Zoning changes and comprehensive plans are not new housing. Nor are they necessarily affordable. How does one gauge the worth of these plans? Do they have contingencies for housing seniors? How will displaced populations be be accommodated? Are the units large enough to house families? And if we are still planning for two-unit households, WHY, during a climate crisis when we should be stretching these resources as thin as we can. I’d love to see a deeper dive on these questions.

Oops, I meant two-people households. It’s much easier on the planet for larger groups to share basic living resources. It’s also more affordable.

Or we could restore the 70% of Seattle zoned for SFH back to the original 1930s 65 foot zoning with ground floor retail allowed.

That would actually work.

@3 The ground floor retail is silly - so much of it goes empty!

@4: First, how much is “so much,” and second, the size of those spaces matters. Make them too large, and those interesting local businesses which provide a few jobs and make a neighborhood fun can’t afford the rent; occupants will all be corporate chains. I’d like to know if the proposed zoning changes recognize this reality.

“Seattle households average about 2.05 people per unit. The planners also stressed the importance of the “at least” qualifier in the comp plan.“

So the Harrell admin wants more polyamory? Threesomes and Foursomes to lower housing needs?

“Harrell’s plan, which would allow at least 100,000 new units over the next 20 years, sticks closer to the status quo than to the vision of abundant housing put forward by advocates.”

A vision with no money, no projected source of money, and mostly consists of platitudes about how much those advocates want to zone away the SFH they hate.

“God forbid they allow enough housing to keep prices down.”

Barring economic catastrophe, that will not happen. The previous economic catastrophe in Seattle, the Boeing Slump of the late 1960s, kept housing prices down for 45 years. Any modern economic catastrophe on that level would make the current “housing crisis” look just peachy.

People will move here based on how desirable it is to live here. There is effectively no way for a policy of "everybody gets a house" to ever provide sufficient housing, because every increase in supply will also increase demand.

Since there will never be "enough," we should probably settle for "more."

@1 "Housing seniors:" That's funny, the idea of Hannah or the Stranger giving a fuck about old people. If they think about seniors at all, it's to revile them for having different opinions. You know, the kind of opinions you get from a lifetime of experience, not the black-and-white surety of youthful True Believers.

@3 That would only work if a substantial majority of existing single family homeowners elected, in the very near future, to tear down their homes and replace them with multi-unit housing. Actually, to really make change, they would need to build low-income multi-unit housing.

Do you truly believe that, say, a young professional couple who just outbid a dozen other buyers to get their dream home in Ballard are actually going to do that? Because that's the only way a zoning change will result in more housing.

Personally, I think it's idiotic to expect our existing single family homeowners to build us out of the housing crisis. The free market is not going to solve homelessness.

Where did this entitled view that everyone can afford to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world? Most people understand that they will never be able to live in downtown New York City or Seattle. Tough. Grow up.

@11: This sense of entitlement comes as doubly surprising from the Stranger. Thirty years ago, the first generation of writers at the Stranger could not always afford to live in Capitol Hill apartments, back when the rent there was around $500/month (less than $1,000/month in today’s money). Why they imagine they should be able to afford it now is anyone’s guess.

@11: Median household income (half make more, half make less) in Seattle is higher than median household income in Manhattan. There are more than twice as many households in Manhattan as there are in Seattle.

That means there are more households making less than Seattle's median income living in Manhattan than there are total households in Seattle.

Enabling people with less to live near all the things people with more like to live near is a doable thing, and Seattle has been doing a terrible job of it. We can and should choose to do better at it.

@13: Numbers and sources, please.

Then, how many of those homes with lower-income residents are tenements, decrepit housing projects, and other places no one in Seattle would ever want to pay rent upon?

Finally, your plan for re-zoning Seattle to look like Manhattan would be a wonder to behold, no doubt.

@13: 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) data at data dot census dot gov, table S1901

Manhattan borough, New York County, New York: 803844 households, $95866 median income
Seattle: 367119 households, $115409 median income

I think it has to do with how kids are raised now. They seem to think that they should always be happy and should always be able to get what they want without putting in any effort. My son’s girlfriend somehow believes that a two bedroom apartment is a human right. She thinks that the thirty hours she works a week should more than pay for all her wants. If she is priced out it isn’t about the hours she works. It’s that she is getting screwed by the system. Entitled.

It seems to me that the push for townhomes and ADU/DADUs is essentially "condoizing" the city and locking in the SFH for the foreseeable future.

@17 Yes, I think that is the case. Allowing 4 units on 6000sq. ft. lots will just result in construction of $850,000+ townhomes. That will likely result in a gradual increase in housing density, but it's not going to get people out of encampments.

@18 While there are certainly lots of new construction townhomes selling for $850,000 or more, there are also already those selling in the $600s and $700s - and that's with them being effectively limited to a few hundred acres of LR1 zoned land.

While people in encampments likely won't be buying newly allowed townhomes and stacked flats, legalizing them on more / all residential land likely provide many more ownership opportunities at levels middle class workers in Seattle can afford and that's good in itself.

@13, @15: Why compare part of a city (Manhattan) with an entire city (Seattle)? Why ignore the other four-fifths (!) of New York City? Why do you believe this comparison is valid?