By Erica C. Barnett
Mayor Bruce Harrell finally released a draft Comprehensive Plan for the next 20 years this week, outlining a growth plan for the city that continues to concentrate housing around busy arterial streets while allowing some four-unit buildings in most areas—an upgrade of one unit from what’s currently allowed in Seattle’s “neighborhood residential” areas. Developers could build six units in these areas if two of the units are affordable, or if the location is within a quarter-mile of a frequent transit stop.
According to the city, the plan would make it possible to build at least 100,000 new homes in Seattle between now and 2044—a period when the city itself estimates about 250,000 new people will move here. Unless those new residents live in households that average 2.5 people—defying current trends toward smaller household sizes and solo living—those units will not be enough to accommodate everyone who wants to live here.
Seattle is already experiencing a well-documented housing shortage—one data point: You now have to earn $214,000 a year to afford a house here—so the plan, if implemented as-is, will also do little to address the current shortage by relieving upward pressure on housing prices. If you can’t afford to live here now, you probably won’t be able to do so in the future.
Importantly, none of the changes to formerly single-family areas were optional; legislation passed last year requires all cities, including Seattle, to allow up to four units per lot in formerly single-family areas. (Currently, Seattle allows up to three—a single-family house plus one attached and one detached accessory unit.) And there’s a real question about whether four-unit buildings will pencil out; other cities that have allowed this kind of extremely low-density multifamily housing have found that developers aren’t interested in building it.
Compared to the old Alternative 5, the new map nixes potential new density near Alki Beach, Fauntleroy, North Capitol Hill, Magnolia, and Laurelhurst, along with Harrell’s own neighborhood, Seward Park. None of these areas is on the city’s list of neighborhoods with a high risk of displacement or low access to opportunity.
The plan would also re-legalize corner stores and some home-based businesses, but only on corner lots—a hyper-literal interpretation of the colloquial term “corner store.”
Harrell’s proposal, which remains light on certain details, would exempt up to 15 percent of the city from the new zoning rules—less than the 25 percent HB 1110 allows. In areas where there is a “high risk of displacement,” including parts of Southeast Seattle, the plan would adopt new zoning that effectively preserves the current three-unit limit, preventing new housing as an anti-displacement strategy for existing property owners. The plan does not identify all the areas the city plans to exempt from the new density mandates, so it’s unclear exactly how much of the city would remain under existing “neighborhood residential” zoning rules.
The proposal also modestly expands the areas where apartments (renters) are allowed, creating a new “neighborhood center” category in all areas within 800 feet of frequent transit stops, where developers could buildings between three and six stories tall. These “centers” are tiny compared to a 2022 proposal from Sen. Marko Liias (D-Edmonds), which would have allowed up to six-story buildings within three-quarter of a mile of major transit hubs, and within a half-mile of frequent bus stops. According to the plan, they were chosen based on “local conditions” and intended to provide more. housing within a three-minute walk of transit.
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
Comparing the proposal to the five options the city put forward for discussion last year, Harrell’s proposed comprehensive plan update is most similar to Alternative 5, although it reduces potential density in many areas by eliminating a significant number of “neighborhood centers,” and not just in areas whose residents are at high risk of displacement.
For example, the new map nixes potential new density near Alki Beach, Fauntleroy, North Capitol Hill, Magnolia, and Laurelhurst, along with Harrell’s own neighborhood, Seward Park. None of these areas is on the city’s list of neighborhoods with a high risk of displacement or low access to opportunity; in fact, the majority of the neighborhoods that would have received modest upzones under Alternative 5 but will retain Seattle’s lowest-density zoning under Harrell’s proposal are in wealthy areas with low displacement risk, as defined in the city’s Housing Affordability and Livability plan.
Like the existing comprehensive plan, Harrell’s proposal would place most density along busy arterial streets and highways, renaming the city’s “urban villages” but preserving the same basic residential patterns the city has followed since the 1990s, when the city adopted the urban village strategy. In these areas, now known as “urban centers,” buildings will continue to be capped at eight stories, with potential exceptions near light rail lines.
The plan also adds a new urban center around the 130th Street future light rail station and slightly expands the boundaries of other existing urban villages. The term “urban center” previously referred to the city’s densest areas, like downtown and First Hill, where greater density is allowed; these areas will be rebranded as “regional centers,” and a new one—Ballard—will be added to the list. According to the plan, Ballard is expected to gain 5,000 new housing units over the next 10 years.
Seattle is supposed to adopt the comprehensive plan update this year, a process that will require the new city council (whose six new members all said on the campaign trail that they would support some version of Alternative 5) to approve it. Before that happens, the city will hold seven open houses—one in each council district—beginning on March 14 in North Seattle.
Constrain supply to keep prices high: everyone who’s important enough to count wins. Even the overhyped Urbanists don’t have much to say here; they only rouse themselves to object when that horribly abused and desperate minority caste they so bravely champion at every turn — real estate developers — have to pay.
Are you kidding about that last part? You talk to the wrong urbanists. Urbanist.org, probably the biggest urbanist voice in Seattle, wrote about this same draft plan, had a LOT to say, and was as harsh on it as anyone.
(I suppose by “biggest” I actually mean like, sitting at the mainstream of the concept, I don’t know how big they are. Also, PubliCola is urbanist — “urbanism” is in the nameplate!)
Beyond cowardly. Delayed almost a year and this is what they spit out? Planning morons.