View Single Post
Old Posted Mar 3, 2014, 5:54 AM
alki alki is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,647
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
About 2/3 of Seattle is zoned single-family only, and contain strong NIMBY proponents that try to keep it that way. That's what I mean by "preserves."
Preserves is a strange term to use..........all I can think of is game preserves. Ignoring that rather odd description......even the single family neighborhoods are experiencing change becoming more dense without having to tear down the houses themselves.

BTW I believe your 2/3 figure is high:

Percent of the city in single-family zoning (excluding parks and rights-of-way): 54%

I'm not sure what your family point refers to. Obviously a lot of families live outside of that 2/3 houses, in townhouses, in apartments and condos....
Families occupy those single family homes. They prefer living in a home rather than an apartment. I see no reason why that choice should not be available to Seattle residents. Do you?

As for the majority-family thing, that might be true in small areas but is unlikely citywide. There are what, 80,000 kids in Seattle? Maybe 50,000 households with kids? We have something like 140,000 single-family houses. Maybe 90% of both (kids and houses) are in those preserves, vs. the other 15% or so that also have significant residential.
I said nothing about 'the majority-family thing'. Are you opposed to families too? And there's that preserve term again. Do you imagine SF areas to be like human zoos?

Last edited by alki; Mar 3, 2014 at 6:08 AM.
Reply With Quote