Roosevelt Group: Major Rail Upzone Would Be “Grave Insult”

Please ensure that the Legislative Rezone process is not derailed, but
rather expedited so that Roosevelt can become a model ‘transit oriented
community.’”

Not possible with the paltry rezone currently on the table from the neighborhood.

Who are these people kidding?  Smart growth is not single family and 40 feet zoning within one block of a $300 million transit station.

Shut your cum-dumpster, O’Halloren.

Until O’Halloren can explain which rural forest he wants to chop down to house all the people who would have lived around Roosavelt station, how many more cars would that add to the street, how much would the resulting increase in highway and construction costs would that cause, and how much more greenhouse gas would they put in the atmosphere, he’s just being a NIMBY.

And while he’s being a NIMBY, he’s pricing anyone who isn’t a millionaire out of Roosavelt, as the lack of supply to deal with increased demand will make property prices skyrocket.

I appreciate that the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association has at least been open to the idea of some upzoning, unlike certain other neighborhoods around light rail stations, but it should be obvious to anyone that a 350-unit increase is not enough to create transit-oriented community out of what is now a pretty car-oriented area. Remember also that this number only reflects the zoned capacity. Most capacity is not actually built out, especially in the short term, so we really need a wider area to be upzoned if we hope to have any substantial redevelopment. The arbitrary protection of single-family zones within a 1/2 mile of the station only benefits a small number of existing property owners, at the expense of thousands of future residents who would benefit from being able to walk or bike to rapid transit. Even changing the SF zone to an L3 would result in a beneficial and gradual increase in density. Raising the rest of the zones to 85 or higher is also a reasonable change. Especially in the area right around Roosevelt and 12th, higher heights would not really impact views or the neighborhood character in a negative way, especially if the buildings had setbacks as they go up to preserve light to the street.

Zef – Seattle is just Bellevue west. You are talking about creating a precedent that could impact 70 % of Seattle, which is zoned SFR. People in Seattle like the idea of tall buildings in downtown while they head home to their SFR neighborhood. By the way, who really speaks for the Roosevelt neighborhood ?  You ? McGinn ? Burgess ? Just asking.

I think any SF zones near frequent transit (rail or bus) should be changed to L3 at the very least. Townhomes and rowhouses are still great for families and have most of the attributes people want in a house, but they pack more households in each block. Most low-rise development happens on small parcels anyway, so development will occur gradually with minor disruption to the precious single-family neighborhoods.

To your second point, the whole problem with neighborhood associations having too much say in policy is that they only speak for current residents. Someone (McGinn, Burgess, and me, for example) has to speak for the future residents. Future residents don’t get to vote or form associations, so it’s up to the rest of us who care about urban villages and transit-oriented communities to push back against the conservative tendencies of the established residents. I think some sort of compromise between what we want and what the neighborhood wants should be the basis for moving forward.

Good point. Any affordable housing advocate should support more density near the station, because otherwise high demand will make the entire Roosevelt area more expensive, even older stock that should be inexpensive. People focus too much on the fact that the new developments will be expensive, without realizing that the existing houses and apartments will become less expensive as supply increases.

Define near. One block, two maybe three ? Funny thing about people, no matter the political identity or where they live they only think about themselves. Today. Who will push the compromise ? Elected officials ? Push too hard and you will be updating your resume. DPD ? Push too hard and you will anger your boss and elected officials and also be updating your resume. Neighborhood Associations may have too much perceived power but darn it they live in the neighborhood that will be directly affected and endorse candidates for office.

Prices aren’t rising along the Rainier Valley portion of Light Rail, seems to suggest there isn’t enough demand.  

On behalf of Jim, who is a mild mannered and polite fella, go fuck yourself.

What does the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association fear from a little extra upzoning?  That their neighborhood will turn into Cabrini Green?

It seems reasonable to oppose revisiting a done deal, especially if you put years into meetings and consultations that were supposed to mean something. Revisiting the deal after the fact seems to suggest that the rules can be changed at any time, which seems unfair.

I’m not saying the deal that was struck is a good one. But maybe instead of hating on O’Halloren, people who disagree with him or the Neighborhood Association should admit that they failed to properly mobilize when the deal was being made? And if they revisit the decision, maybe they should at least acknowledge in passing that this is a power play?

Shoe me ONE study, using data from the United States in the last 30 years, that proves that new development reduces rent in nearby buildings. I bet you can’t find a single one that is credible, funded by a non-partisan source.

The Rainier Valley segment of light rail is a complete fail so far, mainly due to the NIMBYs who have worked so hard to get zoning right.

They’re a cult, Trevor. They don’t have to present “evidence.” You have only to believe. If you don’t take on faith everything they say. they consider you a NIMBY (the new N-word), the enemy, “the other,” and part of “the problem.”

We have consistently worked with the City for the last 15+ years on our neighborhood plan.  We are not NIMBYs.  We have worked with DPD every step of the way – ask them.

But look at the station – how come there’s no density with it?  No retail, nothing above it, just a station. 

You also have to understand how the Sisleys CANNOT be trusted.  They have been slumlords here for decades and have cost the City thousands in legal fees.  These are the people you trust to build decent housing?  You shouldn’t.  It’s our neighborhood and we have the right to raise the concerns over who the City decides will be construct buildings here.  

We have consistently worked with the City for the last 15+ years on our neighborhood plan.  We are not NIMBYs.  We have worked with DPD every step of the way – ask them.

But look at the station – how come there’s no density with it?  No retail, nothing above it, just a station. 

You also have to understand how the Sisleys CANNOT be trusted.  They have been slumlords here for decades and have cost the City thousands in legal fees.  These are the people you trust to build decent housing?  You shouldn’t.  It’s our neighborhood and we have the right to raise the concerns over who the City decides will be construct buildings here.  

You should get off of Capitol Hill more often – nothing that Seattle developers are doing has slowed development at the fringes of the urban growth boundary down at all – and letting Hugh Sisley build his 16 story towers won’t either.

 OTOH, there is one thing that is GUARANTEED to make property prices there skyrocket – upzoning.

 But, in all fairness, light rail has DEFINITELY raised the price of Pho at the 3 restaurants by the Othello Station, so I guess you can call that one a win.

 But, in all fairness, light rail has DEFINITELY raised the price of Pho at the 3 restaurants by the Othello Station, so I guess you can call that one a win.

Dude, get with the pogrom – little details like “fairness” and “rules” mean nothing to religious fanatics.

I love the “Urban Density” supporters arguement that building bigger will bring down housing costs.  Is this why 450 square foot studio apartments in NYC cost $2k a month?  I guess I’d just like to see the data that backs that up.

The 350-unit density increase contemplated in he current rezone plan is on top of the hundreds (if not thousands) of unbuilt units already allowed by current zoning. 

Of course you have the right to raise concerns.  Doesn’t mean the city has to listen to them.  Now it would be best to work with the neighborhood as much as possible to try and get their perspective, but when a neighborhood association puts out a do nothing plan like the current one, the city is under no obligation to kowtow to it.

Why is it on Publicola that every thread eventually circles back to the Tunnel? That is your veiled point, isn’t it Trevor?

Right. Because heaven forbid that the people who live in a neighborhood should have some say in its future. But self-appointed “urbanists” like you should? Do you have a clue how elitist this is? Evidently not. Did the neighborhood’s “future residents” elect you to be their spokesman?

Before you go off on me as some crotchety old NIMBY, I was born and raised in a row house, and spent the first 18 years of my life in one. I walked to a wide range of stores, I walked to elementary and junior high school, and I walked to two buses that linked to anywhere in the city I wanted to go.

It sucked then, and it sucks now. When people are packed in on each other like fucking sardines, all they want is to get the hell away from it and live where there is some green, and some QUIET, and some breathing space. If you honestly, seriously believe that the “future residents,” whom you so pompously claim to represent, somehow in three generations will have “evolved” to the sardine stage, then to me that just demonstrates what a cult this “urbanist” thing has become.

I’m all for mid-rises, 6-8 stories, mixed residential, retail, and commercial, along the arterials and the cross streets around any transit hub. Certain arterials (Aurora Av N) should have this along their entire length. But those should not extend more than one block in any direction. There should also be parking around them. Whether you lot like it or not, people crave personal transportation and will go to any lengths to maintain that option. Watch I-1125 pass by a whopping margin if you don’t believe that. Further density around transit hubs should occur as the market demand provides, on a case-by-case basis, and should not be mandated top-down.

Decide for your own neighborhood, and leave other neighborhoods to the people who live there to duke it out with the city. Nobody is lining up around the block, with cops and police dogs controlling the traffic, to hear your “urban vision.”

“Doesn’t mean the city has to listen to them.” Right. Because they are not public employees, they are our masters. Right?

Mr X, please explain where all those people now living in new development in Seattle would be living if there had been no new development in Seattle.

Why is the price for a studio in NYC that much?  Because that’s what rents are in New York City.

B/c they are elected by the entire city, not one neighborhood.

Mr. X - 

No one is talking about 16 foot towers in Roosevelt.  They are off the table.  (Northgate and the U District, that is a different story…).

The Roosevelt neighborhood shouldn’t have lobbied to have the light rail station moved through their commercial district (as opposed to next to I-5) if they didn’t want to make the investment worthwhile. 85 feet is more than reasonable, and realistically still shortchanging us for the amount spent on light rail and this station specifically.

This has nothing to do with Sisley!  It has to do with a broader policy issue–that more density than the neighborhood plan needs to be around the station. 

The towers are off the table, per the Mayor’s direction.  Jim O is using the threat of towers to fire up the neighborhood and to make it sound like people are proposing something terrible for their neighborhood.  The reality is, the neighborhood’s plan was too low, the RDG plan was too high.  The Mayor’s proposal (65/85 feet around the station) is just right…

This has nothing to do with Sisley!  It has to do with a broader policy issue–that more density than the neighborhood plan needs to be around the station. 

The towers are off the table, per the Mayor’s direction.  Jim O is using the threat of towers to fire up the neighborhood and to make it sound like people are proposing something terrible for their neighborhood.  The reality is, the neighborhood’s plan was too low, the RDG plan was too high.  The Mayor’s proposal (65/85 feet around the station) is just right…

The people who currently reside in Roosevelt and who showed up to the neighborhood plan meetings all these years represent one of the many, many stakeholders in this process.  I’m not convinced that their concerns are any more important than the concerns of anyone else who is paying taxes (now and in the future) to build this station.
As far as I can tell, the active RNA members (it’s not a large group) are quite comfortable with what *they* proposed as a result of their meetings.
Were they really expecting that they alone could create the plan?

Who is the leader of this “cult” Ivan?  I do see one cult of self-proclaimed affordable housing advocates shrilly opposing any new affordable housing construction in Seattle, and advocating surrounding *every* rail station with single-family homes.  That cult actually does have a nominal leader.

Who is the leader of this “cult” Ivan?  I do see one cult of self-proclaimed affordable housing advocates shrilly opposing any new affordable housing construction in Seattle, and advocating surrounding *every* rail station with single-family homes.  That cult actually does have a nominal leader.

And how much would a single family house cost in Manhattan?  Their market is totally different from ours so it’s not really a fair comparison.  As to the broader point, it’s a matter of simple economics that price is determined by the relationship between supply and demand.  Creating more supply would tend to lower prices in the long term–RELATIVE to what they would otherwise be.  At the same time, you have to factor in that building something new is generally pretty expensive, in part because of stricter code requirements etc.  And demand also tends to increase over time as the population grows.  So no, prices are not going to decline in absolute terms.  But if you don’t allow the market to create supply as demand increases because of restrictive zoning laws, the existing houses in the neighborhood will keep getting more expensive and pretty soon only doctor/lawyer couples will be able to afford a house in that neighborhood.  Perhaps that’s the strategy of the existing owners.