Seattle City Council, Committee on the Built Environment, and You

There is an important letter to Seattle City Council members floating around the community and it may apply to your neighborhood someday just as much as it applies to the current Roosevelt Legislative Rezone.

For clarity:
A legislative rezone is usually proposed by the city or a neighborhood to change zoning on a larger portion of the city or neighborhood.
AND
A contract rezone is a rezone by an individual or entity to rezone property under their control for a specific purpose.
See CAM228.

The Three High School Blocks:

1. Fruit Stand block 8 parcels all owned by Hugh Sisely.
2. Middle block 10 parcels 6 owned by Hugh Sisley, 1 owned by Roosevelt Group, 3 owned by other individuals.
3. West block 9 parcels 5 owned by Brooklyn Court LLC (Jerry Jandacka, Sisley’s son-in-law) 4 owned by others.
   Parcels in yellow are owned by Sisley, RDG, or Brooklyn Court.
   
   

   Legislative or contract rezone?

   During a recent COBE meeting Council Member Harrell and Council Member/Committee Chair Clark tried to come to an understanding about how the City Council should handle neighborhood input re zoning issues.

   I understand that Council Member Clark wanted to divide up the neighborhood to make the discussions fit the limited time frames of committee meetings. But I agree with Council Member Harrell, that the legislative rezone should address the entire impact on a neighborhood, transit or not.

   Here is a 4+ minute video clip of that segment of the meeting. You may want to send a copy of the letter below (or some version of it)to Council Members, no matter what neighborhood you live in. Seattle will only be a great city if the inhabitants of Seattle are involved and active in its growth.
   

   Feel free to use all or part of the sentiment expressed below. Also, make use of the comment section here to express your opinion. Coming to a consensus on how the neighborhood will grow is an important part of the City Council process. While they may mean well to construct a list of how they think achieving community values should be implemented, telling them specifically what we have agreed on is an important part of the process. Write to them today.

   SAMPLE LETTER:
   RE: Conflicts of Interest

   Committee on the Built Environment

   Dear Council Member:

   We recent wrote to point out the terrible injustice that is occurring as you allow the financial interest of a developer to outweigh the needs of a community. The developer is providing drawings and reports through their architect (GGLO) that distort and misrepresent information to sway you toward voting for 65’ tall structures along the south boundary of Roosevelt High School. This letter is intended to help demonstrate some examples of their misrepresentations in hopes that you realize you have been purposefully led to believe things that are not true for an outcome that will be neither fair nor just. Bad information leads to bad decisions.

   First, the Council should not forget the premise. The Sustainable, Livable Roosevelt (SLR) plan was created with one major goal – to add so much density that density critics would stop complaining as long as it preserved 40’ maximum on the High School blocks: that was the primary goal. The SLR plan was an alternative to the Mayor’s Plan, not a supplement. The Mayor’s plan did not take into account the character, mores, values, goals, and vision of the neighborhood and the pattern in which they wanted to grow. Roosevelt did not want to add more density as it already complied with every target, study, and report cited by the City. So it was a trade off. It was noted by Roosevelt that studies also show that if you add density without any amenities such as open spaces, parks, view corridors, etc. it would be a recipe for disaster. So wider sidewalks, view corridors, open space, increased setbacks should be legislated outright as part of the increased density: it has nothing to do with 40’ or 65’. Council members Clark, Burgess, and Bagshaw seem to be bent on taking all that over-the-top SLR density and then adding insult by also pushing 65’ on the High School blocks. Again, it was clear that the SLR plan was an alternative, not a supplement.

   The Committee on the Built Environment published the GGLO reports online and provided copies for entire City Council. Examples of why the information is suspect:

   Only one option was presented for a 40’ building. There are several things wrong with that.
   First – this should be just like Design review wherein they would have to submit a minimum of three proposals for the 40’ buildings. Providing just one is not proper in any forum unless you want the outcome to be 65’ tall buildings.
   Second, just because code allows something, doesn’t mean they get it carte blanche – that’s the whole reason the City has a Design Review processes. The City Council is currently reviewing as if they were the Design Review Board in this case and should demand that all 40’ schemes reflect wide sidewalks, a greenway on 66th, and a massing that reflects the importance of the Landmarked high school building. Design Review Boards would demand all that and they have less power than the City Council. The Council needs to step up and act with more concern.
   Third, the Council can mandate whatever is appropriate; wider sidewalks, view corridors, and green streets whether a zone is 40’ or 65’. This is a Legislative Rezone. As pointed out already, these elements should be included outright in any drawing or concept. The Council must stop confusing these design parameters as being in exchange for giving a private developer whatever they want. They are not the main attraction: they are a side show of the more important business of the people, the Neighborhood Plan.
   The developer shows depictions of the 40’ site plan without trees on 65th and 15th. They show the 65’ tall buildings with the upper 20’ of their 65’ buildings as white elements – light and airy. The developer shows brick on the 65’ tall building, but it is oddly missing on the 40’ buildings. A Design Review Board and the public would call them on that, why isn’t the Council acting with concern and crying foul?
   The developer shows more modulation on the 65’ tall buildings than the 40’ buildings. Flat facades are not a right in this City, design review boards enforce that and GGLO knows that just as we do. Shouldn’t the Council have objected?
   The developers report that incentive zoning (affordable housing requirements) kick in only if they build to 65’. We do not concur. It is our understanding that any upzones past what exists now are subject to incentive zoning. Also, this is not a benefit provided by the developer as the SLR plan adds so much incentive zoning and affordable housing you should be applauding that feat rather than glossing over it.
   GGLO’s report (again noting that they stand to gain $1,000,000 in design fees if they are successful in convincing you to vote for 65’) reports open space calculations. However, this open space is not all for the public; it includes above grade spaces that will never be accessed by the public. The Council should be as offended as we are that the developer threatens that they would build out property line to property line in a 40’ building – the Design Review Board would laugh at that, so should the Council.
   GGLO’s report shows the advantages of their options when compared to the neighborhood’s goals. Those are not the neighborhood’s goals – the neighborhood was crystal clear that they were accepting higher densities in the core areas to preserve the portion of their neighborhood plan that called for 40’ maximum on the High School blocks – an element of the Neighborhood Plan for more than 15 years!

   Demand better information form objective people. Please toss out the GGLO materials and start over with something based more on reality than the smoke-and-mirrors of a developer working hard to convince you to make them rich at the expense of the neighborhoods that elected you.

   Sincerely,
   Cut and paste these addresses into your To: field:
   sally.clark@seattle.gov, jean.godden@seattle.gov, tim.burgess@seattle.gov, richard.conlin@seattle.gov, nick.licata@seattle.gov, bruce.harrell@seattle.gov, mike.obrien@seattle.gov, tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov, sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov

The Seattle City Council Needs You

Now that the elections are over and we know who is in charge, it’s once again time to engage politically.

The Committee on the Built Environment recently met and discussed, for one thing, the Roosevelt Neighborhood Legislative Rezone. They discussed a number of topics but deferred the discussion of the high school blocks until the meeting scheduled for November 30, 2011, which they hope will be the last meeting before they take their recommendations to the full council.

Councilman Burgess brought up two points I tend to disagree with. The first one was his desire to come up with a design overlay for all transit stations so that there would be guidelines for the urban villages to utilize in the formulation of growth planning. While it sounds like a good idea, none of Seattle’s urban villages have enough in common to think that one set of guides will work for all. The topography is different. The current commercial centers are laid out differently. Present or future light rail stops are not similar at all, with some being elevated, some on the surface, and some being subterranean. Some stops are located near the village commercial core while others are on the periphery of the commercial area. If the citizenry of a particular village is engaged in the process of planning for growth, all of their concerns should be heard and considered more pertinent than plans conceived on a drafting table.

Mr Burgess’ second point, which he’s said many times before, was that he didn’t want to wake up in 10 years and discover that we have made a terrible mistake. I have the same fears for Roosevelt but that there is the possibility that mistakes could happen here that we would all regret. The Roosevelt neighborhood has lived with a purposely created slum for the better part of 30 years now. The recalcitrant land owner and his chosen developer have been pushing for an extremely high level of density on an limited number of parcels with no regard for the years of planning by the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association. The developer, Roosevelt Development Group (RDG) has purchased several parcels of land in the area. Their interest lies on the development of their leased and owned properties. Their website is all lip service with no community engagement.

MY POINT: The big argument about allowing for 40 or 65 foot zoning on the fruit stand block is not the issue, but it is the key. RDG presented the neighborhood with a plan to develop around 50 properties both north and south of NE 65th Street and also both east and west of 15th Ave NE. They initiated an Environmental Impact Study and then suddenly withdrew those plans and shifted their focus to the fruit stand block and the block immediately west.

But have their plans changed? Certainly not. They fully intend to develop all of the property they control through ownership or through leaseholds. If they are allowed 65 or higher zoning on the northwest corner of the 65th and 15th intersection, they will have set a precedent for the other three corners of that intersection. That much development at the intersection would cause a major shift in the Roosevelt commercial core. Moving the core 5 blocks to the east (and half out of the Roosevelt urban village) would certainly have a negative effect on current and projected businesses, on single family homes, and on traffic flow to neighborhoods east and north of Roosevelt.

The city council is being pressured by top-down planners who like to make their designs for utopias on flat sheets of paper. All of the work of the people in the Roosevelt neighborhood and your work in your neighborhood is wasted when small special interest groups impact City Council decisions more heavily than the better locally educated citizens of a particular neighborhood can.

The solution is for everyone to be a neighborhood activist. Whether you agree or disagree with a particular neighborhood plan, a developer, or the mayor, in this country, it is still quite all right to voice your opinion. The time to do so is now, before November 30th and the next COBE meeting.

You may not agree with my opinion about how Roosevelt should grow over the coming years, and I may not agree with you. But the more varied opinions we can listen to and discuss, the better future in store for all of us. I don’t want to wake up in 20 years surrounded by a project that just didn’t work out.

You can email the Seattle City Council using the addresses below. Share your opinions with the people that will make the decisions.

sally.clark@seattle.gov, jean.godden@seattle.gov, tim.burgess@seattle.gov, richard.conlin@seattle.gov, nick.licata@seattle.gov, bruce.harrell@seattle.gov, mike.obrien@seattle.gov, tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov, sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov

Seattle City Council: Committee on the Built Environment

I attended the COBE meeting on October 12, 2011 with an interest in the Roosevelt Legislative Rezone discussion and was somewhat surprised by what I learned and some other things I found out after further study.

One of the main issues of conversation was the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association’s Sustainable, Livable Roosevelt emendation which requested a MR or Midrise zoning designation for the property bordered by N68th St, N 66th St, and east of 8th Ave NE for about half the width of those wide blocks. The easterly portion of that area is designated for 65 foot zoning, the blocks to the south for 65 foot zoning and the area to the north is zoned single family. The first objection to placing MR zoning where requested is that it is too great a transition to single family. But that entire block zoned single family consists of a church and a large parking lot. Taller buildings on the MR site would have no impact on any single family housing in the area.

The second problem brought up in the discussion was the possible health impacts to residents, especially to residents who might qualify for below market rental property. As far as I know, there has been no proposal from anyone about what type of buildings would go on the MR zoned property. The condominiums or apartments built there could conceivably be high end, as they would have views of Green Lake, Mt Rainier, downtown and possibly the Olympics and the Cascades. Assuming that it would be “affordable housing” is a straw man argument. There are many instances of market rate housing all along I-5 and SR 99 in Seattle. Modern buildings are designed with buffer hallways and stairwells on traffic-exposed areas.

I have researched two sources to get some perspective on the health issue. The Yesler Terrace EIS is available for study. In section 3.2 3 we read the following concerning air quality:

The DEIS analyzed the three most congested signalized intersections that would be affected by project traffic during the peak commute period under DEIS Alternative 3, the highest density alternative. See FEIS Figure 3.2-1 for a map of the roadways and intersections considered in the air quality analysis. The results of the air quality modeling analysis indicated that the model predicted CO concentrations under existing and future scenarios both with and without the project would be much less than the 35 parts per million (ppm) 1-hour ambient air quality standard and the 9 ppm 8 hour standard. The DEIS concluded that project traffic related to DEIS Alternative 3 would not result in any significant air quality impacts. An expanded traffic analysis completed for the Preferred Alternative indicated no changes in operations of the most affected signalized intersections in the study area (see FEIS Section 3.13 for details), similar to DEIS Alternative 3; therefore, operations of the Yesler Terrace Redevelopment on the DEIS Site under the Preferred Alternative would not be expected to result in any significant air quality impacts.

I did further research at the American Lung Association website and found that asthma attacks can be triggered because of pollutants if one lives within 500 meters of a heavily traveled highway. In Roosevelt that would take in all of the land west of 12th Avenue, or more than half of the property in the Roosevelt Neighborhood, including the transit station area itself.

A closer look at the proposed MR area reveals a stock of housing built mostly between 1900 and 1930 and currently mostly non-owner occupied. It is an easy step to assume that modern buildings built in this area would be better insulated, both for sound and for possible intrusion by ambient toxins. The city might well be doing residents of this area a favor by making it economically feasible for land owners to accomplish replacement of the residences at this location.

MR zoning at that site looks like a pretty good option for everyone. Replacing approximately 40-50 single family units with Mid-Rise buildings would add several hundred units to an area within a 5 minute walk of the Transit Station.

There was a concern expressed that the property was held by various owners, but with 10 years left before the Light Rail is operational, I would expect several sites might be connected and completed by then.

Everyone should own one.

A factor over-looked is that, hopefully, gasoline engines in single family vehicles will phase out sooner than expected. The oil companies seem to control that destiny, but if enough consumers (including government and fleet buyers) would be dedicated enough to purchase only vehicles fuel by electricity or hydrogen fuel cells, air quality in cities would make incredible improvement. Getting a few MPG better over a 5 or 10 year span just doesn’t cut it.

Who Are Those Guys?

There are people opposed to the Roosevelt neighborhood having a hand in the way that Roosevelt is redeveloped. Who are these people and what stake do they have in the outcome? I’d like to know. I know they blog and comment on blogs. One of the blogs is the Seattle Transit Blog. Do these people work for Seattle, or for Seattle Transit, or do they work for someone else? The STB contains many interesting articles on bus routes and how they might change. It often has articles on other cities from around the world about how they are handling transit issues. And then there are articles that bash neighborhood planning efforts.

Citytank is a blog created by Dan Bertolet. In About Citytank we read “Dan has long believed that Seattle needs a source of analysis and commentary to help bring sanity to debates over policy that will shape the future of the City.” Really? Do we? Another blogger Roger Valdez writes a blog called Seattle’s Land Use Code. From his signature line on other blogs: “Roger Valdez is a Seattle researcher and writer. He recently read through Seattle’s land use code and blogged about it.”

There is Bruce Nourish who posted his post regarding the City Council/Roosevelt Neighborhood Meeting on the Seattle Transit Blog. His piece, Lessons Learned the Hard Way, has some advice for city/transit planners. I’d been asking myself the question, “What has been learned?” or not, since the meeting. From the article, though it seems balanced, to his peers, Bruce says, “Let’s not ever do this again.” I’m guessing that means, Let’s not let neighborhoods have a say in how the places they lived will develop. They don’t have the world view we do.

And then there are the rah-rah cheerleaders who comment on these blogs. About half of them don’t use their real names. Who are those people?

For the most part, these people showed up when RDG hired GGLO. Next they will invade Northgate to make sure…well, I don’t know what they want to make sure of this time.

Andrew Smith comments on Bruce’s article: “We can elect new governments who can then change policy (for example, change density targets, etc.). If some previous government got into bed with a special interest group and people want a change now, that’s democracy. Asking to silence the debate because “we’re done, move on” is not just nonconstructive, it’s completely at odds with our system works. We can change these zonings when ever we want to, it’s our city.”

These people convinced the Mayor to make some kind of statement and he did. Were these the same people that convinced the Mayor to make a statement about the tunnel?

Rather than elect a new council, perhaps someone from this group should run for city council. The Mayor cut his political teeth being a neighborhood activist. Maybe politics is not their game.

Who are these people?

Many utopias have been envisioned throughout history, but how many exist? Maybe these bloggers, these engineers, writers, urban planners, transit specialists can create one. Roosevelt will never be perfect. Nor will any other place where people, both young and old, live and work. But I encourage them to go someplace and make the effort. The people who live in Roosevelt know how Roosevelt should grow and I would bet that the people at Northgate know how they want their transit oriented development to progress.

Will Density Bring Affordable Housing to Seattle or Roosevelt?

Any number of blogsites in Seattle have been shucking and jiving about transit oriented development in the Roosevelt neighborhood.  I’ve been attending meetings and listening to what others have to say since 2009 and sharing my thoughts here since May of 2010.

There have been some interesting and significant changes along the way. Sometimes the players change or new people jump into the discussion, but one thing that has remained constant is the density advocates assertion that more density will provide more affordable housing, and that there is a desperate need for such housing.

Seattle has had and has just renewed its affordable home buyer’s assistance program known as The City of Seattle 2009 Housing Levy in effect to cover the years 2010-2011. The program includes assistance for first time buyers. The requirements are for the borrower to be making less than 80% of the median income. According to Wikipedia, the current median income for a household in Seattle is $60,843. Or, for those making less than $48,674 there is assistance to purchase. The Plan also has a rental assistance segment with aid on a graduated income basis.

Seattle’s program has been in effect since the mid 80′s and I feel that it is doing a good job. My concern is that the density advocates are making affordable housing a political football. I did some further investigation and compiled that table below.

CITIES	DENSITY/SQ MI*		AVERAGE ONE BDRM RENT**
New York	27,532		$2,191
San Francisco	17,179		$1,611
Chicago	12,750		$1,310
Los Angeles	7,545		$1,150
Houston	3,623		$930
Detroit	5,142		$581
Portland	4,288		$825
Seattle	3,225		$1,044

*Density from Wikipedia
**Rents from RentJungle.com

For some reason, I’m not convinced that it is apodictic that denser cities and lower rents go hand in hand. In fact, the opposite seems true unless your model is failing (no jobs) Detroit or sprawling (no zoning) Houston.

Let’s take the median income a bit further. One of the tried and true guides to being able to afford the place you live in, (according to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) is to have your rent or house payment equal no more than 28% of your gross monthly income. For the median Seattlite’s income (from City-Data.com $60,843),  monthly rent of $1,419  is way above the median rent for a one bedroom apartment.

The cry for affordable housing coupled with the demand for increased density from a few voices seems little too loud for the results I would expect.

Seattle has a unique opportunity to grow in ways that will keep our city walkable, bikeable and affordable; in ways that will utilize our transit systems to fullest capacity without importing riders for the sake of ridership; and without compromising the backbone of what makes Seattle desirable: the single family neighborhood.

Dictates For Change – The Roosevelt TOD

A TED-Talk just aired entitled Tim Harford: Trial, error and the God complex. My sense of the message was that trial and error is a better method of finding solutions to complex problems than one person dictating a solution, especially without having partaken in the process of discovery that others have.

I’m disappointed with Mayor McGinn’s recent involvement with the Department of Planning and Development. The previous mayor made himself available on several occasions and understood the history of certain properties in the Roosevelt neighborhood, as do several members of the Seattle City Council. He was aware of the ongoing process of discovery that Roosevelt struggled with in reaching a consensus.

I have attended a few of the Mayor’s Town Hall Meetings and generally he defers to heads of various departments to comment whenever someone asks a question where he lacks sufficient knowledge to give a reasonable answer. If you are reading this blog, you have probably read others that have described the details.

Here are some:

From CityTank Roosevelt Environmental Benefits Statement
From the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association Yes, In My Front Yard
From the Ravenna Bryant Community Association Legislative Rezone Update

What struck me as strange is that two communities after years of discussion have come up with a plan for increased density. Then the Mayor gets a letter signed by a few people and announces a compromise. I know the mayor has received a lot of letters from residents of Roosevelt and Ravenna as well, and I expect he’ll receive more. My point is, why is the Mayor promoting property benefits for one landowner and one developer? I’m sure he means well and as an attorney would love to have the final say in a negotiation that brings about a win-win solution. But this is not a win-win for the neighborhood. The RNA has developed an excellent plan. The light rail station is 10 years away and landowners and developers from the greater community should have the opportunity to bring their properties to highest and best allowed use, without competing with something contrived and of limited public value.

Then Councilman Tim Burgess spoke up and named the same lots as candidates for a denser zoning than the RNA plan calls for. What does his interest stem from? He’s also said that he is concerned about waking up and having gotten it wrong. I think his meaning was that if Roosevelt didn’t allow for enough zoning in the TOD then that would be a mistake. On the other hand, if over-building is allowed and the excessive plan is a failure, how do you correct that? Buildings with higher density in the wrong place will deter other developers from bringing their projects to fruition. The urban village is lopsided, and we wake up having gotten it wrong.

In that the RNA study (link above) shows that Roosevelt exceeds density requirements for exceptional transit use, let’s all let the City Council know we feel that way and email them about not making a big mistake.

As for the Tim Harford TED-Talk…let’s not allow those with a god-complex to dictate the future of Roosevelt. We have gone through the trial and error process over the past 15 years and found a solution that works for the majority.

MAKE GOOD CHOICES NOW FOR A BETTER FUTURE

Other Options for Density in Roosevelt

How about a competition to design a dense but appropriate development for the 17 acre Roosevelt Reservoir location.

There are many screaming that zoning changes should allow 2 more stories on the fruit stand block and it’s just as ugly sister block to the west. They have all used the same figure (350) for additional units that can go into those two stories.  There was a 4 story development planned for a ½ block between 12^th Ave and Brooklyn that was to be 54 units. Ground floor was commercial and the three floors of residential comprised about 45 units, or 15 units per floor. For a whole block scenario that would be 30 units per floor or 60 units per block for 2 additional stories. And for two blocks, well that’s just 120 units total. Perhaps they are talking studio apartments.

Roosevelt Reservoir

There is another option nearby and Mayor McGinn just might well be pushing that site as one owned by private interests. I’m talking about the Roosevelt Reservoir site which will soon no longer be a reservoir. The gigantic reservoir in Maple Leaf will make the 17 acre Roosevelt site available, and it is owned by the City of Seattle.

The Mayor might well be calling for a design competition by architects and city planners to come up with something for this publicly owned site rather than promoting a site owned by one person. Right now most of Roosevelt and Ravenna have 5000 square foot zoning for single family neighborhoods, but the truth of the matter is that our homes are usually on 4000 sq ft lots, or smaller. That’s about 11 homes per acre.

The highly touted Orenco Station in Hillsboro, Oregon likes to brag how their community of 19 units per acre is walkable and bikeable. So it shouldn’t be so hard for our sophisticated gurus in the density business, to design something with 20 units per acre (340 units total) and keep it all in character with the neighborhood. Remember, the natives will be restless and watching every move that’s made.

Orenco Station is 15 miles west of Portland and for those who haven’t been north of the ship canal, the Roosevelt Reservoir is between Froula Park (at NE 72^nd Street) and NE 75^th, and between 12^th Ave NE and 15^th Ave NE. There is no need to figure in commercial here. The location is a half block from a newer Safeway store and there are undeveloped commercial sites to the north and west. Destinations easily walkable by residents of the reservoir site, which is also only 3 blocks from the Roosevelt transit station at NE 69th.

Siemens Green City Index 2011

The Siemens Company just published their Green City Index showing Seattle (79.10) a close 4th to San Francisco (83.80), Vancouver (81.30) and New York (79.20). Detroit was 27th in the list of 27 Canadian and U.S. cities ranked with a dismal 28.40 rating. The 27 cities were rated in 9 categories with Seattle’s ranking in parentheses:

1. CO2 (6th)
2. Energy (12th)
3. Land Use (14th)
4. Buildings (1st)
5. Transport (9th)
6. Water (11th)
7. Waste (2nd)
8. Air (7th)
9. Environmental Governance (4th)

Why do I bring this report up in a Roosevelt Zoning Issues blog? Simply because many Seattle bloggers tout their personal agendas with comparisons that what New York and Vancouver are doing is so much “greener” than what Seattle is doing (and what they think Roosevelt and other transit station areas should be doing) as well as ways and reasons we should be more like those other cities. I have to wonder what for. Not every city should endeavor to be like New York, or Rome, or any other city. The cities of the world are and should continue to be unique. Seattle is a vibrant, progressive and now, an ecologically conscious city prepared to move on through the 21st Century.

Is there a reason that certain people are demanding that the city provide for denser populations in the urban villages of Roosevelt, Beacon Hill, Mount Baker and others which now, or someday will have transit stations? Yes. The basest reason is that their very jobs depend on it. Those in construction related industries need the work in these down economic times; those in the transit industry need the ego stroke that confirms they built
a transit system that has more riders than projected; those that think they can control sprawl by intensifying density in cities argue their unprovable point ad nauseum; and those who only rent know that the more units there are in a given area, the cheaper they are likely to be.

Those of us who live in any particular neighborhood have a different stake in the land. Most likely we bought where we bought because we like what is here and chose a location as a place to raise a family or perhaps retire. We have made the effort to earn the means to support our choice. Many of us in the Roosevelt area might choose to live on Hunts Point, Medina, or, perhaps, The Highlands, but are sensible enough not to demand that those communities build affordable housing to accommodate our needs and wants.

The report indicates that Seattle has only 11.6% of its total area as “green space” compared to New Your with 19.7, Vancouver with 11.7%, and San Francisco with 17.1%. Seattle is called the Emerald City not because of its proliferation of public green space but because of the natural spaces provided for but its unique urban village concept and the high number of single-family homes which foster and contain vast numbers of trees and individually designated “wild” spaces. What makes Seattle unique among cities should not be destroyed in the name of a goal we’ve already achieved.

There is social and political demand for affordable housing everywhere in our country. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all live anywhere we want? But the truth of the matter is that when there are many high paying jobs in a city like New York, San Francisco, or Seattle, the value of the land will rise. Investors will buy properties to rent and others will become owners by vying vie for great places to live with a shorter commute, closer local shopping, entertainment and those things the city has to offer. Others will choose the rural life, currently better schools, but on cheaper land for more elaborate homes and larger lots. This natural process should not call for a universal demand to make housing available to all who want to live in a particular spot. Cross that line and you are taking the country down a different path.

There are many alternatives to providing full use of the coming light rail so that all tax payers get value for what is being spent. Let’s get the future of Roosevelt right as this process continues and let’s keep Seattle near the top of livable, yet “green” cities.

Mayor Alters Roosevelt Neighborhood Plan: Other Neighborhoods, Take Note

A few weeks ago the Mayor met with the Department of Planning and Development. What the mayor asked the DPD to do was recommend to the city council some changes to the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association’s Plan for rezoning the Roosevelt District. The DPD apparently felt that the pressure on the nose ring was significant. The Mayor had previously said that there should be no towers in the urban village, tho, for a community that has only recently wandered into the realm of 6 story development, anything above that may seem to be a tower. On Wednesday the Mayor’s recommendations were made public. It’s not surprising that some 85 foot zoning was recommended in the Roosevelt commercial core. For the most part I believe the RNA and the residents will agree with that, even though the DPD had told us earlier this year that our changes to 65 foot zoning were a little radical and made for difficult transitions. The surprising thing was that the Mayor recommended 65 foot heights from 12th to 15th, showing a lack of understanding about the concept of step down zoning as well as a complete disregard for the presence of the Roosevelt High School. Indications are that the Mayor was doing some abstract negotiating between the RNA and residents and RDG, a development group that’s main concern is making a people warehouse out of the community. They do have some support in the blogosphere from what would appear to be renters who always want more units. Over-building makes rents cheaper. And as they don’t have any stake in the neighborhood, well why not do some hollering.

You can read the Director’s Analysis & Mayor’s Recommendation: Roosevelt.

Fortunately the City Council will have the final say in the matter. I don’t have any idea which way they are headed. What you hear when listening to them doesn’t always result in what one expected to happen.

So, about your neighborhood; will the Roosevelt Neighborhood experience be a precursor for what will happen to/for you. I encourage you to keep planning for growth in sensible way. Developers are always after the most return on investment, and that only means money, not character of building, not walkability or livability. They will bandy such terms around, but they aren’t going to live there. Write to the City Council people and tell them how you feel.

And if you’re in a transit oriented area (we all are if a bus goes by) be extra careful. There are many more and better ways than density in the quarter mile circle to solve the problems mass transit is supposed to solve.

Let’s Bulldoze Queen Anne’s South Slope

The south slope

The time has come for some serious action and it’s going to take some city leaders with cajones to pull it off. The title of this post suggests that I’m talking of leveling QAH ala the Denny Regrade, but that’s not true. But I do believe that the hundreds thousands of single family homes located on Queen Anne have reached the end of their useful life. Most of them were built before 1930. In our modest 20 year planning model these homes will all be over one hundred and should just be considered obsolete now.

Seriously. At present there are about 1800 vacant homes for sale in the City of Seattle. The city should just take them and make the people who live and own on the south slope move into them. Then peel those 4000 square foot mansions with only two selfish people living in them for the most part, right off the hill. You see, this can be done without considering what they want. The people of Seattle have some serious money invested in the streets, sewer and water pipes, and electrical lines there and so it makes sense that we should have more people living there.

So scrape the ground clean and start building 160 foot towers there. We can put a lot of people back to work, especially architects. This could be a project that would put Del Webb to shame. As the project on South Slope is completed just slide the folks from those modest homes on the hilltop down into the towers and build some larger, taller institutional type buildings up on the flat. Think of the views. Everyone will want to live there. In fact, that is key to making this whole thing work. Everyone that works in Seattle can will live in Seattle and close enough to where they work, to walk to work. (Cars and trucks will be banned from entering the residential area. This will make Seattle residential area be much like the quaint European towns with narrow streets that we all love so much.

A Part of the Minneapolis Skyway

Recently I was in Minneapolis and you know they have cold winters there. To keep people out of the cold they have built a massive skyway system of elevated walkways between buildings so they never have to go outside. We, of course, do the same here to keep everyone from getting wet. It’s all part of the plan.

The benefits to the environment will be huge. No one will be allowed to occupy a house in a King County rural area, much less build one. The rural areas have been reclaimed by nature (eminent domain clause), and one doesn’t mess with Mother Nature. And with everyone eventually living on Queen Anne Hill, we have no need for the light rail or even Metro buses. Big money saved by eliminating two bad systems.

I don’t see any drawbacks to this plan and am expecting a lot of support from the blogging community.
Benefits:

1. There will be thousands of new jobs in the building industry.
2. After the 20 year build-out Seattle reaches carbon neutrality.
3. Noise from I-90 and I-5 and other transit corridors has ceased.
4. Millions of trees flourish in rural areas.
5. There are no more commuters, so the light rail system is used only for transporting food and clothing into the city to be distributed to those living here.
6. There will be no more NIMBYs. All of us will be living in the same neighborhood, and decisions will be made for us.
   Won’t it be great?