http://blog.seattlepi.com/realestatenews/archives/182952.asp

who is on the DRB that let this pablum through??

We don’t have to force people to “embrace the vision”, we just need to hit their pocket books. People will either choose to drive more efficient vehicles, carpool more, take transit, or move to a transit-oriented community.

Transit-supportive land use is clearly a critical piece of the puzzle, as is a carbon tax. After reading “Moving Cooler” the idea that it’s going to take many different strategies to address climate change is ever more clear.

1) Apartments/Condos
2) Houses on small lots
3) Houses on big lots

Of course, in reality, there is a big mix. A lot of density in the suburbs has occurred with the addition of big apartment buildings.

Houses on small lots have been very popular for a long time. A house in San Fransisco costs a bundle. A place in Berkeley, a little less, but still quite pricey. A lot of people move to the suburbs not because they want a big yard and the space but because they can’t afford a house in the city.

Apartment and Condo city living has increased in popularity in the last twenty years. Likewise, its portrayal on T.V. has also improved (e. g. “Friends”, “Frasier”, etc.). However, small houses on small lots is rarely featured. Instead, people are led to believe that we must choose between a house in Lynnwood (with a big lot) and a condo in Belltown. What many people want, of course, is a little house on Phinney Ridge. If they can’t afford that (and most can’t) they would like to buy a house like that in a neighborhood like that. Unfortunately, they usually can’t. If you move to Lynnwood, the houses (and more importantly, the lots) are not like that. Selling this type of development in places like Lynnwood would make all housing more affordable and more desirable. As much as I would like to see more density in (central) Seattle, I would really like it if the suburbs (or outer reaches of the city) had lots of smaller houses on smaller lots. I think this type of development should be promoted as much as possible.

It is intuitively obvious that living closer together is going to save resources. People get that.

What people don’t get is that urbanism is fun. In fact, the vast majority of the people in this country have never (seriously) spent time in a real urban environment — be it neighborhood or city. Their impressions of urbanity are formed by Fox news and visits to whatever “Aurora Avenue” is nearby. “Main Street” is largely gone from the collective memory.

The best thing which can happen for urbanism in the USA is for the rich and famous to move into town in droves. (Which is happening.) People ape the rich and their habits. “People” magazine ought to be urged to have a real estate section so that the masses (“students and workers”) can see how people who can live anywhere live.

In fact I think that general trend is underway. The task now in many locales is to show at the detail level of the individual project (of course we won’t see a lot of those for the next few years) what urbanism means.

Policy is important but doesn’t move the masses.

OK, yes it is important at the policy level. I guess I just find that name TOD (or TOC) so dry and wonkish that it annoys me. I certainly don’t want to live in TOD; I want a traditional city neighborhood. May boil down to the same thing but sure sounds different.

There is an extensive and growing body of published research providing evidence that well-designed TOC can lead to a range of substantial social and environmental benefits. In brief, TOC have the potential to:

• Promote health by encouraging walking and biking, cutting air pollution, and reducing motor vehicle accidents;
• Lower household expenses for both transportation and housing;
• Reduce municipal infrastructure costs;
• Provide a high return on public investment in transit infrastructure;
• Help meet the growing demand for walkable neighborhoods;
• Curb land consumption and thereby help conserve working farms and forests, and protect natural ecosystems and water quality; and
• Cut energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with both transportation and the built environment.