Critics of Seattle’s out-of-whack zoning scheme—two-thirds of the city is zoned exclusively for single-family housing—have been arguing for decades now that Seattle needs to grow up (or build up, actually) and function like an actual city, not a suburb.
This isn’t an argument about aesthetics. It’s an argument for housing affordability and environmental sustainability, both urgent issues given the homelessness crisis and the latest climate change data from the U.N., respectively.
The blunt argument from pro-city urbanists is this: The Magnolia First ideology that single-family zoning stalwarts adhere to (or Laurelhurst First ideology or Wallingford First ideology or Phinney Ridge First ideology) selfishly defends an unsustainable lifestyle of privilege and exclusion (including the delusion that people have a constitutional right to free parking in front of their houses).
In short: The NIMBYs’ aesthetic position—that we must preserve the “character” of exclusionary neighborhoods—is undermining Seattle’s livability and affordability for the rest of us.
If you think the urbanist critique of single-family zoning lacks credibility because hipster urbanists supposedly don’t have kids or haven’t lived here long enough or are too young or don’t own houses (most people in Seattle are renters, by the way), let me introduce you to the latest critic of Seattle’s refusal to grow up and act like a city: An actual suburbanite, who lives in an actual suburb, state Sen. Guy Palumbo (D-1, Maltby).
Palumbo is proposing a bill that would make Seattle do something it refuses to do on its own: Upzone its suburban-style landscape to take on more density.
The 45-year-old state senator argues that Seattle’s failure to play its designated urban role in our region is undermining the state’s anti-sprawl Growth Management Act. Palumbo’s point: Seattle’s refusal to accept more growth is causing sprawl, the very opposite of what smart cities are supposedly about. (Maltby is northeast of Kirkland and Woodinville, and due east of Lynnwood.)
Sen. Palumbo’s state legislative district (which largely overlaps with Snohomish County Council Districts 4 and 5 on the charts below) has, in fact, seen growth on par with Seattle’s, at least as a percentage of population—around 14 percent, including 17.4 percent growth in portions of the district. It’d be one thing if that spike in growth simply represented small-town numbers growing to slightly bigger small-town numbers. But we’re talking an extra 40,000 people added to a population of 285,000. It’s as if everyone on Mercer Island picked up and moved to Palumbo’s district. And then a couple of years later, half of Mercer Island picked up and did it again.
Seattle itself has grown 17.2 percent over the same time (2010 to 2017). But Palumbo isn’t arguing Seattle hasn’t grown significantly; he’s pointing out that it should be growing a lot more than the suburbs if the region is going to grow sustainably.
“They are taking growth,” he says of Seattle. “The problem is the growth they aren’t taking is moving at too high a level to places that aren’t equipped to deal with it and service it. Snohomish is taking the growth that should be in Seattle,” he reasons. “If Seattle only built the types of housing people wanted and needed,” he adds, it would also increase housing supply, slowing the increase in housing prices that are nudging people out to the remote suburbs. Sprawl.
Palumbo condemns Seattle’s rigid zoning because, he says, it’s forcing families who would actually prefer to live in the city to move into his suburban southwest Snohomish County district instead. “Seattle is zoned low-density, single-family,” he says. As a result, “people can’t even afford one of the few and overpriced houses there, and they have to move. And they move out to the suburbs. ”
Why, there oughta be a law!
Lucky thing Palumbo is a state senator.
According to Palumbo, his draft bill (which the Urbanist first reported earlier this month), would require increased density within a mile of frequent transit service—areas near light rail stations or near bus stops where buses arrive at least every 15 minutes. Although the details of the bill could change, Palumbo envisions a mandatory density that slopes down as development fans out: 150 dwelling units per acre within a quarter-mile of frequent transit; 45 units per acre within half a mile of transit; and 14 units per acre within a 1 mile radius. (Asked whether cities could build more densely than the minimums required by his bill, Palumbo said he hadn’t thought of that.)
Palumbo tells me his legislation isn’t a one-size-fits-all bill, and those particular numbers are only intended for Seattle. Different numbers would apply to transit-friendly neighborhoods in smaller cities and towns where transit is less frequent and where target densities are lower. (He also acknowledged that his “units per acre” metric was a bit backwards—that is, you can’t logically prescribe units-per acre rules on an individual development without a universal picture of all the proposed developments in the upzoned area.)
He said his metric was simply meant to describe the ultimate density he envisions, and that Seattle could apply units per lot and floor area ratio metrics to achieve the 14 units per acre within his 1-mile radius performance standard, for example.
Seattle is already (sorta) moving in this direction, though as cautiously as a cat burglar tip-toeing up the stairs.
This year, the council is taking up a plan that’s been in play since 2015 to upzone a tiny percentage of the city’s vast single-family neighborhoods. Focusing on the edges of single family zones that are near designated residential urban villages, the city proposal, known as Mandatory Housing Affordability (it simultaneously makes developers fund affordable housing), would upzone six percent of single family zoned land into slightly denser residential small lot zones, low-rise zones, and Neighborhood Commercial zones. The changes would help create what pro-housing urbanists call the “Missing Middle.”
The density increase Palumbo’s proposing within a half and quarter mile of frequent transit service—45 and 150 units per acre, respectively—would already be allowed (though not required) under both current Seattle zoning and under MHA changes to Lowrise zones and Neighborhood Commercial zones.
Meanwhile, two-thirds of the MHA rezone area in strict single-family zones (so about four percent of that current zoning)—the Residential Small Lot upzone—would permit density of about 20 units per acre, according to some back-of-the-envelope math city staffers did after they read about Sen. Palumbo’s proposal for comparison’s sake.
Again, while not required (as it is in Palumbo’s formula), that would actually be slightly more permissive than the density Palumbo is proposing a mile away from transit stops (his 14 units per acre). But that’s only in the sliver of single family areas rezoned under MHA; under Palumbo’s mandate, the larger swath of single family areas left untouched by MHA would face a significant upzone.
In other words, when it comes to the majority of Seattle’s single family zones, Mr. Palumbo of Maltby is far more woke about requiring dense, sustainable land use than Seattle and its leaders—even though today’s leading climate scientists are demanding dramatic action to address pending environmental calamity.
Seattle leaders do not have a good track record when it comes to standing up to the Magnolia First faction and making this change. Back in 2009, former Mayor Greg Nickels initially backed a Futurewise/Transportation Choices Coalition state bill that would have promoted more density around transit hubs. But when traditional neighborhood activists said the proposal would turn Seattle into Mumbai, intimidating Nickels’ wary deputy mayor Tim Ceis, Nickels stepped away from the bill as his reelection loomed. (The legislation failed.)
And, of course, former Mayor Ed Murray folded on his original proposal to upzone all single family zones in 2015, watering his proposal down to the current six percent plan when the NIMBYs at the Seattle Times protested on behalf of their home-owning readers.
I contacted the Seattle City Council and Mayor Jenny Durkan’s office to see if they supported Palumbo’s urgent push for more density. A spokeswoman for the mayor’s office said she hadn’t seen the bill, which is still in early draft form.
Meanwhile, Seattle City Council Member Rob Johnson, who’s leading the city’s limited MHA upzone effort, responded. Johnson, who was the director of TCC back in 2009 when the pro-transit group went to the mat for the state upzone legislation, cautioned: “Been there done that.” He did note, though, that Palumbo was starting “an interesting conversation.”
Ultimately, Johnson argued that Palumbo’s statewide approach isn’t likely to succeed, pointing out that some suburban cities, such as Sammamish, Issaquah, and Federal Way, have gone so far as to impose moratoria on new development. (After a year, the Sammamish City Council effectively lifted the moratorium as did the Issaquah City Council. )
However, Johnson has a point. Several Puget Sound cities have enacted development bans, making it clear that A) they’re queasy about more density and B) they’re not going to take kindly to some dude from the state legislature telling them how to manage growth.
Seattle is behaving like a suburb when the state is relying on it to be a city.
Johnson says the local approach he’s now heading up as a Seattle City Council member is more likely to work, although—recalling how Nickels backed away from the Futurewise/TCC bill—he acknowledged there’s dedicated resistance to new development in Seattle as well. For example, he lamented the fact that single-family home owners are currently funding a legal effort to tie up the MHA upzone in a battle in front of the City Hearing Examiner.
Resistance to development in Seattle has already undermined the rezones Johnson passed in 2016 and 2017 as part of MHA Part 1, when the city upzoned five (already) densely populated commercial/residential Urban Centers, including downtown, plus one Residential Urban Village at 23rd & Union-Jackson.
To wit: After unanimously passing the downtown upzone, the city council halted one of the first proposed developments proposed under the new zoning (even drafting talking points for the opposition) when a developer wanted to tear down the talismanic Showbox music venue to build more housing.
Johnson does have a point about state legislation: The merits of Palumbo’s bill are likely to be overshadowed by a meta question of governance that could stall the state senate legislation: Should the state have the right to micromanage local land use issues?
But Palumbo has a point too. When local policies spill over legislators’ borders to threaten a green and progressive state law like the Growth Management Act, which was intended to combat regional problems like sprawl, then yes, the state has a role to play.
It takes one to know one. Suburbanite Palumbo is telling it like it is: Seattle is behaving like a suburb when the state is relying on it to be a city.
5 thoughts on “The J is for Judge: It Takes One to Know One”
While there is a point that the good Senator from the 1st LD makes, that Seattle could do more, the real problem is with the planning (or lack of planning as it may be) in Snohomish County. Much of the growth in the county is not apartments, duplexes, or dense development, but a growth of detached single family developments in unincorporated parts of East Snohomish County. The County does not charge impact fees, and provides little service (especially transit service) to the area. Outside Maltby, for example is zoned R-5.
To me, the growth in East Snohomish County (as well as in Pierce County), is due to a desire for developers to build single family subdivisions within the UGA, and the lack of impact fees and the (non)requirement of other urban amenities. This combination, drives down the costs of construction in these unincorporated areas.
Again, it is one thing to suggest that cities, including Seattle should do more to accommodate additional growth, but at the end of the day, it is a developer (in most cases) who decides where and what to build.
I am continually perplexed by the passion with which Mr. Feit makes his arguments against the single family neighborhoods of Seattle. What makes and keeps (some parts) of Seattle livable are trees, green space, gardens (otherwise known as “yards”), birds, wild life, view corridors, unique small businesses,legacy architecture, light, and the availability and ease of access and parking. These neighborhoods are expensive because people value these amenities which are at the very heart of what makes a city “livable.”
Sure, we might be able to lower the cost of housing in Phinney Ridge if you you tear down every single family home, disallow parking and put up a gulag of high density apartment complexes on every block. While at it be sure to upzone the commercial district on Greenwood to allow for towers with expansive retail space below affordable only to large chain operations. If you realize your dream of doing this to the entire city of Seattle who exactly will be living here? What will remain of “Seattle” beyond a distant view of mountains glimpsed only from the Aurora Bridge, high rent penthouses and postcards?
Since 2010 Seattle has grown by18.7 percent, which ranks as the fastest rate of growth among the 50 largest U.S. cities. Explain again how we are not doing our “duty” to grow? According to the Seattle Times “The city is still blowing away the suburbs when it comes to growth. Last year, Seattle once again grew faster than surrounding King County, something it’s done every year since 2011. In fact, for the second consecutive year, Seattle added more people in 2017 than all the King County suburbs combined. Excluding Seattle, the county grew by just about 15,000 people last year, for a growth rate of 1 percent.”
And with all this growth the cost of housing has increased every year. The population of cars has matched or exceeded the growth of the population of people. Where exactly is the limit to growth, given our infrastructure, our bridges, our increasingly challenged air and water? In Feit’s reasoning there is no limit to growth: Seattle must take the population that wants to come here, whatever size, at whatever cost, in perpetuity. WHY? I never hear an answer to that. Everett, Bellingham, Spokane, Ellensberg, Tacoma, any number of other cities could take some of the population that is heading to the northwest.
Entire Seattle neighborhoods have been erased and recreated as new unrecognizable places in the past five years. The change is at a rate that is unsustainable for Seattle’s environment and cultural values, and it is completely needless, driven by developer interests and delusional “green” dogma about the virtue of density. If the astronomical increase in Seattle’s density in the past 8 years has not controlled the migration to the suburbs, what logic suggests that more density would?
I was involved in the Issaquah moratorium – to be clear, that was an exercise to ensure the growth in Central Issaquah will be dense, urban, and vibrant. It was definitely not an exercise in avoiding growth.
I agree that outside of the urban core (LQA, SoDo, etc.) and U-District, there is little that distinguishes Seattle neighborhoods from other suburbs. Some are dense, some are not, all are suburbs.
Seattle has had more growth than all of Snohomish County combined–105,000 net new residents 2010-2017 in Seattle vs 76,000 in all of Snohomish County. All over the city I see new apartment buildings and other developments. The Seattle Times has reported that rent has stabilized, or even come down. A few years ago a stunt like this might have resonated more, but now it seems faintly ridiculous. And the idea that you force neighborhoods to increase their density before you allow any new transit is laughable. If that standard were applied to ST3, the planning for light rail to Lynnwood and Everett would have to be stopped immediately.
Sorry to wreck your whole story, but the reason there is moratoriums on development and an appeal to the MHA upzones is due to the Growth Management Act itself. Concurrency of planning for infrastructure is required by law, in every city including Seattle.
When growth exceeded planning, a moratorium was imposed (except for affordable housing).
Seattle itself does not have impact fees and most of the areas proposed for upzoning have very old, failing infrastructure.
I’m a courier in western Washington, so I am familiar with every area, and I deliver to all the new developments. Families who move there do so because they want quiet, privacy, safety, and amenities like parking, yards and trees, as well as newer schools, etc.
These people will not buy a townhouse in the city, unless we change the way we are densifying.
Houses on double lots in my area of South Park are still selling in the mid 300,000s, but crime, pollution, traffic, and noise are a deterrent to many.
Keeping Seattle livable and green would do more to combat sprawl than anything else.
The urban village concept is good. It also includes amenities like really good transit service, parks and open space. Seattle planners got the density memo, not the amenity part.
So let’s get some impact fees, some better planning, tree protection, parks, family friendly housing, and a much higher MHA contribution so we can make Seattle a livable city, not just a dense city.
Otherwise Maltby is going to get a lot more people.
It should be noted as well that developers in the foothills are allowed to build there under the GMA, and that Seattle is already zoned for its share of growth under the GMA.
Developers build where there is demand and profit, and ignore areas where livability is low, regardless of zoning.
Comments are closed.