What drives the runaway growth in the Seattle area?
Much of the growth comes from external factors we cannot control. But not all of it is beyond local political control. An urban geographer sorts out the unusual concentration of growth hormones that hit the area and looks at the dilemmas of rapid growth.
I arrived in Seattle as a University of Washington student in 1955, loving the city and region from the moment I stepped off the train from Los Angeles. Fifty-two years later, I still love the place as much, having lived most of the time within a mile of the university where for many years I taught geography. The city of Seattle and the wider metropolis have changed astoundingly, especially in the built environment, but maybe not so much in character as many may believe or fear.
We were a great small and provincial metropolis of 1 million in 1955, and a great much larger, almost "world" city of 3 million people today. The vast changes have been difficult for many people and for many communities and neighborhoods. Discomfort, even anger with the pace and nature of change is totally understandable. But…
I perceive four kinds of change. First is sheer growth, in population, jobs, and the built-up area. Second is social and demographic change, in the kinds of households, in social attitudes, and behavior. Then comes economic structural change, in the nature and location of jobs, in taxation, and in wealth and inequality. Fourth and last is change in the scope and kinds of governmental roles and regulations.
Starting with sheer growth: The population and the urban footprint of greater Seattle have both grown about three fold in the 50 years from 1955 to 2005, from a little under 1 million to almost 3 million people and from 280 square miles to over 900 square miles. As telling, the city of Seattle's share of the urban total has declined threefold from two-thirds to only one-sixth, a testament to the incredible pace of suburbanization. That dramatic change has inescapably been accommodated by a combination of growing upward and outward. That has meant higher structures in a denser pattern over at least the inner half of the metropolis, and a spreading of the urban area by several miles on average, sweeping over earlier exurban and rural areas.
This massive growth occurred because the population of the US has grown, due to natural increase and greater longevity and large-scale immigration, and because the Seattle area has been somewhat more attractive to people and investment than the average American metropolis. Why? Factors in Seattle's favor would include our geographic position with respect to Alaska (interception of trade), California (spillover), and Asia (stupendous growth and trade). Add to those our exceptional physical setting and environment (port, recreation, space); the long-term entrepreneurship of industries like Boeing and Paccar; the growth of new sectors (computer software, biotechnology) and the development of new modes of distribution and communication (Costco, Amazon, Starbucks, wireless). That's a lot of converging engines of growth for one place!
Such vast growth in population and urban settlement had to be accommodated. The demand for space almost continually raised the value and price of land, as people and activities compete for access to jobs and services, employees, and customers. This huge demand forced redevelopment of less intensive and less productive uses of property with more intensive uses that could provide a competitive return. Redevelopment and intensification had to occur. We have a market economy. Many activities require centralized access to survive, and there is limited land in the core. Expansion outward also had to occur, again because we are a market economy, and because other kinds of activities and other people need more space or external access (think Costco). Government can tweak this process, but only at the margin.
Let me now turn to social and demographic changes, which have been equally dramatic and greater in Seattle than in much of the country. The main dimensions here have been the shift from the dominance of families and children, to a greater diversity of households; the marked rise in the autonomy of women (but with a long way to go) as seen in greater labor-force participation, begrudged rights of choice for pregnancy and birth, and inroads to political power; substantial, but again begrudged and incomplete acceptance of same-sex relationships; the legal but not the practical reality of racial equality for blacks; and a marked resurgence of immigration, impacting the suburbs as well as the city of Seattle.
The result is much greater diversity of households and lower percentages of traditional husband-wife-and-children families and higher shares of singles, empty nesters, and unmarried partners. Again, Seattle has experienced more of these changes than the nation. One cause is self-selection due to perceived tolerance, job and housing patterns, but also from the reduced attractiveness and affordability of the city to traditional families.
All these changes may bother people who were raised in more traditional places and families, but again the momentum and general acceptance of these social changes are great and probably irreversible, as well as contributing to the region's creativity and entrepreneurship. The change may also be less than it appears, since it turns out that most people either are, were, or will be in families or family-like relationships.
I turn now to economic restructuring, where there have been three related changes in the world, US, and local economies over these 50 years. First is a profound change in industrial and occupational structure, what is sometimes called a shift from a "production"-dominated society to a "consumption" society, and characterized by a relative decline in the shares of agriculture, mining, forestry, and manufacturing, and a parallel increase in professional services, especially health and finance, and in retailing, entertainment, trade, and lower-level services.
Second is a related increased difference in the rewards to education and kinds of work, with hugely higher returns to professional and managerial occupations and to higher education, with actual declines in real income to many less-educated and lower-level service workers.
Third is the much greater role of foreign trade and the dominance and reach of the international corporation. This globalization brings with it the increased outsourcing of services as well as of manufacturing outside the domestic economy.
These shifts have produced an astounding increase in inequality and the concentration of wealth, in effect the re-creation of a pre-Depression world of an owner and a servant class, and a shrinking of the middle classes. This inequality has been "set up" by the three changes outlined above, but extended and aggravated by a massive reduction in taxation and regulation of the rich.
Once again, the pace of change has been particularly dramatic in the Seattle region. As recently as 1970, the Seattle metropolitan area and the city of Seattle in particular, were at the opposite pole from this change, with a quite high share of manufacturing and unionization and a surprisingly egalitarian structure of income distribution and affordable housing for most households. By now the metropolis, and again the city of Seattle in particular, have been among America's most changed cities. Now we are a region with super-high inequality, housing unaffordability, and obvious super-wealth.
The population and urban settlement growth may have been inevitable. But the extent and extremity of these economic changes were the consequences of political choice, notably the "Reagan Revolution" agenda to restore and protect the wealthy class, a program not effectively countered by the Democrats, when in power, nationally or locally. By now, because we are so much a part of the national and global market economy, there is almost no capacity to mitigate these economic changes.
Lastly, let's look at shifts in government and planning. Local government in Washington has historically been very fragmented and parochial. This mattered less when the city of Seattle was totally dominant in the metropolitan region. By the 1980s the awareness that problems and potential solutions were regional forced the creation of numerous inter-governmental entities. While an effort to create metropolitan governance failed, federal and state legislation, and the courts, did lead to regional coordination and planning entities such as the Puget Sound Regional Council and Metro. The Growth Management Act significantly increased the power of counties.
Over the same period in which the national economy shifted right in the sense of deregulation, globalization, and rising inequality, local government has increased the level of regulation of property. This development was partly in reaction to the whole panoply of change, but especially to the spread of urbanization and subsequent congestion, as growth outpaced infrastructure investment. The result is that local government, through planning, has teamed with private development forces to intensify and speed up some of the processes of change, and perhaps unwittingly supports policies and plans that intensify change and aggravate inequality.
The message of this history is that most of these changes were the result of societal forces beyond local control. But not all. Is there a better way to cope with all this change? I'll tackle that question soon. Meanwhile I welcome suggestions readers may offer on the dilemma of change.
Comments:
Posted Tue, Aug 7, 1:43 p.m. inappropriate
It's more about How we Grow---: As usual Mr. Morrill gives us a perspective of a much broader view than those who grumble over more of the specifics of how growth affects people who live here.
While Morrill is, I think, quite correct in saying growth is market driven and government (we) have little control of the outcome, it is clear that politicians have been influenced by some myths that cloud their understanding of how livability in this region can at least be improved. Morrill, rather than claiming a solution, offers us the opportunity to make some suggestions.
The Growth Management Act, GMA, was to help with many anticipated problems. Concentrating growth within existing cities was to reduce sprawl in previously undeveloped areas. It has helped to some degree, but the unintended consequence is that lower density affordable housing is demolished because taxing at the highest and best use cause the property values to increase. The consequence of believing density is a solution is that it has resulted in a kind of economic cleansing. The poor folks are driven out to house the more affluent.
The Growth Management Act, to its credit, also demanded that concurrency be part of the plan. It is difficult to find any governmental jurisdiction that has taken this provision seriously. For those who aren't familiar with the concurrency provisions, it theoretically requires cities to provide parks, open space, transportation, schools, utilities, garbage, public safety and all other / public services. The key phrase to remember is, "concurrent with growth." Building permits are issued by the hundreds at the clamoring of developers, but much of the concurrency lags so far behind, that in many areas it simply doesn't exist. We elect people who don't have the stomach to enforce the GMA. or to apply impact fees which would help with concurrency.
Currently most all governmental jurisdictions in the region actively promote new business and growth. While this action creates jobs here it diverts jobs that might go to other cities and towns in the state. There is every reason to believe that we don't need to spend public money, give tax breaks, give exemptions to building codes, change zoning or spend huge sums of public money for the direct benefit of specific private enterprise when other smaller cities in the state are losing population due to lack of jobs. We need to come to the realization that stealing jobs from small towns isn't necessary for our economic health.
There are many small cities in Washington that have schools, fire depts. libraries, water districts and the necessary infrastructure to relieve much of the growth pressure for the Seattle metropolitan area if they only had some of the jobs that are being promoted by tax money from the dense urban areas.
By giving developers the right to steal our views, our open space, our trees, our privacy and jam us into smaller spaces, we are creating conditions that influence social anger. Whether road rage, fights over parking spaces, the homeless with no place to go, growth without conscience leads to social turmoil. The only concurrency we experience in Seattle is that 911calls increases concurrent with density. The solution isn't hiring more cops or building new schools in the core city, but understanding that livable space is being stolen from us.
Natural growth is one thing, encouraging growth is quite another and will eventually lead to an unlivable city to all but the wealthy. An 18 century writer commented.....
The law doth punish man or woman that steals the goose from the common, but lets the greater felon loose, that steals the common from the goose.
Yes we can influence growth!
Posted Tue, Aug 7, 4:07 p.m. inappropriate
Urban Growth Boundary: Morrill failed to mention how Quality of Life has deteriorated by unneccesary densification: Anyone flying in/out of the major metropolitan areas of the USA will see vast areas suitable for continued low-density development, favored by most.
This trend is due to the New Urbanists who are trying to make mass transit work. But Greater Seattle-presently at 4,400/sq. mile- will never reach densities like Paris, at 70,000/sq. mile.
There are advanced transit methods, such as the Car Bus (land ferry) that will end freeway congestion as we know it; plus converting key arterials to stoplight-free expressways, that will improve urban mobility.
A national research program is needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of these methods.
Would you force your seven-yo child to wear forever size 5 shoes?
The previous post by KK touched on this problem.
Posted Tue, Aug 7, 5:56 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Urban Growth Boundary: Density is the only way to go if the region is going to accommodate projected population growth. And while growth is a certainty, "advanced transit methods" that will "end freeway congestion as we know it" is at best a long way off, and more realistically, a pipe dream. (We can't even deal with a 2-mile viaduct here.)
Living in any major city requires accepting a set of trade-offs. I can live in the low-density suburbs where land and housing is cheaper (and accept generic surroundings and a long commute into the city), or I can live in the city where I have a brief commute and access to great shopping, restaurants, entertainment, etc. (but pay through the nose for housing).
Who's to say which is the greater compromise to the quality of life? Depends what you're looking for. Last I checked, most of Seattle's close-in housing wasn't exactly sitting empty.
The irony of your argument is that you complain that mass transit requires greater density to work, but suggest further densification here is pointless, if only because we'll never match Paris. On other side of the coin, the Puget Sound region is unlikely to soon de-densify enough, no matter how sprawling it becomes, for band-aid measures such as new expressways to relieve congestion unless there's a concomitant migration of jobs away from the existing population centers.
Posted Tue, Aug 7, 11 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Urban Growth Boundary: Your density figures are way off. For Paris I believe you've used the center of town, which includes a small percentage of the metro pop. For Seattle you've used a much larger area. Your number sounds like it might be the urbanized part of King County.
The majority around here have voted repeatedly in favor of growth management. Maybe some of them are putting larger goals above their desire for bigger yards. Welcome to Seattle.
Expressways in place of streets? Are you trying to wall neighborhoods off from each other, making a simple crossing a transportation nightmare?
I don't know what a "car bus" is, but from my limb, it's not endorsed by any mainstream transportation experts, and nobody inside the fringes thinks anything short of an oil bust will "end freeway congestion."
Posted Wed, Aug 8, 6:50 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Urban Growth Boundary: The whole Urban Growth Boundary Issue has been made a JOKE by Ron Sims and King County. His failure to cooperatively plan with the people of Maple Valley on the "Donut Hole" at the Summit Pit/ Elk Run Golf course is just the latest example of the arrogance of power displayed by Sims. Not only did he negotiate the exclusive rights to purchase a publicly owned parcel of land totally within the UGA of the City of Maple Valley with a single developer, he never told the City he was doing it! He is selling the property Zoned Rural ( one house per 5 acres) to the developer (Yarrow Bay ) with the understanding that the zoning will be changed to high density urban after the sale (12 + per acre). Sweet deal for the Friends of Ron, but the public in Maple Valley gets screwed. No mitigation for transportation, infrastructure, schools no conformance to City standards and ALL of the development dollars and fees will flow tho the County, not the City in which the entire project resides. Plus the county is going to abuse the TDR program to allow EXTRA density to placed on the site.
Yes, it's do as I say, not as I do when you are dealing with King County and Land Use /GMA questions. When Ron sees a dollar sign no property is safe. Say will all of those communities that have spent thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars preparing for and complying to the GMA get a refund?
Posted Wed, Aug 8, 9:46 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Urban Growth Boundary: I don't know anything about that project, but it sounds like we at least got a development that makes responsible (vs. wasteful) use of land.
Posted Wed, Aug 8, 9:50 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Urban Growth Boundary: No Hays, It looks like the people of Maple Valley got screwed by an executive who doesn't care about them. KC Ordinance 2007-0350. King County violates GMA for Developer Dollars. It's Crime..or it should be. Which department of apology do you work for Hays.
Posted Wed, Aug 8, 10:23 a.m. inappropriate
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID: " notably the "Reagan Revolution" agenda to restore and protect the wealthy class"
Not the best line in the article. I think the wealthy needed no protection and the "revolution" was more like the enabling of new categories of wealthy people, new ways to get rich.
Meanwhile, the pursuit of high economic growth (as measured by GDP) is the holy grail of both parties (the headline refers to 1992 Clinton campaign slogan during a very mild and short-lived recession). I don't hear anyone advocating European style low growth, high unemployment policies. I think an argument can be made that fast economic growth (over 2%, maybe) is, on balance, undesirable. But you will not hear any politicians of either party making that case.
Posted Wed, Aug 8, 11:19 a.m. inappropriate
At least it's not sex predator housing: A county transportation facility might become housing? Oh noes!
Posted Wed, Aug 8, 12:13 p.m. inappropriate
Accommodating density in Seattle: Remember Belltown when it was the Denny Regrade? No one lived there, and no one wanted to. I support the zoning and density changes that motivated 10,000 people to move to Belltown since 2000, with many more to come. Many restaurants and small businesses have been created, and many young professionals and older Boomers have found an urban and urbane home.
Now we need to address the forces that have left our working class and our kids without a place to buy or rent in the city. A two-hour bus commute from Federal Way or Auburn is really not an option. Over 4,000 apartments were converted to unaffordable condos in the past couple of years. Where are the renters supposed to go? In the 2007 legislative session, we failed to pause this head-long rush to maximize value. We need to make it clear to Seattle Democrats that this is must-have legislation in 2008.
The City Council missed an opportunity to increase density and offset escalating property taxes when they limited Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to only the lowest-income sector of Seattle, the southeast. I see no excuse for not allowing ADUs in Wallingford, Magnolia and Laurelhurst, and not allowing them to be either attached or separate. Are we that afraid of having one or two more cars on the street? No one can really see if you have a carriage house or a studio in the backyard, or if your basement has a separate entrance. Most of us who are trying to age in place and continue to afford our homes could really use the extra income from a mother-in-law apartment. Done well, this would not really alter the appearance of our neighborhoods, and would be better than forcing people to sell out to make way for a macmansion or a subdivided 6-pack of condos, instead of continuing to occupy their house. The City Council had a failure of nerve. It's not to late to rectify it.
Posted Wed, Aug 8, 12:28 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Urban Growth Boundary: It sounds like it might violate a fairness policy and concurrence, but that doesn't mean it's not great land use. It also doesn't necessarily mean it's not fine public policy. The truth is we don't know the story, just one very opinionated side of it.
I work for a general contractor, as I've said here numerous times. We/I have no involvement in this project or anything even remotely similar. If it was otherwise, I wouldn't comment or I'd be very clear.
It sounds to me like the County is getting something positive done. It's got to be within the law, but I'm fine if skirts some non-required, self-imposed policies here and there.
Posted Wed, Aug 8, 2:55 p.m. inappropriate
In the minds of some, ADUs = end of western civilization: ADUs are GREAT for some folks. If you want to live in a quiet neighborhood, renting an ADU is ideal. Great for single folks with a child who can't afford to buy into a neighborhood. (I have noticed that while some neighborhoods DO have apartments, they are often high rent, luxury types.)
I'd rent an apartment above someone's garage in a heartbeat. More freedom than the usual apartment situation.
Pushback against ADUs is a lot about parking, and aesthetic concerns.
Posted Wed, Aug 8, 3:35 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Accommodating density in Seattle: Sarajane, non-conforming "Mother-In-Law" apartments have been an issue for at least 15 years in Seattle. The controversy is there but, in fact, the enforcement of
single family zoning is so weak that I doubt if complete legalization of MILs would make a whole lot of difference.
Just read the law. Up to (I believe) 11 unrelated people can live in a single family house. Yes, there is supposed to be only one full cooking range but even that is hard to enforce (you can have cooktop burners in a bar, for example). At the same time some very small (legal) studio apartments have only a microwave. It's a hard line to draw.
Posted Wed, Aug 8, 3:50 p.m. inappropriate
REET-1, REET-2 --> REET-A, REET-G, and REET-T: We can have both affordability and density if we use common sense. As Sarah Jane points out, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have a number of positive attributes:
1) they increase density
2) they allow long-time residents who are now empty nesters the opportunity to stay connected to the communities, neighborhoods and homes that they love
3) they spread out growth throughout the City rather than concentrate it in intense developments
The argument for ADU's addresses the obvious point that we have created a development environment that rewards conversion of all apartments to condos. Rational policy would limit the reward for this raze-the-earth conversion, and would also reward retention of apartments, so maximization of value didn't always mean conversion to apartments.
Monitoring and balancing the availability of various types of dwelling units needs to be part of an overall scheme that treats the mix of housing types as the goal of housing policy. This means that as apartments and low-income housing becomes unaffordable, that policy balances such pressures by providing incentives for the building and or retention of such units.
The obvious source for the money to pay for this is the real-estate excise tax, which is currently used mainly to buy up open space and green space with the REET-1 and REET-2 funds. Since roughly half the acreage of King County is already owned by government, it would seem reasonable to slow the purchase of new open space a bit, and consider the fallout of well-intentioned, but Draconian GMA policies as they apply to the non-wealthy amongst us.
I'd propose that we rename the REET-1 and REET-2 taxes the REET-A, REET-G, and REET-T taxes. With these we'd fund Affordable housing incentives, Green environmental purchases, and additional Transportation projects. This would mean fewer open space purchases, if we keep the same size pie, yet we'd still continually be adding to the large government stockpile of property.
Besides, those REET purchases and the GMA through the law of supply and demand, have caused housing values to go through the roof. In the sense that environmental preservation has succeeded in increasing livability and attracted people to the region, it has also succeeded in increasing pressures causing sprawl, the increasing property values causing unaffordability, and increasing traffic causing congestion. All of these are now large and growing problems directly related to Growth.
Further, since REET largely serves a dual GMA environmental and real-estate industry agenda, it makes sense that the consequences of Growth should also be addressed through REET. For example, REET-T might easily be converted to a Transit-only tax that funds mass transit for dense high-rise neighborhoods that will most benefit from it. And REET-A should be used to help implement a sane housing policy that rewards the creation of a MIX of housing types so that lower-income and middle-income workers can live and work in our cities; e.g., Seattle firemen should be able to live in Seattle and Bellevue school teachers should be able to live in Bellevue.
Environmentalist may see this as an attack on their pot of green gold, and it might turn out that way. But sharing the pie is the right thing to do. On the other hand, INCREASING REET to pay for REET-T and REET-A is the other alternative, so that the full consequences of growth pay for growth.
This proposal is really neither liberal or conservative. It's goal is mainly to associate these social problems with their source, which are all rather directly related to the costs and availability of housing as they result from Growth. REET is an acceptable, appropriate way to monitor, meter, and fund Growth's negative effects.
Posted Wed, Aug 8, 11:16 p.m. inappropriate
Geonomics: How about digging up the works of Henry George and finally putting his ideas to the full test....
Posted Sun, Aug 12, 8:34 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Urban Growth Boundary: What is really unfortunate is that the County seems to feel they only have to play by the rules when it suits them. To declare a "unique" circumstance that allows them to bypass the normal bidding process while negotiating in private with a single developer is problematic in my mind. How many other developers would have bid on such a project? How much more money could the we be getting for the destruction of a publicly owned golf course and the County shop facilities/gravel pit? Why would the County be looking to buy more parks and open space when they are selling one that it already improved and serving the public? The combination of Federal , State, County and Local governments already control over 50% of the land mass of King County, how much more do they need? The County is trying to give control of another established public park over to the Snqualmie tribe in Fall City, why? Will it then become tribal land, there is nothing in the proposed tranfer documents to prevent it. Maybe given Mr. Hays view of "skirting a few regulations" to get thing done will work in Seattle too. Instead of putting 2,000 houses without any local input, without any mitigation dollars and without any local design control into SE King County without the transportation network in place to get them to JOBS, how about selling off any county owned assets in Seattle to a Paul Allen. Without public bid and letting him build whatever the hell he wants and then leave the City of Seattle to provide the services necessary to support it without any money from the County or the developer, that sounds better than the Maple Valley project, more effective, less impact on the commute. Oh wait, Seattle may not like that and vote Ron out of office...now we see how it works