Go to University Village in the mornings and you see no end of young mothers their kids and dogs in tow, they sure are proliferating there, and they are well to do to be able to shop for hours!
Those statistics are extremely stupid and the way conclusions are extrapolated from them.

The Dick Lilly piece on Seattle's projection for more kids and the possibility of new schools and/or re-opening closed schools that apppeared yesterday on Crosscut deserves scrutiny and specific numbers for students. There are approx. 46,000 students in the school district. How many more are expected over the next decade?

These demographics are no surprise with the "experts" favored land use form actively trying to decrease in Seattle single family homes with meaningful protected private personal space (yards) that families desire. The more single family we push out of Seattle, the more we build in the 'burbs.

As Seattle land use policies push out single family homes, the remainder get more expensive. You can replace them with all the townhomes and mixed use you want, but buyers who want single family are not switchable to more multi-tenant form factors.

A common misconception about rising single family homes prices (which still drives overall housing numbers in Seattle) is tearing single family down to build multi-tenant buildings does not create affordable family housing. Ask any real estate agent and he/she will tell you it is rare for a family looking to buy a house to switch to buying a multi-tenant unit. If they can't find a single family home in their price range where they want to live, they don't start looking at a multi-tenant unit. They expand the area of their search until they do find an affordable single family unit. Regional land use patterns show the effect of this -- huge blooms of single-family homes in the burbs.

The other issue is the perception of poor quality education to be had in Seattle's public schools. If those families who live in Seattle want their kids to get an excellent education, tack on the cost of private school. This double-whammy of higher single family home cost due to shrinking supply and education cost can be solved by moving into the burbs where public schools are perceived to be better. This is also what these demographics reflect.

Incidentally, these data suggest we should quit using the euphemism of "multi family" when discussing denser form factors in Seattle. "Multi-tenant" is obviously more accurate since the data show "families" aren't the typical residents.

Anyone whose been in Seattle since the 60's (post Worlds Fair), will know that Seattle as gone from a "City for all" to a "City for the wealthy and tourists."
And, that trend will continue as housing costs increase in price, housing units get smaller (anti-family), and lack of leadership by electeds continue to raise taxation rates to keep up with thier narrow-minded decisions. Homelessness will only become a larger regionall problem with less funding for social sevices and lack of affordable housing. Growth management will continue to ignore the impacts o its policies on the low and middle income populations. And, the school-age population of the public schools in Seattle will enjoy a few years of increases, only to continue to plummet as a continuation of past years evidence. Today, the schools have an enrolment of about the same as after WWII.

Wake up Seattle!See your self for what you have become. And take the time to understand where you were, where you are going and what ultimately you willbecome if all these trends continue.

@ "ddmiller" - You are absolutely correct that young families will choose single family homes, in the distant suburbs, over "smart growth" townhomes in the Seattle city limits. It's unfortunate that, at least for now, the New Urbanists are in charge at the Puget Sound Regional Council. As one who has "landscape urbanist" viewpoints, I favor large mid-century modern, passive solar homes with permaculture, on heavily forested suburbs with tree ordinances, such as Bellevue and Sammammish. Bellevue, of course, perhaps represents the region's best example of mid-century modern suburban design, with the Hilltop neighborhood (in Bellevue) one of the earliest examples of an intentional mid-century modern community.

@ Dr. Morrill - It would be interesting to see if the percentage of singles has also decreased, in other Washington and Oregon towns with upzoning and "smart growth," such as Eugene, Corvallis, Bend, and Ashland, Oregon.

I also notice from your map that many areas with higher shares of families are even beyond the urban growth boundary, in areas zoned with five acre minimums (i.e. east of Kent, and north and northeast of Lake Sammammish). Lake Youngs is only about 6 miles from downtown Renton and downtown Kent, yet that's the end of the Urban Growth Boundary in eastern King County. This practice of prohibiting division of 5 acre parcels beyond the UGB is a waste of land. These areas could be downzoned to quarter or half acre lots, in order to shorten commutes and decrease foreign oil imports from countries that don't like us. Five acre lots do not "conserve open space," since they are privately owned.

Finally, the four county urban growth boundary increases the cost of housing, and as a result, we see new developments and very long commutes and high gasoline consumption from young families in Mt. Vernon, Ellensburg, Olympia, Shelton, and the San Juan Islands.

We need to expand the urban growth boundary in eastern King County out to Hobart, and form a regional network of conservation subdivisions (Randall Arendt), permaculture farms, mountain bike trails, and passive solar dwellings ... all connected to the Mountains to Sound Greenway. This is the "greenest" solution possible, sharing the goals of the growing group of Landscape Urbanists from Charles Waldheim and his colleagues at Harvard, but not the New Urbanists, who are currently in political power promoting "smart growth" towers and mass transit. -Tom

@ Tom9
If the UGB is extended, don't all those people still need to commute? How do they do that with out investment in new mass transit?

@ ddmiller
As you rightly point out, preferences for single family housing hasn't changed and families have accordingly moved to the suburbs. Is it possible that as oil prices continue to rise and the benefits of density become more well understood, these preferences will change and families will come back to the city and go after multitenant housing?

Thanks, Dick, for these continuing pieces. They mainly validate what we can see all around us---but which policymakers, in particular, sometimes seem unable to grasp. I've felt for some time that Seattle was becoming a theme park for tourists and residents mainly interested in lifestyle. Families with children are simply not going to settle in or return to Seattle unless single-family home prices and public-school quality change dramatically. Such families typically constitute the core of any community. Without them, there is no solid there there.

I'm taken aback by the cluelessness of this piece's headline, which takes for granted that a "family" equals a married couple with child or children. A committed gay or lesbian couple with child or children does not make the cut, nor does a straight couple who for whatever reasons do not wish to get married. The caption to the small map does a nicer job of parsing exactly what we're looking at here -- "husband-wife families with children" -- but I would have appreciated a greater sense of awareness in the article itself. "[The data] provides more evidence for how rapidly Seattle in particular is changing in fundamental ways": yes, quite possibly so!

In addition, could a widowed mother living with her son or daughter not constitute a family? A couple who are long-term caretakers of nieces or nephews whose own parents are in prison? I realize that the Census would not refer to the residents of either of these households as families, but I can't help thinking that Crosscut has excluded them, in this instance, just for the sake of an incendiary headline. Again, husband-wife families with children: that is what we are talking about here, that is *all* we are talking about here. I expected a greater measure of analysis and a less sensationalist perspective from Crosscut.

Ted Van Dyk, I agree strongly with you, anecdotally, that single-family home prices and public-school quality are strong contributors to the observed pattern. Many people I know have decided that they can either afford to own a nice house in an area they like or to have children who would get a high-quality (day care then presumably private school) education. Twenty years ago I can't imagine that two-income couples had to make this decision. I'm not fully behind your "residents mainly interested in lifestyle" characterization, though, which seems a bit snarky. Qualities like safety, access to goods and services, not being limited to car-only transit, and the opportunity to obtain a good education are also elements of "lifestyle," and, in that sense, isn't lifestyle of primary collective interest to us all?

I hope I'm just missing something. I've read this story twice, and I haven't noticed any reference to the source of this "new data." Ideally, we should be able to explore the data ourselves. Minimally, we should know where it comes from.

Again, I may be reading right past the information. If so, I would be grateful if someone could point me in the right direction. Thank you.

Sorry for not being clear: it's U.S. Census data for 2010, which is released in increments.

@David Brewster: Thanks for clarifying. If Mr. Morrill gets a chance to revisit this topic, it would be great to see him dig into old Census data and report back on whether these numbers tend to rise and fall. Despite the whimsical headline, I doubt we're facing a situation in which the number of families with children is headed for zero. What's more, we have all these people in the 20-35 category. I wonder how many of them would need to stick around and have babies for the 2020 Census data to look quite different.

nickwelch: "As you rightly point out, preferences for single family housing hasn't changed and families have accordingly moved to the suburbs. Is it possible that as oil prices continue to rise and the benefits of density become more well understood, these preferences will change and families will come back to the city and go after multitenant housing?"

No.

Citizens have become apathetic about the complete lack of common sense and frugality shown by our leaders in every level of government. Most folks have a sneaking suspicion that oil-prices and the costs of everything else rise because of government elites and social engineers tinkering with everything, i.e.: growth-management, corporate bailouts, inflating the money supply, law enforcement based upon "revenue enhancement" rather than protecting citizens from criminals, etc. People are sick of hearing platitudes -

"What we need is more education! If the unwashed masses would finally realize how wonderful it is to live in a 'progressive' nanny state, with half of their income "redistributed" and taken away in taxes and fees, crammed into over-priced and cheaply-built tenement housing alongside pimps, drug-dealers and registered sex offenders, won't they jump at the chance? Of course - especially if we offer families free bus passes and they understand how wonderful it is to ride in a smelly, overcrowded bus that takes three times longer to get anywhere than the family minivan."

--

“The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men — the right to be let alone.” -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

@nick - This is a view (increased energy prices create a move back to urban cores) widely held and reflected in the Puget Sound Regional Council's long-term population forecasts for urban areas. Fortunately, Seattle and most other urban areas in the Puget Sound region are already adequately zoned to handle population increases related to this phenomenon through 2024 and probably well beyond.

@Marcus -- I would also like to see a broader definition in Dick's data, once Census 2010 makes them available, to count single parent and dual parent unmarried households. Because we still don't have marriage equality in Washington state, data would be mixed (at best) concerning two-parent gay families with kids -- mixed according to whether survey respondents responded as "married" or "unmarried".

This is a remarkably shoddy piece of analysis, misleading at best and demonstrably false at worst. Contrary to Morrill's assertions and implications, families are flourishing in Seattle. As a matter of fact, the city added nearly 6,000 children over the last decade.

It's true that Seattle is more childless than most of WA, but would anyone like to guess when the "child gap" opened up? It happened in the 1960s and 1970s! Only during the last decade -- the decade of much-maligned growth management and density -- has Seattle begun to narrow its "child gap" with the rest of the state.

Nationally, the share of the population under 18 shrank by 1.7 percent over the last decade, while the share of children in Washington shrank even faster, by 2.2 percent. Unsurprisingly, numerous peer cities, including Portland and Tacoma, saw a decline in the absolute number of children. Yet Seattle (and Bellevue and Salem, both operating with growth management) somehow bucked the trend, adding thousands of kids, and maintaining stability, or nearly so, in the share of their population under 18.

The truth is that the last 10 years has been a golden age for Seattle families.

Please see my full analysis at Sightline's blog:
http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2011/06/09/crosscuts-flawed-take-on-families-in-seattle

Eric de Place
Sightline Institute

This article would be a little more interesting with some context. The article seems intended to imply that Seattle is unusual or out of balance or something, but there's no comparison to other urban areas. Are we like Portland? SF? Similarly-sized cities in other parts of the country? Not being a geographer, it's hard for me to know what to make of this data without some context -- and I don't have enough information to figure out if the sensationalistic headline is at all warranted.

Thanks for the many comments.
I’ll note first that the sensational headline is chosen by the editor not me! Don’t get tense. It’s just a spoof on a billboard from 37 or 38 years ago. Plus, this was NOT a story about Seattle, but comparing places across the whole region. Are all Crosscut readers from Seattle? But let’s admit it, Seattle is a rather unusual place.
Sure Seattle still has a lot of children, out of over 600,000 people. The share is low by historic standards. As I noted the recent pick up in children under 5 (please note Eric), but if they are affluent, they are likely to send the kids to private schools, and if they are middle class, they’ll probably relocate to the suburbs before the kids enter school. Yes this has been going on since around 1975.
Please read what I actually said. I did NOT, ever, say that Seattle or the region were misguided. I just reported the facts and let the reader make diverse judgments.
Tom, I think you meant to use families with children, not single persons. It really depends on the total stock of housing and housing prices. Seattle is unusual because it is so popular with young professionals who do and will fill up the towers, as they can outbid young families for core area housing,
Ted Van Dyk touches on the important risk of the lack of permanence and of community building on the part of a largely young and childless population. Marcus, I agree that there are many many families without children, but these tend to have different preferences from those that do.
David Quigg. Of course kids are not headed to zero, but as noted above, a lot of those folks 20 to 35 leave the core city when the babies are ready for school.
Context. Yes Seattle is very like Portland and San Francisco. These cities are unusual, but I did NOT say they are out of balance. After all, Seattle is only one jurisdiction with but one-sixth of the metropolitan population.
Well, Eric, my analysis is precise and correct. I do not make census related mistakes. I said nothing about growth management nor did I bemoan any absence of families in Seattle, a city I love and have lived in for 56 years. I just noted variation in statistics across a lot of places across the metropolis. It is your comment that is misplaced, given what I actually said.

Eric DuPlace clearly has confused the world that is with the one that he desperately wants to see - and I have yet to see a New Urbanist that doesn't do this, or that doesn't shoot the messenger who points out facts that density advocates find inconvenient.

Oops - de Place. I can spell, really....

Dick,

You said nothing about growth management, eh?

Then riddle me this: why do the following sentences appear in your article? I quote:

"This pattern is not new. But because of growth management and the concentration of higher-density redevelopment in the core cities, the gradient is perhaps more marked than earlier."

In fact, you clearly attribute Seattle's small share of children to growth management and density. You do it in this piece, and you've done it in many others. It's a specious claim and one that there is absolutely zero evidence to support.

Dick,

One more thing, your defense in comments doesn't add up. If you'd just done straight up reporting of the Census data, no biggie. But you added unsupportable causal intrepretations like this one: "These variables, in particular, attest to the continuing gentrification of Seattle, and its changing patterns of ethnicity related to gentrification and high housing costs."

But you didn't do any change-over-time analysis! So how on earth could you speak to "continued" gentrification or "changing patterns"?

Another tidbit of possibly interesting information, if you look at where the kids are (note: not "families" but "population under 18") you'll find that Seattle actually has higher density of kids per acre than the rest of King County. In other words, Seattle's a great place if you're looking for an area where there are more neighbors, including some kids (high density) rather than only neighbors with kids (i.e., high percentages or "shares" of total as this article describes). More info on this data here:
http://joshuadf.blogspot.com/2011/04/population-under-18-per-acre-i-have.html

My family is an anecdote of this, living with two kids in one of Seattle's urban centers. It's not for everyone obviously but we certainly have plenty of neighbors who also chose city life.

People who do a good job of reading the Seattle Times know that densification gurus who insist upon brushing aside the social costs of "changing patterns" will need something better than "let them eat cake" if they want to be paid any heed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014314512_censussouthking24m.html
Shifting Population Changes Face of South King County
Even as Seattle's minority population barely held over the past decade, the percentage of people of color swelled in the suburbs of South King County, where newly arriving immigrants and former Seattle residents converged to form majority populations in SeaTac, Renton, Kent and Tukwila...."What we are seeing here is happening across the country — the suburbanization of the minority population, which also includes the suburbanization of immigration," said Mark Ellis, a geography professor at the University of Washington.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015090489_censusage19m.html
Boomers Deliver a Rising Tide of Seniors
"We're on the cusp of the baby-boom generation hitting 65, so that's going to accelerate for the next 20 years or so," said Dan Murphy, strategic-planning director for the state's Aging and Disability Services Administration.
..."We try to support seniors staying in their homes — or at least in their communities — for as long as possible, so people keep doing as much as they can for as long as they can, and their families and friends help provide some support...The rate of growth in this population is so great, it would stretch our resources even in good times," Murphy said

The state's five largest cities and their percentage of seniors (65 and older): Seattle, 10.8 percent; Spokane, 12.8 percent; Tacoma, 11.3 percent; Vancouver, 12.4 percent; and Bellevue, 13.9 percent. Statewide, 12.3 percent of the population is 65 or older....The state's median age, 37.3, has risen in every census since 1970, as baby boomers work their way through the population chart.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015017834_censustacoma11m.html
Although Tacoma had the state's biggest loss of youngsters, dozens of other Washington cities also saw their under-18 population decline, or — as in the case of Seattle — rise more slowly than their adult population.

A movement of young families out of central cities is "a three-decade tendency," said Yi Zhao, a demographer with the state Office of Financial Management. The pattern she sees: "A lot of young people move into Washington state for school or jobs, so they tend to arrive in the metro areas. But when they're ready to start families, the tendency is to move out to the suburbs to get more affordable housing, maybe have a backyard."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015090449_censushousehold19m.html
Married Pairs Make Up Fewer Households
• The ongoing housing crisis, in full swing when census forms were being completed last year, helps explain an increase virtually everywhere in the percentage of households with relatives and unrelated people living under one roof.

• Across the state, from the San Juans to Spokane to Vancouver, the proportion of households where people live alone continued to rise.

One of the most glaring findings in the current release is the continuing erosion of the nuclear family.... In cities such as Kent, Federal Way and Lynnwood, the percentage of nuclear-family households declined from 10 years ago, while remaining steady in some unexpected places, such as Seattle.

With an alias like mine, I thought I'd comment. I was born and raised in Seattle. Jobs kept getting more focused and linear; i.e., non-tech professional jobs were driven by billionaires funding pet projects. Housing became prohibitively expensive.

And it became difficult to find other kids for my own to play with. The play date was born out of necessity. Some in the City were getting openly hostile to families (breeders). Of those that remained, many attended a shadow district of private (and excellent) schools. The neighborhoods that I grew up in and ran wild in packs had no children whatsoever.

My last Puget Sound position finally disappeared altogether but the company was kind enough to transfer me to the Southeast. There are kids everywhere. My oldest son just completed his kindergarten year in a full immersion language program through a public charter school. It's been five years now.

Because the city I knew as a child is no more. It is now as unique in its own way as South Beach / Miami, Manhattan, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco, are in theirs. I think that Seattle is a place where solitary, predominantly childless people will grow old together. Some will call that paradise. Those that don't will leave, visit as tourists, and astral-project via the Crosscut portal.

Still, given how few children are actually there, how much money is (still) sloshing around, and how high the average level of education is, Seattle ought to have a world-class public school system, both K-12 and post-secondary. Whether that means partnering with privately built charter schools, or already existent Rainbows, or negotiating flexibility and incentives with the unions, that's the final piece needed to complete the puzzle. I wish you well.

Two points:

We might be experiencing the endgame of the single-family dwelling and the internal combustion engine. Both, as cultural norms and economic drivers, were products of the post-WWII American economic explosion. The Leave-It-To-Beaver era is passing, and, though people--especially families-- still prefer the single-family dwelling and its picket fence, that will slowly change. If the electric car overtakes the end of ICE this pattern might change locally for a time, but not for coal-dependent states and not in the big picture.

Second, the post-65 group is not your parent's retired generation. They are active, involved in their children's and grandchildren's lives and support the younger folks in urban environments. This suggests a much richer tapestry of urban life than the demographic data might predict under assumptions based on stereotypes from the past.

@Joshuadf Thanks for posting your link to your very interesting maps. Overall, real estate surveys continue to show that families prefer large homes and large lots, even if it means a longer commute (see: http://smartgrowthusa.wordpress.com/new-april-2011-smart-growth-survey/).

Since Seattle plans to increase its population (and, its population density, under the PSRC's Vision 2040) to 900,000 by 2040, this will mean continued upzoning (i.e. turning 1 story homes into 4 story homes and "smart growth" towers).

Therefore, given current trends of single families preferring large homes with private yards, then I think that the percentage of those under 18 in the Seattle City limits could decrease, since they (and their parents) dislike the towers with no yards.

@ Nick Welch, you wrote: "@ Tom9...If the UGB is extended, don't all those people still need to commute? How do they do that with out investment in new mass transit?"

Tom9 replies ... Nick, note that internationally recognized transportation expert and Civil Engineer Dr. William Eager, of TDA Inc. in Seattle and Denver, shows that an increase of freeway lanes by 6% in the Seattle metro will reduce congestion by 36%. This includes freeways in areas outside of the urban growth boundary, although I do not know if his entire study directly addressed the specific location of the UGB and locations of future housing. By increasing freeway lanes, we also increase vehicle speeds, and gas mileage goes up. This reduces greenhouse gases, and increases gas mileage, making it cheaper to commute. See links to Dr. Eager's studies, and I also need to post links to Jim McIsaac's studies, along with the UC-Riverside professor on reducing greenhouse gases by increasing vehicle speeds: http://smartgrowthusa.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/seattle-bellevue-density-kemper-freeman-sues-suing-sound-transit-mass-transit-light-rail-transit/

Also in the above post, Dr. Eager and Kemper Freeman also reported that light rail will only take 5% total trips by 2040, according to the PSRC.

Nick ... Your suggestion that light rail may accommodate increased population beyond the UGB is well intentioned, although not supported by the data of only supporting 5% of the vehicle trips by 2040. Even Kemper Freeman in the video at this link says that if light rail would solve our traffic problems, then he would support it!

Many others think there are better solutions than light rail, offering trips operating at more frequent intervals, such as more buses, designated lanes for bus rapid transit, bike lanes and more lighting on narrow rural roads currently outside the UGB, and gravel mountain bike and hiking paths in the rural areas and along streams). On that note, the philanthropic efforts in trailbuilding, within the Mountains to Sound Greenway in east King County, are impressive and worthy of support.

Also, consider the new Legacy Parkway (State Rt. 67) in Salt Lake City. This 14 mile parallel freeway to I-15 reduced congestion by 20% on I-15, north of Salt Lake City, and includes a parallel bike and walking path, and nature preserve. This is a success story proving that parallel arterials (i.e. that Dr. Eager and Kemper Freeman advocate, i.e. I-605), can significantly reduce congestion and air pollution. See the Utah Dept. of Transportation Web Site for maps: http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:2182

You may wish to consult the #1 book on urban sprwal with thousands of references for a further discussion of these issues on a national scale - "Sprawl: A Compact History," by Dr. Bob Bruegmann of the University of Illinois and the University of Chicago Press:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/076903.html

Also, Nick, you wrote: "@ ddmiller: As you rightly point out, preferences for single family housing hasn't changed and families have accordingly moved to the suburbs. Is it possible that as oil prices continue to rise and the benefits of density become more well understood, these preferences will change and families will come back to the city and go after multitenant housing?"

If I may also answer this ... I think that the American love affair with the suburbs, along with personal mobility and the automobile, will be eternal. I think that as we approach peak oil, that people will purchase fuel efficient cars. And, tax credits will be offered for these new cars.

When this time arrives, personally, those of us into the outdoors might own a gas guzzling Jeep for weekend mountain biking and off roading, and a fuel efficient Smart Car with great gas mileage for weekday commuting. That's the perfect combination.

Indeed, Americans love their SUV's and large four door Toyota Tundras and Nissan Frontiers, so it's likely that even our SUV's will see improvements in mileage, as even the Jeeps have seen, slowly but surely, over the last decade.

As Bob Bruegmann writes, we don't have any idea what cars of the future will look like. See his article from 2008:
http://www.robertbruegmann.com/_images/publications/JLUT.pdf

Tom

@bkochis

I am not sure where the perception comes from that urban sprawl, and the search for single family dwellings with private yards, is recent in origin. For thousands of years, cities have expanded outward to the suburbs. Since crime, various airborne contagious diseases, and unsanitary conditions were generally concentrated within the City center (i.e. think about people throwing garbage out their windows on the streets in Europe), then people have been migrating to larger lots with private yards in distant suburbs.

The U.S. is no exception. Dr. Bob Bruegmann, one of the world's foremost authorities on the history of sprawl, explains this in "Sprawl: A Compact History." And, within the US, sprawl began before WWII. Indeed, zoning began in the 1920's, seperating residential suburbs from apartments and industrial areas (see the writings and books of Dr. William Fischel of Dartmouth, a friend of Dr. Morrill. Fischel spent a year at the University of Washington on sabbatical studying the state's growth mgmt. act. He wrote about the Washington State Growth Management Act in a chapter in his book "The Homevoter Hypothesis").

As a "landscape urbanist," somewhat of a contrary school of thought to the "new urbanists," I try to understand why sprawl exists in the patterns that we observe. And, I wish to identify how we can improve life within our existing network of urban sprawl.

Indeed, the entire Seattle metro area covers dozens and dozens of square miles of private property with low density homes. Our average Seattle area density is about 2000 persons per acre. This is not going to suddenly change to 10000 to 30000 persons per acre, since most of the region is low density suburbs with densities of a quarter acre or less.

I am also not sure why folks say that the days of the internal combustion engine are over. Even before the car, people enjoyed personal mobility, by way of the horse. Kemper Freeman in his video at the link in my previous post explains how personal mobility has changed through time, from the horse, to the car.

Even if we run out of oil, cars will be powered by other fuels, including electric and solar cars. And, more buses along with bus rapid transit and bike lanes and gravel mountain bike trails will provide efficient alternative transportation.

We can only dream about what our suburbs will look like after peak oil. As a landscape urbanist, I can guarantee one thing. The suburbs will be greener, we will have more sidewalks and bike paths, we will have more buses including bus rapid transit, and we will use half the amount of oil that we use today.

And, of course, except for the "weekend Jeeps," cars will be much smaller with very high gas mileage, such as the Smart Car. We can only dream about what cars of the future will look like, how much they will weigh, and how they will drive.

I am looking forward to the future of suburban living. Air pollution will be much less, and ADD, Autism, Asthma, and other conditions will decrease due to less air pollution, and we will all enjoy much cleaner and greener suburbs. In addition, single family housing could even decrease in cost, as homes become much smaller due to energy shortages, and passive solar is incorporated as standard design practice.

For example, this press release from Jordan Palmeri and the Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality on smaller homes. (Of course, I am not a fan of Oregon's new urbanist planning system, however, we will see smaller homes as energy increases in cost) -
http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/prDisplay.asp?docID=3466

@Tom9,
That's true, the Realtor's 2011 Community Preference Survey says: "61% choose larger lots and needing to drive". However that leaves a significant number of people with other preferences (as others have pointed out, perhaps especially those of us that have a less "traditional family").

Contrary to your gut feeling, what the data show is Seattle's numbers for those under 18 has *increased* since 2000, including in extremely dense places such as Capitol Hill's tract 74.02 (between Broadway and I-5 near Olive Way). Again with myself as an example, I'm happy to trade a yard for a location where I can easily walk with my kids to one of Seattle's many great green spaces. I wonder what a yard like Cal Anderson Park would cost, though what would the point be if you weren't sharing it with thousands of other residents?

Possibly the most stunningly silly piece run yet on crosscut. Thank you, Eric, for publicly demolishing this derelict and feeble old argument.

People all across the developed world raise children successfully in high-density urban environments with a high standard of living. The American predilection for McMansions and sitting in traffic is an aberration that has wrought havoc on the environment and made the nation a slave to cheap foreign oil -- for which we're all now paying a steep price.

The putative preference for single family living is a direct result of the economic incentives set up decades ago by massive spending on freeways (often deliberately built through minority neighborhoods) that, decades later, remain gashes on the social and economic fabric of the city, subsidizing suburban car commuters at the expense of the city. In Seattle's case, this was compounded by the imbecilic "slow-growthers" who entrenched restrictive zoning so deeply in law and culture that we have to fight like hell to build multifamily within walking distance of subway stations.

Dr. Morrill's piece represents one of the dying gasps of a generation of people who's attitudes about life and living seem mostly informed by cartoonish notions of the city (c.f. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y881yjtFluQ) and an inability to accept the notion that there might be other perfectly valid and sustainable lifestyles. Their contributions to urban geography will not be missed; in fact, we shall be suffering the consequences of their awful policy choices for decades.

Regarding: "I am not sure where the perception comes from that urban sprawl, and the search for single family dwellings with private yards, is recent in origin"

An interesting question worth giving further and more serious thought by anyone trying to make sense of pricing work forces out of centers of work. The tie between social costs and government policies (some would say "social engineering") has seldom been covered more fully and thoughtfully than by Eva Blau (1999) in "The Architecture of Red Vienna, 1919-1934." It is such a shame now little it gets checked out of the Seattle Public Library.

Regarding: "People all across the developed world raise children successfully in high-density urban environments with a high standard of living."

Undoubtedly true, but the vast majority of this planet can not afford a "high standard of living", and if they could no one could— Mike Davis: "Planet of Slums."

How about we use direct data instead of inferred data?

Over the past three years Seattle's share of school-age children population in King County has risen, not dropped.

Over the past three years the ratio of Seattle births to Seattle Public School kindergarten enrollments five years later has grown from 67% to 80%.

The pattern of family migration out of Seattle has slowed and reversed. More families with young children are staying in town or moving to town than ever before.

That's the real data, straight from the state, who counts it EVERY year.

dmiller asserts that zoning policy is pushing single family out of Seattle; to the contrary, about 70 percent of the city is zoned single family and several administrations have attempted to focus denser development in urban villages and urban centers. single family zoning is among the third rails of Seattle politics. Note how the station areas around south-first Link have not been rezoned even after the train has left the station. Seattle is not very dense. the average household size has fallen over several decades. Seattle has many single family houses, but they tend to have smaller families in them.

Trust me. Families with children of any age, want to travel in their own cars. The price of housing is still very expensive in-city, which pushes families on budgets out.

Plus, who wants to raise children in a Ballard townhome with a yard the size of a ladybug?

@mikerol, do you think the young mothers and their kids live at U Village?
Hardly. The affluent young mothers may live nearby, but U Village isn't really an example of "typical Seattleites" now is it?

"smart growth" is a branded, manipulative failure.

@common1sense - Smart growth has only been around for three decades. It's just a "trend," just like any other architectural or urban planning paradigm, such as mid-century modern architecture. Check out Dr. Charles Waldheim, the Chair of the Landscape Architecture Dept. at Harvard, for the contrary view - Landscape Urbanism. Yes indeed, Harvard ... smart growth has significant competition in the world of design. Waldheim was hired recently, and asked to hire 10 new professors.

I do not see how anyone can argue with the numbers- the facts. The data from Dr. Morrill and the National Association of Realtors smart growth survey represent the truth.

You cannot dispute the survey results of the The National Association of Realtors ... from April 2011 ...

http://www.realtor.org/wps/wcm/connect/a0806b00465fb7babfd0bfce195c5fb4/smart_growth_comm_survey_results_2011.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID;=a0806b00465fb7babfd0bfce195c5fb4

They found, and quoting specifically from page 3 of this PDF document link:

1. "While walkability is seen as a desirable attribute by most, majorities of Americans are willing to live in communities where they have to drive most places if it means they would have larger lots with more distance from neighbors:

"61% choose larger lots and needing to drive over smaller lots and being able to walk to schools, stores, and restaurants (37%)."

"The preference is not as clear when choosing between larger lots and needing to drive (56%) and smaller lots and being able to walk to parks, playgrounds, and recreation areas (43%)."

(...)

"Living in a single-family, detached home is important to most Americans. Eight in ten (80%) would prefer to live in single-family, detached houses over other types of housing such as townhouses, condominiums, or apartments."

"Six in ten (59%) would accept a longer commute and having to drive to shops and restaurants if it meant they could live in a single-family detached home, rather than living in an attached home or apartment (38%)."

Tom9 Responds ... The last two in this list are MOST important in reference to Seattle area growth management, that focuses on high density condo ATTACHED housing without Private Yards.

Therefore, until the policymakers expand the urban growth boundary to Hobart, the long commutes from Maple Valley, Puyallup, Everett, and Mt. Vernon will continue - indefinitely - wasting precious oil.

As long as "single family dwelling" means two parents and kids owning their house with a yard, no one will realize how many children Seattle actually has. I don't do census figures but I'd bet that the less expensive areas of Seattle have quite a few single mothers with children. They may well not have yards, and they may not live in single-family dwellings, but they are families.

I love Seattle and will continue to raise my kid here. As a member of your local symphony orchestra, that means a lot to me.

There seems to be quite a bit of misappropriation of landscape urbanism in what you have written. I too followed the debates between “new urbanists” and “landscape urbanists”. I’ve never heard of any landscape urbanists opposing urban growth boundaries (UGB’s) carte blanche. It would be wonderful to read how you’ve reached that conclusion. And this is coming from a GSD grad. The differences between landscape urbanism and new urbanism are distinctions on how we organize CITIES. Mostly these differences are about design processes and priorities, not pitting urban against suburban. Calling Hilltop an example of landscape urbanism is cute, but not at all accurate. All too hellbent on developing Hobart aren't we?

Those comments aside, it’s obvious that our region and our lifestyles are changing. We can either: take what we learn from this data and try to make suburban lifestyles more appealing; or we can interpret this data to mean that things are changing and our lifestyle expectations are changing as well.

I don’t know about you, but everyone I know considers the events of the last 10 years to be a reset. I don’t intend, nor can I afford, to own a “weekend” Jeep and I don’t want to spend my weekday mornings and evenings stuck in traffic. I’ll gladly be the urban married couple taking public transit to work, with kids attending public schools, whilst preserving the environment of the northwest that led my family here generations ago. If I'm in the minority, so be it.

I have two questions for Tom9:

1) Who pays for the auto infrastructure needed for this kind of development?

2) Why, if we are going to go by what people want according to the The National Association of Realtors, do we need to enforce parking requirements, height restrictions, and other density limiting laws in Seattle?

My comments above were for @Tom9 as well. But thanks Andy, I agree!

Here's some data about just which families with children still live in Seattle: In a story on SLOG about a concert held to benefit free school lunches, SPS Director of Nutrition Services Eric Boutin said that 44% of Seattle school children qualify for free or reduced-price lunches. He said other families are right on the borderline of qualifying.

I favor housing affordability and therefore advocate elimination of urban growth boundaries. Cities that do not have them have single family DETATCHED homes for less that $200,000 - such as Albuquerque, NM and Fort Collins, CO. Much of this region used to be well under $200,000 in the late 1980's before the Growth Management Act.

As for what I call "weekend SUV's," that's the way to go. People can still afford the bad gas mileage for weekend trips in the mountains, as long as we use other transportation methods on weekdays (smaller cars, bikes, buses, whatever).

John Carlson was absolutely correct this morning (6/13/2011) on KOMO AM 1000 when he stated, "It's not smart growth. It's anti-child growth. Parents want to raise their families in homes with yards!"

John was talking about all the ridiculous Smart Growth Towers in West Seattle near where he grew up. I grew up in an area of 1 to 5 acre lots. Now, that community faces downzoning thanks to a Transfer of Development Rights grant from the Washington State Dept. of Commerce. The City Council is suddenly very unpopular, since the people prefer low density, single family, DETACHED housing.

Demand for single family housing, and also personal mobility by way of the private automobile, will always exist. Certainly in 20 years we will have smaller cars that get 60 miles to the gallon, along with electric cars. However, we will always have single family DETACHED housing with private yards. That's how humans societies have sprawled for thousands of years, and there's no reason why this will change. Read "Sprawl: A Compact History" by Dr. Robert Bruegmann for the explanation.

As for Hilltop, Somerset, Kirkland, and other Mid-Century Modern Communities on quarter acre+ lots, these neighborhoods are among the most highly coveted neighborhoods on the entire West Coast, everywhere from Seattle to San Francisco to Palm Springs. They are not going away, and Mid-Century Modern homes on large lots continue to be built in many areas.

If there are any other "historians" of architecture and landscape architecture here, they will appreciate my comments. However, urban planners, with their smart growth condo towers and clogged narrow streets, have chosen to vilify those of us with an aesthetic sense.

If there are any Democrats reading this who favor affordable single family housing, they will also appreciate my comments about the urban growth boundary restricting cheap $150,000 homes on quarter acre lots.

Bellevue, in my opinion, is the best Seattle area example of a successful "green" suburb with larger lots, native trees, mid century architecture, and lots of open space. I could talk about many of the area's wonderful suburbs for hours. The area has been blessed with very talented architects and landscape architects. Unfortunately, the aesthetically impaired urban planners wish to drive the families to the distal suburbs, and make the City Limits of Seattle a place of ugly, imposing, towering condos that only singles want.

As a parent, I left Seattle to raise kids, not because they needed a yard, I happen to hate weeding, mowing etc, and I would rather my kids got to play on quality play equipment like one finds in any park, but rather because the schools sucked then, and still have a horrible reputation, UNLESS you happen to live near say, Montlake where the PTA pays for stuff that the school board cuts.

Rather than play that game, and I couldn't afford to live close enough to that one school, we moved to the burbs...

Time has passed and now my grown kids are moving back to the city to be close to work, and avoid the drive to work expense, and the night life. Hence, it's not a stagnate city of old people but one in constant flux. I'm not moving because of inertia mainly, and with the housing market, I doubt I could sell anyway.

But the number one thing for parents is the schools. Either you are rich enough to afford private education, or you move to a district where the schools do at least a decent job of educating your kids. It's not about the yard. Even in the suburbs, the kids are all inside playing on their game consoles.

"Cities that do not have them have single family DETATCHED homes for less that $200,000 - such as Albuquerque, NM and Fort Collins, CO"

Those cities also have far fewer jobs. Trust me, if I could find decent employment in a small city with good boating access, more sunshine and a longer summer, I'd move. But where one lives is always a tradeoff between what one wants to work at, where the jobs are, and where the leisure time stuff is, ie how far do you have to go to have fun, and decent schools for parents.

I'd live on the Shore of CA, work 2 hrs a day, surf the rest of the time if I ever found someone to pay me enough to do that....ha ha!

Ok, Tom9, you want unrestricted growth, but how do you propose to pay for the auto infrastructure? Historically, this kind of growth leads to demand for more and larger freeways, parking lots, water, sewer, on and on. All these have been subsidized for the past 50 years or so by people not living in the suburbs.

Just a data note. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of single family houses in Seattle INCREASED from 132,908 to 135,420. We are doing an excellent job of increasing the total number of dwelling units (by 38,000 in that decade) by maximizing the density of existing multi-family zoning, and we can continue to grow for a considerable period of time without affecting single family housing. The many different varieties of families look for different types of housing, but it is simply inaccurate to claim, as some have, that Seattle is decreasing the number of single family residences, or that this is required to implement growth management.

@GaryP who wrote: "Those cities [Albuquerque and Ft. Collins, Colorado] also have far fewer jobs. Trust me, if I could find decent employment in a small city with good boating access, more sunshine and a longer summer, I'd move."

Gary, if you like Seattle that's great, because we all have our own preferences. Personally, I love the four corners states much more than Seattle.

Albuquerque is recovering from their unemployment peak at nearly 9%. They are now down to about 7%. Santa Fe is 6%. Just like Seattle, ABQ has many high paying employers: Intel, Kirkland/Sandia National Labs, Genzyme in neighboring Santa Fe, the University of NM, Various aviation companies, T-Mobile ...

ABQ Largest employers Number of employees
Kirtland AFB (Civilian) 17,125
University of New Mexico 15,835
Albuquerque Public Schools 11,700
Sandia National Laboratories 7,700
City of Albuquerque 6,940
Presbyterian 5,800
State of New Mexico 5,660
Lovelace Sandia Health System 5,400
Kirtland AFB (Military) 5,240
Intel Corporation 5,200

Ft. Collins also has many high paying employees: Colorado State University, and:

FC Largest county employers Number of employees
Colorado State University 6,948
Poudre School District 3,732
Hewlett Packard 3,000
Poudre Valley Health System 2,814
Agilent Technologies 2,800
Thompson School District 2,000
City of Fort Collins 1,400
Larimer County 1,394
McKee Medical Center 950
Advanced Energy 800

@Rich Conlin on the Seattle City Council -

So you are driving folks like me OUT of Seattle with your $400,000 towering condos. We go to places like Albuquerque and Fort Collins, where single family homes with yards are under $200,000. Clearly, you only want rich singles and retirees to live in the City Limits.

Mr. Conlin, it is MY opinion that the local governments of both Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Fort Collins are more socially liberal than Seattle, since they - unlike your City Council and the PSRC - do not provide nearly as many incentives for unaffordable smart growth towers, and therefore, housing is AFFORDABLE.

How would you respond to this?

@Tom9,

I'm totally with you on the bad aesthetic sensibilities of city planners, and the insane codes they try to place on design. And I love mid-century modern design and communities like Hilltop, my point was just they aren't examples of Landscape Urbanism as it has recently been defined.

Seattle is a difficult place to find affordable single-family housing. However, there are smaller cities where housing is insanely affordable right now. Those smaller cities have good infrastructure, public transportation, and access to jobs and/or more established transit options to Seattle. There is no need to be developing greenfield sites, removing forests, and paving rich agricultural land, when there are affordable housing options in cities like Tacoma and Everett. And if you make the case that these cities are not safe or that the schools are not good, well that's because developers keep luring families away from these communities. It's not purely market driven either, the Master Builder's Association Association is one of the strongest lobbying orgnization in the state. Ours is an economy fueled by geographic growth. Now's the time to change that.

HI all, I reread my piece, and repeat, again, that in no way did I say or imply that there is anything "wrong" about Seattle. All I pointed out is that places differ from one another. Seattle is and will be what it's citizens and investors desire it to be. But the same is true of rival places. My detractors are intolerant in implying that only Seattle has seen the light, and that those who might prefer a suburban lifestyle are obsolete or misguided. Besides, as others have pointed out, even Seattle still has a sizable share of family housing at fairly high densities- 4000-7000 per square mile.

I believe your article went south here:

"This pattern is not new. But because of growth management and the concentration of higher-density redevelopment in the core cities, the gradient is perhaps more marked than earlier."

If you had stuck to discussing correlation and avoided declaring causation, it would have made more sense. That and the title, which was not your doing.

@Andy - There's nothing wrong with Morrill's article. Absolutely nothing. The new maps are great. It's a valuable resource for all of us in the planning and architectural fields. I am indebted to Dr. Morrill for informing me of many demographic facts about the Seattle region. He is the #1 resource for all growth related issues for the Seattle area.

The Seattle City Limits do not offer enough housing choices with private yards for the Middle Class. The suburbs around Seattle will continue to grow, indefinitely. The Puget Sound Regional Council's urban growth boundary around King / Pierce / Snohomish / Kitsap counties diverts single family housing to counties not operating under PSRC rules. Single family housing is cheaper in Mt. Vernon, Ellensburg, Centralia, and Shelton - areas outside of the 4 county UGB. People are willing to commute long distances, because they desire private yards and better schools for their children, and closer access to fishing, hiking, and hunting.

Urban planners by definition are left brain dominant. Therefore, they lack an understanding of basic human psychology and good housing design. Families require privacy as a minimum requirement. This is not met by towering big box condos in the Seattle and Tacoma city limits.

If you want to make the world a better place, and a greener place, then work within the "suburban system" to make urban sprawl "greener" in both form, function, and appearance. For example, require that at least half of all native trees be preserved on construction sites. And, require that bike lanes be built on all new highways. And, require tall walls and tall trees to separate noisy boulevards from residential areas.

Urban sprawl is not going away. Neither is the personal automobile. So, let's learn to make our suburbs the greenest they can be. Build electric car charging stations at all suburban gas stations, not just those along I-5. Give tax breaks for new homes that encompass passive solar design. Establish a passive solar construction ordinance like they have in Ashland, Oregon.

I'm a tree hugger. So I think it's getting ridiculous to have the pro-smart growth, pro-high density, pro-conrete, pro-development folks constantly attacking the rest of us green low-density designers. If you notice, it's always the pro-smart growth folks who attack the rest of us, not the other way around. I'm getting really tired of this. I wish that those who are pro-smart growth would at least acknowledge the contributions from those of us with alternatives, such as passive solar building design, electric cars, smart cars, natural gas powered vehicles, tree ordinances, and ordinances to require revegetation with plants native to the Pacific NW, helping wild bird populations, which are in serious trouble.

Here are some examples of native birds in my parents' suburb in suburban Seattle, that have decreased in population (by percentage), OR EVEN DISAAPEARED, due to a loss of native vegetation - since this suburb does not have a tree ordinance - They used to have DOZENS of species on their property and I don't remember all of them -

Song Sparrow, down by 75%
Varied Thrush (seasonal), down by 90%
House Wren, down by 50%
American Robin (!) down by 50%
Flickers - 90%
Towhee - 70%

House Finch - GONE
Purple Finch - GONE
Evening Grosbeak - GONE
Sharp Shinned Hawk - GONE
Woodpeckers - GONE
Quail - GONE
Cowbird - GONE (well, we do not care about that loss, since cowbirds are a nest parasite! I recall when they used to go after innocent Towhees!)

With that said about wild birds, may I point out that the (bipartisan) Mountains to Sound Greenway is planting native trees! If only the City of Seattle City Council could do the same ... -Tom9

Just one data point here: We left Seattle 2 years ago, 10 months after having a child. Single family homes were too expensive, and public schools not good enough, for us to stay. We are distinctly middle class and *could not afford* a decent combination of reasonable space (1500ish sqft) and good schools (public or private) without being really far away from job centers in the Seattle area.

Seattle was very good to us while we were there in our late 20s and early 30s: we had decent jobs, made great professional contacts, and I earned a great education. It will continue to be just that to many like us. But once the child came along it was very clear what we wanted (which are reasonable expectations I think) was not available, so we moved, and we are not alone. 2 of our best life decisions have been to move to and from Seattle.

I contend that many (read: not all) of those who push all of the pro smart-growth, anti-sprawl, etc., arguments either had children long ago and are comfortably living as empty-nesters, or are young and not married and/or have not had children yet.

Good day

@ one.person ... Your story is not unique for the Seattle region, since home prices have been increasing due to the urban growth boundary, and the growth management act. You'll read other forums and find others like you posting on forums - after they left - for cities with similar socialistic growth management policies, such as Boulder and San Francisco.

Your question about who the proponents of smart growth are is very good. However, there are many young singles - myself included - who exit Seattle, due specifically to smart growth, and the resulting high cost of living. I've left the area several times in search of larger properties and a more rural atmosphere, and due to the cost of living. I dislike the unsightly, towering smart growth architecture, and it's all unaffordable except for white collar Microsoft employees.

I mean, 5 story condos in Issaquah Highlands, and 60 foot tall storefronts for big box stores at the Renton Landing is ridiculous. Smart growth architecture is institutional and ostentatious, and looks more like Phoenix, not Seattle. I prefer the more laid back atmosphere of small college towns like Ashland (OR) and Durango (CO), and I should point out that many small college towns are just as liberal on social issues as Seattle.

The Bohemian artistic types - musicians, artists, and architects - along with the tree huggers and permaculturalists - we detest urban planners, and get out of places like Seattle and Portland. We go to small towns: Bend, Ashland, Durango, Lake Tahoe, Mammoth Lakes and vicinity, Flagstaff, Sedona, Prescott, San Luis Obispo, Fort Collins, Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Alamosa, Crestone, Salida, and Ithaca, NY ... there are many great small town alternatives for those into environmental conservation, native plants, birdwatching, fishing/hunting, personal fitness, organic foods, mountain biking, you name it ...

The problem is, many small towns don't want newcomers, so prices tend to rise since they establish urban growth boundaries. However, their overall cost of living is still much less than Seattle, often due to much shorter commutes ...

Tom9, I am having a bit of a hard time understanding you. It is clear you want to live in the suburbs and have a yard, but it is unclear how you want to pay for that privilege. Currently the suburbs are being subsidized by the cities (via auto and oil subsidies).

If you want to move to a small town that is fine. Some people are city mice and some people are country mice.

Where is your (and Mr. Morrel's) proof that the urban growth boundary is increasing house prices in Seattle? Last time I checked house prices are decreasing radically in Seattle. Are you just making this up?

You wrote:

"The Bohemian artistic types - musicians, artists, and architects - along with the tree huggers and permaculturalists - we detest urban planners, and get out of places like Seattle and Portland. "

This is just really silly and wacky! Sometimes it seems these are the ONLY people that live in Seattle and Portland. It is getting harder and harder to find a good redneck bar in Seattle anymore--they are all moving to the suburbs!

One.person: Your story is an example of the rise of expectations over the decades. My street is mostly composed of post-WWII houses of 800 sq ft, two bedrooms/one bathroom. They were built to house families, and they did so for many decades; some still do. That was considered to be a decent-sized house for a family. And yet when you had one child, you felt you needed at least 1,500 sq ft, and didn't like the public schools, so you moved out of Seattle.

That was certainly your choice. But it was a choice, not a necessity.

sarah90: Of course it was a choice! Did I state in any way that it was not a choice? I even made a clear statement about *our decision* to move in and out of Seattle.

And yes, of course, people used to live in smaller places. Your story is *also* an example of the rise in expectations over the decades. Not only did families formerly live in even less square footage than you do, they still do in New York City, amongst many other places! Many homes smaller than yours were/are considered to be a decent-sized house for a family. Why don't we take this line of reasoning even further back and talk about when very large families did not live in a permanent structure at all? Wow, talk about rising expectations!

Cheers to you on stating the obvious and thereby making no point at all!

Well, one.person, as far as making no point (rather than a point you don't agree with, here's what you said:

"We are distinctly middle class and *could not afford* a decent combination of reasonable space (1500ish sqft)..".

People can make their own judgment about that "reasonable space" comment. We needn't go back to cave living to do so.

Andy, you wrote:

"Tom9, I am having a bit of a hard time understanding you. It is clear you want to live in the suburbs and have a yard, but it is unclear how you want to pay for that privilege. Currently the suburbs are being subsidized by the cities (via auto and oil subsidies)."

Tom9 replies: I have heard this "suspicion" expressed from New Urbanists (Smart Growth proponents) that there are undisclosed "oil and auto subsidies" paying for the suburbs, whatever that means. What specifically do you mean by this?

There are no "oil and auto" subsidies paying for my parents' property in suburban Seattle. I have never read anything in the planning literature that "the suburbs" are being "paid for" by oil and auto subsidies.

Instead, infrastructure in the suburbs is provided by way of Impact Fees, Property Taxes, sales taxes, and other fees. There are no subsidies coming from American automobile companies or Big Oil.

You continue:

"If you want to move to a small town that is fine. Where is your (and Dr. Morrill's) proof that the urban growth boundary is increasing house prices in Seattle? Last time I checked house prices are decreasing radically in Seattle. Are you just making this up?"

Prices are decreasing due to a traditional economic boom and bust cycle in the national housing market. This was induced by both the urban growth boundary and the national banking situation. However, is is clear that regions of the US with growth management have more foreclosures, since they experienced the highest prices during the bubble.

While Seattle home prices continue to drop, many of us believe that this is a permanent correction with no recovery, unless the urban growth boundary expands and construction resumes. Once they hit the pre-growth management levels from the late 1980's (i.e. $150,000 for a 4 bedroom home), they will start to increase at the rate of inflation.

You ask about references for the UGB and housing costs. Search for Dr. Richard Morrill's two web pages at the UW, and also for UW Economics Professor Dr. Theo Eicher who also has studied the issue. In the bibliographies to their papers, you will find hundreds of references with case examples nationwide.

Many of the professors' home pages are listed here:
http://smartgrowthusa.wordpress.com/profsskepticalofsmartgrowth/

Tom9 Continued:

"The Bohemian artistic types - musicians, artists, and architects - along with the tree huggers and permaculturalists - we detest urban planners, and get out of places like Seattle and Portland. "

Andy Responded:

"This is just really silly and wacky! Sometimes it seems these are the ONLY people that live in Seattle and Portland. It is getting harder and harder to find a good redneck bar in Seattle anymore--they are all moving to the suburbs!"

Many Bohemian types quickly get tired of Seattle and its increasing congestion. They exit Seattle for places like Eugene, Bend, Ashland, Prescott, Sedona, Santa Fe (NM), Joshua Tree, CA, etc. etc. I don't know what you mean by a redneck, since I have met many rednecks who are environmentalists and green eco-builders, such as in Sedona and also New Mexico.

However, I would not characterize the suburbs of Seattle as being full of rednecks moving out of Seattle. In fact, I believe that either Dr. Morrill or another contributor here to Crosscut has shown that the Average Educational Attainment has actually increased in the Seattle suburbs. Indeed, I think that people in rural areas (that you might call rednecks) probably have a higher environmental ethic that most of us in the suburbs ... since they raise their children next to nature, and teach them to fish, hunt, and how to build fire protection lines in the forest around their homes.

-Tom9

@one.person

The suburbs have better schools, as demonstrated by the California API scores that are mapped at this very interesting interactive map.

You'll see that for any large metro area in California (San Francisco, San Diego, etc.), the highest ranked schools are in the suburbs - with a distinct ring of blue around every large metro.

In addition, you'll see that rural areas generally score better than inner city areas.

Could this be a result of misguided smart growth densification, contributing to health problems in children that distract from learning (such as elevated cortisol from background noise levels, latex exposures from tires, drugs and crime, and inflammatory mediators from accumulated air pollution?

Yet another reason to get the traffic off our clogged city streets, and on to freeways with more lanes.

If you are truly green, then you raise your children in the suburbs and rural areas, for these and other reasons. I don't have any children but there's no way I would raise them in the City limits of Seattle.

Not to mention that they would be indoctrinated with false information, such as the alledged benefits of the status quo - i.e. Socialism, and Obama's wars and other policies, instead of learning about how the real world works from Thomas Sowell, Milton Freedman, Adam Smith, and Laissez Faire Capitalism.

Check out California cities, and also Colorado and other cities at the home page. And, irregardless of your political persuasion, go raise your children in the suburbs, and you will never regret making the move. The differences in values between a suburb like Maple Valley and Maple Leaf in the Seattle City limits are tremendous.

Folks, and Richard Conlin on the council, please understand the Truth about the suburbs. There are profound differences between the suburbs and the high density singles areas that most parents dislike. Leave the suburbanites alone and stop upzoning them to 15 units an acre while driving light rail lines through their backyards. You are very disrespectful to working families with your rather arrogant smart growth agenda. I mean, you and I all grew up in the suburbs so why complain about where we were born and raised. Our parents had more money than any of us will ever have and could afford homes with private yards. The only way I could ever afford that is to move to Joshua Tree, California or Syracuse, New York.

http://www.schoolperformancemaps.com/ca/

sarah90: Sorry, but I still don't get it. You say "a point that you [meaning me] don't agree with..." I have agreed with everything you have directly said RE: people living in smaller spaces in the past and present, and even carried it to its logical end for you. I also agreed, and originally stated, that it was our choice to move.

Is your point that 1500 square feet is an unreasonable (I presume unreasonably large) expectation of space? If that is your point, rather than shuffle about, why not be straight and say it?

If "people can make their own judgement," why do you judge our desires and decisions? Or does that only apply to people whose judgements are in line with yours?

Good day

Oops, I have been feeding the trolls--sorry.

@Andy .... Actually, you came onto this forum and were critical of those of us who oppose "smart growth" and growth management. I'm actually a tree hugger who favors 1/2 to 1 acre lots, with mandatory tree ordinances, and separated by freeways with 50 foot walls (like in Vegas and Phoenix), so by no means please do not call me a troll ! LOL :-)

Dr. Morrill has been at least a two decade critic of growth management, and the urban growth boundary, you may read his classic paper with David Hodge at the link at the bottom of the post (along with others).

As one who looks for good design solutions to growing populations, Andy, I can assure you that there are no morally "right" or morally "wrong" solutions, and therefore you are not feeding "anyone" who chooses to post here.

There certainly is a market for high density living, mainly for singles and the elderly, in high density urban environments especially near colleges where students don't own cars. It sounds like you like this type of growth and perhaps even live in a Smart Growth Tower downtown somewhere.

However, the vast majority of us in the Seattle Metro area population prefer the suburbs. Only 500,000 persons live in the Seattle City Limits, out of a population of several million in the metro.

The current Seattle smart growth land use policies increase housing rents and decrease square footage (in towering condos). Therefore, families, including minority families, are moving to the suburbs for cheaper rents. That is why we see an increasingly Caucasian and Educated Seattle and a migration of the lower and middle classes of all ethnicities to the suburbs. Places like the city limits of Denver, Boulder, Seattle, and Ashland, Oregon have well over 50% with a bachelors or higher. Up and coming places like Bend, Oregon are less than 50%, and will soon exceed 50% as folks exit Seattle and Portland for Bend.

Those of us Social Liberals who favor policies that promote income and racial equality do not agree with smart growth, since in many cases rents become so expensive for minorities who move out of the City limits. Caucasians with children have to move out of the City Limits as well.

This phenomena is not unique to the Seattle City Limits. Portland is also very Caucasian, and San Francisco has becoming increasingly richer every year for 30 years, see: http://smartgrowthusa.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/why-are-some-towns-so-expensive/ Whereas this same post shows that Las Vegas, with less regulations, has actually recruited more poor individuals over the same time period.

You may also check this article out on high density leading to poorer health in children, a study from New Zealand -

http://motu-www.motu.org.nz/wpapers/06_09.pdf

The best studies on urban growth boundaries are from Professors at top academic institutions. For example:

1. Dr. Theo Eicher, University of Washington, Seattle Times on $200,000 in Fees and Costs added to new homes: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004181704_eicher14.html

2. Another site for Theo Eicher: http://depts.washington.edu/teclass/landuse/

3. Dr. Richard Morrill, University of Washington: Myths and Facts about Growth Management (1991 classic article with David Hodge): http://depts.washington.edu/teclass/landuse/myths_and_facts.pdf

4. Dr. Joe Gyourko, Wharton School of Real Estate, University of Pennsylvania: http://real.wharton.upenn.edu/~gyourko/index.htm

5. Dr. Joe Gyourko and Dr. Ed Glaeser of Harvard on Zoning’s Steep Price: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n3/v25n3-7.pdf

6. Dr. Haifang Huang, University of Alberta: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/albaec/2010_011.html

And many others, as summarized in the reference sections of these and other papers. -Tom9

This recent article shows that 20 to 30 somethings do not stay in Smart Growth San Francisco that long. The author describes San Francisco as a "revolving door" as young singles hope to move there permanently, but find it expensive and lacking a sense of community. That is unfortunate to read.

How long do young singles reside in Seattle city limits, before moving to condos in the suburbs? Do they get married while living in the city limits, or outside of the City? Comments?

Whereas in a college town, or any small town, like Bend, Oregon, everything takes place in the city of 80,000 persons over perhaps the City's land area of 25 square miles (enclosed by an urban growth boundary, although there are neighboring smaller cities of Redmond, Prineville, Terreborne, Sisters, LaPine, Madras, Sunriver, etc. - yet Bend is the major city of commerce in Deschusets and adjacent counties).

http://www.elpasonews.org/2011/06/24/commentary-the-fallacy-of-smart-growth-part-1/

Commentary: The Fallacy of Smart Growth, Part 1

Posted on June 24, 2011 by Martín Paredes

"Much community discussion about Smart Growth has been ongoing in the community recently. Absent from the discussion is sustainability. San Francisco can be characterized as a city employing the principals of smart growth. It is a good case study....."

"Go to University Village in the mornings and you see no end of young mothers their kids and dogs in tow, they sure are proliferating there, and they are well to do to be able to shop for hours!
Those statistics are extremely stupid and the way conclusions are extrapolated from them.

— mikerol"

I know mikerol is unlikely to see this, but this is an issue near and dear to my heart...the play space at the U-Village is, as far as I know, the ONLY free covered play area in the entire city. Far from being evidence of the proliferation of the families with children in Seattle, this congregating effect is evidence of our marginalization in the community and our need for greater representation in the local government.