Did you know Wallingford has a neighborhood plan? It does! The Plan is 103 pages long and filled with flowery prose and pictures of bungalows. It was written a few months before I arrived in Wallingford, 17 years ago. If you’re having trouble going to sleep tonight, here it is.
The Plan used to really, really matter. It was put together when Jim Diers was in charge of the all powerful Department of Neighborhoods. The idea back then was to put neighborhoods in charge of their own development. Community meetings decided The Plan, then The Plan decided zoning codes for developers and where the city would spend money in the neighborhood.
Now adays the Department of Neighborhoods really only manages the Neighborhood Matching Fund. Development rules get updated by council members in exchange for funding their next campaign, which as of the 2013 reporting year was about $200,000 per candidate in competitive races.
But still, Wallingford’s zoning dates back to that magical day 17 years ago! And some people from back then are still around that care about zoning codes. Go figure. You can meet them at the Wallingford Community Council Land Use Committee, where they will tell you all the many ways they have lost fights over zoning codes.
They lose to a strangely successful alliance between moneyed, conservative developer interests and acolytes of The Stranger pushing car-free density. Together they form a political juggernaut that makes developer friendly rules changes regularly, rationalizing them as being for being for transit, or for micro-housing, or for green buildings, or for low income housing incentives, or so the executives at Brooks Sports can have a better view. It’s not likely to change either; in the last mayoral campaign Peter Steinbruck ran on reviving neighborhood control, then was soundly trounced in the primaries.
In broad terms, 45th and Stone are currently being plowed under as they are part of the”Urban Village” envisioned in 1998. Here’s Wallingford’s zoning today:
Which is more or less a direct copy from the charmingly hand drawn map in the Neighborhood Plan, from back before the days when PanaVision colorized everything:
If you want the details, the Department of Planning and Development has a site you can get lost in for years.
I’m curious… What do others in the community think about the current state of the economy and housing costs in Seattle?
I grew up in Seattle. My parents were very active in the community, working tirelessly to make Seattle a better place to live. We lived in Madrona, which was a diverse community at the time and is now a highly privileged area with homes selling for multi-million dollars. And, due to the Seattle Public School’s busing/diversity program, I went to school on Beacon Hill with many first generation immigrants. Through these experiences, I gained a great appreciation for diversity and community development work.
I’m now approaching middle age and we’re looking to move-up to a house larger than our little WWII minimalist home in Wallingford. In order to do so, we’re looking at a price tag of at least $700k and likely $800k. Although we’re fortunate enough to be able to consider buying a home at this price range, I’m troubled by what this means for our community. I’m afraid that as this system plays out over the coming years, it will eliminate most economic diversity in the city. Is that a city in which we want to live?
My parents worked hard to make the city a better and more inclusive place. Their work was very consistent with the type of thought that went into the neighborhood plan process. I believe that their work, and the work of many others during the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s, set Seattle up for the greatness that people now ascribe to it. What I find troubling is that these community building efforts, with the best of intentions, have set-up an environment that is highly desirable, yet it’s causing the city to become exceptionally privileged and it’s pushing out diversity at a break-neck speed.
What, if anything, can we do to change this? Or, is it time to find another city that isn’t yet gentrifying at this rate?
Cameron, your concerns are valid and these are hard things to weigh. It seems like your decision is to move to a neighborhood that hasn’t gentrified yet (plenty of those in Seattle). Then you have kids and you start to second guess yourself because the best schools are in the areas with less economic diversity. We like the neighborhood and the folks here have a conscience, but acknowledge the lack of diversity as a negative.
Thanks for your thoughs, Brady. Yes, the schools discussion is one we’ve been having often.
As we’ve been house shopping, something that has come to mind is that there are few neighborhoods in the city that aren’t gentrified or gentrifying quickly. Columbia City, Beacon Hill, West Sesttle… someone without a significant income can’t afford to buy in these previously working class neighborhoods. Of course, Ballard made that transition quickly and recently too.
What I’m worried about is what our community/society will look like as over the coming years no-one at a working class level can afford to live in the city. Is that the type of community/society we want to live in? If not, what can we do to change it?
There are affordable rental units still. In addition, the City is pushing the low income apartments on developers so a lot of them are getting constructed. This will provide some housing for a diverse amount of folks, but it will never be like NYC where rent control is everywhere.
Over the coming years? Do you think we can draw a line through the statistics from the last couple of years and predict the future, or is our grow-or-fail economic model reaching a sort of plateau where it’s all bubble and crash cycle? Ordinary houses “worth” a million, ordinary people “earning” $125K – is it real? Seattle is living the dream, all right!
Cameron, Your thoughts on this subject are completely consistent with mine. Thirty years ago I bought my home in Wallingford. There was less diversity in the neighborhood then than there is now. I paid more than I thought I could afford for the convenience of the commute to downtown, but bemoaned the lack of diversity, especially ethnic diversity. I have done some work in the past years looking with city of Seattle staff at census data trying to determine migration patterns, especially of ethnic minorities. It is not new news that a large part of this group of people are being pushed out of Seattle, for economic reasons, and are moving south, towards Kent and Auburn and farther. Well intentioned Rapid Transit, which was placed strategically specifically to help low income workers commute to downtown jobs, has actually had the effect of accelerating the gentrification of the neighborhood through which it passes. Specifically for Wallingford, I think the future of diversity of our neighborhood will depend in large part on what happens with hiring practices I companies like Amazon which are taking over South Lake Union (see article in yesterday’s Seattle Times). Ironically, though this may actually increase diversity along ethnic lines as these specialized companies bring in specially trained people from other countries, economically, these highly compensated individuals will have the effect of pushing up property values. This will mean that lower income families will not be able to purchase properties in Wallingford. It appears that rental properties will increase as density is forced upon us by economics. Point is, Wallingford/Fremont/Queen Ann are the closest neighborhoods to South Lake Union that still has single family housing. Housing prices are going to keep going up, to the exclusion of many who serve and service our neighborhood.
The story says that the neighborhood asked for this development, almost 20 years ago, then immediately says the neighborhood is losing, perhaps because the zoning has remained the same. I don’t see any ‘hand drawn’ maps, but I do see things changing while the plan remains the same. Council districting has given more power to the neighborhoods than the at-large seats we had before.
Eric may call me a Stranger acolyte, but I’m not sure what alternative he’s advocating for. Density, transit, and low-cost housing must not be desirable on their own. The developer interests are ‘conservative’ and the interests for keeping things as they are, are… what exactly? Going back to 1997 isn’t an option. As others have asked above, how do we move forward? I don’t think there are any easy answers.
I think when he calls the developer interests “conservative”, he means it in the modern sense, which could use a better word. I like Exploitatarian. The political establishment’s devotion to progressive causes is a convenient veneer over their support for whatever has money behind it. Those causes are fine, but do we really get that transit, low-cost housing etc.? The promise is good enough, and seems to always be good enough for the voters.
As for the first sentence, “The story says …”, I’d encourage anyone who’s tempted to think that the story might have said those things, to go back and read it.
Donn, you’re exactly right — I did make some leaps in that first sentence. When I read it, there’s precious little that comes out and says there’s a problem, but the language heavily implies that there is.
Here’s what the article does say: “The Plan used to really, really matter. … The idea back then was to put neighborhoods in charge of their own development. Community meetings decided The Plan, then The Plan decided zoning codes for developers and where the city would spend money in the neighborhood. … Wallingford’s zoning dates back to that magical day 17 years ago!”
I’m piecing things together, but to me that says the zoning today is essentially the same as the zoning in ’98, and that the neighborhood had a huge impact on that zoning plan. If that isn’t what the neighborhood wanted back then, what did they want?
I’m not trying to defend the developers. Like everyone, there’s good ones and bad ones. A lot of the new buildings are crap, but so are some of the things those new buildings are replacing.
I am still honestly wondering what the alternative is.
Hi Kyle, sorry you’re needing to read tea leaves to make sense of the article. In broad terms I’m trying to say that what is happening now is the intent of the neighborhood plan, but it is also being undermined by developers getting exceptions that do an end run around the code. So the editorial slant in the article is that I feel sympathy for the land use committee of the WCC as we undergo this wave of development. Without any resources or pay, they are trying to enforce the good parts of the neighborhood plan while millions of dollars and the political system we have are stacked up against them.
Your clarification is really helpful, Eric.
The current pace and scale of development is bludgeoning the whole idea of liveable neighborhoods – those hosting a varied and interesting social, ethnic, environmental and economic demographic with family friendly, affordable housing. For anyone to think that they are safe because of current zoning codes is to not understand the nature of the beast.
Our infrastructure and public amenities are and will continue to be stretched to the breaking point. Our libraries, our parks, our water resources, our open spaces, our roads, our wildlife, our beaches, our transportation services, our social safety nets, and so on are shrinking as our population and density and resource use increase. Anyone who thinks they are saving the forest by living in a tiny box for $2000/month is enabling the owners to laugh all the way to the bank and back again. Check out where those guys live.
Seattle has been a particularly beautiful place for a long time. It is quickly becoming less and less beautiful as the trees are torn down. My people came here on sailing ships and covered wagons. We are relics now. Move on, make way for Amazon.com. And when the Amazon bunch start having families, where will they grow their babies? How many square feet will they need? How much green space for a baby to breath?
To save the trees is simple. Ban single family houses. Make the building/forest ratio 1:100. Everybody lives in high tower condos and live most of the land to forests!
@12 TJ, I respectfully disagree (though I suspect you are being sarcastic). It is Seattle’s single-family neighborhoods that have the most green growing things. Look at any condo lot, and you will see zero growing things.
As for property values, the numbers alone are irrelevant. I have an old property tax slip saying my house was worth $1500 40 years ago. And 40 years from now, it will be worth 15 million. That’s just inflation. What has changed is that income has not risen commensurate with cost of living. The fact is, working-class wages SHOULD be high enough for a trades person to buy these houses in Wallingford (especially north Wallingford).
brady, where are you finding these affordable rental units? Not in Wallingford, unless $1200 for a 1 bedroom plus utilities is considered reasonable now.
I am talking about low income housing. There isn’t much of it, but it is out there.
http://seattlehousing.org/housing/public/locations/
Glad to see that this topic is still getting some hits. I was a resident of Wallingford for 10 years prior to the 1997 neighborhood planning process, formatted the final document for submission to the City, and remember well the incredible interest and participation of the community at the time. What a concept, that a community could have a significant role in planning for growth in order to help maintain the unique characteristics of their neighborhood! Incredible!
Wallingford has blown away all expectations for growth since then (we met the goals before the original plan was even complete and again have reportedly met revised goals through 2024).
One of the promises made during the process by the City was to help by providing amenities to the neighborhood necessary to mitigate the increased density. We have the growth, but the City has NOT stepped up to provide the amenities. Indeed, it appears that City participation, or lack thereof, has instead served to allow growth to create INCREASED adverse impacts for our neighborhood. This should not stand.
Many have worked very hard over the 20 years since The Plan to try to encourage the City, the Parks Dept, the School District, and other departments to coordinate and try to realize some of the proposals in the plan, including additional open space, a community center (please!), an improved middle school, a neighborhood office. Initially, there was some help from the City, but then Jim Diers was kicked out, the Dept of Neighborhoods crippled, and City support for the neighborhood plans evaporated.
The Neighborhood Plan was approved by City Council. It represents a powerful tool that is actually City Legislation! It makes no sense that individual city departments should be allowed to circumvent City Council legislation for their own private whims of what a neighborhood needs, but that appears to currently be the case.
In response to Eric’s lament (thank you for reminding folks), please remember that the Someone (as in someone needs to do something) is US. The best way to effect change is for the neighborhood to be an active and vocal participant in the process. It does not always work ( as in the Roosevelt District last year), and sometimes can be a bit messy and painful (based on direct experience!). However, organized and direct participation is essentially the only way to persuade public officials that do not seem to know or care about the impacts that there is a better way. We live here. We know how things work (or do not work).
I guess what I am trying to say is Get Involved and Get Organized. Try to look beyond immediate personal wishes and hopes to identify long-term goals that will improve Wallingford down the road. It is possible to effect change, but the process is long and hard, especially faced with city bureaucrats that profess to “know better” than the folks that actually live in the neighborhood.