There are many things to take issue with in Knute Berger’s recent piece in Crosscut about smart growth and sprawl.
But let’s pick two things.
First, Berger’s contention that the discussion about growth in the region is characterized by an assumption that smart growth happens in the city and sprawl in outlying areas.
But much of our debate about urban growth in Seattle is reduced to very simplistic notions about city and suburb, one good (dense, walkable, and full of the “creative class”) and the other bad (SUV-friendly, sprawling, full of folks scared of urban edge). The reality, for anyone who has lived in both or thought about it much, is more complex.
Says who? Characterizing the argument—essentially putting words in other people’s mouths—without attribution reminds me of a classic clip from the old days when a reporter used the old “everybody is saying” routine. Compact, dense and livable neighborhoods can happen in Seattle and in other cities surrounding it. I can’t find anybody who argues that either we move all new growth in the region into downtown Seattle or else everyone sprawls.
Second, I would agree with the statement that a world where only dense-urban areas and sprawling-suburbs exist is a ‘simplistic’ way of looking at growth in our region.
Frankly there are some really good examples of growing smart in our region in places that would seem unlikely to a person basing their worldview on such a dichotomy. Kirkland’s downtown for example has become denser with new 6 story mixed use development and even a new hotel. The city of Bellevue is moving ahead with a the Bel-Red project which would likely be impossible in Seattle. In fact the Goodwill project, which would have included more density in a relatively dead zone in Southeast Seattle, was essentially talked to death by neighborhood groups and the City Council.
Increasingly if you want to find what Berger calls a ‘suburb,’ that is, “SUV-friendly, sprawling, full of folks scared of urban edge” one need travel no further than Laurelhurst where the density is about 7 people per acre. For comparison, in Capitol Hill it’s more like 70 people per acre. Laurelhurst is a lot closer to Medina with 1 unit per acre.
What is happening is not that smart growth is causing sprawl but that sprawl within the city limits of Seattle, unchecked due to the failure of a vision for land use, is actually forcing smart growth in places like Kirkland and Bellevue. It’s precisely because the Mossback agenda is winning the day in Seattle that it is failing to accommodate growth and all the positive things associated with it like ample transportation choices, walkable neighborhoods and amenities close to work and home. Plus more density means less climate changing emissions.
Perhaps it is true that Seattle is “25 scenic square miles surrounded by reality.” As long as the City Council gives equal weight to small groups of neighbors and regional concerns we’re less and less likely to see the smart growth Berger is talking about.
mjh
How do you define sprawl within the city limits of Seattle? Your Laurelhurst example is a bit odd – would it be smart growth to upzone that neighborhood? the Dearborn project is another poor example to use for a missed smart growth opportunity-that proposal had very little to do with smart growth as it applies to an established urban area with good transit. now the TOD bill that didn’t pass…that’s a good example of local NIMBYism flying in the face of regional housing/transportation goals.The reason that smart growth (or more innovative development as you seem to be alluding to) may seem more evident in the first and second ring suburbs is because, one, these places are cheaper to develop in, and two, those areas are clamoring for it because all they have to date is dumb growth. These communities want to become a place, they want to have centers and civic spaces and amenities – they also, for the most part, want their lawns and SUVs. I’m not saying that Seattle hasn’t made some misteps in its land use regs and urban village implementation, but come on, I don’t think you can say smart growth isn’t happening here-that’s about as simplistic an argument as the one you are trying to counter.Actually, the information that Cox puts forth is not surprising. How is a city like Seattle going to entice people away from the suburbs-they are different animals. Seattle is expensive, suburbs are less so. Seattle is a fairly dense, urban place, suburbs are not so much – people have their preferences.
JDC
I probably also would not use “sprawl” to describe Laurelhurst, but I think Roger brings up some good points. Whether or not you like the full proposal that was the Goodwill Dearborn project, it was an example of density, affordable housing, innovative partnerships, and not a small amount of community benefit that indeed did get “talked to death”. Moving forward requires some modicum of compromise, and the only party I saw compromising on that project was the developer. MJH makes two points about innovative development in the “suburbs” (whether or not Bellevue is a suburb is questionable) – 1. People want more of it out there, and 2. It’s cheaper out there. These aren’t really good reasons it should be happening more in these other places, though. First off, people should want innovative development everywhere. That they don’t in places in Seattle is a failure in the community process and city’s dialogue with niehgborhoods. Which I think is part of the point Roger is making. And to the second point – that land is cheaper out there – yes, that’s true, but we could make our development process cheaper here by reforming the regulatory process. Notwithstanding land pricing, finding a way to encourage and reward innovative and community oriented development here through a “fast track” regulatory process would make it a lot easier to get.
MJH
Sorry JDC, still have to disagree with you regarding the Dearborn project – sure the developer was willing to address most neighborhood concerns and do just about anything to make it work, but the bigger point is that that development was overparked for being within the Center City-that is not “smart growth” and focused too heavily on national big box stores, which is not very sustainable from a local economic or global social perspective (but that is another conversation entirely). In short, it deserved to die.My point about suburban communities clamoring for “smart growth” elements such as more compact Town Centers is simply that they are starting from nothing but auto-dominated crap, and therefore there is more pent up demand, and more willingness on the part of these communities to make something more livable happen. It is a stretch to say that smart growth and innovative development is not happening in Seattle. But, agreed, Seattle does need some regulatory and process reform to keep it moving forward in the ranks of its impressive neighbors to the north and south.Maybe we can continue this conversation over some beers…
Wells
Wendel Cox is always biased in his so-called analysis, thus never wholly correct. Knute Berger may be coming to the realization that suburban growth is affected alongside inner-city growth, but this does not mean either are automatically considered Smart Growth. Portland does not hype density. Seattle does. The more important guideline is ‘diversity’ (economic diversity). Density without diversity exacerbates the problems related to traffic in and between metropolitan regional centers. Travel mode must also be diverse. To make walking and bicycling practical, they require ‘specific’ infrastructure and a ‘diverse’ economic development pattern that makes travel between home and workplace, retailers, educational and medical services, entertainment, dining, recreation, etc, within convenient distances. This mix of economic purposes makes mass transit more practical to implement and operate local bus routes and regional rail and bus systems. Transit Oriented Development. The planning philosophy that best applies these sort of guidelines is New Urbanism. The planning philosophy that applies the same mixed-use development principles of New Urbanism at the metropolitan area scale is Regionalism. Puget Sound Regional Council must not understand New Urbanism because there is little sign they practice Regionalism. Seattle is all PR. All bark and no bite. Cowboy hat, no cows. City Hall needs a shake up. Send Greg Nickels packing and get rid of Grace Crunican. She has a horrible record of transportation planning in Portland (as ODOT chief overseeing inner-city highways), and there’s little doubt she’s made Seattle worse. Her record on the AWV is abominable.