Vulcan's Presence

That should come as no surpise. McGinn is a proponent of cranking zoning while eliminating requirements for on-site parking. That translates into major profits for developers. McGinn was never about neighborhoods, that was just a slight of hand.

That should come as no surpise. McGinn is a proponent of cranking zoning while eliminating requirements for on-site parking. That translates into major profits for developers. McGinn was never about neighborhoods, that was just a slight of hand.

@1 – Who and how were Seattle neighborhoods built? By benevolent Faeries? By a group of non-profit Mayans? Mother Gaia?

@ 2 – FTW

@1 – Who and how were Seattle neighborhoods built? By benevolent Faeries? By a group of non-profit Mayans? Mother Gaia?

@ 2 – FTW

What kind of planogram puts Christian Sinderman on the top shelf? What shelf does Cindi Laws get placed on?

What kind of planogram puts Christian Sinderman on the top shelf? What shelf does Cindi Laws get placed on?

@2 for definite win. Eliminating on-site parking (one of the biggest cost drivers in any project) enables workforce and affordable housing while also meeting environmental goals of reducing driving in urban areas. This is a good thing.

@2 for definite win. Eliminating on-site parking (one of the biggest cost drivers in any project) enables workforce and affordable housing while also meeting environmental goals of reducing driving in urban areas. This is a good thing.

Heidi Wills, its getting worse and worse. I guess one should never count out, “Tracy Flick.”

Vulcan has not taken an equitable stance on zoning issues that strive to accommodate affordable housing such as incentive zoning; in fact they have been less-than accommodating in South Lake Union on that issue.

Given that 66 percent of Seattle voters just affirmed their commitment to affordable housing with the passage of the Housing Levy, getting deeply involved with Vulcan folks in city operations really opens McGinn to backlash. His upcoming town hall meetings could get quite interesting.

The McGinn volunteers I’ve met don’t seem like corporate handmaidens – I hope they have the backbone to warn McGinn off on multiple Vulcan appointments no matter what hos personal connections are.

Heidi Wills, its getting worse and worse. I guess one should never count out, “Tracy Flick.”

Vulcan has not taken an equitable stance on zoning issues that strive to accommodate affordable housing such as incentive zoning; in fact they have been less-than accommodating in South Lake Union on that issue.

Given that 66 percent of Seattle voters just affirmed their commitment to affordable housing with the passage of the Housing Levy, getting deeply involved with Vulcan folks in city operations really opens McGinn to backlash. His upcoming town hall meetings could get quite interesting.

The McGinn volunteers I’ve met don’t seem like corporate handmaidens – I hope they have the backbone to warn McGinn off on multiple Vulcan appointments no matter what hos personal connections are.

@2,

By Ivar Haglund, with a clam in each hand.

@2,

By Ivar Haglund, with a clam in each hand.

Volunteers for Vulcan ERRRRRR McGinn!

Volunteers for Vulcan ERRRRRR McGinn!

Silly futurists. When those developers built those neighborhoods, they were building on recently cleared forest. Those neighborhoods have now been in place for as long as a century or more, and we now have context to deal with. Not such a simple problem unless your logic is simplistic.

Silly futurists. When those developers built those neighborhoods, they were building on recently cleared forest. Those neighborhoods have now been in place for as long as a century or more, and we now have context to deal with. Not such a simple problem unless your logic is simplistic.

Many lefties are worried McGinn’s sudden romance relation with Vulcan and other “ussual suspect”.

Many lefties are worried McGinn’s sudden romance relation with Vulcan and other “ussual suspect”.

We always have context to deal with, Crumb. You can focus on 100 years of single family context, or you can focus on billions of years of environmental context. You choose which has the most value to you. Choice is pretty clear to me.

We always have context to deal with, Crumb. You can focus on 100 years of single family context, or you can focus on billions of years of environmental context. You choose which has the most value to you. Choice is pretty clear to me.

12. You can always do what Al Gore did and base environmentally fatalistic theories on a couple thousand years of context.

12. You can always do what Al Gore did and base environmentally fatalistic theories on a couple thousand years of context.

Somehow Seattle neighborhoods are an environmental problem? Methinks that McGinnites that have embraced environmentalism as a religion instead of the science that it should be.

Somehow Seattle neighborhoods are an environmental problem? Methinks that McGinnites that have embraced environmentalism as a religion instead of the science that it should be.

Heh. The DSA and GSCC must be freaking out.
Poor Tayloe and Joe Q. with hats in hand.
But of course, this is just temporary…but funny
while it lasts.

Heh. The DSA and GSCC must be freaking out.
Poor Tayloe and Joe Q. with hats in hand.
But of course, this is just temporary…but funny
while it lasts.

Time for some research into what is going on here.

This may not be clinical hypnosis, but instead a case of tonic immobility. Instead of a hypnotic state, the chicken’s reactions are more akin to a turtle moving into its shell, or a deer freezing from a spotlight–a defensive mechanism intended to feign death, albeit poorly. [1]
This technique is useful for farmers who need to slaughter a chicken and do not have help immediately available. The first known written reference for this method came in 1646, in Mirabile Experimentum de Imaginatione Gallinae by Athanasius Kircher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_hypnotism

Time for some research into what is going on here.

This may not be clinical hypnosis, but instead a case of tonic immobility. Instead of a hypnotic state, the chicken’s reactions are more akin to a turtle moving into its shell, or a deer freezing from a spotlight–a defensive mechanism intended to feign death, albeit poorly. [1]
This technique is useful for farmers who need to slaughter a chicken and do not have help immediately available. The first known written reference for this method came in 1646, in Mirabile Experimentum de Imaginatione Gallinae by Athanasius Kircher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_hypnotism

@ 16 Bingo.

@ 16 Bingo.

Eliminating on-site parking requirements makes housing cheaper and means more people commute via transit and can get by without cars. It doesn’t force anybody to live without parking–you can still choose to live somewhere that provides parking–but parking requirements distort the housing market in favor of SOV use and mean we all pay more, both in $$ and in environmental costs.

Say what you will about McGinn, but his stance on parking minimums is one of the very smartest things about the guy.

Eliminating on-site parking requirements makes housing cheaper and means more people commute via transit and can get by without cars. It doesn’t force anybody to live without parking–you can still choose to live somewhere that provides parking–but parking requirements distort the housing market in favor of SOV use and mean we all pay more, both in $$ and in environmental costs.

Say what you will about McGinn, but his stance on parking minimums is one of the very smartest things about the guy.

@2, Haller, annexed in the early 1950′s on condition that Seattle put in sidewalks.

2001 Neighborhood plan still state that current density poses a danger in mixed modal transportation (those new bike paintings might double as chalk outlines coming up 1st and then up Roosevelt to BG tail area).
Density planted in the “urban” area (you can pick up a condo at auction) with city money, parks levy money, making the new giant cubes pretty (you are welcome, Master Builders).
There is a large swatch of school district land that was sold on Roosevelt that is now a vacant lot, but soon will have another giant cube plopped on it.
And still, the 3 block strip of sidewalk raked out 60 years ago is not one inch longer.

There is a meeting on 11/17/2009 the Parks Dept is having to get input into where they can green up the new development with taxes sucked out of my old development property.

I know McGinn will jump right in, update the neighborhood plans, and service the new development with piles of city-wide tax money, just like every mayor Seattle has ever had.

Enjoy your “tonic immobility” everybody!

@2, Haller, annexed in the early 1950′s on condition that Seattle put in sidewalks.

2001 Neighborhood plan still state that current density poses a danger in mixed modal transportation (those new bike paintings might double as chalk outlines coming up 1st and then up Roosevelt to BG tail area).
Density planted in the “urban” area (you can pick up a condo at auction) with city money, parks levy money, making the new giant cubes pretty (you are welcome, Master Builders).
There is a large swatch of school district land that was sold on Roosevelt that is now a vacant lot, but soon will have another giant cube plopped on it.
And still, the 3 block strip of sidewalk raked out 60 years ago is not one inch longer.

There is a meeting on 11/17/2009 the Parks Dept is having to get input into where they can green up the new development with taxes sucked out of my old development property.

I know McGinn will jump right in, update the neighborhood plans, and service the new development with piles of city-wide tax money, just like every mayor Seattle has ever had.

Enjoy your “tonic immobility” everybody!

@18

Eliminating on-site parking requirements makes housing cheaper and means more people commute via transit and can get by without cars.

assuming there is more tansit

all of these dreams require a lot of infrastructure to meet the demand, not be assumed will fall out of the sky, or get pulled up from the ground like carrots.

Revisit the neighborhood plans, and actually follow them, so bikes, and peds, and the invisible busses all get along with all those added people.

@18

Eliminating on-site parking requirements makes housing cheaper and means more people commute via transit and can get by without cars.

assuming there is more tansit

all of these dreams require a lot of infrastructure to meet the demand, not be assumed will fall out of the sky, or get pulled up from the ground like carrots.

Revisit the neighborhood plans, and actually follow them, so bikes, and peds, and the invisible busses all get along with all those added people.

@ 18 You need study urban design, you don’t seem to understand the complexity of transit/parking. If you reduce the number of parking spaces in the high density corridors that carry transit, then you actually reduce the numbers of people that will use public transportation. There are many people who need to use transit in combination with a short car trip (because of mobility issues, distance to the transit stop, etc), they need parking. True TOD -Transit Oriented Development accommodates those users.

@ 18 You need study urban design, you don’t seem to understand the complexity of transit/parking. If you reduce the number of parking spaces in the high density corridors that carry transit, then you actually reduce the numbers of people that will use public transportation. There are many people who need to use transit in combination with a short car trip (because of mobility issues, distance to the transit stop, etc), they need parking. True TOD -Transit Oriented Development accommodates those users.

can someone explain to me what great city is/was and what exactly it produced?

can someone explain to me what great city is/was and what exactly it produced?

@ 18, my good friend:

It doesn’t force anybody to live without parking? That’s exactly what it DOES do.

Moreover, “parking requirements distort the housing market in favor of SOV use” is bullshit. Providing that space gives residents more options for using it than parking a vehicle.

This is the kind of crap that sank the “transit oriented development” bill in the last session. as you well know, and it will sink it again.

@ 18, my good friend:

It doesn’t force anybody to live without parking? That’s exactly what it DOES do.

Moreover, “parking requirements distort the housing market in favor of SOV use” is bullshit. Providing that space gives residents more options for using it than parking a vehicle.

This is the kind of crap that sank the “transit oriented development” bill in the last session. as you well know, and it will sink it again.

@23, Ivan, explain to me why someone can’t choose to live in a building that provides parking just because the city doesn’t force the developer to put parking there? Developers still have the option to put parking in their buildings if there is market demand for it, but without minimums, both people who WANT to drive and those who DON’T are able to find housing that meets their needs.

Eliminating a minimum doesn’t FORCE anybody to live without parking. It removes a restriction that FORCES everybody in that neighborhood to pay for a parking spot whether they want it or not.

@21. Want to point me in the direction of a study that shows how reducing parking spaces in high-density corridors decreases transit use?

@23, Ivan, explain to me why someone can’t choose to live in a building that provides parking just because the city doesn’t force the developer to put parking there? Developers still have the option to put parking in their buildings if there is market demand for it, but without minimums, both people who WANT to drive and those who DON’T are able to find housing that meets their needs.

Eliminating a minimum doesn’t FORCE anybody to live without parking. It removes a restriction that FORCES everybody in that neighborhood to pay for a parking spot whether they want it or not.

@21. Want to point me in the direction of a study that shows how reducing parking spaces in high-density corridors decreases transit use?

@5 as an affordable housing developer, i am suspicious of the “eliminating parking equals lower cost apartments” equation. while i embrace TOD as a way to get people out of cars (which i think it will do when we have corresponding and better transit options, Cap Hill Light Rail anyone?), TOD does not automatically equal lower cost apartments or condos. private developers will likely reallocate that savings on parking to profit, not to lower rents, unless there is a regulation requiring lower rents. such as, say, inclusionary (not incentive) zoning around transit stations. i would love to see mcginn argue for this kind of trade-off. i.e. you want no parking (save 35k a stall) then make 20% of your apartments affordable to between 60-80% AMI.

@5 as an affordable housing developer, i am suspicious of the “eliminating parking equals lower cost apartments” equation. while i embrace TOD as a way to get people out of cars (which i think it will do when we have corresponding and better transit options, Cap Hill Light Rail anyone?), TOD does not automatically equal lower cost apartments or condos. private developers will likely reallocate that savings on parking to profit, not to lower rents, unless there is a regulation requiring lower rents. such as, say, inclusionary (not incentive) zoning around transit stations. i would love to see mcginn argue for this kind of trade-off. i.e. you want no parking (save 35k a stall) then make 20% of your apartments affordable to between 60-80% AMI.

More than anything else, Mayor McGinn needs to hire people with experience and skills. He got elected on the vision thing. The people he appoints need to do the implementation thing – which requires experience. Management experience. Experience in not only working in local government, but experience in leading.

Of the names listed so far, there aren’t many with experience in managing people and moving parts of an organization.

More than anything else, Mayor McGinn needs to hire people with experience and skills. He got elected on the vision thing. The people he appoints need to do the implementation thing – which requires experience. Management experience. Experience in not only working in local government, but experience in leading.

Of the names listed so far, there aren’t many with experience in managing people and moving parts of an organization.

@25 – How many new units developed in this city in the last few years are affordable to 100% AMI?

I ask because the stark trade-off that you’re proposing raises the price of the remaining units in a project (to recover the cost of charging sub-market rent to at least 20% of the units). I also ask because I believe that the answer to the question is something akin to “very, very few.”

I understand the concern and the need to provide housing for 60-80% AMI (and below). But when the market isn’t providing hardly any new units that are affordable to even the median income for residents – which is the fattest part of the market (representing the greatest potential number of buyers) – what does that say about the cost of building housing in Seattle?

That McGinn would even consider placing Vulcanite foot-soldiers McGrady, Fuji or Postman within his administration is a surprise and an affront to everyone who supported him. It would be a clear reversal from his grass roots/anti-establishment campaign and leave the door wide open to criticism that he (McGinn) misled the voters from the onset.

And this is the change Seattle wanted? Who’s next – Lyn Tangen or Aida Healey as Deputy Mayor?

@25 – How many new units developed in this city in the last few years are affordable to 100% AMI?

I ask because the stark trade-off that you’re proposing raises the price of the remaining units in a project (to recover the cost of charging sub-market rent to at least 20% of the units). I also ask because I believe that the answer to the question is something akin to “very, very few.”

I understand the concern and the need to provide housing for 60-80% AMI (and below). But when the market isn’t providing hardly any new units that are affordable to even the median income for residents – which is the fattest part of the market (representing the greatest potential number of buyers) – what does that say about the cost of building housing in Seattle?

That McGinn would even consider placing Vulcanite foot-soldiers McGrady, Fuji or Postman within his administration is a surprise and an affront to everyone who supported him. It would be a clear reversal from his grass roots/anti-establishment campaign and leave the door wide open to criticism that he (McGinn) misled the voters from the onset.

And this is the change Seattle wanted? Who’s next – Lyn Tangen or Aida Healey as Deputy Mayor?

@ 25 Good point. How about a requirement for developers who don’t provide parking to put that money into a public transportation fund? That would be about $25,000 per unit on average. Add that up across the city, and we might actually get enough money together to build some real public transportation. If developers continue to use the green card to avoid providing the parking infrastructure in dense urban areas, then they should show just how truly green they are and put that money to some true public benefit.

@ 25 Good point. How about a requirement for developers who don’t provide parking to put that money into a public transportation fund? That would be about $25,000 per unit on average. Add that up across the city, and we might actually get enough money together to build some real public transportation. If developers continue to use the green card to avoid providing the parking infrastructure in dense urban areas, then they should show just how truly green they are and put that money to some true public benefit.

@6 – I am getting SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRREEEDDDDDDD of everyone using the Tracy Flick comparison for every woman engaged in politics. Do better people!

@6 – I am getting SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRREEEDDDDDDD of everyone using the Tracy Flick comparison for every woman engaged in politics. Do better people!

I thought Ivan got banned!!!

I thought Ivan got banned!!!

There are a lot of talks about Vulcan becoming McGinn insiders. That is very trouble-some. I voted for McGinn because of his stand on the establishment. If he puts many of the old players in his adminstration, he will be one term mayor, and lose his base.

The most amazing thing about all of this is that other than Postman giving some advice from time to time absolutely none of this is true. If the purpose here is to have fun with rumors, go for it, however I suggest you just report what really is happening.

There are a lot of talks about Vulcan becoming McGinn insiders. That is very trouble-some. I voted for McGinn because of his stand on the establishment. If he puts many of the old players in his adminstration, he will be one term mayor, and lose his base.

The most amazing thing about all of this is that other than Postman giving some advice from time to time absolutely none of this is true. If the purpose here is to have fun with rumors, go for it, however I suggest you just report what really is happening.

@ 28 – Speak for yourself. I supported McGinn and I also support many of the basic premises of more vibrant, dense communities, esp. in SLU where Vulcan owns the vast majority of property. Some people like myself supported McGinn in the general because he was the pro transit pro urban density guy NOT because he was some kind of anti-establishment grassroots guy.

You probably also believed that Obama was really super progressive.

People believe what they want to believe when a candidate is running for office despite the fact that all you have to do to find out where they stand on issues is scratch the surface just a bit. McGinn has always talked about parking minimums ever since I have known him (for me that’s about 5 years). Great city was/is about bringing about environmental sustainability through good urban development. Even when he was the ‘Greenwood Neighborhood guy’ he testified in favor of increases in density.

Do people actually pay attention at all during elections to what their candidates actually stand for? Do they just see a jolly looking guy riding his bike around and think…”wow, he is so anti establishment, he has neat posters, and his campaign is being run by volunteers… I think I will vote for that guy”. @28, next time spend 5 minutes understanding someone’s policy convictions and their history. Mike ran great City which includes environmental groups, developers, architects, etc. That’s his base and that’s the crux of his political and policy perspective…no big surprise.

@ 28 – Speak for yourself. I supported McGinn and I also support many of the basic premises of more vibrant, dense communities, esp. in SLU where Vulcan owns the vast majority of property. Some people like myself supported McGinn in the general because he was the pro transit pro urban density guy NOT because he was some kind of anti-establishment grassroots guy.

You probably also believed that Obama was really super progressive.

People believe what they want to believe when a candidate is running for office despite the fact that all you have to do to find out where they stand on issues is scratch the surface just a bit. McGinn has always talked about parking minimums ever since I have known him (for me that’s about 5 years). Great city was/is about bringing about environmental sustainability through good urban development. Even when he was the ‘Greenwood Neighborhood guy’ he testified in favor of increases in density.

Do people actually pay attention at all during elections to what their candidates actually stand for? Do they just see a jolly looking guy riding his bike around and think…”wow, he is so anti establishment, he has neat posters, and his campaign is being run by volunteers… I think I will vote for that guy”. @28, next time spend 5 minutes understanding someone’s policy convictions and their history. Mike ran great City which includes environmental groups, developers, architects, etc. That’s his base and that’s the crux of his political and policy perspective…no big surprise.

@26 and 28: McGinn didn’t get elected on the “vision thing.” He got elected in the main because Mallahan showed himself to be not terribly bright and spent a lot of money campaigning, which spending even my neighbors who don’t follow politics knew about and didn’t think much of. McGinn was the better candidate of the two for the people who voted for him. He wasn’t, isn’t, and won’t be any kind of wunderkind, savior, or Man of our Dreams. Grow up, people. He’s not even in office yet.

Standard Sarah remark about housing/parking/affordability: Think of a single mother who has to get her kids to daycare 5 miles away before she goes to work 10 miles away. Where is she supposed to park her car, because she sure as hell isn’t going to use the (non-existent or late or overcrowded) bus for that long double trip each morning and evening? Nor, obviously, can she bike. This is the real world.

@27
I was thinking of it in pure trade-off terms. What a developer saves in NOT building parking could directly subsidize the affordable units. This conversation is already happening in Capitol Hill around TOD at the future link station. My assumption is that this savings would be the subsidy, thus not requiring developers to jack up rents or sale prices on the remaining units. At between 25 and 35k a stall, a 100 stall parking garage could mean a savings of several million dollars.

@29
this is exactly the kind of discussion that i would love to see mcginn start up. requiring developers to create funds for infrastructure or transit or affordable housing in exchange for fast tracked permitting and cost savings related to parking, etc. while incentive zoning is not perfect, it laid the groundwork for this type of arrangement around TOD.

@26 and 28: McGinn didn’t get elected on the “vision thing.” He got elected in the main because Mallahan showed himself to be not terribly bright and spent a lot of money campaigning, which spending even my neighbors who don’t follow politics knew about and didn’t think much of. McGinn was the better candidate of the two for the people who voted for him. He wasn’t, isn’t, and won’t be any kind of wunderkind, savior, or Man of our Dreams. Grow up, people. He’s not even in office yet.

Standard Sarah remark about housing/parking/affordability: Think of a single mother who has to get her kids to daycare 5 miles away before she goes to work 10 miles away. Where is she supposed to park her car, because she sure as hell isn’t going to use the (non-existent or late or overcrowded) bus for that long double trip each morning and evening? Nor, obviously, can she bike. This is the real world.

@27
I was thinking of it in pure trade-off terms. What a developer saves in NOT building parking could directly subsidize the affordable units. This conversation is already happening in Capitol Hill around TOD at the future link station. My assumption is that this savings would be the subsidy, thus not requiring developers to jack up rents or sale prices on the remaining units. At between 25 and 35k a stall, a 100 stall parking garage could mean a savings of several million dollars.

@29
this is exactly the kind of discussion that i would love to see mcginn start up. requiring developers to create funds for infrastructure or transit or affordable housing in exchange for fast tracked permitting and cost savings related to parking, etc. while incentive zoning is not perfect, it laid the groundwork for this type of arrangement around TOD.

Stop talking about developers. Their days are long gone. They are broke, and politicalli ineffective. That is why their support of Mallahan did not materialized. Now the only tool they have to survive is to get in the city and other goverment instituations and asked subsidy. There are enough progressive who are keeping close eye on them. Not this time– Nickle is gone and McGinn is accountable to the people. Sorry

Stop talking about developers. Their days are long gone. They are broke, and politicalli ineffective. That is why their support of Mallahan did not materialized. Now the only tool they have to survive is to get in the city and other goverment instituations and asked subsidy. There are enough progressive who are keeping close eye on them. Not this time– Nickle is gone and McGinn is accountable to the people. Sorry

@37 – Your definition of progress is actually stagnation.

McGinn’s own Great City Initiative assumes a growing city and plenty of new housing.

@37 – Your definition of progress is actually stagnation.

McGinn’s own Great City Initiative assumes a growing city and plenty of new housing.

I spent a lot of time volunteering for McGinn and I hope that he has very good relations with Vulcan. Paul Allen has made South Lake Union a lot nicer than it was when I moved to town. If Seattle had taken him up on his offer to build the commons then the city would be a lot better place to live.

I spent a lot of time volunteering for McGinn and I hope that he has very good relations with Vulcan. Paul Allen has made South Lake Union a lot nicer than it was when I moved to town. If Seattle had taken him up on his offer to build the commons then the city would be a lot better place to live.

@33,

Are you saying that Fujii isn’t currently involved behind the scenes with the McGinn operation? Because that would not be accurate.

@33,

Are you saying that Fujii isn’t currently involved behind the scenes with the McGinn operation? Because that would not be accurate.

Why are you all so surprised that McGinn is close to major developers such as Vulcan? I tried to tell a number of voters that McGinn was a friend to powerful development interests and City officials. Sounds like some of you who believed his stance on issues of neighborhood interest and grassroots pose are experiencing some regrets. A number of individuals in the City warned of this outcome, but they were dismissed as NIMBYs and old farts. Enjoy McGinn’s reign all you McGinn voters.

Why are you all so surprised that McGinn is close to major developers such as Vulcan? I tried to tell a number of voters that McGinn was a friend to powerful development interests and City officials. Sounds like some of you who believed his stance on issues of neighborhood interest and grassroots pose are experiencing some regrets. A number of individuals in the City warned of this outcome, but they were dismissed as NIMBYs and old farts. Enjoy McGinn’s reign all you McGinn voters.

Eliminating parking requirements is fine as long as you call it what it is and what it isn’t. If there’s a demand for it, then it works.

Let’s not put it under a big thick green veneer for developers to find shelter under.

Eliminating parking requirements does not makes units cheaper to the renter or buyer. Look at data. There is no data to support this.

Mostly our developments aren’t working very well. Bad design, expensive, and inhumane for starters. The mixed use model is pretty risky in much of Seattle. Maybe better to have great business districts that emerge organically and affordably rather than force them at $30 – $40 per square foot per year which is pretty hard to take on as a small business unless you sell drinks for $6.

Our city is full of single occupant houses in vast reservations of single family zoning. Hopefully backyard cottages and, in the future, flex houses will make up for that. There is nothing urban or sustainable about one person on 4,000 sf or 5,000 sf (or more).

McGinn is a windy prick. I hope he surrounds himself with some folks who aren’t.

Eliminating parking requirements is fine as long as you call it what it is and what it isn’t. If there’s a demand for it, then it works.

Let’s not put it under a big thick green veneer for developers to find shelter under.

Eliminating parking requirements does not makes units cheaper to the renter or buyer. Look at data. There is no data to support this.

Mostly our developments aren’t working very well. Bad design, expensive, and inhumane for starters. The mixed use model is pretty risky in much of Seattle. Maybe better to have great business districts that emerge organically and affordably rather than force them at $30 – $40 per square foot per year which is pretty hard to take on as a small business unless you sell drinks for $6.

Our city is full of single occupant houses in vast reservations of single family zoning. Hopefully backyard cottages and, in the future, flex houses will make up for that. There is nothing urban or sustainable about one person on 4,000 sf or 5,000 sf (or more).

McGinn is a windy prick. I hope he surrounds himself with some folks who aren’t.

Crumb comes from a suburban background. Cars necessary. Mass transit not possible. I’ll tell you what’s not possible: driving as much as we do. For cryin out loud. The Deep-bore tunnel is not the best tunnel option. Mike was right to oppose it. He should keep asking pertinent questions like “Would a Cut/cover make a stronger Seawall? Duh, yeah. Is it stupid to reroute Interbay traffic through Lower Queen Anne? Like duh. Those questions should be asked rather the the typical Seattle touchy-feely crap.

Crumb comes from a suburban background. Cars necessary. Mass transit not possible. I’ll tell you what’s not possible: driving as much as we do. For cryin out loud. The Deep-bore tunnel is not the best tunnel option. Mike was right to oppose it. He should keep asking pertinent questions like “Would a Cut/cover make a stronger Seawall? Duh, yeah. Is it stupid to reroute Interbay traffic through Lower Queen Anne? Like duh. Those questions should be asked rather the the typical Seattle touchy-feely crap.

Surely Fujii wouldn’t be appointed to DPD. Surely.

Surely Fujii wouldn’t be appointed to DPD. Surely.

That McGinn would even consider placing Vulcanite foot-soldiers McGrady, Fuji or Postman within his administration is a surprise and an affront to everyone who supported him.

It’s not a surprise to those of us who were objectively paying attention and not watching the race through Sierra Club-colored glasses. The rest of us knew that McGinn’s rhetoric was only hot air to help get the gullible locals on his side. He is an arm of Vulcan’s agenda. And honestly, I’m not sure if that’s bad per se. There are elements that reek and elements that look positive… as with any major agenda.

That McGinn would even consider placing Vulcanite foot-soldiers McGrady, Fuji or Postman within his administration is a surprise and an affront to everyone who supported him.

It’s not a surprise to those of us who were objectively paying attention and not watching the race through Sierra Club-colored glasses. The rest of us knew that McGinn’s rhetoric was only hot air to help get the gullible locals on his side. He is an arm of Vulcan’s agenda. And honestly, I’m not sure if that’s bad per se. There are elements that reek and elements that look positive… as with any major agenda.

The lack of understanding of basic economics among some on this thread is astounding.

It should not be difficult to understand that forcing developers to pour more concrete and put in more steel and pay for expensive union labor for parking garages adds to the cost of a project, and comes at the expense of additional housing units, which could be sold by the developer.

Areas such as Roosevelt and Broadway near future light rail stations, as well as South Seattle areas near the existing stations should be upzoned and the parking requirements eliminated. Let developers figure out the demand. Not everyone needs a car. Just because some single mothers need a car to drop their kids off at daycare doesn’t mean others can’t live a great life commuting on light rail and buses with an occasional ZipCar in the mix.

The lack of understanding of basic economics among some on this thread is astounding.

It should not be difficult to understand that forcing developers to pour more concrete and put in more steel and pay for expensive union labor for parking garages adds to the cost of a project, and comes at the expense of additional housing units, which could be sold by the developer.

Areas such as Roosevelt and Broadway near future light rail stations, as well as South Seattle areas near the existing stations should be upzoned and the parking requirements eliminated. Let developers figure out the demand. Not everyone needs a car. Just because some single mothers need a car to drop their kids off at daycare doesn’t mean others can’t live a great life commuting on light rail and buses with an occasional ZipCar in the mix.

@46
TChen, I completely agree, but we need to be careful in drawing a line between increased density, parking stall elimination and affordability. This won’t just happen (affordability), especially if these units become really desirable places to live, which I believe the Link Light Rail developments on Capitol Hill will most certainly become. The market will drive price points here, like it always does. Unless we as a City figure out a way to regulate the production and maintenance of affordable units in market rate housing, prices (and rents) will always be driven by demand. This is capitalism/econ 101.

@46
TChen, I completely agree, but we need to be careful in drawing a line between increased density, parking stall elimination and affordability. This won’t just happen (affordability), especially if these units become really desirable places to live, which I believe the Link Light Rail developments on Capitol Hill will most certainly become. The market will drive price points here, like it always does. Unless we as a City figure out a way to regulate the production and maintenance of affordable units in market rate housing, prices (and rents) will always be driven by demand. This is capitalism/econ 101.