By Erica C. Barnett
Councilmember Cathy Moore came out swinging against the extremely modest, geographically limited density increases Mayor Bruce Harrell proposed in his comprehensive plan update on Monday, taking aim at straw “urbanists” who, she claimed, believe the “lie” that brand-new housing is affordable and that new apartments automatically lead to frequent transit.
“Too many of our young people cannot afford to live in this city, and this is what’s driving a lot of this. And yet they are told, ‘Well, if you just let us have a free rein and build, you’ll be able to have the housing.’ It’s not true,” Moore fulminated. “Allowing free-range zoning is not going to get you into the home that you want. It’s not going to create the homeownership opportunity that you need to grow your wealth [and] create a stable society where people are engaged socially and politically.”
Moore’s specific objection to the plan was Harrell’s refusal to eliminate a small node of density in her neighborhood, Maple Leaf, where the current comp plan proposal would allow apartments within one to two blocks of a small commercial center at 90th and Roosevelt. The intersection, she noted, is still “slated for a neighborhood center, despite my two formal requests to the mayor’s office to remove it.”
“I’m not prepared to sacrifice this particular—my particular—neighborhood, and the reason that I live here and support this neighborhood, so that we can just throw a bunch of townhouses up that start at $700,000,” Moore said.
The planned neighborhood center includes eight and a half blocks around an existing commercial district around 90th and Roosevelt, where apartments between three and six stories would be allowed. The location is smack between two light rail stations and on a frequent bus route that arrives every 15 minutes, which Moore referred to as the “one little bus” that serves the neighborhood.
Density is code for rental housing, Moore continued, and “rental housing isn’t working. … When I talk to young people, they want a place of their own. They want a little garden. They want the amenities that us current homeowners have, and we’re creating a false promise what we’re putting out here and what the urbanist people are telling us.”
Moreover, Moore said, “people seem to believe that if you build all this multifamily housing, transit will come. Let me tell you, it will not come. That’s not how it works.”
Phew. OK. It’s hard to fully capture to the condescension in Moore’s comments about renters and “young people,” but let’s start here: Sixty percent of the people who live in Seattle—young, old, and in between—rent their homes, and it’s pretty insulting to dismiss all of them as naifs who don’t understand basic realities about the cost of housing in Seattle. Nor, frankly, is it the place of homeowners in their 60s, 70s, and 80s—including those who showed up in the middle of the morning on Monday to argue that apartments don’t belong next to houses—to talk about what working renters need or want.
Much like the idea that most current renters will ever be able to afford a house in Seattle, Moore’s straw urbanist is a fiction. Real-world urbanists have never argued that brand-new rental housing is cheap; rather, they point out that in cities with acute housing shortages like Seattle, artificial scarcity—the kind city governments create by imposing sweeping prohibitions on new housing—pushes non-wealthy people out. “Rental housing isn’t working” because too many renters are paying half their income to live far away from their jobs, not because they don’t understand that what they really want is a mortgage. (Note to the “buy a house like I did” crowd: Given that at least half of all renters pay more than they can afford on rent, how exactly are they supposed to save up for the $462,000 downpayment they’ll need to qualify for a home loan in Seattle?)
Second, she’s actually wrong about how transit decisions work—King County Metro makes bus planning decisions precisely based on housing density—the more people live in an area, the more demand there is for bus service, which is why you don’t see frequent transit in places like west Magnolia or Laurelhurst. “If you build it, they will come” is literally how it works.
Moore and Councilmember Maritza Rivera represent some of the wealthiest, lowest-density areas of the city; although Moore’s district includes Northgate, Lake City, and other urban hubs, it also encompasses vast swaths of single-family urban deserts, represented by the beige areas in the northeast corner of the map above. Seattle has always concentrated density and growth along large arterials,
The council is discussing the comprehensive plan over several meetings in January and February. Because Harrell took so long to finalize the plan (amending it repeatedly to decrease, then slightly increase, the amount of housing it would allow), the council has a hard deadline: If a new plan isn’t in place by June, the state’s model code, which would increase density citywide, will go into effect.
The sad part about Seattle housing is that condos (one step below townhomes in terms of starter housing) isn’t cheap compared to other cities.
When it comes to any new development (apartments or homes), there really should be set aside space for middle and low income folks– no developers can buy out this requirement (like in HALA), since no one builds low or middle income housing. This is not some radical idea, Montgomery County, MD has been doing this for about 50 years.
Will it solve the affordability problem in Seattle– of course not since there is no political will to spend the money to provide affordable housing (much less try to reduce homelessness). Will it improve things? Sure.
I lived off 90th Ave in Maple Leaf for 20 years, I bought a cheap house there in the 90s and sold it a few years ago. My biggest complaint was the neighborhood never built out a walkable amount of restaurants, stores and bars. It always had that potential, but it never has gotten the density to support it. I watched the building that is the Maple change businesses 2 or 3 times. The Roosevelt Alehouse building have two different restaurants/bars open and close. Even places along Lake City Way like Coopers Alehouse closed. A few businesses like Snappy Dragon, Ace Hardware, 7-11 and Math’n’Stuff soldier on, but it never blossomed into a real city neighborhood like I expected it to. Even Wedgewood has alot more going on. And there are apartments there! My grandfather lived in on Roosevelt and 91st in the Marco Apartments throughout the 80s and there are the Maple Leaf Apartments is on 89th and Roosevelt. The apartments that are there are just old and less appealing (but probably cheaper than alot of city apartments, so that’s a good thing). Getting more apartments, condos, townhouses along Roosevelt between the Reservoir Park and 95th is exactly what that neighborhood needs and has always needed. More people would mean better bus service and enough people to support a couple more restaurants, stores and bars for locals to walk to.
You need to study your transit map and the new Seattle Transit Plan before making sweeping statements such as Laurelhurst lacking good transit. Parts of Laurelhurst have excellent transit options. The Laurelhurst community at the intersection of NE45th St/Sandpoint Way and 37th/38th/39th Ave NE (on NE 45th, just east of University Village) has some of the best transit options around – access to four frequent bus lines (31/32, 45, 67, 75) and plans to improve that transit corridor and add a Rapid Ride bus line. The 31/32 is a frequent line that winds through parts of Laurelhurst. And yet – little to no density planned for that area, and despite the empty 18 acre Talaris site that could be rezoned for density. Write an article about THAT. Ditto for the Montlake community between the Montlake cut and the 520 interchange – excellent transit options, but no density planned. I agree that Moore saying “I live in Maple Leaf and don’t want my neighborhood ruined by density” is a prime example of privilege, but also don’t throw in an artist’s rendition of what that density will look like – the idealistic leafy trees in front of apartments, with a bicyclist chugging down the road, is a pipedream. It’ll be car infested gridlock.
I agree. The example photo of a 4 story building is NOT what the City is proposing. Go take your photo by Bitter Lake Community Center, with an 8 story building, homeless living in the park, and a street crowed day and night with back in parking. If the City was limiting the height of Neighborhood Centers and Frequent Transit Routes to 3-4 stories max, they would have more community buy in. A 5 story building is huge and out of character with residential neighborhoods, and feels like you are living in downtown Seattle with no green and light.
Also, let’s talk about parks and open space comes with density. There has been a massive amount of density put in at University Village, especially tucked along the east side, and no new parking or parks. Now parking at University Village is a nightmare, and once the density is in place they City says land is all taken or is to expensive to buy as a park.
The City needs to do a Pilot Project with a couple of “Neighborhood Centers” and show us they can do it right. That they can zone a desirable place to live with both north/south and east/west transit, a grocery store, and community park.
The fact that the city doesn’t collect park impact fees shows us who they are working for – the developers who want to get in, get their money, and get out, as they are not living in the communities they are creating. They are out of state or living in a surrounding city that is resisting density and pushing it onto Seattle.
Additionally, creating more rentals doesn’t help those wanting to buy a home, it’s just a boon for private equity investors and REIT’s, and does not create homeownership. The City should be encouraging the construction of ownable homes, so people can build capital; not rentable homes where there is less care and investment in property and community. – The City needs ownable homes, not rentals.
“…don’t throw in an artist’s rendition of what that density will look like – the idealistic leafy trees in front of apartments, with a bicyclist chugging down the road, is a pipedream. It’ll be car infested gridlock”
Karen, this is no pipe dream–it’s a real place, right in your own town. Check out 19th & Mercer. It’s a really charming neighborhood with small businesses and services that are supported by the community in a walkable neighborhood with a mix of housing types.
What are your transit options?
I’m familiar with 19th & Mercer, in particular the parking issues there, and the very large, expensive mansions nearby, with a lovely tree canopy, that are not being torn/chopped down – and won’t be torn down for decades – to build cheap apartment buildings. Where I live, and where the city proposes a density node, there are no businesses and services – there is one very high-end grocery store, amongst the most expensive in the city. If that site is rezoned it’s likely Albertsons will sell it for redevelopment with no grocery store restored, as it has done with its former site near U Village. There is essentially one bus for my neighborhood that – if you are able bodied – will take you to (a 1/4 walk to) light rail. The new 20 yr Seattle Transportation Plan has NO plans to improve transit in my area, tho congestion is already choking the roads before any density is built, and that density will require only 1 offstreet parking space for every two new dwellings, a boon to developers but not current residents. Yet there are no plans to build density in areas of Laurelhurst & Montlake that have splendid transit options. These are just some of the reasons why I am cynical about Harrell & OPCD’s density plan.
The funny thing about those that have been in/around real estate for a while is that sadly, the well-intended gov’t housing solutions typically lead to the exact opposite results. Tenants want less expensive rent…but don’t realize that rent-control leads to the opposite (tighter supply/more demand). Create more starter housing…the Gov’t changes zoning, increases impact fees to builders, they build more expensive condos/townhomes to cover the new fee requirements…and that all of a sudden makes the underlying dirt that those single family homes are on even more valuable…which leads to more in-fill building…driving up the prices for everyone.
I’m not a boomer, but as someone who is concerned about my kids being able to eventually afford a home in the area, I hope this location does NOT get rezoned (and no, I don’t live in Maple Leaf, so it’s not a NIMBY situation). When you re-zone, it simply makes everything around it more expensive…and you move the goalpost further away for first time or move-up buyers that would eventually like to purchase a single family home. I’ve seen it happen in many jurisdictions over the years. Truly well intentioned people don’t realize they are making it harder for people to own homes by pushing these zoning changes.
What I have seen that works is to add more dense housing in areas that are already zoned for it (or immediately adjacent to that type of zoning) and where the systems (such as mass transit) are already nearby/established. It’s far more efficient as well.
Also as a side-note: the $460k+ downpayment is if you make $74k and want to buy a $750k home. Unfortunately, most people with a $74k income will simply have to start a little lower on the property ladder, but that’s okay and it’s possible! There are currently 622 properties for sale under $750k in the city of Seattle right now (265 under $500k…and 87 under $350k, which is more appropriate for that income). Many first time homebuyers put as little as 3.5% down. Many do 5% or 10% down. The vast majority of all homebuyers using financing put 20% or less. Just a little hope for those that make less than 6-figures!
75k is also the US median salary, not the median salary for the Seattle Metro area. The median salary for Seattle Metro is 120k. The article this links to is clearly a poorly written and analyzed article that compares US median salary to Seattle specific market prices. It makes no sense unless you’re trying to drive an agenda.
Erica C. Barnett is the pot calling the kettle black when she says Councilmember Moore was speaking with condescension about young people. Barnett ran a live post session during the Council meeting on Monday and used terms “boomer” and “wealthy retirees” with clear derogatory intent. She repeats this biased “reporting” above. This is strictly an opinion piece and not independent journalism. So called progressives are loudly shouting down any opposition or requested changes to the Comp/One Seattle Plan. They like to call names like boomer, grey hairs and NIMBY. How is that in the spirit of democracy? Answer is it’s not. In fact, it’s straight out of the Trump/MAGA playbook. Every group should have a seat at the table with the goal of increasing density and finding compromise. This is what will deliver buy-in the city needs. Name calling and shaming older people isn’t going to get us to a positive outcome. Reminder ageism works both ways and elderly people are a protected group too. Be and do better
As a boomer and retiree who at least isn’t poor, I think Erica Barnett is right. Seattle needs denser housing. Density leads to more housing and more walk ability.
Erica starts out describing Harrell’s plan as “extremely modest plan”. PLEASE, GIVE ME A BREAK. That is not a universally accepted opinion. There are a lot of people who are genuinely concerned about the plan’s details. In the name of balanced reporting, please try not to roll over the opposition!
Agreed! She should start out the post with the mandatory HB 1110, going into effect in 2025, that will allow 3-4 story, 4-6 units/5,000sf lot on ALL residentially zoned properties.
Seattle is overcrowded……. Density (which includes adding businesses, sidewalks, and restaurants etc, not just moe apartments and bike lines) is not synonymous with overcrowding. The Roosevelt neighborhood is basically blight with a Whole Foods deli and a Light Rail Station. Grafitti everywhere.
Don’t insult the neighborhoods that have stepped up and built thousands of units for some of the tens of thousands of people that have moved here recently. It’s time for other neighborhoods to share in it. Seattle is a desirable place to live right now, new people are coming whether we like it or not.
Serious question – what would be the substantive difference between the current Harrell proposal and the default state plan? Obviously it’s not great governance to fail to get a plan thru, but if the council isn’t great at governance, then what’s the harm?
Moore’s position likely reflects that of her constituents, whom cannot appear to see the forest for the trees. I will note that your figures about a Seattle mortgage downpayment are a bit misleading: 462k downpayment to buy a ~700k home? I’m bewildered reading those numbers, i can’t imagine actually typing them out as if they are based on legitimate math. I think that reference should be deleted as it makes this read like something AI wrote.
You’re not talking about a 700k home, you’re talking about a $1-2m single family home. She doesn’t want the $700k townhomes, remember?
Those $700k town homes are already becoming the $1-2 million homes of tomorrow.
I agree with your statement that once a location is built out transit will follow, hopefully. I also 100% agree with representative Moore that new townhouses will not be affordable. We all know that and see that. Unfortunately, with private equity driving up prices with cash offers and waiving inspections us little people cannot compete. If Seattle wants affordable housing the city needs to restrict rent increases, manage private equity investors, require inclusionary housing and provide legal assistance to homeowners and renters being evicted. Simple 😁
Moore says townhouses start in the $700s and that’s fantastic compared to single family detached houses. They’re the new starter homes by comparison.
If you like all that you very well can live in China.
Mainstream economists all agree that rent control doesn’t work. All it does is limit new construction and create long delays for people that want affordable housing that don’t currently have it. You need to address supply. Investors would not be so interested in housing as an investment if they saw a supply/demand inversion on the horizon. That’s why you have to build and build a lot.
What is a mainstream economist. Do you have any research to support your statement. “Rent stabilization” can be effective but it has to be customized to the local environment. It’s all in the details. For instance, making sure landlords are compensated for improvements and allowing rent increases at least as high as the CPI.
Well you’re wrong Erica – Metro decided to add a Rapid Line on Madison Street despite little growth over the last 10 years – and those buses ride mostly empty… The whole project was stupid. I don’t trust Metro much and SDOT lesas…
Metro deferred to SDOT on the G line; both were mistaken. The G line trips are not empty, but much more capacity is provided than is needed, the headway adherence is poor, and the network has duplication.
There was housing growth near Madison Street.
I agree! Transit has a frequent bus that runs along NE 65th Street, from Sand Point Way to Roosevelt, every 15 minutes and the BUS IS ALWAYS EMPTY! I assume Sound Transit needed to get their bus from Sand Point Way to Roosevelt so they just choose to cut east/west along NE 65th. Now the City is proposing to up zone all of NE 65th to 5 stories. It does not make sense. The east portion of NE 65th is mostly residential and is not a walkable neighborhood with grocery stores, schools, job, restaurants, and has minimal north/south transit service. So basically those rental apartment tenants will all have cars adding to congestion.
Councilmember Moore to anyone who didn’t buy in Seattle 25 years ago: Drop dead.
This entire council is absolutely wretched.
I can’t top this. And not just this council, through they are plumbing new depths.
I did buy 25 years ago but had to sell in 2015, just to see my family home become a rental for an overseas speculator.
I don’t understand why Cathy opposes this or why she identifies as living in Maple Leaf. Cathy lives in Northgate.
The area in Maple Leaf proposed for rezone has welcomed a multimillion dollar new park that was funded by citywide taxpayer dollars and hugely increased property values. The nearby homeowners seem to want to take all benefits and reject all sharing with others.
Also, the lead Maple Leaf NIMBY is Phyllis Schulman. She advocated for many city-funded investments in Maple Leaf over the past decades while working for CM Conlin. She also always fought zoning changes that impacted Maple Leaf. It’s such an incredibly selfish and unkind legacy.
Both the proponents and Moore may be correct. The increased density allowed by the proposed comp plan will take many years to implement; the housing market is atomized, diverse, and competitive. The new housing will not be affordable; newness is a very costly trait in housing; Seattle dirt is costly. The neighborhood center on Roosevelt at NE 90th Street sounds like a sound change. It took Metro some fits and starts to consolidate Mapleleaf service; before U Link, there was more service on 5th and 15th avenues NE and less on Roosevelt Way NE; in 2021, they retained Route 73 and it performed poorly; it was deleted in 2024; now service is focused on Roosevelt Way NE; that is good, but Route 67 does not have enough service. Note that most local streets in Mapleleaf north of NE 90th Street do not have sidewalks; 15th Avenue NE does not. Affordability for poor households will require subsidy; that is not part of the comp plan discussion; it may be beyond the fiscal power of local government. Would any billionaires like to help?