2007 in review: The Seattle density debate
Trying to find a saner, more just "ethic of place." Good luck with that, Seattle. Two important new books explain why.
Few stories I wrote this year generated as much discussion, anger, and web traffic as my rant against the religion of urban density, "How dense can they be?" I criticized those who promote increased densities as an inherent good and ignore the downsides of their agenda.
I was – and am – incensed by many of the class assumptions in these policies that are pushed by the city, exploited by developers, enabled by labor, and green-washed by environmentalists. In the name of density, we are making the city uninhabitable for the poor and middle class. We are driving out diversity (Bellevue is more racially diverse than Seattle is now). We are even degrading our urban environment in the name of saving it as we continue to clear-cut our "urban forest" to jam in more housing. Politically, an alliance of these interests is turning Seattle into a monoculture as surely as a crop bioengineered by Archer Daniels Midland Corp.
Our leaders' endless mugging and boosterism for world-class status pivots on the notion that our future lies with attracting an elite class of global "superstars," a concept that suggests to me that we're little more than suckers lapping up civic snake oil. And despite token efforts to create more "affordable housing," the juggernaut that funnels growth into Seattle favors the wealthy and privileged in the name of "saving the planet."
Needless to say, many people disagreed. Few like to have their good intentions "shat" upon, as my father would say. Crosscut posted an official response from Clark Williams-Derry at the Sightline Institute. I had used the Sightliners as poster children in the density debate. I later responded to my numerous blog critics.
I have come back to the topics of growth, density, and place many times since. My thinking has also evolved. Two books I read this year have influenced me.
The first is Bill McKibben's Deep Economy, which argues that a new localism and a non-growth-oriented economics – a kind of capped capitalism – is essential to our wrestling with global warming and the economics of consumption. What impressed me is that McKibben points to a positive way forward by building on many of the things Seattle is already doing, particularly in the local food and farmer's market movements.
But while Seattle "gets" it on the micro-level, on the macro we are still captive to the Boeing and Microsoft agendas, the bigger is better initiatives (embodied so well by Greg Nickels), and non-sustainable economic growth models. Such approaches can never be accommodated because nothing we do – nothing we build, nothing we create – will ever be enough. You find a stark example of this in the agenda of the more-roads lobbyists who still believe that bigger and more highways will lift us out of congestion. A good sign: voters rejected that foolishness as embodied in Prop. 1 which, I think, struck one blow for starting to think small.
McKibben writes the following: "A single-minded focus on increasing wealth has driven the planet's ecological system to the brink of failure, without making us happier. How did we screw up?" One answer is that we keep on doing what's worked in the past. We try to feed the beast of over-consumption – catering to the market's whims – while never trying to deal with the cause: the culture of growth. We're trapped in an economic cycle that equates prosperity with more and more with prosperity. Contentment, health, spiritual uplift and happiness are not part of the equation.
What kind of city would we build if it we stopped trying to accommodate what business and industry demands but rather what makes people thrive? I have a hunch it wouldn't be more glass towers and $1 million bungalows.
This brings me to a second book, Matthew Klingle's Emerald City: An Environmental History of Seattle. This book offers an unvarnished look at how the modern city came to be and, quite frankly, the amount of eco-devastation involved – wiping out salmon runs, despoiling the Dumwamish, logging forests, attempting to ethnically-cleanse the city of Native Americans and Chinese, privatizing the commons, hosing the hillsides into Elliott Bay – ensures that our past is not a pretty picture.
The interesting thing to remember was that most of this was done with good intentions: to build a safer, healthier, more prosperous community – for most, if not all, its inhabitants. Klingle doesn't let anyone off the hook, not the well-meaning engineers who built the sewer systems yet massacred watersheds, to conservationists who wanted to protect wildlife in order to preserve their right to hunt and fish recreationally at the expense of those who needed to hunt and fish for subsistence, such as Indians and immigrant groups. In short, Seattle's history is that of a big, complicated city with no single, happy story-line that tells the tale. We are a product of consequences, intended and unintended.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Sat, Dec 29, 8:59 a.m. inappropriate
Washington's history re: the environment isn't pretty: Great article. Thank you for mentioning those two books. Another great read is Seattle author Timothy Egan's "The Good Rain", who writes for the New York Times.
It's one of the best books that I have ever read. The book covers the environment and politics, region by region in Washington, and is definitely an eye-opener with regard to how government agencies function (or don't) with respect to environmental issues (see: Army Corps of Engineers).
Current transportation planning, land-use planning and density issues are intertwined, and seemingly pitted against self-determination, a free market and and most people's desire for their version of the American Dream, which usually includes a house with a yard.
As long as our population keeps growing, finite resources and planning tools such as the Growth Management Act will force people to live in denser quarters or into even longer commutes, subject to gas prices.
Seattle residents that have not read the book, should.
Posted Sun, Dec 30, 2:30 p.m. inappropriate
Prop 1 rejected density, lots of urban RR lines, and some roads: Berger: "You find a stark example of this in the agenda of the more-roads lobbyists who still believe that bigger and more highways will lift us out of congestion. A good sign: voters rejected that foolishness as embodied in Prop. 1 which, I think, struck one blow for starting to think small."
I agree. But the rejection of Prop 1 has to be parsed carefully. Fact of the matter is that the vast bulk of the programmed spending in Prop 1 was for urban passenger trains, not highways. To be sure, some opponents of any road spending sold Prop 1 as a massive roads package, cheered when it failed, and are now licking their chops for the $47 billion Roads & Transit spending package to come back in November 2008 as $31 billion for Sound Transit only.
Overall, to support Berger's theme, The Sound Transit portion of Prop 1 was an ode to Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2040 scheme to create higher population and employment density in Urban Center nodes served by passenger railroads as a convenient and necessary (but expensive and ineffective) form of movement between them. The published computer models of how Vision 2040 and Sound Transit's long range plan works arguably demonstrate a complete failure of the vision.
Posted Sun, Dec 30, 7:55 p.m. inappropriate
Believe slogans or study the implications?: Comments in a previous Crosscut by person identified as "New Seattle" charged that Berger and others like Morrill and VanDyke had little they wanted to hear, suggesting that any historical observation or analysis of demographic data that offers an opinion different from theirs was of little value. Obviously "New Seattle" has come here to save us and bring us into the realization that to be "world class" we need to censor writers who challenge their thinking.
Berger's piece (Seattle Density Debate), again asks us to not drink the Kool-aid that suggests density is green, or that density will slow global warming. Berger asks us to study history, cultural changes, and economics before blindly believing that the mantra of high density living or buying a Prius will award us with 40 virgins for being greener.
History and fact seem to escape the mindset of New Seattle philosophy. Should we ask if New Seattle values only their generation, new urbanism, and anything newer or bigger? Can we ask how much public or personal debt we incur in providing the infrastructure for growth? Can we afford to pay back without a negative effect on the city economy ? And how many trees have we clear cut to make our city denser?
Should the new urbanist or "New Seattle" examine some of the worlds most dense cities like, São Paulo, Mexico City, Bombay, Singapore, Hong Kong? What great green lesson about their density should we apply to Seattle?
Berger hits the target when he writes "Our leaders' endless mugging and boosterism for "world-class" status pivots on the notion that our future lies with attracting an elite class of global "superstars," a concept that suggests to me that we're little more than suckers lapping up civic snake oil. And despite token efforts to create more "affordable housing," the juggernaut that funnels growth into Seattle favors the wealthy and privileged in the name of "saving the planet."
As surely as local politicians cast their votes for density they are guilty of economic cleansing. Low and middle income families are being driven out of the city by the escalating cost of housing driven by the fever of growth and the belief that packing more people in is saving the planet. If you haven't visited Snohomish county or driven though Maple Valley or South east Pierce county lately you will not have discovered where middle income Seattltes moved. Most commute by the way!
There is also little thought given to those without the education or capacity to compete in a high tech. economy. Where will the, delivery drivers, clerks, janitors and caregivers live, not to mention begining teachers none of whom can qualify for a home loan? A city that does not nurture a broad based economy with jobs those with lesser skills can work at ultimately becomes the monoculture Berger describes. Density is driving up housing costs not making it cheaper.
I once attended a dinner where a high level Boeing exec in charge of recruitment discussed an unspoken and unwritten company policy that recruiting the best and brightest scientists, engineers and management to Seattle would create a city with fewer of the problems of other US cities. Wink-Wink. The unsaid message was as much about creating an elite monoculture and social climate that would price the lower classes out of Seattle as it was about improving Boeing's bottom line.
It is, of course, politically incorrect to discuss defacto economic cleansing, but the reality is the subtext in much of what our leadership in Seattle is all about. Our mayor will no doubt schedule even more press conferences denying it.
It's ok to be led, just make sure the drink you were offered before the trip wasn't prepared by Jim Jones or hishonor.
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 9 a.m. inappropriate
You Give Us Hope: Thanks for a great article Knute. It's good to know that when it's so easy to lose hope and to feel more marginalized every day, you're there speaking up for us, the working class Seattlite. It seems obvious to everyone but the few at the top (and the PR companies they hire) that no-holds-barred, rah-rah capitalism is coming closer to collapse every day. It is a failed paradigm. Our city's history is being erased, and there is clearly something wrong when the people who work the hardest have the least, and even educated, hardworking people are a heartbeat away from homeless.
Thanks for noticing--and even more--for caring and speaking up.
Happy New Year!
Posted Mon, Dec 31, 7:07 p.m. inappropriate
house of cards: Looks like 80% of the argument is based on the concept that densification equals more expensive. That's debatable at best.
New housing tends to be more expensive than old. To that extent you're right. It costs a lot to build new stuff, and construction prices are up 50% in just as few years per ENR's cost indexes. But long-term, the best defense we have against rising prices is to avoid a Manhattan-style lack of housing supply. This area is growing, so we need new supply.
And yes, densification often means a smaller unit. There's nothing wrong with that. Do you really need 2,000 square feet for three people? Or two parking spaces? (It's up to you, but should the rest of us make it cheap and easy for you?) If your family of three would live in a 1,400 square foot townhouse and have one car, you'd have more reasonable payments, less air to condition or heat, less space to fill up with furniture and remodels, and so on.
That 1,400 square foot place is probably still expensive if new, like $400,000. But the similar place built in 1987 is cheaper now in relative terms, because the family that owned it traded up into a new place.
The townhouse (the 1987 one or the 2007 one) is near bus lines so you save huge bucks on your commute.
What I'm getting at, in my between-party ramble, is two-fold: If we have enough housing (growing supply), then yesterday's market-rate housing can be today's moderate-price housing. And an urban lifestyle has inherent efficiencies that allow you to spend much less on transportation, the inside of the house, and so on.
At
Posted Wed, Jan 2, 7:47 a.m. inappropriate
Nice to see Sims violating GMA for cash in his pocket: SEATTLE TIMES front page January 2, 2008. It looks like Ronnie got his hand caught in the cookie jar with Martin Durkan Jr., Yarrow Bay Development out in Maple Valley. Inappropriate density, with no supporting transportation infrastructure in a community that has already surpassed it's buildout targets for 2020. But hey, Ron Sims got paid, who cares about Maple Valley anyway?
Maybe next time YOUR city we be subject to Ron's "unique circumstances" rule.
Posted Thu, Jan 3, 9:42 a.m. inappropriate
RE: house of cards: mhays: Thanks for the "between-party ramble." Although I appreciate Knute's caution about proffered kool-aid (oh, yeah!), solving our local growth problems by try to link land use (density) and transportation presents us with multiple variables, only one of which is the pro-growth drumbeat.
In a later post here on Crosscut, Margaret O'Mara talks about the region's decisional malaise as being uniquely American, pointing in particular at our preference for locally-based politics. As land use issues are vested in local city councils, this means that, historically, we tend to preserve the existing land use patterns and look for solutions that upset the fewest (and least vocal) voters. Thus, the need for housing supply within the UGA has been met by high-density targeted for downtown areas, leaving single family neighborhoods as-is. This approach protects existing community values (including some greenscapes), but leads to the development of vertical lifestyles that don't appeal to families with children and thus don't really address the underlying problem.
As with most posts, this one presents issues and attitudes that need further discussion ...
Posted Thu, Jan 3, 10:07 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Believe slogans or study the implications?: If you are to believe science (which apparently is a religion just like any other, and you can take or leave its findings just like some religious text from millenia past), then you might look at the relative ecological and economic impacts of dense urban vs. low density suburban/exurban development patterns.
You might, if you considered actual energy use caused by different settlement patterns observe that the impact of a single family residence in the Eastside suburbs is between 2 and 6 times that of a townhouse/condo in Capitol Hill. This calculation varies if you want to look at global warming impacts (the high end of the range) or simply overall energy use (the low end of the range).
You might, if you considered actual economic impacts, observe that the total cost of a $300,000 tract home in Snohomish County includes 400 hours/year of lost productivity while stuck in traffic (say that's worth roughly $20/hr to the person and their family, or $8,000), and the cost of owning two cars and driving them everywhere (maybe $6,000/year per car, including depreciation, maintenance and fuel, or $12,000). And let's be honest, that condo-owner probably has a car, but let's say their transportation costs are half, or only $10,000/year. So if that extra $10,000 were invested in a house rather than dumped into the gas tank, the suburban resident could buy a house costing $450,000 (assuming 10% down, 7%, 30 year fixed mortgage) in a dense urban area. And remember, this is money invested, not money burned out the tailpipe.
Go ahead, do your own math, or continue being a sucker and flack for the petroleum industry. The policies of compact urbanism are sound economically, ecologically, and socially. KK and Berger's blinkered perspective and cherry picking aside.
Posted Thu, Jan 3, 1:07 p.m. inappropriate
Racial Diversity: Bellevue is more Non-white than Seattle, 66% vs 67%, but that's not more diverse. Bellevue is 66% white, 30% asian and 4% other.
Seattle is 67% white, 9% black, 18% asian, and 3% native american along with being 7% latino of all races.
That;s more diverse. A city that is 2/3 white and 1/3 asian isn't that diverse as a city that's 2/3 white and 1/3 a mix of races.
Only a grumpy old "mossback" sees race as white and non-white.
Posted Thu, Jan 3, 1:36 p.m. inappropriate
RE: house of cards: We seem to be moving away from that a bit. The new trend toward townhouses reflects some new variety in housing types being added, and is a fine solution for families that want moderately large square footage.
As time goes by, existing townhouses will become more affordable. Like today's houses built in 1964 or 1994, a townhouse built in 2007 will generally be a bit more affordable in 2020 and much more affordable in 2050.
The highrise urban model (which my company does build...disclosure) is largely built on latent demand, not growth. As it turns out, a significant percentage of people romanticize downtown living, or have always vaguely wanted to try it, or just value the convenience. What's kept them away have been cost (highrises are expensive to build) and negatives like pollution and perception of danger. But pollution is much less "local" these days, i.e. less soot and obvious garbage, and Downtown's growing population has diluted the perception of danger quite a bit, so the negatives have dropped. Meanwhile, popular culture trends (like TV shows) and demographic trends (baby boomers and their kids both at the right ages) have been further drawing people to think about downtown living. What's happening now is the draw is up, the negatives are down, and, for a significant chunk of the population, moving downtown is an attractive alternative, with cost being the only remaining problem.
Posted Mon, Jan 7, 10:40 p.m. inappropriate
What are the benefits from density again?: None of the benefits of density that have been touted have come true in Seattle. Housing is unaffordable. People still drive, not walk. Now there is no parking and more traffic and fewer trees in our neighborhoods. The new condo and townhouse owners can't replace the gardens and trees that covered those lots, in many cases, before their abodes were built.
Thanks for writing on this topic (both urban trees and urban density) and please write more.
Maybe strategic placement of a new Cedar Grove compost facility could slow down growth somewhere in the city and preserve some open space for the future?