Did you know Sound Transit is thinking about running rail through Wallingford? Well, they never came to Wallingford to ask, but they are in fact planning it. Hell, I wouldn’t have known if Mike Ruby hadn’t told me, and he didn’t even know until a week and a half ago.
You might think “that’s nice, maybe I’ll use it”, but if you think that then you clearly don’t understand what adding light rail means. Light rail costs over a half billion dollars per mile, so the city completely rezones neighborhoods for density when adding it. The effect of “light” rail on Wallingford will be far, far greater than making 50th and 45th one way. Adding light rail to Wallingford will mean making Wallingford look like the U-District.
Here is a Q&A with Sound Transit spokesperson Geoff Patrick. It took them over a week to reply to one email asking about the project, but you now have less than a week to tell them what you think:
Q1- When Through Wallingford: As we are in Wallingford, we are very interested in the newly proposed Sound Transit line between Ballard and the U-District. When are you considering that- after the Ballard line from downtown or at the same time as the Ballard line from downtown? As part of ST3, or after ST3?
Geoff: In August, public input that we are collecting through July 8 (there is a survey we are promoting at soundtransit3.org) will help the Sound Transit Board update a Draft Priority Project List identifying projects that are proposed to be studied as potential candidates for ST3. Information from the studies (including estimated costs, ridership and other information) will enable the Board to further narrow from those candidate projects to shape the ST3 measure. The Ballard-UW project is one of those on the list proposed for study as a possible ST3 project. If it is not included in ST3 it is envisioned by our Long-Range Plan to be built as part of a later measure.
Q2- Where Through Wallingford: Where are you thinking stations would be located between I-5 and Aurora? Are they all going to be located along NE 45th street?
Geoff: If the project is ultimately studied, that work will take a very general look at where stations could be located from the standpoints of developing conceptual ridership and cost estimates. However, it’s important to note that if the project was included in ST3, station locations wouldn’t be selected until Sound Transit conducted a very thorough environmental review process following passage of the measure. One of the important aspects of environmental review is involving community members in making these kinds of important decisions.
Q3- Above or Below Ground: Would you plan to bore all the way through Wallingford, or might the line be partly above ground through Wallingford, and if so where?
Geoff: If study of this project moves forward within the ST3 process, general assumptions about where the project could be underground, at-grade and elevated will be part of developing a conceptual level estimate of the project’s cost, travel times and ridership. However, the same response to the previous question applies here. Decisions about the routes and profiles of all light rail extensions will follow thorough environmental review processes that provide involvement opportunities for community members.
Q4- Walllingford Rezone: Our understanding is that the city says it will expand 60ft zoning to a 10 minute walk shed around station stops. Is that correct, and if so what are the possible zoning impacts of stations to Wallingford? What is the band of streets that could be impacted- for instance, would zoning impacts be limited to being between N 40th and N 50th?
Geoff: We need to refer you to the City of Seattle planning folks on this question.
Q5- Square Footage Requirements: What is the square footage requirement for stations? Can they straddle a roadway or must they all be located on a single city block?
Geoff: The space requirements depend greatly on the specific location and configuration (elevated, underground or at-grade). On this potential project, platform lengths would be assumed to be 200 feet long, enough for a 2-car train, and at-grade station platforms would not be divided by streets. Tunnel stations may be designed to accommodate 4-car trains for future potential expansion.
Q6- Congestion Tolling vs Property Taxes: In terms of funding, we recently had a poll on Wallyhood where 142 of 179 voters said they preferred congestion tolling to property taxes as the preferred mechanism for funding transit (79%) While we understand that the legislature require property taxes as the funding mechanism, you do have the ability to add advisory votes to the ballot. Would you consider having not just ST3 on the ballot, but also an advisory vote on the ballot that would ask the legislature to shift ST3 funding from property taxes to congestion tolling?
Geoff: The Sound Transit Board requested a mix of sales tax, MVET and property tax revenues from the Legislature because these are the sources most capable of generating the significantly increased revenues needed to make major infrastructure investments around the region. Other sources including tolling do not provide revenue levels significant enough to fund these major projects. The Board is likely to propose a ballot measure that uses the sources the Legislature granted.
What’s Next? When is the decision being made on what goes in to ST3, and what is the process leading up to that decision, including public comment?
Geoff: As mentioned earlier public input that we are collecting through July 8 (survey at soundtransit3.org) will help the Sound Transit Board decide in August which projects will be studied as potential candidates for ST3. Information from the studies (including estimated costs, ridership and other information) will enable the Board to further narrow from those candidate projects to shape the ST3 measure. Our schedule assumes that in early 2016 the Sound Transit Board will advance a draft ST3 measure for more public input.
More Reading: All this planning has of course not involved a single visit to Wallingford, but the transit blog has been discussing the issue for a while. Here are some links:
- The specific options for that route that Sound Transit evaluated are described here:
http://seattletransitblog.com/2014/06/14/sound-transit- reviews-ballard-uw-options/ - Here is some back story and advocacy for additional stations:
http://seattletransitblog.com/2014/06/23/lets-build-the- ballard-spur/ - And if that’s not enough, here’s more advocacy, including a bit about buses:
http://seattletransitblog.com/2014/06/30/ballard-uw-should- be-the-next-light-rail-line- in-seattle/
So, what do you think? If you are a home owner, are you eager to cash out? If you’re a renter, are you interested in moving? Because it seems unlikely to me that you’ll be using light rail in your current home. I figure a vote is in order:
Do You Support Light Rail and Related Rezoning in Wallingford?
- Yes (57%, 110 Votes)
- No (43%, 83 Votes)
Total Voters: 193
Loading ...
Oh god, here we go…
In the transit blog options review article, the routes are from Ballard to UW, and that seems to be what the interview is talking about. But in the map at the top of the article, I see a route through Ballard to downtown, through Interbay or Magnolia? Where does that come from?
Feeder rail like here to UW isn’t real attractive to me. Bus routes from my area go downtown on Aurora in less than 15 minutes. Light rail runs faster, but it’s hard to beat that time if you have to transfer through UW. Much of Ballard might be in the same position – downtown bus ride would be competitive in elapsed time, without the transfer nuisance – but a light rail trunk downtown would be a big change for them.
I wonder if the respondents who support Light Rail in Seattle, have enough information to reach this conclusion? The rezoning part can conceivable rezone single residential to commercial, or whatever is necessary to make the Light Rail happen. That is happening to some people who live in the Roosevelt/65NE area.
I think our buses are great.
Well, I guess I’ll take the minority view and say that I’m in full support of bringing light rail to Wallingford. Re-zoning would be just fine by me – the greater density the better. Just thought I’d register my opinion…
For context, I am a homeowner with family. Not at all eager to cash out, but love the majority of the impacts that come with density.
Okay, Jason, your view is duly noted. Now would you please do the rest of us a favor, cash out and move to a neighborhood that actually wants crushing density with the lower quality of life and other problems that accompany said rezoning. I didn’t sign up for living in a canyon of highrise apodments with no available parking and people staring into my house and back yard from their windows. Density is appropriate in some areas, but not all.
I’m with Jason, this is awesome news for Wallingford. Wallingford should have been upzoned long ago. This doesn’t mean I’m against single-family homes — for all of you home owners on the blog, remember that targeted upzoning can *save* your neighborhood. The city has to accommodate lots more people, and they can either be accommodated with n-pack townhouses and low-rise apartment buildings throughout the neighborhood, or large buildings along the transit corridors themselves. By using larger buildings, but fewer of them, more room exists to preserve single-family zones.
The one thing that bothers me about the proposal is that it goes downtown-Ballard-Wallingford, stopping just short of the existing University Link station at Brooklyn. If we’re going to go to all this effort to build another rail line, why not spend a little bit more and connect them? This would give a Ballard-UW connection that doesn’t exist right now, and would address the problems the 44 has with overcrowding and reliability, which donn mentions as well. Trains are only as useful as the connections are to them.
I echo Jason’s sentiments. My husband and I are home owners with a family and we are very much in favor of light rail and re-zoning to facilitate urban density. The opposite of NIMBY, we welcome it as responsible growth management.
Lisa, I understand that this subject is close to home for you (both literally and figuratively), and I do truly empathize with your feeling that the neighborhood is going in a direction that you don’t agree with. However, I would also point out that this neighborhood is within the boundaries of a growing city, less than five miles away from the downtown center, and with great access to a large number of arterials into that downtown center. If we’re not supposed to add density in this neighborhood, I don’t know how you expect Seattle to accommodate newcomers.
You may not have “signed up” for living next to a bunch of apartment buildings, but I would argue that by choosing to live with all of the conveniences outlined above, you certainly gave informed consent to that possibility. I’m not leaving, and, by the sounds of it, neither are you. As long as we’re living together, I’m happy to seek common ground in lobbying the City for quality growth, as Skylar recommends, but I can’t join you in a plea for zero growth in our neighborhood. While I love the neighborhood, that plea smacks too much of nimbyism for me.
Here, here, Maggie!
Well, this is interesting – the boosters here don’t seem like they are sure they even want to ride this light rail route or care where it goes, they just want the taller buildings. OK.
Skylar, read my comment #2 again. They are talking (Geoff is, anyway) about your Ballard UW connection. Someone (wallyhood map) has drawn up a Ballard downtown route, which I think would be better, but it isn’t on the table as far as I can tell.
Donn- the map comes from sound transit’s Web site here: http://soundtransit3.org/shaping-st3
The red lines are the areas under study.
Unfortunately, once again, I must strongly object to Eric’s biased reporting. First, this post is extremely leading and biased against light rail in Wallingford – with a poll immediately following. No counterpoint offered before the “vote.”
Second, Eric actually presented the results of a previous biased poll when interviewing a representative of Sound Transit. In that poll, Eric posted an extremely leading and biased argument for congestion pricing, against property tax funding, with no opportunity for a “third option,” and again with no counterpoint provided before the “vote.” These results are not legitimate to be sharing with Sound Transit or anyone outside of this blog.
This is a gross abuse of power. I request the proprietor of this blog, now that you’re back, to please rein Eric in.
There is plenty of complaining on this blog about traffic through Wallingford from Fremont and Ballard. East-west travel is extremely difficult in this north-south oriented city. Light rail from U district to Ballard would help alleviate that issue. Thumbs up from me. And no, Lisa, I’m not moving anywhere, and I encourage Jason to stay and fight the good fight. Please don’t assume you’re in the minority based on this biased blog post!
from the ST3 website:
http://soundtransit3.org/shaping-st3
C-02 Ballard to University District
This project would build light rail in a tunnel from Ballard’s Market Street area to the vicinity of the U District light rail station now under construction. Riders wishing to continue north or south on Link would transfer at that station.
@donn, review the ST3 site – there are indeed several variations of Ballard to Downtown on the table.
Don’t believe that upzoning parts of Wallingford is going to reduce development pressure nearby, as proposed in #6. This is akin to the logic that if we could only build enough units, we would naturally have affordable housing. It might seem to make sense, but it isn’t reality based. The only way to to keep development under control anywhere around here is to insist on it, with the mayor & city council held responsible.
There has been a lot of study done by Seattle Subway on what a light rail line from Ballard to U-District could look like and accomplish. Not only could it connect neighborhoods to each other (Ballard, Fremont, Wallingford, U-District), but also would have a ride time to downtown comparable (or even quicker) than Ballard to Downtown via Interbay. Additionally, it would serve more residents, and have a lower cost-per-passenger. Being completely below grade, it could even have driverless trains (much like Vancouver B.C.).
Much more reliable service than buses, and, connecting other neighborhoods to the commercial core of Wallingford, would bring in much more foot traffic. Yes, there would likely be upzoning of existing low to mid-rise areas (likely similar to Roosevelt). But, frankly, that will be happening in time anyway. Plus, this link would probably be 20 years down the road. We are building for future generations and, honestly, that might not directly impact some folks who don’t want to see zoning changes ever.
I would vote yes for light rail, i would love to have light rail in our neighborhood.
But, I would vote no for rezoning for obvious reasons.
Do the two changes have to be linked?
Jason and Maggie, So by merely having made the decision to live in Seattle at all, that supposedly gives my “informed consent” to completely change the zoning of my neighborhood in order to accommodate population growth?! That’s crap. How is it “nimbyism” to preserve what already exists? Wallingford is a lovely primarily single family home neighborhood that provides a certain quality of life and that is why people live here. Just because someone else decides to move to Seattle, that doesn’t mean my neighborhood has to change to accommodate THEM if they can’t find a single family home of their own to acquire here. If you want high density, you should look in those neighborhoods, not mine. Don’t presume to speak for me when it comes to increasing density in Wallingford if it includes adding anything more than a sensible accessory dwelling unit to an existing single family home. It’s amazing to me how many people will move somewhere because they like the “charm” or quality of life, etc., then do what they can to change that once they get here.
Thanks, donn. For some reason I thought this might be a new map, but I see it’s just one of the proposals. I think both Ballard-downtown and Ballard-UW are great projects, so I would definitely support Sound Transit in combining them. It could replace both the D line and 44, both of which are extremely popular but have chronic overcrowding and reliability problems, along with other routes like the 40.
Greg, high-quality, frequent transit is not cost-effective without population and employment density along the entire route. This is a big reason why cities like Vancouver, New York, and DC have the transit systems they do, and why we’re still struggling.
Greg @ 16 – what obvious reasons?
Lisa @ 17 – That actually is the definition of NIMBYism. You are specifically arguing that new residents should have to find somewhere else to live because you were here first. “If you want high density, you should look in those neighborhoods, not mine,” is about as NIMBY as it comes.
Lisa, nobody has a right to force a neighborhood to change. We do so through our own choices, and votes. As it is, it’s such a pain to get through Wallingford that, despite living close by, I do most of my shopping in Fremont. I have every intention of voting for change, and I welcome your votes to oppose it.
Of course you’re not moving, runyararo. And why would that be? Because perhaps Wallingford is a great place to live? Wonder if you’ll still feel that way when you’re hemmed in by multi-level apodments that don’t provide parking for their residents (who WILL have cars) and will be able to enjoy the visual and aural entertainment that will be provided by your new neighbors, lol… (I have friends in Ballard and on Capitol Hill who, like you, initially supported higher density and now they are suffering the direct effects of that opinion).
Skylar, why do you shop in Fremont? What can you get there you can’t get here? Oh, gosh, Richard, you’re right about the NIMBY definition. Okay, color me a NIMBYist.
I’d rather have a light rail station at 45th and Meridian than a single-story CVS.
Lisa,
If there’s a rail line through Wallingford, there’s a lot less reason for people to owns cars. That said, as long as you provide your own parking spots on your own property, you won’t have any problem finding parking. Otherwise, you’re competing with everyone else for a free, publicly-funded resource. Roads are paid for out of the general fund, so even those of us without cars (like me) are subsidizing your choice to park for free on the street. I could get more worked up about that but I don’t.
If you are concerned about parking, I recommend you lobby the city to create a parking benefit district for Wallingford. This could create a market for parking permits, reduce demand for street parking, and produce a revenue source for improvements in Wallingford like better parks and sidewalks.
Lisa,
I shop in Fremont because it’s so much more pleasant walking or busing there than along 45th. Getting from where I live close to Stone to the other end of Wallingford can take over 20 minutes using the 44, since folks in Wallingford lobbied against BAT lanes for the 44 back in 2007.
The only family-friendly description of 45th I can think of is “car sewer”.
I am totally in favor of light rail and, living in a neighborhood with multi-family zoning and owning a single family home, I can tell you my world hasn’t ended. The highest quality of life I had was in ‘crushing density’ in new york, where I could reach the homes of any of my friends without ever getting in a car.
Lisa, just for the record, you say that “Wallingford is a lovely primarily single family home neighborhood that provides a certain quality of life and that is why people live here,” but that’s not quite true. Some people live here for that reason, but I and others (I assume) also live here because of its great walkability, convenience to commute downtown and UW by car, bike or bus, and great restaurants and nightlife. Surely you recognize those benefits as well (even if you didn’t move here to take advantage of them). If so, I would indeed say that you could have predicted growth in your neighborhood and could predict that the City might make choices about that growth that would not perfectly reflect the desires of the current residents of the neighborhood, and so I would say that you did take your chances that growth might come.
I definitely do not “presume to speak for you when it comes to increasing density in Wallingford,” and I hope my statements don’t lead you to believe that I would say such a thing. The only person I can speak for is myself (and I guess, my kids, just because I say all sorts of things on their behalf :)).
Donn, as a “booster,” just to be clear, I would definitely use the light rail – and that is why I support it. Not as an excuse for greater density. My comments were intended to communicate that I welcome both the light rail and greater density if that’s what comes with the light rail.
What Aaron said. (born and raised in NYC – but please don’t take that as an excuse to say I should go back there)
Jason, the “…certain quality of life…” I mentioned includes the benefits you listed. High density is the norm where you come from so it’s understandable why you would support it, but it doesn’t have to be the “new normal” here in Wallingford.
I’m going to back Jason up here. And I grew up here. Was born here (as were my parents). We can grow with good transit, or grow with bad transit and rely on cars and fossil fuels. I’m voting for good transit and reducing car reliance.
“… could predict that the City might make choices about that growth that would not perfectly reflect the desires of the current residents …” Which is to say, the (developer-owned) city will cram this down our throats.
I dare say that for any given Wallingford resident, a fantasy picture could be painted of enhanced urban development that would appeal to that resident. Maybe drawing on the cities of Europe for inspiration – I don’t know, Paris, Amsterdam, Lisbon … depends on your taste in urban fantasy, I guess. Part of the problem however is that these places took centuries to achieve that quality, not a decade. Another part of the problem is that our municipal government is not up to this task. I don’t know how they do it in Lisbon, but our process here seems to be more on par with 3rd world western hemisphere countries, with results accordingly. The “planning” in our so called department of Planning and Development appears to be purely reactive.
Fantasy is a good thing, if it gives us inspiration to go ahead and do what needs to be done to achieve something similar. It’s bad if it’s just bait for suckers – let our developer friends pack more gigantic buildings in your neighborhood, and we just know things will turn out great.
I really object to people labeling others NIMBYs because it shuts down a valid although contentious opinion. How would the pro-density folks like to be labeled shils for developers every time they voice a valid albeit contentious opinion.
impliedobserver @ 33 – Actually, the only person to say anyone was a NIMBY was Lisa, and that was referring to herself, saying she wasn’t a NIMBY, just didn’t want new residents moving into her neighborhood or any change to happen in Wallingford.
As a rule, I agree with you. Most people I know that want to preserve character recognize that character is going to evolve, and are all in on growth, and working with developers and others to make sure it’s not all cookie-cutter buildings, but rather new construction that matches the neighborhood’s past, while charting its future. When they are labeled NIMBY, that’s wrong.
But if Lisa wants to call herself a NIMBY, then that’s her prerogative.
Getting back to the rail options … the stations don’t seem to be very centrally located. As DOUG reminds us, the CVS location at Meridian would be a fine spot, and they seem to have kind of run out of steam on that project – maybe they’d be happy to have Sound Transit buy them out.
With only one station, there’s bound to be a rather long walk to some destinations, but when they’re at the border (Stone) or outside the neighborhood altogether (Fremont), they can easily exceed a mile.
donn, hopefully ST will come back with better station placement. That said, they have really poor history in station spacing and location. For instance, why is Mount Baker station completely separate from the existing bus transit center; and why does the densest census tract in the state (Capitol Hill) get only one station; and why does the U District get two, but one in the middle of a parking lot? If this does happen, we should be ready to press SDOT, Metro and ST to shape up.
@32, you’re right that Seattle as a city has been reactive when it comes to transportation and development. Part of the reason for that is the unwillingness to acknowledge that higher density is happening, and is going to continue to happen. Seattle is a popular, vibrant place where people want to live (trust me, I come from a rust belt city that went the other way – we don’t want that). If we acknowledge the fact of higher density, instead of closing our eyes, plugging our ears and singing “Mary had a little lamb,” we can focus our efforts toward what kind of density and development we want to see (sustainable, walkable, beautiful, accessible, functional).
The cross-town traffic has been an issue for a very long time, and nothing was done about it. Now we have an opportunity to do something about it – AFTER Ballard has been condo-fied. It still needs to be done.
Part of the European solution is probably that they embrace high-density, instead of denying it, and plan accordingly. They also are willing to pay for it. Our government is elected by the citizenry, and the development that happens reflects the attitudes of the establishment electorate. Up until now, that has been dominated by the NIMBY attitudes expressed above. Hopefully it is changing, and we will start seeing some progressive action to slow down the fat-cat bare-minimum developers in favor of a more sustainable vision of a dense, livable city.
The way I remember it, they would have liked to have skirted Capitol Hill altogether, because of the elevation. That station’s like 200 feet below grade, isn’t it? They probably could have popped a station up near Montlake, too, but then they’d have to bring the urban paradise along with it, and Montlake historically has shown very strong skills when confronted with transportation “enhancements.”
in case my post isn’t clear when I say, “the development that happens reflects the attitudes of the establishment electorate. Up until now, that has been dominated by the NIMBY attitudes expressed above.”
If the people don’t support public projects and refuse to pay for public projects, it gets handed over to the private sector and free-market capitalism takes over. That’s when you get the enormous developer corporations (who make enormous campaign contributions) coming in, buying up property, and building to maximize profit and minimize expense.
That’s exactly what is not changing – the typical Seattle progressive has a nice portfolio of conscientious votes for the right causes, but is happy to be the developer’s best friend, because “density” is progressive and the Stranger will back them up on that. We’ll be lucky if we can even mobilize against the current mayor, who is the epitome of that position, but at best that’s years down the road and the damage is being done. O’Brien, current land use chair I think? is apparently no better, but his Fremont district won’t care as long as he’s progressively correct. Density is a polarizing term because right now, it means loosening every standard and leaving everything up to developers to achieve density all at once.
donn, I think you’re remembering the proposed First Hill station, which ST gave up on because it would either have to be very deep, and they were feeling risk-averse at the time; or involved a too-steep climb from Westlake. As a consolation prize, First Hill gets a streetcar which will be no better than a bus, but way more expensive. The only good thing about it is the late fees – the manufacturer of the cars pays a penalty for every month of delays.
45th and Meridian would be ideal — good spacing from a stop at or near Aurora. Even down as far as the shuttered liquor store (across from Dick’s) would be OK. Note that these are both considerably east of where I would be wanting to catch it, but that’s OK, because walking along living retail streets is much less onerous than walking along empty streets, or even purely residential ones.
People who live in single-family houses in neighborhoods like Wallingford tend to think that everyone else does too, but the fact is there are already lots of apartments and condos in Wallingford, and many more are on the way. Do any of you feel truly oppressed by the Mari-Don, which has no parking and predates almost everyone living in the neighborhood. There are plenty of grossly underused spaces even along a busy street like 45th for more development, too, without threatening your single-family blocks.
Skylar, streetcars are actually much worse than a bus, for one group of street users: bicyclists. Those tracks are killers.
I’d advise everyone to study the history of subway / light rail projects any city in the world (including Seattle) that were never built. And to see just how ridiculous those decisions seem in retrospect.
Thanks for pointing that out, Fnarf. That’s certainly true, despite the remediation that SDOT and ST could do to make them safe for cyclists.
Also agree that a station at 45th & Meridian would be about perfect. It would easily split the difference between stations at 45th & Aurora and 45th & I-5.
Alex,
ST has a great track record of finishing capital projects early and under budget (see University Link).
Given that we haven’t had any other light rail built since (arguably) the Monorail, and our streetcar network was dismantled by the 40s, which failed Seattle passenger rail projects are you referring to?
#40, i disagree that the progressives are in power. the very pro-big money establishment is in power, hence the sucking up to developers, letting Paul Allen do whatever he wants, multiple stadiums we voted against, and the lack of pressure on our very successful local businesses to support the infrastructure we so desperately need.
All true, but when we go to vote for the mayor et al., they’re as progressive as anyone could be. I don’t know how to sort out who’s really going to serve the interests of city residents, so I don’t have any answers. Other than maybe to remind them what happened to Conlon.
Skylar,
Sorry I wasn’t clear. What I meant was… when we look back on proposed subway projects that never happened due to public complaints, the reaction from the current generation is always “what were they thinking??”
I’m 100% pro light rail in Wallingford.
Anyone who thinks having a light rail station means their quality of life in Wallingford will decrease hasn’t been to the quieter parts of Paris, London, Tokyo, San Francisco, Zurich, Amsterdam, Munich etc etc etc etc etc.
All these cities’ quieter neighborhood have access to rapid transit they remain as quaint as ever.
There’s a problem with the poll. It tells me I already voted even though I have not and I’m living alone so no one else did on this computer either. I voted No. Is it rigged to only take yes votes?
@Alex The quality of life will decrease because the developments in Wallingford will not be quaint as in the cities you mention, but ugly orange, yellow, red or some other color shoe boxes without curb appeal as they are popping up all over the city. One thing I really dislike about all the new condo buildings is that there is rarely any setback from the side walk. If green space and some more taste (I do know that’s subjective, but I also know of other places that have stricter design rules) were a requirement for the new buildings, I would be all for them.
Right, insist on quality development and it’s a whole ‘nother discussion. The problem that remains, though, is the haste. When an place develops piece by piece over generations, each piece tends to fit, because it responds to a stable environment. When it happens all at once, you have buildings that might be only a couple years old that are out of step with conditions. The tenement under construction at 38th & Stone wanted to have kind of modest commercial street level because (in the design review) there isn’t much foot traffic – but there will be something like 1 to 3 thousand more people living in the immediate vicinity, in a couple years. It’s hard to even make an effort to produce a quality design under those circumstances, let alone achieve the kind of subtle balance that makes some cities great. Why even bother? Throw ’em up when we need ’em, tear ’em down a few years later might be a less crippling option.
Eric, and other NIMBYists — you clearly misunderstand that you live in a city. A city, as opposed to a far flung suburb, needs mass transit and thrives on density. If you don’t want transit, then please move out of the city. Duvall is nice I hear.
I agree that we need smart development that is aesthetic and well executed. Let’s hold developers and our land use department to a high standard.
Finally, donn, you’re completely wrong. Paris as we know it was built in 20 years. No reason we couldn’t do the same in Seattle if we had leaders with vision and guts to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Paris
Sorry Evon- is anyone else seeing poll problems?
The consequential action is to go online to the sound transit site and register your opinion there, pro or con. The Wallyhood poll is just for fun, to gauge what your neighbors are saying.
I would prefer to see the city increase bus service (like, double it) and set aside more protected bus lanes, I think it’s the fastest, cheapest, and most flexible way to improve transport.
Instead the city is wasting billions on tunnels and trains and massive rezoning efforts to justify these developments, all in the pursuit of some grand progressive project to re-engineer Seattle.
Developers + “progressive” pro-growth politicians = an unstoppable force for development. I’m sure you’ve all seen it up and down the west coast. We’ll end up with the same results, neither excellent, nor horrible. Just more mediocre city expansion.
I agree with Paul C. We too often forget that we live in a CITY.
Out-of-towners have often mentioned to me that Seattle feels like a small thinking town in a big city, and that Portland is a big city thinking town in a small city. And yes, they meant that as a pejorative.
Not to be too crass, but it seems like many of us would be better suited living in a city like Bellingham.
Lisa,
“Didn’t sign up for living in a canyon of highrise apodments with no available parking and people staring into my house and back yard from their windows. Density is appropriate in some areas, but not all.”
You signed up to live in a city. You realize cities grow, mutate, evolve, and increase in density, right? That’s been true of every urban center in the history of mankind. You expected Seattle to be different?
So, according to all you who are telling me that by choosing to live in the wonderful neighborhood of Wallingford in the city of Seattle, I have “signed up” to have all the reasons I chose Wallingford, taken away to be replaced with this “high density” crap you all seem so enamored of/resigned to? That is a huge steaming pile of nonsense. So which of you purchased a nice Audi wagon only to be told it’s being taken away from you and you’ll be getting a Ford Pinto instead? By virtue of purchasing a nice car, you “signed up” to have it replaced with something not nearly as nice because there are more people moving in to Seattle and you’re expected to give up your nicer car on their behalf. You should have known that would happen! Who went to dinner to The Golden Beetle and instead of the lovely entree you ordered, you got a crust of moldy bread and water? Well, by virtue of entering a restaurant in Seattle, you “signed up” to possibly have that experience compromised because of the burgeoning population that now requires you to relenquish any expectation of the above average dining experience you expected. You should have known! You live in Seattle now and ANYTHING can happen! What I “expect”, Alex (and the rest of you who are in agreement), is that the beautiful home I bought in a predominantly single family neighborhood wouldn’t have its zoning bought out from under us by shady developers and allowed by weasly, spineless politicians, thus possibly turning my neighborhood into a canyon of multi-story apodments! Don’t any of you know anyone in Ballard, Capitol Hill or West Seattle (my only examples) who can give you a firsthand account of how these new developments have negatively affected their neighborhoods?! Look at the stories on the news or in the papers or, better yet, go look at them in the flesh. This is not what I want in my neighborhood and I’m surprised any of you do. Yes, cities mutate and grow, but Seattle’s growth is more like an advancing cancer in its rapidity and the great minds in charge of infrastructure in our city/county/state don’t seem to have (if they ever have) the skills to allow for a smooth transition. Hell, we voted for the monorail THREE times and we never got it. It’s hard to get anything on a large scale done efficiently here and weasels always seem to find loopholes in our laws or zoning rules in order to further their own agendas. And I don’t want to be another person who has to suffer the consequences. Perhaps some of you can discuss amongst yourselves which of your neighbors will sell their house so it can be razed and then a new apodment can rise in its place. Maybe you can draw straws to see who will make the sacrifice for the greater good.
OK, got me on Paris, that’s interesting. I’ve never been there, either, so have no idea what it’s like; the only French city I’ve seen is Nice, where as far as I know the old part of town really does go back to the middle ages. Paris would then be an example of the other remotely possible way to make it work – rather than organic development over a long time, you put someone in charge of design and implementation, and get it done. That’s a little different than setting the landlords and developers loose in a hot market and hoping the density fairy will have brought something nice when we wake up in the morning.
As for bus alternatives, there are a couple BRT options on the study. B3 goes around Pacific and essentially bypasses Wallingford – I don’t know the rules, I assume the “stations” are marked for rail options, and the bus would stop for example at Gas Works / Meridian. They evidently don’t care much for it, but it could work for me. Getting through Fremont might take some ingenuity – maybe look at a route under the bridge through the office park.
Donn, would you be okay with a light rail if it meant very minimal to no change in zoning?
This is yet another example of Eric’s biased reporting (as runyararo points out in #11). Case in point: the questions at the end of the article: “If you are a home owner, are you eager to cash out? If you’re a renter, are you interested in moving? Because it seems unlikely to me that you’ll be using light rail in your current home.” Give us some credit for being able to interpret the impact ourselves (maybe I’m a homeowner who values light rail, despite the negative density impacts). And be careful about making predictions about how I might (or might not) get around town.
I appreciate that a post like this get a conversation started, but the last few months have shown that Eric continues to push his personal agenda, and it concerns me that he’s not only attempting to sway us but cloaking his own views as Wallingford resident opinions with elected officials (through his recent election questions and article interviews).
And as Eric states above in #55, the poll should be “just for fun” but he’s not using it that way, when it supports his cause.
I miss the more balanced reporting that gave Wallyhood credibility.
Put me on the list of Wallingford homeowners who absolutely love the idea of light rail and will definitely use it.
Also on the list of people who will be skipping future Eric posts.
Light rail w/o upzone? In terms of what we get for the $1 or $2 billion it would cost, it isn’t as obvious a priority as the north/south trunk. This is mostly for Ballard, Wallingford just happens to be in the path for some of the options, and Ballard likely has a better shot at getting a route straight downtown.
Yes, we are a growing city. We need more transit options. As more apartments are being constructed without parking spaces, congested roads full of single occupant cars can’t be the norm any longer. Yes, busses are good. Rail is even better. It’s time we come to terms with and embrace the fact that Seattle is becoming a big city. We need to start thinking BIG. Traffic is a huge problem. Rail should be part of the solution.
I’m disappointed by this very biased, anti-transit and anti-urban post. Wallingford is part of a growing city/region. Transit, preferably grade separated, is essential. I would love to see an expanded light rail system that better connects Wallingford to the rest of Seattle. Bring it on.
Hi Lisa. I empathize with what you’re saying. I don’t think this is about what you “should have expected” or signed up for. Progress for the sake of progress is not sustainable.
I also think that change is inevitable. And annoying neighbors come in all forms – not just from condos. I used to have 8 frat boys living next store to me in a single family home. And there are risks when we choose to buy property. The snapshot of a neighborhood when we buy into it is just that – a moment in time. Having title to one small plot does not come with guarantees about what the owners of all the other plots are going to do. The benefit is that we stand to gain as our property values rise.
Having said all that, I think the people on this thread, including you, would make a strong united front in working towards the kind of development we’d like to see as density increases. Let’s get organized!
OK, after a parade of a certain number of the same kind of vague hand-waving posts declaring support for progress, let’s just try to focus a little here. The question is not whether Seattle is a city, or whether the population is growing. It is not whether Seattle should have light rail. We have light rail, and no one here seems to be saying that was a mistake, but it’s not the question.
Would light rail better connect Wallingford to the rest of Seattle? It’s not so clear to me that it makes such a huge difference here. There would be at most one Wallingford station, and in most routes two destinations: the University District and Ballard. I could be wrong, but my impression is that not all that many people get on the 44 in Wallingford and travel to Ballard, or vice versa, the real point of this link is the connection to the University District. Among the options, it seems that adding or removing Wallingford from the itinerary makes about 8% difference in ridership (compare B2 with C1.) The station is far enough off center that many Wallingford residents could walk to the University District and get there sooner. We’re not that far away – when I worked there, I walked, and I’m almost in Fremont.
For me, it’s something we may end up with because Ballard needs it, and our choice should be the least worst of the options. To me those are the south routes, rail or bus around Pacific to Fremont, which has among other things the appeal that it’s historically a rail grade. (It would be interesting to see if they could snag the rail right of way from that amateur railroad out in Ballard.)
Ethan (and others)- I’m not sure how the post is biased, anti-transit, or anti-urban. The fact is, as I understand it, that if you are within a 10 minute walk of a station then you will get dramatically upzoned, and the result of that means you can either cash out and leave, or you can live in the middle of a construction site for 10 years.
That’s the facts as I understand them, that’s not NIMBY propaganda or whatever. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Mike O’Brien will tell you the exact same thing I just did. The reasons are many, but core issues are the push for affordable housing and trying to rationalize the price of rail.
Regarding opinion, I confess to liking Wallingford. Sorry, I said it, go ahead and hate on me and tell me to move to Duvall. My opinion is that there is a third way between mindless density and car-centric suburbia- it’s the Dutch model. The Dutch model is that car use needs to be tightly limited, non-motorized transportation needs to have great infrastructure, and what’s desirable about communities should be preserved. The Dutch system values places like Wallingford, with small lots, an urban village, and a very high walk score. That’s why Amsterdam doesn’t look like Belltown. I personally prefer Wallingford and Amsterdam to Duvall or Belltown, go ahead and hate on me for it.
I’ve been to Amsterdam. Mostly apartments and condos if my memory serves me correctly.
OK, but read what he’s saying, it’s more than just “density.”
Do we have a “walk score”?
Eric, this is fact: “Light rail costs over a half billion dollars per mile, so the city completely rezones neighborhoods for density when adding it.”
This is shows bias against light rail:
* “You might think “that’s nice, maybe I’ll use it”, but if you think that then you clearly don’t understand what adding light rail means.
* The effect of “light” rail on Wallingford will be far, far greater than making 50th and 45th one way. Adding light rail to Wallingford will mean making Wallingford look like the U-District.
* “If you are a home owner, are you eager to cash out? If you’re a renter, are you interested in moving? Because it seems unlikely to me that you’ll be using light rail in your current home.”
Yes, light rail means density. Yes, cities == change.
Amsterdam is about 60% more dense than Seattle. The Netherlands is 10% more dense than King County, over an area 7 times the size.
Wallingford NIMBYists would freak out if we looked like the “Dutch model.”
European cities (and I’ve both lived there and extensively traveled) look much more like Belltown than Wallingford. Except European cities are more dense than Belltown, with more vibrant walkable neighborhoods than either Belltown or Wallingford.
Lisa — why did you move to Wallingford? Probably so you could be close to amenities like good restaurants, schools, parks, work, friends, downtown, theaters, transit, walkable neighborhoods, diversity, creative neighbors, etc. etc. You only get those in cities. And cities mean density and change.
So yea, I am saying precisely by moving to Wallingford, you signed up for increasing density.
So, we’ve got two choices: Stick with the haphazard poor planning we have today that results in higher density without improved infrastructure (transit, parks, attractive buildings, etc), or shaped the density into a more livable city (e.g., Vancouver, NYC, Chicago, Europe)
Actually, we could go a third route: San Francisco, which has been choked by its Wallingford-type NIMBYists into an unaffordable playground for a few lucky rich that drives an environmental and economic cancer across tens of thousands of square miles. http://www.businessinsider.com/why-housing-is-so-expensive-in-san-francisco-2014-4
I think our walk score is either 99 or 100% Read it someplace, did not look it up just now now.
You sound like you think that second option is real? Like maybe there’s a mayoral candidate just over the horizon who’s read to take the reins and dive into an ambitious urban design initiative instead of just taking the advice of the developers?
It’s interesting that we can define “city” to mean “change” and thus by definition we aren’t entitled to hang on to things we like. Might be a hard sell, though.
Too late, the density is already here, look out your window. We are now faced with building badly needed infrastructure.
I live on Capitol Hill. Take what happened to us as a warning. Or not. Your choice. The light rail was and continues to be an excuse to upzone the hell out of the neighborhood. The result: a tidal wave of speculation, demolition, displacement. Half the households on my block have been displaced in the last 2 years. No idea how long the rest of us can hold out.
Do you really think the planners and developers want to include you in the decision making process? Here’s what one of them, architect David Neiman, said back in 2012 when when he was on McGinn’s Regulatory Reform Roundtable:
“The current process where we invest in a multi-billion dollar transit system and then ask a few hundred single-family homeowners who live near the stations how we should develop around them is madness.”
Mr Neiman is now a member of Ed Murray’s developer-packed HALA task force, which is expected to soon recommend a massive citywide upzone, including single-family neighborhoods. Your choice, Wallingford.
Very, very easy to believe. Sad thing is we can take it as a warning, but probably will have no impact on anything. But we can try. Thank you, Charles.
I’d like to hear from some business owners on 45th about how they feel.
From the looks of it, business on the strip doesn’t look so great.
Bodrum busy. But that’s it, I think.
Yes, we should hear from the businesses. Good thought.
Although much has already been said, I will add my name to the growing list that would welcome and rejoice in higher capacity and efficient transit (such as light rail) in Wallingford. Focused density along a transit corridor and surrounding single family homes with “neighborhood character” are not always in opposition and there are plenty of great examples around the world to support that. Added density and transit options on 45th will bring a better selection of businesses because of the increased market that will feed them and will make living “right off 45th” one of the best and most accessible places to live in the U.S.. Density isn’t scary unless you are scared of people. Hyper congestion and shuttered businesses don’t benefit anyone.
I’d like to second everything Elizabeth said.
Honestly, it’s just hard to separate the reasonable concerns of longtime Wallingfordians from the unreasonable ones.
As a recent purchaser of a home in the area, I put a lot of work in beautifying my front yard and parking strip. Sure I got a lot of compliments, but I was also met with some annoyance by some long timers in the neighborhood. Some people just don’t like change…good or bad.
My husband is right, Seattle could really use some Mafia people to take over and get shit done. I really liked the density and transit in Chicago. (Not the weather, so no, I’m not going back.)
An East-West rail line makes sense. Have you ever tried to take the 44 to get anywhere in a decent length of time? Would I use it to go to the U District? Not at 45th since I live off 40th and can easily access the 31/32. Would I use it to get to Ballard? Most certainly.
And yes, Eric, pretty much everything you wrote was ridiculously biased.
Thanks for the warning, Charlus. We can already see the well-heeled boosters of manifest density as destiny out in force. I think one of our rules of thumb should be: is this neighorhood vision good for babies, children and families? Does it require plenty of greenspace, places for birds and wildlife and does it provide enough water, energy resources and clean air for us all.
The density boosters vision holds out a false promise of urban vibrancy. But their constant and inevitable and income stratifying growth scenario only succeeds in flatlining cities and robbing residents of true diversity. Cities are human creations and each of us contribute to its liveability. Managed or smart growth proponents are now trying to forcefeed us tinbox living along “transportation corridors”. The money behind manifest density is not going to preserve our rivers and trees and forests and wildlands. And the folks behind the money are not going to live in any of the tinboxes they are creating.
@84 that makes me think about this from Seattle Transit Blog: http://seattletransitblog.com/2015/03/20/a-roosevelt-park-a-step-backwards/
My blockquote tag should have ended after the second paragraph that is indented. I wrote “This is the radical…” FYI.
@85, the double negatives in the 2nd paragraph are confusing me (and I didn’t read the original link).
Is it saying that some people argue that we have more than enough parks already, and don’t need anymore? If so then, yikes.
It’s a back handed way of saying that if your parks aren’t “near capacity”, then you need a new 65 foot apartment building more than a new park. It’s attributed to a writer at Seattle Met, recently cited here along with the Stranger as developer advocates.
The story name in the link says it all: A Roosevelt Park a Step Backwards. Another quote: “If this park plan succeeds, there will be several dozen more households that won’t be able to live in Seattle near high-quality transit.”
I don’t post this to say I am anti-density. I just want to point out there are extreme views on both sides.
Every park should have a little sort of memorial, rows of little anonymous statues representing the people who had to be turned away by Seattle because that space wasn’t developed for housing.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-officials-rethink-plan-for-roosevelt-property/
The density as destiny boosters have already tugged the mayor’s coat on the Roosevelt property. Donn, what a truly charming idea.
Here it comes: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/get-rid-of-single-family-zoning-in-seattle-housing-task-force-says-in-draft-report/
Through the years, I’ve been happy to be more of a reader, but I have so many unanswered questions now. I’m confused by much of the language used these days, especially the NIMBY talk. Why do we need memorials for people not finding space developed for housing? What about those who left or will never come here because they can’t afford it? Why is it so common in these conversations to tell families who have lived here for generations or more recently if they don’t like the change, then go? That’s how you create vibrancy, sustainability, livability, and build a community?
Why is the city continuing to give tax breaks and incentives to developers and builders anyway? These are boom years and they are making a killing. No impact fees, no rent control even presented in the HALA draft. Just $200,000 from the city for 3 new tent cities and $100,00 for rainbow crosswalks. Nothing from developers and big employers like Amazon to mitigate the rampant growth for transportation, school, sewer, etc. Bellevue has impact fees and it hasn’t diminished its growth or desirability for people to live and work there. See any new sub-market units going up replacing all the ones torn down here? Look at Greenwood and all the fancy livability and walkability talk, any new sidewalks there? If people ask question about cost, lack of transparency, lack of input, they are now labelled nymbyists and anti-growth. Before, it was considered part of being involved in one’s community. It’s so disheartening.
Thank you Eric for raising these questions. Neighborhoods are being left out of the decision making process while the tax bills keep on coming.
The Council held a meeting on impact fees back in September. West Seattle blog had a writeup – http://westseattleblog.com/2014/09/happening-now-impact-fees-for-development-city-hall-talk/ I don’t see in there the comment I remember about what’s next – I think someone said something to the effect of “well, let’s do it then!” and the response was like “whoa now, I’m sure the developers will want to have their input.” Which discussions I suppose would be held in private.
Can’t find anything on the topic since then.
Sayre, well said! I have lived in Wallingord for 30 years. Why should I be told to leave if I prefer living in a single family unit? I guess I will become what some label a NIMBY and choose to be proud if it.
#93 and #95: Sayre, Bythsea,
I think you’re mischaracterizing the discussion above. No one is being “labeled” a nimbyist for asking questions about “cost, lack of transparency, lack of input”. Nor are they being asked to leave if they prefer living in a single family unit. Indeed, I plan to continue to live in my single family unit, regardless of the development around me, and Blythesea, no one is going to force you out of your home. Moreover, I hope you and others continue to petition the city to answer the questions about cost, lack of transparency, etc. In fact, I think everyone who has participated is interested in making sure that development is intelligent and incorporates both local and city-wide feedback.
Sayre, I share all of your concerns expressed in your second paragraph. However, your concern about affordable housing is very confusing to me, as it seems directly contradicted by your desire to leave the neighborhood as-is. The very limited housing supply in Wallingford is exactly what has made rents and house prices continue to climb to outrageous levels. Of course, subsidized, rent-controlled housing doesn’t suddenly appear, and I would support efforts for the city to foster such developments here. However, new apartment buildings and condos being built in Wallingford will allow singles and families to move into the neighborhood without having to pony up $800K+ for a 1960s era single family home.
Per Wikipedia, the definition of nimby is “a pejorative characterization of opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them, often with the connotation that such residents believe that the developments are needed in society but should be further away.” If you accept that Seattle IS growing, and you accept that Wallingford has many geographic advantages that make it a natural location to accommodate such growth, and yet you want other neighborhoods to accommodate such growth because you simply don’t want the neighborhood “character” to change, then, yes, I would say that you have a nimby attitude. I can’t tell from either of your responses, if you do feel this way or not.
Demand vs supply logic makes sense in the abstract, but has its limitations. Construction of new housing does not bring down rents and house prices, rather more often displaces people who had affordable rents before. It isn’t because we haven’t yet built enough — I mean, OK it is because of that, but since we can’t conceivably build enough, it’s immaterial.
#97 – Donn, I actually wasn’t making a supply-demand argument. I was attempting to make a slightly different point that the current housing supply in Wallingford is pretty monolithic – single family homes on relatively large lots, and a more diverse housing supply including many smaller units (condos, apartments) would allow more people to pay less to live in Wallingford. The abundance of smaller units won’t necessarily drive down the prices of the current houses (although it may soften them a little), but I think we can agree that a 700 square foot condo would sell for a lot less than a house on a 5000 square foot lot.
We had a 110 year old house next door, that housed a couple young families relatively affordably. Now it’s 5 tacky towers with roof decks on top, going for $650,000 to $700,000. Our ex-neighbors of course aren’t in that game, they can’t afford to live in Wallingford now either, because one by one, each affordable residence in Wallingford is being replaced by something unaffordable to anyone but our new economy lucky winners. Ever seen the bumper sticker “Ballard Welcomes Our New Condo Overlords”? Every developer I’ve seen come around to present in our area has emphasized that they’re expecting “young urban professionals”, even when (like the place up on Midvale) they’re around that 700 sq ft size.
We need that sticker for W’ford!
Donn – Can I ask how much the 110 year old house next door went for? It’s not clear to me that the currently “affordable residences” are really affordable, or if it’s just that the rental values are kept low due to the fact that the property hasn’t transferred ownership recently and so doesn’t reflect the current real property value. Not sure if that affects the way you’re thinking on the issue but I think it’s relevant…
Also, I stand by my statement that the 700 square foot condo will go for a heck of a lot less than the 110 year old house OR one of the tacky towers (which, if they’re anything like most of the townhouse developments around me, probably have more living space than the original house)
Sure, someone could have spruced up the house and sold it for a good deal more than they got for a tear down – maybe even as much as one new tacky tower, but as I mentioned there are now 5 of them. I don’t have any numbers for you, but the previous owner didn’t see much of that money. You know it doesn’t affect my thinking on the issue. Affluent housing +5, affordable housing -2, repeat until there’s 0 affordable housing left. Housing is affordable because it isn’t new construction; new construction isn’t affordable, because builders can get too much money per square foot to make anything bigger than an apodment economically attractive to build for an affordable price.
What’s interesting is how the mayor’s so-called housing task force is now trying to link social justice issues, anti-racism et. al., to the density boosters: guilt-trip/knee jerk our tenderhearted progressive communities into supporting their own destruction. It reminds me of Roger Valdez and the builders’ lobby adoption of “smartgrowth”, an outdated and poorly conceived platform of environmental land use proponents that the big money development lobby joyously adopted as their new poster child. If it wasn’t so tragic, it would be comical.
Jason’s tortured affordable housing logic is another such ploy. What a joke. Can anyone reasonably conceive of a family of four (or three or two) trying to live in a 700 square foot studio apartment? Rent $1500 minimum. Let’s see, social workers = $35000/year. Rent= $18000. Childcare, two @ $14400. Hmmm. Maybe they could rent out their back closet and defray their rental costs. Affordable housing is not even on their radar. They don’t give a sh*t about affordable housing.
But that good old American dream of owning your own home with an actual backyard and maybe a garden? Vanishing for the middle class and gone completely for the low income. Those who are still able and trying to buy homes are being outbid by the very rich with big CASH reserves. Once these guys get their zoning w*t dream, they’ll take your homes and turn them into curb to curb multiple unit cash cows. No playground for the kiddies. No trees for the birds. Ask them for their address. Ask these guys where they live. It’s a parallel universe and right now it’s run by the 1%.
Thank you donn for making that affordability point about old versus new construction. I found this out first hand taking my niece around checking out rentals all over this city. I don’t understand why a concern about affordablility is contradictory or even anti growth when the mayor, city council, and developers all seem to talk about it, but actually not doing anything about it. Unless you want to count tent city. From just checking out Ballard, those 2 bedrooms new builts aren’t cheap even if they are pretty dismal looking 4 Plexes. You look directly across a very narrow space into your neighbors’ windows. I have no idea how anyone can maneuver a car easily into the garage and judging by the cars parked on the street, people don’t. (Yes, the girl has a a beater car, but her job will require some travelling.) Anyway, I don’t think it’s nymbyist to want to avoid the Ballard mistake.
This is for Jason. No where did I say I want the neighborhood as is. Why does it have to be either you are for or against? Contrary to stereotype, old people realize the world is not static and embrace change. I have extended families living all over this city and the worries in Wallingford are not unique. Check out W. Seattle, Ballard, Rainier, or Beacon Hill, there are great concerns about growth, transit, affordability and livability, and lack of meaningful engagement there too from new and old residents. While I’m not up to date on all things, I do listen to people and what they have to say and like them, I watch to see how things are followed through or not. I think many of us who’ve lived here for some time are noticing a lot of similarities in “managing growth” and the loopholes galore of “unintended” consequences from city planning, use of levy money going to things other than what was promised pre-election, etc. So forgive me, if I’m leery about this proposal, especially coming from ST and the city because guess who will be paying for it once again? Again I have to ask while we’re planning to build more, what about present infrastructures: bridges, sidewalks, roads, unfinished tunnel, schools, etc.? We have a huge maintenance backlog and levy money hasn’t made much dent, except for lovely very expensive revamped Mercer. Impact fees? Why is that off the table? None of this makes me think what we’ll see will be less haphazard.
Excuse me, you’re not entitled to a yard! How selfish, when the huddled masses of Amazon software engineers at the Seattle border have nowhere to go!
where is the community council & chamber on this?? the businesses will be greatly affected by these changes. (hey, eric – jon and i applaud your efforts to get everyone updated, and we just saw you on the 5pm KIRO news talking about it)
it’s good to hear that Mike Ruby and Eric Fisk are trying to pass on this info, but seriously, what are the community orgs saying?
again, WE HAVE ONLY TONITE TO DO THAT SURVEY. citizens must speak out, not just on blogs…. thanks, Eric!
FYI, they will still take comments by email, as of this afternoon! Prob past today.
“Please feel free to email your comments or any additional questions to this email address ([email protected]).”
Sarah Sanborn
ST3 Outreach Team
Sound Transit 3 website
[email protected]
(206) 903-7000
Donn – “new economy lucky winners” ??
So society tell us to work our tails off, chase our dreams, and perhaps partake in STEM disciplines. But once we reach the other end, we’re labeled lucky winners?
Please don’t make this a class warfare thing.
It must be said… Wallingford is more ethnically diverse than it was before all these developments, and will continue on that trajectory as Google expands its presence, Tableau moves into its new HQ by gas works next year, and Amazon veterans leave their SLU apts to Wallingford to start their families.
Do the NIMBYists think of this as a positive change or not? Or do we prefer Wallingford to remain one of the most homogenous (white) neighborhoods in a major city in all of America?
My point is… a silver lining in all this is more diversity. Unless some of you don’t see it as a silver lining.
As already noted, the density boosters are trying to link “social/racial justice” issues to tinbox living. Don’t fall for it folks. These guys are just following their talking points.
Walkinroun… the social justice (affordable housing) and my point on ethnic diversity are completely two separate points of discourse. My only point is that Wallingford is growing in diversity as it’s character transforms. A think most minorities in the area can appreciate that even if they are wary of the rapid growth.
Think has been a very white-centric discussion. Just wanted to inject more color ( no pun intended) into the discourse.
I don’t care who the hell lives here as long as they live in a HOUSE and not a multistory APODMENT. Those of you who “rejoice” and “welcome” high density to our wonderful primarily single family home neighborhood, perhaps I can return the “if you don’t like it, leave” sentiment back to you and encourage you to migrate to those areas that are crammed full of ticky tacky box towers with no parking, no privacy, no quality living space, shared kitchens,etc. I’m sure there is a 200 square foot domicile ready and waiting with your name written all over it. And kudos to all commenters before me who spoke much more eloquently than I have on this issue regarding keeping high density out of Wallingford. We can increase density in our neighborhood in a much more discreet and charming manner with DADUs and in-law units in basements, etc. instead of these ugly monstrosities. How is being against high density a social or racial issue? All of Seattle has become more expensive no matter your gender, sexual orientation or ethnic background. I just met a couple today who recently moved into a single family home in the northwestern part of Ballard. They had been living in a rental on Capitol Hill and just couldn’t take the increasing crowding of the high density push anymore and felt the move to a single family home neighborhood would give them a better quality of life. Oh, and they were black. Are they supposed to champion high density because of their color? Isn’t that reverse racism? Many of you are making it sound as if, unless you are white, you don’t or can’t live in a nice single family home neighborhood that isn’t in Kent!
Thank you for your post, Lisa. And Donn. And Alex. And walk around and sayre.
And all the others who are contributing to this interesting and relevant discussion.
It’s kind of like de-segregation busing, if you remember those days.
I don’t know about you, Alex, but I know very well how lucky I was, to end up in the economic position to be able to live in Wallingford. A lot of people are nowhere close, and a lot of people who live here now know their days are numbered, they’ll have to flee to Kent or something like the two young families that used to live next door to me.
I know a few of my neighbors, and really they are pretty diverse. Architects, artists, school teachers, young, old. Some rent, some own. Their diversity isn’t because of these categories, though, it’s because they live their lives in different ways, following their own paths. Some of those paths aren’t lucrative careers, and those are often the most interesting people. That’s the kind of diversity I care about.
Wait. So my wife and I work for decades to save up, move and raise a family on a beautiful street with beautiful old homes with front porches that people hang out on and wander by and talk with a sense of community only to likely end up slowly but surely seeing that neighborhood and sense of community eroded as over-priced, overbuilt, low-quality modern messes get randomly stamped over the top of near-historic homes because people living in those same kinds of places in Ballard want an easier way to get to the UW area?
Awesome! Talk about bad timing….
We don’t care who lives in any of the houses around us (though hopefully they’re not too loud, or violent, etc.). We just don’t want to see the neighborhood we fell in love with and plan(ned?) to stay for decades in – if not til the end of us – destroyed and rebuilt as another cookie-cutter modern monstrosity with no history, less green, and less sense of community (it’ll be just another area with pricey condos).
Sound like a nightmare, not “progress”.
i’m sorry to see the conversation going off on a tangent about development of condos. the thread was about light rail.
condos are already being developed in wallingford. so the question is, do you want your quiet residential streets clogged with single-occupancy autos, your arterials like Thackeray, Meridian, 40th, 50th, Pacific turned into freeways, and air pollution that makes the neighborhood unbearable to live in? Or should we serve the neighborhood with energy efficient, non-polluting, fast and safe light rail?
stop making this about condos. the condos are already here, with or without the light rail.
I don’t think it’s about condos per se. I think when someone is saying “condos” they are also referring to those stupid apodments and high density housing in single family neighborhoods, in general, and many of us are more concerned about the possible loss of our quality of life here in Wallingford because of those developments. Efficient mass transportation would be miraculous, but I’m not willing to give up what I’ve got so totally for the expectant mass exodus to Wallingford of apodment dwellers surrounding me. So, on this subject, I’m proud to be a NIMBY 🙂 The streets you mentioned are pretty much already being used as throughways and have been for years and, while a mite irritating at times (especially those going-the-wrong-way-up-a-one-way-street folks!), living here hasn’t become “unbearable” because of that.
…no, i’m saying they will literally be turned into freeways.
No they won’t. That would require massive eminent domain and the government would have a serious fight on their hands if they even hinted at doing that.
Same facts:
1) Wallingford is one of the most centrally located neighborhoods in Seattle.
2) Approx 18K new people are moving to Seattle every year.
3) We have to accommodate for these new residents.
Given 1-3, those that don’t want more high density developments in Wallingford (45th and Stoneway), okay THEN WHERE? You don’t want more public transit in Wallingford, okay then HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THE GRIDLOCK?
We don’t like in a utopia. Some sacrifices have to be made. By everyone.
Okay, so you don’t want new people moving to Seattle? Well then you’re as bad as the, anti-immigrant, social conservatives who welcomed by parents with bigoted picket signs when they got off the plane.
@ Alex
So take all those developer dollars and develop South Seattle, zone it appropriately, and turn it into a huge residential urban residential core area. Just one idea. A lot more people can fit into that more centrally located area. That area is much like the Lake Union area was.
I don’t believe anyone said more public transit isn’t desired. It’s the re-zoning that seems forced upon us to have some versions of that public transit that will destroy the existing neighborhoods. Nor has anyone said they don’t want people moving to Seattle. You’re making random leaps of logic and rather naive accusations.
I make a lot of sacrifices by paying an increasingly large property tax on the house and other city and local taxes and by using said mass transit every day instead of driving. I’d be happy to continue making more of that kind of sacrifice instead of eroding the neighborhood.
Alex, I don’t see why I should accommodate people moving here. The people moving here need to be the ones making sacrifices not me. I have made plenty of sacrifices over the years to live here in my home. My grandparents, who were immigrants, didn’t expect anyone to sacrifice anything so that they could live here. The people wanting me to make sacrifices are likely developers who live in gated communities and will make a fortune from rezoning. I don’t care who lives next to me as long as it is in a single family dwelling.
So to make me feel guilty you will call me a NImby. So it goes….
Alex: Congestion tolling is the only fix to gridlock. Not density, not rail, just look at New York or London. Congestion tolling is the only solution that works.
@Eric,
Density and rail might not solve gridlock, but give alternatives to avoid gridlock.
Sure, you can implement congestion tolling to steer folks from not driving.
BUT, people still need an alternative to driving. Our bus system is ill equipped to handle the load.
So what’s your solution?
Frequented London and NY countless times. If you’re actually positing that instead of their vast public transportation systems, they should have implemented more congestion tolling I have no further comment.
I’m not arguing against public transportation, I’m arguing that it will do nothing about traffic. Congestion tolling is the only fix for traffic, and once in place you free up lots of bus capacity as buses move faster.
Agree to disagree. I sympathize with the opposing view. Keep up the great work on the blog, Eric.
I guess we sort of missed the chance to really get into congestion tolling when it came up earlier in one of those wonkathon posts, but isn’t that corridor specific? So if I’m deterred by the fee, I either ride the bus – or take a route diversion, maybe through your residential neighborhood?
$20 gas would be fix.
I don’t understand your obsession with congestion tolling. If you toll I-5, it will push cars onto Latona, Thackeray, Meridian, Wallingford, etc. how is that addressing traffic? It isn’t; it’s just redistributing it to residential streets.
Great post.
After looking at a handful of the blog articles on your blog, I really
like your way of writing a blog. I saved it to my
bookmark site list and will be checking back soon. Please check out my website as well and let me know
your opinion.
It’s pretty rich for this “unbiased” developer task force to deal the race card so they can make more money. Sheesh. It really takes a different kind of person…. Meanwhile I look out my window at 3 story, zero yard, roof top deck complete with hot tub, house that sold for just under a million dollars. So much for affordable housing. Did I mention it was built in a former side yard?
NIMBYists
http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2015/may/18/california-surf-wars-lunada-bay-localism-surfing
All this talk about rezoning and how it affects the neighborhood… I have news for you: wallingford is already being “rezoned” into a millionares-only club. I welcome a healthy mix of urban high-density and million dollar single-rich-family homes because the Seattle I grew up with had a mix of people of different economic classes and this is the only way this neighborhood can retain that.