hugeasscity

“He also wants to spend $15 billion to expand highways and reduce traffic congestion, which he says would reduce emissions.”

That “he” would be Dino Rossi, and to back up this proposal his campaign cited a study about reductions in — oops! — carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide. When the Seattle Times pressed them on this, they cited two more studies, one on — oops! — congestion pricing, which — oops! — Rossi doesn’t support, and a second that finds reducing congestion can cut emissions, but — oops! — only if steps are taken to keep traffic from increasing, which — oops! — it is 100% safe to assume, are steps that Rossi would never dream of taking.

But what’s much more disturbing than Rossi making shit up, is that he can make shit up about one of the most critical issues of our times, get called on it in a major newspaper, and still retain legitimacy in the minds of roughly half of the voting population of Washington State. It’s a curious thing. It’s as if the reptilian core has latched on to the singular truth that “he’s our man,” and so reality becomes irrelevant.

Not that I think there’s a single reader of this blog who’s voting for Rossi (Or is there? Any undecideds out there willing to admit it?), but still, the whole Seattle Times piece is worth a read for reinforcement. The contrast between the two candidates couldn’t be any more stark.

Gregoire spoke at Reality Check last April, and demonstrated that she gets the connections between land use patterns and sustainability. In September, she became the first governor ever to speak at Housing Washington, the State’s largest affordable housing conference, and expressed her commitment to addressing the challenges of providing affordable housing. Gregoire had this to say about the viaduct recently: “We’re working hard right now to craft the right mix of fixes to I-5, to city streets, and to transit to see if these improvements can meet the challenge. If we can make it work, we’re going to.”

Nuff said.

.

[ Two Union Square ]

.

.

[ Did they put the Space Needle on axis with 2nd Ave on purpose? ]

.

.

[ Two ex-WaMus and a Sculpture Park ]

.

.

[ One tall building hiding behind another ]

.

.

[ Public benefit in exchange for development bonus: open space and daycare on the IDX Tower ]

.

.

[ Green roofs on the Justice Center and City Hall ]

.

.

[ Pile of buildings, a.k.a. the downtown office core ]

.

.

[ Looking Southwest ]

.

.

.

.

[ 1933 Seattle streetcar system overlayed on current urban villages, by leesroberts, via STB ]

One of the biggest benefits of expanding light rail in the Seattle area is the effect it will have on land use patterns. Because fixed guideway transit is a catalyst for focusing development in a bullseye around stations. In the words of the American Public Transportation Association:

“Fixed guideway transit investments are essential to creating energy efficient land use patterns which produce greenhouse gas emission savings far beyond the immediate benefit of increased public transportation use. …Experience has shown that once fixed guideway transit investments are committed and station locations set, the public and private sector can plan transit-oriented developments which produce dramatic reductions in vehicle travel and transportation-related emissions.”

But there’s more to it than energy efficiency: Without an organizing principle, development flails. When there is no reason to develop in one place rather than another, the resultant built environment will likely become one in which there is no reason to be in one place rather than another. In other words, random sprawl, which is not only inefficient, but also lacks the sense of place, focus of social interaction, and source of civic pride that have made great cities livable and memorable for thousands of years.

Created by leesroberts (via The Seattle Transit Blog), the map above shows the Seattle streetcar system in 1933 overlayed on a current map of Seattle’s urban villages. While the match isn’t perfect, most of the transit villages that grew up around the streetcar lines still constitute the core and identity of today’s neighborhoods. The streetcar system helped create a desirable urban form that has benefited the residents of Seattle for nearly a century. And that’s exactly the same long-term benefit we can expect from new light rail in Seattle.

There have been buses running down Rainier Ave. for more than half a century, but development over those years has been unfocused and highly car-dependent. The difference between buses and fixed guideway transit is that a decade from now the oceans of asphalt parking lot surrounding the McClellan light rail station will be gone, replaced by the mixed-use residential buildings and open spaces of a vibrant new urban village. Over in Bellevue we can expect to see a similar transformation in the Bel-Red Corridor if Proposition 1 passes.

Pretty much any time light rail is proposed anywhere in the U.S, people will impugn it by reducing the total investment to a cost per ride that sounds expensive. Left out of their equation, however, are long-term, systemic and transformative effects that are not easily quantified, but are substantial nonetheless. Others deride the “light rail faithful” for supporting a transit system that doesn’t provide the direct benefit of a stop right outside their own front doors. Similarly, what’s missing with this gripe is the insight to grasp that most light rail proponents recognize the big picture benefits, and are willing to be unselfish.

(UPDATE:  A comment over at SLOG made me realize that “unselfish” is a bad choice of words.  It’s not unselfish to act according to big picture benefits, because everyone wins.)   

The coming of light rail to Seattle transcends the physical train and tracks: It is an agent for paradigm shift in both transportation and urban form. It is the critical first step in showing people that there is an attractive alternative, as well as a badly needed demonstration that we can take meaningful action in this era of overwhelming environmental challenges.

In the long term, light rail will produce significant, tangible benefits that make sense for the future. But perhaps as important is the near term symbolic value, for symbols have always had the power to change the course of civilizations.

Oh, and did I mention that I think everyone should vote YES on Proposition 1?

“The global economy is losing more money from the disappearance of forests than through the current banking crisis, according to an EU-commissioned study.”

So reports the BBC, citing the newly released “Teeb” report, that estimates the annual cost of forest loss is between $2 and $5 trillion, or about 7% of global GDP. Those are staggering numbers, though I’m not sure “dwarfs” is right word to describe how it compares to the current world economic crisis: last week $2.4 trillion of share value was lost in the U.S. stock markets, and didn’t I hear something about $700 billion and then another $250 billion in bailouts by the U.S. government alone?

Wonky nitpicking aside, the Teeb report delivers a massively important message.  It puts the value of natural capital in the only terms that our economic system is capable of acknowledging:  dollars.  Lots and lots of them.  So there is hope that the Teeb report may have an impact similar to that which the Stern Review had on the business community regarding climate change, particularly in Europe. 

Now please keep in mind, I’m just the messenger, but speaking of biodiversity, Scientific American just published a story entitled “One Quarter of World’s Mammals Face Extinction.”  How much is that worth?

Sterile rather than soulful, this is the all-business blue that fills your screen when you boot up windows; a blue that looks as if it was color-matched to the utilitarian blue of the generic blue tarp you can see in the bottom left of the photo. (Not that you asked…)

At 19th and Yesler, this is the latest by gProjects and b9 Architects. When built out, it will consist of five live-work homes and six townhouses. The same team developed the recently completed 7-unit “Urban Canyon” project at 19th and Pine (photo below). These two firms do great work and are starting to get more recognition for it (e.g. here, here, and here).

Urban Canyon achieved a 5-star Built Green rating, see this case study for details. The homes are expected to perform “32 to 45 percent better than International Energy Code,” though it’s not clear which features are most responsible for those savings. Given the high up-front cost of photovoltaics, it’s impressive to see them included. The total 7 kW of PV would produce roughly 7000 kWh per year, our about half the annual energy use of one typical townhouse.

Urban Canyon also stands out for it’s site design.  Shared common space invites neighborly interaction.  There are no garages, so entrances sit at street level, forming a stronger connection to the public realm.  The unusual roof lines are a matter of taste, but if nothing else they give the project a unique and fun identity.

The work of the gProjects/b9 team is living proof that townhouse-scale development doesn’t have to be heinous. It simply takes thoughtful design. So why is it that thoughtful design is in such short supply?

[ The Madison Street corridor on Capitol Hill as seen from the Bank of America Tower ]

In the last decade or so, a whole lotta building has sprouted around the Madison Street corridor on Capitol Hill. In this photo: Trace Lofts, The Braeburn, The Pearl, 1301 East Union, Madison Market, 1700 Madison (Trader Joe’s). Construction cranes are visible at The Chloe and the Trader Joe’s addition. Just out of view to the bottom left are Agnes Lofts and 1111 East Pike (under construction). Just out of view to the top right is the Hearing, Speech and Deafness Center. Proposed projects include 1210 11th Ave, 1222 E Madison (right behind Trace Lofts), 954 E Union, and 1818 E Madison (Fratelli’s site).

But still a ways to go before it will be like Paris…

For which type of housing might we expect to see increased demand in the coming months and years? Trick question, cause if the economic inequality trends of the last two or three decades continue, the answer may well be both.

But hey, no need to dwell on that. Walk two blocks north of here on 1st Ave and feel good to know that Free People are (is?) coming. Clothes for rich women who want to dress up like indigent bohemians. Full circle like a mobius strip.

Dig this blindingly white new 3-pack at 24th and Grand in the central district. The photo was taken from the street, so one presumes there will soon be a big fence going in above the rockery. Please, let it be a white fence.

Hugeasscity’s Askimet comment spam filter is on the fritz, and has been blocking all comments. For now I have turned the filter off, so you should have no problem posting comments. I have tried to manually approve all the previously submitted legitimate comments, and I apologize to anyone who’s comment may have been inadvertently black-holed. Hoping for a final fix to the filter soon, cause the forecast is for heavy spam without it.

In the commentary below, Robert Steuteville, editor and publisher of New Urban News, makes the case that anti-density NIMBYs are a “societal plague.” As has been noted numerous times on this blog (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), Seattle is not immune. And we shall soon find out if upzones in the SE Seattle light rail station areas will be the next victims of the plague.

Because the topic is so relevant and the author so seasoned, I’ve posted the Steuteville piece in its entirety. But first, a few choice lines for all you short attention spanners:

“To solve the problems we face, zoning reform has to take place at least 10 times as rapidly as it is proceeding now. And I think that’s going to occur, so to speak, over dead NIMBY bodies.

“Nothing noble, or even rational, fuels their opposition to smart growth.

“NIMBYism is the can’t-do spirit, which is in danger of strangling this country if we let it.”

>

From the June 2008 issue of New Urban News:

We can’t let NIMBYs sink reform

By Robert Steuteville

A case can be made that NIMBYs (not-in-my-backyarders) pose a serious threat. That’s right: The neighbors who fight, to their dying breath, a zoning change or a “high-density” development — anything that has more people per acre than their subdivision — are a societal plague.

We’re facing many crises, including spiraling fuel costs, a housing stock that in many places is losing value, and carbon emissions that cause global warming. All of these are related to land use. We cannot cut back fast enough on fuel use and carbon emissions when 80 percent of the built environment is designed for driving, to the exclusion of walking, mass transit, and other modes of transportation.

Because of changing demographics, rising fuel costs, and other factors, America’s dominant pattern of large-lot housing and segregated uses is increasingly out of whack with the market. This leads to dropping property values.

Market forces are not by themselves a solution — but they could help if we let them. The market for compact, walkable, transit-friendly development is woefully undersupplied. By some estimates, if we did nothing but build that kind of housing for the next 25 years, the US would still have a surplus of large-lot single-family houses.

The key to the problem is zoning that has systematically restricted density and mixed use for 80 years. This kind of zoning is self-perpetuating, because the homeowners who move into the large-lot houses have the power to maintain the zoning, regardless of market demand for other kinds of housing.

Form-based codes are an answer. Nonetheless, after two decades of work by new urbanists, no more than 100 form-based codes are on the books in the US. At the current rate, we’ll reform zoning in America in another century or so. That is too long to wait.

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, is home to the Amish, and has some of the nation’s best farmland. Large-lot sprawl has been devouring this precious resource for decades, forcing many of the Amish to move to Upstate New York and other regions in the search for affordable farm land.

In the early 1990s, planners, developers, and other officials around Lancaster began to discuss smart growth and traditional neighborhood development (TND). Their meetings culminated in a regional plan — called “Growing Together” — to manage growth and save farmland. One of the municipalities involved, East Hempfield Township, was lucky enough to have some of the nation’s top planners design developments in accordance with that vision. East Hempfield could have been a model for smart growth. Instead, NIMBYs stormed the municipal building by the hundreds to protest a code that would have allowed TND to move forward.

“People felt it was too far, too fast, and we got our hands slapped,” East Hempfield planner Mark Stivers told the Lancaster News. Too fast — after 16 years of careful and deliberate planning.

NIMBYism is worst in the Northeast and California, where it’s not uncommon for even the best development — projects that are clearly smart growth — to take 5 or 10 years to get approved or denied. But there are NIMBYs all over, even in places that are relatively welcoming to development. To solve the problems we face, zoning reform has to take place at least 10 times as rapidly as it is proceeding now. And I think that’s going to occur, so to speak, over dead NIMBY bodies.

Nothing noble, or even rational, fuels their opposition to smart growth. With conventional development, there’s some justification. With smart growth, it’s fear of change, prejudice, stubbornness, and the mentality of the mob.

Meeting the coming challenges will be enormously difficult — perhaps as difficult as winning World War II — and we will need every bit of the old can-do American spirit. NIMBYism is the can’t-do spirit, which is in danger of strangling this country if we let it. We must not let that happen.

The recently completed $107 million renovation of Garfield High School was the most expensive ever undertaken by the Seattle School District. To put that in perspective, the price tag on the new downtown Four Seasons condo/hotel is $120 million. QWest Field cost $360 million, of which the public covered $300 million.

The photo above shows the entrance to the new Quincy Jones Performance Center, and it, along with the rest of the renovation, is, in a word, inspiring. Inspiring because it’s an example of our wealth being spent on something that matters. I have long been astounded by how in one of the wealthiest and most highly educated cities on the planet, we can’t seem to figure out how to a better job with public education.

Some argue that we can’t just throw money at it, and of course that is hard to disagree with, as are most shallow generalities. But money doesn’t hurt. As noted in Worldchanging — Alex Steffan’s indispensable compendium of ideas for a sustainable future — according to an international survey Finland has the best public school system in the world. Finland also happens to spend more per grade student than any other nation. No doubt there are other social factors involved, and of them, this is perhaps the most surprising: Finnish students spend less time in class than students in any other industrialized nation. Hello quality versus quantity.

The impressive renovation of Garfield High School won’t eradicate the challenges faced by the school, but it will help. If nothing else it will impart a feeling of pride to the students, and a sense that the community cares about them. It can also be expected to have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood (but that’s a long story…).

The August 25 issue of American Conservative randomly ended up in my hands the other day, and a perusal revealed two riffs worth a read. You have to subscribe to see the content online, but oddly, both articles are available for free at findarticles.com.

In a piece entitled Future Perfect, Brian Kaller posits that yes, peak oil will change everything, but finds some hope in that:

“…Take one of the more pessimistic projections of the future, from the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, and assume that by 2030 the world will have only two-thirds as much energy per person. Little breakdowns can feed on each other, so crudely double that estimate. Say that, for some reason, solar power, wind turbines, nuclear plants, tidal power, hydroelectric dams, biofuels, and new technologies never take off. Say that Americans make only a third as much money, cut driving by two-thirds. Assume that extended families have to move in together to conserve resources and that we must cut our flying by 98 percent.

“Many would consider that a fairly clear picture of collapse. But we have been there before, and recently. Those are the statistics of the 1950s–not remembered as a big time for cannibalism.”

“… We need a common vision that avoids post-apocalypse yarns as well as “Star Trek” fantasies in favor of something both realistic and hopeful. Handled right, peak oil could bring a revival of small-town America, local farming, small businesses, and an economy that centers around Main Street rather than Wall Street. It wouldn’t require us suddenly to turn Amish. With solar, wind, and nuclear power, we can maintain the Internet, commuter rail, and other technologies and continue the global exchange of ideas.

“…If Andy Griffith is too corny, pick your favorite portrayal of a simpler American life. It may not exactly map the future, but it is likely to be more accurate and hopeful than the images we’ve been given for generations and would be familiar, popular, and attainable. It would serve to remind us that just a few generations ago Americans lived, and often lived well, before everything was cheap and fast and thrown away. We, with far more wealth and power than they had, are capable of walking into the Long Emergency unafraid and with a plan.”

The second piece — The End of Democracy by Pat Buchanan — considers the ascendancy of autocratic capitalism in China and Russia:

“…In a survey of 24 countries by Pew Research Center, the nation that emerged as far and away first on earth in the satisfaction of its people was China. No other nation even came close.

“…And what nation is it whose people rank as third most satisfied? Vladimir Putin’s Russia.”

“… Of the largest nations on earth, the two that today most satisfy the desires of their peoples are the most authoritarian.

“…Liberal democracy is in a bear market. Is it a systemic crisis as well?

“In his 1989 essay, ‘The End of History?’ Francis Fukuyama wrote of the ultimate world triumph of democratic capitalism. All other systems had fallen, or would fall by the wayside. The future belonged to us.

“Democratic capitalism, it would appear, now has a great new rival–autocratic capitalism. In Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, nations are beginning to imitate the autocrats of China and Russia, as some in the 1930s sought to ape fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.”

Apropos the discussions of affordable housing here and here, on Tuesday October 7 at 5:30 p.m, the Seattle City Council will hold a public hearing on proposed incentive zoning legislation that would tie increases in allowed building heights to the provision of affordable housing. This PI piece provides a good overview.

The two main points of contention are income eligibility and set-aside percentage. John Fox of the Seattle Displacement Coalition contends that the proposed 80% of area median income cutoff is set too high to benefit most “workers.” Meanwhile most affordable housing advocates, as well as some local developers, agree that the set aside should be higher than the 11% dictated by existing code for the downtown zones (note: that’s 11% of the “bonused” floor area only).

More broadly, resistance to the idea of incentive zoning is tangled up in misconceptions about density and growth. When housing prices and density rise in concert as they have in Seattle in recent years, there are those who speciously assume a causal relationship. But the true reason for rising housing prices — housing bubble aside — is that Seattle has become a successful and desirable city.  In other words, it’s supply and demand. There are countless examples across history of affordable high density, and there’s a word that often applies: slum.

If, as John Fox espouses, we were to curtail densification in order to preserve existing affordable housing, the end result would be a net loss of affordability city-wide due to supply and demand. Furthermore, such a curtailment would drive growth further afield and exacerbate sprawl.  And that means more people throwing time and money away on long, single-occupancy vehicle commutes, for which we all will end up paying the social and environmental costs.

Density and affordable housing can coexist in a thriving city, and indeed, it is imperative that we figure out how to facilitate that outcome in Seattle.  If we get the details right, incentive zoning could be a productive strategy.  But we should also recognize that, because someone has to pay for it, other, more direct government subsidies will also need to be part of the solution. 

This 4-unit project designed by Hybrid Architects is under construction on Remington Court just off 14th Ave in the Central District. Details here and here, and current status below:

HyBrid is known for pushing the edge in advanced design construction, and past work includes the Inhabit modular housing project (with Mithun), and a bucketload of container housing concepts. Check out the excellent GreenFab blog for more background on HyBrid and info on their award winning 99k house.

The rendering below shows HyBrid’s Landry Townhouse project, designed for pre-engineered steel construction. I couldn’t find any info on the current status of this one — anyone out there know anything?

Looking south along MLK Way near Cloverdale St, the new light rail line seems disappear off into the boondocks — not a scene many would readily identify as urban. This is about seven blocks south of the station at Othello.

This ain’t no North Capitol Hill. Imagine one of those sleek white Sound Transit trains quietly zipping by in this picture. Chimerical.

Will a taco bus parked on someone’s front lawn still have a place in the future landscape of the MLK light rail corridor? I hope so, but of course this is exactly the kind of unique and colorful business that tends to be driven away when neighborhoods redevelop and become more wealthy.

As we were eating a matronly old Mexican woman came by and gave us some of these napkins:

[ David Vandervort Architects ]

The Issaquah net-zero energy homes project broke ground on Monday, just three months after Howland Homes took over the project from Noland Homes. Check out the project web site for a graphical explanation for how net-zero is hoped to be achieved.

The rendering above shows what appears to be an innovative integration of vertical concrete walls to provide thermal mass. It also shows a whole lot of photovoltaic (PV) panel on the roofs, which is necessary for achieving net-zero energy use, but adds about $35k to the cost of each unit. At a typical Seattle-area electricity cost of 6 cents/kWh, the 5255 kWh per unit generated by the PV is worth about $315 per year. With no incentives and assuming electricity rates don’t go up, that translates to a 111 year payback. Ouch. Of course, that payback would be a lot shorter if we were paying the true cost of that electricity, include all the externalities, but our economic system isn’t that smart.

It will interesting to see if the project can actually achieve net-zero. For one thing, resident behavior will be a big factor — one big-screen plasma TV and it’s game over. As of 2007, only one house in the United States has demonstrated a full 12 months of net-zero energy performance. So far, it seems the zero-energy label has been applied to projects a little too liberally, as with the Zero Energy Idea House, which “opted to forego ‘true’ zero energy.” Even the noted BedZED project in Britain has had operational issues that have precluded the achievement of net-zero.

I don’t mean to come across as a big bad naysayer on this. These projects are models for what we should be shooting for with every new building. But let’s not be deceived about the challenge.

Anyone who pays even the slightest attention to such issues in Seattle has doubtless heard the oft-repeated edict: Our single-family zones are sacred. Discussions of future growth are almost invariably predicated in a tacit assumption that single-family is untouchable, that Seattle’s single-family zones will remain as they are from now until the end of time.

At the mere suggestion of even the most minor tampering with single-family zones, everyone from politicians to planners to developers and designers will nod heads in resigned agreement–just don’t go there, it’s not worth it, you’ll get yelled at, and you might even wake up to find a severed horse’s head in your bed. I’ve even caught myself mindlessly repeating the mantra.

But who decreed that this is so? Or more to the point, who cares who may have decided that this was so at some point in the past: Just exactly who still believes, given current conditions and prospects for the future, that all single-family zones in Seattle must be preserved at all costs?

Two of Seattle’s most outspoken voices for the sanctity of single-family are Chris Leman and Irene Wall, both of whom are members of the City Neighborhood Council. Both are quoted in this recent PI piece covering the Northwest Ecobuilding Guild’s recommendations for modest modifications to the single-family zoning code. Wall regrets that “there never seems to be a point where we say we say: ‘Hey, we’re full.'” In other words, shut the door, problem solved.

For Leman it’s actually neighborhood planning that is sacred above all else, and therefore he opposes any code update that has not been fully vetted through a full-blown neighborhood planning process. It may seem like a reasonable position, until you stop ignoring the fact that no neighborhood is an island. In the real world of interconnected planetary ecosystems, conditions may arise in which the interests of the many outweigh those of the few. Two words: climate change.

And here’s Wall laying out her case for preserving single-family in this DJC opinion piece, along with an opposing view by Roger Valdez. Roger is too nice. Wall’s arguments, many of which I previously addressed in this post, consist of the usual mix of biased sentimentality and sloppy analysis. I’m tempted to parse it out, but better yet, perhaps some of you commenters would enjoy taking a crack at it.

Getting back to the original point: The first step in freeing oneself from an unhealthy myth is to stop repeating it. Then you refute it. Like so: Given the current state of Seattle and the planet, and considering our most credible projections for the future, it is blatantly irresponsible city planning to keep single-family zoning off limits.

Hugeass we have a problem. I think. If you have been experiencing significant delays connecting to this blog lately, please leave a comment. And likewise if everything seems to be normal. And if it’s so bad you can’t wait for the comment page to load, if you would be so kind as to send an email to hugeasscity@noisetank.com it would be greatly appreciated.

Oh, what a joy it is to troubleshoot the interwebs. Can anyone recommend a web host that provides good support for WordPress (i.e. that offers a painless way to move my blog and upgrade it)? Gracias.

In the land where every last quark of creative artistic energy is, or is soon to be culture-mined and commodified, to experience authentic human expression is a gift. And that, by the way, is why Burning Man still matters, but also why it was so awesome to see novaTRON last Friday night at Lo-Fi, in one of the dozens of shows that made up this year’s Decibel Festival.

The scene at Lo-Fi was neither pretentious nor cloying, with nothing to prove, but lots to give, not trying relive the past, but drawing heavily from it and recasting it through a contemporary lens; a happening that was comfortable in its own skin, confident about its relevance in the present moment.

novaTRON’s ax is that pile of plastic boxes and wires shown in the photo above, a relatively new species of musical instrument. And though it’s an instrument born of cutting-edge, silicon chip technology, and is “played” with a technique totally alien to traditional music, it’s as capable of producing art as any conventional musical instrument. Where it matters, it is really no different from a digeridoo, a structurally simple but sonically and culturally complex instrument made from eucalyptus branches hollowed out by termites–thanks to a few billion years of evolution.

The concentration of human energy that occurs in cities has always been a potent catalyst for the creation of new ideas and expression. It’s inspiring to witness evidence that this fruitful process is still operative, even in U.S. cities where isolationism has been creeping into urban communities for decades.