A report released last year from the Livable Seattle Movement declared that Seattle’s existing zoning is more than enough—three times more—than we need to accommodate expected growth. Phew! What a relief. And here we thought the Seattle region would have to undergo some painful, politically-rending rezones in order to sop up all the new people—as many as 106,000 households—arriving in the next decade. And, by extension, it would also mean we don’t need the backyard cottages being proposed by the City of Seattle.
But does this conclusion pass the “red face” test? Nope—faces are red. Or at least they should be. Why? Because their data is suspect and it doesn’t take into account any kind of community objections or other unforeseen obstacles even when the existing code allows development.
The data that Livable Seattle Movement uses is from the most recent King County Buildable Lands Report, a report that looks at what land is available for new construction and redevelopment for housing and jobs.
Here is a crucial passage from that report:
At projected household sizes, the 289,000 new housing units, together with the existing housing stock in 2006, could accommodate more than 400,000 additional persons within the UGA [Urban Growth Area]. This is more than twice the population growth needed to meet the remaining part of the 2002 OFM projection of 2,048,000 total population for King County in 2022.
Now Livable Seattle’s numbers (3 times the capacity in Seattle) are extrapolated from a subset of King County’s UGA numbers, called the Sea-Shore Subarea. This is problematic because the Sea-Shore Subarea includes two cities other than Seattle, Lake Forest Park and Shoreline, and an unincorporated area, North Highline. The Movement’s analysis of the Buildable Lands Report doesn’t make any effort to disaggregate the Seattle data from these other areas that have, in some cases, radically different land use patterns and policies. They use the terms Seattle and Seashore interchangeably.
Nevertheless, let’s take Livable Seattle’s conclusions at face value:
Seattle’s city government should not make radical changes in our established zoning and neighborhood plans with the idea that such changes are needed to accommodate future growth. The rules in place provide for more than enough opportunities in growth in housing. A recent, reliable study confirms that the city is already zoned to accommodate three times the housing growth planned for the next 14 years. So, there is no need, no rational basis, for such ideas as “unlocking” single-family zoning to improve affordability or for effectively abandoning the urban village strategy in order to increase capacity. The King County Buildable Lands Report tells the story.
So we’re all squared away. Crazy schemes to “unlock” the single family black box or up zone the city are ill founded. We have the capacity we need. Is that true? Two words sum up the answer: Waldo Woods.
The Waldo Woods (the neighborhood’s term for the property) is part of aa 1.6 acre site in Seattle’s Maple Leaf neighborhood. It is the site of an old hospital building and it is zoned for townhouses. A developer submitted a proposal to build 39 units on the property. Those are part of the 39 units Livable Seattle says will allow us to accommodate growth with out any soul-crushing rezones.
When can you move in? You can’t, because the project isn’t going forward. Neighboring single-family residents were outraged that the developers would be removing trees from the site. They rallied around the trees, organized themselves, and eventually the developer backed out. The owner of the property wound up selling the building and property to a private school. The neighborhood won and the region lost, even though the developer would have been removing fewer trees than they legally could.
If we take Livable Seattle at its word, they should be mobilizing for projects like Waldo Woods proposed in Maple Leaf. Instead, one if its members was actually the major leader of the project’s opposition. While Livable Seattle’s report is kind of old news and has been tackled before, these arguments are sure to be offered in opposition to backyard cottages in Seattle. Along with loss of parking, more noise, and loss of privacy, a new argument can now be offered: we have enough capacity.
But the truth is that this argument is suspect. Livable Seattle’s report fails to look closely at Seattle without the inclusion of other subareas and it doesn’t account for the fact that many projects, even when they are to be built according to the existing code, fail because of neighborhood opposition. As Seattle begins to look at supporting compact communities it’s going to need to develop more good ideas like the ones I have written about before, especially Vancouver’s Laneway Housing Program and Portland’s introduction of courtyard housing into their code. Whether the code allows development or not, changes doesn’t come without obstacles. Seattle can learn a lot from Portland and Vancouver about how to persuade neighborhoods that more variety of housing type is a net benefit, not a something to resist.
David Miller
Roger actually has one thing right in here, that Waldo Woods is indeed the perfect example of land use decisions in light of the information the BLR provides us.When you have 3x the zoned capacity, as Seattle does, you have the ability to balance. In this case, balancing the environmental reality of a shrinking useful urban forest canopy with the need to grow our city to accomodate growth projections. Through the three year effort of hundreds of citizens across Seattle, spearheaded by the Maple Leaf Community Council, a King County Superior Court decision finally provided that balance. A fabulous new neighbor will preserve not only the historic building but the environmentally significant grove of trees on the site.Roger is mistaken that the BLR does not separate Seattle from the SeaShore totals. SeaShore as a whole, which includes Seattle, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, and some unincorporated areas of King County, has an aggregate surplus of 3.17. Seattle is highest at 3.23, Shoreline has 3.12, Lake Forest Park has 1.40, and the unincorporated section has 2.06.It is important to not take these numbers too far, however, which can happen. My personal view is AADUs, real cottage housing, upzones in urban centers, and other techniques are necessary for effective land use management. Each can promote affordability, more efficient transit use, and other benefits—not to mention looking out to 2040 and not just 2022 as the 2007 BLR did. Without understanding the BLR data, these techniques cannot be used to the greatest social benefit. That’s the true lesson of the BLR and one, I’m happy to say, has been effectively communicated to our city’s political leaders. One last thing on tree rules which I am guessing Roger also doesn’t understand from the context of his comments above: The developers were required to save ZERO trees under Seattle development rules. Currently, there are no requirements to save existing trees. This puts Seattle at odds with nearly all (actually, I think it is ALL but I haven’t looked at *every* city) neighboring cities who actually do require tree preservation. That’s right, green Seattle is one of few (the only?) city in the area that doesn’t require the protection of trees. While it is true DPD sometimes puts their foot down to require a specific tree saved, it is a case-by-case judgment on their part that depends as much on which staffer is handling the application and the financial/political resources of the applicant than anything else.
Roger
From bulleted section on page 4 of the Livable Seattle Publication: “Seattle has . . . 3.2 times the projected household growth””…about 139,000 housing units—is located in the SeaShore sub area…””Seashore has 3.2 times needed capacity..””Seattle has household capacity for 129,000 new units””The King County UGA has capacity . . . .for approximately 289,00 households”While it is true that the BLR does call out numbers specifically for Seattle the Livable Seattle Publication is confusing at best, toggling back and forth between numbers for the UGA, Seattle and Seashore often as if they were the same thing. As for the trees, the site was reviewed and it was determined that the developer didn’t have to preserve the trees in question. They might have plowed down every tree that was never the intent. In fact they agreed to preserve half of them and replant others exceeding what they were required to do. Hence my point about “removing fewer trees than they legally could.” You are fully within your rights to change the law, but the law the developers were operating under would have allowed them to fell all the trees. But, in the end, they wouldn’t have if the project would have gone ahead. That could have been a great compromise.Finally, the point of the post is that out of one side of Livable Seattle’s mouth we hear that Seattle has more than enough capacity for housing and new residents. Out of the other side we hear that we should be taking more land out of production to preserve trees, or views or privacy or whatever other thing might get changed in the neighborhood to accommodate growth. Hence the kicker about having it both ways. And while the neighbors next door to Waldo Woods might be glad that an elementary school is moving in and things are staying just like they were before, they have also proven the point that whatever the capacity is in Seattle, actually getting more housing is easier said than done.
David Miller
The specific section of the LSM report you cite was a topic of some discussion. The group’s decision was to include both numbers—SeaShore and Seattle—to indicate this was not just a Seattle issue and that Seattl’e had more excess capacity than its sector neighbors. In any case, the fact is the BLR shows Seattle has over 3x household capacity.King County Conservation Futures Board, Seattle Audubon Society, Historic Seattle, Washington Historic Trust, and hundreds of people from all across Seattle believed the grove should be saved. Only the developer and the people he paid didn’t. So let’s get past the idea this was an effort put forth by a handful of people. One added note… The BLR report was key in convincing the Mayor and Council, under the leadership of Peter Steinbrueck, to effectively downzone our industrial areas to promote affordable spaces for living wage jobs for working class families. They could do this since we didn’t need those areas for housing or added employment capacity.When you have 3x the capacity you need to meet population goals, you can be choosy when a bonafide public policy goal such as preserving useful tree canopy or space for decent jobs is involved. Not in every case, on that we agree.
joshuadf
Roger, Waldo Woods is the wrong project to champion at this point since a school moved into the property. It gives the impression that density pits community resources like schools vs housing. Maple Leaf has plenty of moderate-density housing and more parking-heavy townhomes would not have changed that. Personally I think what they need is additional dense mixed-use along Roosevelt Way that neighbors can walk or bike to.Try one of the stalled holes, like in Green Lake or on Stone Way.
Matt the Engineer
I see the zoning issue as very similar to peak oil. Peak oil deniers tell us that there’s plenty of oil in the ground. And they’re right. But it’s becoming more and more difficult and expensive to extract that oil – with the unavoidable result of skyrocketing oil prices. Similarly, there is probably more zoned density than needed density. Yet we’re at a point where when a house is bulldozed to put up a 4-pack of townhouses, each one sells for nearly as much as the house. That’s pent-up demand for smaller units. Keeping zoning static will eventually make actual density approach zoned density. Someday. But that requires every 4-story condo to be torn down and replaced with a 5-story condo, and every SFH in a multifamily zoned area to be torn down and replaced with condos. In the mean time it drives up city housing prices to the point where it’s far cheaper to rip out trees in North Bend than buy a condo in the city.
David Miller
Matt –Good point, which is why I personally do not see the data in the BLR as a reason to stop all progress on land use decisions that benefit affordability, Seattle’s environment, and other social goals. It is worth noting the BLR makes corrections to tengentially address this issue. The actual zoning surplus is higher than 3x stated in the report.
Bill Bradburd
Matt says “…and every SFH in a multifamily zoned area to be torn down and replaced with condos. In the mean time it drives up city housing prices to the point where it’s far cheaper to rip out trees in North Bend than buy a condo in the city.”This type of rhetoric is what makes us (a self declared moniker to follow) smart-growth advocates angry.First of all, if someone wants to live in Seattle they will not live in North Bend. Unless they work in Issaquah perhaps. In which case this an Issaaquah zoning issue, not Seattle. If they want to live in a house with trees and a yard, they will not live in a dense multifamily zone. They will wait for a home in a SF zone to buy.Second, if we are concerned about the environmental impact of the “teardown and build new more dense buildings (e.g., six packs)” paradigm, we need to change our MF rules (as some of us have been suggesting) to allow bonus units if existing stock is preserved. So say there is an old craftsman cottage in an L-1 zone, we should allow three units instead of two if the original home is preserved. An ADU and a DADU would be create cheaper housing stock, preserve the existing street and neighborhood character, and be more sustainable.Thirdly, this density should occur be in our urban villages – along with the CONCURRENT delivery of amenities and transit to support it. Our comp plan pretty well defines this. (BTW, I live in a UV).The problem with all the (another self declared moniker here) up-zone density advocates is it really seems to favor either a type of developer and investor that produces housing stock that is not broadly serving all classes and family types nor is producing organically healthy neighborhoods (i.e there is inadequate open space, amenities, etc to serve the new ‘hood). It also seems to be used to justify our investment in light rail.
Matt the Engineer
Bill:1. Put your binoculars away – you’re looking too closely at the microeconomics. The market doesn’t act like one person. If we must follow individuals, then I’d say it’s more like: Fred wants a condo in Belltown, but can’t quite qualify for a high enough mortgage, so he settles for a condo in Ballard. Mary was going to buy a condo in Ballard, but the price is too high so she goes to plan B and buys a small house in Shoreline. Mark was outbid by Mary on a house in Shoreline, so he buys a place in Issaquah. Etc.I think you’ll see it’s easier to look at the macroeconomic side. There are more potential buyers of homes in Seattle at a given price than there are homes for sale at that price. The excess either gives up and rents, or buys outside of Seattle. This wave works its way outward (“drive until you qualify”). 2. Sure. I’ll agree to all kinds of upzoning schemes, including ADUs and DADUs. It’s a legitimate debate about the best way to upzone.3. I agree about urban villages. If we do upzone, I’d say it makes the most sense to increase the hight limit in these UV’s. Once they’re maxed out we can consider expanding the width of the UV’s.I’m not sure about your last point. There are great ways of zoning and modifying codes to build healthy cities. We got it right 100 years ago, we can figure it out again.