Seattle Neighborhood Activism Stifling Community Planning?

[M II A II R II K]

Seattle neighborhoods fight needed land use reform, density


May 21, 2012

By Roger Valdez



Read More: http://crosscut.com/2012/05/21/urban...eform-density/

Proposal: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/...ew/default.asp

During a discussion about efforts to reform Seattle’s land use regulations, I was reminded of the taxonomy that divides the city’s most influential constituencies into four: labor, neighborhoods, developers, and environmentalists. Which power base is most powerful? Seattle’s neighborhoods are ascendant and they are abusing their power, shifting from fighting for things to fighting against them.

- The original proposal reduces parking requirements near areas that have high transit use and capacity. Reducing parking in these areas actually reduces the cost of housing by allowing developers to spend less parking spaces for cars where people don’t need them. Second, the proposal allows for retail use in multi-family neighborhoods like those on parts of already dense areas like Capitol Hill. The low-rise zones in the proposal aren’t required to have retail, but could if there was demand. This part of the proposal makes these neighborhoods more walkable and lively by putting services and amenities near by. Finally, the proposal would limit appeals to new development under the State Environmental Policy Act.

- Neighborhood planning in the '90s was not without controversy. Many neighbors were suspicious of the planning process. The Comprehensive Plan in those days was something of a revolutionary document: Seattle would grow, but it would preserve single-family neighborhoods by putting that growth, and tax dollars for neighborhood infrastructure, in so-called urban villages. The urban village concept was criticized as a kind of vanguard of socialism by some, and regarded by others as too conservative. Nevertheless, the Urban Villages would host growth but receive the bulk of city planning and investment. The trade appealed to many Seattle neighborhood folks, pairing growth and density with sidewalks, streetlights, and parks. Growth would come, but the inconvenience would be off set by amenities.

Three things happened in the last two decades that shifted neighborhoods from the “what we want” caucus to the “what we won’t” lobby:

• The Housing Market: The dominant housing type in Seattle is single-family, and the El Dorado of real estate is the Craftsman. In the rest of the country massive lending, building, and selling was going on, mostly of single-family homes. Not in Seattle, where there’s no room to build more single-family homes. Neighborhoods, composed mostly of single-family homeowners, began to see their assets appreciate.

• Organizing: One brilliant organizing technique created by the Department of Neighborhoods was the use of an image or a powerful phrase. Using narrative is key in capturing the popular imagination. Now affluent neighborhoods have adopted the techniques pioneered by Diers to halt new development with the cry that new development will “gentrify” the neighborhood. That’s ironic, however, since opposition to more housing actually reduces choices for new, younger, and different people from moving to the neighborhood.

• A Compliant City Council: Politicians have a Sally Field complex (“you like me!”) an affliction that makes being liked and re-elected the primary litmus test for any issue. Angering a large, affluent, and motivated group of neighborhood activists is not a recipe for sustained popularity. The more intense a neighborhood’s resistance to change, the more attenuated change becomes in the City Council’s process. Large projects get smaller, tall buildings get shorter, and costs and delays increase.

.....

A Craftsman-style home in Wallingford.

[antinimby]

That's hardly anything new. It's called NIMBYism and it looks like many places have them.

[mhays]

SFRs aren't the "dominant" housing type in Seattle. Multifamily is now ahead in unit count, including a moderate number of attached townhouses. Single-family is the largest by land only.

The parking rules are a smart change (which I wrote about here). But allowing retail in more areas is a horrible idea. Seattle is full of urban villages that diffuse their retail too much, detracting from the main streets and causing excess project costs (because retail is often required, not just allowed). The villages that work best are the ones where side streets are allowed to not have retail. Further, it's important to allow people to live in dense areas knowing that they'll stay residential. People who want to live above stores and bars have tons of options here, in dozens of urban villages.

[seaskyfan]

I think Roger is a crank. I find many of his ideas undemocratic - as if he'd like some kind of Robert Moses type for Seattle who would be able to bulldoze the City's single-family zones.

He's also not accurately explaining what happened - most of the changes are still under consideration by the City Council - the part that got dropped was allowing more commercial uses in low-rise multifamily zones. Article from the Seattle Times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ouncil24m.html