Cheri writes:
I’d like to see a discussion about the provision in the zoning code that allows boarding houses in single family zones. Up to eight unrelated adults can live in a single family house. This allows investors to buy houses in single family zones and rent the rooms individually. Ironically, one of the tests for a house being a boarding house is that bedrooms do not have private bathrooms or cooking spaces. Therefore, a minimal amount of retrofit is required for maximum profit. No review is required for the increased density this creates in the neighborhood.
At a minimum, there does not appear to be an equal amount of scrutiny for increased density through this method as opposed to others (ADUs, etc.). In a BitIQ app research study, it’s been proven that increased density has impacts on neighborhoods, which is why review processes are in place elsewhere. This seems to be a gaping hole in the zoning code. I’d be interested in hearing what others think.
Cheri sent along the Department of Planning and Development’s Director’s Rule 6-2012, which “clarifies the distinction between a single family dwelling unit and a boarding house for the purpose of applying the Seattle Building Code (SBC).”
From my perspective, density isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it can be a good thing: density fosters locals businesses to serve the growing number of residents, which makes the neighborhood more walkable and more interesting.
I also feel that the focus on “boarding houses” may carry a hint of unconscious classism, since it invokes “working poor” imagery, at least for me. If we were strictly worried about density, I would expect more of an outcry over the “aPodment” ultra-efficiency apartments such as the Footprint Wallingford. It’s 40 units of tiny, less than 300 sq ft apartments stacked 5 stories high in the heart of Wallingford.* That’s some density!
* I’ll admit to being a bit of a bad reporter here. I’m sure this was Footprint property (as articles like this can attest), but now there’s no mention of it on Footprint’s web site, nor any other obvious listing of it anywhere else. I’m writing this at 10:30 pm for publication in the morning, so I’ve done all the research I can for now, but maybe someone can let me know what’s happening with this property, and I can update this story?
Classism or not, there’s a certain inevitable realism to it. Does that help? You and your family live in a single family zoned neighborhood in Wallingford, I believe. Your neighbors are therefore other similar family units, each with a half million or so invested in your spots there. Maybe great neighbors – no guarantee, but you know, the kid has some trouble, he can go to the neighbors for help, that kind of thing.
Replace those neighbors with boarding houses. You have a half dozen guys living on either side of you, coming and going at whatever hours. Nothing invested, really nothing – their landlord doesn’t know them, the other residents may or may not even know who’s living there or just friends of someone living there, you sure aren’t keeping track of everyone. Will the place be neat and well kept? What do you think? That’s not just density, it’s “vibrant”!
If there’s any merit in single family zoning, this looks like an obvious problem.
> … density isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it can be a good thing:
(D)ensity *is* a good thing, not just can be. Density accrues so many other benefits — not just walkability and “interestingness” but also better public transit, better food options and most importantly, more creativity and innovation:
http://urbantimes.co/2012/08/urban-growth-population-density-vs-creative-and-economic-output/
@donn: there’re some good points you make, but much of it seems to be a fear of the unknown. I’m not trying to wave it away; it’s very real. I’m just hoping people can look past it. FWIW, yes, I do live in an SFH, and yes, I have a kid, That said, I don’t know my neighbours at all, and I also used to rent in this area for almost a decade, and as a renter, I was no less emotionally invested in my neighbourhood (Lower Queen Anne) than I am now in Wallingford.
Well, there are boarding houses.. where rooms are rented by a landlord and there is no expected connection among the rentors. There are also communittes of single or married people in a single house who rent or possible one is the owner who have a collective focus with some responsibility t the house and the group.
“Fear of the unknown” is the same cheap shot as “fear of change.” I’m really tired of that BS.
Sure, let’s look past obvious drawbacks of whatever the latest scheme to cram more bodies into Wallingford, at all the good things the growth fairy will bring. Better public transit at the top of the list, I see. Anyone believe that? They’re cutting bus service to Wallingford, aren’t they? We have a thousand new units coming on line in just my corner of Wallingford, not exaggerating. Please, growth fairy, could we just keep the buses we have now?
Where are we going to be a generation or two from today? Of course there will be change, but if we could only insist that for Wallingford it be high quality change, that will look like a good idea 20 years later. It’s too late for much of it anyway – what are these residential barracks being hastily erected down here going to look like in 20 years?
I love the old IWW song that gave us the phrase “pie in the sky.” Work and pray, live on hay, there’ll be pie in the sky when you die. It’s amazing what people will believe.
Yeah, it’s OK until it becomes YOUR neighbor!
Before we bought our house (15 years ago) we lived in a rental house across the street for almost 10 years which was 2 apartments, upstairs & down.
It was sold to some greedy schmuck who put 5 bedrooms in the basement and turned it into a mini-dormatory. The “kids” who rotate thru DO NOT care about their neighbors (i.e.: excessive noise, overflowing trash, etc.).
AND no parking was added to accommodate the extra 5+ cars now in an already dense area.
Transit is of course about money. Maybe we’ll have money later, and if the bus system is swamped by the new arrivals, eventually over the years, maybe it will regain its current level of inferiority. It would be nice to have a little piece up front, of the billions that the developers are running off with, though, wouldn’t it? Last week’s city council brown bag talk was developer impact fees, which many if not most cities around here have, Bellevue for pity’s sake. Speaker after speaker testified to what a good idea it is (with the predictable exception of Blueprint Capital looter/developer’s “Smart Growth” stooge.) The council of course will get the developers’ input in private, and deliberate over the whole thing until the current development gold rush is about tapped out.
Anyway, the point being, that’s for major developments, not someone renting out rooms. If the developers should pay for impacts, how about the slumlords, think they’d be willing to pitch in?
Not … In … My … Backyard!
There are too many statements about ‘these types of people’. Do you really feel confident judging every person who rents a room? That kind of blanked judging is troublesome.
Density is good. It prevents urban sprawl. If you believe in higher density overall but oppose it when it is near you. Well, then, the hypocrisy would be evident.
Regarding the apodments, I don’t see a problem with them and, in fact, I like the community aspect of shared facilities. But we won’t be seeing many more of them in Seattle because the City requires a design review, which will make costs much higher to develop these types of properties.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2014/09/micro-apartments-are-about-to-become-more-costly.html
Our next door neighbors fit the “boarding house” definition. 5 or 6 singles (not college age) sharing one house. Who lives there changes through the year(s) but they’ve always been great neighbors -some we’ve known better than others. The owner/landlord does annual maintenance on his house (more than we do) and the renters maintain the yard, have a garden, etc. I have no problem with these neighbors (and I know there are other similar neighbors on our block). It’s a desirable place to live, so why should we be so surprised or judgemental at the variety of “homes”/housing options.
Wallingford is under growth pressure. In some ways, it is amazing that we have not already experienced what has happened in Ballard and Fremont, given that we are possibly the closest neighborhood to downtown that still has mainly single family homes. We are also under pressure from the growth in the U District from increase in the number of students admitted to the university, light rail and the density is already bringing, possible new zoning on the Ave which will mean the current buildings will be torn down and new ones with housing on top developed, not to mention the explosive growth of Amazon (where are all the new emplyees going to live?). Growth is coming, it is here, density is happening. The question is, who is managing that growth, and are we as residents going to have any say in how it is managed?
To the point of the writer, these are not boarding houses,(implying they are run by someone who lives in/owns the house, and provides meals. Like during the depression. These are rooming houses……one time single family homes that have taken advantage of the law, and now house many times the number of adults who used to live there. In the Latona neighborhood, two blocks from John Stanford School, there exists such a place. Single family home purchased by an investor who turned it into a duplex. Now, according to the current zoning laws of the City of Seattle, where for 75 years, a single family owned and lived in this home, now up to 16 adults could conceivably and legally live. I don’t know how much people pay to live there, I have heard $500/month for a single room, shared bathroom (one per floor?) and a single kitchen. I do know that over the 10 years or so of existence, there has been a constant revolving door of tenants, some good, some not so good. There have been extended periods of time that it has been quiet, and there have been extended times of not so quiet. There has been domestic violence, fires, drug traffic, police raids (one time with 15 different police vehicles, swat teams, automatic weapons, etc.). One former tenant came back and tried to set the building on fire. Currently there is a pirate flag flying from the chimney on top of the house and appears to be someone living in a tent on the balcony. From talking to some of the tenants from time to time I would say that most could be considered low income. I point that out to say that tenants rarely own cars so parking has not usually been a problem. The landlord is not responsive to communication with the neighbors and has appeared on TV at least once in a story about slum landlords. He was on camera for less than a minute to say that his tenants intentionally broke things in the building so they could get out of paying their rent. In the past week alone the police have received multiple calls and have responded to the property three times.
I would like to agree with the writer that, based on my experience alone, allowing rooming houses like this to exist is probably not the best way to go. Within half a block of this house there are more than 10 children of elementary school age or less. They are witnessing some very bad behavior. I don’t think it has to be this way, but without the owner occupying the rooming house, I think it is almost inevitable. I know that the behavior of the people in the house across the street depends on the character of the people who live there. At the same time I also think that environment affects behavior. If you put that many (related or unrelated) people in close proximity, with shared facilities and questionable upkeep, the outcomes are probably not going to be good.
Whoa, Brady – are you just making that up? Can you point out one case here of anyone “judging every person who rents a room”, or saying anything that implies that in some way?
The Footprint Wallingford location is at 4516 Meridian Ave N and it has been finished for a year I think. It has a bike repair shop on the main floor.
This is not a philosophical or emotional issue, it’s a zoning issue. Multifamily housing should not be allowed in single-family zoned neighborhoods. It’s really that simple. Investor groups are exploiting loopholes/insufficiencies in the law to the detriment of single-family neighborhoods. They are exploiting their low-income tenants as well – charging enough per room to get them twice or more what they would get if renting the house to a family. They aren’t doing this out of any altruistic intention to help low-income folks. Also, I don’t have time to look at Seattle’s regs here, but a key aspect of the definition of boardinghouse in Bellevue is that the owner LIVE on the property. And that is not the case with these places springing up. This is not about class – this is about zoning, not to mention increased cars on the street and in yards, litter, etc. I live next to a commercial business but it was there when I bought my house – I have no problem with that. I WOULD have a problem with neighbors converting their homes into 6-8 rooms to rent. Investors are often turning garages and living rooms into rooms to rent – that is multifamily, not single family. People can be idealistic if you like, but if you own a home, know that having houses around you doing this will lower your property value – plain and simple. If people wanted to live in multifamily zoning, they would – what a concept!
donn, do you object to all renters in Wallingford, or just people who rent rooms in boarding houses? If it is just boarding house renters why do you objected to them in particular?
And I DO own a home in Wallingford – I’m just familiar with the issue/regs in Bellevue through other activities in my life. Honestly, homeowners are the real stakeholders in this issue. And I’m not being classist – the only reason I can afford my house is that I bought it in 1991. I couldn’t afford it today. My suggestion for individuals interested in providing more multifamily housing in this city should pursue ways to expand multifamily ZONING/REZONES in the city rather than allow illegal, exploitative room rentals to continue to pop up in single-family zones. And I think someone also raised the issue of transportation. Traffic is already noticeably worse with the economy improving. Drive around Ballard, South Lake Union, U-District, etc. – where are all of the occupants of these new developments going to park and drive? Especially when we have Metro reducing their services.
I would like to see requirements for parking spaces for these apodments / rooming houses. When I was a student looking for a place to live and when I first got out of school, places like these would have been good options. And I would have had a car. From this, I jump to that an apodment would have many residents with cars. And there is a limited amount of space in the street. Of course, from my renter days, I also remember that the price for a parking spot was often much higher than what I wanted to pay, so I didn’t, and I parked in the street. Which reminds me that in much more dense cities like D.C., there is a nice “off-the-books” business going of parking spot rentals.
In summary: I wish that there would be off-street parking that the tenants actually use for the cars that density brings. But, I don’t know how to make this happen. 🙂
Me? I don’t live in a single family residential zone. The place across the street has rented to multiple tenants, never any problem, sometimes they’ve been great. The place around the corner has been a nightmare at times. It isn’t zoned single family, so “oh, well.” In a single family zone, it would be more like “WTF?”
Rooming house or not, students or not, I object to people who are bad neighbors and let the exterior of the house look like hell. And I object to landlords who don’t screen their tenants or maintain house rules.
A house a few doors up from me has about five residents. Six years ago, the exterior of the house looked like hell, a small forest of locust trees and blackberries was taking over the back yard, they’d play music and smoke weed on the front porch at all hours of the night (outside the neighbor’s infant’s window) and for one summer they lit campfires every night, with the smoke blowing into the neighbors’ windows. The landlord was not helpful in any way. One resident set the kitchen on fire late one night. THAT, I object to.
Fast forward six years. The house is now populated with a new group of people (all girls) who put a ton of effort into cleaning up the yard, and who are quiet and friendly. They play loud music too, but turn it down at 10pm, and act in every way like good neighbors.
If you’re going to band with your neighbors, I’d suggest a more immediate impact would come from meeting with the residents (unless they’re dangerous) and then pressuring their landlords from multiple fronts and a trove of evidence demonstrating how the residents are a nuisance or risk to the neighborhood.
It won’t always work, but it can make a difference.
Apparently, my house used to be known as the “Shack on Thack” and was a rooming house infamous for loud parties. Every year around UW homecoming, cars with older-looking couples drive by slowly and take a couple of pictures.
donn, let me try to clarify, are you saying that it would be OK for 6 people to live in a house in single family zone if they all know each other and pay a single rent, but if they don’t know each other and each pay their rent separately that would not be OK? If so, what’s the difference, aside from not meeting the strict definition of being a “single family”?
That’s a hypothetical situation, and of course the reality depends on the people, as in Maggie’s example above. And I’m no sociologist, but I’d expect there’s a difference in the sense of community and shared responsibility, that makes a renting group a little more likely to exert some positive influence on each other, than in a group of independent renters.
Houseshares and rooming houses are two separate concepts.
donn, You assume that someone who can only afford or only needs a single room instead of a house will have less “sense of community and shared responsibility” than someone who can afford and needs a whole house. I don’t accept this premise.
You said, “Replace those neighbors with boarding houses. You have a half dozen guys living on either side of you, coming and going at whatever hours”. All neighbors come and go, the intended implication is that there is something nefarious about these particular peoples’ movements, otherwise why mention it. This is simple snobbery.
We should welcome people who want to live in our neighborhood regardless of how many square feet of space they need and can afford.
Lived for years with a house on the block that was divided into rooms for rent. None of the neighbors ever knew for sure how many rooms… Anyway, never had any trouble at all from the tenants. Mostly, we worried about the safety of the renters in case of fire–no idea how much of a maze that place was. (Realizing that the folks there were hard up for a place to live, no one wanted to call in the violation.)
Oh, and on average there were about two cars around belonging to tenants. Rooming-house residents don’t tend to have car money.
I doubt that all roommate or boarding houses west of Wallingford Ave combined even come close to creating the impact that Bastyr is creating. Why aren’t they required to provide parking for their student and faculty population? ???
Also, I place a high value on some economic diversity in this neighborhood. There wouldn’t be much of it at all if roommates and boarding houses couldn’t be here.
Your hypothetical question, Ben, was 6 people living in the house under two very different rental arrangements, not “someone who can afford and needs a whole house.” That’s another case, about which one could offer more hand waving generalities. Really, any fool can see pretty well how it works, with the exception of those so enlightened as to prevent them from seeing anything. Why are boarders liable to keep unusual hours? You know people with 9 to 5 office jobs aren’t on the average going to be who’s renting a bed in a boarding house. There’s no implication that it’s nefarious, rather a scurrilous and deliberate misrepresentation. It just makes a difference in the environment when your neighbors keep unusual nocturnal hours, compounded with the lack of investment in their residence etc.
We have no reason to believe a person who rents a room is a worse a neighbor that someone who rents a whole house. We have no reason to believe a person who works nights is a worse a neighbor that someone who works 9-5. To say anything else, without evidence, is snobbery.
I think there is a confusion about terminology in this conversation.
“single-family” zoning vs. “multi-family” zoning really refers to the building structure, not the occupants. Houses vs. multi-unit apartments/condos. Does every house in Wallingford get polled to ensure that everyone living there is part of a single family? How do you define family in that case? No, that is not what “single-family zoning” means.
Shared housing is an excellent option for young people starting out, who may not have enough money to rent an apartment on their own, or who is looking to make friends and build community. I lived in shared housing throughout my twenties until I bought my house. Shared housing is hands-down the most economical way to live on a modest income – a growing issue in these days of income inequality.
Now, as a homeowner, I reserve the right to rent my house. I am not required by zoning laws to make sure my renters all belong to a “single family.”
I also have several rental houses on my block. My immediate neighbor-house has gone through several iterations, some of which were nearly intolerable. But they have as much right to be there as I do. The best strategy is to try to develop a relationship with the neighbors and talk about expectations.
I don’t agree with the idea that owners have greater standing than renters. It is our choice to buy, and we take on the risks and rewards of that investment.
Incidentally, there are plenty of homeowners who play obnoxiously loud music constantly or have loud parties or collect vehicles.
I’d be interested to see a cross-analysis of this topic with the bicycle topic (see Cycle Rage). Are the people complaining about density and lack of parking also complaining about bicyclists?
20 @donn: “You know people with 9 to 5 office jobs aren’t on the average going to be who’s renting a bed in a boarding house.”
What?! On what are you basing this “hand-waving generality?”
how about receptionists, data entry clerks, customer service reps, etc? what about the entire 8-4:30 construction industry? I’ve done all of those things while renting a room in a house.
for that matter, what about home-owning doctors who are on call at crazy hours? or professors who teach evening classes? pharmaceutical salespeople who travel all over?
when people “come and go” is none of ANYONE’s business, regardless of whether they rent or own.
trying to rationalize how this is NOT a classist/snobbery issue turns people into pretzels.
Ben, your statement is in fact somewhat narrow. We really have no reason to believe any neighbor at all is worse than any other neighbor. As a person. We’re just talking about practical consequences of boarding houses, in single family residential neighborhood.
We also haven’t used the term “standing” until post 28, so it’s not clear to me where the disagreement is exactly – but it seems to me a sort of legal notion, and for sure an owner is different in that sense. Ownership also clearly involves a greater commitment to the place. Some posts back the point was made that in the boarding house case, it makes a difference whether the owner lives on the premises – it’s clear why, isn’t it?
We have a house a few houses away from us that has a revolving door of tenants. The house/yard is minimally maintained, not an eyesore but obviously a rental. The biggest issue for us is the lack of parking. We have no garage nor driveway with only street parking so we planted our parking strip mindful of heavy rains as well as tree debris/sap. Of the tenants who live in that rental there is usually one of them who takes the best parking spaces or wastes precious parking space by not parking reasonably close to the next car and leaves their car for weeks at a time. Out of consideration most of us try to either park in front of our own house and move our cars on a regular basis. However narrow minded it is I kind of resent having a car parked for several weeks in front of my house under clean trees while I get to park under their trees that ruin car finishes. I know there is a 72 hour parking law but on occasion we all need to leave our car for longer periods plus I really don’t want to start parking wars. All things considered, I’m sure there is a better way to blend these two types of residential use but it is my opinion the city’s energy is devoted more to what they want not how to do it in a reasonable manner.
Regarding the safety of rental units: The City of Seattle has approved a licensing program, RRIO (Rental registration and inspection ordinance), that will be fully implemented by 2016. All rented units will be inspected. This includes rented single-family homes up to 200-unit apartment buildings. The regulations require normal code requirements like windows with egress, proper sanitation, adequate heating, minimal room sizes, code grade electrical, etc. The new regulations will create big issues for the places that are in poor condition and are being run illegally.
I’m just jumping in to remind everyone about the only key issue – which is there should not be multifamily housing in single-family housing zones. It has nothing to do with anyone’s occupation or character. And as someone wisely noted, house shares (with people who generally know each other and/or live as a household) are completely different than chopping up a 3 BR house into 8 “compartments” and renting rooms to strangers on Craigslist, strangers to the point that everyone has a lock on their door (which is the type of flophouses, essentially, being run by shrewd investors). I’m sure these investors are not setting up these houses next door to themselves and in their own neighborhoods (and many do not even live in this country).
I agree with Kelly W, “There should not be multifamily in single-family zones” period!
Don’t change our neighborhoods! This is one of the things I like about my neighborhood that has a feeling of small town within a large city. Adding multi-family zoning would create parking problems which we have already because people park their cars in our neighborhood and cross the street to catch the bus to work.
I don’t think it’s a proposal, though, is it? It’s done. Honestly, I’m not familiar enough with the terminology to understand the “clarification”, but I had the impression that what we’re talking about here is whether current “clarified” policy needs to be reclarified or something, so as to preserve the intent and reality of single family housing zoning.
donn, I’m glad we agree that one neighbor is no better or worse than another based on the type of residence they live in. The practical consequences of boarding houses in single family zones (SFZ) in Wallingford is that people of more varied personal circumstances, both personal and economic, can live in the heart of our neighborhood. Boarding houses are great way of achieving this without increasing the size of buildings in the SFZ. I’m glad the city doesn’t have a pedantic definition of “single family” which prevents this.
I live directly across the street from the Footprint boarding-house/microapartments/aPodMents/whatever.
It’s been no issue at all; the people I’ve bumped into have been nice, the bike-shop’s great to have, and the additional people eating at our restaurants, drinking at our bars, and boarding the 16 & 44 will help ensure that those businesses & bus-routes stick around for a while.
I bumped into a bartender in Wallingford who lives in a room, there, and while she’s somewhat wistful for a bit more space, she likes being able to easily
The rub may be when CVS’ construction actually gets going, and residents lose their squatted-parking spaces in the Moon Temple lot. While the building is designed to be “transit-oriented”, many of the people actually have cars. This isn’t that surprising, because the only places with comparable rent are a ways out of town, so there aren’t going to be a ton of non-UW students without vehicles moving in.
Won’t bother me, as I have a driveway, and a car that collects more dust than miles, but if there’s one people that can drive otherwise-reasonable people insane, it’s anything remotely to do with parking…
-jeff
There was no need for single family to be “clarified” to achieve that objective – Wallingford has plenty of multifamily residential, for those that want it.
@Kelly W #34: I’m not sure I understand your reminder about the “only key issue.” The original post was about a provision allowing a single-family home to be rented to up to 8 unrelated adults. There is no mention of this arrangement being designated multi-family housing within a single family zone. It is considered appropriate use of a single-family zone.
The ensuing debate has been about trying to determine the distinction between a single-family home and a multi-family unit. You yourself express an opinion about this distinction, and others have different opinions.
The key issue actually, it seems, is clarifying what is meant by the single-family housing zone designation, as donn says.
The use of the phrase “single family” is sloppy, and conjures a subjective ideal of a nuclear family model. This model is exclusive, and doesn’t include the many different needs real people have for housing. Perhaps a more descriptive zone name designating number of persons per unit parcel size would help disabuse people of their exclusionary ideas about who is and isn’t permitted to share our neighborhood.
My personal belief is that greater diversity creates greater resilience.
Groups of unrelated non-nuclear-family people have rented houses in single family residential zones for ages. It has not been a major issue, and sure is not what we’re talking about, as made clear in #34.
If you’re interested in doing away with single family residential zoning, that’s somewhat tangential, but I believe you could find arguments out there against zoning in general – essentially that allowing all uses to mix together at their convenience works better. Of course it’s a “non-starter” as we used to say, but whatever.
hi donn. it seems from the original post that it is exactly what we’re talking about. Can you clarify what you think we are talking about? You say #34 makes it clear, but #34 makes a distinction about which non-nuclear-family groupings are acceptable and which aren’t. That makes it less clear for me.
thanks!
From the article: “This allows investors to buy houses in single family zones and rent the rooms individually.” That is what we’re talking about. Groups of unrelated people commonly rent houses collectively. That’s the difference, in a word – collectively, vs individually.
Excellent summation of the issue.
Sorry, I don’t know what you mean by “the article.” I don’t see that where that quote comes from.
It is possible that other members of the conversation might disagree that this is what we’re talking about, but I understand and acknowledge that this is what you would like to talk about.
On that note, may I please ask one more clarifying question. Am I correct in reading your comment to mean: individual investor renting rooms individually is the “undesirable” outcome, and group of people renting a house collectively is acceptable?
If so, I can understand the distinction you’re making. And, wow, would it be difficult to enforce! I would like to see that energy go towards figuring out how we can all live together.
The illusion that we can control things to this degree is a source of great stress.
One illusion at a time. The quote comes from very near the top of this page, where in the main left hand column there is a blog post (“the article”) that presents a message from Cheri beginning “I’d like to see a discussion …” This is that discussion, and it may make more sense when you’ve read that message.
I agree some higher density in the urban villages, such as for example N 45th St but the density advocates who want to turn the entire city into an ugly treeless urban area of which America has tons of already go way overboard. What made Seattle a “nice” small big city is slowly being killed off. The city government says they have a goal of increasing tree canopy coverage while simultaneously upzoning everything. Duh! That ain’t gonna work! To add insult to injury, the “progressive” movement which took over in Seattle and are turning it into a typical ugly American city wasteland are usually from elsewhere meaning other states.
Rooming houses and apodment buildings help house the increasing population of the city without building gigantic hulking buildings of one and two bedroom apartments, which would seem to be contributing to the “ugly treeless urban area” of which Evon speaks.
There is no denying that the city is growing. It has been growing since the 19th century, and there is no reason for the population to stop increasing just because that might be more pleasing for those already here. The question is how best to deal with this growth, and that is either suburban sprawl or urban density. The next question is what urban density means. And that brings us back to small units vs large buildings vs the ever-popular and not terribly effective “go live in some other neighborhood.”
I’m in favor of anything that makes Seattle more affordable for more people. And for the people who object because Wallingford’s transit is being cut, let’s remember that only one line is being cut entirely (26) and two are being consolidated (31&32). The trunk routes (16 & 44) are not being touched at all.
a conversation tends to flow where the energy of the community takes it. clearly, our community has broader concerns about density than a narrow interpretation of “what the issue is” will accommodate.
i would still like to hear ideas about how one would enforce or codify the difference between an individual investor renting individual rooms and a group of adults renting collectively. perhaps Cheri has ideas?
@Skylar: just a clarification, the 26 route will not be cut entirely; it will just be Express instead of Local.
Wait, what? There should be no multifamily housing in single family zones? That seems odd and unrealistic. I am an owner of a single family home in Wallingford for the past 25 years. On my block are two multifamily structures… that I know of. One is a house with multiple college aged kids sharing it. The other is a house with a garage-turned-apartments behind it. Neither has been a major issue. I am perplexed that people think there should be separate parts of the city for single family and multifamily.
Zoning is a legal land use concept. Not a matter of opinion or philosophy. I wonder if the garage apartments are legally established?? College kids living together sharing rent as a household is different than renting rooms to strangers, incl cutting up houses into many rooms. I go back to, do you think these investors are doing this next door to themselves?
Might add that residential zoning that separates single family from apartments etc. has been here since before most of us were born. While there are some looter/developers who’d like to do away with it, that calls for a little more representative process than a “clarification” from DPD director.
Over in the Wallyhood forums, there’s another thread about the campers and inhabited buses down by the water. (Given that there’s no bathroom facilities, that is a very unfortunate situation.)
Might one solution to that problem be–rooms and other small, affordable housing units?
Sure, if they have money for that and want to live that way! A multifamily residential zone would be an appropriate location for those units, and Wallingford has that.
@runyararo – Fair enough, and to be totally accurate the 16 doesn’t escape untouched but is shifted to Wallingford (from Stone) and gets a frequency boost to every 15 minutes (from 20) on weekdays to make up for the elimination of the 26. That might actually be an improvement for accessing Wallingford by bus, given that the 26 misses the major commercial areas along 45th.
40th (and Stone south of 40th) will still have service on the 32, which likewise gets a frequency boost to every 8-15 minutes (from every 30 minutes) to make up for the elimination of the 26 and 31.
Wallingford comes out looking pretty good as a whole.
Um, sorry, but the proposed elimination of the 26 local is most assuredly NOT a good thing. I had hopes that at least the commuter runs for this bus route would be retained. For those of us in the southern end of Wallingford Ave, the cuts will mean a hike either up to 40th for the 26 express, or west to Stone Way or Fremont Ave for another route.
In the rain, or at night, this is not going to be easy, and frankly, given the crowding on the 26 local now, I’m worried about the real likelihood of finding a seat on any of the other buses. This isn’t what I can call an “improvement.”
Skylar-
The latest proposal on the 16 is an increase in frequency to 15 minutes only during rush hours. The routing through Wallingford doesn’t change – it just goes down Stone to Fremont instead of going over to Aurora and then if goes down Dexter to Downtown. Wallingford is seeing a huge decrease in service if these cuts go through – particularly in the evenings and on weekends.
Latest 16 proposal:
http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/future/PDFs/201502/route-016-sep14.pdf
Ah, thanks, I stand corrected. I was looking at an earlier proposal that would have run the 16 down Wallingford. The 32 will still run down 40th though, which will require people who used to take the 26 going downtown to transfer in Fremont to the 40, or to take the 32 the other direction and transfer in the U-District to the 71-73.
My point isn’t to trivialize these cuts, though – it’s to say that while Metro is making cuts, it’s no reason to oppose smart, transit-oriented development. Note that all the recent development in Wallingford is along transit corridors that Metro will be maintaining (the 44) or even improving (16). I’m not aware of any development along the corridor served exclusively by the 26.
@Skylar. I agree with you on the point of smart, transit-oriented development….it’s when this is NOT smart that I worry.
And actually, the south end of Wallingford has seen gradual growth in multifamily dwellings, and I imagine that will continue. One emerging example would be the big multifamily project proposed at Wallingford and 34th, one block south of a key stop for the #26 local. There are other properties in the same area that could be proposed for multifamily dwellings in the not-too-distant future, and having this occurring when transit is being removed? Not good urban/transit planning at all, in my view.
It’s semantics – they mean “smart” as in, “this is going to smart some.”
Density was addressed in the 1990’s via the neighborhood planning process to gather resident’s input on how to grow and still maintain the special flavor of each Seattle neighborhood, part of what makes Seattle unique (read the Wallingford Neighborhood Plan). Amenities were promised to help the social fabric better deal with the stress of increased density. Wallingford met and exceeded mandated growth targets before the plan was completed.
In 2004, the City increased the growth targets again and, as of now, Wallingford has again exceeded number of units, this time ten years early. Yet we are still not seeing the types of amenities promised to help mitigate growth – larger library, more open space, a community center, improved bus service.
One has to wonder, if Wallingford has already exceeded the 2024 growth targets, why does the City feel compelled to waive conventional development requirements, such as parking and setbacks, to try to encourage even more growth? It seems that as our neighborhoods satisfy City targets, incentives for more growth should be phased back to more conventional requirements. We live in a region with great beauty and a love for outdoors. To expect that all new residents will now live without a vehicle to access that beauty is unrealistic, especially as our bus access to downtown is being reduced or eliminated… and provide some of those promised amenities!
@Neighbor2You I wasn’t aware of anything new going in at the bottom of Wallingford. If those projects are approved, we absolutely should push for the 26 (or a suitable replacement) to be brought back.
gregf @ 63, I totally agree that amenities need to grow with density. Because Wallingford met the growth targets is not a reason to scale back on growth, quite the opposite, we should be pushing for higher targets together with more amenities. One of the reasons we should increase the density of the close in neighborhoods is to protect the beauty of the region from development. There are also many other benefits to greater density such the fact that it makes it easier to provide the amenities you mentioned.
The project at the bottom of Wallingford was formerly Avtech. Two buildings, 131 units north of 34th and 77 units south, at the time I looked. It’s about 1 mile from there to drugstore row, supermarket etc. up on N 45th.
While I had my map out, I see one of the new developments down here describes itself on the permitting as 60 rooms in 4 attached congregate residences, at 3642 Woodland Park N. The craigslist ad says “three floors of contemporary traditional Pod units.” Not zoned single family, I believe.
I think it may to some extent be a myth, that greater density makes it easier to provide amenities. Past a certain point, and at our targets we’re well past it, increased density means increased challenges for infrastructure. It would be a little reassuring to see some of these amenities, anyway.
We can tear down all the single family houses, and move everybody to high-rises. Twenty families can then fit in the land that used to be occupied by one family. That way we’ll have a lot of land for forest and bike lanes.
You are right TJ: cram ’em, jam ’em and slam ’em in. Growth, growth and more growth. Make the spaces smaller, the buildings higher, the investors richer and the forests, well, uh, the forests are going to have to go too. Oh, that’s right, they are already going, along with the fish and the birds and the bees. But heck, we have a new iphone! and some cool gaming! and shucks, all those dogs get used to artificial turf – so can we!
I have two grouses. W have to park on the street during the week ’cause on 40th the cars go so fast trying to get where ever on time. If we try to leap onto the street we get honks, degrading words, and a count of how many brain cells they have
My other grouse is how do all the people that have or will live in Wallingford get to the grocery? We have only one that is within walking distance of anywhere Wouldn’t it have been better to build a nice grocery instead of a QVC (SP) that will put Bartells out of business? People who like QFC. will still go there.
By the way if anyone knows how to build a bike for an 81 year old that is freway safe it would be wonderful for getting to the DR and store.
Not providing parking when growth targets based on current infrastructure have already been exceeded is irresponsible and will adversely impact our business core as well as adjacent single family residents as street parking is consumed. Infrastructure MUST expand along with growth or quality of life will suffer. We have seen little or no improvements to our infrastructure to accommodate the incredible growth Wallingford has already seen in the past 20 years. Dumping parking from new development onto neighboring businesses and residents does not help accommodate growth. The City has not kept their part of the bargain.
We frequently hear developers use the affordable housing mantra to justify not providing parking. It is simply not possible to build NEW “affordable housing” that costs less than existing. Regardless. Less expensive housing will typically be older, established apartments where financing has been paid off and the rents are stable because the owner is isolated from the vagaries of the economy. To expect to be able to tear down existing housing, design a replacement multifamily building, and construct and finance a new building for less than an existing building is simply not possible. Affordable housing = existing apartment housing. The new housing will always cost more.