Comments on: A Voice Of Reason That Needs To Be Louder

By: What The Corner Really Needs | hugeasscity

What The Corner Really Needs | hugeasscity — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:21:07 +0000

[...] who knows, perhaps it could be a new City department, or it could grow out of the Planning Commission, or it could be part of some yet to be created fantasy such as the Office of Sustainable [...]

By: Michelle Z

Michelle Z — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:55:55 +0000

Seattle Resident@6,

You can download the letters referenced in this blog post on the Seattle Planning Commission’s website: http://www.seattle.gov/planningcommission/

Scroll down to the “News and Information” section and you will find links to the letters under the headings for Backyard Housing Legislation and the Multifamily Housing Code. There is also a great guide to Backyard Cottages available on the site.

Enjoy!

By: Bill B

Bill B — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:16:44 +0000

Tony is right, sans this statement:
“We have created a set of zoning laws that force developers to build nothing but the most hideous of buildings, and yet density advocates wonder why neighborhoods are anti-development”

Our zoning laws are heavily influenced by the developers – look who is mostly providing the input. And developers are almost always driven by profit.

The architects are on a leash. And the city is the fireplug.

When we get a Council that will redefine rules that stop making such dramatic profitability the primary driver (i.e. stop falling for the “it won’t pencil out” line), we will get rules that will result in a better city.

By: jake l

jake l — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:45:26 +0000

spencer@8 really said it with ‘people that are smart enough to concede to a better arguement’! Tony@9’s point is good yet at what point is the disconnect reached when “we have created a set of zoning laws” is transformed into not the people but the leaders. Are we not one and the same?

By: Tony the Economist

Tony the Economist — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:36:38 +0000

I will jump in at 180 degrees from chripsy @5. The people of seattle have been presented repeatedly with the choice between bad and worse by professional planners and engineers. There are high quality urban design solutions out there that would win broad appeal in the city of seattle, but the professionals are either unwilling or unable to devise and present them.

The city of seattle puts hardly a penny into actual planning. 95% of DPD is simply route permit approval. No one is paid to think conceptually or comprehensively. Good planning and good urban design are not cheap, and the city has thus far refused to invest the substantial resources that it takes to actually hire a large number of talented planners and designers to do broad outreach, listen to the public and synthesize solutions that are actually appealing.

The city has instead tried to do planning on the cheap. The result is an appalling lack of creativity and integration, yet development continues unguided, unplanned, undesigned. Our zoning code is so disconnected from our values as a city that it is embarrassing. Capitol Hill, for example, has dozens, if not hundreds of gorgeous old brick apartment buildings that achieve phenomenal density and are nearly universally loved, yet our zoning code makes every single one of these buildings illegal to build new. Developers couldn’t build great development in Seattle if they wanted to, our own laws prevent it.

We have created a set of zoning laws that force developers to build nothing but the most hideous of buildings, and yet density advocates wonder why neighborhoods are anti-development.

Dan and chrispy are blaming the wrong people. It’s not the citizens that are the problem, it’s our leaders, who imagine we can do planning on the cheap and force new development into existing neighborhoods without even taking the time to do outreach, listen to the community, plan, design and find truly win-win solutions. Seattle is fortunate to have a citizenry that cares so much about this city. In 90% of the city’s in the world, the problem is that the people care too little. Give us a plan worthy of the incredible citizenry that is Seattle and we will be more than happy to embrace it.

By: spencer

spencer — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:21:04 +0000

Although I too agree with chripsy it seems dan is referring to the execution of policy and ideas and not to people in general. But, that seems to be an incorrect description too. We do seem to get things going it’s just always in the wrong direction (and often because the original idea takes so dang long to get moving). The monorail comes to mind. The retrofitting of the viaduct comes to mind as does all the decisions made about it’s future.

There are also several organizations (seattle ULI and Cascadia GBC come to mind) involved in urban issues in our city albeit none maybe not as big as SPUR. As far as the history of urban planning involvement goes Seattle is still very young compared to cities that are twice or more it’s size. Please give us a little latitude when pointing to our weaknesses. The resources are just not a bountiful as places like San Fran. They have a prestigious university on their door step and are historically a haven for radical thinkers and honest debate (with people smart enough to concede to a better argument).

By: jake l

jake l — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:48:15 +0000

I am tending to agree more and more with chrispy@5. I believe that there is a void of expert conclusions that are assertive, progressive, and pronounced in a positive manner, and I think that void is being filled the ‘everyone’s opinion is equally valid’ political quagmire.

By: Seattle Resident

Seattle Resident — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:44:57 +0000

Where can we get a copy of the letters?

By: chrispy

chrispy — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:34:33 +0000

I disagree that Seattle is milquetoast, if the definition in #1 is correct. Everyone in this city has an opinion, and everyone wants everything perfect, meaning their way. Seattle and its lack of progress on these big issues can best be described by this:

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Seattlites, in their quest for progressive perfection, do just that. And we all know what the result is.

By: Joshua Daniel Franklin

Joshua Daniel Franklin — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:00:20 +0000

I’ve specifically asked the UW administration to take a more active role in various issues in the past, and the answer is usually “we don’t have the resources.” I still find this answer disappointing, but they’ve got a point, especially if it made the university as popular a lawsuit target as SoundTransit.

Also, in most cases UW as an institution cannot take a position on specific candidates or issues (not even if Tim Eyman had a “Burn down that liberal UW” on the ballot).

@3: TRAC is funded by WSDOT, what do you expect? Hmm, wonder if that’s an ethics violation for Hallenbeck. I guess probably not.