I appreciate the frank talk about the financial interest homeowners have in limiting supply. But I also think that talk of density as a universally virtuous quality just doesn't ring true, as most people have seen places where density was high but that they would not want to live in. (The opposite is also true, that most people have seen places that were so devoid of people and human interaction that they would not want to live there either.)
The challenge is to create a vision of what a place could realistically be like with more density, one that includes essential components of livability and that facilitates positive interaction among neighbors. For most people, believing that kind of vision depends on having seen something like it before somewhere else, but Seattle has few examples of higher density. Those we have are not for everyone, Think of U-District, Capitol Hill, First Hill, Belltown, Bitter Lake, Ballard, or Northgate. Each has its problems along with its charms. It should not be a surprise that folks resist the call for density for density's sake, or the urge for the "big move" that upzones everything without respect to the nuances that make a place special. The care with which upzones have been applied in the Pike- Pine area tells the story - Capitol Hill is our densest neighbhood by far, and people of all stripes (owners, renters, business operators, rich and poor) have resisted the urge to throw the doors open to whatever the market will bear. That is because they like their village, too.

Will Roger EVER get a story right?

FACT: This is not about density. The Sustainable, Livable Roosevelt Plan (SLRP) created by the neighborhood has MORE density than the Mayor's proposal.

FACT: The Roosevelt neighborhood lobbied VERY hard to get the station in their business district. This is not a case of NIMBYism.

FACT: Roosevelt has been trying to get the city to upzone their neighborhood since before 2006. The city drug their heels.

FACT: The developer who gets the benefit from this density has $700,000 (SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS) in fines pending at the city. He's a slumlord and a terrible, terrible neighbor.

If you love your neighborhood's quality of life and like to think you have some say in how it grows, you should write City Council and complain about this decision ahead fo the final vote in January. Roosevelt did *everything* the city asked -- do a plan for growth, eagerly accept growth, accept significant density -- and in return they asked one thing: Please limit heights to 40' near Roosevelt High School.

Spurred on by gadflys currently or formerly (like Roger) employed by the company contracted by the slumlord for architetural design, the Mayor told Roosevelt they had to take 65 feet by Roosevelt High School. The neighborhood objected, and created the SLRP plan that added even more density to their neighborhood to preserve the 40' height by the high school.

Hundreds of people turned out at a special City Council meeting at Roosevelt High School to tell Council they were excited about the density, they supported the SLRP, and to not do 65' by the high school.

Council ignored hundreds of Roosevelt neighbors who support density in their neighborhood and caved to the neo-urbanist gadflys.

This isn't a density versus no density issue. This is an issue of when neighborhoods take on density they ought to have the right to say where it goes.

Please email Council today and tell them to preserve 40' near Roosevelt High School as the Roosevelt Community is requesting. The final vote isn't until January and your email could make a difference to Roosevelt and, down the road, the quality of life in your own neighborhood.

David Miller

Economists tend to think people act with rationality, such as single family dwellers seek to limit supply so that their home values remain stable or increase. I suggest owners of many single family homes rarely think about density issues with money in mind, but rather, trying to "defend" their sense of place, of home. And while developers may not be bad, and may "only" want a return on their investments, most of them do not live in the places they develop, despite their well done marketing campaigns of "creating a place to live," they build and leave. It's the residents who then continue to struggle with what happened to "their home" and sense of place.

By the way, most development in this city is done not by an individual, but by companies and the investors are rarely individuals but a cobbled together pool of pensions, investment funds, and bank loans. It's a little difficult for Pension Fund X to actually care about a neighborhood in Seattle.

My sense of Seattle, a place where my family has multi-generational roots, is that no one is defining an vision for what Seattle is and should be other than the boosterism of "world class city," which I've heard since the 1950s and is meaningless. My sense of the current crop of "chattering" class is they have become mini-me's of every city they visit (Portland at the top of the list, as well as every European city with transit "cool"). As a consequence we see this hodgepodge of development and transit planning which seems meaningless to the average person because there are no overarching goals other than the "density" is good and "transit" is a must. I think because residents can not define how all this fits together, much less how their need for home and sense of place distinct from Portland or Vancouver, BC, there is a undercurrent of confusion and distrust of the centralized planners from downtown. And then to have the City Council vote against the wishes of the neighborhood only confirms resident's suspicions of lack of voice and a worship of the density Gods (kudos to the developers who figured out how to engage environmentalists in their cause, by the way).

As much as I don't like quoting any city council person, Jean Godden had it right about the vote to upzone. Not only will a "legacy" school lose it's soul, but the neighborhood will too. Sometimes soul can not be defined in by the currency of the downtown planners and economists. It is, however, what makes one city distinct from another.

I sometimes wonder if Roger and any or the density folks who all describe the Roosevelt as a single family neighborhood have ever been to the Roosevelt neighborhood and the area involved in the rezone. It is hardly just single family housing. There is a great deal of multi-family housing already existing in the rezone area.

Roger, you and the density folk need to stop spinning this fable you have invented.

I read the comments in the Publicola article, and they create the impression that the density boosters will never, ever, listen to the people who actually live in neighborhoods.

This could well be a case of "win the battle, lose the war" because the way this has been handled makes it less likely, not more likely, that a city-wide effort that Mr Valdez calls for is likely to happen. Every neighborhood group is going to realize all their efforts and plans could well be derailed by well-meaning, but clueless, non residents, and that they need maximum protection possible from the current fragmented system. The comment about pension funds and slumlords is right on target: they obviously don't care about character or livability, they just want their money.

"Neighborhoods matter, but so does the city and region. People that happen to live near transit should have a voice in how it's built and how Transit Oriented Development (TOD) happens, but not an exclusive or disproportionate voice."

We're not asking for an exclusive or disproportionate voice. This neighborhood has worked with the city for more than a decade. We have one of the oldest neighborhood plans which has been regularly updated per the city. We gave the City more density than asked for by either the Mayor or DPD (Mr. Valdez consistently and conveniently forgets that.) We've done our homework and know our neighborhood and have NEVER said no to upzoning.

The City should be careful who they do business with in the name of density. Even Councilman Rasmussen said neither the developer nor the landowners of the blocks in front of the high school could be trusted. This landowner, according to Tim Burgess, has had multiple and costly fines over the last 10+ years at more than half their properties and owe the City $700k.

Yes, these are the people you want to do business with and can trust to build quality housing.

What's fascinating is this call for density doesn't seem to include the block directly south of the high school blocks. For on the corner of 65NE and NE 15th, a rebuild of the fruit stand (directly across the street) is occurring. Is this a modern 4-story building (as it is zoned for) that will provide more density to the neighborhood? It is not. It's another squat, ugly building that provides zero density.

Mr. Valdez really should get his facts straight before he sits down to write. At least then he might have a credible argument.

Also could Mr Valdez explain why there's nothing being built above the rail station itself?

Here's an idea: if the rail station won't have anything built above it, then just put it in the area where the 40 foot buildings would go.

Roger, I wish you or one of the density advocates could define for me how much density the region needs to support via tax base and ridership the system you all wax poetic about. You know the system that provides the access and flexibility to allow us to give up autos.

Density proponents often refer to the NYC metro area as one that functions with this type of rail system. But the only place that is really true is Manhattan which is 10x as dense as Seattle). The rest of the region (4 to 5 times Seattle density)suffers from extreme traffic congestion and I would argue a diminished quality of life when compared to SEattle. At least that was true 2 years ago when I was last there. Try driving the Long Island Expressway (or any of the major NY routes) otherwise known as the worlds longest linear parking lot.

You argue that rail is needed for the 5 million we will have in our region. Be honest density folks. It will require much more growth to support your rail dreams. How much growth and what cost to the quality of life is the true number?

I think the density = developer idea of building more and more is "if you build it they will come." Indeed, it could be that the next "bubble" is in high density housing (it's all you hear now), such that prices will continue to fall and rental rates, while increasing, are predicted to fall within the next 12 months given all that is coming on the market. Developers don't make their money in rents, or sales for that matter, but rather in the fees they charge their investors to put together the project. The more projects = the more fees.

This is such a generic argument, it seems the author was familiar with none of the specifics of the Roosevelt fight. There is no concept of the "Demand" component of "supply and demand" which is more dynamic than Valdez implies. The only part of this article which couldn't have been used in any land use fight at any point in the last twenty years is the defense of developers as plain honest "people trying to make a return on an investment". Has he met any Sisleys, or their tenants?

Wealthy developers are indeed part of the 1%. Their campaign contributions lubricate local elections, here and in too many localities.

"The truth is that density in the urban core absorbs growth more sustainably than any other pattern of land use."

Roger, you have no facts to persuade me that this is true. Density isn't 'sustainable' any more than any other pattern of land use. The only way to be truly 'sustainable', is for the particular use to have a long term appeal to a strong number of people. Without solid usefulness, and visual appeal, density simply festers.

As a single family owner, I simply do not want to live on a street that mixes more and more duplexes or multi-family uses. It's not because I'm worried about the value of my home, it is because I value having fewer neighbors on my street. I believe that many areas inside Seattle neighborhoods are becoming far too dense. They aren't comfortable, nor are they likely to be sustainable for 100 years like many of our traditional Seattle neighborhoods have been.

What I'm seeing more and more frequently in the last decade, is that the higher density is resulting in new construction that is cheaply built, and poorly maintained. There seems to be little "pride of ownership" in many areas where this mix of housing style proliferates -- and the lacking "price of ownership" properties are not the tried & true single family homes, they are the newer multi-family density homes.

That isn't sustainable, nor does it create community.

FACT: The Roosevelt neighborhood lobbied VERY hard to get the station in their business district. This is not a case of NIMBYism.

David Miller, you got this exactly right and this article is a bit off the rails in that respect. Roosevelt lobbied Sound Transit HEAVILY to get the station planted in the neighborhood rather than parked against the side of the freeway. Hardly a case of NIMBYism.

In fact, I worked directly with the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association to come up with YIMFY (Yes In My Front Yard) campaign and they successfully lobbied Sound Transit to put the station in the neighborhood.

The current concerns seem to revolve around the impacts to Roosevelt High School, which is a historic building. This would seem to be a pretty reasonable concern for the neighborhood to have.

Roger, you write about density as if it's a universal good. But it's not good unless it's located well and implemented with sensitivity. It matters how it's done. We've all seen it done badly, and that's one of the reasons people get sensitive. I second the many thoughtful comments above.

The recent "discussion" in Publicola and the Transit blog were embarrassing! Advocates for density literally argued that neighborhood residents shouldn't have the right to a voice in the density debate. People who had worked for years to accommodate higher densities around a future light rail station were accused of being "anti density," and vilified as selfish and "conservative" because they didn't want six story buildings across the street from a school. You argue that higher density can be done tastefully and developers aren't all bad (both of which I strongly agree with and have advocated for in my own neighborhood), but the developer we're talking about here has an established standing as a slumlord with no concern for the community. You're suggesting that people that don't trust him to do the right thing in this neighborhood are anti-density, when in fact they want density to be done in a way that will fit with and strengthen the community.

I'm coming to think that density advocates are often the greatest obstacle to public acceptance of their own cause. I see a lot of preaching, not a lot of listening, and little awareness of how important it is to do it right and treat neighbors as partners. The ways to make density acceptable are to listen and work with communities to fit their vision, take care that the transitions between low and high density will be tasteful and not abrupt, and ensure that the developers allowed to play in the urban landscape are subject to effective design and development reviews. Giving a scofflaw slumlord ransom and a free hand will do nothing to promote the cause of urban density, and the city council's recent actions will only harden neighborhoods against density ideologues. You need to work with people and prove your point - that's the answer to your question. I don't think people are as resistant to density as they are to patronizing ideologues and advocates who believe light rail statistics are more important than community participation, livability and trust.

U.S. Population Grows at Slowest Rate Since 1940s

::quote
The population of the United States is growing at its slowest rate in more than 70 years, the U.S. Census Bureau said on Wednesday.

The country's population increased by an estimated 2.8 million to 311.6 million from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011. The growth rate of 0.92 percent was the lowest since the mid-1940s.

"The nation's overall growth rate is now at its lowest point since before the Baby Boom," Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said in a statement.
::quote

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/12/22/us-population-grows-at-slowest-rate-since-140s/#ixzz1hIz90t9Z

More rats in the cage. Sounds good. Sign me up. I like a space with a view of the Sound, free of diesel smoke, and plague vaccinations on demand.