Wednesday’s night’s forum on the state ‘transit oriented development’ bill shows the direction of Seattle’s density discussion.
Publicola’s write-up captured the position in this quote from Bill LaBorde, a lobbyist for Transportation Choices Coalition. “We’re trying to avoid building park and rides,” he said, ” which is what communities around the country have done [with their mass transit investments.]” LaBorde got big cheers when he concluded this point: “We want to start building communities for people not cars.”
The Stranger’s coverage took a more aggressive stance, calling out advocate John Fox for working against needed change: At this point, it’s hard to see what Fox’s housing-related objections to the legislation actually are. Sitting onstage last night, arms crossed defensively, he sounded more like a NIMBY than an affordable-housing advocate. And judging by the applause from the many neighborhood activists crowded in the auditorium last night, they considered him a kindred spirit.
I asked moderator Sally Clark what her key takeaways from the evening were. Via e-mail, the Seattle city councilmember wrote:
I think it went rather well, actually. There was no yelling and it didn’t turn into a rugby scrum. In fact, I think there was actually a very good exchange of ideas and concerns between panelists and in the Q&A time. We had approx. 200 people. I’m not sure there were any major new take-aways for me. I was in Olympia all day yesterday and had heard about the committee action deleting temporarily the density/housing section of the House bill. It will go back in before any final vote, but I think there’s a lot of discussion going on. You probably already know that the 50-unit minimum allowed density was changed to apply to urban centers (like Capitol Hill/First Hill) and not to smaller neighborhoods like Roosevelt and Columbia City.
To learn more about transit oriented development issues, check out these good resources:
Transit Oriented Development Advocate
Land Use Law TOD Summary
Hat tip to ktkeller at CDNews for the links.
I made it to the forum on Wednesday. First, a compliment to Fox for at least attempting to look at what 50 DUs/acre looks like relative to current potential densities. I’ve been following HB1490 and the outcry about the density provisions and my big question was simply, what is the planned density of neighborhoods currently? Fox actually attempted to answer this (or at least had a 25-yr registered LEED architect cook up the numbers) and establish some kind of baseline. Anyway, the numbers presented and the way they were presented seemed to be prepared mainly to fan the flames. There was a big gap in understanding about what the 50 DUs/acre number even meant. Repeatedly referring to the density provisions as “mandated,” Fox completely ignored LaBorde’s attempt to correct the terminology he was using, which made it seem all the more pandering to the SFD community.
But its not just Fox. I am disappointed that providing more parking was seen as necessary and was applauded. Disappointed that the allowable densities around all the stations were not kept. Disappointed that those who own homes around these stations and who therefore stand to benefit the most, are selfish enough to question GMA; view density, singles and childless people as undesirables; cast a suspicious eye at Sound Transit and accuse them of maliciously employing eminent domain to rob them of their land; complain about property taxes and at the same time complain that the city isn’t improving the infrastructure in their neighborhood. It disgusts me that those who stand to benefit from better transit and increased homes values, can stand their with their kid in their arms and ask why regional growth can’t be put elsewhere…
That John Fox is willing to pander to these folks to gain backing his stance on the bill puzzles me. It gives me pause and makes me momentarily mull things over a bit. Then it makes me question his motivations. Is he recognizing the issues we as a community, society and world face? Is he not aware of the tremendous growth that the region has undergone and is expected to continue to experience? Does he really believe that greater than 20 DUs/acre is too dense and will really overwhelm a public transit system (as cited and attributed to the DOE – look it up, its a bogus claim)? And does he really think that affordable housing goals will be achieved by addressing projected growth with the mechanisms currently in place?
I didn’t make it to the meeting, bad on me. I have a few questions for those that did: what the hell does 50 units per acre look like? How does it compare with our current density on Capitol Hill?
I know we’re supposed to be the densest neighborhood in the Pacific Northwest (well, at least on the I5 side of the Hill). I’m curious to see how many more people we can fit in here before it gets ridiculous/unlivable. As long as everything still functions and we have enough parks and p-patches and transit service to keep everyone happy, the more the merrier. I don’t want the Hill to turn into Manhattan, but I did move here because Seattle is a big exciting city filled with lots of people doing interesting things like starting innovative businesses, advocating for their community, creating art, etc. If we plan it right, I think that density can mean more people doing more interesting things.
Bunny – check out this post on hugeasscity. These are the actual slides as presented by Richard Verhige (if I’m recalling his name correctly). Anyway, 50 DU/acre is not as dense as one might presume. A lot of the five over one stuff that’s gone up over the last few years is in the 150-200 DU/acre range. I’d guess that the brick 4 story apartment buildings found around Broadway are in the range of 70-100 DU/acre. Capitol Hill is already zoned well above 50 DU/acre, though I don’t know what it is actually built out at.