hugeasscity

Sadder than sad
You’re the only light
This empty room has ever had
Life without you is gonna be
Bluer than blue*

For me, all that deep, pure blue with the crisp white trim brings back fond memories of childhood sports team uniforms.  How do you admire Fifteen Twenty One?  Because, as the web site proclaims, “It’s telling that a community designed exclusively for the confident few would be admired by so many.”

Looks may be deceiving, but the photo above makes me think “see-through office.”  Back in pre-bust days Opus presold 138 of the 143 units, but I doubt anyone would be surprised to see more buyers backing out.

The city is a place of acute contrasts, both in time and space. Walk south on 2nd Ave from the Fifteen Twenty One entrance, and the next building you pass houses the Seattle and King County Needle Exchange Program.

*Lyrics to Bluer Than Blue by Michael Johnson

Mystery commenter Max says people would take this blog more seriously if I didn’t act like it was a joke 3/4 of the time.  Could be true.  Many friends advised me against going with the name hugeasscity, but I made a marketing decision.  After all, Horse’s Ass started out as a joke, but that didn’t stop it from becoming the most heavily trafficked political blog in Washington State.

And so even though I derive undue pleasure from the thought of serious policy makers articulating the word “hugeasscity” amongst themselves, say hello to the Seattle Planning Blog!  

Not that I’d be so presumptuous to think anyone out there takes this blog seriously enough to have an opinion on this, but in all seriousness, I be interested to hear any seriously deep intellectual ponderings you readers may have on whether or not choosing hugeasscity as a name and throwing in a dumbass post title now and then is a serious detriment to the dissemination of serious content for serious people.

The wonky urban planning acronym “TOD” has been flowing across an uncannily wide spectrum of local interwebs as of late. The debate over sister TOD bills HB1490 and SB5687 has percolated up from the lowliest of blogs to grace the pages of the esteemed Crosscut, and has even felt the love from the PI’s star opinion maker. Sally Clark’s public workshop on the legislation got play-by-play coverage from both Publicola and SLOG. There appears to be a frightening number of wonks in this town.

Through all the buzz over the past several weeks it’s clear that the most sensitive cultural nerve struck by the proposed TOD bills is a distrust of top-down, so-called “one-size-fits-all” planning. In short, Americans don’t like being told what to do. And urban planning in particular has a stained reputation stretching back nearly half a century to the heyday of urban renewal—top-down planning in the extreme that for the most part failed miserably.

But all in all, I can only infer that most of the bristling over the proposed TOD legislation is knee jerk reaction driven by inflexible ideology, combined with a myopic underestimation of the crisis we face.

Here’s why:

Density
So far, most of the controversy has swirled around the density stipulations in the proposed legislation. Yes, an allowed density threshold may be one-size, but it’s a size that’s easy for almost anyone to fit into. Zoning that allows an average of 50 dwelling units per net acre is completely in line with Seattle’s concept of an urban village, and from the perspective of cities worldwide, it is remarkable only in that it is so modest a level of density.

Furthermore, the proposal would require only that the average over the entire half-mile radius area meets the threshold. Local communities would have full control over how the zoning is arranged and divvied up through the the station area.

And furthermore, the density threshold is a minimum only, and as such is inherently not one-size-fits-all, because many station areas will no doubt choose to allow even higher densities (see for example plans for the Bel-Red corridor in Bellevue, with proposals for zoning that would allow building heights up to 150 feet).

The fundamental purpose of an allowable density threshold is to make sure that government regulations do not prevent people who want to live near high capacity transit stations from doing so. Framing the issue in this way underscores the shallowness of the “top-down” objection.

Parking
The bill as originally proposed mandated that parking minimums cannot be required in station areas—it would not ban parking, as some misinformed detractors believe. In other words, the bill would limit government regulation, and allow individuals to decide for themselves whether or not they wanted to build parking. One might expect that the folks who are wary of the nanny state would be on board with this sort of deregulation, but apparently since it would be coming down from the State level, that makes it unacceptable.

Crime
Because the TOD bill would enable higher density development, it is a top-down mandate for more crime!  Now, that would be a powerful criticism but for the fact that it’s based on nonsense. There is no causal relationship between density and crime rates. And in fact, it is the deserted streets and neighborhood centers that tend to become havens for street crime. When more people are out and about in the neighborhood doing legitimate, everyday things, the whole neighborhood becomes safer for everyone—“eyes on the street,” as Jane Jacobs famously called it. And more density means more eyes. Will this country ever get over it’s anti-urban bias?

Housing Affordability
One thing we know for sure is that housing prices in the new station areas are destined to rise faster than the city average if we do nothing in the way of new regulation, and let the market take its course. In contrast, the proposed TOD legislation would reduce upward pressure on housing prices for two reasons: (1) simple supply and demand, and (2) the bill requires affordable housing in new development.

Some folks never seem to tire of making the inane claim that building dense multifamily housing makes single-family housing less attainable for families. The reality is that the supply created by new multifamily housing lowers demand, and thus helps drive prices down and increase availability for all housing, including single-family. And this effect more than offsets any single family housing that might be lost to multifamily redevelopment.

Restricting housing options to single-family virtually guarantees expensive homes that will be unaffordable to all but the most wealthy of families. It would not be the end of the world if some single family zones in the station areas had to be upzoned to meet the density threshold, and the truth is, such upzones would be effective policy for promoting both housing affordability and sustainability.

Regarding reason #2, it couldn’t be any simpler: Redevelopment is going to happen regardless, but the only way it will include a significant number of affordable units is if it’s mandated by legislation. Will local governments step up? Who knows, but right now the State has an unprecedented affordable housing offer on the table.

Here again, one might expect widespread support from the general Seattle populace for a bill that would help ameliorate the City’s affordable housing quandary. Unfortunately, for many it appears that close-minded bias against the means (i.e. legislation that would encourage higher-density multifamily housing), takes precedence over the achievement of otherwise desired ends.

What’s At Stake
The official name of HB1490 and SB5687 is this: “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through land use and transportation requirements.” That is to say, the legislation’s reason for being is the desire of the citizens of Washington State—as expressed through their elected representatives—to address climate change.

But in much of the debate I’ve witnessed, the massively important primary goal of the proposed legislation gets lost in the noise. The discussion invariably devolves into gripe fests over how the bill may or may not satisfy the unique interests of each and every person who may or may not be affected, or how such a bill must be the work of Satan himself because the sponsors didn’t hold years of stakeholder meetings and obtain a signed permission slip from every neighborhood resident in advance. It’s as if people believe that the legislation was proposed for the sole purpose of pissing them off. And through all the complaining, nary a word do we hear about an alternative, realistic proposal for dealing with climate change.

Responding effectively to the threat of climate change will not be painless, and the pain will not be distributed perfectly evenly. That is the reality of solving a crisis. Yes, redevelopment around station areas will cause some displacement. But this is not an intractable problem—the solution is policy that fairly, or better yet overly compensates those displaced.

The situation on the ground increasingly demands that leaders take quick and decisive action. Unfortunately, it’s getting to the point where we no longer have the luxury of copious time for drawn out, all-inclusive decision-making processes. That is another reality of solving a crisis.

When the ozone hole was expanding in the 1980s, few expected the federal government to bend over backwards trying to get buy-in from any and all parties who may have been negatively impacted by a ban on CFCs. We knew what we had to do and we knew we had to do fast. And the same is true now for climate change.

Land use patterns have multi-faceted, systemic, and persistent impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. New buildings and infrastructure stay around for 50 to 100 years or more, which makes it all the more critical to immediately stop creating low-density, car-oriented built environments, especially in areas that are served by high-capacity transit. But here’s the thing: An allowed density threshold would not mandate this needed change in land use patterns: it would only insure that regulations do not prevent it. The proposed TOD bill would not force anyone to do anything. No developer is going to pursue a dense multifamily housing project in a station area if nobody wants to live in such housing.

The proposed legislation is simply an attempt to establish an urgently needed but relatively modest baseline for sustainable land use patterns in station areas. That it has received such an antagonistic reception in what is supposedly one of the most progressive cities in the country is a stark indication of how far attitudes have yet to shift before climate change will arouse a response commensurate with the threat.

At its former location at 22nd and Madison, the Twilight Exit was a pioneer in  the gentrifying Miller Park neighborhood on the northern fringes of the Central District.  But as often happens, the pioneer became a victim of the neighborhood evolution that it helped to bring about:  imminent redevelopment forced a move.

The Twilight’s new turf at 25th and Cherry is pure Central District.  And while housing prices have risen rapidly in the CD over the past decade or so, you wouldn’t know it judging by the struggling commercial blocks on Cherry Street between 23rd Ave and MLK Blvd.  In the eleven years that I’ve lived in the neighborhood, Cherry lost a BBQ joint, a cleaners, a small church, the Dilettante Chocolate store, and a car repair shop, while it gained a cafe and three Ethiopian restaurants (oddly, that’s in addition to two that were already there).

The Twilight Exit has taken over a space in which two soul food restaurants have tried and failed over the past seven years.  I suspect the Twilight will manage to avoid the same fate, but it is likely to be a challenge.  Compared to 22nd and Madison, the predominantly single-family neighborhood around Cherry provides a smaller local customer base, and it’s far enough away from Capitol Hill to discourage many a patron of the former location from making the trek.

A further challenge is the lack of street activation on Cherry, which makes for a desolate environment after dark.  The area has been troubled with street crime for many years, and on the Twilight’s opening weekend, that trouble reared its head in the ugliest way imaginable when 26-year old Tyrone Love was gunned down near 26th and Cherry.

The trajectory of change in the CD is a cultural minefield.  No doubt, there are those who view the Twilight as the latest wave of invasion, just as there are those who can’t wait for the culture represented by the Twilight to take over.  But most, I believe, are somewhere in the middle – they like the diversity in the CD and want to see it preserved, and hope for both a revitalized African American community, and a revitalized neighborhood center.

[ Memorial for Tyrone Love near 26th and Cherry ]

This view got me to thinking that if I was going to develop a highrise luxury condo/hotel, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t give the thumbs up to a site that had a hulking, 479 foot tall concrete bunker directly across the alley to the southwest.  It’s not like that was the last available infill site in the entire Denny triangle.

There’s something sort of embarrassing about how close those two buildings are to each other, when most of the other buildings in the area have lots of breathing space.  And the building heights are painfully close to being equal, but different enough to look awkward together.

One can only assume that they did the math, and found that the lower cost of land offset the estimated loss in value due to blocked views.  Or what am I missing?

[  Looking west:  Olive 8 coming out of the ground, right on the heels of the Olivian, adjacent to the northeast.  ]

I recently subscribed to Crosscut in the hope that I’d have daily access to thoughtful views to the right of my own. There’s value in stretching your thinking, right? Well, imagine my dismay this morning when I read the stinking pile of doo doo that one Kent Kammerer put out in his piece, “Beware greens pushing Transit Oriented Development.” I first thought of writing a thoughtful, well-balanced response to Kammerer’s piece, acknowledging his good points, validating his (and, presumably, others’) irrational fears, and striking a nice middle ground. But then I read his article again, and I decided that type of response would lend underserved validity to what’s obviously a knee-jerk, poorly reasoned, and ultimately dangerous line of thought.

You know those arguments that end with a Hitler comparison? “Oh, well, Hitler had a plan for TOD, too. What do you have to say about THAT???” Well, Kammerer has found the new Hitler: the Mau Mau uprising in Africa, not to mention imperialism, racism, and probably some genocide thrown in for good measure. Apparently, groups such as Sightline and Futurewise are the new colonialists, bringing their high and mighty Transit Oriented Development and squashing Seattle’s “natives” (I wonder what Seattle’s actual natives have to say about that). Kammerer is hell bent on throwing anything that might stick (let’s not piddle with scientific facts – thanks to Stephen Colbert, it is now well known that reality has a liberal bias). Let’s examine his main “points”:

1. Hypocrisy: People working in places like Transportation Choices Coalition actually drive cars and live in single family houses. OOOHHHH, in your FACE, um, green organization people. I smell an expose here. Who’s he going to name? Whose green reputation will be destroyed? Who will be shamed and cast out from the rampaging tribe of green imperialists? Um, some people he knows of. He’s not going to say, but let’s take his word for it.
2. Belltown is the new Harlem: Apparently, if you’re going to walk in Belltown at night, you’d better carry a Glock. And it smells like urine. I know the parts he’s talking about. We all do. They comprise about 4 blocks (of the roughly 24 blocks), and I agree that they’re not the best. There are a limited number of reasons you’d spend time on these blocks, and most of them are illegal (or, at the very least, immoral). Kammerer seems to be implying that these blocks were much better before development occurred in Belltown. Remember how great it was down there in the 70s and 80s? Ahhh, the halcyon days of Belltown before it was ruined by density! And all that nightlife, those restaurants, the Olympic Sculpture Park, the ability to walk to work – those have really blighted the area. The core point is this, though: the issues in Belltown are deeply rooted in many communities. Drug use, mental health services, homeless housing – these have not been adequately dealt with here, nor have they in many rural communities. Admittedly, Belltown is probably not the best model for dense development, but Harlem circa 1975 it is not.
3. Net negative carbon exchange: TOD involves building with steel and concrete, both of which have negative environmental impacts. Yes, true, if taken from a static point in time. Building an apartment building this year probably uses more carbon than, say, not building an apartment this year. But I’d be willing to wager that building over the next 5, 10, 15 years will consume far less when compared to building a single family home for each of those residents, all of the services they consume due to their inefficient locations, the infrastructure needing to be built, etc.
4. Building TOD is not enough: Apparently you need things like schools, infrastructure, and police services. This appears to be unique to TOD areas. Those same people, put into a suburban context, would no longer need these things, right? Krammerer’s argument inadvertently points to one of the main pro-density arguments – the reason you build up is that all of those services are more efficiently allocated to those who need them. He implies that since we’re just mandating housing, the other services wouldn’t happen and we’d get “tenement” style buildings. I agree that we need these services, but we’re not going to get them by avoiding TOD development.

I could rifle through more of Krammerer’s ham-fisted rationale, but here’s basically what he’s saying: let’s not do TOD because there’s no proof it works (other than here and here, among other places) and it is just one of the many steps we should be taking in urban development (which somehow seems to imply we should not do any of them). It’s a stupid argument, and I feel almost equally stupid having wasted the carbon this rebuttal has consumed.

[ Proposed mixed-used infill project at 1424 11th Ave; rendering:  Weinstein A|U ]

Pike/Pine has more examples of small-scale urban infill done right than any other neighborhood in Seattle, and Liz Dunn’s latest, shown above, promises to continue that trend.  Designed by Weinstein A|U — the same firm that designed Dunn’s Agnes Lofts just around the corner — the proposed project at 1424 11th Ave is only 65 feet wide at the street.  For comparison, 1310 E Union is 40 feet; 1111 E Pike is 60 feet; and the 500 block of E Pine is about 200 feet long.

The building will incorporate 60 apartments, 6148 sf of retail, and 27 parking stalls.  Most of the units are studios and they are relatively small:  the average gross floor area per unit is 600 sf, which translates to a rentable area of roughly 500 sf.  That’s small, though not too far below market norms — Moda in Belltown has units as small as 300 sf.

The parking ratio is fairly low, at 0.45 stalls per unit, which helps keep costs down.  And because the garage has less than 30 parking stalls, code allows a driveway width of  10-feet rather than 20, alleviating the necessity to put a gaping hole in the street wall.  The design as a whole de-emphasizes the base of the building, in contrast to the heavy, visually disconnected base that is so common on this building type in Seattle.

What’s not to like?  Well, as it the case with pretty much any new market rate housing, rents in this building are likely to be unaffordable to a large fraction of the people who established the colorful and magnetic urban character of Pike/Pine in the first place, and makes it such a marketable location for housing.  Small units and low parking ratios are about as much as a market rate developer can do to keep rents low.

The bottom line is that the market cannot provide affordable housing in expensive cities — subsidy is a prerequisite.  To the best of my knowledge, Pike/Pine has only one relatively new affordable urban infill project:  Broadway Crossing at the corner of Broadway and Pine.

…burns half as long.

Almost a year ago I wrote, “Pb Elemental is on fire.  But will they go down in flames?”  The candle may not be out, but it appears to be flickering: the newly renovated Pb Elemental HQ is up for sale.

There are those for whom the downfall of Pb is food for gloating.  Not me.  Though I don’t like all their stuff, overall I’ve been a fan because of how they gave Seattle architecture a much needed jolt of boldness — and they’ve gotten a pile of HAC ink: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

There are Pb projects under construction and for sale sprinkled all over Seattle — worth many millions.  Surprisingly, construction is still moving ahead on the Pb work loft project in my neighborhood.  Perhaps the owners will end up OK if they can finish and sell off enough of their inventory.  Like a candle in the wind…

Publicola has the scoop.

UPDATE:  As I should have added (and was noted in the Publicola post), the fact that the bill didn’t make it out of committee does not mean it’s dead for good.  Proponents of the bill will continue to work with legislators toward a mutually agreeable solution.

UPDATE 2:  The house bill made it out of committee this morning (2/19), see report here.  See also Publicola’s play-by-play of the TOD community forum previewed in this this post.

UPDATE 3:  Word on the street is that the senate version of the bill — SB 5687 — passed out of committee this afternoon (2/19), and still includes the provision mandating no parking minimums in station areas that had to be stripped from the house version to get it out of committee.

Not that I condone such behavior…

But here’s the deal:   Tonight Sally Clark is holding a community workshop on the proposed “Creating Transit Oriented Communities” Bill that has been discussed on this blog here, here, and here, and also on SLOG here, and Sightline here.

There have been several recent community meetings on this legislation, and, as I’ve been told, they have been dominated by attendees who oppose the bill, in some cases with a level of venom not unlike a mob with pitchforks.

What is playing out here, I believe, is a culture clash between Seattle’s fading “old guard,” and an up and coming “new guard.”  The old guard does not want Seattle to change.  The new guard recognizes that Seattle must change to respond to an evolving world, and in particular that densification is a key strategy for creating a more sustainable city and region.

When considering the merits of new development, the first concern that an old guarder is likely to raise is parking.  The new guarder is probably still mourning the loss of the monorail.   Crosscut (mostly) = old guard; the Stranger = new guard, more or less.

My take is that the old guarders who tend to rule most of Seattle’s neighborhood groups are becoming increasingly out of touch with the values of the neighbors they supposedly represent.  That would be fine except for that in Seattle politics, the neighborhood groups can have real influence.  And so I would encourage those of you who identify themselves more with the new guard outlook to make an effort to remedy that lack of representation.  Go find your neighborhood group.  Take over.

But in the mean time, you have a chance to make your presence known at tonight’s important meeting on the future of transit-oriented development in Seattle:

Trains, Density & Change Can rules about transit-oriented communities build great neighborhoods? A Workshop on HB 1490

Wednesday, February 18, 6 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. Langston Hughes Cultural Center Auditorium, 104 17th Ave. S, Seattle.
Speakers to include reps from Futurewise, the Urban Land Institute, and the Seattle Displacement Coalition.

More details here (pdf).

[ PV panels being installed on the Salveo townhouses in Magnolia; image: Parsons Public Relations ]

It’s an inspiring scene, and one we’ll no doubt be seeing played out more and more.  Though at the same time, I can’t keep myself from wringing my hands over how long it has taken us, and how much further we have to go.  We lose an valuable opportunity every time we put up a new building without rooftop photovoltaic (PV) and solar hot water systems like those those being installed in the photo above.

The twelve panels that make up the PV system — provided by Puget Sound Solar — cover about 150 square feet of the roof.  Rated at 2.4 kW total, the panels are expected to produce about 2,800 kWh of AC electrical energy per year.  The solar hot water system is estimated to produce about 2/3 of the hot water needs for a typical two-person household.

As of 2005, the average household located in the pacific division of the western census region consumed 21,000 kWh/ per year total energy, of which 8,500 kWh was electricity.  So matching annual household electricity use would require three of the above-described PV systems, and 450 square feet of roof.  For comparison, a typical townhouse footprint is about 800 square feet.  Offsetting the entire household demand to achieve net-zero energy use would take 7.5 of the PV systems and 1125 square feet — too large an area to fit on a townhouse roof.

The point is that rooftop PV has the potential to produce a big chunk of household energy use in low-rise buildings, even with Seattle’s less than ideal solar input.  But of course the catch is PV has high up front cost, and relatively long pay back periods.  A 2.4 kW PV system like the one noted above costs in the neighborhood of $20,000.  Washington State law mandates authorizes utilities pay up to 15 cents per kWh generated by PV, and there is a 30 percent federal tax credit available for the purchase of PV systems.  Applying those two factors yields a 33 year payback.

We need better incentives.  Can anyone out there tell us if the new stimulus package will help?

“It’s bad planetary management to build large, singular and brittle projects when small, multiple and resilient answers exist and will suffice if employed.”

In the piece quoted above, Alex Steffan is referring to “geoengineering megaprojects” that have been gaining traction as potential solutions for climate change.  It’s an excellent read, and provides much needed guidance on where we need to keep our focus.

But what also strikes me is that this is yet another example of how small-scale, widely distributed solutions are increasingly being recognized as the smartest approach for an impressive variety of systems.

The most prominent local example is the debate over how to replace Seattle’s Alaskan Way Viaduct.  There is a clear choice between large, singular, and brittle: the tunnel; and small, multiple, and resilient:  dispersed traffic across a grid of surface streets.

Other examples include:

• Management of stormwater runoff with rain barrels, green roofs, and natural drainage located at every building, rather than with giant, centralized detention tanks and treatment plants.
• Generation of electricity with large numbers of widely distributed, small-scale photovoltaic installations and micro-wind turbines, instead of a small number of remotely located, mega-sized, and enormously complex nuclear power plants.
• Distribution of digital data using peer-to-peer file sharing across multitudes of individual PCs, instead of relying on a few central servers.  In this case, distributed networks are so resilient that even powerful corporate interests (e.g. the major record labels) have been unable to shut them down.
• And of course, the most omnipresent example is our free market economy, in which the direction of markets is efficiently determined by millions of individual decisions, rather than by a centralized bureaucracy.

In addition to their demonstrated effectiveness, small-scale distributed systems represent a philosophy well-aligned with the democratic, independent mindset at the core of our culture.  So why, then, are we still so easily enchanted with the “mega-solution”?  Part of the answer is the technological hubris that has built up over the past century.  And part of it is because status-quo interests correctly perceive distributed systems as a threat to their concentrated power.

We best be getting over both of those hang-ups, and quick, because our future is destined to be a place in which we’re going to need every bit of resiliency we can scrape together.

(ed. note:  Any resemblence, real or imagined, to the project discussed here is purely coincidental.)

Much of the heat in the debate over urban density arises from a lack of understanding of what the metrics correspond to in the real world.  Below is a series of slides presented at a public hearing on HB1490 by a colleague of mine from GGLO, that illustrates a wide range of densities, i.e, Density 101 for Legislators.

The first two slides address the difference between gross density and net density — this has been a source of confusion for HB1490 opponents, as discussed here.

>>>

The following eight slides illustrate net densities ranging from 14 to 220 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC).  Keep in mind that the proposed 50 DU/AC threshold in HB1490 is defined in terms of the net density allowed by zoning.

(Some or you smarty-pantses may recall that in this previous post I claimed that the net density in the Rainier Vista building shown above was about 100 DU/AC.  My guess was high because I wasn’t considering the 3-story north end of the building, and also because I didn’t realize there is so much surface parking on the parcel.  Go here to see an example of a 3-over-1 building with a net density of 99 DU/AC.)

In case you missed it, the final verdict on transit-oriented development is in:

“Displacement Coalition says TOD bad for people, business & environment”

So reads the headline for yet another ludicrous compilation of specious arguments from the ever-prolific Carolee Colter and John Fox of the Seattle Displacement Coalition.  Not satisfied only with fear-mongering through mendacious interpretations of the density targets proposed in the “Creating Transit-Oriented Communities” legislation (HB 1490), Colter and Fox are now striving to sow false seeds of doubt about the merits of transit-oriented development itself. Applying the time-tested model of the global warming deniers, their tactic is to raise questions that are irrelevant (e.g. it snowed in London!), but nonetheless appear to be troubling contradictions unless you get beyond a surface level understanding.

For a piece so packed with illogical arguments, false conjecture, and sloppy facts, a full rebuttal is a tedious prospect (like this).  So why bother responding at all?  Because the Colter/Fox noise machine works.  There is no shortage of people who eat it right up (as anyone who was at last week’s Mt. Baker Community Club meeting could attest), and these people have the potential to create significant road blocks to badly needed progress.

In what follows I stick to the overarching flaws in their case, with the hope that commenters will weigh in on some of the gory details.  Though it may be hard to believe (for me, at least), this blog — potty-mouthed name and all — captures a fair share of eyeballs from policy makers.  So if you care about this issue, know that your comments have the potential to be a resource for decision makers.

>>>

Right out of the gate, Colter and Fox allege that the benefits of TOD are just another fantasy of those wacky enviros:

“On the surface TOD sounds plausible. But where’s the scientific evidence that it will actually work?”

Of course, this is just a slippery tactic for creating the impression that there is none.  But alas, Carolee and John, that is the farthest thing from the truth.   There are piles of published studies on compact development and TOD that demonstrate the environmental benefits.  One good source is the Urban Land Institute’s recently published book Growing Cooler, which posits a mathematical relationship between density and CO2 emissions based on a wide survey of published literature.  Colter and Fox are either staggeringly ignorant about the topic on which they are writing, or they are liars.

Throughout the rest of the piece the authors disregard their own demand for scientific evidence and proceed to speculate freely about all manner of possible development impacts, while providing nothing in the way of analysis or hard data to support their contention that TOD would do more harm than good.

But here’s the crux of it:  There is a gaping flaw in logic that forms a common thread running all through Colter and Fox’s arguments, and that is their failure to acknowledge the fact that if growth is not accommodated in TOD, it will have to go somewhere else.  Apparently they fantasize that development has magical powers to create growth where there was none before, and that the demographers’ projections of regional population growth will be proven wrong if only TOD could be stopped.   

So for example, the embodied energy sacrificed with the demolition of a building is only part of the story.  For honest accounting, you would have to compare the total impact of the TOD scenario with the total impact of the no TOD scenario.  And no TOD doesn’t  translate to no new construction — the same amount of new housing units would have to be built in some other location.  And since that other location would invariably be less urban and lower density, it is all but certain that TOD would have a lower net environmental impact.

Same goes for the scenario in which a resident is displaced to the suburbs and ends up driving more miles.  Let’s say for example that the redeveloped building could house ten people for every one that lived in the existing building.  What Colter and Fox are ignoring is that if the old building was preserved, then you would end up with ten people forced to live in places where they would have to drive more, instead of just one.

And same again with trees: if you have to provide a given number of new housing units somewhere, and you want to minimize the loss of carbon sequestration by trees, then clearly the best solution is to locate the new housing in an already developed urban area, and build it as dense and as tall as possible.  The result of curtailing TOD would be precisely the opposite of what Colter and Fox contend:  more trees would be lost overall, more viable habitat would be destroyed, and greenhouse gas emissions would increase.  Climate change is not a neighborhood-scale phenomenon.

The Seattle Displacement Coalition has a noble mission, and the impact of redevelopment on the most vulnerable in our communities is an important equity issue. But the babble of Carolee and Fox reveal a mindset trapped in one-issue tunnel vision and remarkably oblivious to the realities of the present day.  If we do not make drastic, systemic changes to the way we live, climate change will displace hundreds of millions of the poor and vulnerable across the globe.  And one of the most promising strategies we have for systemic change is to create compact, mixed-use communities with easy access to high-capacity transit.  That is, TOD.

Affordable housing and TOD are not mutually exclusive, and there are countless smart and dedicated people working on solutions that will help create both.  Too bad the members of the Seattle Displacement Coalition are not among them.

[  Trader Joe’s addition at the corner of 17th and E Olive on Capitol Hill ]

In recognition of the record number of comments provoked by this riff, allow me to present another example of new multifamily housing that is sure to be a crowd-pleaser.

Could all that color be a horribly misguided attempt to respond to criticism of the godawfully monotonous beige tones used on the housing over the Trader Joe’s store (see right side of photo, also here)?

Anybody know who designed this eyesore for Trader Joe’s?  As implausible as it seems, people were actually paid to draw those gables and pick those colors.

In the Guardian, via Planetizen:

Unless there is timely action on climate change, California’s agricultural bounty could be reduced to a dust bowl and its cities disappear, Barack Obama’s energy secretary said yesterday.

In blunt language, [Steven] Chu said Americans had yet to fully understand the urgency of dealing with climate change. “I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen,” he told the Los Angeles Times in his first interview since taking the post. “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California. I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going.”

Anyhoo, let’s spend billions on an underground bypass highway, and let’s howl and lie about efforts to promote TOD, and sure, why not, the auto industry is hurting, so let’s subsidize the purchase of cars.

Sorry. There is now a hugeasscity facebook group.  It’s all my fault.

How many of our anonymously nicknamed commenters will be willing to give up their anonymity?

Oh, and one more thing:  Is facebook actually good for people?  Do any of us really need another excuse to spend one more second staring at an electronic display screen?  Is there any lasting value in all the news feed chatter?  To what degree can virtual social networks substitute for our inborn need to be social with real, live, present people?

 

Today over at Publicola:

Leaders in Olympia, including Governor Chris Gegoire and Senate Majority Caucus Leader Sen. Ed Murray (D-43), have both said that the proposed one percent MVET increase that was expected to raise $120 million for transit along the Viaduct corridor—and was supposedly a key element of the waterfront tunnel plan—is not part of the plan now at all.

Last week in the PI:

What’s apparently still keeping some of the advocacy groups onboard the tunnel plan is a proposal to let King County pass a one percent motor-vehicle excise tax, or $100 yearly on a $10,000 car.

“Our acceptance of the deal is completely dependent on the (excise tax) being part of the solution,” Rob Johnson, executive director of the Transportation Choices Coalition, said in an e-mail.

Huh.

Meanwhile, the pragmatists have been chipping away at my anti-tunnel convictions.  A friend wrote this in an email today:

I love love love the idea of using the grid instead of a big heavy infrastructure solution.  Unfortunately I saw how SDOT and WSDOT planned to use the grid.  More vehicle lanes, removal of on-street parking, compromised green streets.  The story was turning grim–that’s why a small deep-bore is, in the end, a reasonable solution.

So yes, I agree: the tunnel makes sense, but only if one is willing to accept status-quo stupidity.  As in, a badly designed surface option.  And/or there’s no other way we could stop the Choppaduct.  And/or we’re so feeble-minded we could never find a way to repurpose the tunnel funds to something other than roads.  And/or etc.  If needed, stir in equal parts climate change denial and peak oil denial and you’re there.