Slog
News & ArtsFriday, March 22, 2013
Boom Seattle Needs to Welcome Growth and Get Over Itself
Posted by Roger Valdez on Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:16 AM
This guest post is by Roger Valdez, director of Smart Growth Seattle, a group supporting more housing in Seattle.
There are three types of land use that have generated lots of discussion and debate about how and whether Seattle grows in the next 20 years: zoning in South Lake Union; small, affordable apartments; and infill development. Who will control this growth? Who will determine how much housing will cost? How much will we build? Where will that growth happen?
We simply can’t and shouldn’t micromanage coming growth, trying to control the price of every apartment, the roofline of every new home, and the siding and color of every new apartment building. Trying to do that will slow growth, having the effect of lowering housing supply, increasing the costs to accommodate new people, and, in the end, increasing housing prices. And remember, dense cities are better for the environment, more efficiently using land, energy, aggregating demand for transit, and creating fewer climate-changing emissions per capita than sprawl.
Seattle has got to move beyond the confused notion that we can make the city more affordable and livable by imposing price controls on rental housing and trying to have a hand in the design and particulars of every new development. We’re a big city, too big to be acting like a couple rearranging furniture in their new apartment.
The broad outlines of what we need to do are pretty simple if leaders in the city can steer the debate in a different direction:
Lower Housing Prices: If we decide that housing prices are too high, then we need to increase supply (grant more building permits) and lower barriers and costs by reducing regulations and rules. Adding more process, imposing fees on new housing, and reviewing design won’t help lower prices—it will cause them to go up. A recent New York Times story reported that falling housing supply and increasing demand for housing is leading to rising prices. Nationwide prices went up 7.3 percent in 2012. "After six years of waiting on the sidelines, newly eager home buyers across the country are discovering that there are not enough houses for sale to accommodate the recent flush of demand," the paper reported.
Expand Choices: We need lots of choices for housing—from small, affordable apartments and cottages to new single-family homes. Singling out one form or another and bashing it doesn’t help. If it provides safe, healthy shelter and someone is willing to pay for it, we should permit it and let it get built.
Define Affordability: We need a better definition of affordability. I’ve suggested one called the Residual Income Model that would consider broader measures to determine what factors are making it more expensive to live in the city. Monthly housing price is only a slice of the costs of living in the city, if we can appreciably lower other costs—such as child care, health costs, and transportation—we can make it more affordable to live here. Putting price caps on housing will discourage new building and result in, surprise, higher prices.
Welcome Growth: We need to get over our selves. Yes, change is difficult. That new house or building going in down the block might end up being ugly and full of felons. That’s a risk we’re going to have to take. And in the end, the buildings and people will be just fine. We’ll forget what used to be there before and we’ll say “hello” to the new people and sit next to them on the bus. Growth means jobs, people, and more housing and buildings. These are all positive things in the end and are the things that make a city.
We will not make our city affordable by imposing price controls on a few units of housing. We will not “grow with grace” by fiddling with the details on every single new project or zoning change that is proposed. Yes, process is important, but too much is making us look like we’re a group of insular, suspicious people afraid of change. We need to stop using code language like “good density” and “density done right” the way gun nuts use “states rights” to mask their immoral support of open air gun markets.
More supply and choice in the housing market will make our city accessible and affordable to more and different kinds of people. We are an open-minded people, aren’t we? Didn’t we get all excited at the hope and change offered by Obama? What happened to that? We are going to be fine. We need to relax and welcome change. It won’t hurt a bit. I promise.
2
I agree. I would suggest the following two changes (at a minimum):
1) Get rid of parking requirements.
2) Ease, if not eliminate restrictions based on units. In other words, if a building is allowed to be 30 feet high in a neighborhood, then that building can be built with 3 units or 30.
You could still keep limits on building size, height, percentage of lot, etc. But getting rid of these two restrictions would make things a lot more affordable without sacrificing the style of a neighborhood. After all, if I can build a big house in your neighborhood, why can't I build the same size house as a duplex? If anything, removing the parking restrictions will make new buildings a lot more attractive. If you asked people to list the most attractive buildings in the city, my guess is that most of them didn't require parking (because they were built before parking requirements or on a campus). Most of the really ugly ones (like duplexes built in Ballard in the 80's) were ugly in large part because of the parking requirements.
1) Get rid of parking requirements.
2) Ease, if not eliminate restrictions based on units. In other words, if a building is allowed to be 30 feet high in a neighborhood, then that building can be built with 3 units or 30.
You could still keep limits on building size, height, percentage of lot, etc. But getting rid of these two restrictions would make things a lot more affordable without sacrificing the style of a neighborhood. After all, if I can build a big house in your neighborhood, why can't I build the same size house as a duplex? If anything, removing the parking restrictions will make new buildings a lot more attractive. If you asked people to list the most attractive buildings in the city, my guess is that most of them didn't require parking (because they were built before parking requirements or on a campus). Most of the really ugly ones (like duplexes built in Ballard in the 80's) were ugly in large part because of the parking requirements.
4
Seattle is too focused on growth and not enough on destruction.
A lot of the buildings around here are ugly eyesores. For every sleek high rise there are 10 buildings that should be razed.
In Japan they recycle skyscrapers every 30 to 40 years!
A lot of the buildings around here are ugly eyesores. For every sleek high rise there are 10 buildings that should be razed.
In Japan they recycle skyscrapers every 30 to 40 years!
5
@2 I like that. I think a key to growth is separating parking from housing. I have a feeling 90% of the complaints about new construction are really complaints about losing "free" (city subsidized) parking.
6
Ah, the strawman argument. "don't try to micromanage" - no one is doing that.
We asking to make sure that our neighborhoods are not chock-a-block with tall, ugly buildings that add nothing BUT density. You want that risk, then you take it but my neighborhood has already experienced 25 years of a slumlord who didn't care and I'll be damned if I'll have multiple slumlords who don't care.
We don't want to slow growth - we want steady but measured growth.
If you get over yourself, Roger, then the rest of us will fall in line. I'll wait.
And also, don't make promises you cannot possibly keep. You don't get your way because of stupid statements like "It won't hurt a bit. I promise."
We asking to make sure that our neighborhoods are not chock-a-block with tall, ugly buildings that add nothing BUT density. You want that risk, then you take it but my neighborhood has already experienced 25 years of a slumlord who didn't care and I'll be damned if I'll have multiple slumlords who don't care.
We don't want to slow growth - we want steady but measured growth.
If you get over yourself, Roger, then the rest of us will fall in line. I'll wait.
And also, don't make promises you cannot possibly keep. You don't get your way because of stupid statements like "It won't hurt a bit. I promise."
8
It's interesting that your guest author ties together the libertarian language of deregulation in with a lament that, dangit, essential services are just too expensive!
Okay, so you want allow builders and 'markets' to freely generate a stock of housing in accordance to their own ingenuity and drive.. without those pesky regulations, but all of us really should put our thinking caps on and address, "child care, health costs, and transportation." Really? And how might we best address those costs? Maybe by socializing them broadly, and distributing those expenses progressively in the tax code? Which, is, I'd argue, a proven effective mechanism to supply adequate inventories of working class housing.
Okay, so you want allow builders and 'markets' to freely generate a stock of housing in accordance to their own ingenuity and drive.. without those pesky regulations, but all of us really should put our thinking caps on and address, "child care, health costs, and transportation." Really? And how might we best address those costs? Maybe by socializing them broadly, and distributing those expenses progressively in the tax code? Which, is, I'd argue, a proven effective mechanism to supply adequate inventories of working class housing.
9
first of all, seattle is probably the whitest place in america. new york city on the other hand has more black people running things. latino's and jews too. thats new york city, diversity. seattle don't even have newspapers anymore, its a tiny little white city like portland. seattle used to be more militant left too, i don't know what happened to it. seattle is run by the restaurants and bars now. the mitt romney supporters.
10
Record number of counties losing population
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Rec…
I know everyone is still moving to Seattle but at the same time the minivan crowd has probably realized it is persona non grata in Washington State and is better selling while prices are high and finding a better deal back in Kansas or Ohio.
A record number of U.S. counties - more than 1 in 3 - are shrinking, hit by an aging population and weakened local economies that are spurring young adults to seek jobs and build families elsewhere.
New 2012 census estimates released Thursday highlight the population shifts as the U.S. encounters its most sluggish growth levels since the Great Depression.
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Rec…
I know everyone is still moving to Seattle but at the same time the minivan crowd has probably realized it is persona non grata in Washington State and is better selling while prices are high and finding a better deal back in Kansas or Ohio.
11
@2 I'd rather make parking requirements work better. Instead of just eliminating them and over-taxing street parking we could allow developers to buy their way out them with things like subsidized zipcars, transit taxes, pedestrian improvements, free bus passes for tenants, etc.
12
Constructing new buildings isn't value free: it often displaces people along race and class lines. There is a human cost to when people are priced out of our homes by increases in real estate values, and as rental properties get sold to developers. Even the term "development" is a pretension that the land is currently lying fallow, undeveloped, when it's already serving the purpose of housing people.
13
@4- That is the worst possible scenario from an environmental perspective. I would argue for a design life of 100 years at a minimum for a single family residence, 150 for commercial. Invest serious time, energy and thought into the building envelope, make it robust and flexible, so that the dozens of different uses it will see in that time can be accommodated and it won't fall down in the first earthquake. Make the systems (electrical, plumbing, hvac, communications) simple and accessible, so they can be serviced and swapped out when better systems come along. And for god's sake, don't let an architect anywhere near the design process- those fuckers will ruin anything they touch.
14
@12 "There is a human cost to when people are priced out of our homes by increases in real estate values" But you have this backwards. Every new home built in Seattle means another household can afford to live here. Roger's commentary above includes aPodments (many new affordable homes compared to the few they replaced), SLU zoning (where there aren't any affordable homes now), and small lot development (where they're just replacing back yards with homes). You're using the wrong argument here.
16
I think if we are going to cut developers (who are generally evil greedy bastards) even more slack than they currently have we need stronger laws to protect neighborhood integrity. Seems like every other week some interesting old building is being ripped down on Capitol Hill to be replaced with shitty town homes or generic condos. I'm all for density but if I wanted to live in Bellevue I would move to Bellevue.
17
Big cities shouldn't manage development? And I suppose a small town that wanted to manage growth would be told they're too small for that.
If the magic of the free market could solve all problems it would have solved them long ago. Somalia would be a paradise. If you don't manage growth you get sprawl, not density. You get Houston. Detroit.
Finally, "...making us look like we’re a group of insular, suspicious people afraid of change."? Look like? Look to whom? Are we trying to impress somebody?
If the magic of the free market could solve all problems it would have solved them long ago. Somalia would be a paradise. If you don't manage growth you get sprawl, not density. You get Houston. Detroit.
Finally, "...making us look like we’re a group of insular, suspicious people afraid of change."? Look like? Look to whom? Are we trying to impress somebody?
18
@10: Hey Bailo: I clicked your link and the areas that are losing population are in places like Kansas and Ohio:
"The areas stretch from industrial areas near Pittsburgh and Cleveland to some rural parts of Northern California to the rural areas of east Texas and the Great Plains."
"The areas stretch from industrial areas near Pittsburgh and Cleveland to some rural parts of Northern California to the rural areas of east Texas and the Great Plains."
19
There is still plenty of land in Seattle for building. Density will not be an issue for a decade or three. South Seattle long the light rail line has swaths of open land ripe for development. But who wants to live with the "minority " folk. Not the young white hipsters who bitch about the high rents in the young-white-hipster-hoods.
This discussion is being had because lots of people have plenty of free time.
This discussion is being had because lots of people have plenty of free time.
20
we are building crap. just filling biulding envelopes with dwelling units. we need the right rules, not just any rules. the right rules would have design standards and bigger setbacks and enforce creation of the little spaces at street level for a bench or a few cafe tables; avoid the huge blank walls of say the backside of the vitamilk site going up right now; open up the corners a bit. the parts of europe, dc or paris we love walking around are not just all filled in building envelopes, they have public place made spaces with the density. we are failing to make those spaces here. part of the reason is tiny tiny streets and sidewalks, there's not much room! the solution is trade some height for bigger setbacks. we have arterials where the facade to facade distance is no greater than on carrie bradshaw's brownstone block in nyc. our major avenues look like the back sides of downtown side streets in other cities. just filling in all parcels and building envelopes with units lacking in grace, style, architecture, etc., is turning us into a vertical or breadloaf version of suburbia -- the dull dull dullness of it all; building product as product; there's no art or charm anywhere. valdez' approach is to give up on that, and that won't work. other things are fine like not requiring parking or apodments -- i am more concerned with the streetscape and that is the part that's suffering as no one is ensuring we are creating livable street level space -- we are becoming like a toronto suburb that allows six story; we're not becoming a beautiful city like paris or dc. or even freaking oh i dunno cologne which will have some kind of town square with cafes. a place for people to be, outside their living units, in a city. are we building a city here, or just building product?
More...
21
Writing a housing related guest post soon after Steubenville? If you for some bizarre reason think of making rapey closing remarks, DON'T.
22
#6 & #17 - Totally agree with you. All you really need to know about this guest post is that he's the director of Smart Growth Seattle. His perspective is based on increasing the dollar amount in his checking account.
24
@11 -- That would be an improvement, without a doubt. However, and this is very important, every regulation, every tax, every restriction on new development is a tax on renters. Maybe its worth it (in some cases, I would argue it is) but it is important to know who pays. The developer doesn't pay, it simply is passed onto the renters. Not just the people who rent in the new building, but people who rent everywhere (unless you have a really long lease). Landlords set their prices competitively. If a new building goes up, I know I better not increase the rent or the tenant will just move. On the other hand, if no new buildings go up, or the only buildings that go up charge really high prices for rent (because they were expensive to build) then I can safely raise the rent.
It is all a trade-off. More zoning restrictions mean higher rent and higher housing prices in general. In some cases it is worth it, but in the case of parking requirements, I would say it isn't. Likewise with unit restrictions. What is the point of that, anyway? Why can't more people (who aren't related) move into that building? My guess is that it is parking related as well (although you could add traffic fears as well).
Another issue (along the same lines) is mother-in-law apartments. Why are ours so restictive (compared to Vancouver or Portland)? If I own a house, why can't I just rent out a separate unit, even if there isn't any parking? Oh yeah, parking.
It is all a trade-off. More zoning restrictions mean higher rent and higher housing prices in general. In some cases it is worth it, but in the case of parking requirements, I would say it isn't. Likewise with unit restrictions. What is the point of that, anyway? Why can't more people (who aren't related) move into that building? My guess is that it is parking related as well (although you could add traffic fears as well).
Another issue (along the same lines) is mother-in-law apartments. Why are ours so restictive (compared to Vancouver or Portland)? If I own a house, why can't I just rent out a separate unit, even if there isn't any parking? Oh yeah, parking.
25
I think a lot of Seattleites own their single-family home and see new construction as a threat to property values. But if the new construction isn't single-family homes, this is misplaced. As we add multi-family and mixed development, even without affecting any existing SFHs, the proportion of SFH supply will continue to shrink. So the people who are most worried are actually most likely to see increasing wealth as new development comes in. The biggest threat to their property values is, ironically, not in-city development, but exurban sprawl. If lots of housing continues to be built on the fringes of urban areas in former farm and forest land, people will make the commute to save money, which means less demand for in-city homes.
What we need is some way of constraining sprawl outside the urban core, and increasing multi-family density in already-developed areas in the city and in the city-like cores of the existing suburbs. That will reduce the need to drive everywhere. It will maintain high value for owners of single-family homes. It will create massive supply of denser housing everywhere. Minimize the zoning regulations to focus on form rather than use, and you'll end up with a lot more variety.
I think the best thing we could do outside of changing zoning would be to have a significant carbon tax. Aside from the environmental benefits, a carbon tax would create incentives to live closer to jobs, whether those jobs are in the city or in the denser core of suburbs. It would discourage building in new areas that should remain undeveloped. It would raise money that could be invested in transit.
What we need is some way of constraining sprawl outside the urban core, and increasing multi-family density in already-developed areas in the city and in the city-like cores of the existing suburbs. That will reduce the need to drive everywhere. It will maintain high value for owners of single-family homes. It will create massive supply of denser housing everywhere. Minimize the zoning regulations to focus on form rather than use, and you'll end up with a lot more variety.
I think the best thing we could do outside of changing zoning would be to have a significant carbon tax. Aside from the environmental benefits, a carbon tax would create incentives to live closer to jobs, whether those jobs are in the city or in the denser core of suburbs. It would discourage building in new areas that should remain undeveloped. It would raise money that could be invested in transit.
26
Short version: cars suck, stop subsidizing them.
Long version: don't tear down my favorite coffee shop for your efficient modern building, waah.
Long version: don't tear down my favorite coffee shop for your efficient modern building, waah.
27
@9 you really really really need to get around in this city sometime. I hear this in mixed race West Seattle all the time, people in denial that black people live ten blocks away from them.
28
Check out the guest author's blog entry. A curious, tortured case is made to "let the builder's build" for a handful of Amazon's impending new-hires [not the warehouse workers or the phone-ho's, surely].... who face the following dilemma:
So, yeah, go borrow $50-60k from your folks for a down, and let's get BUSY!!!!
...many of the new workers...want a detached single-family home. The conventional wisdom is that new single-family homes are very expensive in Seattle, even smaller more energy efficient homes. Some argue that single-family homes are beyond the reach of most young, new workers.
While a new single-family home priced at $665,000, for example, might seem out of reach, let’s think it through for a moment.
House Price: $665,000
Loan: $562,500 (10 percent down, 30 years)
Monthly Payment: $3,176
For a home at this price, a family with a household income of about $125,000 would be paying roughly 30 percent of their monthly income on housing costs. Not every household earns this kind of money, but many professionals moving into the city to work at Amazon will have two median level incomes (Real Area Median Income in Seattle is about $64,000 per year) could afford a new single-family home at this price.
And as I pointed out last week, a Passive House designed by Dwell, sold for about $100,000 less than this hypothetical $665,000. That’s an innovative, super energy efficient house that under the same loan scenario described above, would be even more affordable.
So, yeah, go borrow $50-60k from your folks for a down, and let's get BUSY!!!!
30
@25,
Call me skeptical that changing zoning requirements are going to lower construction costs to the point that new construction is even remotely affordable. There are many regulations that are non-negotiable. As corrupt as this country is, no one's proposing allowing developers to construct buildings that will collapse in a minor earthquake or that have faulty electrical systems or, for that matter, allowing them to use slave labor.
Designing and building something that's not a death trap, in accordance with basic workplace protections, is the real expense here. The cost savings in allowing more than four stories and eliminating parking requirements are chicken feed in comparison.
Call me skeptical that changing zoning requirements are going to lower construction costs to the point that new construction is even remotely affordable. There are many regulations that are non-negotiable. As corrupt as this country is, no one's proposing allowing developers to construct buildings that will collapse in a minor earthquake or that have faulty electrical systems or, for that matter, allowing them to use slave labor.
Designing and building something that's not a death trap, in accordance with basic workplace protections, is the real expense here. The cost savings in allowing more than four stories and eliminating parking requirements are chicken feed in comparison.
31
The things that developer apologists like Valdez want to do to Seattle in the name of saving the suburbs from themselves will most likely result in a whole lot of current Seattle residents moving to the suburbs.
But hey, at least Greg Smith and Hallivulcan will make out like bandits!
But hey, at least Greg Smith and Hallivulcan will make out like bandits!
32
@30 According to RS Means (derived from 11,200 projects), a high rise apartment costs $115k per unit to construct. Sure, this doesn't include finishes and refrigerators, etc., but this is a fraction of what condos sell for in Seattle.
Where does the rest of the money go? Mostly land value (and parking - structured parking is expensive). When you only allow a tiny bit of our land to be built up, the land values in that tiny bit skyrocket.
Where does the rest of the money go? Mostly land value (and parking - structured parking is expensive). When you only allow a tiny bit of our land to be built up, the land values in that tiny bit skyrocket.
33
@32 is correct. Your actual house value is on your property assessment.
On that form you can see how much of what you think is your $500,000 house is actually the land value and how very little is the house value.
On that form you can see how much of what you think is your $500,000 house is actually the land value and how very little is the house value.
34
I'm a little surprised that Valdez could take a break from all the blowjobs he's been giving and ass-reamings he's been taking from McGinn, the developers, and the corrupt city council for long enough to write his "guest post." What a fucking whore he is.
36
from Matt Engineers link to his own page, if we want to build affordable units, we should be building low lying buildings, not towers. yet the refrain is for tall buildings...
and towers, at 115K each can certainly add a parking spot at 25-40K and still be affordable to many.
and towers, at 115K each can certainly add a parking spot at 25-40K and still be affordable to many.
37
@36 If you read the whole post, you'll see towers come out cheaper when you factor in land value. Anyway, it's a minor point - I'm fine with 7 story buildings instead of towers. But we need to let developers build.
39
I agree and not just here. What a out San Francisco. Those quaint Victorian townhouses are inefficient. Tear down those three story structures and replace them with 7 story apodments.
40
We should "welcome growth," and "It won’t hurt a bit. I promise." Spoken exactly like another group of development-at-any-cost folks 43 years ago who wanted to tear down the Pike Place Market and replace it with a cluster of high-rises. Roger would've been right there cheering them on.
Sorry Roger, but there are other values, beyond your cramped vision, that have to be represented in the development conversation.
Sorry Roger, but there are other values, beyond your cramped vision, that have to be represented in the development conversation.
41
@39 SF's townhouses are fairly efficient* - there's generally 2-3 families living in each one. I wouldn't mind tearing out a lot of the Sunset District's WW2-era single family homes and replacing them with townhouses or better.
* ok, the parking underneath was a bad idea - for each garage space you lose a street space with a curb cut. That's bad for street parking and the pedestrian environment.
* ok, the parking underneath was a bad idea - for each garage space you lose a street space with a curb cut. That's bad for street parking and the pedestrian environment.
42
@2 why would you get rid of parking requirements? Do you mean eliminate the requirement to have a parking garage in the basement of a new complex? Why anyone would agree to this probably has more to do with campaign contributions than a logical decision making process.
43
Smart Growth Seattle? You mean the lobbying group owned by real estate investment corporation Blueprint? Yeah, no possible bias here.
The Stranger should be ashamed to run blatant corporate shilling like this.
The Stranger should be ashamed to run blatant corporate shilling like this.
44
@32,
Are you suggesting that developers are interested in selling at cost? You're hilarious!
Developers will always be out to make the largest possible profit from those developments, which means that it's a little too convenient for you to leave out the cost of appliances and "finishing". Practically all new construction these days is some variant of "luxury" units, with developers charging a premium for granite counter tops and "hardwood" (more often laminate) flooring.
I also challenge you to find a private sector high rise that doesn't also include very expensive amenities like a pool, gym, and entertainment facilities. Developers know where their market is, and it's not the middle class.
That's a major reason why I don't have a huge problem with eliminating parking requirements. No serious developer is going to market "luxury" condos that don't include underground parking.
Are you suggesting that developers are interested in selling at cost? You're hilarious!
Developers will always be out to make the largest possible profit from those developments, which means that it's a little too convenient for you to leave out the cost of appliances and "finishing". Practically all new construction these days is some variant of "luxury" units, with developers charging a premium for granite counter tops and "hardwood" (more often laminate) flooring.
I also challenge you to find a private sector high rise that doesn't also include very expensive amenities like a pool, gym, and entertainment facilities. Developers know where their market is, and it's not the middle class.
That's a major reason why I don't have a huge problem with eliminating parking requirements. No serious developer is going to market "luxury" condos that don't include underground parking.
45
@44 If what you're saying is true, then we should all be out there forming REIT's to build our own tall towers. Free money!
Of course they're not selling homes at cost. But profits are a small fraction of the sales price (or everyone would be doing it, see above). Yet condo prices are 2x, 4x, 8x what the construction costs are. Pure profit, right? No. High land values from our restrictive zoning. The ammeneties you list are cheap compared to the sales price and are added because that fits in with the tastes of condo buyers that are in the market at that price point.
Of course they're not selling homes at cost. But profits are a small fraction of the sales price (or everyone would be doing it, see above). Yet condo prices are 2x, 4x, 8x what the construction costs are. Pure profit, right? No. High land values from our restrictive zoning. The ammeneties you list are cheap compared to the sales price and are added because that fits in with the tastes of condo buyers that are in the market at that price point.
46
@45,
When you upzone (which Roger Valdez is being paid by the word by developer or other to advocate for) you INCREASE land values. Significantly, in fact.
When you upzone (which Roger Valdez is being paid by the word by developer or other to advocate for) you INCREASE land values. Significantly, in fact.
47
Lets look at SE Seattle. We are very diverse. There have been a host of building built along Sound Transit. They all have a few low cost units. This allows the builders and owners to take massive income tax exemptions. They all have on street shops 90% of which remain unrented. They have minimal parking often none. People will take the train and not own a car. That is great if they work at the Airport or Downtown. If they work where people work, Boeing, U of W, the East Siide, South Center, they are out of luck they will have to leave a car on the street that are already jammed by "kiss and ride" ride and park commuters who drive to the station and leave a car.
If you look at the population of Seattle in 1960 you will find it has not changed much. What we are seeing is single family neighborhoods being over run by "mother-in-law" apartments. These mostly are becoming boarding houses 3 or 4 rooms being rented and each renter needing a car to get to work.
The streets that were once 4 lanes are now 2 lanes. If planners were attempting to put us into grid lock they are going to be successful. If we have a Mayoral candidate who runs who states the will open up streets again, stop destroying our single family neighborhoods, I will donate and help them campaign.
What does Seattle gain by packing people shoulder to shoulder 10 to a home. I do not think we gain anything. Seattle becomes New York where you do not know your neighbors, it is unusual to even know the people in the next door apartment. Crime skyrockets. Pollution soars. I am glad I am old, I will not have to watch this happen.
If you look at the population of Seattle in 1960 you will find it has not changed much. What we are seeing is single family neighborhoods being over run by "mother-in-law" apartments. These mostly are becoming boarding houses 3 or 4 rooms being rented and each renter needing a car to get to work.
The streets that were once 4 lanes are now 2 lanes. If planners were attempting to put us into grid lock they are going to be successful. If we have a Mayoral candidate who runs who states the will open up streets again, stop destroying our single family neighborhoods, I will donate and help them campaign.
What does Seattle gain by packing people shoulder to shoulder 10 to a home. I do not think we gain anything. Seattle becomes New York where you do not know your neighbors, it is unusual to even know the people in the next door apartment. Crime skyrockets. Pollution soars. I am glad I am old, I will not have to watch this happen.
48
I think a lot of Seattleites own their single-family home and see new construction as a threat to property values.
I think a lot of Seattleites own their single-family home and see Roger Valdez and his "density" crusade as a threat to their peace and quiet and their quality of life.
I think a lot of Seattleites own their single-family home and see Roger Valdez and his "density" crusade as a threat to their peace and quiet and their quality of life.
49
@12 - The sale of old buildings to developers who knock them down and build new ones in their place displaces people in the short run, yes, often forcing them to change neighborhoods. But do you know what displaces people from the city in the long run? Soaring housing prices and epidemic gentrification of every scrap of housing in the city brought on by a failure to produce new housing supply to meet rising demand. So if you really want to keep people from being displaced, you should support new construction.
50
@17 - No, the market cannot solve all problems, but it can solve some. And a shortage of housing is a problem that it is very well equipped to solve, through the simple process of builders building homes and selling them for money.
As for Houston and Detroit, they suck because they failed to solve a problem that only government can solve: transportation infrastructure. Simply put, you cannot have a dense city without public transit, and all the government-hating shits in Houston and car-humping fools in Detroit failed to build that transit.
And that's why American cities are divided into the cheap but non-dense and the dense but super-expensive: in no city does the government simultaneously do what it needs to do and also butt out of what it should butt out of. In liberal cities they build transit, but micromanage the market to prevent it from building enough; in conservative cities they let the market build but don't build transit. So every single goddamn city in this country winds up being shitty in one of two ways.
As for Houston and Detroit, they suck because they failed to solve a problem that only government can solve: transportation infrastructure. Simply put, you cannot have a dense city without public transit, and all the government-hating shits in Houston and car-humping fools in Detroit failed to build that transit.
And that's why American cities are divided into the cheap but non-dense and the dense but super-expensive: in no city does the government simultaneously do what it needs to do and also butt out of what it should butt out of. In liberal cities they build transit, but micromanage the market to prevent it from building enough; in conservative cities they let the market build but don't build transit. So every single goddamn city in this country winds up being shitty in one of two ways.
51
@44 - Yes, most new construction is luxury construction. But the people who fill those new luxury condos move out of other city housing in the process - which in turn gets sold to the next tier down the class ladder, who in turn sell their old homes to the next tier down, etc, etc, until everyone is getting more house for their money. So even if the only new homes built are luxury, everyone still benefits.
As for the failure of developers to sell new homes at cost: they do that because they can, and the reason they can is because there is not enough competition, and the reason there is not enough competition is because there is not enough new construction. Add enough raw square footage to the city and eventually there will be enough to satisfy everybody.
As for the failure of developers to sell new homes at cost: they do that because they can, and the reason they can is because there is not enough competition, and the reason there is not enough competition is because there is not enough new construction. Add enough raw square footage to the city and eventually there will be enough to satisfy everybody.
52
@47 - The New York you describe ceased to exist in the 1990s. Crime has plunged, pollution fell off, the city gentrified and now the thing that sucks the most about New York is that it is hideously expensive, pricing out an awful lot of people who want to live there.
Also, the correlation between density and crime has evaporated nationwide in recent decades. Per capita murder rates have equalized between cities and countrysides.
As to what is gained from density: a lot. A HUGE lot. Density allows the workforce to become more specialized, leading to increased productivity and hence increased wealth. Pack a lot of homes and businesses close together and it's possible for a person to have access to everything they need within walking distance.
You make some good points about the loss of neighbor relationships. That is a problem. But it's a problem that I believe can be solved with enough communal space, and row houses are just as neighborly as detached homes while being much denser.
Also, the correlation between density and crime has evaporated nationwide in recent decades. Per capita murder rates have equalized between cities and countrysides.
As to what is gained from density: a lot. A HUGE lot. Density allows the workforce to become more specialized, leading to increased productivity and hence increased wealth. Pack a lot of homes and businesses close together and it's possible for a person to have access to everything they need within walking distance.
You make some good points about the loss of neighbor relationships. That is a problem. But it's a problem that I believe can be solved with enough communal space, and row houses are just as neighborly as detached homes while being much denser.
53
"If it provides safe, healthy shelter and someone is willing to pay for it, we should permit it and let it get built."
A Capitol Hill trailer park would be awesome!
A Capitol Hill trailer park would be awesome!
54
@53 - Trailer parks aren't actually very dense and don't provide much bang for the land area. There's a reason you only find them outside of cities, and it's not zoning.
56
Seattle is zoned mostly for single family residences, there are vast areas where multifamily and mixed use buildings are not allowed. If you buy or build a single family home in a multifamily zone, you should be aware of what that zone is intended to be used for, which is definitely not single family dwellings. People need apartments and townhomes, not everyone can afford a single family home, unfortunately.
57
@55 I do live on the east coast - in a shitty non-urban area which I want to escape. I'd like to live in a transit-oriented dense city area but they are all hideously expensive - and the reason they are all hideously expensive is because lousy zoning codes in areas with transit and failure to build transit in areas without lousy zoning codes mean that there are far too few dense transit-oriented city areas to accommodate those who want to live in such places. And I know there are a lot of people in this country in the same boat I am. I'm speaking on behalf of all the people who don't live in Seattle but would move there if they could afford it.
58
#57, etc., so you don't even live here. You're a failure where you do live, and want to export your dissatisfaction. Move to Philadelphia. You're made for each other.
60
"I have always been... east coaster": You said (@52): "You make some good points about the loss of neighbor relationships." It's not just "neighbor relations," it's "neighbor empowerment," or the lack of it.
This argument about growth has happened many times in many places. Even NYC neighborhoods fight growth machines. Like Columbia University. Or NYU's latest in the Village: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/07/17/c…
@57 you said: "there are far too few dense transit-oriented city areas to accommodate those who want to live in such places." I agree, but we're not going to solve that problem until we resolve not to be fossil fuel oriented in our transportation and transit. Peak oil and global warming will terminate our dependence on fossil energy. Population overshoot beyond the sustainable level of resources will make the transition more difficult. The longer we continue "business as usual" the more painful it will be.
This argument about growth has happened many times in many places. Even NYC neighborhoods fight growth machines. Like Columbia University. Or NYU's latest in the Village: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/07/17/c…
@57 you said: "there are far too few dense transit-oriented city areas to accommodate those who want to live in such places." I agree, but we're not going to solve that problem until we resolve not to be fossil fuel oriented in our transportation and transit. Peak oil and global warming will terminate our dependence on fossil energy. Population overshoot beyond the sustainable level of resources will make the transition more difficult. The longer we continue "business as usual" the more painful it will be.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (60) RSS