«
»

When will we be ready to embrace growth?

I have accepted a research associate position with the Sightline Institute. This is a wonderful opportunity for me and was made possible, in part, by writing here on SeattleScape and for the DJC’s opinion page for the past year.

It has been an amazing year for anyone watching the economy, and interested in housing, development and future growth in Seattle. I have written a fair amount here about the way we define and measure key aspects of growth in Seattle.

Time for a new dream?
The fundamental battle lines on growth were drawn 20 years ago with the passage of the Growth Management Act and the City of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan. The decision then was to avoid sprawl by putting growth in cities, and more specifically in urban villages. Some resisted this planning effort as social engineering aimed at foisting a social agenda on single family neighborhoods.

Others argued that in order to limit and prevent further environmental degradation, enhance mass transit options and support a more sustainable approach to infrastructure, concentrating growth in the cities would be essential.

Does this sound familiar? Today we are taking a piecemeal approach to growth, arguing lot by lot, parcel by parcel, and neighborhood by neighborhood. When will we finally get on with what we decided to do 20 years ago?

More than 60 percent of Seattle is still zoned single family. And any project that increases density, even when supported by underlying zoning, faces a gauntlet.

Strolling Seattle by serakatie
Increasingly, the debate has been cast as a class conflict pitting growth management against the sacredness of the single family home, which for decades has been the organizing economic principle in America and the Northwest.

This year’s election provides the city with a huge opportunity to consciously settle this question. Will candidates for city office embrace the practices we know will reduce climate change, improve the health of the Puget Sound and support less use of the automobile? Compact communities that are safe to walk in with public open space and easy access to transit are what we must have.

The most important question for the candidates is “how will you get us there?” The question for Seattlites is “are we willing to go?”

Tags:

This entry was posted by Roger Valdez on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 1:30 pm and is filed under Government, Historic, Neighborhoods, Parks and open space, Planning, Politics, Seattle lifestyle, Uncategorized, Zoning. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

  • mhays

    Very good points Roger.

    Simple demographics favor a more balanced electorate. At some point in this decade, Seattle passed the point where more of our housing units are multifamily than single-family. According to the “American Community Survey” 2005-2007 data at census.gov, we had 281,668 total housing units and only 135,910 were single-family detached, which sounds like it includes a lot of townhouses even.

    Of course, fewer people live in the average apartment/condo than house, maybe around 1.5 vs 2.5, and that presumably includes more adults and more voters, so the majority are still in houses. But the balance is tipping.

    I like houses too, though I wouldn’t want to live in one. Too much work, much less privacy, the possibility of barking dogs next door…shudder. Anyway, we can’t leave them a sacred cow forever. Mother-in-laws and backyard cottages are two great ways to add density and improve affordability with minimal noticable change. Some moderate upzoning along arterials and bus routes would address density, affordability, and walkability strongly, while preserving most parts of existing neighborhoods.

  • http://emersonsalon.com Matt

    This is a great post and makes total sense. I really don’t understand why so many people in this city seem to fight tooth and nail against every single new project when denser and taller developments are the key to creating affordable housing in an environmentally friendly way. I totally understand the desire to work with developers to ensure that projects fit with the needs and character of the neighborhood, but trying to stop new developments hardly seems constructive. Hopefully, Seattle will finally use this election to get some leadership that will help Seattle find the dynamic, livable neighborhoods it deserves…