By Erica C. Barnett
As the city council prepared for its first meeting to discuss Seattle’s long-delayed comprehensive plan update Monday morning, anti-housing advocates have started at least eight petitions or letter-writing campaigns to urge councilmembers to scale back the modest upzones the new plan would allow. (Ryan Packer, from The Urbanist, covered some of these last week).
So far, residents have created petitions to reduce the amount of housing that will be allowed in north Ballard (“Whittier Neighbors Against Seattle Upzoning Proposal”), West Seattle (the Fauntleroy Community Association); north Queen Anne (“Oppose Proposed Dramatic Up-zoning of 10th Ave W. from McGraw to Fulton”); east Queen Anne (“Queen Anne Neighbors Against Seattle Upzoning Proposal”); Montlake (“Preserve Montlake Neighborhood While Growing”); Greenwood (“Oppose Greenwood Urban Center Up-Zoning in Seattle Mayor Harrell’s One Seattle Plan”); Madrona (“Preserve Madrona’s neighborhood character as we increase in density”; and North Seattle (“Remove Proposed Designation of Maple Leaf as a Neighborhood Center.”)
As we’ve reported, Harrell’s proposal just complies with state law requiring cities to allow at least four units of housing on every residential lot, but otherwise hews to the the city’s longstanding strategy—going back at least to the 1990s—of concentrating apartment housing in a few dense areas along busy arterial roads, while minimizing density in traditional single-family neighborhoods.
The new plan would allow apartments within a block or two of about 30 frequent transit stops across the city, and would expand the boundaries of the areas where apartment-level density is currently allowed.
Proposals to allow more housing, particularly apartments for Seattle’s renter majority, have produced a predictably disproportionate level of outrage among single-family preservationists, who are lobbying the council hard to reduce the amount of housing the new plan would allow across the city.
A petition opposing a new “neighborhood center” between two light rail stations in the Maple Leaf neighborhood, which currently has more than 700 signatures, claims that allowing apartments within two blocks of an existing small commercial area will destroy critical wildlife habitat, eliminate many “large evergreens,” create shadows that will prevent homeowners from gardening (unlike trees, I guess?), and put too much pressure on “wastewater treatment capacity, water supply, electrical supply [and] stormwater treatment.” As one of the two Queen Anne petitions puts it, “Current infrastructure does not support drastic population increases.”
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
This line of opposition, which we’ve often shorthanded as the “concurrency” argument against housing, presumes that Seattle shouldn’t allow new housing until after the region has invested in far more frequent transit, wider streets and sidewalks, bigger sewage pipes, and all kinds of other infrastructure projects that aren’t necessary or justifiable in the city’s current low-density neighborhoods.”Current Infrastructure does not support drastic population increases.”
These cart-before-the-horse propositions are conveniently perennial, because no city or region is going to spend a ton of money expanding services to places that don’t currently need them. King County Metro, for example, isn’t going to dedicate limited resources increasing bus service frequency in neighborhoods where everyone owns a house on a 5,000-square-foot lot, because those kinds of neighborhoods don’t produce enough bus riders to justify stiffing denser areas that want bus service.
Cities do have to provide adequate transportation access as they grow (which is one reason we pass levies to pay for things like buses and sidewalks) but people making this argument often take it to absurd extremes, essentially arguing that if you don’t have access to door-to-door transit, parking directly in front of your house, and streets where you can drive without stopping for cyclists, pedestrians, and buses, you shouldn’t have to “accept” new neighbors.
This stuff can get pretty explicit. One of the Queen Anne petitions, for example, includes a lengthy defense of single-occupancy vehicles that begins by dismissing mass transit as pie-in-the-sky social engineering:
We understand the intent of this plan… is to encourage use of mass transit. Practically speaking, using the #1 bus would be challenging for those making multiple stops in a day for work related activities, individuals who are responsible to get children to child care or extracurricular activities, and residents who support aging parents for doctor’s appointments and other needs. We use our cars to transport us to the many recreational activities that are essential to our well-being. In short, most people will need a car for a long time to come. And, if they need cars, they will need parking for these cars. Parking that would not be included under this new plan, so cars would be forced onto already crowded streets (with current limited parking and the #1 bus).
Most PubliCola readers probably don’t need to be told that this is a dumb argument—people who don’t have cars can and do get around by bus, and Seattle can’t succeed if it bases all its policies on the preferences of car-driving homeowners—but the Seattle City Council is being inundated by messages like these, and some counterprogramming couldn’t hurt. (Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth, who’s heading up the comp plan process, told the Urbanist in 2023 that she supported the densest comprehensive plan alternative then on the table.)
The council will have a public hearing on the comprehensive plan at 5:00 pm on February 6, but anyone can weigh in before then by sending an email to the council; find the contact information for your citywide and district representatives here.
I was struck by the legend calling those tan areas “urban neighborhoods.” Someone needs to get out of their car and walk around a bit…those are suburban neighborhoods, big lots, no commercial activity, lots of areas with winding roads (no corners/intersections). Look at the map with that in mind and realize that Seattle is a collection of suburbs, connected by stroads and arterials.
“We’re not set up like NYC” seems to assume that NYC was always the way it is now. It wasn’t. It was built to be what it is now.
The point of civic leadership is to build consensus around good, forward-thinking ideas and lead people toward them. Jim Ellis tried to do this 50+ years ago and we’re finally seeing the fruits of that but it will take time to undo a lot of the bad decisions and replace them with good ones. Paris has made huge changes to how it manages cars and transit over the past 5 years. But the car cult still prevails here. When people realize that cities are for people, not cars, maybe things will change
Daycare to work, elder parent care to work and home to work ( in my case bus-light rail-another bus ) which takes 1.5 hours one way all within city limits are near to impossible on public transportation. This is some folk’s reality. Housing proposals without parking provisions for future residents might work for folks without these responsibilities. But to say that it is dumb argument reveals a naïve demographic status … responsibilities may be just a job and a night life. We are not set up like NYC.
This schedule sounds barely sustainable even with a car! Maybe let’s mix in some spaces for day care in these new neighborhood centers, a granny flat for the folks, nearby office space, sports activities for kiddos…our lives really need to be more integrated with our neighborhoods. Traveling across the city several times a day for life responsibilities is wild.
Exactly this. This article is written by someone without these kinds of responsibilities in limited transit. I live in Maple Leaf and my work, daycare and school drop off routine would take us over 1.5 hours to complete via transit and all of our stops are within a 2 mile radius from our home.
On the subject of private cars (which if you are indeed carrying your kids or parents around ARENT always single-occupant) author dismisses that argument without addressing how people who DO need to care for family members who may not be able to walk to transit stops or be willing to sit at bus stations for cumulatively an hour or two a day are supposed to make things work. A fully transit oriented lifestyle can certainly work for SOME people at CERTAIN points in their lives but lets get real. If you have to juggle multiple trips a day for errands and family obligations plus going to the office and who knows what else, the bus is NOT practical.
I agree fully every neighborhood needs to accept increased density but that does not mean every neigbhorhood should be thrown wide open to unlimited midrise or high rise apartment complexes. I’m with Bruce that meeting WA rezoning requirements of allowing 4-plexes in former SFR zones and not going much beyond that in those areas is a good place to start. That alone adds capacity for hundreds of thousands of new units in seattle. Existing urban and village zones still have lots of unutilized capacity as well. How much do we really need?
It still really feels like an undercurrent among so-called urbanists is many are really just out to try and mow down as many SFRs as possible out of some kind of ideology. Guess what? People who are successful enough to afford them – and there are MANY such people – PREFER them. Get rid of them all and those people – who pay a disproportionate share of taxes and who are the source of much local reinvestment- will also leave. Not everybody wants to live in a midrise apt. or condo and schedule their life around a bus or train system all the time.
Why not increase the accessibility, frequency and safety of public transportation so the people (quite often youth, the elderly, disabled, and people who can’t drive or afford to drive) don’t have to sit and wait for an hour or 2 at the bus stop? I guess it’s ok for the poors who take a bus to continue to be deprioritized in such a “progressive” city. And maybe you know it could actually be a more competitive option for folks who can drive and continue to drive their one-way to work and back single occupancy route… freeing up space and lanes for folks who must drive… like the folks like me and you taking others to the doctor etc. And yet that never seems to be the emphasis of posts like this, instead it’s just more cars more cars CARS CARS!!!
The Queen Anne Historical Society is chiming in on this: they’re hosting an anti-One Seattle Plan panel on Jan. 16. They’re fussing about “major changes to the fabric of our neighborhoods without consideration of historic character.” I somehow doubt the city plan entails bulldozing the QA High School building or the Carnegie library. QA desperately needs affordable housing, especially along the transit corridors.
ECB: in short fourth paragraph, you may have intended transit corridors to 30 frequent transit stops.
It’s only fair that more neighborhoods receive more density — the usual suspects have been carrying the load for decades. It is a city’s nature to grow and change and failing to keep up with population growth has all kinds of ugly impacts.
That said, Council DOES need to have an honest conversation and make some concessions to mitigate impacts. Increased property taxes is one — those go up when assessed highest and best use expands. And design considerations are important and can be addressed.
Here’s to hoping the petitions kick off a dialogue and not invite a zero sum fight.
“Anti Housing Activists” is New Urbanist NewSpeak for people who like where they live and think that concurrency (which is still required by the GMA) ought to still have at least some role in growth planning. Got it.
Do you prefer the term “NIMBY?”
Beat being a developer taint nuzzler.