Is urban development 'terrorism'?

A nasty sign of the times in West Seattle.

A protest sign in a Seattle neighborhood. (West Seattle Blog)

A protest sign in a Seattle neighborhood. (West Seattle Blog)

Much of the theory of managing development in Seattle has revolved around the idea that density can absorb growth and take pressure off other areas: Funnel people into downtown and "urban villages" and you'll curtail suburban sprawl and take some pressure off settled, residential neighborhoods. The problem with that theory in Seattle is scale and demand: Condos are popular, but so too are the increasingly scarce (and expensive) single-family homes. Neighborhoods are seeing backyards and vacant lots disappear; homebuilders are increasing densities inefficiently by building huge homes with few people per square foot; townhomes, skinny houses, bungvillas, and megahouse remodels are also cramping Seattle's residential style. The market is rewarding developers who build large, single-family houses on tiny lots because the demand for single family homes in the city is still strong. So while massive downtown development is supposedly good for the neighbs, it doesn't mean in-fill isn't having major impacts citywide. There have always been development squabbles over views and scale, but the pressures are very likely to increase as Seattle's population swells and as the economics of class division get worse. A case in point. A reader sends in a link to this controversy in West Seattle: A nasty sign is hung on an under-construction million-dollar dream house. It says, "Developer terrorist: testament to his greed." The reader who wrote me wonders if "Seattle polite isn't fraying at the edges." The signs says the home – a tall, apparently charmless box – is an example of "developer terrorism." The very upset owner of the house in question then weighs in with his side of the story. (Read comments from "Michael.") Is this merely an isolated dispute over a view, or more indicative of tempers at the grassroots level? In any case, it's always good fodder for discussion when the city's smiley-face mask slips.

About the Author

Knute Berger is Mossback, Crosscut's chief Northwest native. He also writes the monthly Grey Matters column for Seattle magazine and is a weekly Friday guest on Weekday on KUOW-FM (94.9). His newest book is Pugetopolis: A Mossback Takes On Growth Addicts, Weather Wimps, and the Myth of Seattle Nice, published by Sasquatch Books. In 2011, he was named Writer-in-Residence at the Space Needle and is author of Space Needle, The Spirit of Seattle (2012), the official 50th anniversary history of the tower. You can e-mail him at mossback@crosscut.com.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Wed, Aug 1, 10:36 a.m. Inappropriate

Bungvilla?: I've looked it up, but cannot find it anywhere: What is a "bungvilla"? What is the origin of this word?

Posted Wed, Aug 1, 11:08 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: Bungvilla?: It's a word I coined at Seattle Weekly in 2006 to describe the currently popular practice of taking small classic bangalows and remodeling them by adding two or three stories to make tall mini-towers stretching up for a lake view. Common in Madison Park, for example. An alternate would be "bungzilla."

Posted Wed, Aug 1, 3:09 p.m. Inappropriate

An Anguished Cry For a Lost City: Everyone should condemn the senseless namecalling represented by this banner. Shame on the trespasser and his words.

Unfortunately, the action and words reflect the feelings of many, if not a majority of Seattleites. People are disoriented and frightened by the rapid pace of change. The anchor of their own neighborhood is losing its grip. It's like an unwelcome visitor who comes into your living room again and again unannounced and rearranges the furniture without permission.

I live in West Seattle, and although I'm not familiar with the building pictured here, I know of at least 10 projects like it, all within two blocks of my house. At least three projects are under construction as I write this. A building directly behind my home was recently sold, and we expect it to be razed any day. I could count 10 other buildings nearby that are obvious candidates for demolition and replacement by mega-houses or multi-family dwellings.

I hate this, and I feel guilty for the benefits. I just received my annual property tax value announcement, and my house has far more than doubled in value since I purchased it nearly 11 years ago. Its value is driven in part by the new construction. I could retire on the proceeds of a sale. How could I possibly complain?

Some people say Seattle is losing its soul. That's not correct. An old soul is being replaced by something unrecognizable, and many people are deeply troubled by the new city that's rising. To many, it's just not home anymore.

Posted Wed, Aug 1, 5:06 p.m. Inappropriate

RE: An Anguished Cry For a Lost City: The economic reality created by so-called growth management is that urban property owners have seen a Trojan Horse wheeled onto their property, doubling the value of real estate purchased 5 to 10 years ago. Inside that artificial steed are warriors intent on destruction: homeowners now have to pay TWICE as much when moving to a new home in the region; newcomers are PRICED OUT, the less affluent must live FAR WAY in other counties aggravating transportation problems, and an insidious economic incentive has been created to DEVASTATE existing neighborhoods through infill, upfill and outfill, i.e., by putting more units interstitially in existing neighborhoods, by putting bigger units in both horizontally and vertically, and by putting more units and bigger units where rentals or old tract housing used to exist. In all these cases the natural environment gets crowded out, built on top of, and marginalized ; the environmental devastation is insidiously vast; and the human impacts are profoundly negative. In compensation we down-zone land in the rural area, buy tracts of forest land for government, and elevate salmon and their habitat over the homeless and their habitat, the working poor and their habitat, police and firefighters and their habitat, and single-income families and their habitat.

The result is a kind of smarmy urbanization that turns the Northwest into the Mall of America. The glory of Bellevue Square and the wonder of the Westlake Mall become the beacons of the region. The wealthy can carve out their little bit of the natural world by buying 1-acre lots in the suburbs or 5-acre lots in the San Juans, but not so the majority of the average Joes and Janes, who've seen the values of their homes increase, but not their paychecks; or who've seen their family neighborhoods transformed into homes for singles and retirees by new condo development; or who've seen their homes walled off by the razing of older homes with backyards that now sport 7,000 sq.ft. three-story nearly zero-lot-line monstrositiies populated by Porsche and Beemer driving professionals. Average Joes and Janes can only scratch their heads at the unintended, and devastating impacts of environmental "protections" that have resulted from the seemingly benign restrictions of the 1992 Growth Management Act. The attractiveness of the region has become its own undoing. By extinguishing the natural within the urban region, we've sold off our souls and we have no place to go. Zoning won't let us.

The entire population of the world can fit inside a matrix of cubicles inside the Grand Canyon, yet we don't have enough places to live in Seattle or King County. Indeed, living on land is considered sinful and slightly lunatic. The ideal is to live in a little Grand Canyon-like cubicle within the Glorious City. No wonder families are fleeing. No wonder the buses are filled with drunks and gangmembers and lunatics. No wonder we spend vast sums on light rail to the airport from a downtown nowhere.

The problem is not Growth Management. The problem is that Growth Management means little more than zoning and protection of salmon and tax revenue streams.
Stuka

Posted Wed, Aug 1, 5:15 p.m. Inappropriate

Big Yellow Urban Terrorist Tax Taxi: (apologies to Joni Mitchell)

They paved Paradise
And put up a condo lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a T-Mobile Hotspot.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
'Til its gone.
They paved Paradise
And put up a condo lot.

They took all the neighborhood trees,
Put 'em in a tree museum.
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
'Til its gone.
They paved Paradise
And put up a condo lot.

Hey government stop the incentive
To densify my neighborhood.
I'd rather have sprawl
Than live in cages with fees,
But leave me the birds and the bees,
Please!
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
'Til its gone.
They paved Paradise
And put up a parking lot.

Late last night
I heard the screen door slam
And a big yellow dozer
Plowed over my neighbor's urban land.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
'Til its gone
They paved Paradise
And put up a condo lot.
Stuka

Posted Fri, Aug 3, 1:22 p.m. Inappropriate

Density behind every bush: This is going on everywhere. What it's got to do with density, I dunno. Between Wenatchee and Orondo on U.S. 97 out in the middle of freakin' nowhere, they're ripping out apple trees and building these dirigible hangars to live in, like Malibu mansions. Outside of Tillamook and Coos Bay. Olympia. Bend. Spokane. Lewiston, ID. Hell, Twisp, even. Everywhere. I don't know why, but I think it has something to do with 1. affluence (30 years of IRAs and 401Ks), 2. ratio of (static) building cost to (escalating) land price and 3. Big Richard-itis.

Density is all about protecting the city's sales tax base from suburban malls. Period.

But the sign and the photo? Another stupid class warrior picking on the wrong guy.

Targets of convenience.

Posted Tue, Aug 14, 8:45 a.m. Inappropriate

Right ON, Stuka!: Thanks for getting our morning off to a great start.

MaryW

Posted Tue, Aug 14, 9 a.m. Inappropriate

Gratitude for homeowners who refuse to sell out!: First of all, do not patronize us by patting us on the head with a tsk-tsk, they're feeling "frightened and disoriented". We are neither frightened OR disoriented-- we know exactly where we are and where we come from and we are ANGRY.

The condo people, the developers, primarily from out of state, are dangling massive amounts of money in front of home owners, counting on their greed, to get them to sell out. The thing is, property owners selling out to developers are giving them license to not only destroy their home, but entire communties. There are socio-environmental considerations that go far beyond "increased housing" when a neighborhood is destroyed. The intangibles are what make up the very foundations of our society--our communal psyche, if you will. It is those essential, vital things that cannot be replaced, no matter how upscale the facades, how high the property values or how many people are packed in.

After the profits are spent and the fiberboard-condos have fallen--remember the neighborhoods that were destroyed.

Thank you to every homeowner--whether you live in the home or rent it out--who has not sold out, though the temptations are great. You are our heros!
MaryW

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »