The only thing Seattle-ites hate more than density is sprawl.

OK, it's ridiculous, but so are multi-unit buildings with exorbitant and/or insufficient parking. Or apodments. Density is fine if the infrastructure can handle it. But the bullshit going on now is just the result of bribed rule-makers.

Seattle's already full of people living in houses who won't use their built-in parking, i.e. the driveways and garages. Why should new construction be held to a higher standard? The only people inconvenienced by the hypothetical apartment dweller who doesn't pay for a parking space is...other people who aren't paying for a parking space and who view the public streets as their rightful parking spot because it's in front of a place they pay rent or mortgage on.

We suffer from lack of basic forward thinking in zoning, bureaucratic approvals that allow for massive backlogs/fraud and consensus approvals for building.

Your average single investor can't build in this market, and even a couple of people with a LLC won't dare try, you would get bled out by nimby review meetings and go broke.

So the only people left for development are out of state firms and investment companies, just look at the ownership and who gives money to the mayor and council.

So we get buildings that are high on ROI have crappy strip mall tenants and use the worst materials and design possible.

Don't blame the builders for the market the city has fostered and built.

Six stories cuts off an enormous amount of sunlight. If you want Seattle to become even more gloomy and dreary, that's the way to go.

My concept for building affordable, in city housing is to build 6-8 story buildings with bare bones lofts of say, 20x20x18, ample for one to two people, (400 sq ft plus enough headroom to add a loft) and 20x40x18 for small families. (800 sq ft common area and enough headroom to build 2-3 upstairs bedrooms.
Units of uniform size could be built off site and delivered. (there is a project in downtown Seattle being constructed in this manner)
In my project, you would be buying a truly empty unit, with nothing more than a bathroom installed, (the roof of which could serve as a sleeping loft) and plumbing in place for kitchen fixtures, washer and dryer and radiant heat concrete floors.
Depending on the cost of the land, this seems to be a way that space could be built and sold for $100,000 - $200,000 a unit, putting them in reach of pretty average people. Prefab and mass produced, with roofs devoted to solar panels and a small adjacent lot as a community pea patch, we could build new, affordable urban homes that working people could afford. Why not?
Buying a home without fixtures seems odd to us in the US, but isn't that unusual elsewhere.

@5- move to the sammamish plateau, disconnect your Internet, shut the fuck up and die already.

That is beyond absurd. What is the alternative? If the uber-wealthy aren't drawn in by luxry high-rises, will they just cease to exist? Or will they live on huge and hugely inneficcient lots contributing to urban sprall? The argument seems to be that if we limit height the super-wealthy will turn into middle class and that will balance out the negative effects of decreased density.

Density without restorative public open space sucks hard (Note: sidewalk cafes are not public and not restorative). Build high, but then build (and maintain) a Central Park too. If DPD and Parks could hold hands that would be great.

Maybe one day Seattle will be as dense as Hong Kong, NYC or San Fran and we will be able enjoy their ultra affordable housing too!

@5 People seem to manage in London. If you don't like overcast skies you're in the wrong side of the state.

@10 Hong Kong ran out of space and people don't want to move to the mainland for political reasons, San Francisco is basically the poster boy for making it hard to build new units and NYC's density isn't something that it can replicate with it's current regulatory environment (which is why Brooklyn looks like Brooklyn and not more like Manhattan).

Another really good example of what preventing density from happening organically looks like is DC. We're not talking about making everything look like Tokyo, we're talking about making cities function the way they do throughout most of the developed world. Paris is tremendously dense but doesn't look it. So is Munich. Our choices are the outliers here.

@Dominic: Have you read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Sprawl-Compact-His…

If so, I'd be curious to hear your take on it. While there is plenty to disagree with in it, I also found it to be quite thought provoking as well.

I am generally pro-density, but I think it's still a fair question to ask: Is all density created equal and is the effect of increased density always the same in every place?

Density itself obviously doesn't send prices skyrocketing, but when the developers over-appraise the value of the space so that only wealthy people can afford it and city government leaves it up to the "market" to decide housing and rental costs without setting and kind of income limits, it's inevitable that your vertical density is going to be prohibitively expensive for most people--especially when the real estate in question is highly desirable (who doesn't want to live where they work?). You can have all the housing units in the world, and it won't make a damn difference if demand continues unabated. Only the implosion of the new housing bubble or the tech industry will reverse that without government intervention. Lloyd Alter is conflating correlation with causation. The fact is there is a cost problem; but it's not because shit's close together.

@5: Six stories just isn't that tall of a building. I read a lot about all the controversy surrounding NC-65 zoning in certain neighborhoods. Then, I went and looked at an NC-65 building on Capitol Hill (the one west of Zoe on Union FWIW).

At that point, I stood there mystified wondering what all the blow-back was about. That height seems completely appropriate to me in the urban village portion of a city neighborhood.

They are building an NC-65 building on the top of Beacon Hill right now near the light rail. This seems like the perfect place for that sort of building. It's on the top of the hill, it's near transit, etc. It's not going to block a lot of light for many people, especially whenthe buildings are sited correctly.

A 6 story building is not a 14 story building. It's not a skyscraper. It's just a modest increase in height over and NC-45 building. To my eyes, the difference is negligible.

Forty to one hundred story is the future.

Deal with it.

Density in my neighborhood is tearing down an older $400K house, splitting the lot, and building two ugly "modern" $1M homes in its place.

I think elsewhere, too, the more dense housing is simply displacing the older more affordable housing.

I agree that height restrictions should not be the focus of this debate, but full on embrace of density on the part of the Province, City, Mayor's office, and developers up here in Vancouver have lead to the fastest growth in living costs in all of North America. This has in turn caused sprawl issues that put Seattle's to shame: the Vancouver suburbs of Surrey, Delta and Abbotsford have the fastest growing populations in Canada specifically because Vancouverites are being driven out by high density developments that only cater to high-end buyers and tech-industry clustering.

The assumption that all density = lower costs of living and environmental impact is not evidence based. Only density with very strict government provisions for the creation of large quantities of low-income units and low environmental impact can actually achieve the impact that density advocates so often advertise, and neither Vancouver nor Seattle have those provisions or means of enforcement in place.

These NIMBY activists, while the certainly do have some stupid small-town-ideal hold ups going on, are only going to become more powerful in Seattle, because people will see them as preventing the demolition of cheap housing in the name of building expensive housing, which may or may not ever become inexpensive. That is what has happened up here - anti-density advocates are now the driving force of COPE, the most progressive, and second biggest, political party active in the city of Vancouver.

soooo
@2
on insuffecient parking- that is not a problem in this town. Developers are required to build TONS of parking, and honestly, a lot of it doesn't get used. DT is less that 2/3 full. A lot of the people who are moving to the central city dont want a car, so you are making developers use room that could be used on apts on cars.
@5
6 stories is not high. Also, we dont get sunlight, so shadows dont really matter. :)

In general-
Affordability is a supply and demand problem. Killing off all those 24-40 story luxury highrises will not make your rent go back down. It will make it go up faster. You just get a SF situation, which is a town that "looks" affordable, but is anything but.
The thing about rich people is that this is a capitalist country, so if someone outbids you, they get the thing. Rich people can live where-ever they want. Right now they want to live in Downtown Seattle, and Seattle in general. You can't stop them. But if you let developers build them some snazzy place on 1st Ave, they might buy that and not your place. There is no reverse "Field of Dreams". If we don't build it, they will still come, and norms will be seriously effed. If we build it, they will still come, and us norms will be less effed.

didn't George Mcfly say something about density. "I am your density"?

@6, building a $100k unit on a $500k plot of land is... not going to happen. That's pretty much all of Seattle. A building of that value on that plot is called a teardown.

Your idea of prefab housing on low-value land is called a trailer park.

@22- no, building a 100 K unit on 500K of land is not going to happen. Nor did I suggest it. I suggested building 6-8 stories tall, with the units roughly 20x20 cubes. So, at 4 units per floor, and five floors, that would be 20 units. At 200 K a unit, that's 4 mil. So in your example, with 500K in land cost, that works out to 25K per unit. There's no reason why the prefab cubes should cost more than 25-30K to build. Add another 50K for delivery, on site assembly, permitting, etc. and the final cost is in the 100K range. The developer should be able to realize 2 mil in gross profit. Not to shabby.

@23 I love armchair speculation by people who have no idea what things cost.

You should run down to a bank with your business plan, you got a winner no one has considered.

@20, one parking space for every unit is no longer required in Seattle.

"The fact is there is a cost problem; but it's not because shit's close together." -- can't remember who said it, but FTW.

@18 has a good point. The problem isn't density per se, it's NEW density, which is inevitably priced higher than older developments.

Also @20. In some ways lack of affordable housing is a side effect of other desirable things, like jobs and amenities and views and so on. So what to do? Encourage the "downtown Seattle just isn''t safe!" meme and try to scare the rich away?

If you're so concerned about the "wealthy", the way to deal with that is to pass an income tax already, not to deny yourself nice things out of a fear that the wealthy will want them. I'm being generous and assuming this argument comes out of ignorance, not cynicism.

Oh, and shut up about skyscrapers. Nobody's gonna build a residential skyscraper in Seattle. You should be so lucky.

All the new apartments and condos being thrown up by blow and go contractors and their crews of hacks will all be a bunch rotting boxes with peeling paint in a few decades. All the interior "woodwork" made from plastic, sawdust, and toxic formaldehyde resins will be crap in as little as one decade. While they are replacing houses that have stood for over 100 years and still have tremendous charm. Density by itself is nothing. Where is the craftsmanship? Where is the artistry? The charm? How green is it to design something to be thrown in the landfill every couple decades instead of building something to last?

@28 There was shoddy construction 100 years ago, too, that rotted away, leaving only the most solid examples. It will be the same with what's being built right now. Some of us are sick of cute bungalows and would like a change of scenery, not to mention more housing. In the meantime, if NIMBYs didn't try so hard to drive up the cost of new construction with redundant reviews, there might be more money for solid construction.

@29 saying that developers would reallocate permit savings into better design and craftsmanship is like saying tax breaks for the wealthy create more jobs.... In other words bullshit. I'm all for density just not the ugly ass boxes that developers are slapping up as cheap as they can. I'd like to see more regulation regarding aesthetics, durable materials, provisions for green space, windows for more natural light. And yes green building (and deconstruction of demolished buildings)

The demand for green homes is met by the supply. Most people font really cat, of those that do, the price tag puts many of them off. The resign folks live in LEEDS certified buildings.

I don't know how great a job Seattle does of advocating for it's citizens, but if you learn from the San Francisco and Manhattan experience you'll definitely be skeptical of claims that we can build our way to affordable housing! Take San Francisco latest fight over 8 Washington, where developers were seeking a pretty modest exemption to height limits to build (drum role!) LUXURY CONDOS! For this San Francisco was offered the promise of some shitty retail space, a "park" (i.e. the landscaping around said shitty retail space and luxury condos), and a paltry $11 million for the affordable housing fund (or less than the cost of 2 units in their 154 unit development). That's an affordable housing contribution less than 2% where in most cases developers have to provide 12.5%.

But we voted that shit down!!! And I think it's because San Franciscans are sick of a city government satisfied with asking for the bear minimum from these land developers. It's a case where height limits were a savior for housing activists. They have to take the whole thing back to concept now, and we're all hoping for a better deal for the city on it's next proposal.

If I had my way we'd set the height limit of each play 1 story below the current building, and rake these fuckers over the coals in exchange for letting them build anything at all! And I suggest Seattle go with THAT strategy while you still have a chance.

And Dominic you are SO WRONG about your prediction that luxury developments can't ever account for the majority. There are two below market developments going up in SF right now that I know of, and there are 8 luxury condo or apartment buildings going up just counting what's going on on Market between Castro and Octavia.

One has a butterfly garden and sits about a whole foods. And it should be fire bombed!

tooooo many people...

Landlords have no incentive for green building because they don't pay the light and heat bill... Renters have no say in the construction of a residence

"Green building" is only attractive to developers as a marketing slogan. There are two new 4000sq ft "green" McMansions on my street. What a joke! Standards that encourage sustainable use of natural resources is a public interest and not merely a private concern for only the landlord and renter. I don't know about skyscrapers, but it seems our problem is not one of too much restriction on development.