September 29, 2008

Opinion: Does Seattle have too much single-family zoning?

Unlocking single-family zoning in Seattle could kill the Golden Goose that makes Seattle attractive to natives and newcomers alike.

Our unique neighborhoods draw their character largely from the look and feel of their homes and streetscapes. The high value of detached housing also fills the city's tax coffers and provides a huge variety in housing styles — a counterpoint to the dreary monotony of the ubiquitous 4-pack townhomes.

Seattle's urban single-family neighborhoods are already remarkably dense. The Growth Management Act defines desirable urban densities as 4 units per acre. Seattle's 24 residential urban villages average 9 units per acre. Outside these urban villages, the average is 4 units per acre.

What do you think?

About 65 percent of Seattle is zoned for single-family homes. Planners and activists are debating whether some of that land should be rezoned to allow for more units, and whether such a move would make living here more affordable. Tell us what you think. Weigh in on SeattleScape, DJC’s design and planning blog, at www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape

Seattle is already doing its share to accommodate regional growth. Without any incursions into single-family areas, the city already has three times the development capacity needed to accommodate predicted household growth to 2022, according to the most recent King County Buildable Lands Report. And those numbers are from before the recent economic downturn.

The argument that busting up single-family lots will drive down housing costs shrivels in the light of recent experience. Seattle added thousands of new housing units in the past few years while the cost of housing skyrocketed. We have learned that dense cities are expensive cities.

Seattle's kids also need a place to play, and our trees need room to grow.

A few years ago, city planners were experimenting with relaxed development regulations to spur affordable and diverse housing choices. One such experiment in Phinney Ridge would have subdivided a corner lot and built a second house in the front yard. This tall “cottage” would have dwarfed the original home.

During this pilot study, the opinion of immediate neighbors was taken into consideration (highly unusual) and the proposal was withdrawn when objections arose. The project was deemed unimaginative, incompatible with its surroundings and less than affordable. What was preserved was of incalculable value: a front yard surrounded by trees and room for a swing set, trampoline or wading pool for generations of kids growing up on the block.

Irene Wall is a North Seattle native, president of the Phinney Ridge Community Council and chair of the City Neighborhood Council's Neighborhood Planning Committee. She is also works in professional services marketing for Tetra Tech Infrastructure Group.

I grew up in a house in a quiet single-family neighborhood.

When my parents divorced my mom and I stayed in that house. The mortgage was affordable, never above $265 per month, and my mom was able to provide us with safe and stable housing. Now, as my mom contemplates retirement, the house is an asset she can use to support herself. This is great comfort to me, her only child living 1,400 miles away.

I should be the last person to suggest Seattle reconsider the privileging of single-family housing when it makes decisions about accommodating growth.

However, last century's model of using single-family homes as a means to create financial security for families like mine may no longer be realistic. A local land use attorney described our country's financial crisis at a recent city council hearing as “not a cyclical change but a systemic one.”

Is our current financial mess the fault of lower middle class families trying to buy their own homes? Of course it isn't. The pressure to acquire a home with three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a yard is the problem. That pressure, combined with cheap money, led to billions of dollars in bad loans.

This pressure leads to similarly bad land-use decisions. Blind preservation of existing patterns of single-family use distorts our ability to accommodate growth. Two thirds of available land in Seattle is occupied by single-family homes. Resistance to density in and near these neighborhoods reduces the supply of other affordable options.

It isn't fair that the choice for working families is to live in a far-flung suburb or pay expensive rent in a city that refuses to increase its housing supply.

Cultural and economic pressure to own a house has led to financial catastrophe and is leading us to an environmental crisis as well. Single-family neighborhoods should accept accessory dwelling units and support increased density in adjacent commercial areas.

We need to realign our values to accommodate a new vision of homeownership that is more sustainable, affordable and livable for everyone.

Roger Valdez is a former city council and legislative staffer. He is now a consultant with an interest in using zoning to support neighborhood arts and cultural organizations.

Seattle definitely has too much single-family zoning.
 

 
Ms Wall claims that housing prices have skyrocketed despite increased accommodation of population growth in existing higher-density zones. She fails to point out the possibility--which seems obvious to me--that housing prices have skyrocketed precisely *because* existing single-family zones have not been shrunk, which might allow more units, offset demand, and decrease home prices. Moreover, residents of expensive cities tend to have higher incomes anyway. It is perfectly plausible that housing prices have increased so dramatically not despite population growth accommodation, but because single-family housing zones have not been reduced to accommodate growth.
 

 
Furthermore, she insists that private yards are crucial for children to play and cavort. The purpose of public parks is to allow green spaces for city-dwellers to enjoy; this includes parents with children. The solution to preserving green space for children (as if they are cattle?) is not to preserve private property--it is to preserve existing land and allocate new land for public park space. Indeed, when chief green space is public, it is accessible to an even greater number of people. Furthermore, it forces parents to spend time with their children, as the former is forced to supervise the latter. Even more, is increases human presence in public places and deters crime.
 

 
Seattle is not a suburb. It is a city--and a rapidly growing one. The question is not whether it will grow, but how it will do so without any diminution of the standard of living. No more than 50 per cent of a city should accommodate suburban-style housing, which limits possible housing units and hence, in all likelihood, contributes to higher home prices, and which discourages use of public parks for recreation.

The lust for large affordable housing has persuaded developers to push the limits of urban sprawl. Land is reduced to dirt, cheap houses are built fast and lenders / real estate agents are eager to sell the product. This unsustainable development will decrease as we become more aware of the repercussions.
 

 
The alternative?
 

 
Well if it's not single family... hmmm the opposite of single-family must be more than one family. Ah... multi-family.
 

 
Irene, I would love to take the Phinney Ridge neighbors on a tour of urban sprawl development which has ravaged all cities bordering Seattle. Large open natural habitats clear cut to dirt and replaced with larger than necessary affordable homes with tiny lawns and small, trite landscaping. The majority of use that landscaping will receive is when it is manicured by gas powered lawn mowers, weed whackers and leaf blowers.
 

 
Multifamily development does not need to be tasteless or out of place. Thoughtful design will drive acceptance by the public. I have seen a couple new design firms tackle the challenge of affordable multi-family development with great success, and even coming away with awards for their designs. PB Elemental is one such design firm that comes to mind. Quality planning and thoughtful design will make multi-family development at the very least acceptable for the masses and affordable at the same time.
 

 
It is evident the status quo is not working well. Look at what is has created: more traffic, decreased green space, more pollution, poor construction quality, inflated housing costs, increased taxes, strip malls, large energy consumption... sorry I'll stop, but just to let you know I could keep going.
 

 
The upside? All I can think of is personal gains, not public ones.
 

 
Cheers!

These comments are silly...housing is not expensive because of single or multi-zones. It is pure speculation of your average Joe and amassing debt and trying to refinance into "higher" values when they are baseless.
 

 
Why does everyone think Seattle is so different from the rest of the country?! The fall is here and we are already over 10% down year over year.
 

 
Multi-family zones could just add even more supply to an already dying housing market. It is bad economics. Supply has never ever ever been higher in the city of Seattle than right now...why do we need to demolish perfectly good things!?
 

 
Hello everyone! Recycle what is good! We don't have resources on this earth left to keep ravaging. Stop the mad continuous building!

I agree with Jim, lets stop procreating Seattle!

[Jim] It's simple economics. The day a house in North Bend is the same price as an identical house in Seattle is the day you can say there is too much supply in the city. They have the same mortgage lending forces there as we do here. The difference in housing price comes directly from the demand for more housing in the city.
 

 
[Irene] "The high value of detached housing also fills the city's tax coffers" Um, no. Compare the taxes from one $800k house to the four $500k townhouses that could be built there. Then compare that to a tall condo building.
 

 
"provides a huge variety in housing styles" You have a good point there. I'd love to change our zoning to have the types of row houses they have in San Francisco - dense but beautiful.
 

 
"Seattle is already doing its share to accommodate regional growth" Again, no. The Seattle metro area has been booming, with population skyrocketing in the past decade. But Seattle's portion of that has been quite small. Most of the new population has come to new houses on greenfield sites, since these homes are cheap. How do we make housing in the city less expensive? More homes.
 

 
"We have learned that dense cities are expensive cities." Again wrong. Demand has far outstripped supply. See my comment to Jim.
 

 
We live in a beautiful region with plenty of green space, agriculture, and low pollution levels. But our population is quickly rising, and pretending Seattle isn't a big city is killing this green space and agriculture as we bulldoze for housing, and is polluting our region as we build highways for all of the new cars.
 

 
I don't think we need to bulldoze a huge number of our SF homes, at least not right away. But we should start upzoning and looking for good areas to build much more multi-family housing.

http://www.ruffness.com/ocky/14/traverse-city-hospitals.html traverse city hospitals http://www.ruffness.com/ocky/14/travis-afb-hospital.html travis afb hospital