A lack of sidewalks only works if cars are slowed way, way down. Like the “woonerf” (sp?) concept. Even then it’s sketchy, because some cars don’t get the idea. I can’t think of how many fenders I’ve slapped on Pike Place, to use a sort-of-similar example.

The gravel would also be a disaster for bike safety.

Take the Silicon Valley area, for example, where residents have been very unwilling to allow anything beyond single-family housing. Housing costs are far, far higher than in Seattle, in an area where incomes are only slightly higher, and people with lower-income jobs are commuting 50-60 miles daily.

By comparison, New York, which is arguably more desirable than Silicon Valley or Seattle, has a history of dense neighborhoods. While Manhattan is, of course, crazy expensive, a low-income family can afford to live in a modest apartment in Brooklyn or the Bronx without having to spend hours commuting. I’d argue that being open to density made that possible.

So in Seattle, it’s not that Belltown itself is affordable. It’s that Belltown has made the rest of the city more affordable.

By the way, relaxing single-family housing restrictions doesn’t have to mean an explosion of development in residential neighborhoods. It could mean, for example, allowing duplex conversion of houses that are more than 20 years old.

The view is that cities like San Francisco and Seattle have a powerful, entrenched and motivated group of people who, while left leaning in their poltitics, fail to make the connection between their opposition to new housing and the cost of housing.

The more difficult it is to build the more expensive the housing. In places like Dallas when the price goes up they just build more housing until the increase in the supply begins to affect prices.

I don’t know if this is THE answer but it is an interesting article. Also, we will need to factor in what rules have changed in our post bailout market place.

Great comments. But what do you think about Irene’s argument that increased density hasn’t yet brought affordability? Is Belltown more affordable now?

I think of San Francisco and its increased density and sky-high prices, and then there’s super-affordable Portland with single family houses everywhere. Could there be another element at play?

Fundamentally, people want to live in Seattle, even in smaller-than-traditional spaces — witness townhouse sales. This is desirable environmentally and desirable economically, and as a city, we should let it happen.

I am also still hopeful that with the future viaduct plan, whatever it may be, it will add a lot of downtown park space and give Seattle the warterfront it truly deserves.