A Real Debate About Seattle’s Housing Crisis / The-Ave.US

A Real Debate About Seattle’s Housing Crisis

The nearest movie theater to the Third District is downtown. Our only major street, Broadway, has recently been optimized with a two way bike highway that, together tihe the new tolly car lane, restricts this boulevard to less than two useable lanes.

Debate and discussion of the housing issue in my District has been blocked by the rhetoric of Kshama Sawant and her “Socialist Alternative” party. If Sawant were not obstructing discussion of this level, I wish the debate could be public. Erica Barnett’s piece (linked at the right) is a great start but this thread (edited to protect those with excess temper) show what needs to be discussed.

We Can’t Solve 21st Century Housing Problems with Failed 20th Century Strategies

Last week, three city council members—frequent allies Nick Licata and Mike O’Brien, along with their less-likely comrade Tim Burgess, who’s facing two…

THECISFORCRANK.COM

Sarajane Siegfriedt I withdraw my name-calling. Your web host won’t allow me to copy and paste any of the name-calling rants in your post that caused mine. You generalize to the extremes, making everyone else’s positions black and white, which tends to make your post wrong and inaccurate.

You haven’t corrected you confusion of 120,00 new people with the need for 50,00 new household units, the exact number the mayor has called for, of which 20,000 need to be affordable at <80% of AMI. Absorbing 2,000 of these into single-family neighborhoods as MILs and duplexes is do-able without upzoning and without changing the character of the neighborhoods, as Vancouver has done.

You disparage all the policies that have been successfully implemented elsewhere as “20th-century” when we haven’t tried them yet. One-for-one replacement demonstrably works. Inclusionary zoning requiring up to 20% of affordable units works in other cities. Why is having apartments affordable to all income levels in all parts of the city a bad thing?. ..Unless you believe only in profits and don’t believe in social justice and inclusive communities as a shared value. Pardon me if I missed this values point in your post. Please point it out. Most of us are for growth and for density, especially at TODs. Option 5 is a nuanced approach, and you post lacks nuance.
Daniel Ojalvo I’ve said this elsewhere, but the biggest lie in real estate is that letting developers build without any restrictions doesn’t bring down the cost of housing. That literally never happens unless a real estate bubble pops which is a worse situation.
Daniel Ojalvo Similarly, if we go big enough on creating public transit, I’d bet we’ll have less to worry about with folks being displaced as there’ll be more places near public transportation.
Daniel Ojalvo At least Erica isn’t hocking apodments. I like Dominic Holden, but I don’t see them as much more than a short-term gimmick.
Sarajane Siegfriedt I would like to know if Mike O’Brien‘s legislation to require a second sink , 220 s.f. and bicycle parking has “ended” apodments as alleged by the urbanist extremists, or if any have been permitted since then.
Linda Clifton Not only will more Accessory Dwelling Units in current single family zones add density, they’ll also allow current homeowners to stay in their homes as costs such as property tax and insurance continue to rise. Living in an LR2 zone abutting both rap…See More
Sarajane Siegfriedt I just found an article about a new apodment, post-new regs, so the 220 s.f. minimum, two sinks and the bicycle parking requirement haven’t prevented them from being built. Is anyone else tired of the exaggerations and whining by urbanists?
Will Affleck-Asch at most, city stats show mother-in-law units will only handle 0.001 percent of the growth in population. and that’s based on us only growing by 2035 to a number we’re already half way to. A better idea might be to zone 6 stories for all arterial blocks, with +1 if ground level commercial and +1 if daycare or school in building (max 8) in all current R zones. How do you like the 58 story building by the way?
Sarajane Siegfriedt That’s pretty much what we’re doing, for the four-lane arterials. I’ll bet we have no city data on the potential for MILs, because the regs have strangled them. Eliminate the regs and I’d say two per block front. How many is that?

The design for Rainier Square is exactly what I would do, to respect the older building.
- Sarajane Siegfriedt I only said they could be the key to solving 10% of our growth, along with “discrete” duplexes (one door per facade) as infill.
  
  ·
Daniel Ojalvo What about large publicly funded apartments where rent is tied to the cost of maintenance and utilities? There’s no way in heck that costs could jump over 20% in a year for any rental. Let’s be honest, it’s about sending lots of money back to investors.
Sarajane Siegfriedt I’ve no idea what you’re referring to. Are you talking about SHA, or city of Seattle, or SHAG ( privately funded) or something else?
Justus Stewart I’m confused why absorbing growth is linked to “without changing the character of SF zones and without upzoning”?

Not pursuing high-density, walkable Transit Oriented Development is completely irresponsible. But “protecting” SF neighborhoods from absorbing their share of growth is beyond irresponsible – it’s insane. Why do we even talk about this as an option?
Sarajane Siegfriedt Who said anything about protecting SF neighborhoods from absorbing their (some?) share of the growth? What is their share?? If we actively encourage MIL apartments and backyard cottages by lifting parking and live-in requirements, and by making low-cos…See More
Justus Stewart That’s what ‘preserving character’ means, though. It’s a euphemism for not allowing the kind of new uses and increased density you’re talking about (lifting restrictions on MIL / ADU, townhomes, rowhousing, duplexes, etc). Totally agree that we should…See More
Justus Stewart My question though, really, is why we talk about ‘preserving the character of SF neighborhoods’ at all. As if it were a real thing, needing protection.
Sarajane Siegfriedt You need to distinguish between townhouses and row houses, which go in Low-rise zones, and the SF uses. We’ve pretty much stopped building rental housing in Low-rise, because it’s not profitable. That needs to be revisited.

I’d like to know what % of Seattlelites live in SF zones, and what % in SF homes are renters. We tend to talk as if they are mutually exclusive. “Preserving the character” is not a euphamism. It’s a real thing. Dogs and kids and gardens and the urban canopy. Jesse Piedfort you need to add “preserving the urban canopy” to your list of goals, because MF zones are killing it. That’s where the losses are, according to Peter Steinbrueck‘s study.
- Sarajane Siegfriedt Justus Stewart did you know that with all the 15,000 or so multifamily buildings permitted or recently completed, not any have 3BR or more? That’s none, zero. They don’t pencil out.
  
  You seem to think everyone in Seattle should have your lifestyle, values and hobbies. Thank goodness yours is not a widely held vision for Seattle. I value choices in lifestyles that change throughout one’s life. At some point I may need a live-in housemate or caregiver. With an aging population, lots of people may choose to densify their SF homes.
  
  Sarajane Siegfriedt Think about it. If you pare down the SF zones, you provide fewer choices for people to rent or buy in the city, forcing them to commute from the suburbs. One of the great assets of Seattle is that people can choose this lifestyle, including access to restaurants, events and the arts, but not have to commute from the suburbs.
- Justus Stewart this is only true for people who insist in living in detached SF homes, which is a dwindling part of the population in every major city in the world. Therefore, not an actual problem.
- Erica C. Barnett Agreed. And I don’t follow the logic that replacing SF with MF somehow reduces the total number of housing units or “forces” anyone to live in the suburbs. No one is forced to live anywhere, and more units can fit on a lot if it’s multifamily not single-family.
- Sarajane Siegfriedt Reducing the number of single-family homes–especially the older less expensive rental ones–means more people who need three BRs or who choose that lifestyle have to move to the suburbs. This is happening at an increased rate and more people are being displaced (see option 1 map).
Jesse Piedfort I love trees, but I thought Peter’s study showed urban canopy was actually increasing in most urban villages.
- Joe Szilagyi It’s increasing everywhere but SE IIRC.
Sarajane Siegfriedt Decreasing at the hub villages is what I recall. Steve Zemke, what does dense urban development do to the tree canopy? How does DPD enforce the rules?
Robert Cruickshank His study found that tree canopy has increased in the hub urban villages: http://www.seattle.gov/…/web_informational/p2233679.pdf

I’ll just note, and this is purely anecdotal, that within the last week I’ve seen three big trees cut down in my neighborhood, all by single-family homeowners. We’re keeping our two big Douglas firs for as long as we can.
- Steve Zemke There is disagreement as to the methodology used to assess canopy. Using different methods for a before and after study can be misleading. Also large trees cab be removed and small street trees planted as replacement and from an aerial view the canopy can be the same but canopy volume would be significantly decreased. Current canopy analysis is only two dimensional.
Justus Stewart It is a euphemism. I see dogs, kids, and urban canopy on Capitol Hill. Whole neighborhoods of SF detached housing are not an inherent benefit; there’s no reason not to have some of it, but there’s also no reason to have so much of it. It is not a threatened thing that needs protecting.
Steve Zemke DPD has refused to provide analtsis of canopy loss during development. It obviously is occurring. They know it. The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission asked that they do a Urban Forest Canopy Impact Assessment on all projects. seehttp://www.seattle.gov/…/ADOPTEDDPDReportingLetter06251…
- Joe Szilagyi Can you please define “refused”?
Steve Zemke The Seattle Urban Forestry Commission earlier this month also commented on concerns about canopy lost during development in commenting on the draft EIS for the 2035 Seattle Comprehensive Plan. DPD said Don’t woory. No problem. The UFC disagreeded Seehttp://www.seattle.gov/…/ADOPTEDCompPlandraftEISLetter.pdf
Steve Zemke Correction is needed to original post – the draft EIS for the 2035 Seattle Comprehensive Plan calls for 70,000 new housing units not 50,000 housing units. The increased population is 120,000 and new jobs projected is 115,000. http://www.seattle.gov/…/web_informational/p2273572.pdf
- Sarajane Siegfriedt That’s 20 years–in 2035. The Mayor’s goal of 50,000 units is in 10 years.
Will Affleck-Asch However, the population will actually increase 250,000 – which makes this entire discussion moot.
- Mark Miloscia How did you come up with 250K?
Chiho Fox Let the city grow, you know what? You can’t stop it.
- Elizabeth Campbell Nonsense, the majority is induced growth, not needed in the least.