hugeasscity

Sadly, that’s essentially the rationale that many tunnel supporters are now falling back on.  You see, if the State can’t have it’s way and get a tunnel, then it’s gonna take its $2.2 billion and go home.  How pathetically embarrassing to all involved that the political relationship between the City and State has devolved to such a disfunctional level.  Especially when the stakes are so high.  (I’m still waiting to hear how spending billions on an underground freeway bypass for cars can possibly comply with the State law mandating a 50 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled by 2050.)

The buzz on the tunnel has been buzzing loudly in recent days, and that can only be good news for the McGinn campaign.  Here, McGinn responds to the charge that Seattle’s tax burden would be the same whether we got a the tunnel or the surface/transit option.  Tunnel facts.com has an excellent summary.

Meanwhile, if the deep-bore tunnel happens, Joe Mallahan wants you to know that he’s got you covered:

“The next mayor of Seattle is someone who’s going to be responsible for making sure the project comes in on time and on budget.  And I think a person with business experience is the type of person to get that accomplished. “

Got that?  Because Mallahan possesses the superpowers granted only to wealthy business executives, as Mayor he would take charge and micro-manage the Washington Department of Transportation to make damn sure there were no cost overruns.  You’d think given the legacy of first “MBA President,” that asking people to put their faith in a guy to efficiently run government just because he made a lot of money in the private sector might be a dubious campaign strategy.   Alas, the myth of the market still holds a tight grip on popular consciousness even in the most liberal of American cities.

Preamble:  Please believe me when I say that I am not obsessed with David Miller!  I am, however, hopelessly obsessed with the idea that sustainable urbanism is critical to our future.   And while I don’t doubt that Miller is a swell guy and this is nothing personal, in my view he and his cohorts are proliferating misinterpretations that will impede progress toward sustainable urbanism in Seattle.

>>>

Thank you David Miller for taking the time to respond to the Q&A, even though this is just some hack’s blog with the word “ass” in its title.   Many of your replies beg for followup, but first I should be a good sport and respond to your questions to me:

1. You obviously want to reduce the amount of SF in Seattle. How much should we have left?

By your definition, none, because I support allowing backyard cottages, a.k.a. DADUs in all single-family zones.  Assuming we’re ignoring DADUs, I cannot give you a precise number, but I assure you I am not calling for anything like the elimination of all single-family zones in Seattle.  I believe there are numerous areas in the city where strategic upzoning of single-family should be done, in particular where it is adjacent to transit corridors or stations, and the Beacon Hill light rail station area is one example.  To throw a number out, within a 10 year time frame, it would probably make sense to upzone something like 10 percent of our single-family zones to multifamily.  Not that radical.

What I am more concerned about than the exact number is the attitude among many in Seattle that single-family zones are untouchably sacred, such that the planning process hits an automatic dead end whenever the possibility of upzoning single-family is merely hinted at.  To most electeds it’s totally radioactive.  And this is the same attitude that you, David, displayed when you twice dodged my question about upzoning single family (#1 and #2).   And so I’ll ask you again:  Would you, or would you not, support any upzoning of single-family zones that are within one-quarter-mile of the Beacon Hill light rail station?  This is the kind of tough decisions elected officials have to make.

2. Given there is no convincing data showing green roof techniques can match the stormwater retention capability of conifers, plus the loss of truly permeable surfaces that inevitably result from upzoning SF to higher densities, how do you expect to upzone SF and avoid environmental damage and massive increases in Seattle’s stormwater treatment requirements? If you’re willing to sacrifice Seattle’s environment for environment elsewhere, that’s a valid answer as long as you also explain how we’ll deal with Endangered Species requirements in our urban watersheds.
3. Given the inevitable increase in stormwater treatment requirements (unless you pull a rabbit out of the hat in #2 and figure out what no stormwater expert in any jurisdiction has been able to answer for me), how will you pay for it in a way that does not hurt affordability.

I believe you are greatly overestimating the role of conifers in single-family zone hydrology.  In my Central Area single-family neighborhood I don’t see many conifers, though I realize they are more common in the north end. But let’s probe a little deeper with some math, shall we?  Tree canopy coverage in single family zones is currently 18 percent.  Assuming the tree type mix is similar to Seattle’s urban forests, conifers would make up about 15 to 20 percent of that 18 percent—or about four percent of the total land area in single-family zones.

But then we also must consider that tree cover in Seattle’s multifamily zones is currently 13 percent, which means you don’t lose all the trees going from single- to multi-family—you would expect lose a little less than a third of them.   Combining with the result above, the conifer tree cover that would be lost with a complete conversion of single-family to multifamily would be equivalent to roughly one percent of the total single-family land area.

Of course, a full zoning conversion like that will never happen—if there was a ten percent conversion as I proposed above, the conifer cover lost would on the order of a mere 0.1 percent of all single-family land.* It’s hard to imagine how that would result in a stormwater catastrophe.

Important aside: None of this is to say that urban trees don’t matter, or that conifers are not a valuable asset.  The point is we need reality-based policy.

I’ll venture to guess that the most common land cover in single-family zones is turf grass lawns, which have stormwater retention capacity significantly lower than that of conifers, and thus would be more easily replaced functionally by green roofs. And furthermore, green roofs are not the only available approach—there are many other strategies, including swales, rain gardens, rainwater harvesting, and pervious pavement. Seattle Public Utilities has been experimenting quite successfully with many of these techniques (pdf), and found them to be both effective and economical.

But listen:  I believe the answers to all of your concerns in #2 and #3 can be found in an existing multifamily development right here in Seattle:  High Point.  This development has roughly three times the density of a typical single-family neighborhood, and has a natural drainage system that eliminates runoff to the Seattle stormwater system (in all but the most extreme conditions).  And since it all drains to Longfellow Creek—a salmon-bearing stream and one of Seattle’s priority watersheds—I think it is safe to assume that it is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act.  The development also happens to provide affordable housing.

To be fair, it would be difficult to retrofit an existing neighborhood with a large-scale natural drainage system like the one at a High Point.   But on my reckoning, projects like High Point clearly demonstrate that we have the technology to economically offset the loss of pervious surface that would occur with modest single-family upzones.

(Do I even need to mention that Seattle isn’t the end of the story, that if Seattle loses 10 trees to save 100 on the urban fringe, then the region—and therefore all of us—benefit in the long run?  No, I didn’t think so.)

4. Do you agree we need to increase our urban tree canopy to 30%? If so, how would you accomplish this in a city that you believe should become more dense? Bonus points for addressing the conifers versus deciduous tree problem in your answer.

I’ll give you the answer you want:  infill in existing multifamily zones.  Did I get it?

I’m all for more trees.  But while it is true that single-family zoned land represents the biggest opportunity for increasing tree canopy in Seattle, that does not justify a moratorium on single-family upzones, as you would seem to believe.  The benefits of trees  must be measured against the benefits of density.   And there are all kinds of possibilities for increasing tree canopy in areas other than single-family if we try a little harder.  We all love trees, but policy must be based on rational, big picture assessments, not on myopic fancy.

Bonus: Deciduous are the ones that the leaves fall off of, right?  Or is it the other way around?  All I know for sure is we’ve got a deciduous conifer growing right in our traffic circle.

>>>

[  How is that sometimes things grow and blossom against all odds?  ]

Apparently surly baristas are nearly as good at getting people’s panties in a bunch as are bicycles.  All apologies for the lack of content lately, but the hugeasscity strategic planning retreat has been a time suck.  The best I can offer tonight is this:

By the time it came to the edge of the Forest the stream had grown up, so that it was almost a river, and, being grown-up, it did not run and jump and sparkle along as it used to do when it was younger, but moved more slowly.  For it knew now where it was going, and it said to itself, ‘There is no hurry.  We shall get there some day.’  But all the little streams higher up in the Forest went this way and that, quickly, eagerly, having so much to find out before it was too late.

— A. A. Milne

[ Park(ing) Day 2008, on Pine St. ]

There have been several happenings and changes at the 500 block of East Pine since my last post.  In chronological order: the Capitol Hill Garage Sale had a great turnout that included free vegan tacos, an appearance by Mike McGinn, and an interactive outreach effort soliciting ideas for future events.  A guerilla dance party erupted during Pride weekend and construction crews have mostly completed bus bulbs and sidewalk improvements.  Local bloggers Cap to the Hill won $10,000 to fund a corporate photo shoot and party with their idea to resurrect the former block for a night; the plan was foiled, but the private party is still happening elsewhere.  Marination Mobile recently came to an agreement with the property owner to sell their Hawaiian and Korean fusion nosh from the site on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evenings.

On September 18th, another community event will take place, this time in the form of an agglomeration of small parks coming together to create the Park(ing) Day Central Park.  As you may know, Park(ing) Day is an event created by Rebar, a Bay Area art and design collective, in response to a dearth of public open space.  Typically, parking spaces are transformed into temporary parks; in this case, we are transforming a former parking lot into a large park, replete with music, awards for the best parks, a presentation and perhaps a design charette for Seattle’s HUB, hopefully some street food, and who knows what else?

There are already more than a dozen parks planned for the lot and enough room for quite a few more.  Whether you’re part of a community group, an architecture/design firm, an artist, a small business proprietor, or just the type to hang around a park on a Friday, you’re qualified to participate, either on the lot or in a regular parking space.

The deadline for acquiring a street space is August 20th.  Contact Elaine Boyd at Feet First if you’re interested (elaine [at] feetfirst [dot] info).  If you’d prefer to set up on the lot, you can get in touch with us here.

By every known Law of the Universe, this place should have been a Starbucks.  At First and University across the street from Harbor Steps and the Seattle Art Museum, it’s one of the most primo corner locations in all of downtown Seattle.  But no, miraculously, a family-owned independent cafe called Stella got the lease.  How can this be?

Stella is the kind of place where  the owners’ kid knows the regulars; where nobody freaks out if a customer comes in with a dog; where you’re not surprised to be brought a little sample of crostini on the house.   In other words, it’s a place with soul.  Civilized.  Anti-McStarbucks.

Last week a woman came in with an empty plastic Starbucks cup and asked for her drink to be put in it.  The barista—who had only been working at Stella for a few weeks at most—told her,  “I’m not gonna put our coffee in that cup.”   At first the woman thought he was joking and tried to hand him the cup anyway, but the barista said it again, and even as it became obvious the customer was not taking it well and getting annoyed, he said it a third time.  The woman walked out in a polite, Seattle-style huff.

The truth is, cafes like Stella owe a lot to Starbucks for reinventing the gourmet coffee market and bringing it mainstream.  Too bad Starbucks became cancerous.

When I took the paper to the cafe across the street the two people working there didn’t know from Mike McGinn.  Will 80,000 copies of his mug shot spewed across the city make a difference?

The Stranger’s endorsement write up is worth a read.  And Publicola’s too.

Corporate sterility is on the march up Pike Street.  Can it possibly be true that there are still significant numbers of tourists in the world that think it’s a “must do” to go to the Hard Rock Cafe?  And get the t-shirt too?  Mercy me.  I want the old pawn shop back.

The new Hard Rock is half a block from the main entrance to Pike Market, arguably Seattle’s most iconic location.  And the main reason Pike Market is so iconic is precisely because there is no corporate schlock allowed.   On cue, in swoops corporate American franchise blandness to co-opt and cannabalize that colorful, authentic character.

When it comes to the plague of corporate franchises, our tribal instincts are seriously doing us wrong.  The familiar feels irresistibly safe—it’s deeply embedded in our social psyches.  And that’s the root cause of McStarbucks Nation.  If we simply stopped going to these places, they would disappear.

But evil doesn’t always prevail.  Across the street the gawdawful Johnny Rockets and its hateful 50’s rock ‘n’ roll that assaulted passersby from tinny speakers is no more.  Replaced by none other than the producers of the consistently best doppio espresso in the entire City of Seattle.  Namely, Seattle Coffee Works.

With loving hands
And their arms are stretched so wide
They can’t seem to take a breath
Knowing evil will prevail,
And a million people
Seems like a lot,
And a million people can be wrong

– The Flaming Lips

 

[ The Blue Angels buzz the Immaculate Conception Church in the Central District ]

City Council Candidate David Miller, known in some circles as a tireless neighborhood advocate and in others as a wackjob NIMBY, had this to say on Publicola a few weeks back:

“There are two thoughts in density in Seattle. One suggests density is inherently good for Seattle and the environment, the other suggests that only density done well is good for Seattle and the environment. I’m firmly in the latter camp.”

Let me be clear: these categories do not exist, and I can only interpret such a statement to be an attempt by David to paint himself as reasonable and to pander to “neighborhood-interest” voters.

Now, the members of the HAC Collaborative be some of the most unrelenting density advocates out there, but not one of us would fall into Mr. Miller’s first category, although I suspect we are the very ones he had in mind with this description. His suggestion that any of us care more about density than quality of life is as overly-simplistic as it is insulting. News flash to David (and John Fox, and anyone else who seems to think there is such as thing as a density-for-density’s-sake-dogma): us density advocates are all people, neighbors, community members. We have homes, some of us even own them, and care about our property values. We have kids in the Seattle Public School system and care about the quality of their education. We live around the corner from this shite and think the city owes residents and neighbors better design in our multi-family housing. We don’t think trees should come down just because a new building is going up. We want our neighborhoods to have better sidewalks, better bike lanes, better transit. In short, we care, very deeply on both personal and collective levels, about the quality of life in our community.

All that said, I don’t think my neighborhood, or any neighborhood, should have a choice about accommodating additional growth. We should allow detached accessory dwelling units in our single-family zones (yep, even mine)—and not just the paltry 50 per year that the city is current proposing—in order to maximize the potential for more flexible and affordable ground related housing, especially for extended family households. We should upzone many of our transit-served arterials (yep, even the one 100 feet from my front door) to maximize the opportunity for people to live near our transit investments. And encouraging more development in our transit-rich station areas and urban centers? Well that is a no-brainer.

Because here is the truth that density advocates understand: Density is good for the environment. And density done well is good for Seattle.

Yes: density is good for the environment. Mitigating climate change. Restoring Puget Sound. Conserving our rural and resource lands. Responsible growth management. Oh yeah, and it’s also good for affordability and physical health.

But to reap the environmental and physical benefits of density, it’s got to be well–designed, offering foot, bike and transit access to homes, jobs, and community services, and affordable to a range of incomes. That makes it livable. And that is good for Seattle.

So how do we ensure density and livability? Well, we plan. But not the way David Miller suggests here a few months back (from PhinneyWood interview):

And while [David believes that] development needs to happen in the city to address housing density issues without creating urban sprawl, “[The city’s] job is to protect the people who already live here.”

Argh! No! Land use planning efforts should not hold my interests (or those of any other current resident of this city) paramount! We density advocates believe that we have a moral responsibility to be a wee more forward thinking than today’s interests, especially when those interests may be at the expense of future generations. After all, a building that goes up today could be on the ground for 100 years, and I sure won’t be around then, so why should my interests come first? I want to city to plan for my kids’ interests, and your kids’ interests, and our kids’ kids’ interests, not to be beholden to the short-term and short-sighted interests of today. Such limits on thinking and innovation are obstacles to implementing long term vision for the region, and necessarily squelch any political leadership to get us there.

And as such, us density advocates believe that the city, and sometimes, yes, the state, has an integral role in ensuring that our land use and transportation policies are forward thinking for the long-term. And sometimes that means making some top-down decisions to make sure that the broader public interest of sustainability is achieved. That is the intent and essence of the Growth Management Act.

So, the David Miller and John Fox types of the world may call my ilk top-down, heavy-handed wide-eyed enviros out to destroy homes and communities. The truth is that we are both environmentally conscious and socially responsible, and understand the absolutely essential role that increased urban density plays in long-term environmental and social sustainability.

And as far as I’m concerned, anyone who does not share this understanding should not be in a position of making public policy.

[ Mike McGinn at the Umojafest Parade today in the Central District ]

Hey, super!   But does anyone give a flying fug what those “hugeasscity guys” think? Do endorsements matter?

Mayor Greg Nickels has a massive endorsement list—check it out for yourself below after the break—a who’s who of local enviros and politicos.  But does anyone outside the bubble notice?  And most of the Nickels endorsements were given months ago—why so early in the race?  Two weeks ago former Seattle City Council member Peter Steinbrueck was quoted in Publicola saying that “McGinn is right on the mark. I misjudged him after his kickoff. The more I hear him the more I like him.”

Right, and what’s with the Cascade Bicycle Club’s endorsement of Nickels? It is obvious—and the CBC admits it—that McGinn is more aligned with their values, yet CBC chose to endorse the “friendly incumbent.”  So did CBC endorse Nickels because they believe he would be more effective than McGinn at advancing their agenda, i.e. McGinn’s values are inconsequential?  Or are they playing politics, not wanting to dis the Mayor in case he is reelected, while knowing that if McGinn wins he’ll be on their side no matter what?  But the thing is, if Nickels is truly committed to urban sustainability he’s not going to snub the cycling agenda to spite those who did not support his campaign.  Pro-cycling policy benefits the City as a whole, not just the members of CBC, and from that perspective, Nickels needs CBC more than they need him.

Worldchanging co-founder Alex Steffen is the only prominent enviro that I know of who has forsaken Nickels and given his endorsement to Mike McGinn.  Steffen is a big picture thinker whose work doesn’t rely on direct interaction with city policy makers.   This grants Steffen the intellectual freedom to endorse without being encumbered by political relationships, although some would no doubt argue that any such endorsement carries little weight precisely because it is disconnected from the political realm, since getting real work done always hinges on politics.

The Stranger has just officially endorsed McGinn, and has also argued that McGinn deserves support simply because he would be the most constructive challenger to Nickels.  Agreed.  McGinn would shift the debate to the left, while other the other serious challengers are to the right of Nickels.

Though this post is sure be the most rambling, unquotable and therefore most useless endorsement McGinn has yet received, for what it’s worth, I will be voting for McGinn in the primary.  To anyone who follows this blog this should come as no surprise, e.g. McGinn was awarded the Hugeasscity Badge of Integrity way back in March.  My support of McGinn is largely based on personal conversations I have with him over the course of the last year or so.  We see eye to eye on all the the major issues that I care about—the issues that have come to define this blog.  Go McGinn!

Read the rest of this entry »

[ The six semi-finalist candidates:  Bagshaw, Israel, Plants, Forch, Licata, and Bloom. ]

Let it be known that all 15 Seattle City Council candidates who participated in last Tuesday’s Candidate Survivor answered “yes” to the question:  Do you support the war on cars? So whoever wins, one thing we know for sure is that since there are five seats up for grabs,  after the election next Fall there will be a majority in the Seattle City Council working for policy to eliminate cars.  With unicorns.

UPDATE: Doh! Scratch that about the majority. As a commenter noted, only four council spots are open.

In a previous post, Seattle city council candidate David Miller left lengthy comments in response to my supposition that he is a density NIMBY.  His responses left me jonesin‘ for further clarification, and so I am posting my questions to David here,  with the hope that he will be willing to answer them in the comments, but also fully aware that he may wisely opt to completely blow it off.  (Reader warning:  this is gonna get pretty wonky, but alas, it’s the only way to get at the truth.)

(1) You said that “we need to do upzones.”  Please give some examples of specific locations in Seattle that you believe should be upzoned.  And not upzones that would be contingent on meeting this or that precondition, but upzones that you believe should be enacted now.  Would you support upzoning single-family to multifamily anywhere in the City, and if yes, where?

(2) You said “we even agree about TOD.”  Okay, let’s test that with a real example.  I believe that the Beacon Hill light rail station area is ridiculously underzoned within a quarter-mile radius of the station, and that it that it should be upzoned to 65 feet in some areas, and that some lowrise areas should go to 40 or 65 feet, and that significant areas of single family should be rezoned to multifamily lowrise, and possibly even midrise in some cases.  Do you agree, yes or no?  If no, please describe the zoning changes that you would support, if any.

(3)  You said that “I suspect we disagree about whether the state or neighborhoods get to decide precisely where the density will go and what form it will take.”   Here you are no doubt referring to the “TOD bill,” but sorry David, HB 1490 as proposed did not mandate precisely where the density would go, other than within a half-mile radius around a high-capacity transit station area.  Nor did HB1490 mandate what form the density would take—the local jurisdictions would have control over that.  All HB1490 would have done was to ensure that land use code did not prevent development from eventually reaching a minimum density threshold appropriate for successful TOD, on average, across the entire half-mile radius station area.  And the amended version of the proposed bill only applied urban centers in Seattle—where you said you support upzones.   Please explain these apparent inconsistencies regarding your opposition to HB1490.

(4) Elaborating on #3, I believe it is safe to say that you believe planning decisions should be primarily made at the neighborhood level.  But given that the environmental challenges we face are regional if not global, what happens locally can negatively impact people everywhere—neighborhoods do not live in a bubble.  You said that “[The City’s] job is to protect the people that already live here,” which suggests to me that you do not appreciate these connections, and have an alarmingly narrow view of the world.  Consequently, I am concerned that as a City Council member you would favor narrow neighborhood interests at the expense of progress on critical environmental issues such as climate change.  Are there any situations in which you believe that “top-down” planning is appropriate, or does every decision need sign-off from each and every neighborhood resident?

(5)  You said that “We also differ in that I do not believe density is automatically affordable…”   Sorry David, because that is nothing but a classic straw man argument.  I have never said that, and neither has the vast majority of people who advocate for urban density.  But perhaps you could explain how preventing high-density housing by only allowing low-density housing will do anything but make housing less affordable?  High-density housing is inherently more affordable because it uses less land, materials, and infrastructure, and it also has the law of supply and demand on its side.  Go to any neighborhood and compare the price of the average single-family house to the price of the average condo.

(6) Completing the straw man, you added that “We also differ in that I do not believe density is… automatically environmentally sound.”  While there are examples of high-density housing that is not as green as it could be, in the vast majority of cases high-density housing is greener because it uses less land, materials, resources, energy, and infrastructure, and also because it is a critical ingredient for enabling alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle.  Do you disagree?

(7) The affordability issue noted above in #4 was addressed in my critique of the Livable Seattle Movement document that you said “was written by someone else.”   Since you seem to want to distance yourself from that document for some reason, can you give any specific examples of arguments in it with which you disagree?  Do you have any objections to my critique?

(8) You said you did co-author the 3X Capacity document that was also a subject of my critique.   Do you stand behind the claims that “overzoning contributes to lack of affordable housing and sprawl” and “attempts to concentrate densities end up driving sprawl?”  If yes, then as I asked in the critique, please show us the data.  I don’t believe there is any, but let’s see if you can live up to your campaign promise to “base decisions on real data.”

(9) You often refer to the 2020 growth targets with respect to the King County Buildable Lands Report.  But that report uses OFM’s 2002 projections.  In 2007 the OFM raised its population projection for 2020 in King County by nearly 100,000 people.  This reduces surplus housing capacity significantly.  Furthermore, data compiled by the Puget Sound Regional Council for Vision 2040 shows that in King County growth in urban areas has been falling far behind targets, while growth is exceeding targets in small cities and rural areas.  Isn’t it misleading to reference out-of-date projections when the newer data suggest a different trend? And once Seattle negotiates new 2031 growth targets based on the more recent data this Fall—targets that will be substantially higher than the 2020 number you are still using—what is your plan for accommodating that additional growth in the 2011 Comprehensive Plan update?  And is it wise to focus so much on a projection only 11 years out, given sites that are underdeveloped today will be around for the next 50 to 100 years?  And even if current zoning can accommodate growth targets, does that mean should we be locked into old zoning that no longer is appropriate for changed circumstances, such as, for example, the new light rail stations?  Lastly, here’s what the Washington Research Council had to say (pdf) about the Buildable Lands Report:  “The problem is that a whole host of factors not considered during the process will determine whether a parcel deemed ‘buildable’ will actually see new housing construction in the next 20 years.”  Given all of the above, do you still believe is it intellectually honest to insinuate—as you have done repeatedly—that we don’t really need any upzones because the Buildable Lands Report says Seattle is already overzoned?

(10) You said that concurrency is “our #1 barrier to the acceptance of more density.”  First, can you please explain exactly what type of infrastructure you are talking about, and give some specific Seattle examples of where there has been new dense development that is lacking these things?  The GMA’s concurrency language is not intended as an excuse to halt development, but rather to ensure that local jurisdictions plan and fund infrastructure and amenities.  What actions would you take as a City Council member to get the City to fund infrastructure and amenities so that density will be more acceptable?

(11) You have made up a term called “intraurban sprawl” that I have never heard used before by any urban planning professional.  I’m inclined to believe it is a nonsense term designed to be inflammatory by co-opting the word sprawl, but perhaps you could explain it for me?   What are the metrics that define this “intraurban sprawl?” As I asked here, “could you please give a Seattle example of the sort of ‘pockets of density’ you are so concerned about?”  I smell another straw man here:  density advocates are not proposing that we scrap the urban center/village framework. Your boogie man who wants to turn Seattle into “one big concrete heat sink” doesn’t exist.

(12) Most of us who advocate for urban density are also generally in favor of eliminating off-street parking requirements, and would even support invoking parking maximums in some cases.  Are there any land uses or areas in the City for which you believe that parking requirements should be reduced, eliminated, or given a maximum?  City of Seattle code does not require any off-street parking in light rail station areas—do you agree with that policy?

(13) You said you support the backyard cottage ordinance.  Do you support allowing backyard cottages in all single-family zones in the City?  Would you support removing the proposed limit of 50 permits per year, since that limit would only allow about 5% of Seattle’s single-family homes to get a permit within 100 years?  Would you support removing the parking requirement for backyard cottages?  Don’t forget that parking takes out trees and pervious surface, which you said you want to preserve.

Congratulations, you’re done!

In summary, my take—with all due respect to the fact that you are a politician, after all—is that you are trying to have it both ways.  Out of one side of your mouth you claim to support density, because you recognize that if you do not, you will not be taken seriously by anyone who understands urban sustainability.  But out of the other side of your mouth you attach so many unrealistic preconditions to allowing density that your claimed support is a moot point, which allows you to remain aligned with your true base—those who are opposed to the transformation of Seattle into a more urban city.  Perhaps your responses will convince me otherwise.  Or who knows, perhaps your responses will convince you to stop pretending to be someone you’re not.

[ Image courtesy Darick Chamberlin ]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 29, 2009

An anonymous architect has won hugeasscity’s design competition for a new headquarters complex.  The hugeasscity board of directors is currently seeking a development site for the ambitious project rendered above, preferably to be located in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood such as Seattle’s Central District.

[ Point Wells, looking south.   Photo:  Steve Ringman / The Seattle Times ]

(Disclaimer: Seriously, I barely read more than the headline in each of the pieces discussed below.  I should be fired.)

Whenever the Seattle Times covers development you can safely bet the farm that they will frame the reporting with the OMG-development-is-evil-and-the-neighbors-are-howling-in-rage angle.  Like last week’s front page story on rooming houses, today’s front page story on a proposed waterfront development at Point Wells fits the formula perfectly, with the headline: Shoreline neighbors say Point Wells ‘urban center’ proposal tramples their beach-side turf.  In a sane City, the headline would focus on what an amazing development opportunity that site represents.

Over at Crosscut today, some dude apparently has some fear to monger about scary scary backyard cottages.  I would rather work on my income taxes than read it.  It pains me just to link to it, all the more so because it was written by the same virtuoso who previously penned the “stinking pile of doo doo” reluctantly critiqued here.

And just to prove that I’m not biased, I also didn’t read Mike O’Brien’s Crosscut piece on what’s wrong with the deep-bore tunnel even though I got about 72 facebook updates telling me I should.  No lie!

If anyone out there has more patience for this stuff than I do, please let me know what I missed.

Twenty eight years have passed since my friend played with members of Sonic Youth in NYC, but that didn’t stop him from getting on the guest list and dragging me along to the headlining show of the Capitol Hill Block Party.  No other Seattle neighborhood is more dominated by youth culture than Capitol Hill.  Yet the band chosen for top-billing has  been doing what they do for longer than the average Block Party-goer has been alive.  Go figure.

But how awesome it was to see the Pike Street corridor filled with people instead of cars—it felt like another country.

There’s only one prominent local politician with the street cred to have a banner on the side of Neumos during the Block Party.   Dow Constantine once worked for KCMU (KEXP before Paul Allen made them rename it after his vanity project), and still has strong ties to the music community.  And now he’s got a good shot at being the next Ron Sims.  People get older.

And for the record, there are plenty of reasons to support Dow Constantine for King County Executive that matter a lot more than his ability to hang with music biz scensters.  Dow has pretty much universal backing from the enviro community, along with strong support from a broad range of other constituencies—info here.   He’s got my vote.  (Not that you asked.)

As illustrated in the delectable graphic above, and reported on the front page of the Seatimes yesterday, and by The Stranger several weeks ago, there is an unusual housing project under construction near 23rd and John on Capitol Hill.  The project is unusual because it is designed on the rooming house model, with very small one room units.

The delectable thing about the graphic is that it so clearly exposes how much space we give over to the storage of cars, compared to how much space people need to live in.  In the case of this project, one person gets about the same as one car (not including access drive area).  Which means this would be a totally absurd building if it had to meet the parking ratios required by code  in most of Seattle’s residential areas—at least one parking stall per unit.  The project will provide 6 parking stalls for 46 units, and that low parking ratio makes perfect sense.  Because given the project location, along with the demographics of the likely tenants, it is reasonable to expect that a large fraction of the residents will not own cars.

This project is exactly the kind of housing Seattle needs more of to help address the growing lack of affordability in the City, and to reduce car-dependence.  But predictably, it has been controversial with some of the neighbors.  “All of their cars will probably get dumped on our street,” said one.  The project is “going to be a magnet for very sketchy people,” said another, who fears for the value of his nearby $875,000 single-family home.  These sentiments perfectly capture the key drivers of anti-density NIMBYism:  bigotry against people who don’t own a single-family house;  the obsessive association of all that is good in life with the appraised value your home; and the expectation of a God-given right to a free parking space provided by the City directly in front your house.

The thing is, it’s a good bet that the folks quoted above—as well as countless others who have expressed similar gripes about dense urban housing—would consider themselves environmentalists.  If so, it is also highly likely that one of the most significant contributions they could make toward helping to solve our multiple envirnomental crises would be to support the development of more housing solutions just like the one they’ve been whining about.

Since I was given temporary and entirely undue credit yesterday morning for helping to create TunnelFacts.com, the least I can do is give it a little HAC love.  Bask in the pure wholesome goodness.

And as a reminder of the fact that there is a sane, fully vetted, and far less expensive alternative to a tunnel, here’s what the authors of the 2008 Seattle Urban Mobility Plan (pdf) had to say:

We looked at the removal of obsolete highway infrastructure in San Franciso, Milwaukee, Portland, and Seoul, Korea. Our research found that the removal of central, elevated highway structures reduced the number of auto trips in these cities, and did not require a major shift to transit. We found that “spillover” traffic was absorbed by the rest of the traffic system. In fact, freeway removal had a catalytic effect on development in these cities. But the projects were part of a larger strategy, and were very carefully designed. The building blocks of the Seattle Urban Mobility Plan, for instance, were surface street improvements, transit investment, development of an at-grade replacement boulevard, transportation demand management policies, and a Transportation System Management (TSM).

Julius Shulman died last week at age 98.  Having produced wonderfully seductive images well into his 90s, one can understand the great impact his career has had on the world of design.  For those interested, take a look here, here, here, and here.  There are countless others, just get your Google on.

Shulman lived and worked primarily in Los Angeles and many of his most memorable photographs are of Southern California and its constellations of private architecture.  Neutra, Ain, Frey, Koenig, Lautner, Soriano, Eames, Saarinen (Eero), even Gehry before he went all crazy-wack-swoopy—if you can name them, chances are it’s because Shulman took an iconic picture of one of their buildings.  But the take-away here is not that the look of mid-century modernism is cool (because the urbanism it propagated definitely is not), nor that Shulman was immensely talented (which he most definitely was).  Rather, it is something much more basic—that the power of pictures cannot be overstated.

The Stahl’s Case Study House #22 looks pretty enticing on its perch over the limitless Los Angeles street grid.  And if you ever get the chance to go there in person, the scene is even more so—one can almost make out Watts in the distance while lounging securely by the pool.  The ocean visible to the west, downtown to the east.  A picture can make the urban lifestyle seem like a spectator sport, advertising a world that obviates the responsibilities of real participation.  No messy gritty density.  No enviro-yimfy-craziness.  Just warm fuzzy designiness.  Shulman was unparalleled when it comes to composition.

If urban agglomerations ever achieve a symbiotic relationship with the environment, or embrace the notion that density is enabling, what media will galvanize the process?  What will convince people that being design stupid is not smart?  I wonder.

The windows on the second floor of that building are seriously messed up.  Some of the lower sections have popped out, allowing fresh air from outside to flow directly inside to where the people are.  Whacked.

The second floor of the building at 2nd and University shown above is the office of architecture firm Perkins+Will.  Their office renovation was the first LEED Platinum certified project in Washington State.  In addition to operable windows, there are other common sense features such as lots of white paint to enhance natural daylighting, systems that turn the lights off when they aren’t needed, and manual shades to block the late afternoon sun.  Overall, it is a very comfortable space to be in.

It says a lot that we have to give awards for building design that is noteworthy only because it not completely stupid like the status quo.