(Rick Mohler is an associate professor at the University of Washington Department of Architecture, a principal at Mohler+Ghillino Architects and Wallingford resident, natch.)
Last month I moderated a forum on urban housing that was assembled by the Seattle chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Having been engaged in the Wallingford Community Council’s effort to understand and respond to HALA, I opened the forum by expressing my enthusiasm for the lively, and sometimes contentious, citywide discussion that’s been initiated by the mayor’s HALA proposal. I 
added that many of my neighbors here in Wallingford, who barely knew the land use code existed six months ago, are now well-versed on many aspects of residential land use policy. Susanna Lin’s article is probably the best example of this I’ve seen to date, illustrating an impressive level of understanding of many complex issues. This kind of engaged democratic citizenship makes me proud to live in Wallingford and is currently making Seattle the envy of many other cities around the country that are confronting issues of housing affordability and livability but lack the political will to even have the conversation.
However, I’d like to offer a different opinion regarding a number of aspects of HALA and other points Susanna makes in her article, and that I’ve heard in conversations with many of my Wallingford neighbors.
The Affordability Challenge
To start, the post and many neighborhood conversations fail to grapple with just how quickly and the degree to which Seattle is becoming unaffordable for those who live here (or would like to) and who do not own their homes (and likely never will.) Seattle led the nation in rent increases between 2010 and 2013 and has ranked among the top ten cities since then. In the last 6 years, the average rent on a two-bedroom apartment increased nearly 100%. At the same time, ironically, the percentage of Seattleites who are spending more than half of their income on rent is falling.
How could this be? Well, this is partly due to the “dreaded techies” moving in with their high salaries allowing them to comfortably afford higher rents. However, it’s also due to the fact that those who are struggling to afford steadily increasing rents are leaving the city for locations that are more auto dependent with longer commute times and fewer opportunities for economic advancement.
This all is in the midst of a booming population, with Seattle projected to grow by more than 100,000 people by 2035. We are well on our way to becoming a city of only affluent people. This is what the mayor’s HALA proposal is intended to address and it is why so many in the city feel there’s a sense of urgency to build affordable units now and not in five or ten or fifteen years.
The questions these challenges pose for us are: Is affordable housing a public good that we in Wallingford want to prioritize? And if so, how can we reasonably achieve an equitable housing solution for those of us already in Seattle, for new neighbors moving here in the next few years, and for our children as they become adults and want to live here?
The mayor’s response to this serious challenge was to assemble a panel of 28 folks, including low income housing advocates, non-profit housing developers, for profit housing developers, and an array of other people who are very experienced with the intricacies of public/private financing mechanisms, land use law, and the requirements of the Washington State Constitution.
Contrary to what some have claimed, the HALA panel also included neighborhood representation: Cindi Barker of the City Neighborhood Council (which she describes as a coalition of neighborhood coalitions). Some may lament that only one representative from the neighborhoods was present but there was also only one representative from a host of other interests as well.
The volunteer panel met for nine months of brainstorming and finally hammered out a list of 65 recommendations that run the gamut from financing and tax legislation to land use policy. Of the 65 recommendations, three quickly came to the public’s attention: increasing land use flexibility in single family zones, up zoning single family parcels within urban villages, and using Mandatory Inclusionary Housing polices to leverage housing demand and private development forces to build affordable housing – the so-called ‘Grand Bargain’. Before I address the first two, I’d like to clarify what the “Grand Bargain” is.
The Grand Bargain
The concerns I’ve heard from many in the neighborhood is that the mayor negotiated with developers (perhaps in a cigar-filled back room) to reach an agreement he’d benefit from politically. However, based upon what’s been outlined in reports and confirmed to me by folks who were in the room, that’s not how it happened. The bargain is not between the mayor and developers, but between affordable housing advocates and developers. What actually took place is that non-profit low-income housing developers and for-profit housing developers spent weeks working together to find the ‘sweet spot’ where market rate development and affordable housing can actually support one another.
This sweet spot is complicated to find. Err too far one way and in the city isn’t adequately leveraging the market’s potential to generate affordable housing. Err too far in another and housing production in general significantly decreases thereby worsening the very problem we are trying to solve. In other words, finding the sweet spot requires a precise combination of the percentage of low income units required in a development, coupled with the stipulated percentage of Area Mean Income (AMI), coupled with market forces that will yield the highest number of affordable units at the lowest AMI without causing developers to stop building housing altogether.
Some people in Wallingford criticize HALA for only requiring 7% of the units to be affordable at 60% AMI while some cities require much more. However, requiring only 7% of the units to be affordable at 60% AMI may actually provide more affordable units for those who need them most than, say, a 20% requirement at 80% AMI. In addition, if one is interested in producing housing units in general and affordable units in particular, one doesn’t want to put a serious damper on housing production with over-ambitious requirements.
San Francisco has been famously unsuccessful in building affordable and market rate housing because their policies have suppressed housing production. The city now faces exceptionally high housing costs resulting in the highly controversial Proposition C now being debated. Given the complexity of crafting such policies and the conspicuous manner in which other cities have failed, I’d say that the mayor’s approach of bringing very experienced and knowledgeable people with opposing interests into the room to hammer out a compromise is a reasonable way of going about it.
Zoning Changes
Many people, particularly those who live in urban villages, have questioned the need for up zoning in Wallingford when, city-wide, we already have the zoning capacity to accommodate anticipated growth. However, having the capacity for housing units citywide and having the actual units themselves where they make sense under the goals of the Growth Management Act is not the same thing. The HALA committee has aimed to incentivize housing construction to better meet the demand that is driving up the cost of housing.
The decades-old Seattle growth plan, as expressed in various neighborhood plans and in the land use code, focuses development in locations with existing transportation and other services. The Wallingford Residential Urban Village (and the neighborhood in general) meets this criteria. This transit-oriented development (TOD) is a proven strategy to improve walkability and access to neighborhood amenities, boost neighborhood businesses, reduce auto dependence and vehicle miles travelled, and yield dramatically reduced carbon footprint per capita. HALA builds upon this established goal to shape development in ecologically sound ways.
That said, our infrastructure needs to keep pace with increased density (generally referred to as concurrency) and this is definitely an issue in Seattle in general and Wallingford in particular. So, how are we doing?
Transportation
Seattle is in a state of rapid transformation of its transportation infrastructure despite the fact that some bus lines are overburdened at the moment. While it’s moving slowly, bicycle infrastructure is improving with the opening of the Dexter and Second Ave bikeways, safer routes along Stone Way, Wallingford, and Latona running north/south, and a series of neighborhood greenways running east/west.
More significantly, Link light rail finally connected downtown to the UW two months ago and ridership grew by 66% overnight, exceeding expectations. In less than five years light rail will connect to Northgate with a stop just blocks from the eastern edge of our neighborhood. We have RapidRide on the neighborhood’s western edge. Within the neighborhood itself we have two north/south bus routes (the 26 express and 62) and two east/west routes (the 44 and the 31/32). Together these connections provide us easy access to Downtown, UW, Ballard, Seattle Center, Magnolia, North Seattle, Columbia City, and the Airport. For a more convenient mode of air travel, you may need to hire a private jet from companies like Jettly.
Few Seattle neighborhoods have this level of frequent multi-directional service. And, when ST extends to Northgate, it will free up even more bus service hours to better serve more areas including Wallingford. The days of arguing that Seattle doesn’t have ‘real’ transit are indeed coming to an end.
In addition to public transportation, we must also acknowledge the game-changing and multi-faceted privately operated transportation system. In Seattle it comes in many forms: car share (Zipcar, Car2Go, ReachNow, Hertz 24/7, Getaround, Turo) for-hire (multiple cab companies, Uber, and Lyft), and even private bus services like the Microsoft Connector. These programs have fundamentally transformed transportation in neighborhoods like Wallingford because they fill the gaps when transit or cycling is not an option and, like transit, they work best when more people are living in the same area.
Parking
Parking is among the most contentious issues in any conversation about urban growth, and that’s certainly the case in Wallingford. Susanna notes that the city has allowed the use of on-street parking spaces by car share operations. Car share vehicles ultimately increase the availability of on-street parking because, unlike a privately owned car that’s typically parked for more than 23 hours a day, car share vehicles constantly move around. Also in Seattle, transit or cycling won’t ultimately allow households to go car-free. As we all know, in Wallingford there are still times when we need a car for moving things, going shopping, visiting friends elsewhere in the city, or taking a trip to the mountains. Rather than car share vehicles contributing to our parking woes, they are a key part of the parking solution.
A more significant concern many in the neighborhood raise is changes to off-street parking requirements. HALA does not restrict developers, or new homeowners, from providing off-street parking – it simply removes the legal requirement to do so. The arguments in favor of required off-street parking tend to be two fold. First, it will maintain existing on-street parking for those of us who were already here.
However, it’s neither equitable nor democratic that some citizens are entitled to store their private property in public space at no cost while others are not. In a civil society, we all share public space, adapting to the needs of others around us. A much more equitable and efficient strategy would be to have people pay a reasonable fee to park in the street, and for the revenue to remain in the neighborhood to fund parks, playgrounds, open space, and the like – basically whatever the neighborhood decides to use the money for.
The second argument is that developers reap windfall profits by not building parking, charging the same amount for housing, and pocketing the $20,000 – $50,000 difference per parking stall. This suggests that developers have control over the market, which, of course, they don’t. Developers respond to the market and if they believe that the market demands a given amount of parking (i.e. they will have difficulty selling or renting units without it) they will provide it. By removing the hard legal requirement to provide parking, we allow developers the flexibility to adapt their construction and selling costs to local market conditions.
Mandating parking also incentivizes larger development projects because the cost of providing parking in a small foot print can be extremely expensive and may not be feasible at all. I’ve also heard arguments in favor of parking that equate car ownership with livability. Urban mobility, not car ownership makes cities and neighborhoods livable. Seattle, the country’s 20th largest city, has either the 5th, 6th or 7th worst traffic congestion in the nation depending upon which survey you pick and it’s likely to get far worse as the city grows. Requiring more parking will encourage more cars, more traffic congestion, less mobility and less livability.
The Environment
Many throughout Wallingford are concerned about raw sewage overflows into Lake Union during heavy rainfall due to our combined storm/septic sewer system. This is a serious problem, but it isn’t new and it is, in fact, improving due to concerted efforts by Seattle Public Utilities. Since the 1970s the amount of effluent released has been reduced by 90% with the balance to be addressed over the next 15 years. In addition, for the past five years or so, new construction in Seattle has had to comply with green storm water infrastructure requirements which mandate that most, if not all, of the storm water management be handled on site. As a result, it’s likely that a new building will place less of a burden on our outdated storm water infrastructure than an old one. However, buildings are not the only contributor to the problem.
While the image of flushing toilets making their way into Lake Union is disturbing, transportation—not buildings—is the largest source of water (and air) pollution in our city, due to the flow of petroleum products and heavy metals (primarily from brake pads) from our privately owned cars. To express concern regarding our storm water infrastructure and water quality while at the same time calling for policies that mandate continued and expanded use of the automobile really doesn’t make any sense. Susanne also cites the loss of vegetation and access for solar panels among other environmental concerns. Solar panels and trees are obviously good things for a host of reasons, not the least of which are our quality of life. However, with respect to environmental concerns such as climate change, increasing urban densities and leaving more wilderness intact reaps huge benefits as the carbon footprint per capita drops substantially due to increased use of transit, consolidated infrastructure and more energy efficient buildings.
“Concern” or Balance?
Much of the conversation expressed in Wallingford portrays the city as being uniformed, unrealistic, poorly prepared, and largely beholden to developer interests when it comes to the questions of density, housing affordability, livability, and the environment. In my view, this is an incomplete and unfair portrayal and one that uses “concern” as a way to derail the process rather than engage with the city on a solution. The ongoing discussion regarding HALA and its impact on Wallingford suggests that we can leave the neighborhood substantially as it is today.
However, Wallingford is already changing with skyrocketing property values and rents, and with modest houses being replaced by much larger luxury homes. Unless we change our approach this will likely continue and at an accelerated rate. Addressing this challenge will involve changes to our city and neighborhood that move beyond policies from 20, 30 and even 50 years ago. The fact is we do have a choice but the neighborhood remaining unchanged is not one of them.
Susanne wonderfully concludes her post by challenging Seattle to be on the cutting edge of equitable housing solutions and environmental leadership. I couldn’t agree more. We can either try to keep things as they are and watch as Seattle, and Wallingford with it, slowly, or not so slowly, transforms into an enclave of very wealthy single family home owners and renters or we can be bold, creative and determined to find a solution that maintains a balance between the physical, economic, and social character of the neighborhood we call home. And that’s why our urban village, Wallingford and Seattle needs HALA.
[Ed note: If you’d like to continue this conversation in person, Sue Sherbrooke writes:SAVE THE DATE!
With the renewal of the Seattle Housing Levy on the ballot this primary election, now is the time to join the conversation on what we can do to promote affordable housing in Seattle. You’re invited to join Sue Sherbrooke and your Wallingford neighbors on Monday June 20 at 5:30 pm at 43RD & Corliss to learn more about the housing levy, what’s being done to promote affordable housing, and discuss new ideas for housing affordability with members of the Housing Levy team. Refreshments will be served. Hope you’ll be there – and bring a friend!]
Thank you for a well-written and thoughtful article. I am excited about the possibility of future development in our neighborhood. I own a single family home with the Urban Village and I will be affected by the changes. While I will miss the space around me and the parking, I think it is well-worth it to bring in more housing and vibrancy to the area.
Thanks Kristin. Any change entails both gains and losses. I’m glad that you are optimistically envisioning the big picture.
Something everyone should know about the “bargain”, is its questionable legality. State law (RCW 82.02.020) prohibits municipalities from taxing development. Fees are allowed only when directed to specific well defined impacts – transportation, etc. (and Seattle unlike other local cities does not collect impact fees.) This “bargain” is a sort of fee – the “in lieu” fee that can be paid (and always will be paid) rather than include the affordable units. Only one side of this “bargain”, the city, is formally committed to abiding by this agreement, and many observers, for example Roger Valdez of Smart Growth Seattle who represents developers, expect developers to sue and break it. At that point, will the upzones and height increases prescribed by the “bargain” be restored to their previous state? Don’t bet on that! It would not surprise me if the mayor et al. fully expect the “bargain” to collapse, and it’s just a smokescreen for the same upzoning that would follow the 2035 Comprehensive Plan anyway.
Perhaps this gives us a good opportunity to challenge the laws, to have a wider conversation about how the laws are failing us in our current context, and get them changed.
After all, Alaska Airlines challenged, and challenged, and challenged the $15/hr SeaTac wage. I don’t think we should let fear of lawsuits stop us from taking steps toward doing the right thing.
Indeed, I doubt they fear the lawsuit at all – if the mayor and council are backed by the same developer/investment money, both sides of the table may be happy to see the “bargain” go down the drain.
That seems like pure speculation, particularly based on Murray’s statements about why he personally wants to address the issue of affordability.
Donn, Mandatory Inclusionary Housing has standing precedents in Washington State so this is not an untested strategy. That said, you’re right, anyone can file a suit and I’ve heard lots of speculation regarding that. That’s why the HALA committee included people with extensive knowledge of how land use policy has been interpreted within the state constitution.
There were also a number of very knowledgeable (and very busy) low income housing advocates who volunteered nine months of their time to work on this. If this were simply a ‘smokescreen’ with no real intentions of garnering low income housing I think they would have figured that out and made quite a fuss about it. But I’ve got nothing more to say about that as both of us are now speculating.
Something about affordability that’s worth thinking about, is that the city doesn’t know how much affordable housing we have, and while they routinely claim that the “bargain” and other initiatives will create thousands of affordable units, these numbers do not account in any way for the affordable housing that’s lost in the process as new development replaces older buildings. The Seattle Displacement Coalition argues that we’ve been losing more affordabie housing than we’ve been getting for years. This is one of the problems with turning this problem over to a committee of developers and affordable housing advocates who are involved in tax-supported affordable housing, not affordable housing stock overall as with the Displacement Coalition. Market rate affordable housing can’t happen in the new buildings that we’re so eager to promote, it happens only when the loans have been paid off and the building is old. Catherine Weatbrook in Ballard says modern buildings aren’t even built to last long enough, so we may be the last generations to have any experience with anything like that.
Totally agree that the city can and should do more to inventory and protect (or incentivize the protection of) existing affordable housing. I don’t think that needs to be incompatible with producing more units of affordable housing through public and private means.
It is astonishing to me that Seattle went all the way through the HALA process without collecting data about the existing housing stock, both high end and affordable, or if they do possess these data, they feel such contempt for Seattle residents that they think they have no obligation to share it with us. How the hell can we track where we are with respect to housing affordability goals if we don’t assess where we were in the past, where we are today, and where we need to head in the future?
That’s because all Seattle officials, from the top down [excluding our new mayor, or is it mayoress?] is SPEND THE TAXPAYERS’ MONEY. There seems to be zero accountability for where the money goes, just THAT it goes. And there’s always more!
Donn, you’re right that this is very much worth thinking about and, in fact, the city is thinking and striving to do something about at both the city and state levels as seen here:
about http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/04/13/23920341/how-lisa-herbold-wants-to-save-seattles-affordable-housing
http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/02/19/mayor-murrays-preservation-bill-and-eight-other-housing-bills-survive-halfway-cut-off/
http://crosscut.com/2016/01/new-bill-aims-to-preserve-the-affordable-housing-we-dont-even-know-exists/
Is it enough? Probably not. However, existing affordable housing isn’t at risk because of HALA – it’s at risk because of the steadily increasing demand for housing in general. I agree with Paul that this is not an ‘either/or’ proposition but, rather, ‘both/and’. We need to preserve the affordable housing stock we have when it makes sense to do so (and, depending on the building and its condition, it doesn’t always make sense to do so), build new affordable housing and build new market rate housing in general. The notion that things are either ‘affordable’ or not is an oversimplification. There are multiple tiers of affordability and the best way to address these multiple tiers is to strive to build housing at multiple income levels. I think HALA is a worthy attempt, admittedly imperfect as it is, to do so.
I had the opportunity to meet and have lunch with Catherine Weatbrook at the housing forum I mentioned. She gave a great presentation on urban housing from an ‘on the ground’ perspective of a neighborhood resident. She and I found that we share some ideas about DADU’s that we plan to follow up with at some point. However, I respectfully disagree with Catherine regarding the quality of older buildings versus new ones, especially when you’re talking about now affordable (then market rate) housing from the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. Today’s buildings must meet structural, seismic, energy, mechanical, electrical, storm water, air quality and a host of other codes that simply didn’t exist (or if they did were less demanding) in the past. And, with respect to light frame wood construction, use more reliable engineered wood products as opposed to dimensional lumber of ever diminishing quality. While many of today’s buildings could certainly be better built, they’re simply better built than they were in the past. Now, there were a rash of building envelope failures here and in Vancouver in the 90’s and extending into the 2000’s due largely to poor detailing of one particular siding product, Exterior Finish and Insulation System (EFIS), that very few use anymore. Instead, most building envelopes now employ a rain screen system that allows the building shell to breath and dry out. Rain screens will likely be mandated by code shortly as they now are in Vancouver.
Yes existing affordable housing IS at risk because of HALA, because 60% of the units HALA aims to produce are expensive market rate housing. Since there is no 1:1 replacement requirement, naturally affordable (i.e., non-subsidized) affordable housing can be torn down at will in order to build whatever. Even 1:1 replacement is inadquate, as exemplified by Yesler Village, where Yesler Terrace’s existing 461 units of low income housing were required to be replaced while Vulcan and other developers build thousands of market rate units. Apparently SHA, the City of Seattle and these developers don’t think Seattle’s low income population is increasing, or they flat out don’t care about how exploding rent is creating poverty in our city.
But, without HALA, 100% of the units will be expensive market rate housing. How is that better? Again, what do you propose?
Making parking a question of equity and entitlement misses the point. It’s like many other resources, the supply is abundant up to a certain density, and past that it isn’t. When developers are allowed to provide less parking on site than residents will require, they’re abusing that resource (see “externality”), to the detriment of everyone.
When single family homeowners have less parking on site than they require, it reduces the abundance of parking too, to the detriment of everyone. But I suspect most in that situation would object to a law mandating that they spend thousands of dollars to retrofit their property to their number of cars.
An elephant is not all that distantly related to a mouse. May elephants infest your attic.
Not sure what your elephant curse means, but in any event, street parking is a public good, and so yes, if you are parking on the street you are “externalizing” the costs in a tragedy of the commons.
Paul, I am convinced that all street parking in Seattle will be metered at some point in the future. I live across the street from the now-demolished Silver Platters location. Parking is always full [I needn’t worry about it because I gave up my car in January 2016 and can always let a guest use the parking place I own in my building. Yes, screaming lefties, I said I OWN my parking place. As in I PAID for it. I guess that makes me a Right-leaning Trump supporter because I OWN something, doesn’t it. lol]. But parking’s been really tight at any time of day since that parking lot was shut down. I wonder how far up Queen Anne the meters will go. I just have a feeling that every available free parking place will have a meter in front of it, so to speak.
Donn is talking about new construction, not retrofitting buildings. So retrofitting homes is not relevant.
Imposing cost by law on new construction or on old buildings are two equivalent sides of the same coin. Which is more likely simply depends on who has more political power, and which is more appealing simply depends on whether you’re living in an old building or going to live in a new one.
If I were queen, everyone with a garage would be required to park their car in it. This would do more to relieve street parking than anything else. Anyone with a garage who doesn’t use it to park their car should stop complaining about street parking–now.
It is a good thing we don’t have queens any more! Sure, when parking gets tight on the street, we would hope people would use their on site parking if they have it. As we would hope they have it. The developers offer the excuse that when they put units on site, their sociopath residents park on the street anyway to avoid the cost of the stall. But as street parking gets closer to impossible, the value of those stalls will go up vs. their price – it isn’t a fixed equation, and policies shouldn’t consider the building in isolation as if it will be the last to be erected in the neighborhood.
I challenge the assertion that not having guaranteed storage for all of your vehicles is to the detriment of “everyone”. I have never owned a car, and if I stay in Seattle, hopefully never will. Providing free/mandated parking is to the detriment of me. Why should I subsidize your private luxuries? If you need storage for your stuff, then by all means, build it on your own property at your own expense. If not, please don’t ask the public to pay for it, when there’s much more pressing needs (housing and education costs, for one).
You’re trying to make it about entitlement. It’s a practical question: how can 100 cars find parking on a street that accommodates 40? How can small neighborhood businesses survive when they become inaccessible for lack of parking? How much time do people spend hunting down a spot blocks away? It is to the detriment of everyone, within reason, and a few exceptions who think it’s amusing don’t really change that.
@skylar2:disqus I whole heartedly agree – cars have dictated U.S. urban planning since they arrived on the scene, and it’s time to undo that.
I’m tired of Wallingford being an “Urban Village”. It’s a neighborhood. The exact boundaries aren’t important, it’s more a center of gravity thing, but it has nothing to do with the official Wallingford Residential Urban Village boundaries. The same goes for the others – look at Fremont and Queen Anne for example, boundaries drawn pretty tightly around high density areas … or Crown Hill, the “Urban Village” that doesn’t even have sidewalks out at the edges! These are all neighborhoods, they aren’t “Urban Villages” each with the equivalent potential to be turned into replicas of Ballard.
I’m not following the objection here. Is it that the “Urban Village” boundaries are too large or too small? The potential for increased density? Something else?
They think Wallingford is made to look like Ballard as long as Wallingford Center is preserved as a museum of old Wallingford. Aver time, new arrivals and younger generations won’t even notice because they never lived in or even saw old Wallingford.
I don’t support any of these HALA recommendations. There are thoughtful ways to increase density, but destroying single family neighborhoods isn’t the way to do it. I’ve got friends in Ballard who own single family homes who are now being negatively impacted by apodments going into their and surrounding neighborhoods. Try to find a parking spot when we go over for dinner! All those supposedly carless apodment people seem to have at least one per apodment so parking seems to be nonexistent some days. Thanks to whomever it was that dropped the parking requirement for apartment/apodment buildings. And it’s really restful and relaxing to have a multi-story building looming over you while you’re in your back yard or through your skylights while inside your home. I’m not willing to give up my quality of life that I worked really hard to achieve in order that the Mayor and his development buddies can cram more people into Seattle that we don’t already have room for. That’s what’s helping create unaffordable housing and is also costing me a ton more in property taxes to help pay for the exploding numbers of homeless people we now have in Seattle. But, not to worry, Special Ed will push yet another levy that will cause me to have to cut something else out of my budget in order to afford to live in my single family home.
Do you have the same expectations for fast parking when going to Capitol Hill, Belltown, or Downtown? Have you considered taking a bus or biking to Ballard instead?
Because of lack of parking in those neighborhoods, I don’t go to them any more. I take the bus downtown maybe once every 2 to 3 months to buy things all at once that are not available elsewhere. I used to live in Capitol Hill and loved many places, but the pain to get there isn’t worth it. And you’re asking Lisa, not me, about taking the bus, assuming to her dinner scenario, and that’s something I wouldn’t like to do because taking the bus home at a late hour isn’t necessarily safe.
No, Roman, I rarely expect “fast” parking downtown except on Sundays when we will go shopping or go to the Cinerama when street parking is free and generally available. I will only make trips downtown during the week if the business has free parking, like my bank or to go shopping at The Market. Belltown is a lost cause most days so I avoid it unless it’s for a late dinner when parking, if you can find it, is free. I lived down there in the 90’s before it got “cool” and, while there were parking meters, we didn’t seem to have any parking issues. All the artists in the building had vehicles, nobody rode bikes for pick ups or deliveries, especially when it rained. And as far as Capitol Hill goes, it’s insane to expect ANY street parking at any time or on any day (trying to find parking for ComiCon SUCKED!) so, again, I only go places that have free parking (my bank, Dick’s, etc.). Most of Capitol Hill, all of downtown and Belltown are not single family home neighborhoods while Ballard and Wallingford are, at least for the time being. Two different animals. No, I don’t take the bus. Takes too long and I’m not keen on hanging out at a bus stop in any of those areas at night waiting for the bus to show. Bike riding doesn’t cut it, either as I’m generally not inclined to ride a bike when I’m dressed for business or a social event. Single family home neighborhoods should be left as they are. Enough of the social engineering! If people want to bike or take mass transit, that is their choice, but stuffing multistory buildings (with no parking facilities for that building) into single family home neighborhoods is a non-starter for me. Obviously you disagree. Most homeowners in Wallingford I’ve spoken with on this subject aren’t overly excited about it, either, to lesser and greater extents than I. I will do anything I can to prevent my neighborhood from turning into what I’m seeing in Ballard. It’s interesting that some people take it as selfish NIMBYism when you merely want to maintain the neighborhood you’ve got instead of allowing it to turn into a multistory apodment bloc. With no parking.
Wallingford has multiple reasonably fast and convenient bus routes to downtown. I’m kinda shocked that you wouldn’t consider using it even for events like ComiCon.
“Social engineering” applies equally to the massively subsidized privately owned car culture as it does to mass transit.
Lisa
I completely agree. While change does happen in life, maintaining quality of life is important.
As for taking the bus, did that for too many years and it is not practical for every situation, let alone many situations.
tabbiesrock
My father never went to school, not even first grade. My mother went to 6th grade. Some how I managed to become a doctor and to start buying real estate 35 years ago. I own six houses all with views and three on water.
I enjoy my “real” profession more than I do real estate. I bought into real estate early on because I was traumatized as a child when my parents lost and earnest money and they became ill.
It terms of material things, nothing is as a great as owning land. However, I love aesthetics and architecture and part of owning real estate was taking older homes and giving them back their pride.
I can empathize with persons who want to own their homes.
Here are some tips for buying a house:
1. Have parents who did well and can give you a down payment. Be lucky enough to have people hand you something on a silver platter.
2. Do not go to a private school. Work hard and go to community college and then transfer to a 4 year school. Grades and GREs are more important than is the “name brand”, at least for the masses (of course, if your parents went to Harvard, you do not need to be very smart, there is the despicable ” legacy thing” and perpetuation .of the “rich get richer….”……….
3. Try very hard to increase your interest in math. I have found that anyone can learn calculus. Coding can be taught to a pigeon. You have the brain of a human being, you just need the right teachers.
4. DO NOT GO OUT TO EAT, except for very special occasions and only do so if it is a Happy Hour. Seattle has the highest prices for eating out of anywhere. I was at the Sheraton on 53rd and 6th Ave in Neuva York and went to an Irish Pub that has been there since 1890. I had a Cornish hen dinner (a half!), with huge sprouts of broccoli (probably not organic, but what the hec…..), and good bread. The large plate was overflowing and it cost $17.99, in one of the greatest cities on the planet.
If enough people would boycott restaurants in Seattle, the prices would become reasonable.
Also, going out to eat Italian is not going to be authentic anyway. I am sure Koreans and Cubans will tell you the same thing. You can save a huge amount of money by not eating out.
Our city tax is absurd.
5. Think about a state tax. If spent wisely by Washington state (which is a stretch to believe), you could reap benefits as it should help poorer people more than the rich people who flock to this most regressive part of the country.
6. Help older adults who own their own homes and need to be energized by younger people. Ask them to pay you at least $20 per hour. If you are reliable and there for them when they are in need, you could a family-style relationship. Many in Seattle have house security (having purchased many years ago), but they need help with daily tasks. It will also be good for your mental health and spirit to befriend older people.
7. Do not take expensive vacations every year. You live in an amazing state. It is not up there on historical significance, actually pretty pathetic, but the natural beauty can not be matched. Indigenous peoples produced great art, but not as much was recorded. I know that relying on SAM and a few others is a lot to bear if you have been to Philadelphia, NY or DC, but the mountains and waterways here are stellar.
8. You are lucky you live in Wallyland because you can walk to so many places.
9. If the items above seem too drastic, splurge and get a season pass to our zoo.
Given the crappy museums we have here, what a great way to get amazing stimulation. Yes, I know animals should not be caged, but many species are being protected. I have been to many zoos in the US and ours is one of the best. I love watching animal behavior, the open spaces, the children enjoying themselves with parents who are responsible, unlike Cincinnati.
10. Be careful about what you throw out and consider to be garbage. I think that swap meets have gotten a bad name because of ambient issues, but it is a great way to meet neighbors and earn some extra cash.
So, these are my ten (??) ways to save for a house. Just off the top of my head from personal experience. I did not do a thorough search of databases.
Clearly, not everyone may want to buy a house for several reasons, but for those of you who do, hope some of these help.
p.s. the editorial comments, perhaps intrusive, just reflect personal frustrations, so if you like our museums, j’regret.
Excellent advice on saving to buy a house, Goeu. (However, our museums are crappy only by comparison to those in cities we cannot compare to — like New York, London and Paris.) I especially like #6. If we are expected to achieve the density the mayor and Hala wants, we need other plans than just more and more building — like sharing housing that brings mutual benefits. Also, the city has made few attempts that I know of to spur remodeling of existing houses which would provide cheaper units than those in new buildings. Rather, the city is committed to producing more revenue in building permits and property taxes. Neither has the city or Hala promoted the support of co-housing or Community Land Trusts, both private initiatives supported by grants and owner-occupants, because they would not return the profit developers want. The cost of a home under a Community Land Trust is about half the market price. And has anyone considered that the density in Seattle is now driving people out to the suburbs? Not necessarily because they can’t afford Seattle prices but that they no longer want to live here.
Thanks Berta. I agree with you said, save the museum comment. Here are cities with much better museums than Seattle: Philly, Boston, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, San Fran, Los Angeles, possibly Atlanta, Baltimore even has a spectacular small museum. My point is that there are hundreds of multimillionaires in Seattle. Clearly, some of them care more about eradicating malaria in Africa, which is very noble and much more important than museums for the mass of humanity. But these same people are so ultra-ultra-ultra rich, they could easily do a wee bit more to increase public art. Art and architecture are clearly not as important as violence, health, and education, but they are all intricately related and influence people’s lives.
I have a great view of the skyline. Every time a crane goes up, it is followed by a hideous skyscraper. People here love flat tops (aka Amazon, etc.). If they can build interesting buildings in Shanghai, so can we. This also applies to Wallingford and Roosevelt. The new buildings on Roosevelt are hideous and do not add to a sense of community.
Totally agree that with the wealth in Seattle it is shocking and sad how bad our cultural institutions are, and how little support for the arts we have. Heck, even Bellevue Art Museum typically puts on better shows than SAM (in my opinion)!
Wait till the new plans for the University District come to fruition. South Lake Union, right next door. If we feel like someone has painted a target on our backs here in Wallingford, imagine what it feels like in the University District, with an upzone for heights in excess of the Safeco bldg. The rationale would be that in the future, not even a generation away, they will open a Link station there – the same kind of Link station that’s already open across the length of the city, and which does not seem to have been occasion for this kind of anticipated building frenzy anywhere else. It’s the north end, baby! Your hideous sky scrapers have been waiting for this moment.
All huge (and great) institutions are multifaceted. UW is a prime example. Wally folks should make more use of the UW Dept of Urban Planning. There are good people there. Yes, I know that UW is behind the density change (every large vibrant organization has pluses and minuses), but if you go to some their open lectures, you will find that they are working with people around the world to improve city life. You could voice concerns there about this increased density in the U District. The former Safeco building, which UW bought, is hideous on the outside, but my God, what views! Perhaps the UW will not have density in front of the building as to not detract from the views…….???
This reply is slightly off topic but still worth presenting. Vancouver, B.C., when I visited there in Summer 1992 & 1993, had massive residential high rises I’m pretty sure it was the flood of Hong Kong’s citizens beating a fast one as Mainland China resumed its rule there. Seattle has yet to see high rise residential density on that level.
After the upzone kicks in the U District will look just like SLU, except the towers will be twice as tall. I was incrediulous when I heard a mayor’s office rep say in a recent packed public meeting convened by the Seattle Displacement Coaltion that, no, bald the U District will NOT be denser than SLU. Ed Murray must think regular people can’t do math, but actually we can caluculate that 32 story building planned for the U District are in fact twice as tall as the 16 story (and shorter) buildings in SLU.
Just wait until they really get going on the U District upzone. It will be like Godzilla ripping through Tokyo.
With median housing price in Seattle now greater than $650,000, how realistic is it for people who are not in very high paying jobs to purchase a house, even with scrimping and saving?
The problem is that people need to start somewhere. Many people in Wally are bitter and that does not nothing. There are neighborhoods in Seattle that have good transportation to downtown, nice sized lots, some really interesting architecture, and lots of trees. Check out Crown Hill. It has also been discovered, but certainly not 650k! Also, there are older adults who might sell to you on a contract if you pay them a higher interest rate. When I got started I payed an interest rate to an older woman that was 4% higher than prime. I then rode the wave in the early 90s. The woman wanted to get a better return on her money and I wanted to get in for the ride and because I loved living in Seattle at that time.
Of course, the powers that be do not want to tell the average working man about these creative ways to buy a house because they are all in this together (real estate empires, developers, payoffs to county officials (yes, city of Seattle is very left, but the County is not and they get payoffs for developers).
Another way to buy a house more cheaply is DO NOT USE A BUYER’S AGENT.
If you have to, only use a seller’s agent. Buy directly from the owner’s agent. Yes, s(he) has the best “interests” at heart for the seller, but s(he) will get both sides of the commission, so you can negotiate better. I have done this many many times and not only did I jump the other offers, but I also got the listing agent to give me back a percentage.
Also, I realize that doing business with family members is a tricky business and can lead to life long misery, but if your siblings, etc are not too neurotic, you might consider going in with them, just to get into the market. There are hurdles and issues to consider, but if you want a piece of Seattle, it is a way to do it.
Finally, try very hard to pay a little extra and get a place with a legal second unit or try to create one to create more housing. But please if you do this, do not rent to people with cars. I have one car and that is almost too much.
You have listed several tips for individuals to be able to buy their own home, and #6 suggests befriending an older person who owns their own home to develop a “family-syle relationship”. I can only guess that this is included in your tips with the idea the older person will be able to be manipulated or “friended” into giving you an inside deal on their home? Many older folks are vulnerable – through loneliness, isolation, low income or illness – to schemes and manipulation by family members, “friends” and strangers. Please do not take advantage of them. Please remove this “tip” from your list.
I have spent my life working with and helping older adults. Geriatrics/Gerontology are what I love and do. A person can take a knife and kill someone or they can use it to trim hair, plant a flower, or cut a piece of fish. You have chosen to use the knife in the former way. There will be people who will read my comment and misinterpret or “perhaps read what they want into it” ………more of self-righteous Seattle at work.
I am completely aware of the vulnerabilities of older adults in housing, health care, social interactions, mobility, activities of daily living, and the general stressors of living in a society that does not value aging, a society that still uses the term “elderly” in public venues.
Please do not lecture me about aging.
What I propose will not only help older adults with loneliness, isolation, caregiving, but also allow them to have to have the best possible life. The older adult with whom I worked had an attorney and knew what she was doing. She got 4% over the market, much more than she would have had, had she kept all her money in a bank.
The only way to get something for nothing is to be a criminal or be lucky enough to be born wealthy. There will always be people out there who will cut corners.
I never said that people who want to buy a house should swindle older adults. Your projections are telling.
I don’t think walkinroun is projecting. You and Lisa make legit points, and I don’t have a problem with honorable people following that path. Unfortunately, as you well know, unscrupulous (sociopathic) people do exist, so caution and vigilance by those who know elders is always in order. Lost of litigation over this stuff…
You nor she read what I said.
This is what I said:
6. Help older adults who own their own homes and need to be energized by younger people. Ask them to pay you at least $20 per hour. If you are reliable and there for them when they are in need, you could a family-style relationship. Many in Seattle have house security (having purchased many years ago), but they need help with daily tasks. It will also be good for your mental health and spirit to befriend older people.
On another post, I mentioned that I bought my first house on a contract a payed an older woman 4% over market value.
Your bud wove these together and misinterpreted what I said:
This is what s(he) said:
You have listed several tips for individuals to be able to buy their own home, and #6 suggests befriending an older person who owns their own home to develop a “family-syle relationship”. I can only guess that this is included in your tips with the idea the older person will be able to be manipulated or “friended” into giving you an inside deal on their home? Many older folks are vulnerable – through loneliness, isolation, low income or illness – to schemes and manipulation by family members, “friends” and strangers. Please do not take advantage of them. Please remove this “tip” from your list.
Your friend mixed the two and conflated my intent.
Family style relationships and buying on a contract.
S(he) clearly did this for a reason or was it unconscious? SHE said “I can only guess………..” Please read carefully. There are him/her words.
You’re overreacting.
projecting again. Should we rename Wallyhood, projectahood. You need to read all the emails and see if I am overreacting.
I read this (direct copy and paste): “If you are reliable and there for them when they are in need, you could [have?/establish?] a family-style relationship.” This is exactly how sociopaths establish predatory relationships.
And before you get your next defensive post up, why don’t you read mine again? Where did I project anything on you. We all need to be careful, that’s all.
two totally separate messages. One about buying on a contract and another about helping older adults. You can buy on a contract with anyone who wants to obtain more interest than with a bank. The person does not have to be an older adult. So you and your friends are saying that only sociopaths will want to buy a house on a contract with an older adult?
Didn’t say that. Didn’t imply that. You’re way overthinking this and being defensive for no good reason. I’m off to a meeting so post away if you want the last word.
“Didn’t say that, Didn’t imply that”
and also
Didn’t read that.
Read all the emails, not just the latest thread.
You and your buds read in the news that older adults are preyed upon — they certainly are. SO, your friend took my comment about befriending older adults to help them and also receive extra income (and the enjoyment of multi-generation interactions) and combined that with a separate totally independent comment about buying a house on a contract. The people I did this with (twice) happened to be older adults and it was a win-win.
For all of you out there who are trying to buy a house, I hope that some of my comments will help you to think about ways to do it here or in a less expensive neighborhood.
My comments were meant to help. There will always be people (referred to in this thread as sociopaths) who will take advantage of others. I believe that most of the population means well.
I hope the non-sociopaths out there can benefit from my comments.
Actually, befriending two elderly sisters who were near retirement was how a friend of mine bought his house down near Georgetown. He certainly wasn’t taking advantage of them, and, in fact, sort of turned into their handydude and errand runner when he had time. It was mutually beneficial for many reasons and he eventually bought their home at market rate, but he saved money because he didn’t have to deal with a realtor and the commission. They were also happy to know they’d sold their family home to a really nice guy.
Lisa, unfortunately when people read comments on here they bring their life experiences to the table and (mis)interpret how they want. If you read what I said, in separate messages, you will see I never said young people should buy on contract with older people to cheat them. I clearly said that many older people are frustrated with interest rates and want to get more interest.
The anecdote example I know turned out surprisingly well, too. But if we’re talking about going that way per advice in online blog comments, my skepticism returns. This thread should probably be cleaned up.
Rick, first of all I’d like to know if you actually live in a proposed upzone area. I ask because many of your fellow HALA boosters DO NOT, and I take issue with people urging others to make sacrifices while they don’t personally have to make them. (I think the word for people like that is NIMBY?)
Anyway, I really don’t understand why the pro-HALA crowd can’t seem to understand basic logic when it comes to satisfying their demands for density and affordability. If you want density and all those wonderful amenities you think it brings, move downtown. If you want affordability, and you want it here in Wallingford in particular, build it on Aurora. There are plenty of vacant lots, and you have all the amenities you need nearby. Boom! I just solved both the density and affordability crisis for Seattle! A simple pat on the back will suffice, thanks.
Of course, that’s not really what it’s about. Urbanistas, with the backing of every department of the city from the mayor on down seek to punish evil, “exclusionary,” “racist” “NIMBY” SF homeowners for growing all that equity and not sharing the wealth. Nevermind the fact that increased equity only means higher property taxes until the day we sell, assuming we want to. So the urbanistas want make sure we share that wealth by doing things like DOUBLING the housing affordability levy. You want to do away with zoning, take away our right to have a say in the design review process, add more sewage to an already overtaxed system, and externalize parking requirements that, like it or not, will always be required.
So you guys are fond of lecturing longtime residents and SF homeowners that we should make sacrifices and accept undesirable changes to our neighborhood while calling us NIMBY’s and such. Tell me Rick: What sacrifices are being asked of those who don’t even live in Seattle yet, hmmm? What are you trying to force them to accept in return for the sacrifices others are making to help them live here?
You’re forgetting – because “equity”! High density residential can’t go up by Aurora, because that wouldn’t be equitable. Those buildings have to be right next to you, and nothing else will do.
Touché, Donn.
You recommend people move downtown if they want density. By that logic, if you want your house with a nice lawn, open views, and plenty of parking, then move out of the city.
I already have that, thanks. That’s why I bought here, because it was zoned for that. It’s people like you that want change the rules after the fact and take that away. If you want a nice lawn in the city too, then PAY FOR IT.
No one is forcing you to sell your house or demolish it in favor of an apartment building. You paid for it and it’s yours, no questions asked. However, you haven’t bought the zoning code, and it can change around you.
The zoning here is Single Family, Roman. We don’t have to lie down and just accept a zoning change that negatively affects us. I know I sure as hell won’t!
“Negatively affects us” – That’s the part that I don’t quite understand. Help me out here LIsa. You have your house with some green space and probably a driveway. Is it that bad to have a 5 story building with a coffee shop show up down the block? Will it kill you if your guests can’t park in front of your house? Will you loose sleep over the lost downtown view you had from a bedroom window? Will you suffer that much as developers offer you great prices 10 years from now?
What exactly is so bad about a denser neighborhood? Is it other people?
Get with the program, Lisa. Don’t you understand that Roman and all the other DIMBY’S know better than us what’s best for our own neighborhoods?
That hypothetical five-story building Roman talks about will help block out the sun and make sure you don’t get a nasty sunburn in the summertime.
And if your guests have to walk further to get your house, that’s good, because they probably need the exercise.
As for your lost view, I know I’d much rather see someone doing whatever it is they’re doing changing your bedroom window than have a view of downtown, wouldn’t you?
Where would we be without Roman and all the other urbanistas telling us what’s good for us?
I hear ya’ hayduke. Your kind made the same arguments back in 1890 when Wallingford was mostly a verdant forest.
I suppose so. It didn’t work out so well for them either back then when they welcomed the newcomers, did it.
You’re being deliberately dense. I guess we will just continue to disagree.
Yes, here’s the “urbanist” viewpoint that apparently sees the city as an unbroken expanse of apartment buildings, the taller the better.
Get a clue. Read walkinroun’s post below. She’s a real urbanist, someone who cares about the city as a place to live, not just a place to accumulate maximum numbers of survivors. “Livability”, sadly a part of HALA only in name.
Excellent post, Hayduke, especially the suggestion to build on vacant lots that don’t have high value. I too wonder why homeowners are expected to make all the sacrifices for people who aren’t even here yet or who just got here. Prices for housing in Pierce County are about half of those in King County. I know people who have lived in Seattle all their lives that are happy to take advantage of it. There are tech jobs there too.
Exactly!
Few SF homeowners have done anything to “grow equity”, at least not to the amount we’ve seen. Our property values have increased because more people want to live here, bidding up prices. In other words, we were fortunate enough to have bought at the right time and right place.
HALA is a city-wide proposal, not just a Wallingford Residential Urban Village proposal. So let’s do look at this as a shared sacrifice & opportunity.
“HALA is a city-wide proposal?” What part of, say, Laurelhurst are they proposing to upzone, Paul? And tell me, when and how do the newcomers get to participate in this “shared sacrifice” you speak of? Because it seems to me that the only people being told they need to sacrifice are those of us who already live in the upzones.
The ADU/DADU liberalization would apply just as much to Laurelhurst as it would to Wallingford. Whether you want to call that an “upzone” or simply “bringing Seattle’s single-family zoning in line with neighboring metro areas” is up to you.
What do ADU/DADU changes have to do with upzones – especially with the owner occupancy requirement intact?
I imagine that’s cited as the part of HALA that’s city wide, though at this point I believe it is officially separate from HALA, whatever that means. But the owner occupancy requirement isn’t going to be intact, O’Brien’s 1-year version is likely a commercially workable alternative to removing it, and the cumulative effect of the proposals will likely be very similar to an upzone. It’s clearly aimed at a level of commercial viability that’s nothing like what we have now and intended to result in “production” that’s nothing like what we have now.
Donn, the one year owner occupancy requirement seems like a huge concession to me. It effectively keep the owner occupancy requirement intact in that it responds neighborhood concerns about speculation. It’s hard to believe a developer would buy a home and move into it for a year so that they could build a cottage in the back yard. Am I missing an angle? I don’t understand the commercially workable alternative you are referring to. WIth the owner occupancy requirement, I doubt we will see much of an increase in ADU/DADU’s in the city and I don’t think it’s accurate to conflate it with upzones.
O’Brien’s proposal eliminates the owner occupancy requirement after one year.
It’s not a “…shared sacrifice…” and it’s definitely not an opportunity for my neighborhood.
It’s not.
By the projections, King County needs to be able to double in population in the next 25 years. (side note: anyone know why so much growth? I don’t believe the U.S is projected to double in population in 25 years)
You can’t double the population of King County, simply by adding skyscrapers downtown. In fact, the downtown area is pretty small, so it’s not a great target for growth.
…and all the planned neighborhoods in Bothell, Redmond, Auburn, etc with their curving streets, can’t be upzoned unless you just bulldoze the whole neighborhood.
…so that leaves the small lot neighborhoods in Seattle to accommodate all the growth.
…which I think is too bad, because the small lot neighborhoods, while not as dense as downtown, are certainly more dense and walkable than the suburbs. It feels like its Wallingford’s responsibility (and Ballard’s, Fremont’s, Columbia City’s, etc) to fix the population growth issue, when Wallingford isn’t the real problem. If the inner suburbs were all as dense as Wallingford, you could accommodate all that growth without more sprawl.
King County needs to be able to double in population in the next 25 years.
This is a critical assumption. What is driving this “need”? What political economic forces are in play here?
its Wallingford’s responsibility (and Ballard’s, Fremont’s, Columbia City’s, etc) to fix the population growth issue
Wow; Malthus, Meadows, and dozens of others are spinning in their graves…
See this: http://eig.org/recoverymap
Very few counties in the US (just 73!) account for half of the new jobs since the crash, and King County is one of them. So as people follow the jobs, metro regions in general, and ones that have the most job opportunities, see the most growth in population.
Should more be asked of the suburbs around Seattle? Most definitely. But we can’t dispose of this problem by just foisting it entirely on them.
I think shmerham was saying they *don’t* think this problem is Seattle’s alone to solve.
Finally, yes, Malthus might be spinning in his grave over our social welfare programs and low-income housing assistance.
You are missing my point. Capital flow is the main driver, “follow the jobs.” The correct term is follow the money.
Your reference to Malthus is well taken, but his attitude toward welfare (“Poor Laws”) did evolve and was quite nuanced.
At least he acknowledges that the growth is a problem. The next step is to ask, since it’s a problem, what are we doing about it? You know from experience I’m sure, some people take a long time to wrap their heads around this.
Umm… no, not what I said. Most counties in the US have *lost* jobs. People are moving to where jobs and opportunities are. And soon, people will move away from coastal flooding and heat.
So expect the opportunity to welcome even more new neighbors in the coming years.
According to the City’s own report… “Based on current zoning, DPD estimates that the city has development capacity to add about 224,000 housing units and 232,000 jobs, a sufficient amount to accommodate the 70,000 households and 115,000 jobs the Countywide Planning Policies assign to Seattle for the next 20 years”
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/p2182731.pdf
It is important to note that “development capacity” is not a maximum number of units that can be built but an expected number given current trends. So with current zoning we could actually build more than 224,000 housing units & some people will share housing, which would accommodate many more than 224,000 people. The 70,000 housing units that we are projected to need are to accommodate 120,000 people that are expected over 20 years. (Is that confusing?)
Some people have said the 120,000 projected population growth number is based on old data. I’m not sure about this, but I do know that these are the numbers the City is still using in its projections. The development capacity numbers (how many more housing units we can build with current zoning) is based on data from 2014.
My favorite urbanist insult is their claim that SF houses “hoard land.” Not the homeowners, mind you. They actually attribute evil agency to SF houses themselves. They also think SF homeowners are sitting on “gold mines” that should be sold so urbanists can build duplexes, triplexes, stacked flats, garden apartments, etc., even though the prices of each of these glossy new units units could easily equal that of the modest SF homes they replace. These designs on SF homeowners houses also don’t consider where such homeowners could go after they cash in on their “gold mines.” Buy one of those triplexes for the proceeds of their small houses, and wind up with less space? I can see elderly people possibly doing that, but not younger homeowners with kids, or even older homeowners who invite their aging parents to live with them. For years I lived next to a four generation family, that became a three generation family when the 95 year old great-grandmother died. Then it became a two generation family when the young couple divorced and the ex-wife moved with their four kids to another county. The mother, her now single son and a non-relative are still living there, and their long paid for house is still affordable housing for these three very nice neighbors.
For almost 20 years our family of four lived in a sub-1,000 SF apartments in a 3 flats. For part of that time our landlords were an older couple with the wife’s aging father living with them and their adult daughter until she finished school and found her first apartment. I’m sure all of us would have liked additional space and a pony too, but unfortunately none of us were able to afford that. If you ban the forms of housing that people with less rather than more can afford, the people with less don’t magically get enough money for a bigger home.
Sure, and look at you now, Bryan. You’re living in one of those enormous, tall SF homes that you grouse about. Same thing with me, except I started out living in some miserable rooming houses in the U-District. And I live in a small house, albeit with a big yard. Too bad the city wants to discourage me from building a cottage to rent out in back because that would somehow be unfair to renters.
And guess what, I didn’t bitch and moan about how it’s unfair that people older than me at the time got to live in nice SF homes, or ask them to help pay for me to buy one? I’d like additional space, which we can’t afford, and a pony too. Sometimes, you don’t get to have everything you want.
Not only do urbanistas like Paul and Bryan think of we should replace SF homes, they say that SF homeowners don’t “deserve” the increase in equity. It’s like saying you don’t “deserve” an increase in the value of stock you buy, but worse, because we use our homes to live in. They believe the city should confiscate that equity in the form of ever higher taxes. And they’ve even suggested that hey, if you can’t afford those taxes, just go to the bank and apply for an equity loan, using that undeserved equity, so you can pay the tax to help subsidize someone else buying a home in your neighborhood. All in the name of being “equitable.”
Heck they’d probably argue that it’s unfair that the bums and criminals whose tents caught on fire the other day under I-5 at 42nd don’t get to live in nice homes, so we need to make room for them.
A farmer goes to market, and, like every other farmer, does his best to pick out a goose to bring back to the farm. Once back at home, he discovers that this particular goose (which looked pretty much like any other) happens to lay golden eggs (the result, he subsequently learns, of a spell cast by a great wizard named “Bezos). But the kingdom has a tax on gold. With his farmer’s income, the farmer can’t pay the tax on his mounting pile of golden eggs without selling some of them, or selling the goose itself. The farmer proceeds to lament how hard his lot in life is…
Maybe the King (let’s call him Murray) needs to stop wasting so much money and institute a progressive income tax instead of taxing his poor farmers’ geese so much. And there’s nothing stopping new farmers from going to newer, less expensive markets (Georgetown, South Park, Beacon Hill, Lower Ballard, Interbay, West Seattle, Aurora, etc. etc.) and looking for their own golden goose.
Well we can agree on one thing (maybe two): we should have a progressive income tax, as well as tax on capital gains. It’s crazy that we don’t.
Yes, it is crazy. And it will probably never happen. But in the meantime, the farmers either have to sell their farmhouse and move into the chicken coop for their retirement, or milk cows until they drop dead. All just to help new farmers who haven’t been paying taxes to King Murray move into their neighborhood.
Yes, developers. Go to Georgetown, south Park, Lower Ballard, Interbay and a large swath of the U District. Build all you want. The City of Seattle will help you do that by graciously upzoning these neighborhoods to the max. In a century or so these neighborhoods will struggle with flooding due to sea level rise and large volumes of urban runoff due to increased frequency of superstorms. The city is in denial, and developers, the prime beneficiaries of the golden goose, don’t care, because they’ll take their profits and move on. The heck with future human beings. That all being said, Seattle is fortunate that “only” 9% of Seattle will be inundated by SLR of four meters, compared to ~100% of Miami Beach, New Orleans, Atlantic City, etc.
Well, might as well notice that investment capital behind development is at least part of the picture and likely really is the prime beneficiary; that would include developer/capital businesses. The magnitude of this money probably explains a lot about the political landscape downtown.
It seems that there is a middle ground between single family home density and upzoning from the 4 stories that is currently allowed. Even without upzoning, any new 4 story development, like what we currently see being built on 45th and Stone Way, provides a huge density increase over single family housing. Rick mentions the large homes that replace smaller ones, but I see much more construction of large 4 story apartment buildings with 100s of units as well as skinny tall town houses that put 6 or 8 homes where there once was one. I’m fine with the increased density they provide. However, why do we need upzoning that takes us to 5 or 6 stories as well?
Density without affordability is meaningless except for those who want to live in a virtually all white, all affluent city. HALA affordability requirements won’t affect lowrise buildings because they don’t have enough units. According to Zillow, the current median value of homes in Seattle is ~$550,000. Developers will profit handsomely by knocking down SF homes and replacing them with four packs, each unit of which could easily cost $550,000, or more. How does this contribute to affordability?
Affordability is a relative assessment within supply and demand.
More people want to live here, so prices rise. If you we to stabilize prices or even move them down, the supply of housing must increase. There are no magic solutions to this age-old equation.
Where’s the city that built its way out of a situation like we’re in now? More opportunity for development investment capital, sure, but affordability, no way – we’ve been adding “units” at a frantic pace, but as long as the growth continues unchecked, it will easily continue to outpace what we can build.
Raleigh Durham
Your graph includes “Raleigh Durham added housing through sprawl. The good news is we don’t have to.” Really? How so? Answers are not simplistic.
You also display the ratio of new residential unit per job. This data supports my argument that a major pressure on housing costs is a low ratio of new housing to job growth, leading to the need to control demand (job growth) as much or more than supply (housing). This logic is exactly why San Jose complains about Santa Clara approving creation of a large quantity of jobs without housing to go with it (low ratio).
Thus the demand side solution: Keep the ratio higher by not inducing growth in jobs without making sure affordable housing will also be available. If there is no easy way to create affordable housing, all you do by creating lots of well paid new jobs is set up gentrification and displacement. And “affordable” means for existing communities as well as new; when the new comers make three times as much, the result is wholesale displacement over time. That’s precisely the dynamic that led to undoing of black community in Seattle’s CD documented by McGee.
I have yet to see any credible data showing how Seattle can possibly meet affordable housing demand created by job creation like SLU with the supply created by the HALA provisions.
>Your graph includes “Raleigh Durham added housing through sprawl. The good >news is we don’t have to.” Really? How so?
Build more units on the same amount of land
>when the new comers make three times as much, the result is wholesale >displacement over time.
Not when there are enough new homes, because even the affluent only occupy one home at a time
Build more units…
Doesn’t work.
…enough new homes…
You are making the same bald assertion (again) without any supporting evidence. Growth in supply of housing does not in itself prevent displacement. If that were so, there would be no gentrification in the first place because the process includes lots of new housing. You cannot build your way back to affordability in the CD any more than you can in Manhattan. Only a full on depression will do that.
>Growth in supply of housing does not in itself prevent displacement.
If there is enough supply to prevent prices from rising beyond people’s ability to pay does (see: Raleigh Durham).
And it actually works most places, most of the time – as employment increases, people are better off at being able to afford housing, at least at the median. This is all US counties over 100,000 population. The outliers in the 3rd chart to the (unaffordable) right are the usual suspects like San Francisco. It’s an easy problem to solve by simply building the proportionally right # of homes…
There is not “infinite demand.” Demand taps out at “number x quality of jobs.”
You admit that Raleigh Durham “succeeds” in staying (relatively) more affordable due to sprawl. Not due to “more housing” per se.
We keep going around the bush here, but you never address the basic issue: How are you going to prevent escalation of costs with more density when the evidence shows that costs in core in every growing city becomes increasingly expensive, and spreads out as density and population increases? You keep saying “more housing” and posting graphs that are interesting but do not support your solution. Yes, housing supply does not “keep up” with in-migration in hot job markets. duh
And yes, demand is not infinite. However, it’s been more boom than bust on West coast for well over a century. Question: When do you think the next big bust is going to happen?
The operative dynamic is the ratio of homes to jobs (and income) – you can manage that ratio by building more homes by sprawling, or by building new homes within the city limits. Housing costs don’t escalate because of density* they escalate because housing supply doesn’t keep up — but the point is it *can*
Raleigh-Durham has done it better than most, but they didn’t _have to_ do it through sprawl: there’s plenty of room in the core cities for more apartments and triplexes. Likewise, to keep up with them we needed only 11,000 more units a year in King County. They all could have gone within Seattle and other urban cores (Bellevue, Renton downtown etc).
To put it another way, if Boston were mostly single family homes, it would be more expensive than San Francisco to live in. But it’s not, it’s mostly row houses.
If even San Francisco, the poster child for this problem, were at the density of Paris, it would have–by these measures of housing ratios to job–more than enough homes to keep costs down.
That’s my point: if folks want “no change” in high job growth areas, yes, housing will get really expensive. But building housing sufficient to match even the highest growth isn’t hard – we don’t need space elevators and mile high buildings; even SF would be affordable if it were mostly 5 story residential buildings instead of 2 story residential buildings.
*yes I there might be some, but in the main it’s not the driver of housing costs
It’s not magic: deal with the demand side. Here’s an example of city government that is finally starting to understand that econ 101 supply and demand is not the end of the story: “San Jose has taken the rare step of publicly opposing the project, saying it would add far too many jobs, exacerbating the region’s housing shortage.”
You cannot solve a demand side problem with a supply side solution.
If you want to fly over San Jose to see the acres upon acres of suburban zoning…and then drop in downtown to see the hundreds of desperate homeless people shambling around, I’ll pay for your ticket. San Jose is the archetype of savage cruelty and disgusting privilege. (I know, I work there.) Its city government deserves nothing but condemnation.
When you spew stuff like “archetype of savage cruelty and disgusting privilege” I suspect your perspective is a tad slanted. But I’m not going to argue with you about San Jose (with which I am not very familiar). The “growth” section on the Wiki page on San Jose history is more illuminating than your spin.
Sure, Bryan. If only housing was a little more affordable those “hundreds of desperate homeless people shambling around” in San Jose would all have a place to live. Just like all our so-called “down on their luck” in here in the Jungle. Rezone neighborhoods like Wallingford, and all those junkies, tweakers, rapists and other scumbags would turn their lives around, get jobs, and be decent law-abiding citizens who contribute to society rather than prey upon it.
Meanwhile, here in Freattle, our “savage” government has allowed the bums to set up a tent city at City Hall. And how do they thank us? By flinging feces and bottles at passers by.
Only a tiny fraction of them have accepted offers of help, the rest just want to carry on without having to follow those pesky rules the rest of us have to live by. The other day, I parked for an extra 2 minutes in a 3 minute loading zone downtown and had some assh-ole sheriff get in my face about it. Meanwhile, these miscreants are allowed to park their RV’s and tents on our sidewalks and in our neighborhoods and crap and steal from us with little to no repercussions.
Screw those people. They don’t deserve our compassion.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9538c76028c1c6f2f4dfdbce418c8ef6d0630d7730337c8ef381a89c5e61c21f.jpg
@anotherneighborhoodactivist that photo in the article says it all: dense commercial / business core ringed by single family residences neighborhoods. Meanwhile that article concludes with this link, which makes a simple case for how prices work with rising demand:
http://gawker.com/san-francisco-build-more-housing-assholes-1763752356
“Instead of doing this, San Francisco does the opposite. The city’s regulations make it incredibly difficult and cumbersome to build large new projects, and rental laws encourage renters to stay in place and discourage some people with extra space from entering the rental market. These restrictions are, ironically, driven by longtime residents—often those who already own their own homes—who adopt the mantle of progressive preservationists, fighting the big bad developers and rich newcomers. Their efforts have the effect of driving up housing prices. Not a bad thing, if you already own a house! This also has the following effects:
A) It makes San Francisco so expensive that many people who would in theory like to move to San Francisco cannot move to San Francisco, and
B) It drives rent prices on the insufficient existing housing stock so high that middle class residents are priced out of San Francisco.”
As difficult as those regulations may be, the Chronicle’s figures for San Francisco metro area building permits last year is 12766. That’s just one year. They say 2014 was 28% less, but that’s still a lot more than the dead-in-the-water picture one might expect, I guess one should commend the developers for their selfless heroism in going ahead despite the obstacles.
What’s driving prices up is not the people who live there now, but the people who are pouring in from everywhere. SF is building lots of units, but it’s a large and very populous world when you invite everyone. Too many people out there, to leave growth management out of the discussion.
For some of us the grand bargain and the proposed changes to the comprehensive plan are a scam of the worst kind: they claim to promote social and racial justice, housing affordability and inclusive housing opportunities for middle, low income and poor people when they actually serve the interests of the rich and powerful.
Nothing in these schemes is going to prevent Wallingford and other close-in neighborhoods from turning into big house enclaves for the very wealthy and suitably segregated pig-piled small box apartments for their not so wealthy but better paid than the rest of us workers. Service workers and social workers can have podments. All of Seattle is moving very quickly in this direction. It is an expression of the huge international wealth of corporations that make and are making their home here.
Middle, low income and poor people have been and are displaced to outlier areas far from the city and/or to years-long waitlisted tightly-government-controlled small box housing in the city. It is an exercise in the growing chasm between the haves and the haven’t gots. Housing advocates serve the wealthy by closeting the most egregious street folks and the indigent in their closely monitored complexes: the “homeless emergency”. In the meantime, the rest of us are screwed. Tell me it ain’t so.
Yeah, the solution to that would be removing all single family houses and replace them with reasonable-sized condos. Having only some places built up while others still single family would mean the wealthy in the single family house, and the poor in crowded apartments.
So which is it you prefer, TJ? EVERYONE in SF houses? Or EVERYONE in crowded apartments? Please tell me, I want to make sure everything is “equitable” for you.
Everyone in crowded apartments, if that’s the choice. That’s essentially what most big cities around the world are like. When you have a place that attracts a lot of residents, that’s just what it is. Single family houses are for small cities.
And there we have it. A typical urbanista’s vision for the Brave New World of Wallingford.
Well, the clock is not turning back, and Seattle is not a charming small city any more. It’s better to plan for the future instead of complaining why the clock can’t be turned back.
If only urbanists had examples to offer of housing with a combination of character, affordability, and density somewhere between that of single family detached homes and soviet-style apartment blocks…oh, wait…
“Everyone in crowded apartments, if that’s the choice.”
TJ’s words, not mine. He’d rather destroy our neighborhoods and make EVERYONE suffers, just to make it “fair.”
You’re willing to give up your single family home to live in an apodment?
I like apartments. Not sure why apodment is the only choice. You have to realize if we average out apodments and single-family houses, it’d be a lot of reasonably-sized apartments, not a lot of apodments.
People do not live in “average sized apartments.” Most new multi-family housing being built in Seattle are either high end condos or small to tiny apartments (down to 230 sq. ft.!). Very few middle-market multiple bedroom apartments are being built outside the public/NGO sector.
That’s because these are illegal in SF zones and not economically viable in LR and greater zones. That’s the whole point of the HALA reco to un-ban them.
Bryan, at the time I write this we have 185 comments, and any one of the rest of them is more relevant to the discussion than all your photo-essays about SF.2 put together, because SF.2 is history. It was gone before HALA even officially went out the door. You’ve made it abundantly clear how you feel about that, but at this point it’s getting kind of obstructionist, hard enough to wade through hundreds of comments without this extraneous stuff.
Doesn’t HALA include ideas like changes to Urban villages to unblock certain MF zoning changes, such as RSL, L1, L2?
I’m not clear how Bryan advocating for that, and providing factual data that supports how it addresses affordability is “obstructionist”.
So you’d prefer our community try to make informed decisions about whether it should be revived or not for the sake of affordability based on idle speculation rather than pictures of real homes, and data on actual costs?
“It should be revived? What is “it”, “our community”? Revive it from what?
I think he means SF.2, the piece of HALA that the mayor jettisoned when things got a little hot after HALA was leaked to the public. O’Brien’s looser and wider ADU rules, and the 2035 Comprehensive Plan’s use of vague, elastic ADU language do add up to a surreptitious revival of SF.2, but that’s our elected officials, not shy about sneaking something past us if it’s for our good.
I was writing about multi-family zones, not SF. The reason we get no 3 BR units and almost no 2 BR units in market rate buildings is because of the use of FAR for building size with no limit on the number of units.
Your repeated one-issue comments are not responsive to what people are writing.
So it sounds like we need to address that issue with zoning changes and incentives. I seem to recall HALA had something in it about family-sized housing in MF buildings.
Item ff.3 on p. 29 is titled “Family-sized Housing Action Plan” but it calls for no specific changes to current disincentives to larger units in the zoning code. In the private market, use of FAR (floor area ratio) instead of unit count per lot area (that we had in L zones prior to 2010) tends to drive buildings toward the smallest possible housing units because they give the highest ROI. That’s why Fremont’s multifamily areas are turning into a dormitory community for Tableau, Amazon, UW, etc. Wallingford won’t be far behind if proposed up zoning goes through (larger buildings in LR, C, and NC) without fixing FAR problem.
Boy, are you clueless TJ. How do you figure that all people in single family homes are wealth? Go visit the CD and tell me they’re rich.
It’s not that people in those homes are all wealthy. It’s just that with increased demand, the only people who can afford to move into those will be only the wealthy ones, since there can only be so many single family houses in prime locations.
So really the “solution” that can lead to single family houses still mostly occupied by those not wealthy will be economy stagnation or even down turn in Seattle.
Cindi Barker, the only neighborhood representative on the HALA committee, has criticized the way the Grand Bargain was reached. While a handful of developers and housing advocates may have found a “sweet spot,” finding a sweet spot for the neighborhoods was clearly not a priority for the mayor.
Cindi said, “We thought the city would go out to the community to get input on what made sense for more flexibility. But instead, the Grand Bargain happened, and suddenly the Mayor signed a Statement of Intent which says ‘all SF will convert to lowrise’ which is what the developers wanted. So that’s where we are at…It was all done by a small committee, with no neighborhood people. The city never published who was on it, but they are the ones whose signatures are on the grand bargain letter. That all got worked outside the HALA committee and they just briefed us in the last few meetings.”
The crux of our concern should be that the mayor has given every indication that he does believe neighborhoods (i.e. all of us) should have a voice in shaping the future of our communities. Neighborhood plans are being thrown out. Public engagement in design review is being drastically reduced. It is unlikely that affordable housing will be built in our neighborhood. It is very likely that what market rate affordable housing remains in our neighborhood will be torn down. No matter what your opinion is about density, sewage, affordable housing, parking, etc. etc., we should be very concerned about a mayor who has to resort to backroom deals instead of neighborhood engagement.
The HALA committee’s recommendation SF2 would not have upzoned single-family to lowrise (LR). Rather it would have allowed more affordable forms like duplexes and triplexes within the same massing allowed for single family detached houses. This is in fact how many of what are today’s single-family only areas were originally zoned (including parts of Wallingford, Green Lake, and Tangletown).
Sorry, Bryan, I’m not sure exactly what your point is. Maybe you can elaborate. The Grand Bargain says “This would change roughly 6% of all Single Family-zoned land – that in Urban Villages and along corridors – to Lowrise (LR1 and in some case LR2 and LR3).” Personally, I’m a big fan of multifamily housing and if what we were getting were these lovely pictures, I would be very happy. I have a lot of personal views that likely align very much with yours (from the various stuff you’ve posted). Most people I’ve spoken with share one view in common: They want thoughtful planning. I’m not convinced that the mayor’s approach will give us that.
Hi Kaydee – I see we’re talking about two different things. The original committee proposal SF2 (from which the mayor has backpedaled) was to allow these forms in all current single family zoning – that’s what I thought you were referring to when I saw the word “all.” Yes, there is a piece that would truly up zone a percentage of SF land to LR. I don’t have strong feelings on that either way and don’t know if the specific areas have been chosen or not; I don’t personally object, but it’s too small to make any difference in the absence of broader changes. To me SF2 is what matters.
HALA recommendation is to upzone every SF parcel within every urban village to multifamily, and also to upzone the parcels along transit corridors to Neighborhood Commercial or mixed-use, both midrise forms. The result would be for multifamily to go from 10% of the city’s acerage to 16% of our land area, a 60% increase in land area zoned for multifamily. Note, however, that multifamily 5+2 stories results in an 800% to 1,000% increase in zoned capacity. There is no growth capacity rationale for touching the remaining SF parcels.
I believe what is behind this is the Millennials’ quite reasonable fear that they may never be able to afford to buy a home.Their thinking is that by making the lots smaller, they might be able to buy a town house or row house. However, these are going for $600,000, which is not really affordable. Not mentioned is the loss of condos as first home purchases, because of the recession and because of the state’s condo developer warranty law, which makes them unappealing to developers.
The median price of a home in multi-family home within single family massing is $398k versus $637k for a detached single family home (based on actual listings last month – data here https://realitybasedhousing.net/2016/05/08/more-missing-middle-housing-ons-single-family-zoned-land-means-more-affordable-family-sized-homes/#more-250).
The rationale for allowing those forms is not about growth capacity, it is about human decency:
How much land in the city should we reserve where at least 50% of homes will be affordable only to households with $132,500 or more in annual income versus how much should be open up to homes of a sort where at least 50% will be affordable to households with $89,500 in annual income?
(My answer is 0 for the former, all for the latter.)
The problem with that data is that your duplexes etc. are old stock. New units constructed under these proposed rezones will be, as she says, $600K or up. The place next to us was duplex, affordable, and of course they tore it down and built 5 units to the cited price and up. It’s nice to be into human decency, but you have to be realistic, no new unit in Wallingford is going to come out under $400K unless it’s some kind of pod. The only people who have affordable housing in Wallingford today are in old buildings or price-supported units, and the only thing HALA is going to do to change that is help eliminate the former category.
There are no new single family envelope developments like the old stock because they are illegal – what you’re/she are comparing is LR, where you can “build more” on any given plot of land–so the price will be higher.
Within single family zoning you can only divide the maximum single family mass into 2 or 3, which brings the price down. To be sure, $400k is a stretch in our area – but the threshold for teardowns in our area is between $500k-$600k (I can send you listing if you want) – and those teardowns, by law, can only be SFH’s; the median price of new SFH’s in our area is $1.3M. (And a 1,200 SF SFH just sold for $680k!)
There are more than enough affluent people to gobble all the old units up, HALA or no. In Wallingford, triplexes are the only shot at recycling old houses into homes equal or less than $500k rather than$1M+. Which 20 years from now, like these other older units, will be the most/only affordable units in the hood.
(Of course the original sin was not building duplexes and triplexes for the last 40 years, which would have made a huge difference today…)
If we could trust that the buildings going up would look like these, I don’t think anyone would mind. With height bonuses, and departures from building code, and the ambitious attitude from City Hall, we don’t know what we will get. I just spoke with someone in the U District that lives in a three story condo building and she is in the area that the City wants to zone for 32 stories (“one more story” above the University tower). It’s going to make Edith Macefield look lucky.
And even though the Mayor says he is not upzoning single family neighborhoods outside of the urban village, what he is trying to pass in the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan would make it very easy to do just that (upzones within a 10 min walk of transit, upzones that do not have to be approved by a neighborhood plan). I’m holding onto single family zoning, because if we loose that I think our neighborhood will be very quickly unrecognizable (and I love my neighborhood).
I fully support continued development of multifamily buildings in the underutilized multifamily zones we have in Wallingford (with good design standards and assuming the sewers had the capacity). And I think it would be great if some of the Levy money went toward subsidised housing in Wallingford.
So you oppose HALA recommendation SF2 because of things it doesn’t do. All righty then.
I am a long time homeowner in Wallingford who is highly in favor of more density. I’m not saying that single family homes are bad (I own one!) but I am aware that environmentally they are not the best use of resources. It is also my belief that smaller homes make for better communities as neighbors use public spaces for their living rooms. As for the lack of parking (my house doesn’t have a garage so I park on the street) – I look forward to the day that owning a car is more of a hassle than using public transportation.
You want more density and less parking? I hear there’s room downtown………..
You sound like you may be an example of what’s thought to be a rare species: a young home-owner. If you expect to see convenient, effective mass transit here, in your lifetime, that will relieve you of the need for a car. Seriously, I know some people can manage without one – in fact I did for years – but in the two decades since, it hasn’t gotten any easier to get anywhere on the bus, and car ownership hasn’t gotten any less attractive.
environmentally they (SF homes) are not the best use of resources
Got some citations to support that awareness? Serious question: I’ve been researching this issue for years; what is the GHG footprint by various variables like location (core v suburbs), housing type (single, multi, tower), income (rich, middle, poor), etc.; anything you’ve got would be appreciated.
Here’s a few I’ve found—
http://whygreeneconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Inequality-of-overconsumption.-The-ecological-footprint-of-the-richest-Dario-Kenner.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/16/4999.full.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02140
http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/green-lab/oldersmallerbetter/
One conclusion that seems clear is that existing buildings are lower impact than replacing them with new. Another is that transportation infrastructure is probably more important than the housing type in any particular location.
Rich,
Thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive comment. However, as an architect it seems to me your position is not actually disinterested regarding new building in Seattle. Also, as a researcher I wonder why you don’t ask Hala to provide evidence for its theoretical New Urbanist claims. I’ve been looking through professional, peer-reviewed articles in many fields to find any evidence that mixed income housing actually achieves its objectives. Most articles on this topic give absolutely no evidence or find contrary results. New Urbanism theory is over 30 years old. Why don’t we have any studies showing more of its positive effects? I will post two abstracts in another post, but I have many more including qualitative studies from three low income HUD developments in Seattle and Tacoma that are disappointed with the New Urbanist programs imposed upon them, if you’re interested.
First, can you send links to the research you speak of? I’d like to read it.
Second, as an architect I’d actually be better served financially if HALA didn’t go through because my firm designs mostly single family homes. On our current trajectory there will be more and larger SF homes replacing existing housing stock.
Third, I’m not a new urbanist although I’m very much in favor of transit oriented development, which NU co-opted and added a neo-traditional spin that I’m not interested in. I’m not sure how your post applies to what I wrote. Research I’ve read confirms that increasing the supply of housing decreases housing cost and increasing density around transit and services reduces carbon footprint per capita, equity and livability. If you have credible reports that conclude something different I’d love to read them.
Abstract1:
Jacobs, “A reverse form of welfarism: some reflections on Australian housing policy,” Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 50, No. 1, (2015) 54-63
In this paper I argue that we have been amiss in diagnosing the role played by
government, which has exacerbated the housing problems afflicting low‐income households in Australia. However, I argue further we have placed too much faith in the capacity of managerial interventions to ameliorate what are far more deep‐rooted and systemic challenges. It is suggested that researchers need to adopt a more critical account of the conduct of contemporary government policy making, one that casts aside a view of the State as a benevolent agency whose primary objective is to ameliorate the conditions of the disadvantaged. Instead, the State should be understood as an agency that sustains the conditions necessary for the finance industry, developers and real estate agents, along with well‐off householders and landlords, to reap profits. The political economy of Australian housing, in its current incarnation, performs a form of reverse welfarism that exacerbates social inequality.
Abstract 2
Martine, August, “Revitalisation gone wrong: Mixed-income public housing redevelopment in Toronto’s Don Mount Court,” Urban Studies, November
17, 2015
Drawing on in-depth qualitative interviews and ethnographic participant observation, this article finds that tenant interviewees missed their older, more spacious homes in the former Don Mount, and were upset to find that positive community bonds were dismantled by relocation and redevelopment. Challenging the ‘myth of the benevolent middle class’ at the heart of social mix policy, many residents reported charged social relations in the new Rivertowne. In addition, the neo-traditional
redesign of the community – intended to promote safety and inclusivity – had
paradoxical impacts. Many tenants felt less safe than in their modernist-style
public housing, and the mutual surveillance enabled by New Urbanist redesign
fostered tense community relations. These findings serve as a strong caution
for cities and public housing authorities considering mixed redevelopment, and
call into question the wisdom of funding welfare state provisions with profits
from real estate development.
Thank you Rick for your thoughtful article. We are in agreement that we need more affordable housing, including right here in Wallingford. That is why I am trying to push forward alternate solutions (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1687633/community-housing-caucus-report.pdf)
to affordable housing that do not increase displacement, as I believe the upzones would. These solutions would be more likely to integrate affordable housing into the neighborhood we love, not erase it. If we cannot guarantee that we are adding more affordable housing than we are losing to demolition, then we cannot say that HALA increases affordability. HALA does not guarantee that any affordable housing will be built here in Wallingford (like I and many others want) because developers have the option of paying a fee instead of building units on site.
Yes we are expecting 120,000 more people by 2035. Since some of them will live together, then we are expected to need an additional 70,000 housing units by 2035. Since the City is already building at such an impressive rate, Seattle developers already have 36,000 new housing units in the pipeline that are expected to be on the market between 2016-2020 (report from Dupree + Scott). Again, I argue that the upzones are not necessary.
Myself and many working with me have have engaged with the city on numerous occasions. I have sat down with more than half of the city council members or their staff, written letters, attended city meetings and given public comments. If by “engage with the city,” you mean accept the upzones and just discuss how they should occur, then I disagree. The City’s engagement process has existed on the premise that the upzones are a done deal (they are not until the City Council votes on them). Before we talk about HOW we upzone, we should be allowed to discuss IF we upzone. The engagement process means nothing if we are not first allowed to ask if the upzones should occur.
I appreciate the professional manner in which you present your information. There are good pieces of HALA (tenant protections, encouraging family sized housing), which most of us would agree on. However, without a new neighborhood plan and true engagement of the neighborhood in which all of our voices have an opportunity to shape that plan, I do not support the blanket upzones of the neighborhoods.
Where and what are the affordable housing in Wallingford that we shouldn’t displace? If the goal is to not touch the existing affordable one, would removing million dollar single family houses a preferred option? There is no lack of those in Wallingford, and at this rate there are going to be a lot of them. How about turning everything between 36th and 37th into condos? That would increase the number of close-to-lake housing a lot, and a surefire thing to create more affordable housing.
Fair question. We have subsided housing in Wallingford, but it blends in with the neighborhood. There is a rental within a block of me inside of an older house that rents for $450 a month including utilities. Also, we cannot forget that older homes also serve as rentals and when a group of young people split the cost this is often cheaper than renting a market rate one bedroom or studio. If you look around the neighborhood, I’m sure the older buildings are more affordable to rent than the newer buildings.
Sure, but under the status quo, with property value skyrocketing and showing few signs of stopping, when those old single-family homes finally depreciate in value due to wear and tear, they are being replaced with nothing more dense than a $1,000,000+ single-family home that in all likelihood won’t function as a boarding house for young people like it did before. HALA’s recs for more diverse housing types in single-family zones would allow for things like duplexes, triplexes and townhouses that middle class Seattleites (recent college graduates, non-profit workers, Port employees, etc.) might have a shot at affording.
Love your caveat: might have a shot at affording
At the rate our housing market is going it’s a long-shot, I’ll admit. But think about the status quo and look at San Francisco now. Our wonderful single-family neighborhoods will be accessible to no one that’s not making a six-figure salary or the independently wealthy. If our choice is two or three families living in $600,000 homes or one living in a $1,000,000 home on the same lot, it’s pretty obvious what the city should be incentivizing from a carbon and affordability standpoint.
You are willing to tear down older rentals affordable to working-class Seattlelies in or to make way for spiffy new, but small middle-class rental or purchase opportunities. However, the Affordable in HALA refers to those making $38,000 and below, with only a sliver (500) units of affordable homeownership.
The fact is: a $450 rental in Wallingford is going to last *only* as long as the current owner decides to forgo profit (or accept annual losses). In other words, a $450 rental in Wallingford is pure charity work, and thank you to the owner for doing it!
But reality is that once that owner decides to sell, that $450 rental is gone, HALA or no, upzones or no.
This leaves us with the fundamental question: what do we want to happen to that house with the $450 rental? Options:
1. It reverts back to a SF house
2. The new owner decides to be a charity landlord
3. The new owner decides to rent the unit for market rate.
4. The house is torn down and replaced with a multi-million dollar home
5. The house is torn down and replaced with multiple townhomes that sell for $600,000
Option #1 is available only to people able to find $600-800k for a home, and reduces affordability in the city and displaces a resident and removes a housing unit from the city.
Option #2 is so unlikely that it’s not worth banking on
Option #3 reduces affordability and displaces a resident. It maintains a higher-priced rental unit
Option #4 reduces affordability and displaces a resident and removes a housing unit from the city.
Option #5 increases affordability for more people on net (there are now say 3 units for sale in the $600k price range rather than 1 unit in the $700k price range) and displaces a resident.
In other words, in all viable options, a low-income resident is displaced. If that is the outcome, why wouldn’t we want to *add* to our stock of moderately-priced homes for purchase *and* institute incentives and subsidies for moderate-to-low-priced rentals?
That is precisely what HALA aims to do: increase the number of moderately priced homes. Increase the number of rentals for moderate and low income residents.
The house next to us housed two families of modest means, a well built century old house with somewhat shabby exterior. Now gone, torn down and replaced by unsightly rectangular buildings that went for $600 – $700K. Our friends around the corner who have rented here for decades will be uprooted for sure if that block is ever upzoned. Wallingford is sometimes portrayed as an exclusively wealthy community, but that’s exactly the future we’re trying to forestall here – the less affluent people who will be forced out of our community in the name of affordability.
Old SFH are going to be replaced if Wallingford’s zoning is _not_ changed, and the SFHs that replace them are going to cost far more than that (recent examples attached). (The only hope for those with less than $1M budgets is allowing 2 or 3 homes within the buildable envelope.)
My longtime neighbor two doors down from me just sold his home a few months ago. Why? Because he sees what the density advocates are pushing for Wallingford, and he wants no part of that. He’s retired and has lived here far longer than you and I, so congratulations this is what you guys want.
However, I’m sorry to disappoint you. We had a very nice family that moved into his house. They didn’t tear it down and build a bigger one, or build a multi-family unit either. Tragic, I know.
And the selling price was…?
Over a million. Yes, I know, now he has money to retire on and that’s a horrible thing. It’s a safe guess that, since he lived there a long time, at least $500K of that equity he doesn’t deserve, because he didn’t “do anything” to earn it. He was merely “fortunate enough to have bought at the right time and right place.”
So tell us, Paul, let’s pretend he’s lived there 30 years and has seen his home double in value to $1 million, just for simplicity’s sake. How much of that $500K should that city confiscate and hand over to less “fortunate” newcomers?
So you’re complaining that he “had” to sell. And that he made $500k in profit. And that the city might tax that profit to help build affordable housing. And you’re not complaining that the house went for $1M. And you’re concerned about affordability.
I’m not following…
Paul, who deserves that equity? Who is more entitled to it? My neighbor, who worked his butt off and scraped together the money to buy it 30 years ago, who maintained and improved upon his home, and who has dutifully paid ever increasing property taxes on it year after year? Or a newcomer who doesn’t even live here yet, and who hasn’t yet put skin in the game with paying taxes?
You want to seize the retirement money my neighbor rightfully acquired and give it away to someone you’ve decided is more needy. It’s his money, Paul. Not yours or the city’s. HIS.
So everybody might know a house here and there, but the sum is tiny, and ignoring the fact that those properties were mostly owners just waiting for the price to go up enough that it’d be worth their while to re-develop them. Desolated houses like that are not the solution. Those can only be solutions when we don’t need a solution any more, like Detroit. For all the people that can’t get house now, are you asking them to wait for Wallingford to somehow become White Center in a couple of years?
An alternative argument for parking not often talked about: I’m a pet sitter where driving and parking is a big part of my daily experience. Without parking in certain neighborhoods, like a big chunk of Ballard and Greenlake, it’s nearly impossible for my business to thrive, and as parking decreases, sustain itself. There are parts of Ballard I would have to park blocks away from to get to my sits. That means dedicating chunks of my day to walking, and that equals a loss of income. And taking the bus to these sits would take even more time away from my actual sit time, and I would be put out of business. But it’s not just me and other pet sitters, it’s also plumbers, electricians, gardeners, house cleaners, tutors, baby sitters, painters, etc, etc. I think a lot of people just think of people who work 9-to-5 jobs when considering parking issues, but there are so many other smaller businesses that rely on parking in residential areas.
Professor Mohler, thanks for a thoughtful perspective on Seattle’s growth pains. I think the core of your essay is this paragraph:
Much of the conversation expressed in Wallingford portrays the city as being uniformed, unrealistic, poorly prepared, and largely beholden to developer interests when it comes to the questions of density, housing affordability, livability, and the environment. In my view, this is an incomplete and unfair portrayal and one that uses “concern” as a way to derail the process rather than engage with the city on a solution. The ongoing discussion regarding HALA and its impact on Wallingford suggests that we can leave the neighborhood substantially as it is today.
I cannot speak for all neighborhood activists but I believe many find this statement to be an inaccurate portrayal of legitimate concerns. To use your own words, it is an “incomplete and unfair” portayal. The biggest problem I have with the City’s planning and engagement over the past few years has been the shift from a collaborative planning and decision making process that honestly engaged with communities of interest all over the city, to one that is in fact largely beholden to the forces of neoliberalism that are overtaking many cities.
Seattle’s GMA driven 1990s planning process (thoroughly documented in chapter 3 of “Investing in Democracy” by Carmen Sirianni) exemplifies the earlier period. What happened in South Lake Union thereafter exemplifies the other extreme (documented in chapter 4 of “Recapturing Democracy” by Mark Purcell).
If the City leadership really wanted to get up zones in neighborhoods like Wallingford (and East Fremont), for whatever reason, it would engage with them more like in the 1990s, and less like in the 2000s to the present (after January 1, 2002, to be exact). The lack of transparency and honest engagement with people who will be impacted by significant policy decisions is palpable. Continued polarization will not achieve policy resolution without lots of friction.
Rick,
I see the same argument over and over again from Urbanists on the environment issue: Its been that way for a long time and it is going to get fixed in 15 years anyway…. So that MAKES IT OK???? Rick lets take the case of a thief: I’ve been stealing for a long time, but I plan on quitting in a while, so it ok. I do not understand why either of these positions are justifiable.
While it is true that with new apartments there might be less overall rain water flowing into Lake Union, but the quantity of poop will rise with each additional toilet. Here is something I don’t think you may have considered: Nobody cares if more rain water ends up in Lake Union! In no way shape or form will adding more “rain wise” buildings reduce the amount of fecal matter dumping into Lake Union.
The second point you make on the environmental impact is that cars are worse than toilets. I will not argue the merits of that argument. But I will point out that with more people comes more cars and nothing is going to change that reality. So if you get your way, we will not only have more poop in Lake Union we will have more brake dust and petroleum products too.
Is it too much to ask that we FINISH the sewer upgrades before we add more population and pollution to the system? The areas of the city that are impacted by large amounts of overflow represent a very tiny percentage of the land mass of the city. Why is it so important to exacerbate the current environmental atrocity in these sensitive areas? I am a strong believer that we need to be creating more housing in Seattle, but I cannot in good faith support polluting our back yard now because in 14 years it will be fixed.
This reasoning could be used for inaction on any of a number of issues.
It’s okay, in my view, to tackle two problems at once. Or in this case, four problems: sewer overflows, lack of affordable housing, housing a growing population, and reducing car use through significant mass transit investments. Seattle has a history of being skittish on issues of major public investment (see, lack of addressing sewer overflows in the 1970s, lack of mass transit in the 1970s, etc.). Delays in addressing problems merely makes those problems worse and more expensive down the road.
WOW! I can’t believe we agree on something! Lets focus on housing a growing population in the 96% of the city where the infrastructure is in place to handle the new population. Fix the areas that need the new infrastructure upgrades and repairs. Work on investments in mass transit by including neighborhood input. I still have not heard a rational plan in Seattle for fixing the affordable housing issue, but I do agree it is an issue! We could follow what San Diego is doing, it is sort of working, but it is very expensive and attracts homeless from around the country; if not for the homeless magnet effect, it would be cheap and working really well. I would be happy to take this up with you off line and get your thoughts. e-mail me directly.
Yes, and we should pass a robust urban tree canopy ordinance before any more upzones. We are at 27% of tree canopy, far short of our adopted goal fo 40%, with trees coming down and no plan for achieving our goal.
“Some may lament that only one representative from the neighborhoods was present but there was also only one representative from a host of other interests as well.”
Nice brush over job on that one, Rick. The neighborhoods represent the people of Seattle with our interests for our neighborhoods which some of us grew up in. As the mayor will find out in his demise on his next run for office, the neighborhoods are the people, not merely equivalent to the “other interests” you mention, all the developers and political agendists who flow into Seattle due to its reputation rather than knowing or caring a damn about it. Developers can fund campaigns all they want. We see through the BS. I have seen mayor after mayor come and go and each time ask how can it get any worse?, but it has.
I didn’t grow up here but my wife did. I moved here with my then wife in ’86 and we rented a house in Wallingford for 6 months and then bought a house in Madrona. Two months later I was on the Madrona Community Council. Two months later I was its Vice President and chair of its land use committee. I also chaired the annual Madrona Neighborhood cleanup and held all three of these positions until 1991 when we moved to the Bryant neighborhood.
At that time I started collaborating with the then chair of UW Architecture as we had mutual interests in city planning, neighborhood planning and activism. The city, and then head of the Department of Neighborhoods, Jim Diers, put out a request for qualifications for a consultant team to act as an advocate and facilitator for neighborhoods to develop their own neighborhood plans. These are the same plans that some neighborhoods, including Wallingford, are now referring to in the face of HALA.
My colleague and I, based upon our academic credentials, his experience with neighborhood activism in Trenton, NJ and mine in Madrona submitted for the job. To our surprise we were on the shortlist of two firms among many that applied. We didn’t get the job but it led to my being appointed to other positions representing neighborhoods in the city. I eventually found my way back to Wallingford and joined the steering committee for Friends of McDonald School Playground which refurbished the decaying playground before the school re-opened.
My point is that I’ve been involved in the Seattle neighborhood planning process at the city and neighborhood level for quite some time.
I won’t defend the mayor’s approach to including single family homeowners in the HALA process as I’m not convinced it’s been productive. However, I agree with the mayor’s efforts to ensure that ALL citizens, not just SF homeowners have a voice in the process. 50% of the city’s residents are homeowners and their voices are equal under law. I think that, too often, when the term ‘neighborhood’ is used it really means single family homeowners and that’s not fair. And I’ve been a Seattle SF homeowner for 30 years.
Thanks for the post, Rick. One thing missing: expand Pronto bikes!
Yes by all means. We need to see more oversized vans carting those heavy clunky bikes back up Capitol Hill day after day.
Have you used bike share?
Are you kidding me? I wouldn’t be caught dead on one of those goofy, overpriced, money-losing geekmobiles. I have my own bike.
But can you see how they can contribute to an overall transportation system by providing additional options for mobility?
Paul, PRONTO! is not an “additional option for mobility.” if no one uses it. You’d think with all the consultants our city likes to blow money on, they would have told us what we already know: That people won’t use PRONTO! because we have rain, they’d have to ride these goofy, incredibly heavy bikes up monster hills, and the 3% or so of people who commute by bike already have, wait for it… their own bikes! But they’re too stupid to figure that out out for themselves, which is why they got busted for wildly over-inflating ridership numbers.
The only “function” PRONTO! stations serve is to take away precious street parking, which is why you love it. Well that, and an alleged kickback scheme for Scott Kubly and Rob Johnson.
I have my own bike. And I use Pronto. Just like most people I know who use car share also have their own cars.
I’m curious, Doug, why you would use Pronto when you already have your own bike you can use, free of charge?
Lisa: There are several scenarios I can share, but here’s one:
It’s raining in the morning, so I take the bus to work. In the evening, the rain has stopped, but traffic is terrible and buses are gridlocked. I hop on a Pronto bike and escape the madness of downtown Seattle, heading home.
Question for you…Have you ever asked someone, “why you would use Car2Go when you already have your own car you can use, free of charge”?
No, because I don’t know anyone who has done that. I know people rent UHaul trucks when they need to move things bigger than their car can hold, but I’ve never met anyone who would rent a car when they already have one at their disposal. You seem to know people who do, so I guess I could ask you why they do that. I
I’ve done this. Sometimes my wife or kids have the car. Sometimes the bus schedule back home doesn’t align.
There are several scenarios I can share, but here’s one:
It’s raining in the morning, so I take the bus to work. In the evening, the rain has stopped, but traffic is terrible and buses are gridlocked. I hop on a Pronto bike and escape the madness of downtown Seattle, heading home.
Question for you, Lisa: Have you ever asked someone, “why you would use Car2Go when you already have your own car you can use, free of charge”?
No they don’t. People who ride bikes to commute already have their own bikes. I believe I read one of the largest uses of the Pronto bikes is for a few people riding them downhill only, and not very many people at that! No one with a brain in their head supported the city taking on this money-losing proposition, but despite the proof submitted (and reported in The Seattle Times) prior to the decision being made, Special Ed pushed it through and now we’re stuck with another financial sinkhole.
I like the way you touched lightly on how only 5-7% of the units HALA aims to provide will be affordable for people making up to 60% AMI, and then skated through a number of far less salient issues, e.g., CSO retrofit projects–do you really expect readers to believe that is a citywide burning issue? Housing affordability is THE pressing issue to most Seattle residents. Just about all of us know people who have been displaced from places they’ve lived for a long time, because of staggering, repeated rent hikes by landlords who know they can make a killing on their tenants’ misery, and are doing it because they also know we’re in a bubble, and they need to act fast to cash in before it pops. Some of us even know homeless people, and even if we don’t know any homeless people personally, we’d have to be blind not to have noticed the terrible, sad increase of homelessness in our city and beyond.
It is an insult to ordinary hardworking Seattle residents to be told HALA is a “grand bargain” when most people’s wages are flat or barely keeping pace with inflation, but annual rent increases of 10% or more are quite common, and almost all the new housing we see built at dizzying speed is beyond our reach. As you mentioned, some people have already been into moving to Kent or Federal Way or Everett, and for awhile they’re willing to tolerate hellishly long commutes. In the end, they might have to leave these far flung cities because they’ll become affordable too, and light rail won’t show up until they’re on Social Security.
Architects are in the business of serving clients who want maximum profits on their projects, and at this time in Seattle’s history that means luxury apartments for people who make well above–perhaps double– Seattle’s ~$71,000 per year AMI. No one in the private sector seems interested in finding ways to build basic apartments for the half of Seattle’s residents who make 50% AMI. Nonprofit developers can only do so much given limited funding, long time horizons caused by needing to cobble together complex funding from multiple sources, get through permit hell and the construction process itself. Case in point: it took El Centro de la Raza EIGHT YEARS to build 100 low and moderate income units on itS property near the Beacon Hill light rail station, and ~1,000 people lined up in the hope of being able to rent one of those 100 units.
I am disgusted with the Mayor’s office for not including a sizeable number of low and middle income tenants on the HALA committee. Such people account for half of Seattle’s population, but had almost no representation in the HALA process, and almost NO political power in our city other than that which is afforded by a few strong politicians who advocate for them such as Kshama Sawant and, on a less consistent basis, several other Council Members.
Urbanists are brazen in their attempts to propagate their neoliberal ideology, hoping that because children believe in myths an fairy tales, so will Seattlites buy into fantasies that we can simply build our way out of this crisis, and “filtering” will eventually benefit low income people because even luxury units will eventually age and filter down to those in need of affordable housing. Another fantasy is that preservation of existing affordable housing isn’t needed because developers will soon be required to fund construction of a whopping 5 to 7% of the total number of units in their luxurious units somewhere else, years later.
Here’s a dose of reality about “filtering” in Vancouver, where over recent decades huge numbers of SF houses have been converted into MF residential buildinigs of all sizes up to the very tall towers being built downtown and in Belltown, and the 32 story residential towers now planned within the U District “tech hup” upzone. The actual result in Vancouver has been Bizarro’s World filtering, in which a hot housing market has constructed tens of thousands of high end units, while pushing middle and low income people down into older, shabbier, but actually more expensive units than they ever before lived in, before they are eventually forced right out of town, or into homelesness, because Vancouver has become the third least affordable city in the world:
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/working-people-face-homelessness-as-rental-competition-heats-up-1.2929217
Politicians at the highest levels, from POTUS on down, decade in and decade out, in Democratic and Republican administrations stopped thinking and talking and doing anything about housing policy a long time ago, instead quietly and steadily defunding it to a level that is now approximately 10% what it was in the 1960s. The notion of housing as the fundamental human right to have a safe, secure place to live is dead on arrival not just here in Seattle, but everywhere in the Untied States. For the past 15 years HUD has focused far more on helping banks first peddle predatory loans on people who couldn’t actually afford to purchase homes, then on helping banks foreclose on on the homes of 6,000,000 American families who got caught in this trap. It’s real role should be providing basic housing for the tens of millions of American families who need it, but that’s not how HUD rolls anymore. The Washington State Legislature and City of Seattle have been equally useless, managing to squeeze out only a few hundred units of low income housing each year, even though at least 40,000 such units are actually needed just in Seattle, not to mention the rest of the state. In all of America’s blazing hot expensive cities, neoliberal and neoconservative politicians’ real agenda is to encourage everyone but rich people to leave town, in the spirit of the late, not so great Mayor of New York City, Ed Koch, who once said: “If you can’t afford to live here, mo-o-ove!”
MudBaby – Thanks for your post. I actually agree with you that HALA’s not adequate but I believe that it’s better than the course we’re on. I also agree that the federal government, by way of HUD and regardless of party or administration, has failed a large portion of our citizens and, by extension, all of us by not providing housing as a fundamental human right. My sincere question for you is what can we do locally as a neighborhood and city? What do you propose to prevent Seattle from becoming another San Francisco or Vancouver?
The question wasn’t addressed to me, but … the thing that’s right in front of us is the U district upzone. It’s Son-of-SLU, pouring gasoline on the fire of growth that we already can’t handle.
So Rick, do you believe those of us who already live here should not only make sacrifices with our neighborhood and quality of life, but that we should also vote for the doubling of the affordability levy and pay for it as well? If you view “housing as a fundamental human right,” what’s wrong with suggesting we provide or at least encourage that housing in less expensive or desirable neighborhoods? After all, a lot of the hot neighborhoods now just used to be the “hood” not all that long ago. Why not encourage new development on Aurora? There’s tons of vacant lots there. That would give you both density and affordability, right here in Wallingford. They would have access to transit and other services, plus the merchants would probably appreciate all the new business.
If that’s not good enough for you and the rest of the urbanists, then tell me: where is it written in the Constitution, or for that matter, the Declaration of Independence, that people have an inalienable right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,….and to have others help them buy a home in the neighborhood of their choice?”
I think we’re on our way to 200 comments as I write this, so might as well kick back and indulge in some philosophizing.
For me, some of the questions you raise are of the kind that sane people try to avoid. When we get to the point where it matters whether someone has a fundamental right to, say, a place to live, then we’ve presumably gotten to the point where if the answer is “no”, then it’s OK for people to have no home. But there are plenty of reasons why that mars the fabric of society, if you will, enough that we would be smart to try to address this problem as a practical one that affects all of us.
Of course the question is actually whether Aurora is a suitable place for homes. The issues here as I understand it are 1) environmental, and 2) social. The social issue is not as clearcut as some advocates claim, but if we accept the reality that MFA generated affordable housing will be projects constructed on low cost sites, I don’t see much room for significant variation anyway. The environmental question is more of a grey area – I can’t dismiss air quality and noise as purely esthetic, but south Wallingford was a pretty grimy place a couple generations ago too.
So Donn, now that we’ve caught you in a pensive and philosophical moment, what do you think we should do?
We have to address the source of the problem. Seattle officials actively encourage businesses to move here; that has to stop. The U District upzone has to be prevented. The problems we’re looking at here are clear evidence of growth that isn’t sustainable, so we have to stop pushing it while we catch up. There are tens of thousands of units “in the pipeline” now, and no reason to think we need to change anything to keep that happening, but it won’t address runaway growth by itself.
Donn, I ask this question in part because no one else will, perhaps out of fear of being labelled ‘selfish” or “insensitive.” As for myself, I really don’t care, as I’m already labeled a “NIMBY,” “racist,” “exclusionist,” or whatever anyway. Furthermore, my eyes start to glaze over when I people go on and on about the minutia of things LR2 vs LR3,
But the main reason I persist in asking this question of whether or not people are entitled to not just have a home, but to have one in an expensive neighborhood, is because I want to get to the root of the underlying motivation of the urbanists. Which, I believe, has little to do with “density” or “affordability,” or even making the neighborhood”better” with diverse incomes.
It has everything to do with enforcing “equity.” It’s about jealousy and resentment of SF homeowners. If they can’t have it, then neither should we, just to make it “fair.” And they want to make us pay to accomplish that goal. I deeply resent being called names like “NIMBY,” having the city restrict my right to have input into neighborhood planning, being told what’s best for my neighborhood by others who don’t live here, and, on top of it all, being guilt tripped and brow-beaten into paying for it.
http://low-income-housing.credio.com/l/41901/Aurora-Supportive-Housing
There are a number of low income housing projects along Aurora (a map can be found in the attached link) for the reasons you cite. Many are north of Holman Road although I’m aware of at least one project that’s been built around 40th in the past couple of years and that trend will likely continue. I look forward to Aurora evolving into a more residentially dense, diverse and walkable place as its transit infrastructure improves and this is gradually happening already although Shoreline is moving more quickly on this front than Seattle as Aurora is its urban core.
Yes, I believe that in a country as affluent as ours housing and healthcare should be basic human rights but this is somewhat beyond the purview of HALA. However, a goal of HALA is to increase economic diversity throughout the city and I know this is important to many who live in Wallingford, including me, whether they endorse HALA or not.
That’s why I was disappointed that increased land use flexibility in all SF zones was dropped so quickly. With that in place ALL neighborhoods would offer the potential to provide a greater diversity of housing types and costs including places like Laurelhurst, Windermere, Blue Ridge, you name it.
Does this mean that anyone is entitled to live wherever they want? No. But, at the same time, I don’t think anyone is entitled to have the conditions around them remain exactly as they’ve been in perpetuity simply because they were there first. Cities change as the world around them changes. It’s what cities do – they grow, change and evolve and, ideally, in a way that benefits all of their citizens.
My personal belief is that everyone is better off when those with more and those with less live side by side. And it is clearly possible without the sky falling, even right around here…
Yes, it happens here – but under the MFA program, the centerpiece of HALA, we will see [i]less[/i] of it. MFA is about 1) opening up more blocks for market rate development in the hot north end real estate market, and 2) funding affordable housing in cheaper parts Seattle (though that part probably won’t stand up in court.) “Inclusive” it isn’t, and that has accordingly been dropped from the name. Hayduke kind of got us off on a theoretical tangent here.
Agreed. One of the things I love about Wallingford and especially where I live is the diversity of housing types, converted zero lot line mom and pop grocery stores and non-conforming commercial buildings – none of which are currently legal.
I built one of the early ground up houses with an attached ADU and got some complaints from some folks because it’s not ‘single family’. What people didn’t know is that my relatively large corner lot was home (long before I bought it) to a grocery store with three apartments above and a little house behind. And THAT’S what traditional Seattle neighborhood zoning was about.
Indeed. Ironically, when we were looking for our house, simply based on walking around, we assumed that the north Wallingford & Tangletown areas had what we as laypeople would call normal small-scale residential urban zoning, which was a real plus compared to other more suburban-style areas of the city. It’s only recently we learned “single family only” had been superimposed on them.
Obviously, I disagree with your socialist outlook on home ownership.
Admittedly, I haven’t scoured ALL the comments below, but I don’t hear anyone addressing the crux of the issue (maybe one reference to it), which is unsustainable growth.
When I first moved here from elsewhere, I was shocked by the severely pro-business people getting elected as “liberals.” They sure seemed like east coast republicans to me. Sure, maybe we needed some growth back then, but now there are so many incentives for ridiculous business development, without these same corporations contributing to the infrastructure they require.
We somehow seem to welcome all these new jobs that these corporations are bringing to Seattle, but resent the people who accept those jobs and who want someplace to live.
The people are a symptom of the larger malady, which is uncontrolled growth. We don’t need it here – not at this scale. Let them send it to Detroit or somewhere that actually needs it.
There are so many contradicting realities caught up in this issue that it makes a systems-thinking mind spin. One thing it is not, is a simple duality between “urbanists” and “NIMBY’s,” and those back-and-forth comments are the ones that usually make the conversation break down.
I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head, there.
I agree that this is not a simple duality between ‘urbanists’ and ‘nimbys’ and that this causes any productive conversation to devolve. However, I’m perplexed by the following sentence from above:
‘Let them send it to Detroit or somewhere that actually needs it.’
First, who is ‘them’? Second, who has the authority to ‘send’ economic activity, and the people that come with it, to a given location? Corporations and the people that work for them are here because it’s an attractive place to live. In fact, Microsoft, only a stone’s throw away, has to pay it’s employees 15% more than Amazon and runs the metro area’s second largest bus system just to get folks to work in Redmond.
I think people move here, and not Detroit, for the same reasons I, and probably, you did.
People move here for all kinds of reasons, but the numbers come from people moving with large relocating corporations. Expedia will be next, with 3000, 4000 people. Some of them paid enough to up the ante in local home bidding (I heard anecdotally this evening, from an agent whose sales of late have all been cash, evidently high tech signing bonuses), others paid not so much and commuting. Because it’s an attractive place to live!? when a house costs a million dollars!? But here they come anyway, and I’m sure the mayor’s office is busy trying to rope more in. With that big Amgen site, got to do something … and when they upzone the U District and start building skyscrapers, they’ll need to move in more corporations, to this “attractive place to live” where the infrastructure is nowhere near able to accommodate them. The inside stories from these workplaces offer some clue as to how much sympathy the rank and file will get from management.
We could do a lot, if we had a responsible city government. Taxes – corporations could be taxed per employee, and we could at least talk about a high income tax, which would right there probably dampen a lot of the excitement for affluent people who think they want to live in Seattle. A lot of the boosterism is not open to public inspection, so we don’t know what they specifically need to stop doing, but every large corporate move to Seattle needs to be seen as a public policy failure, until we have adequate infrastructure – transportation, parks, housing, police, everything.
Achieving full employment should be seen as a public policy failure because it means we have to un-ban duplexes. That’s really quite amazing.
It’s amazing that this comes as a reply to a post that has nothing to do with it. Corporations don’t relocate here to achieve full employment, unless you count driving out existing residents who are under-employed. Unbanning duplexes isn’t on the table anywhere, so it’s hard to see how the issue resolves to that.
King County’s jobless rate dips to 3.3 percent; lowest in 7 years
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/economy/king-countys-unemployment-rate-drops-to-33-percent/
HALA committee reco SF2
You forgot to mention the hot money pouring in here from China, some of which Ed Murray went to China in person to solicit. That strategy hasn’t panned out in Vancouver where back in the 1980s during a little dip in the economy overseas investors and wealthy immigrants were seen as a way to get the economy back on track. This strategy blew up in their faces, and now people many people who born in Vancouver can’t afford to live there unless they stay with their parents.
I’m surprised that you don’t understand the correlation between favorable laws, tax codes, and policies and the influx of business to a state or region.
Our elected officials bend over backwards to accommodate Microsoft, Starbucks, Amazon, Vulcan, Boeing, etc. while expecting very little in return besides the “trickle-down” effect. That’s why they stay here, where everything is expensive, rather than relocating to a part of the country where land, labor, everything is cheaper. Even with all that back-bending, Boeing still skipped town.
Perhaps my use of the word “send” was not accurate, but by stiffening up the requirements for doing business in the state/region, our elected officials could ensure that the public good, the civil society, was looked after.
With the amount of money that has flowed through this state in the past 30 years, the road to Redmond should be paved with gold by now, with a titanium bullet train running down the center of it. Your reference to a private transit system is a case in point – Microsoft money should be supporting the public infrastructure, not just their own private interests. (Not to mention their own geeked out sports, museum, and philanthropy fetishes.)
Finally, we all have our reasons for moving here, but to suggest that people move here because of the natural beauty is disingenuous. Most people around the country still say to me, “How can you stand to live there? It’s so rainy all the time. I could never live there.” Yes, even people from the rust belt, where I am from, not to mention the Californians.
People are here for the well-paying jobs, as Donn describes.
When I moved here, most people were hikers and outdoors enthusiasts. Now, a lot of people don’t even own a fleece jacket! The culture is changing.
The west has always had a gold-rush mentality relative to the east, but it is really getting out of control with the universal worship of unsustainable growth and wealth inequality.
here’s a fun story:
a kid named detroit offers a deal to a kid named amazon: “I’ll let you ride my bike if you buy me an ice cream cone!” a classic trade-off, a balanced approach.
but amazon stomps his feet and whines that detroit’s offer is too burdensome. but detroit stands her ground, saying, “what i am offering is valuable; riding my bike is worth an ice cream cone.”
along comes a kid named seattle, and says to amazon, “i’ll let you ride my bike and i’ll buy YOU an ice cream cone! and if you hang around, i’ll probably give you the bike, as well.”
hence, the giant sucking sound of jobs leaving detroit and coming to seattle.
[not literally; metaphorically.]
I think you’ve skipped over a bit of history. Jobs left Detroit and went to Japan.
Bay area is expensive to do business, and expensive to live in, yet it’s attracting more and more people. Seattle is at a point where it’s not about just some companies trying to take advantage of business regulations. If that’s the case, Google wouldn’t be expanding in the area. Google would be expanding in Texas. Seattle is genuinely having a reputation of a nice place to live, and highly-paid engineers would want to live in hipster Seattle neighborhoods instead of Salt Lake City or Dallas. Boeing is leaving because its need for top talent is actually pretty limited comparing to all those high tech ones, and it’s not competing for limited number of talents like all the software companies do.
Perhaps you’re unaware of the massive tech growth Austin is currently experiencing?
At a considerable cost in human misery, in San Francisco and Seattle. Do those software engineers really hit the real estate market with million dollar signing bonuses? Opinions varied about that last night among my neighbors – the unemployed tech guy said no, couldn’t be a million, his S.O. whose friend is a real estate agent said yes. Nice place to live, if you show up with a million in your back pocket? Sure!
This is the crux of the issue:
“When I moved here, most people were hikers and outdoors enthusiasts. Now, a lot of people don’t even own a fleece jacket! The culture is changing.”
Unfortunately, cities and culture changes, and I think *that* is really what these laments are about.
And Yes, we should demand more of the rich corporations. But No, we should not discourage them from coming here.
Why shouldn’t we discourage large, often psychopathic, corporations from moving here? Look at what they have wrought: externalities up the wazoo and a nasty civic ‘dialogue’ over urban governance. Aside from the unpleasantly rapid pace of change in many ‘hoods.
Growth for it’s own sake is a disease and devil’s bargain.
Actually, I would say ‘fortunately’ cities and culture change because that’s how we evolve. The challenge is to do so in a way that benefits everyone and this, too, is what the conversation is about.
Thank you so much for writing such a detailed and truly well informed response to the concern trolling that this and other blogs have been hosting. I too believe that balance policies are the key to addressing the City’s housing affordiblity challenge while addressing/managing legitmite concerns about growth.