Slog
News & ArtsFriday, July 10, 2009
City One-Third of the City Council and Me in a Van
Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:44 PM
City Council Member Sally Clark is driving a nine-seat white van, borrowed from the city’s motor pool, onto an I-5 onramp. “I have to drive or else I get sick,” she says. “It guarantees I won’t ever move on to higher office,” Clark adds (because, as governor or president, she’d be chauffeured). City Council Member Jean Godden is befooted in gold flats sitting in the passenger seat. Next to me in the back row is City Council Member Tim Burgess, who Twitters the trip from his phone. City hall employees are buckled in with us. We are heading to South Seattle.
Earlier this year, Mayor Greg Nickels submitted legislation to the city council that would allow people across Seattle to build residential cottages in their back yard. Under the proposed rules, the property owner would be required to live in the house or cottage (preventing landlords from simply building two units on one house's lot). It’s based on a pilot program in Southeast Seattle that passed in 2006—to the horror of neighbors who feared a plague of backyard construction. But three years later, only 17 cottages have been built and the city council’s land-use committee decided to take a look to see if they should expand the program citywide.
Our van stopped at seven cottages yesterday afternoon: some converted garages, some new structures made to look old, and one contemporary gem.
This awesome cottage is still being completed on Beacon Hill
next to a green host-house that's also under construction
The city’s Northwest District Council was hostile to the idea when DPD presented the concept last month. There was “finger pointing and yelling,” according to Department of Planning and Development staffer Andrea Petzel.
“A cottage is not something that is two stories tall and 800 square feet. That is not cottage; that is another house,” says Northwest District Council Co-chair Irene Wall. The group will probably consider supporting or opposing the cottages at a meeting next month. “My sense of it is that it is unnecessary and it doesn’t solve any problems, and it creates a lack of privacy, busting single-family zoning,” she says.
But the city council members in the van seemed immune to the knee-jerk NIYBY—not in your back yard—reaction to cottages. In contrast, they were concerned that the mayor's proposal to cap the number of new cottage permits at 50 per year is too restrictive (the mayor wants to slow their proliferation). Clark, who chairs the council’s land-use committee, said she believes there is “pent up demand” for cottages, based on emails she's received, and that a cap could “unnecessarily push people to rush to the permit counter.” Burgess, who also sits on the committee, believed the limit on the cottages could drive up demand for them, thereby increasing rental costs. A cap, he said, “doesn’t move toward what we are trying to accomplish: more affordability and housing.”
2
Dominic, can you clarify the following sentence: "Under the proposed rules, the property would be required to live in the house or cottage (preventing landlords from simply building two units on one single-family-zones lot)."
I don't understand if "property" in this context is a typo (property owner, perhaps?) or some kind of land-use jargon/shorthand that I don't know of.
I don't understand if "property" in this context is a typo (property owner, perhaps?) or some kind of land-use jargon/shorthand that I don't know of.
4
This will be the death knell to Seattle.
Cramped overpriced "cottages"
People are fleeing to better cities, better weather, cheaper housing and with more class A singles to date.
Cramped overpriced "cottages"
People are fleeing to better cities, better weather, cheaper housing and with more class A singles to date.
5
Wait, now I like it, because If it's okay to say someone's "befooted" in gold flats, my next condom will make me "bedicked" in a Trojan Thintensity.
6
'Cottage' is a funny word. Cottage cottage cottage cottage cottage cottage cottage cottage cottage cottage cottage cottage cottage.
Ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
7
So, really fast question. What is the total number of housing units we're talking about? 500?
With say maybe 1000 people in them.
Now, compare that to just allowing residential rental apartment buildings with nearby greenspace to build up to 40 stories instead of 8 stories ...
Hmmm. A drop of water compared to a deluge.
Sorry, I'm going to go with real zoning change near light rail and streetcar stations, which will do far more to actually lower rental costs in this city than any of these cottages ever will.
P.S.: Under current zoning they can build 2-3 story townhouses anyway, which is a higher usage of the land. And they will build those if we don't get serious about large-scale residential rental housing soon. So forget about all your charming houses - they're going bye bye.
With say maybe 1000 people in them.
Now, compare that to just allowing residential rental apartment buildings with nearby greenspace to build up to 40 stories instead of 8 stories ...
Hmmm. A drop of water compared to a deluge.
Sorry, I'm going to go with real zoning change near light rail and streetcar stations, which will do far more to actually lower rental costs in this city than any of these cottages ever will.
P.S.: Under current zoning they can build 2-3 story townhouses anyway, which is a higher usage of the land. And they will build those if we don't get serious about large-scale residential rental housing soon. So forget about all your charming houses - they're going bye bye.
8
Wow, city-dwellers up-in-arms because somebody might live in close proximity to them, whodathunkit?
Maybe they're just afraid of what those way-too-close-neighbors might see some night if they peer out of their windows in into those next door.
Maybe they're just afraid of what those way-too-close-neighbors might see some night if they peer out of their windows in into those next door.
10
This reminds me of the pop and scrape debate in boulder county. A bunch of people trying to increase their property values by tearing down their house and building out to the very legal edge of their property. It's ugly, selfish and means people spend even more time in their houses and less out in the neighborhood.
density requires good planning and larger buildings, not a bunch of single-family dwellings with tiny alleyways between each lot. It's the difference between towing a single-occupancy car behind you and calling it carpooling, and taking the bus. At least the way I see it - I could be swayed if there's a better argument than simply 'more beds without changing zoning.'
density requires good planning and larger buildings, not a bunch of single-family dwellings with tiny alleyways between each lot. It's the difference between towing a single-occupancy car behind you and calling it carpooling, and taking the bus. At least the way I see it - I could be swayed if there's a better argument than simply 'more beds without changing zoning.'
11
exactly, devilsmoke.
embrace the density, don't try to shoehorn it in. Embracing it means cheaper rents - shoehorning it in means higher rents and Seattle becoming too expensive to live in even for the upper middle class.
embrace the density, don't try to shoehorn it in. Embracing it means cheaper rents - shoehorning it in means higher rents and Seattle becoming too expensive to live in even for the upper middle class.
12
This is a pretty nit-picky for a blog post, but your context for your quote is off, Dominic.
"Burgess, who also sits on the committee, believed the limit on the cottages could drive up demand for them, thereby increasing rental costs. A cap, he said, “doesn’t move toward what we are trying to accomplish: more affordability and housing.”
The cap would not "drive up demand." Driving up demand means to increase demand and move the demand curve to the right. A cap would cause a movement along the existing demand curve by limiting the supply. If the supply is limited to 50, and more are demanded, then the price of rent or whatever increases by a movement back along the existing demand curve to 50.
It's easier to explain with a graph, but the concept is essential to economic reporting.
Glad to hear about the trip. Thanks. And that's funny about Clark and needing to drive. Guess she doesn't ride the bus.
"Burgess, who also sits on the committee, believed the limit on the cottages could drive up demand for them, thereby increasing rental costs. A cap, he said, “doesn’t move toward what we are trying to accomplish: more affordability and housing.”
The cap would not "drive up demand." Driving up demand means to increase demand and move the demand curve to the right. A cap would cause a movement along the existing demand curve by limiting the supply. If the supply is limited to 50, and more are demanded, then the price of rent or whatever increases by a movement back along the existing demand curve to 50.
It's easier to explain with a graph, but the concept is essential to economic reporting.
Glad to hear about the trip. Thanks. And that's funny about Clark and needing to drive. Guess she doesn't ride the bus.
13
What are people in North Seattle doing in their backyards that they need so much privacy anyways?
14
@4 your argument makes no sense, There is too much demand for housing in Seattle (especially lower cost rentals). which is the exact opposite of the situation in Detroit and much of the Rust belt where they have too much housing for too few jobs.
There is a movement (albeit nascent) towards smaller more human sized living spaces. It allows us to de-clutter our lives and connect with what is really important.
so come back when you have a developed argument without specious analogies.
There is a movement (albeit nascent) towards smaller more human sized living spaces. It allows us to de-clutter our lives and connect with what is really important.
so come back when you have a developed argument without specious analogies.
16
As a resident of one of the seventeen southeast Seattle lots with a cottage on the property, I fully support spreading the ordinance to the rest of the city, provided we get more specific about requirements for development. Our garage was crushed in the 2007 windstorm, and we've constructed the replacement with a 600 square foot apartment on top. Currently, my grandparents live there, and it's been great to have them live close enough for us to help them out while still letting them have a degree of independence. We're all very happy with the arrangement, and think these cottages could enjoy similar success elsewhere.
17
@7, under current Single Family zoning, you cannot build 2-3 story townhouses on a single family-zoned lot. You can build a single house, with a mother-in-law dwelling that is attached to your house. Not a duplex, not a house with a separate garage with apartment on top (ala Fonzi).
There are many homes in Seattle that have been zoned Single Family, but are tiny houses on huge lots. My 800 sq ft house sits on nearly 7000 sq ft. I am not a farmer and do not need that much land. Under current zoning, I can build a two-story garage/shop/outbuilding that has a 1000 sq ft footprint - 2 1/2 times the size of my house - and my neighbors can't do anything to stop me. But I can't include a little apartment for my parents to use when they come to visit, and I can't build a separate cottage for them.
I could do like 25% of my neighbors, and sell to a developer who will knock down my perfectly fine little house and build a 4000 sq ft monster. But I like my little house, so I'll just hope that the City Council passes these rules, and build my little cottage.
There are many homes in Seattle that have been zoned Single Family, but are tiny houses on huge lots. My 800 sq ft house sits on nearly 7000 sq ft. I am not a farmer and do not need that much land. Under current zoning, I can build a two-story garage/shop/outbuilding that has a 1000 sq ft footprint - 2 1/2 times the size of my house - and my neighbors can't do anything to stop me. But I can't include a little apartment for my parents to use when they come to visit, and I can't build a separate cottage for them.
I could do like 25% of my neighbors, and sell to a developer who will knock down my perfectly fine little house and build a 4000 sq ft monster. But I like my little house, so I'll just hope that the City Council passes these rules, and build my little cottage.
18
@13 - none of your business.
That said, while there are some who want to do this, it's really an attempt to be NIMBY about growth. And doesn't solve the basic problem, which the zoning code already allows for a full teardown and replace by taller townhouses, which at least have some restrictions.
That said, while there are some who want to do this, it's really an attempt to be NIMBY about growth. And doesn't solve the basic problem, which the zoning code already allows for a full teardown and replace by taller townhouses, which at least have some restrictions.
19
Go drive down 34th Ave. SW between Morgan and Graham. Look down the drives to the backyards on the east side of the street.
If this ordinance is passed, shit like that needs to be impossible to pull off. No more loopholes that allow "Future Ghettos".
If this ordinance is passed, shit like that needs to be impossible to pull off. No more loopholes that allow "Future Ghettos".
20
The first thing the rules should say is if you have an existing legal structure, like a garage, you can build on that footprint to make it a dwelling.
All these lots used to have 5 people living on them. now they have 2, maybe 3, because people don't have large families anymore. So to go back to 5 people living on a lot (say 3 in one house plus 2 in one "cottage" and yes dn' you hate the bullshitty euphemisms?) means we're only going back to the density we used to have in Ozzie and Harriett days.
They have this all over New Orleans and it's called back houses or garconieres ... a place to stow your rambunctious teens so they can smoke pot and have sex while you pretend not to notice....
it's a good idea.
All these lots used to have 5 people living on them. now they have 2, maybe 3, because people don't have large families anymore. So to go back to 5 people living on a lot (say 3 in one house plus 2 in one "cottage" and yes dn' you hate the bullshitty euphemisms?) means we're only going back to the density we used to have in Ozzie and Harriett days.
They have this all over New Orleans and it's called back houses or garconieres ... a place to stow your rambunctious teens so they can smoke pot and have sex while you pretend not to notice....
it's a good idea.
21
Irene Wall is a total bitch. Here's why:
From a Seattle PI article in September 2008: "Seattle's growth projection reflects a city pushing limits"
IRENE WALL: [Every few years, officials come up with new growth projections, she noted.] "That turns out to be just kind of this rolling total. There never seems to be a point at which we say: 'Hey, we're full.' "
Hey, Irene, what you're saying is you want to build a big zoning wall around Seattle that prevents any more people from being able to live here. But people DO want to live here. So all your wall does is drive up the cost of living here as people bid up the price. That makes Seattle become the next San Francisco. Speaking for all the renters current and future, and all the future first-time homebuyers in Seattle: You're a fucking selfish bitch. Move to fucking Siberia if you want to be alone.
From a Seattle PI article in September 2008: "Seattle's growth projection reflects a city pushing limits"
IRENE WALL: [Every few years, officials come up with new growth projections, she noted.] "That turns out to be just kind of this rolling total. There never seems to be a point at which we say: 'Hey, we're full.' "
Hey, Irene, what you're saying is you want to build a big zoning wall around Seattle that prevents any more people from being able to live here. But people DO want to live here. So all your wall does is drive up the cost of living here as people bid up the price. That makes Seattle become the next San Francisco. Speaking for all the renters current and future, and all the future first-time homebuyers in Seattle: You're a fucking selfish bitch. Move to fucking Siberia if you want to be alone.
22
@20 is correct. Back when people first lived in Seattle, a lot of those cute houses on Capitol Hill that have a nice gay couple in them used to have probably 8 people.
Our density has gone down but our housing stock hasn't gone up much.
Most of us used to live in 800 sq foot of living space and thought that was roomy. Heck, when I was 11, my family lived in a one room cabin - all six of us.
But, good idea?
Nah, at best we're talking 500 houses over a decade.
Population in this area will increase MANY times that.
Our density has gone down but our housing stock hasn't gone up much.
Most of us used to live in 800 sq foot of living space and thought that was roomy. Heck, when I was 11, my family lived in a one room cabin - all six of us.
But, good idea?
Nah, at best we're talking 500 houses over a decade.
Population in this area will increase MANY times that.
24
I'm not sure I mind the idea of subdivisions and building another house on your property. But whatever that red building is, it is not a cottage.
28
Several good ideas here. I hope DPD code writers are paying attention.
Dominic, do you have the list of the 17 cottages already built in SE? I know the one on Beacon Hill, but it sure would be nice to have the addresses and check out the others too.
One of my concerns, not insurmountable, is are we giving up on ever again being a city for families with children?
A back yard of a single-family house, if it's essentially filled up with a cottage, then are children ever again going to be raised on that property? Most probably not.
And how does the CITY (DPD) enforce the requirement that the property owner live onsite in one of the two dwellings?
I build a cottage on my property and rent it successfully. Then I find a job in another city, but don't want to sell because the market is way down. I have to leave one unit vacant or else sell at a loss? Helluva choice for the City to force on someone in that situation.
Reality is that both units will be rented and nobody will be the wiser, until some nosey neighbor decides to meddle.
And lastly, if cottages (or attached accessory units) are such a good idea, why are all the non-profit developers, those who build single-family houses, doing so with no such second units included? Lower income buyers would benefit by the added rental income and the community could absorb more residents with few impacts, yet this opportunity is systematically ignored.
Let's continue the conversation.
Dominic, do you have the list of the 17 cottages already built in SE? I know the one on Beacon Hill, but it sure would be nice to have the addresses and check out the others too.
One of my concerns, not insurmountable, is are we giving up on ever again being a city for families with children?
A back yard of a single-family house, if it's essentially filled up with a cottage, then are children ever again going to be raised on that property? Most probably not.
And how does the CITY (DPD) enforce the requirement that the property owner live onsite in one of the two dwellings?
I build a cottage on my property and rent it successfully. Then I find a job in another city, but don't want to sell because the market is way down. I have to leave one unit vacant or else sell at a loss? Helluva choice for the City to force on someone in that situation.
Reality is that both units will be rented and nobody will be the wiser, until some nosey neighbor decides to meddle.
And lastly, if cottages (or attached accessory units) are such a good idea, why are all the non-profit developers, those who build single-family houses, doing so with no such second units included? Lower income buyers would benefit by the added rental income and the community could absorb more residents with few impacts, yet this opportunity is systematically ignored.
Let's continue the conversation.
29
"A back yard of a single-family house, if it's essentially filled up with a cottage, then are children ever again going to be raised on that property? Most probably not."
Usually there is still some yard space, and possibly a front yard too. I am not sure why so many parents feel they need a football field's worth of space for the bambinos to play in, unless it's because modern parents are terrified of letting the children leave their yard at all.
When I was growing up, there were several "mother-in-law apartments" in our neighborhood -- they were backyard cottages, built before our neighborhood was annexed into Seattle. And they were adorable. Cute tiny little houses, often with extended family members living in them who -- guess what -- could help take care of the kids. So kids would either play in the small yard, or visit the relatives in the cottage, or go play at friends' houses, or the local park. Not really a problem.
Later, as I got older, most of those cottages were torn down. My favorite cottage was torn down and they paved over the spot and used it for PARKING. This did not improve the neighborhood. Another one was torn down along with the main house on the lot and replaced by a Mini-Mansion, which was built to face the alley on the side of the lot, and so the side that faces the actual street is a blank concrete retaining wall, topped by an almost windowless side of the house. Thanks a lot, assholes. That sure looks good to the neighbors... but I digress.
At any rate, having actually lived in a neighborhood that had DADUs (and now in SE Seattle where they have them again), I honestly can't understand why people find them so scary, but then again I like living in the city. The only issue I have with them now is that some people seem to like to build them ugly. There is one building in our neighborhood that I think is supposed to be a DADU but it's just mostly a vertical box -- and not even in the modern designy way like the one pictured above, but one that just looks weird. Looks like they were trying to take advantage of the view by building tall, but the proportions look strange.
More...
Usually there is still some yard space, and possibly a front yard too. I am not sure why so many parents feel they need a football field's worth of space for the bambinos to play in, unless it's because modern parents are terrified of letting the children leave their yard at all.
When I was growing up, there were several "mother-in-law apartments" in our neighborhood -- they were backyard cottages, built before our neighborhood was annexed into Seattle. And they were adorable. Cute tiny little houses, often with extended family members living in them who -- guess what -- could help take care of the kids. So kids would either play in the small yard, or visit the relatives in the cottage, or go play at friends' houses, or the local park. Not really a problem.
Later, as I got older, most of those cottages were torn down. My favorite cottage was torn down and they paved over the spot and used it for PARKING. This did not improve the neighborhood. Another one was torn down along with the main house on the lot and replaced by a Mini-Mansion, which was built to face the alley on the side of the lot, and so the side that faces the actual street is a blank concrete retaining wall, topped by an almost windowless side of the house. Thanks a lot, assholes. That sure looks good to the neighbors... but I digress.
At any rate, having actually lived in a neighborhood that had DADUs (and now in SE Seattle where they have them again), I honestly can't understand why people find them so scary, but then again I like living in the city. The only issue I have with them now is that some people seem to like to build them ugly. There is one building in our neighborhood that I think is supposed to be a DADU but it's just mostly a vertical box -- and not even in the modern designy way like the one pictured above, but one that just looks weird. Looks like they were trying to take advantage of the view by building tall, but the proportions look strange.
30
So how exactly is this not de-facto duplexing of single-family neighborhoods, again?
I'm sure DPD will force the owners of a new so-called "cottage" to tear it down if at some point they no longer occupy the other structure on the property, right?
I'm also sure DPD will do as good a job keeping developers from using the loopholes in this proposed legislation as they did preventing the misuse of unit lot subdivisions to build 4-pack condo townhomes.
I'm also sure there is a Santa Claus and an Easter Bunny.
(PS - I actually live in a detached ADU, albeit one that was built before the part of the City I live in was incorporated and is a grandfathered structure. It just pisses me off to see City employees out-and-out lie like the DPD planner quoted in the Seattle Times the other day who actually said that this wasn't designed to increase density.)
I'm sure DPD will force the owners of a new so-called "cottage" to tear it down if at some point they no longer occupy the other structure on the property, right?
I'm also sure DPD will do as good a job keeping developers from using the loopholes in this proposed legislation as they did preventing the misuse of unit lot subdivisions to build 4-pack condo townhomes.
I'm also sure there is a Santa Claus and an Easter Bunny.
(PS - I actually live in a detached ADU, albeit one that was built before the part of the City I live in was incorporated and is a grandfathered structure. It just pisses me off to see City employees out-and-out lie like the DPD planner quoted in the Seattle Times the other day who actually said that this wasn't designed to increase density.)
31
Second the comment re: ugly design killing any enthusiasm I may have for the idea of "cottages".
I live a couple blocks away from the "awesome cottage" and the "host house". They are a good use of space, and might have design features...but they have no tie-in to the rest of the neighborhood.
I'm pro-density, but I also appreciate neighborhood-friendly design. I also appreciate multi-family density. Why cram two single-family homes onto one lot?
There are some horrible examples of this in Lake City & Northgate. The yards are entirely pavement for parking and the effect is two duplexes crammed into one lot with parking/garages given priority over curb appeal.
I live a couple blocks away from the "awesome cottage" and the "host house". They are a good use of space, and might have design features...but they have no tie-in to the rest of the neighborhood.
I'm pro-density, but I also appreciate neighborhood-friendly design. I also appreciate multi-family density. Why cram two single-family homes onto one lot?
There are some horrible examples of this in Lake City & Northgate. The yards are entirely pavement for parking and the effect is two duplexes crammed into one lot with parking/garages given priority over curb appeal.
32
Based on the numbers from the Southeast Seattle pilot program, a cap of 50 units per year seems reasonable.
33
The amusing thing is we're talking about one percent of the quantity of housing in comparison to tall residential apartment buildings, no matter how we slice it.
It's like worrying about pennies while someone is taking your dollar bills.
It's like worrying about pennies while someone is taking your dollar bills.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (33) RSS