Beware greens pushing Transit-Oriented Development
Is the best way to protect Mother Earth to grow housing in the shadow of transit? Maybe not.
In 1955 a writer named Robert Ruark wrote a bestseller titled, Something of Value. It's a story of the Mau Mau uprising in Africa. It describes white settlers, intent on "civilizing" the natives by imposing their own culture, education, and government on the tribe. The settlers failed to comprehend that their actions took away the values inherent in the tribal culture. Attempts to entrench Westernized notions of law, social structure, and material culture destroyed a way of life of a thriving tribal society.
Could something similar be happening here in Washington state?
We have our own group of well-educated citizens with intentions most noble, who are proposing laws that will change how people live. Whether their plan elicits anything like the Mau Mau retaliation remains to be seen. The two bills, HB1490 and SB5687, have been sent to the Washington Legislature and, in principle, they remove local government's right to decide how and where to allow housing — and ultimately mandate the style of life for residents. If enacted, such a measure creates precedent for more invasive mandated-lifestyle legislation in the future. It is the classic camel’s nose in the tent.
Al Gore has managed to scare the hell out us. Anyone whose head isn’t buried in the sand knows we damned well better start paying attention to how we live on Mother Earth. But in our haste to do something, anything, to save the planet, we might unintentionally join the chorus of those who make their living telling us how we should live.
In this instance, the missionaries aren’t white, but green. And they come bearing Transit Oriented Development (TOD).
They support organizations like Futurewise, Transportation Choices Coalition, and think tanks like Sightline. It would be wonderful if the sponsors and promoters for this legislation were to set an example by living in the kind of housing they propose, but initial checking finds that most of the people involved with these organizations live in urban areas in single-family homes and many drive cars, just like everyone else.
The image of TOD being sold to legislators, however, resembles a Rick Steves' travelogue. We imagine couples walking down quaint little streets, dining in sidewalk cafes. The smell of fresh baked bread, cheese, and sausage floats in the air. There are faint sounds of violins and laughter.
The reality of TOD development in Seattle will more resemble the Belltown neighborhood, which now has densities similar to the proposed legislation. In Belltown, the woman brave enough to go for a walk in the evening carries a Glock in her purse. The smell floating in the air is vomit spewed in a shop doorway and the lingering aroma of Canadian bud. She walks to the beat of blasting music from night clubs and the occasional pop of...car backfire? Or is it guns?
The imagery of walkable neighborhoods being sold to the public everywhere, not just here, ignores much of the reality of dense development in American cities. Laws can be created that mandate density, but cities cannot require businesses to locate there, especially the kind of businesses the planners hope for.
Worse, business districts are more often seen as tax revenue rather than essential components of a working city. Typically, government fails to deliver the level of services necessary to keep streets safe and clean; it fails to institute tax structures that really work for the businesses. All of these factors are missing here.
Futurewise has played a successful role in enforcing the State Growth Management Act by slowing sprawl, but their logic and role falter when they propose that density become the major factor in reducing the carbon footprint. Their arguments disintegrate with close measuring of the energy cost involved in removing the existing single family housing and replacing it with new high density construction.
The bills in our state fail to mention the negative carbon-deficit in concrete, steel, or transportation costs involved in tearing down housing and replacing it with high-density configurations. As developers often say: “It just doesn’t pencil out.” We end up with a negative, not positive, carbon exchange with TOD.
Our elected representatives aren’t scientists. They are people like us, searching for ways to slow global warming. Like us they must act, and in doing so, they seek what seems the simplest and easiest path. When lobbyists pushed HB1490 and SB5687, and said the measures would make a difference, they believed what they were eager to believe. What this approach overlooks is that there is more to creating a successful city than creating density around transit stations.
Even if these proposals were tinkered with to lower density requirements, the bills still fail to acknowledge that functional cities require more than structures to house bodies. They require police, schools, libraries, firefighters, social services, parks, open space. They need adequately sized sewers; water, gas, electricity, and waste management, all built into proposed plans. Chicago, Boston, Baltimore and New York all struggle with high-density, public-subsidized housing near rail lines. Their studies of the social and public-safety problems are well known. So eager are our proponents to respond to environmental issues, that they may not have taken time to study the downside of creating high density pockets of tenement-like buildings near rail lines.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 6:26 a.m. inappropriate
'Densification' can work in Seattle, but legislating it in Olympia only guarantees failure.
Every project needs to go forward on its own merits and fit into the historic fabric of buildings and people.
Sure, neighborhoods will change and building higher density housing on existing underutilized commercial property is a good thing. I chose to live in just such a neighborhood, but even being supportive of quality growth I find myself being called a NIMBY (and much worse) for calling a questionably public financed private project with very poor design a bad deal.
If you want density, work to make it happen with quality and respect. If not, next thing you know we are going to start seeing people owning single family houses in target areas start to lose their jobs, and their houses in even more disproportionate numbers that already occurring.
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 7:02 a.m. inappropriate
Many good points up to:
"Futurewise has played a successful role in enforcing the Growth Management Act by slowing sprawl"
You have no problem with Futurewise ruining the dreams of rural landowners but don't mess with my turf? One man's sprawl is another mans place in the sun. The reality is most don't want to live in a box in Urbia, as you so masterfully express. 'Elbow room', people want elbow room and yea, I don't go to Seattle without my Springfield .45.
This carbon debate is really getting old. What about people in Eastern Wa who HAVE to drive more? People talk about taxing engine displacement and miles driven, what about forest landowners who actually do sequester carbon? We planted 23,000 trees last week that will sequester vast amounts of carbon after having to fight every po-dunk pissy ant bureacrat in western Washington to secure permits to do the logging in the first place.
We should be worrying a whole lot more how to retain our remaining industrial base and less about this 'carbon' fluff BS that only occupys elites in Seattle.
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 8:44 a.m. inappropriate
This whole article is one giant pile of B.S.
What densities are proposed for the new transit oriented development? What densities are actually realized in Belltown? Please do the math and let us know how the proposed density in the bill relates to the actual density in Belltown, instead of insinuating that they will be the same.
What height limits are proposed for the tranist oreinted developement? You're just trying to scare people with photos of skyscrapers.
Nice scare story about gunfire and vomit in Belltown. Have you been in belltown lately? How about downtown Bellevue, which now has similar density? That's not so scary. Have you been in South East Seattle? That area has one of the lowest densities in the city, but more crime problems than Belltown. Your implication that density = crime = vomit is false. There seem to be other factors at work.
Do you have any figures to back up your assertion that new dense development is worse for the environment than building new housing on Redmond Ridge or Black Diamond? I don't see any figures. You say it doesn't pencil out. Do us the favor of at least linking to some statistics.
Please understand that I am not a fan of the idea of the Washington State Legislature getting involved in local zoning decisions. However, I'm getting tired of both sides in this argument baldly stating their opinions without ANY SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE AT ALL! Give us information, don't try to scare us with silly and inaccurate comparisons.
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 9:17 a.m. inappropriate
Belltown isn't perfect, but the categorization is comical, speaking as a resident who's been walking through the area at night frequently for many years. A grownup doesn't need to fear walking down the street at night, and I see puke maybe once a month.
I don't belong to the groups mentioned, but since I argue the same points, it's worth pointing out that I live in a condo and don't have a car.
You're right that construction requires materials, and there's a lot of sustainability value in saving what's there, but that's just part of the equation. A couple others are (1) the resources needed to maintain and operate the building (heating, roof repair, etc.), which can be vastly lower with multifamily due to shared walls and smaller spaces, and (2) the vast transportation efficiencies that come from proximity, whether that means a shorter drive, higher rates of transit usage, or walking. A third factor, assuming smaller housing units, would be simply having a lot less stuff.
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 9:26 a.m. inappropriate
PS, the buildings pictured, one of which I used to live in, are roughly 300 units per acre.
PS, that's pretty funny about our "redneck logger" not being man enough to travel through Seattle without a gun.
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 9:41 a.m. inappropriate
Interesting that Belltown and Bellevue have such high density, and were built without any rail transit whatsoever. Suggesting that rail is not necessary for high density neighborhoods, if high density is what you want.
Let's be honest about what these bills are really all about. This is an attempt to justify the enormous waste of tax dollars that is Sound Transit light rail. No development to speak of has occurred along the light rail line in Rainier Valley, even though it is scheduled to start operating this summer. We were told that just putting in that light rail line would spur development along it. Obviously, that was a lie.
So the light rail zealots are trying to force development along light rail lines, which is not occurring naturally.
This is similar to what happened in Portland. When Portland's light rail lines opened, there was little development along the lines. So the government gave developers huge tax subsidies to build along the light rail lines, which resulted in development along the light rail lines. That development was due to the tax subsidies -- not to the light rail. But the light rail zealots claim that the developments in Portland was due to the light rail.
As Belltown and Bellevue (and places in W. Seattle and Ballard, e.g.) prove, light rail is not necessary for development. What generates density is zoning and tax subsidies -- not little trains.
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 10:05 a.m. inappropriate
Factually, based on the prices being charged, I would not classify the high rise development in Belltown, or along the rail lines in Portland or Vancouver B C , as "tenements". Further, the crime and rowdiness in Belltown would appear to have more to do with the Club and Bar scene than with the residents living in upscale condo's. Which makes your comment about the need for police and other services VERY MUCH on point. Finally, the situation in Kelo v. London cannot happen under the Washington State Constitution. In Washington, you may not condemn property for Private use, even if higher tax revenue for public use is your goal.
Ross Kane Warm Beach
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 11:39 a.m. inappropriate
The author seems to base his whole opposition to Transit Oriented Development on paranoid imaginings of what densely built urban areas are like: puke everywhere, gunshots, clouds of pot smoke, "tenements." (TENEMENTS? It is to laugh! Read your history about late 19th century Manhattan if you want to know what a tenement is.) There are plenty of sane and civilized dense urban neighborhoods the world over, and plenty (and increasing numbers of) scary crime and drug-ridden single-family neighborhoods. In fact one could easily write an entire article like this one, only arguing the opposite point, based on comparisons to failed single-family neighborhoods and developments in cities across the country.
The question for me is, why did Crosscut publish this lame yet hysterical piece of scare-mongering?
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 11:51 a.m. inappropriate
A humble rebuttal from a HAC guest contributor:
http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2009/02/24/a-humble-rebuttal/
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 11:52 a.m. inappropriate
It’s important to focus on what his bill is ostensibly about: reducing our collective carbon footprint and global warming. Its title, “An Act Relating to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through land use and transportation requirements,” implies that it will. The proof, of course, is in the pudding. The proponents of the bill point to some general national studies that suggest there are energy and emission benefits. But every TOD and transit system with multiple TODs is different and merits a specific energy cost-benefit analysis. It’s not clear that has been done for this bill or for the Sound Transit and Metro systems that are premised on TOD at stations.
If someone knows where we can find such analyses, please so indicate. They should be comprehensive, objective, and use the best available data on energy consumption and greenhouse gas generation in both the T and D elements. In other words, they need to estimate the energy consumed in the construction and operation of the transit system, and the energy used in the demolition/construction and use of the buildings in the station area development. And the calculations should be net numbers, namely they should be compared to a no-action baseline. And finally, they should be projected over a reasonable life-cycle of say 50 years.
This is the kind of analysis that the Puget Sound Regional Council can and should routinely do for major projects and policy initiatives. It’s not something to be expected of the author of this article or even the bill. But the author of the bill and its proponents should be responsible for making sure it’s available before there is a vote.
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 12:13 p.m. inappropriate
Density is also about fiscal and broader-environemental prudence as well as economic sustainability.
Environmental prudence includes not destroying ecosystems (via sprawl, runoff, etc.), local air quality, and all sorts of things beyond global warming.
Fiscal prudence means using the existing infrastructure with reasonable additions (like rail) rather than building everything all-new in the suburbs and retrofitting existing roads to handle growing commute distances/volumes.
Economic sustainability means realizing where the world is going. In addition to global warming we have US economic dominance declining (meaning imports will get more expensive), and oil getting more expensive long-term regardless of currency. The "winning" cities will be ones that function well with less resources.
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 12:24 p.m. inappropriate
And fiscal prudence means understanding that there is a finite and shrinking amount of fiscal and political capital, and that we should use it wisely for the most beneficial outcomes. That should be a key tenant of smart growth, including transit-oriented development.
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 12:26 p.m. inappropriate
Lincoln wrote:
"No development to speak of has occurred along the light rail line in Rainier Valley, even though it is scheduled to start operating this summer. We were told that just putting in that light rail line would spur development along it. Obviously, that was a lie."
Where on earth have you been? There's been some massive development on the corner of S Snoqualmie St and Martin Luther King Jr S. This is RIGHT NEXT TO THE RAIL. There's also been very dense development at the intersection of Rainier Ave S and S Court St, which is about 5 blocks away from a major light rail station. Please accept this as a counterpoint to your misleading conclusion.
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 2:26 p.m. inappropriate
Where has Lincoln been? In his car, cursing bicyclists who he believes shouldn't be allowed on public streets, and dreaming of a day when transplants (like him) are no longer allowed in to 'his' city. He wants the roads widened, and the growth spigot turned off. Makes sense, right?
Well, hyper-NIMBY Kent Kammerer needs somebody to take his insane ideology seriously. I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read his comparison between under-siege white upper middle class dinosaurs - and colonized African tribes. While common sense would dictate that such a comparison cannot pass the blush test, this example offers a glimpse of how deep the hardcore NIMBY's victim's complex really runs.
These ancient-Seattle adherents look back to a day when downtown was a ghost town, and single family neighborhoods resembled the 'burbs. And everybody drove everywhere in cars spewing all kinds of pollutants. But, the gas was super cheap, and the freeways sparkled like new. Nobody seemed to care 3,000 homes had been displaced to build I-5 through Seattle. Why, Kent K and his Seattle Neighborhood Coalition activist friends enjoyed that free-flowing freeway.
But, then, the people started coming. People recruited to fill positions at companies large and small. And then, those people with jobs wanted an electric rail transit system. Can you imagine? Old Seattle put its foot down. Afterall, most of these dinosaurs view congestion as a potentially good thing - limiting capacity will limit population inflow, right?
Anyway, you get the point.
The twisted logic behind Lesser Seattle ideology is easy to discredit. Isn't it funny that Kammerer credits Futurwise's work Smart Growth work in the exurbs - but he will fight like hell for Dumb Growth in the city?!
There's that C word again. Say it with me, old guard NIMBYs: CITY
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 2:37 p.m. inappropriate
Let's not get too distracted by all the greenwashing going on here. HB 1490/SB 5687 is not so much about reducing greenhouse gases as it is about control and access to developable land within a 1/2 mile zone around light rail stations. There are groups and individuals that see plenty of opportunity to make some 'green' within a 1/2 mile around every light rail station but they fail to see the impact to the community and the residents who currently live within the TOD zones.
Hasn't anybody noticed that the proponents of HB 1490/SB 5687 are backing away from density mandates --the very raison d'etre of the legislation? If the Futurwise bill isn't going to mandate 50 units (or more) per acre, then why not just let local jurisdictions remain in control? You see, the Futurewise bill isn't really about greenhouse gases and minimum density after all. It's about the creation of a "zone", with a mandate from the state. Seattle city leaders are anxious to have the new zone imposed around light rail stations despite their unconvincing protests. Seattle's leaders are eager to gain control over station areas that was denied to them by community outcry in 2006 (See, Community Renewal/eminent domain & "Blight").
The Futurewise bill will import to Washington State the practice known as reverse red-lining and make it the law. Businesses, usually assisted by cooperative government leaders, identify "opportunities" for urban renewal. It always results in the same outcome; opportunity and profit are pulled out of low-income and minority communities and local residents are displaced. The pattern is being played out in Houston, Denver, and other major metropolitan areas. It's a national trend/disgrace since the Kelo (2005) decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Washington State they've added a new twist, a 'green' facade to camouflage the scheme.
HB 1490/SB 5687 will change the way planning & permitting is done, shifting jurisdiction away from communities. The legislation creates a new and lower standard of private property rights for those unlucky enough to live within a TOD zone while preserving a different standard of local control for all other communities in the state (the status quo). This is the proverbial slippery slope.
Regarding the development at Sound Transit's Link Light Rail station, "braddahlquist" neglected to mention that the six-story building near Courtland Place is a subsidized housing project built by Southeast Effective Development (SEED). It's been a challenge to keep the building fully rented since the day it was completed. The fact is, only about 5% of the populace would choose to live more than six stories above the ground --unless it's six stories above Manhattan or Toronto. You can build it but you may not be able to achieve full occupancy without offering subsidized rents.
A community does not spontaneously happen because you build taller and denser. A community happens organically, over time, with many subtle changes. There are serious deficits in the community fabric of southeast Seattle that will limit success for denser development. Density for the sake of density is far down the list of priorities for southeast Seattle, just ask any resident.
Economic stagnation is the rule in southeast Seattle where more than 40 businesses have closed and left since the light rail project broke ground. Yet, Seattle city leaders invest no time or money in the problem. Economic development is rarely mentioned save for City Councilmember Sally Clark's famous remark, "When the trains begin running prosperity will follow". Seriously? A train is fixed-rail transportation and not an economic stimulus plan --for which there is no financial or political support in Seattle.
Take a look at the evidence on the ground: the first new business to open at Mt. Baker Light Rail Station was Pawn X-Change. The most popular new business in southeast Seattle is a payday loan franchise. At least six payday loan franchises have opened in the last few years. Instead of new businesses, social service agencies are popping up like mushrooms in southeast Seattle. There's been a modern day land-rush by the non-profit agencies bidding and buying up scarce commercially-zoned land to build new, multi-million dollar offices. The list of social services & non-profit agencies is too long to include here. Too much of a good thing is just too much. Southeast Seattle is drowning in good intentions.
There are no market-rate apartments being developed in southeast Seattle but low-income & subsidized housing is flourishing. The Seattle Housing Authority acquired two market-rate apartment buildings in Rainier Beach through eminent domain. More subsidized housing will be built there. Over 1000 new units of housing will be built at SHA's Rainier Vista development. It's no wonder the poverty rate has been rising since 2000, but only in one Seattle zip code, 98118. Crime is rising too, up dramatically since 2005. This is not a blueprint for a healthy and balanced community. This is not a community that can absorb more dense, new development around the light rail stations.
Ever heard of Greenwood Gardens? It was a dense, mid-rise development located precisely at the same spot as the new Othello Link Light Rail Station. Greenwood Gardens became crime-ridden and was closed in the 1970's, then later demolished by the Seattle Housing Authority. The city vowed never to repeat the mistake of Greenwood Gardens. How soon they forget?
What's missing here is the voice of the people who must live with the consequences of bad political decisions. What's missing is economic and social justice. What's missing is balanced income demographics without which successful TOD development is not possible. Political leaders need to face facts before they implement grand new theoretical transit-oriented communities that cannot be sustained. Southeast Seattle has been down this road before. Reject HB 1490 & SB 5687.
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 2:56 p.m. inappropriate
I love listening to tales of suburban paranoia as it relates to living in and visiting the city. I have lived downtown for 19 years in Pioneer Square, near the market and now in Belltown. I have never been the victim of or even seen an act of random violent crime in nearly two decades. It does happen but it is extremely rare. You are much more likely to get shot by your suburban wife than you are to randomly be targeted on the street. Anyone who feels the need to carry just to brave the street should stay home and find their fun at the local strip mall. The rest of us will do the job of roaming the dangerous city...
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 4:13 p.m. inappropriate
This is a great example of what Nordhaus and Schellenberger (The Breakthrough) wrote about when they point out the ridiculous manner that enviros go about meeting their objectives and why they continue to lose grassroots support. If they can't make a good case for this in one of the most liberal states in the country, then they need to go back to the drawing board.
Legislation such as this is planning for future residents while disregarding existing residents of a community. A 1/2 mile overlay dictating the type of development standards indiscriminately determines the type of demographic that will wind up there: upwardly moving professionals and very small families. Everyone else will move to other neighborhoods.
This is about small 'd' democracy and options of which this legislation does not provide.
-Bonafide
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 5:14 p.m. inappropriate
God, what a load of rubbish.
Oh and Redneck, cutting down big trees and replacing them with little ones adds carbon to the air.
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 5:27 p.m. inappropriate
braddah wrote: "There's been some massive development on the corner of S Snoqualmie St and Martin Luther King Jr S. This is RIGHT NEXT TO THE RAIL."
This is Rainier Vista, a public housing development that has been there for decades, and has been recently rebuilt, entirely separately from the light rail. That has NOTHING to do with light rail. It is a public housing development.
And new Holly Park, another public housing development near the light rail line, has also been there for years, and has nothing to do with the light rail. Seattle Housing Authority rebuilt Holly Park with millions of dollars of federal funding over the past decade or so.
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 11:16 p.m. inappropriate
Lincoln,
Yes, New Rainier Vista and New Holly were re-built because of an initial infusion of federal housing dollars. However, each project depended on private developers coming in and building hundreds of units of market-rate housing. In both cases, light rail was a major factor in enticing those developers to build in what had formerly been developments solely devoted to subsidized housing, with major crime problems and dilapidated housing stock.
As the owner of a market-rate home in Rainier Vista, I can tell you that the developers and realtors behind the market-rate housing marketed the hell out of the proximity to light rail. And, overwhelmingly, my neighbors bought here because they wanted to live near light rail.
Additionally, several developers have filed permit applications with the city for parcels near both the Columbia City and Othello station areas. While some of those projects may be delayed because of the economic downturn, I doubt they will be delayed as long as projects permitted in auto-dependent exurban areas.
Posted Tue, Feb 24, 11:28 p.m. inappropriate
"...organizations like Futurewise, Transportation Choices Coalition, and think tanks like Sightline. It would be wonderful if the sponsors and promoters for this legislation were to set an example by living in the kind of housing they propose, but initial checking finds that most of the people involved with these organizations live in urban areas in single-family homes and many drive cars, just like everyone else."
I'll let the other organizations speak for themselves, but when it comes to Transportation Choices Coalition, I can tell you our staff does, in fact, live by our words. Of the four people on our staff, three of whom are coupled, I am the only one who loves in a single family home. However, our family of four lives in a single family home, on a tiny lot, in Rainier Vista, a dense transit-oriented community near the Columbia City light rail station. One of our staff members, along with her husband, owns no car at all. The others are 1-car households. We all walk, bus or bike to work, except during the legislative session when I carpool to Olympia with at least one person almost every day.
So, obviously, Kent, your "initial checking" is as badly executed as the reasoning you present in this essay.
Posted Wed, Feb 25, 7:19 a.m. inappropriate
Here are some of those troubling facts that I wanted to see so badly in this discussion on transit oriented debate:
Here is a link to HB 1490 that shows that the bill requires 50 units per acre in the areas adjacent to transit stations for Transit Oriented Development: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1490.pdf
You can read the requirement in section 9, line 28.
50 units per acre means 1 unit for each 870 square feet of lot area, if I do my math correctly.
What Seattle zone already has a density of 1 unit per 800 square feet? It's a zone called Lowrise 3. here is a link to the Seattle Land Use Code: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=CODE&s1;=23.45.008.snum.&Sect5;=CODE1&Sect6;=HITOFF&l;=20&p;=1&u;=/~public/code1.htm&r;=1&f;=G
What is built in Lowrise 3 zones? Lowrise 3 zones have a three story height limit. In Seattle, you typically find townhomes in Lowrise 3 zones. Look at the large townhouse tracts near Aurora and Greenwood Avenue north. Those are Lowrise 3 zones. Not attractive, exactly, but not a scary vomit and gunfire filled Belltown.
What is the density in Belltown? One of the older Belltown high rises is called the Archstone. It has 356 units on a lot which I believe is approximately 240 feet square, for a density of 270 units per acre. Other buildings have a MUCH HIGHER DENSITY. Here is a website for the Archstone: http://www.apartmentsearch.com/apartments/washington/seattle/archstone-belltown-apartments.html
The conclusion: This bill forces the city to zone the areas near transit stations to a density suitable for two and three story town homes. In other words, Kent Kammerer did not do his research. His essay is deceptive and alarmist. Crosscut should post a clarification, retraction or an apology.
Posted Wed, Feb 25, 9:09 a.m. inappropriate
"Yes, New Rainier Vista and New Holly were re-built because of an initial infusion of federal housing dollars. However, each project depended on private developers coming in and building hundreds of units of market-rate housing. In both cases, light rail was a major factor in enticing those developers to build in what had formerly been developments solely devoted to subsidized housing, with major crime problems and dilapidated housing stock."
Those developements would have absolutely been done without any light rail going in there. The Seattle Housing Authority has done the same thing in other parts of the city where no light rail has gone in. Light rail had nothing to do with those public housing developments being located where they are. They are located in Rainier Valley because that is where that housing was originally built about 50 years ago, and that is where the city owned property where they could rebuild housing.
That the developers use light rail to market some units is irrelevant. The housing would have been built regardless of light rail going in or not. If light rail convinced some residents to buy there, so what? The housing would have been built under any circumstances. Without light rail, you and some other owners may not have bought there, but other people would have bought those units.
Drive along that entire new light rail line in the Rainier Valley, and the vast majority of the route looks just like it did before the light rail went in, except the street is hideously wide now, due to the light rail tracks. Talk about a pedestrian UNfriendly street. That surely is Martin Luther King Jr. Way where light rail runs down the center of it.
Posted Wed, Feb 25, 9:20 a.m. inappropriate
How does the bill mandate density in existing neighborhoods? I think that's the question. If Seattle were a Monopoly board we could just replace houses with hotels, no problem, but what does it mean to mandate 50 unite/acre density in an area that includes stretches of Rainier Ave. and residential blocks of Mount Baker? Would new development have to be significantly more dense than 50 units/acre to make up for the existing single-family units?
I also have trouble understanding the tone of this debate. Folks like MadisonAve talk as if there were a bunch of dumb (or I think "idiotic" is the preferred term) old coots who just want stupid things for no good reason, because they're old and therefore stupid. But what's stupid about saying that if we want a livable city we have to pay attention to the details shaping it? Personally I'd love to see the right kind of density take hold, I like walkable, diverse urban neighborhoods with good grocery stores and laundromats in every block, but I have also noticed the deterioration in construction materials in recent decades, as costs have skyrocketed. Much of the development happening in Seattle now looks to me like it'll be a big heap of moldy compost in about 25 years. Some developments are fortress-like and hostile to sidewalk life; others are better. I think it'd be wiser to hang onto as much brick as we can, and green spaces--including urban lawns, which bungalows (bless their small, solid hearts) preserve better than newer, bigger housing.
Maybe the problem is that bungalows with lawns don't look nearly as good when you can't afford one (I can't either), as when you're part of a generation that was able to buy them when they were still affordable.
Posted Wed, Feb 25, 10:16 a.m. inappropriate
sdstarr and Yarrow: The bill has changed significantly. The 50 residential units/acre only remains in station areas identified as "growth centers" by the PSRC. So, for example, in Seattle the station areas that must meet the standard are Northgate, U-District (Brooklyn), Capitol Hill, and Downtown Tunnel stations. Roosevelt and SE Seattle station areas would only have to do station area plans that account for residential and/or commercial density, bike and pedestrian access to serve light rail stations, as well as affordable housing. Even in the growth center station areas, the density can be met by a combination of residential units and jobs served.
Posted Mon, Mar 2, 1:19 p.m. inappropriate
TOD's not linked to creating clean industry and good paying jobs concurrently is just transportation masturbation. Density and the ability to move people among developments is worthless without the third component - jobs! And by jobs, I don't mean working in a Starbucks below a $300k condo.
Posted Tue, Mar 3, 9:42 a.m. inappropriate
Transit is more effective when the jobs are concentrated in Downtown and a few other centers, so each center can have a "spoke" system leading to TODs. TODs should have neighborhood-oriented retail, and it's great if they have some other jobs, but a TOD can be successful without a big job base.
Posted Thu, Mar 5, 1:25 p.m. inappropriate
I am in agreement with Mr. Kammerer's points. I maight also add two indisputable facts.
First, dense development is expensive development. You cannot fine an example to the contrary. The TOD bills would gaurantee that the cost of housing will go up.
Second, subsidized housing is not affordable housing. The TOD bills state that low income housing will be replaced on a one to one basis. Of course to do that, everything built with them will be more expensive (because nobody gives this stuff away). This in turn raises the value (cost) of all housing around it, including existing affordable housing.
Another who has made strong arguements against the the TOD bills is low-income housing advocate John Fox. Fox seems to know that once affordable housing is lost, it's LOST. It was sad to read in the most recent issue of The Stranger, a column by Erica Barnett in which she (personally?) attacked Fox for his efforts.
So far, "smart growth" has delivered less than "great neighborhoods" in Seattle. Certainly, the TOD will produce more of the same. What I've seen to date from smart growth reminds me of the drab, concrete apartment blocks left over from the Soviet era in East Berlin. Albeit, shorter and with a snappy paint job. And a higher price tag.
And so a question. Do the greens hate the poor or are they just naive to the real marketplace.
Jeff Wright
Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights
Posted Fri, Mar 6, 3:34 a.m. inappropriate
The information you have provided is new to me. Thank's for it.
Lisa11
Real Estate Search
[url=http://www.fastrealestate.net]Real Estate Search[/url]
Posted Fri, Mar 6, 3:35 a.m. inappropriate
This is the new information I come across.
Lisa11
Real Estate Search
Posted Mon, Mar 9, 5:44 p.m. inappropriate
This bill is about a whole lot of things, but the whole "carbon footprint" piece is the least of it. Primarily, this is about mandates on local government on how they are to comply with meeting the Growth Management Act ... centered on transit. Transit is just an excuse. It's a centralized control-freak approach to the GMA. As a local elected official, I'm fed up with top-down, know-it-alls telling us HOW to comply with state law.
Secondarily, this is about mandating more and more affordable/low-income housing without regard to the amount of affordable/low-income housing already existing in any number of jurisdictions. The proof? The "no net loss" language in that portion of the bill. Some of us suburban city dwellers have LOTS of affordable housing. The proof? Look at the large number of immigrant populations (South King County in particular). Immigrants have always resided where rents and housing prices were least expensive.
Third, this is about densities and land use that makes no sense outside of Seattle. By the way, the comments about this only applying to "growth centers" keeps getting repeated over and over in different venues, but I've seen NO draft of the bill where the bill language makes this clear, and I've been reviewing both legislative drafts and AWC drafts of this bill for weeks.
Futurewise needs to stop trying to apply California-style controls in Washington state. We have the GMA, and by and large it has worked well. As more and more people move into this area, holding the Urban Growth Boundary firm will have MUCH more effect in forcing those lagging jurisdictions to meet their growh targets than will mandates from above.