By Andrew Grant Houston
It’s December 2023, and as a local architect and housing advocate, I—along with many other Seattleites—have now been waiting more than eight months since the city’s initial April release date for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Housing Element of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan Update.
The DEIS currently identifies five possible paths for Seattle’s growth over the next 20 years and how that growth—or lack thereof—will impact our urban and natural environment.
Although the Comprehensive Plan is a complete vision that includes a number of elements (as defined by the state’s Growth Management Act), typically the most contentious and complex of these elements is the Housing Element, which sets the upper limit for how many housing units Seattle will plan for in the next 20 years. This element, and the public engagement that will come with it, is a once-in-a-decade opportunity for Seattle residents to voice our views about whether that the number of homes in Seattle is sufficient or insufficient for us as well as future Seattleites, and to weigh in on where new homes should be added.
The city of Seattle has delayed releasing the draft statement multiple times, which should tip you off as to just how critical the Housing Element update is. But if you aren’t the sort of person who spends their time either wishing Seattle looked more like Paris or hoping your neighborhood will be preserved in amber until the end of time, what are the questions you should be asking yourself as you attempt to engage with such an important topic? There are certainly a multitude, but here are my top 10.
Population Growth
In May, the Seattle Times reported that, according to census data, Seattle is the fastest-growing large city in the United States. How does this news change the proposed number of housing units in the EIS draft, given that people are moving here faster than new homes are being produced?
Planned Growth vs. Actual Growth
How does the housing allocation proposed in the previous Comprehensive Plan, compared to actual housing production since that time, influence the proposed number of units in the Draft EIS, given our current housing deficit?
Zoning Capacity vs. What is Actually Built
New buildings typically have a lifespan of 50 to 100 years, meaning that there are tracts of land that have been developed since the previous Comprehensive Plan that may see zoning changes but will not see any actual increases in housing over the next 20 years. Are these parcels included in calculations around achieving increased housing capacity as part of the Draft EIS, or are they excluded?
Mandatory Housing Affordability
How is the Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program being factored into the number of proposed housing units, given that the Community Indicators Report (September 2020) released by the City’s Equitable Development Initiative identified a need for 68,000 “affordable” units at all income levels below 80 percent of Seattle’s area median income, as well as the latest numbers from the city on MHA showing that just 7 percent of all housing units created over the last year qualify as “affordable?”
Homelessness
King County’s Point in Time count showed an increase in unsheltered individuals in 2022 compared to 2020, from 11,751 to 13,368. How does this increase in unsheltered homelessness influence the types of housing allowed as part of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the allowed uses across Seattle?
The Urban Village (UV) Strategy
The Seattle Planning Commission’s 2020 paper “Evolving Seattle’s Growth Strategy” noted that the current Urban Village strategy perpetuated inequities that have existed in Seattle land use patterns since the creation of the city. A focus on equality would allow more homes in all neighborhoods, whereas a focus on equity would allow more homes in areas where historic redlining prohibited people of color from living and neighborhoods that have seen little to no change in zoning since the implementation of the Urban Village strategy in 1994. Does the draft EIS address this and if so, how?
The 15-Minute City
How does the concept of creating a “15-Minute City” influence where the city will allow commercial or non-residential uses in each neighborhood? How does this inform the minimum number of homes we will allow on every lot in Seattle?
Climate Refugees
In 2023, we’ve seen a massive increase in heat waves across the US and in other countries. Given Seattle’s relatively mild climate, as well as the city’s status as a sanctuary city, how does the potential increase in climate refugees over the next 20 years the plan covers influence the number of proposed housing units across the city?
Trees
What methodology is being used to ensure that the tree canopy across the city is preserved or increased while also taking into account reductions in the buildable area on individual lots that may be necessary to achieve this goal?
The Climate Future of South Park
At the beginning of this year, South Park experienced a king tide, which flooded the neighborhood. Given that climate change will increase instances of this kind of phenomenon, including rising sea levels, does the Comprehensive Plan consider any forms of managed retreat and the impact climate change will have on proposed housing and development capacity in South Park and around the Duwamish floodplain?
The questions I’ve outlined above may appear intimidating, but I share them because, just as an informed voter is the best kind of voter, an informed citizen is the best kind of citizen. Seattle must change the way we do business in order to become the city we all wish it was for every resident—a place where everyone can work, live, and play safely and in community together.
But in order to get there we must first map the difficult road ahead. We must recognize that we are in a tumultuous time but that by working together we make overcoming the major issues our city faces that much easier for all of us. The Draft EIS must be the first plan for how we move forward, toward a Seattle for everyone. And if the city tries to turn away from this path, whether due to fear or a delusional sense of nostalgia, it’s up to us to collectively reject that false future.
When the draft plan is released, I encourage everyone in Seattle to take just five minutes to make one comment on the plan. That comment can simply say “we need to be more ambitious in how many homes we’re planning for” or “we need to be honest about how many people want to live here.” The amount of good each comment could do for our city would mean a lot less time having to write op-eds like this and a lot more time spent out enjoying all the best aspects of what it means to live here.
Andrew Grant Houston, also known as Ace the Architect, is the Founder and Head of Design of House Cosmopolitan, an architecture and urban design practice focused on celebrating culture and creating places where people belong. A former candidate for Mayor of Seattle in 2021, he also serves on the board of Futurewise.
I comment from the accounting stance of a property owner of a single-family property in Seattle as well as a rental property owner of three other rental properties, also in Seattle.
Collectively in our neighborhood, property owners have largely been opposed to permitting the expansion of single family houses to a permitted zoning of one DADU plus one ADU to every existing single family residence, particularly due to the clause that owners do not have to live on site. The collective mood of our neighborhood was the concern that without an owner having a stake as neighborhood resident, the quality of the neighborhood would be weakened. When you add in the reduced tree canopy, loss of open space, impacts and storm water mitigation, the true costs begin to surface regarding the risk to the quality of life that we currently have.
As an alternative model, we have an example in our neighborhood of a project that allowed a single-family zoned 5000 sq.ft. lot to be redeveloped into a SF+ADU+DADU configuration, where each unit owns, fee-simple, a portion of the public spaces outside their walls. This was completed in the last two years or so. While this model may not be the desire of all buyers, it provides an option to a current single-family homeowner to be a down-sizer and not a landlord, and to harvest equity from their property at current value. If this redeveloped property conversion was successful for all involved, I have to tip my hat to the workings of the marketplace, for they who write the checks make the value judgements, but it must be noted that no affordable units were built here.
As a landlord of some tenure, I can truthfully say that being a landlord is not for everyone. The risks and aggravations can far outweigh any financial gains. There is also a very large, elephant in the living room, covered with pink polka dots, that none of the proponents of greater density will address, and that is the cost of new construction of remodeling of existing structures to create more living space. Those start-up costs, their debt service, property tax increases due to increased finished value, and the risks associated with inconsistent tenancy have made it very difficult to have projects make financial sense for an existing property owner. Even with our own history of design/build experience, we question attempting expansions/subdivisions on any of our holdings without a planned sale of the individual pieces to new owners. If our projections of return are anywhere near accurate, redevelopment will probably fall far short of hoped-for goals of affordable housing, simply due to the cost of providing the finished product.
For ourselves, and perhaps other like-thinkers in Seattle, there is no great appetite to redevelop under current circumstances without abandoning their current residences. However, we continue to receive weekly solicitations for purchase of our holdings for offers lower than current county assessed values.
The Seattle article you referred to was growth from July 21 to July 22. More recent census data shows that Seattle’s population actually decreased last year. We’ll see if this is a blip or a trend but it puts the projections of population growth in serious question.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/seattle-wa-population
Seattle has a 2023 population of 725,487. It is also the county seat of King County.Seattle is currently declining at a rate of -0.58% annually and its population has decreased by -1.72% since the most recent census, which recorded a population of 738,172 in 2020.
A quick news scan shows that Seattle is still growing – maybe not as fast as ten years ago, but more people move in than out. A relatively strong/diverse job market will keep people moving in, and expensive housing is a drag on the whole economy. It’s silly to not plan for growth, but we may need to adjust our assumptions (ie, people are having less children, more dogs, and work from home more, etc).
How does a community rectify the fact that the best intent to protect trees, build safe units with code protections, mandate below market rent, focus future development on underperforming (aka affluent/white) neighborhoods, all of our near and dear values – inflate the cost of housing or reduce the number of total new units built?
Beyond the Comp Plan, if our goals are to increase housing units we have to ask what use policies are getting in the way. What data do we have to support that recent tenant protections are not inhibiting the construction of new or rent of existing affordable units? What affordable units are in danger of loss and why? Why are we pro-housing supplier but not pro-landlord when they are the same person/owner/entity?
Too simple a fix and not enough time for the insiders to buy up the lots (so it won’t happen) but allowing apartment buildings on ALL corner lots in EVERY neighborhood would make great inroads into the single family only areas in a fair/equitable manner. Sadly they will screw up this opportunity as they always do. Incompetent!
The housing market is controlled completely by…. market forces. As long as Seattle is “America’s fastest growing city” there’s just no way, no how, housing is ever going to affordable.
As long as one of those market forces is supply of vs. demand for land where the city lets people build denser dwellings, the city’s policy around zoning will absolutely have an effect on the price of housing. That’s not to say zoning changes alone will bring new housing below whatever litmus test you might have for whether it’s “affordable” or not…they probably won’t. Other parts of housing construction (materials, labor, financing) will remain quite expensive regardless of zoning policy.
Let’s just look at this as a Left Coast problem… although housing is more of a national issue.
There’s a lack of housing in Oregon, California and Washington State caused by strict local zoning laws. Seattle, believe it or not, built a lot more housing than San Francisco over the last 20 years. So why isn’t Seattle housing affordable? Because when well heeled folks got priced out of San Francisco they headed north. And they’re still coming!
So it doesn’t matter how much housing Seattle builds because as long as out-of-State demand for housing stays high, prices also stay high. I don’t think Seattle housing activists have any idea just how bad California’s housing problems are and just how much impact that has on Seattle and Washington State.
Gov. Newsom (California) has this dream that Oregon and Washington State will loosen up zoning laws and spend public tax money on “affordable” housing… so California won’t have to.
So until the Federal government gets involved…. the housing market isn’t going to change.