Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Mark Ufkes and William Gerdes some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    The Mossback Manifesto on urban density

    How to think about preserving culture while the city swells. Some principles: Pay attention to NIMBYs, who are sometimes right. Not all density is good (or bad). And we can't have too much sense of place and history.

    Vulcan and the Green Lab collaborating: Building a new mixed use complex - the Stack House - and adapting the landmark Supply Laundry Building into new commercial space in Cascade.

    Vulcan and the Green Lab collaborating: Building a new mixed use complex - the Stack House - and adapting the landmark Supply Laundry Building into new commercial space in Cascade. Vulcan Real Estate

    Mixing old and new at South Lake Union.

    Mixing old and new at South Lake Union. Chris Moore

    Density's delights: bookstores, sidewalk cafes, getting around by foot or bike.

    Density's delights: bookstores, sidewalk cafes, getting around by foot or bike. Joe Mabel

    There's been a bit of a cool down in the growth wars since the Great Recession kicked-in and the housing bubble burst. Still, the cranes, like swallows to Capistrano, have returned to South Lake Union, and skirmishes are breaking out here and there around town.

    One brewing battle is over the possible Sonics arena in SoDo, and the threat it might pose to the industrial area and the Port of Seattle. Is freight mobility compatible with NBA basketball? How many stadiums can a stadium district or a city this size support?

    Another is the redevelopment of a key chunk of Capitol Hill's Pike-Pine neighborhood — the impending leveling of the Bauhaus half-block and its possible replacement with a large project by a (gasp) Bellevue developer. As Dominic Holden wrote in The Stranger, "Understandably, people went apeshit." Many other projects are in the pipeline for the neighborhood. The city has passed regulations to "conserve" the district, but is that really working?

    Another argument is over whether parking requirements should be relaxed for some developments near transit corridors.

    Growth wars here quickly turn into culture wars: What kind of city are we building, whose city is it? Will it still have a "soul" when it's over? The ghosts of Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses in their eternal struggle.

    After some time off from development skirmishes, I wanted to review some of the principles that guide my thinking going forward. I do this as someone who has both criticized, and often been mis-characterized, on issues like density and historic preservation. In some cases, I've gotten what I deserved because I have also been willing to paint with a broad brush. Contrary to popular belief, I am not mindlessly anti-density and pro-car, nor do I wish to live in the Seattle of 1972. I also recognize that density proponents are not intent on destroying Seattle.

    My favored form of urbanism, call it Mossback Urbanism, shares some common ground with those who often see themselves on the other side of the fence. Diversity, vitality, yes, even some density (the North Parking Lot) can be desirable. One thing that is true, however: I don't think NIMBYs are always wrong. It's not an epithet in my vocabulary. In fact, they often get a bum rap for caring too much at a time when too many citizens don't care enough. NIMBYs are often good folks acting locally and who often know more than the people with clipboards and white boards.

    That said, I don't think the Not-in-My-Backyard stance is sustainable as a guiding philosophy. I think of NIMBYs like those little crabs you find on the beach that raise their claws when you've turned over their rock. They often come by their defensiveness honestly, but you can't live life in a defensive crouch. Everyone needs to be proactive in shaping the kind of city we want.

    Seattle is a town driven by the twin engines of exploitation and utopianism. It's a great place to make a buck, and, as Mayor Mike McGinn phrased it in a recent speech, we're a city of promise. In addition to the scenery and great coffee, we offer a chance for change and improvement. Idealism and greed are the bipolar dilemma around which so many disputes revolve. The truth is, we need some of both, though not in equal measure.

    Here are some of the things I'm keeping in mind when thinking about development to come:

    Creativity: Commercial development is largely a copy-cat business, driven by code and the desire to reduce risk. That's partly how you end up with a plague of six-pack town homes, a rash of skinny houses, or an uplift of soulless box towers. We need to find ways of incentivizing creativity and flexibility. The problem is, without strong design review too much defaults to mediocrity or worse. On the other side, too much overview and design by committee and rule book can also yield poor results.

    Ideally, I'd love to see a system in which architects and builders can operate the Nordstrom way: use your best judgment, do what's right for the customer. In this case, the customer is the city and the neighborhood. How does the project enhance city life? Sterile, inaccessible public spaces aren't enough. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we live in a society that cultivates that kind of wisdom or responsible behavior. Still we have plenty of examples of how great design can make a difference in the public and private sector: the downtown Koolhaas library, the Link Light Rail stations in South Seattle, the Space Needle, the new Federal Courthouse, the IBM Building, and Gas Works Park, to name a few.

    Behavior: If builders are judged less on following specific rules and more on outcomes, the behavior of tenants naturally becomes more crucial. How we live in spaces is as critical as their design. For example, if parking requirements are eased for new condos or apartments near transit corridors, their success or failure will largely be judged by whether or not their inhabitants will actually live without cars. If developers want a quicker and cheaper way to adapt old structures, an option could be filling them with tenants who agree to live without air conditioning, or limit the power consumption of their servers.

    In addition to the structure, the behavior of the occupants should count. That, of course, can be tricky to monitor, so measurements need to be developed short of spying on them with SPD's new unmanned drone. A trade-off here is the level of nannyism people accept. In Seattle, I suspect there'll be many people comfortable with living by such rules; look at the local pride in recycling. It might not be for everyone, but if folks want to live with such strictures, great.

    Density and scale: The key is to increase density without treating it like a panacea for urban health. There's good density and bad, there's turning a parking lot into a great apartment complex, and there's displacing thriving small businesses with big-box development (the Pike-Pine dilemma). There is a lot of opportunity around Seattle (The Highway 99 corridor and new waterfront, etc.). Density is a way to get somewhere in an urban plan — not an end in itself. A project should not be judged as dense and therefore good or even tolerable, an argument some urbanists often make. Nor is it the answer everywhere. People who are pro-density still care about the quality of the density, what it adds or doesn't. A neighborhood isn't numbers.

    There are different ways to address density, even without new construction. One is to find ways to increase the number of people living in single family homes (increasing the population of children, co-housing, permitting old-fashioned boarding houses, etc.). But beyond that, we should discourage projects driven by gigantism or profit-maximization in favor of smaller, dense developments — creating modern versions of the Pike Place Market that are fascinating warrens of commercial and residential activity rather than large, sterile complexes. Bigger is not always better. To do this, we'll need to begin to re-define "highest and best use" by emphasizing "best" rather than bottom line. Sometimes best is building a high rise, sometimes it's leaving things alone.

    Choice: This was the mantra of the late Kent Kammerer, grassroots activist and observer of the Seattle Neighborhood Coalition. Kent wanted a city where people could live densely, or not; in trailer parks or in their cars; in single family homes or town homes. He also believed in the wisdom of the folk, in getting to know your neighbor, and lending a helping hand. Seattle needs to be diverse, not just racially or ethnically, but in terms of class and taste, values — and age. A city of young, middle and elderly, with a great mixing of generations. A city of walkers, bikers, drivers and truckers. Kent's lack of cynicism for small "d" democracy was inspiring, and involved taking time to listen and to think. If the city isn't quite the village he imagined, it certainly contains a multitude of villages, or neighborhoods, where this kind of thinking is put into practice every day. The bottom line was, can Seattle keep its egalitarian traditions?

    Self-Reliance: I tend to favor policies that make it easier for people to live and work on their own: live/work spaces, neighborhood retail, corner stores, support for mom & pops, backyard cottages, pea patches, urban farming, local co-ops, etc. The great fabric of the city was laid during the Craftsman era, when it was easy to build bungalows ordered from Sears & Roebuck, raise a garden, make your own furniture. Schools taught industrial arts, home economics, and crafts. Now we have the Web, smart phones, and can run an empire from a nearby Tully's.

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


    Posted Tue, Apr 24, 6:19 a.m. Inappropriate

    The State of New Jersey caused a remarkable increase in the amount of renovation by making its building code more flexible. The basic principle was "let the punishment fit the crime". Rather than a percentage/ value threshold for things like earthquake proofing, the code looked at whether you were doing just an office, a floor, or part of a building, and scaled the upgrades accordingly. Retrofits went from single digit percentages to something like 40 percent of the value of all building.

    Posted Tue, Apr 24, 8:20 a.m. Inappropriate

    "There is a lot of opportunity around Seattle, (the Highway 99 corridor, and new waterfront, etc.)."

    Well, see if you build too much near a freeway, be it I-5 or 99, then you get the social justice rap because the theory is only poorer people will live there. (Even if there is the distinct possibility of great views, that's the belief by some.) So be careful advocating in that direction.

    Sigh. NIMBYs. I wish that term would stop being used improperly. People who argue for imput and vote on the look and feel of neighborhood changes are not NIMBYs. They are community. NIMBYs are people who want NO change. That's not Capitol Hill or Roosevelt.


    Posted Tue, Apr 24, 8:42 a.m. Inappropriate

    It's certainly true that "how" is important, not just "how many."


    Posted Tue, Apr 24, 9:16 a.m. Inappropriate

    Everything Mossback says here makes eminent good sense. Therefore, his plan is doomed to failure... But seriously, I get so sick and tired of urban planners who move people around on city maps as if they were generals' tank columns in a war room. People are not fungible. They are not pawns on the central-planning chess board. They are individuals with their own likes, dislikes, dreams, goals, fears and desires. Planning, as Mr. Berger advocates, needs to take a light touch. It needs to offer people choices, not compel their actions. We've got plenty of people in society trying to push us around all day long. We all need some place to escape from that when day is done. We need to be able to choose our own homes.


    Posted Tue, Apr 24, 10:54 a.m. Inappropriate

    I was an anti-nuke NIMBY in the 70's- there was even a song: "Don't put your nukes in my backyard, my backyard, my backyard..." However, now I probably get lumped in with the "urban planners who move people around on city maps..." because that is the way I think: what are the best places to accomodate the growth that we fully expect in the region? The answer begins with cities, and then within cities, in communities that can be served efficiently by transit. I don't relish the idea of forcing anyone to move, but I recognize that changing the density of a mostly single family area would likely make some people want to move, if only a few blocks further away from the hubbub (although most still like having the shops close by).

    The thing that is ironic in the article is that the language is that of "providing opportunity" and policies that "take a light touch" but the old Mossback doesn't acknowledge that the main means to actually preserve scale and historic fabric are strong regulations- regulations that restrict opportunity and reduce the incentives for change. He does mention design review, which, despite its faults, has been a great success in gaining acceptance of new development. It has been a little bit of the small "d" democracy. That said, I think Mossback has one thing right: density is not a deity to be bowed down before, it is just what we have to live with if we are going to adapt and survive. I think the vision that Knute espouses is generally very much like the one I have- good looking new growth rising up around the best of the old- but getting there through polciy and regulations is not as simple as it sounds.

    Posted Tue, Apr 24, 11:29 a.m. Inappropriate

    Mossback, I have tracked your opinions about "growth" and culture in Seattle for a few years, and this is a decidedly centrist spin for you. Maybe this is where you have been for a while, but I have yet not seen so complete or articulate a thesis. Nice job.

    A few points from someone who loves Seattle and our region and cares deeply about sense of place, be it urban or completely natural.

    1. You state "The key is to increase density without treating it like a panacea for urban health." Actually, the way I see it is urban density is as much about rural health as it is about urban health. Better to fit more people into areas with existing pavement and infrastructure than cut down forests for more houses, roads and sewers.

    2. Once you admit that urban density is at least in part about reducing green field development, then you need to execute densification in ways that meet people's needs and don't send them fleeing into the urban fringe in horror. From my perspective, in practice we have not done a great job of adding density in Seattle.

    From a perspective of aesthetics, few of our efforts have matched what Portland has done in the Pearl district, which feels like a comfortable human scaled neighborhood (albeit besiged by panhandlers, wayword youth and drugs and alcohol, sound familiar?) Compare that with Seattle's dark high rise corridors in Belltown, SLU's generic eastern European boxes or our faux craftsman fronted townhouses and apartments popping up along every major neighborhood boulevard and replacing real craftsman era houses and small apartments. One has to wonder are we getting this right? The term "Craftsman" actually infers there is some "craft" involved in the process, but for the most part this label is now reserved only for modern designs in new construction. How could we do better without succubming to the feared "design police" and highly restrictive building heights? Dunno.

    From a walkability and public transportation perspective, I think we are doing somewhat better. I have taken the bus to work downtown for 17 years and I generally love the convenience and efficiency of the service. In my West Seattle neighborhood the amenities have steadily improved over that same period to the point where I can go for weeks without needing to leave the area except to go to work or visit friends and family "off the peninsula".

    If we want to protect the character and workability of certain neighborhoods or parts of the city, perhaps we should look for conversion of areas that don't currently work as well or have less aesthetic or historic "value" (this is a loaded term), or that are willing and able to accept increased density (I.E. they have parks, transoportation and other services - or could have these) and create centers of urban desity there. Maybe many of these are in Seattle proper, or maybe outside the city limits. Maybe my neighborhood is one of them, or maybe your is.

    On the NIMBY issue, I love the crab under the rock analogy. The species Moseback is referring to most commonly found under rocks in our region is the "hairy shorecrab", or "Hemigrapsus oregonensis". Sort of like a Mossback but with a no-Californication Oregonian twist.

    Posted Tue, Apr 24, 12:58 p.m. Inappropriate

    When we discuss density, those who argue it today -- particularly the folks on Seattle's Planning Commission -- forget we decided where to put Seattle's density two decades ago. They also forget all the data available to us showing this decision is working. We have planty of zoning room under our *existing* zoning for the number of people and jobs we expect to have by 2024 and (by early estimates) out to 2040.

    Seattle agreed to grow in our urban centers. This is where we would concentrate infrastructure and transit. We increased zoning and have made it easier to build there via a variety of rule exemptions.

    In exchange, Seattle agreed to put a "lock" on our single family zones. This preserves the kind of housing variety that makes our neighborhoods so livable. It also preserves our environment because most of our permeable surfaces and over 60% of our city's urban forest canopy are in our single family areas.

    The bottom line is Seattle would never have to upzone another parcel or expand any urban center boundary and we would be able to meet our population and job targets for decades to come.

    In other words, Seattle has done exactly what it promised in order to prevent urban sprawl. It is not Seattle's fault, and certainly not due to a lack of zoned capacity in Seattle, that we saw so much sprawl in the prior decade. Anyone who claims it is Seattle's fault has a financial stake in ignoring the facts.

    Does this mean Seattle should never consider an upzone request? Nope. There are good reasons for considering upzones, particularly in our urban centers. We can get better pedestrian amenities, better spaces for transit, more housing affordable to people who work in the adjacent businesses -- a whole host of societal benefits in exchange for allowing density over plan.

    Sadly, Seattle's leaders have been scared to make these requirements except in a marginal sense. Those who profit from development, especially large building development, sing a very different song about their responsibilities to the communities in which they build. That song isn't justified by the facts in Seattle, but they sing it anyway because it is in their economic interest to do so.

    Anyone who has the temerity to point out these facts is labeled a NIMBY.

    What I find very interesting is several of us NIMBYs are arguing for higher density in Northgate Urban Center to allow for more affordable housing and other badly-needed amenities. We are fighting a specific proposal there that will result in the net loss of over 100 VERY affordable units. We believe the proposal could have additional height to be a win-win, but in any case the affordable housing should be preserved and expanded.

    This has been met by derision from one neo-urbanista who writes for Crosscut and silence from the typical pro-density crowd. It turns out this crowd isn't so much for the "density" they are always yelling about. It seems they are mostly for allowing developers to do whatever they want. I suppose this isn't surprising since Seattle's most voval proponents of widespread upzones make their living serving these same developers.

    Policymakers in City Hall ought to take note and look with sterner skepticism at proposals that upset the land use balance we have currently. We've done our zoning job more than adequately here in Seattle. Those who say we aren't usually benefit economically from arguing against this fact.

    David Miller


    Posted Tue, Apr 24, 1:31 p.m. Inappropriate

    The issues are always put forth in overly simplistic fashion. And maybe this is why NIMBYs, like a stopped clock, are always correct twice a day.


    Posted Tue, Apr 24, 4:21 p.m. Inappropriate

    David, there's a difference between zoned "capacity" and what can actually be built. Many property owners hold what they have. This can turn out well, such as preservation of Sam Israel's buildings, but it can also keep parking lots, underused/unrenovated buildings, and any type of low density (good or not) as-is for generations regardless of zoning. Land isn't tight yet, but it's getting there much more quickly than multiple decades, and in some neighborhoods more quickly than that.

    I don't advocate wholesale changes to SFR zoning. But stuff like mother-in-laws and backyard cottages fit well with the average SFR area. Small arterials can be ideal for small scale multifamily. As urban villages tighten, we should expand the boundaries, and do so before land prices go sky-high, not after. Alternatively, maybe could expand townhouse zoning outside the urban villages.


    Posted Tue, Apr 24, 5:18 p.m. Inappropriate

    I'm aware of that.

    Currently, we are zoned for 3x the residential units and 2.5x the employment space forecasted for 2024. This does not count the significant upzoning occurring in South Lake Union or the 130,000 parcels now eligible for ADU/DADU in the city.

    We still have adequate zoning even in the unlikely situation one of every three property owners wants to sit on their underdeveloped property.



    Posted Tue, Apr 24, 7:48 p.m. Inappropriate

    I was talking about multiple decades though I see now that you meant 2024. Also, I suspect we'll grow much more quickly than City targets and projections, as desirability, gas prices, economics, and reduced parking regs have already caused the current boom, and all of that seems to be primed to continue.

    Regarding those numbers for accessory units, I'm not up to date on the regs...but last I recall they had tiny limits about what can get permitted regardless of how many are "eligible." If still so, maybe we can agree that at least those should be liberalized.


    Posted Wed, Apr 25, 9:17 a.m. Inappropriate

    PS, if you're talking about the City's 2024 projections in the Comp Plan appendices, the recent updates show that we're already way above the projected pace for the 2004-2024 period, not counting a sizeable chunk of the current boom.


    Posted Wed, Apr 25, 12:32 p.m. Inappropriate

    mhays, you choose to slight the great housing boom and its bust. I can not say if this is intentional, only that you often make similar mistakes. True, not many citizens caught the video of the Quality Growth Alliance coaching the City and County Councils: "Don't just accommodate growth, make it happen—we have your backs." Nonetheless, mega-"growth" most certainly happened. And from the activities Mossback just listed, the development industry is still on-mission to produce more "solutions that are the problem."

    The distinction your industry takes care never to mention any more is how many, if any, humans at what levels of income live in the pace of "growth."

    The Buildable Lands Report are found here: http://www.kingcounty.gov/exec/PSB/DataReports.aspx
    Read and you will see that capacity is as objective as things get without any need to guess the future based on the past. You will also see where Miller is getting his facts and that a new count is required this year, which will be interesting in that Seattle at industry urging abandoned density limits and with that the only sure way of counting capacity in housing units. Interesting too that the industry demanded the Buildable Lands Report as means to rationalize unaffordability as supply restrictions. That failed, so the Reports are denigrated as unreliable and projections as gospel.

    Projections come in many varieties. The official projections, there rationale, and annual estimates are maintained by the Washington State Office of Financial Management here: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/default.asp

    Lastly, reading up before spouting off lends credence, look where it has go Roger Valdez. True the Seattle Land Use Code is in pained English, but Roger managed it and it is even indexed: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/toc/t23.htm No need to speculate.


    Posted Wed, Apr 25, 1:26 p.m. Inappropriate

    I just read that twice and have no idea what your point is.


    Posted Wed, Apr 25, 9:07 p.m. Inappropriate

    That makes two of us, mhays. Could you enlighten me on "the current boom" and how it is that we need more capacity to accommodate it ASAP. At least that is what I think you meant in the post you began with P.S.


    Posted Wed, Apr 25, 9:56 p.m. Inappropriate

    Knute, it's the hermit crab who lives in borrowed quarters that once defined Seattle at its affordable, one-of-kind best. Why the connection between being a hermit and living in borrowed quarters, I can not say—although a homeless tendency today is to make-do, rather than accept institutionalized shelter. At any rate, the Regrade once was full of hermit crab entities. The Fels post today aptly depicts how budding artists, budding anything, compose the van, developers, the rear.

    Somehow, the most successful shells for hermit crabs are created by error, inattention, and the passage of time. The over-optimistic regrading and overzoning of the Regrade, for example. It took decades because developers came to be honest enough with the City to get them to reduce the zoning enough (although oddly) so affordable wood frame would "pencil out," i.e. land holders drop delusions of "ships coming in." History has a way of repeating itself, but with a kick. Those few of us who still think history matters, are waiting to see how this time around plays out.


    Posted Wed, Apr 25, 10:29 p.m. Inappropriate

    afreeman, I didn't say anything about "asap." You might want to read rather than scan and guess. That will also help you understand the clear point that we're growing faster than projections.


    Posted Thu, Apr 26, 1:11 a.m. Inappropriate


    Between April 1, 2010 and April 1, 2011 Seattle gained 3400 people and 2419 housing units, or 3/4 of a new housing unit per new person or 1.4 housing units per 2 person household. Tables 7 & 8.

    Less ready at hand is the percent of the new people able to afford the new construction, but one would have to say that a majority of the 99% would find that a push. Solutions that are the problem merely dig the hole deeper. Some call that hole "saving the planet" others "no room in the Inn for the workforce." Table 16.

    Projections switch with little warning between population, households, housing units, and jobs. Jargon makes few points, and especially without identifying what unit of boom, growth, or projection one is comparing one to the other.

    Vision 2040 departs from Vision 2020 to project a higher percent of population increase in five mega-cities—2 in King and one each in Kitsap, Snohomish, and Pierce and a lesser percent to smaller cities and towns. The staff and collected body of elected officials known as the PSRC are still waiting for this counter-trend to take place. All those compelled to populate smaller cities and towns know about digging the hole deeper but individually can do little about it. http://psrc.org/growth/vision2040/background


    Posted Thu, Apr 26, 8:34 a.m. Inappropriate

    Your first paragraph ignores the current boom, which is about completions in 2012, 2013, and maybe beyond that.

    We've had the affordability discussion ad nauseum. New units will always cost a lot to build, though the reduced parking requirements are substantially reducing the costs of units in some neighborhods. But new units reduce demand on old units. So the ones from the 20s, 70s, etc., are currently our affordable housing, aside from non-profits. That only works if supply outpaces demand, which it's doing ok with so far, avoiding the San Francisco problem.

    As for the definition of "affordable," a lot of people are choosing to pay way over the 30% metric. For people with no car or kids it can be easy to pay over 50%. I do.

    I've loved demographics for decades and respect the OFM. But the real results will surprise the projectors to some degree, and surprise you and me too. Oil prices are a big influence nobody can predict. Demographers probably didn't understand how much effect Seattle's parking requirement reductions a few years ago would have (as those are the neighborhoods getting much of the new housing today due to basic economics as well as low vacancy rates). Location decisions and growth by Amazon and every other employer continue to drive the infill push, with a faster office job recovery than expected.

    Regarding those people-per-unit stats, you're not accounting for a swing in people per existing unit. People tend to double up more during downturns, during periods of low vacancy, and when it's hard to buy -- two of those three were happening in both 2010 and 2011 but to varying degrees I won't try to guess at, though the fledgling recovery might have helped some kids move out. Further, the vacancy rates of apartments and condos tightened substantially during that period. No message here other than units don't correlate directly with population.


    Posted Thu, Apr 26, 11:30 a.m. Inappropriate

    Do you have an advance on the July 1 OFM release for April 2012?

    Your word "completions," clarifies you reference a construction boom. And thank you for pointing out the age old way of economizing is to increase household sizes, which makes the possibility of overbuilding even stronger. If you point is that all these people with again live one to a unit as soon as they get a job, they all would have to be construction workers.


    Posted Thu, Apr 26, 11:54 a.m. Inappropriate

    Why does the zoning (height restrictions, minimum parking requirements) have to somehow magically match predicted demand? Why not create zoning that will let market forces work in a positive way?

    For example, if we want to save bauhaus, why not trade height restrictions for historic preservation?

    Also, why is there a height restriction on the upcoming Amazon development in Denny? This makes no sense to me. Why not trade height for a better footprint and public amenities? We could have tall thin skyscrapers in a park like setting rather than big, boxy, ...boxes.


    Posted Thu, Apr 26, 1:01 p.m. Inappropriate

    Andy, a "transfer of development rights" would be a great option for something like Bauhaus.

    afreeman, construction employment is still very low. But Seattle is adding a lot of jobs, particularly in SLU, Boeing, etc.


    Posted Thu, Apr 26, 1:43 p.m. Inappropriate

    mhays, I agree about "transfer of development rights".

    afreeman & ddmiller, why do we need to restrict density through zoning if there is (as you say) no demand for density? That argument hold no water. Also, why to we need to require parking if there is a strong demand for parking?


    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »