? Or paid lobbyists flooding their inboxes with easy-to-turn-into-a-story press releases. There are plenty of places for this city to densify thoughtfully. It's pure laziness that turns every block of SLU into a density fight. Go expand your horizons. If you can catch a bus there. Which may not happen because you are too focused on SLU to pay attention to comprehensive transportation and human services and school and citywide zoning issues.

I'm impressed by the Stranger's chivalry for censoring comment #5! I guess "dick in your mouth" isn't for a real estate thread, then?

Vancouver BC is ringed with tall concrete and green glass towers. But they are widely spaced, not crammed together, so as not to block sunlight.

I'm sure glad we killed the Seattle Commons! Man, we dodged the bullet of highrises and unaffordable housing that park would have brought us in Seattle!

*whew!!*

"Secondly, I wish the density kidz got just as passionate about providing more affordable housing in Pill Hill, Northgate, Greenwood, West Seattle and Yesler. Ya know...places that don't have kool bars attached? Or paid lobbyists flooding their inboxes with easy-to-turn-into-a-story press releases. There are plenty of places for this city to densify thoughtfully. It's pure laziness that turns every block of SLU into a density fight. Go expand your horizons. If you can catch a bus there. Which may not happen because you are too focused on SLU to pay attention to comprehensive transportation and human services and school and citywide zoning issues."

The residents of those neighborhoods are even more anti density than the cool kids on Capitol Hill.

Just a clarification: the towers, whether 160 feet or 240 feet, are NOT the affordable housing that is/would be going into the neighborhood. It is the ALLOWANCE of the heights that would be contributing (via fee in lieu) toward affordable housing, housing that by some council members own admissions would most likely not be in the SLU area, or even in the downtown/city core.

This is an important clarification, and one that is repeatedly overlooked.

I should also add that certain Council members, Conlin, for example, seem to think that we should go along with the rezone, the increase in density, etc. without determining the cost of these fee in lieu allowances. He seems to think we should move forward in good faith that Vulcan will do the right thing, for the right price and within the right time frame.

This is the main reason why I will not be voting for Conlin again.

Now, proceed.

True @17.

People seem to think affordable housing in desirable locations is going to magically create itself.

It won't.

Oh, and Anna, really if you are going to report on this: don't take the easy way out. Please do a little research on the rezone proposal, the properties in question and, most importantly, the history of Vulcan's "civic" involvement in the neighborhood.

Find out how Vulcan ended up being the majority land holder of SLU.

Research the promises that have been made by Vulcan repeatedly regarding public benefits and infrastructure costs. Find out whether or not those promises were met.

I can't speak for everyone but I actually live in SLU and have for over 10 years. I am pro-density, but I also know a grab when I see one.

Yes, definitely we can increase our density in SLU, and in many other neighborhoods in the city.
I believe strongly that we should try to provide housing at every income level in each neighborhood of Seattle, so that people truly can "live, work and play" in their 'hoods (to coin a phrase from Vulcan's book).

I don't think that we get even close to that ideal by giving developers like Vulcan open-ended deals with the hope that they will come through for all of us little people.

Will Vulcan really cut and run if they don't get their 240 foot towers? I don't know and I don't really care - someone will develop that property and if it isn't Vulcan; well, it might actually result in a neighborhood that IS more affordable because it WON'T have 240 foot luxury condos on the lake.

This is not a density/anti-density issue.

all of this will be overpriced condos that won't sell and office space that will go unused. Fuck this kind of thing.

Come on, let's just do what the Stranger and their urbanist friends want: Fill in Lake Union, give it to Uncle Paul, and rename our burg Allentown. Come on, you know it's what you want.

more inane land use and zoning reporting from the stranger.

and more supply/demand & density=affordability nonsense in the comments thread.

quelle surprise!

@19 Holy shit.

Seattle Gov link.

Seattle, city council and residents, y'all have done lost your fucking minds.

And, here I thought aPODments were mere insanity.

Affordability at 80% of median income is $1100/mth? What statistics and algorithms are they using??

The Stranger is nothing but a leisure time service of your friendly real estate developer "community." Only in its pages would we be told how great a $700 a month dorm room is.

@11 Actually there is a lot of work being down in some of those areas, especially around light rail stations. We could help spur some really awesome affordable, safe, and dense neighborhoods in places like Rainier Beach or Northgate, but we gotta set up the law to encourage, rather then discourage it.

One reason that most high rise projects like this tend to be far from affordable is because dealing with shit like this is expensive and time consuming and the lack of land zoned for density makes it expensive.

@27 So, reduce the laws, and the rents will come down?

*cough cough* bullshit *cough cough*

Rents are generally determined by trends and averages. Reduce the laws, and the profits go up, the rents will probably stay sky high.

#27, spoken like a clueless poet who couldn't add or subtract his way out of a paper bag. The reason "apodments" are expensive is because of the fundamentals of real estate finance, which a) you are too stupid to understand, b) the Stranger is too stupid to understand, and c) the developers know both you and the Stranger are too stupid to understand, which is why they throw out all of those cliches that you people lap up like thirsty dogs on a hot summer afternoon.

@28 Not so much reduce as change. Instead of doing this on a project by project basis we should set clear rules for the City as a whole that encourage density while still making sure that development pays for itself.

@29 Wasn't talking about apodments. I really have no idea if they will catch on, but I really don't see why I should want to stop people from trying. They are not substandard housing or harmful.

@30 Then no project will want exceptions to the rules already set? And that rents will come down because of that?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait...you were serious? Let me laugh harder!

Seriously..,everything already is about exceptions. Have you never heard "Give them an inch, they'll take a mile?"