Where Vancouver, B.C. trounces Seattle: density
I'm back in Seattle and the haziness of the Globe Conference (so many conference sessions on giant, world changing ideas!) is finally lifting from my head.
However, I must return to a theme I explored last week in this post about whether Vancouver or Seattle is greener. In that post's comments, Mhays said Seattle needs to encourage density to really be the greenest it can be. "We’re doing a good job in many ways, but way behind Vancouver," he said.
After spending some time there and paying particular attention to the density issue, I couldn't agree more. Sure, Vancouver has its problems. In one session at Globe, Peter Busby explored one of these saying people in Vancouver that live near the center of the city have lower greenhouse gas emissions than those who live further out. To counter this, he proposes creating density nodes throughout the rest of the city that would allow people to live, work and play in their neighborhoods rather than having to go downtown. (More on Vancouver's stance on density here).
But when you look at the variety of housing types in Vancouver's downtown, it just blows Seattle out of the park. Basically, in Seattle, you can live downtown if you want to - or can afford - a condo. In Vancouver however, you don't have to be confined to a condo to live downtown. They have - gasp! - row houses!
Here are a few images of downtown housing types. They are just a small tidbit of the many varieties of styles I saw:
Photo by Payton Chung
The pictures don't show the difference as clearly as you would see with your own eyes. But basically, in parts of Vancouver's downtown, you can live in units that are much more like townhouses than they are condos. This row-housing type is shown in the first image and last image. If you look closely, you can also see this type of housing at the base of the second image.
The variety of housing types is sure to attract different kind of people. Not everyone wants to live downtown in a condo... but if you could live downtown in something resembling a townhouse with a bit more private space, suddenly you attract a whole other market.
So... why can't Seattle do this? Why can't we bring other housing types downtown? What stops us from having that variety? And is there anything we could do now to encourage it?
Busby had an interesting observation. As cities grow, he said, many new inhabitants will be immigrants from Africa and other areas that are already used to living densely. Generally, he said they are used to small living areas and to lots of walking. We can take advantage of this influx, he said, to "change the pattern of organization" in cities.
Now, I don't mean to knock Seattle. We have a great city that is moving forward on a number of fronts. But as far as diversifying housing use in downtown... it seems like the same old same old. (And by diversifying, by the way, I mean doing so for different price points as well as in unit styles).
Even in Vancouver, these things aren't easy. But the important thing is to keep improving. Mayor Gregor Robertson said, "There's angst about the transition here and potential political disaster associated with that but in Vancouver, we see huge opportunities for change."
P.S. Nick Christensen of OregonLive.com has an interesting article from January on a similar topic here.
DJC Green Building Blog
Welcome to the Daily Journal of Commerce Green Building Blog. Our focus is on green building issues in Seattle, the Pacific Northwest and anywhere that might interest you. If you have any comments or questions, please email maudes@djc.com.
Opinions expressed by bloggers are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce.
Polls
Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.Recent Posts
- Your patio can also be a power plant
- Living Future a Deep Dive into What’s Possible…and Necessary, says Noted Paul Hawken
- House gets a deep green remodel for $150 a square foot
- When it comes to certified wood, GSA is right to question LEED
- Is it time for Seattle to embrace graffiti?
Recent Comments
- How i met Your Mother bro code complete list on Want to work with Seattle green buildings? DPD has an open job
- Garcinia Cambogia & Rapid Weight Loss Reviews on Want to work with Seattle green buildings? DPD has an open job
- Kirby on 5 tips to improve home energy efficiency
- Leone on 5 tips to improve home energy efficiency
- Sheree on 5 tips to improve home energy efficiency
Energy information
- BetterBricks
- Earth Advantage Blog
- New Buildings Institute Blog
- Washington State University Extension Energy Program
Green blogs
- Best Green Blogs
- Building Capacity Blog
- Building Seattle Green Blog
- City Tank
- Climate Solutions
- Earth Advantage Blog
- GreenbuildingsNYC
- GreenFab News and Media
- Greenversations
- Inhabitat
- Jetson Green
- Landscape and Urbanism
- Metaefficient
- New Buildings Institute Blog
- Portland Architecture
- SeattleScape
- The Greenworkplace
- Thinkspace
Green Building organizations
- Built Green
- Cascadia Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council
- City of Seattle Green Building
- City of Seattle Green Building Program
- DJC.com
- Environmental Services Directory for Washington State
- Green Infrastructure Wiki
- King County GreenTools
- Lifecycle Building Challenge
- Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Resources
- Puget Sound Partnership
- Seattle Great City Initiative
- Whole Building Design Guide
Green events in the Seattle area
- AIA Seattle
- Cascadia Green Building Council Events Calendar
- Master Builders of King and Shohomish County Built Green Events Calendar and News
- Seattle Department of Planning and Development Events
April 4th, 2010 - 00:24
I don’t know if I would completely agree with the sentiment of this post in that:
1) downtown, ei. Belltown, “West Edge”, and Pioneer Square have few streets that actually facilitate good townhome-style homes. Unlike the West End there aren’t a lot of residential or non-arterials in downtown Seattle. The one building in Belltown on Second (blanking on the cross street) with walk ups is terrible. I’ve never seen anyone ever utilizing or activating that space and would much prefer retail.
2) I also think downtown has a somewhat reasonable amount of price points. Belltown obviously has the high end and the low but I know many friends who have apartments down there in the mid-range as well, $1400 for a two bedroom or $900 (a month) for a studio is pretty cheap. The Harbor Steps is only slightly higher priced for some units, which is really the only west edge living space.
The only place that the lack-of-prices problem fully applies is Pioneer Square where its the extreme ends and no middle. But this has been a problem for a while and arguably the historic nature of the district has disadvantaged the development of mid-range living units. (Not that this is bad. I’m super happy with its historic-ness)
3) When you talk about “downtown” you discount Lower Queen Anne and Capitol Hill, both places with substantial mixes of living situations (SFH, Townhome, Apartment, Condo, Co-op) and both with a plethora of jobs (office and service), amenities, and density; enough to allow car-free living and thus qualify as the worthy green living we’re shooting for.
April 5th, 2010 - 09:16
True, Vancouver’s Downtown Peninsula is roughly analogous to LQA/SLU to Pioneer Square, plus a chunk of Capitol Hill and First Hill, perhaps to Broadway. Census tracts make it (mostly) easy by defining a square bounded by Roy/Mercer, Broadway, and the stadiums. I believe that within that area, we’re around 45-50% of Vancouver’s residential density.
Townhouses would be good, but I agree with Josh that our streets are often not ideal for them. First, our streets tend to be too wide and high-traffic. Second, we insist on putting retail everywhere, yet townhouses seem more appropriate on quiet side streets without a bar next door. We should concentrate our retail onto fewer streets like Vancouver does, particularly in the West End.
For all of Vancouver’s greatness, I don’t agree with the short podiums inherent in the townhouse concept. Vancouver’s Downtown Peninsula is about 50-60% of Manhattan’s average residential density, and a big reason is that those skinny towers and short podiums have don’t have a ton of units per acre. I’m also biased because I like a larger street wall for its feeling of density and for shade.
The biggest difference is that Vancouver started pushing residential uses I’d guess 40 years ago, and supported this by not having freeways in town. This means a head start not only on volume, but affordability as housing tends to move slowly downmarket over the decades.
Today, rather than encouraging new housing, we punish it with huge bonus fees. It’s as if the City sees it as a problem, rather than a way to reduce transportation needs, help retail businesses, make our city more sustainable, etc. The result is that anything requiring a bonus fee will only happen in a very good economy.
April 5th, 2010 - 09:53
mhays,
I’m curious if you have considered any type of plan for concentrating retail in Belltown. I too think it could really benefit from this but at the same time, trying to change the current pattern would be incredibly hard, but not impossible.
Perhaps concentrate retail on 1st, 4th, 5th, and Bell and try to make Western, 2nd, 3rd, and 6th (plus the other E-W streets more residential?
April 5th, 2010 - 09:55
Of course, I think pulling the residential streets (2nd,3rd,6th) down to fewer lanes would be necessary too. Maybe a 2-way bike boulevard and then do angled parking on one side. That increases parking and gets the street down to just 2 lanes, which would then be bi-directional.
April 5th, 2010 - 14:35
Interesting blog entry. Having lived in both downtown Seattle and downtown Vancouver, I see pluses and minuses to downtown Vancouver’s density–at times, I personally find its style to be monotonous, uniform, and cookie-cutter, as if the city hired the same architect to design all of its downtown housing projects. To me, Seattle’s downtown housing seems more diverse and charming.
That aside, the entry dealt with how Vancouver has accommodated density better–but it didn’t really touch on how this problem is being solved. I wouldn’t mind reading a blog entry with a more positive spin on how Seattle might be catching up, how it is changing its planning principles, and what it is doing to increase and diversify downtown housing.
April 5th, 2010 - 14:38
By the way–the West End isn’t considered a part of downtown Vancouver–the city designates it as a separate neighbourhood. So when we’re talking about downtown Vancouver, we need to limit it to Yaletown, Coal Harbour, Gastown, the central business district, etc. There aren’t very many residential, non-artieral streets in this area either.
April 5th, 2010 - 14:39
Harbor Steps isn’t the only West Edge living space. There are lots of condominium and apartment buildings crowded around the Pike Place Market.
April 5th, 2010 - 15:34
Hey all! A lot of great thinking points here. Let me respond to a few of them:
First, I think JoshMahar and MHays combined have a point: many of our downtown streets are not necessarily suited to town homes. However, the first row home picture I took above isn’t on a quiet residential street- it’s on a major arterial maybe on par with Western Ave.? Actually, to me, Western is a good example of the type of street where houses would work. It’s quiet enough and might attract a different kind of person to the area. Pioneer Square would also have potential in my mind.
Is there a way either of you think townhouses could work in our downtown, or like mHays said, did we just miss the boat 40 years ago?
JoshMahar: Yes, I do discount Lower Queen Anne and Capitol Hill. To me, that’s just not downtown. Both areas are near downtown, but they are part of the quirky neighborhoods of Seattle, not its core. However, both exemplify mixed-use and would be perfect examples of what I’m talking about IF they were further downtown. Actually, I don’t know that they would be perfect examples. As you move further back on Capitol Hill for example, the mixed-use, apartments and condos completely give way to single family neighborhoods. The dynamic that exists within a block or two of Broadway is probably the best example.
Brandon, do you want to know about how Seattle is changing its planning principles or how Vancouver is? A prime example for both actually is backyard cottages. Both cities recently passed legislation supporting more ADUs. As for your personal style comment, I’m inclined to agree with you. Seatttle’s downtown has more buildings that look stylistically different than Vancouver.
Also, these images were not taken in the West End. They are from Yaletown.
April 5th, 2010 - 15:37
The SLU Urban Design Framework talks about brownstone style walk-ups on non-arterial streets, such as 8th Ave N (which dead-ends into Denny Park and Mercer). I also think some the semi-public courtyard concept like at the Neptune on Dexter Ave N (at Aloha) or even Fountain Court (4th and Battery). Unfortunately it’s apparently way too tempting to use the space for cars as happened at Fountain Court and 2200′s courtyard above Whole Foods. The best we’ve got in Seattle is (as other commenters have pointed out) in the denser neighborhoods surrounding downtown Seattle, to which I’d add Cascade (particularly the Alcyone’s street-facing lofts and 2bds on Minor Ave N) and First Hill. I suppose it’s irony that the wall of I-5 make traffic relatively calm on several streets in these neighborhoods.
April 5th, 2010 - 17:47
My bad on the geographic misinterpretation, I’m not incredibly familiar with Vancouver actually.
My point with LQA and Capitol Hill is simply that Vancouver may not entirely “trounce” Seattle on beautiful density, it’s just that our best examples aren’t necessarily downtown (but again I’m not all too familiar with Van City).
Anyway, on the more pertinent subject of how do we actually make Seattle’s downtown neighborhoods better:
I think the best thing to do would be to aggressively push for a reduction in downtown Seattle throughput, especially with our new multi-billion dollar tunnel coming (possibly). As mentioned above, dramatically reduce street widths and maybe add more mid-block pedestrian crossings (without lights so cars have to constantly be aware and stop frequently). I really think that making some street angled parking would be great too because it really signifys that this is a place to be not go. If people want to get through downtown fast they should have to backtrack to I-5 or the tunnel rather than trying to barrell through downtown. By changing this atmosphere I think developers will be moer inclined to build less fortress-like towers.
As Mhays says, I think we did miss the boat on this about 40 years ago, but if nothing else I think we have the potential for some creative re-uses
April 6th, 2010 - 08:09
I agree it would be nice to narrow some streets. Second and Third through Belltown have good potential, because they sort of dead-end near Denny. That’s assuming we continue to have a bypass with the new 99. Even Fourth is too wide for its traffic volume in Belltown.
As for retail in Belltown, JoshMahar, I don’t think it’s an easy solution. Step one is identifying the weaker retail streets and removing the requirement to build retail. This would allow more density, supporting the retail that does exist. Step two would be choosing one or two streets with better retail (First would be one) and encouraging the gaps to be filled. There’s also the issue of our “wide but shallow” retail spaces, which result in much less retail density than the “narrow but deep” stores of other cities. Maybe we pick some streets where retail depth should be encouraged.
On the issue of what is “downtown,” my point wasn’t that places like LQA, Pike/Pine, and First Hill are definitely “downtown,” just that they’re analogous to areas in Vancouver such as the West End, as I was making a population comparison.