There are pretty much two sides to the growth/density argument in Seattle. On one side is Knute Berger mentality, which says that “density will murder your children in their beds.” Then their’s my side, which says that growth isn’t a bad thing, and that it can be good for the city. I live near downtown. I like growth. When new buildings go up, it usually means more urban goodness. (“Grocery store! Indian food! Basketball court!”)
Of course, whenever a building goes up, that means some greedy developer stomped on a basketful of kittens made money off the whole thing. This is not always an evil thing.
I agree with Geov that the mayor is pouring it on a bit thick. His new plan isn’t going to save us. (But Al Gore can!) Perhaps the mayor’s enviromental record isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. But a rule change to allow for some cheaper housing to be built in what is already a heavily urbanized area can’t be that bad.
Here’s what Erica C. Barnett thought about the mayor’s previous plan, mentioned by Geov:
Subsidizing middle-income housing makes sense, particularly for families. The larger the apartment, the larger the differential between “affordable” and market rate. For example, in one project being built in the University District under the current program, full-price one-bedrooms go for $1096, and apartments for those making 70 percent of median income go for $954—a $142 break. The break on two-bedrooms is much larger: $1,112 for a subsidized unit, versus $1,386 for an unsubsidized unit—a cut of $274.
I’m not disagreeing with Josh that the mayor’s plan doesn’t solve the problem of affordable housing for very low-income people. But it never has been aimed at low-income people (unlike other city programs, such as the housing levy), and Nickels isn’t making any pretense that it is. In fact, the mayor sent out a press release saying as much, stating that the program is aimed at “middle-income wage earners … priced out of the market with few places to turn.” The city should do more to fund low-income housing, but we have a middle-class housing crisis, too; my rent, for example, costs me almost half my monthly income, substantially more than the 30 percent that housing folks agree is “affordable.”
Hey wait…where’s the lockstep agreement that’s rumored to exist here? How can the accusations of “groupthink” be sustained in such circumstances?
Oh wait…
OnTopic, relationships between the city and developers are complex and, frankly, messy. I know of several regulations imposed by the city that are out-and-out stupid*. I’m not a fan of Hizzonner but I can believe (without yet doing my homework) that he might be streamlining development regs for the trade-off of providing affordable middle class housing.
That’s not (necessarily) a bad thing in my opinion.
*For example, requirements for landscaping that directly conflict with requirements for parking spaces, or the requirement that only one driveway serve multiple townhomes, forcing builders to make garages that are near impossible to park in.
-OM
Hey Will, you kind of missed my point. I’m not opposed to density per se – that’s what neighborhood planning (now, in many cases, being ignored) and Rice’s “urban villages” were all about. That’s a distinct issue from whether, Republican-style, Nickels should be pushing tax cuts and weakening regulations. (And I also agree with the commenter above that some permitting regs are out of date and/or superfluous – but I don’t think environmental review is one of them.) And THAT, in turn, is distinct from the preposterousness spinning deregulation as a climate change solution. And THAT, in turn, is distinct from the gall and hypocrisy of using climate change (i.e., the environment) to sell a gutting of an environmental review process. That’s why I was ridiculing Hizzoner.
Cities aren’t the problem. Cities use very little energy. Yes, we need to make places like Seattle more walk and bike-able and encouraging density can help to do that (if done correctly). But, in the end cities aren’t the problem.
Giving lower income folks a break on rent is a good thing, but in end will do little or anything to curb the sprawl development that is at the root of many of our environmental, health, social and economic problems.
Cities are also the strongholds of the Democratic party, it’s the burbs that tend to vote R*.
Lets keep our eyes on the prize people.
*Rural areas also vote Republican, but so little of our population is rural that the rural areas don’t matter much when it comes to winning elections. For example: Washington’s 5th CD is largely rural when you look at land mass, but a little over half the voters live in Spokane county.
@ 3
Seattle’s suburbs vote Democratic, by and large.
@4
I was speaking big picture.
HA says its:
“the straight poop on WA politics & the press”
But, is too Seattle-centric to really make the WA claim.
@3 Actually, in the U.S. Senate rural votes matter hugely, because it’s generally the more rural states (Mountain West, Plains, South) that give the R’s their disproportionate influence. Vermont (and more recently, Montana with its CA emigrants) are the exceptions that prove the rule.
In WA, the most rural district, the 4th, is also the only CD that’s truly a safe R seat. Will’s right about the Seattle ‘burbs, which is why Darcy Burner’s grass roots support is giving Dave Reichert cold sweats and Wash. state’s urbanization is giving the Dems a strangehold on the state legislature for the foreseeable future.
@6
Um.. I guess the point I was trying to make was that the big polluters and wasters of energy and natural resources are the burbs and exerubs and they tend tend to vote (R). While more built up areas use less energy and natural resources and vote D. So, it makes sense if you want to protect the planet and get people to vote (D) to work on making the exurbs and suburbs more dense. Having a huge focus on Seattle is preaching to the choir.
Most rural states have cities with populations that far outweigh the populations of the rural areas. Cities with things like health care and colleges where people tend to vote (D). And which allow you to have people like Bob Kerry serving as governor of Nebraska from 1983 to 1987 and Senator from ’89-2001. The Stranger wrote all about it back in 04.
Seattle ‘burbs aren’t ‘burbs they’re cities. Bellevue Population:114,748. Redmond Population: 45,256.
The working poor of Seattle who still pay between $500 and $800 a month for unsubsidized rental units at the low end of the market shouldn’t have to subsidize tax breaks for units that rent for $1100 a month – PERIOD.
Moreover, this will incentivize the destruction of those remaining market rate affordable units by making it easier and more profitable to demolish them.
When did self-styled “progressives” become advocates of Reagan-style “trickle down” economics? Talk about depressing….
So now comes word from Lynnwood, that the homeowners of an entire suburban neighborhood are collectively selling their property to a developer who intends to level all 50 acres and put up a gigantic multi-story condo development that has to end up looking like the “concrete jungle” low-income housing projects we used to deplore, or like the barracks-like apartment buildings of the former Soviet Union or current-day China. The difference is that this will all be occupied by middle-income Americans, many of whom will be commuting 20 miles to downtown Seattle on I-5.
Methinks this is something our esteemed planners and leaders (and the rest of us, for that matter) weren’t expecting–the worst of high-density urbania and remote suburbia, all rolled into one, and all of it driven by the spirit of Gordon Gecko.