By Erica C. Barnett
Earlier this month, NPR ran a story (“Why preserving trees while meeting housing demand is a good thing”) produced by Seattle’s KNKX radio station about efforts to integrate existing trees into new developments, calling tree preservation a “climate solution” that doesn’t have to conflict with new housing development. Trees lower temperatures on the ground and reduce carbon pollution, among many other benefits. The story highlighted two Seattle developments: A high-end project designed by local architects in the tony Bryant neighborhood in Northeast Seattle, and a 22-unit development in South Park, just north of Seattle’s southern city limit.
The first development, according to the story, used what one of the architects called an “enlightened” approach: Instead of removing trees, the architects designed around them, preserving trees that the architect sees as neighborhood “residents” in their own right.
The second development—the one the story uses as an example of a developer thoughtlessly removing trees for density—is happening in South Park, on “cleared lot [where] 22 new units are going in where once four single-family homes stood.” The story quotes an activist with Tree Action Seattle, a group that routinely opposes development in formerly single-family areas, positing that the developer could have easily spared a half-dozen trees by adopting a different site plan Tree Action posted on its website.
But the NPR story omitted a number of key facts. The biggest is that the project in South Park, unlike the million-dollar-and-up townhouses in Bryant, is an affordable housing project being developed by Habitat for Humanity, with 22 units available to homebuyers making 80 percent or less of Seattle’s area median income.
Another fact the story didn’t mention is that Habitat isn’t scraping the site clean: Their plan preserves several trees on the north end of the property, and the affordable-housing provider is planting 26 new maple trees to replace the ones they plan to remove—”effectively doubling the number of trees” on the site, according to the group’s chief operations officer, Patrick Sullivan.
“We appreciate community engagement and have reviewed the alternative site plan proposed by Tree Action Seattle. Based on our assessment, that proposal does not align with current city code,” Sullivan said.
Sandy Shettler, a member of Tree Action Seattle, said the group’s alternative site plan, which would effectively turn 16 of the 22 freestanding homes into duplexes with shared walls, would save most of the trees on the site and save money. Shettler argued that dozens of new trees will never make up for removing the trees that are currently on the site, including three large evergreens. “It is physically impossible for the 26 replacement trees to reach the canopy volume of what is already on the property,” Shettler said, arguing that the new trees will be packed in too tightly to thrive in the spaces between the new affordable housing.
“Large, established conifers in particular provide critical health benefits to a community with elevated pollution and sparse tree canopy,” Shettler said, noting that South Park has less tree canopy than almost any other areas in Seattle.
Sullivan, from Habitat, countered that the plan “meets all regulatory requirements and will ultimately result in more trees on the site and a healthier tree canopy over time.” The project will also provide a rare commodity in Seattle: 22 homes with mortgages set at no more than 35 percent of their income, and will place the property in a land trust that ensures the housing stays permanently affordable.
I have property (yes a BIG BAD landlord) in SP, and I lived there for several years. I would ask is the tree canopy coverage ratio for SP including the commercial areas as well? The residential areas seem by and large as well treed as any other low-medium-ish density older seattle neighborhood. Industrial areas are always going to be more built up than residential, and a big chunk of SP by area is industrial.
On the @brian_kirshner comment about homeowners planting more trees to meet canopy goals, thats all well and good but I can tell you as a homeowner (with a below average valued house) Seattle’s tree protection ordinances are at least with me backfiring. I’ve planted more than a few trees (at times to offset ones I had to remove that were dangerous, diseased, leaning, situated poorly, etc) but I will not plant or allow to grow to size large species that could become a liability under the tree protection ordinances. That means I plant things like vine maples, japanese maples, deciduous dogwood varieties, etc. I’m not going to plant a conifer or large variety that the city then tells me I cannot remove or maintain without paying fines, getting permits or otherwise effectively ceding ownership thereof despite being on my own property.
ALL the mature tree canopy we have now came about without restrictive tree protection ordinances. Leave enough room in site planning and people will naturally plant them or they will plant themselves – we all like having trees around so the problem largely would take care of itself.
Seattle has 134,000 single family properties with a median value of $1M. If the 67,000 homeowners living in $1M+ homes would plant an average of 1.2 trees each that would be enough to meet our 2037 tree canopy goal–and if they get off the couch and do it now those trees will have 12 years to grow. That’s where Tree PAC should focus it efforts rather than punching down at the few and far between righteous affordable housing developments in the city.
When you take out mature trees, you’re taking out an ecosystem/habitat for decades/centuries and reducing the canopy that keeps us cool, among other benefits– an equity issue, if we’re counting, since less-wealthy neighborhoods are less likely to have AC options and $ for those kw hours; walkable streets; parks nearby.
So I understand completely why tree advocates focus on preventing unnecessary killings, wherever they are, ahead of wandering around cutting ivy. Groups like TAS (and yes, I’ve been at well-attended events) also try to raise awareness of basic precepts like a street tree or fill-in tree isn’t the same as the tree you took out, that also housed birds, prevented flooding, etc.
If you want hardscape, street trees, and density, check out Lake City Way — plenty of housing awaits, just very little else. A lot of trees gave their lives for cheaper rent and housing production quotas, but not really for anything that enriches, nourishes, or moves our city forward. It all hinges on whether you think there is a “right” to housing within city limits, and how much of your city’s assets you want to sacrifice for that right.
Tree Action Seattle absolutely believes in housing density and that we can grow with our trees.
Not mentioned in this article is that the developer is only retaining the trees on the sidewalk right-of-way, not the trees on the actual property. Three of the trees on the property are large and native, unlike the ROW trees.
Building affordable housing is crucial in Seattle and we are not trying to make a slight against this work. With 12% tree canopy (compared to Seattle’s 28% average), South Park deserves site plans that prioritizes tree retention.
I am always surprised at the near sighted quality of urban activists. The real issue here might just be that the entire SP neighborhood is built on a flood plain for the Duwamish river. Which is now a polluted ditch. One hundred and twenty five years ago there were precisely zero trees here. If anyone really cared about the environment they should be advocating to bulldoze the whole place and restore the river.
We constantly change things. In many ways this seems to be about making Earth sustain human comfort longer. Do we deserve that? There will be trees after humans. Earth abides
The whole idea of comparing these three sites is mis-guided. Please go see how many trees were removed on the Bryant and Boulder’s sites and what did they preserve and how long did those permits take? One tree preserved on each site? For the South Park Development, the amateur site plan that was done by a supposed architect that doesn’t even meet basic requirements under the Land Use Code is terrible architecture and would have resulted in the loss of many parking stalls. What, low-income homeowners can’t have parking? It is reckless to put out a site plan that is not even buildable and doesn’t meet code and doesn’t work in attempt to discredit Habitat for Humanity of all groups. Who does that? This shows there is no line that Tree Action Seattle won’t cross, lying about dead grandmothers and now attacking Habitat for Humanity, really? They just don’t have the credibility to be the champion on this issue. Cried wolf too many times for me.
Maybe if Tree Action folks had started helping their neighbors plant trees a decade ago, we’d be better off. You can do it for free, too, because the city offers up to three free trees per household and a lifetime max of six. https://www.seattle.gov/trees/trees-for-neighborhoods
Many do!
@YesThatSarah Bye Karen. You clearly have no real understanding of what these groups actually do to protect the urban tree canopy. But sure, keep talking. Maybe you’re upset that you or your “build baby build” crew aren’t cashing in like you hoped. Or maybe you’re just willfully uninformed. Either way, your stance says it all: profits over people, pavement over preservation, and no concern for those who’ll inherit the mess. You’re not offering solutions—you’re just making noise with a Wi-Fi signal.
lol landlord spotted
I’d love it if TAS were actually working to preserve and increase trees in the public right-of-way rather than attacking individual private projects creating more housing. Lots of feedback has been provided to TAS leaders on what kind of activism would actually be helpful to the cause of increased canopy *and* housing, which TAS claims to be for. However, none of that feedback seems to have been taken, except the notable messaging shift in the past six months or so to insist TAS is for trees *and* housing. It rings pretty hollow to a lot of us. Right here in this thread is a TAS supporter saying that adding housing has done nothing to enhance the city, which is just a cruel and elitist thing to say.
Tree Action Seattle recommended an architect-drawn plan that would cost less to build and save trees. It would have shared walls and less parking–things urbanists usually support. But the problem is that the idea came from tree advocates, so of course Erica would bash. Erica you are a venomous, one trick pony.
The supposed architects doing such things for TAS is bullshit. Their “architects” always use copyrighted plans from original materials submitted for permit by project architects to randomly draw boxes on them and claim that they could have done it better. That’s illegal. No licensed architect is going to break federal law for these loons, risk expensive lawsuits, and get their license revoked to do that. TAS just makes up lies to suit their objectives. That’s why they never have an architect put their name to the Microsoft Paint jobs those NIMBYs do and then slap online with false statements.
That’s an interesting point. I’ve always been skeptical of them because they literally don’t list any names for their org. No leadership structure, board, etc. TAS, The Last 6000, Don’t Clearcut Seattle, etc. (I lost track of all of them)–all “groups” with slick websites and no real substance. All styled similarly, all referring to each other in their social media, all devoid of detail regarding who’s pulling the strings. All telltale signs of astroturfing. And at least partially funded by Seattle Parks Foundation.
We can have both trees and density. It’s going to take 50 years to get another 50-year-old tree. They are the most effective ways to remove carbon dioxide available. And they provide shade. The trees versus density discussion is about as helpful as the “working moms vs. stay-at-home moms” baloney. That argument served to create division in the parenting/caregiving community. Babies are a lot of work. Trees need a lot of years to grow. We can find adaptations.
The “C” in Erica C. Barnett actually stands for CHAINSAW. Erica would cut down every last tree in Seattle if it meant one more housing unit.
Tree Action Seattle has among its leaders a residential architect. That’s why they can put forth development alternatives that preserve trees.
A fact that Erica fails to acknowledge: South Park has among the lowest scores for health, thanks to the location next to legacy industrial sites and far too many highways. South Park also has deplorably low tree cover. And yet trees help mitigate those ill effects. “There is a magic machine that sucks carbon out of the air, costs very little, and builds itself. It’s called a tree.” – George Monbiot. “What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and one another.” – Mahatma Gandhi.
Did you even read the article?
Of course I did, you troll.
Thanks, Erica. Tree Action Seattle does a lot of huffing and puffing but along with city government fails in two areas: protecting trees (there are small efforts) in our greenbelts where English ivy is steadily killing trees and funding a strong street tree program which would help in many areas. Note that lots of the street trees you see now (along Broadway, for one) are what I call Wes Uhlman trees, planted using Model Cities money when Wes was mayor.
So Dick what are you doing to help remove English Ivy from trees? At least Tree Action Seattle is doing SOMETHING. If anyone’s blowing smoke, it’s you.
LOL, what is Tree Action Seattle doing about the issue? They’re certainly not coordinating work parties to address threats like ivy and bindweed to public trees. In addition, they’re part of the opposition to more street trees, as ECB and others have reported! Unless, of course, it’s street trees at risk of removal due to poor health or safety/accessibility risks–bet your butt TAS is there to scream about those.
TAS is a deeply unserious astroturfed org. Why doesn’t their (or The Last 6000, or Don’t Clearcut Seattle, or…) website say who is actually behind the supposed organizations? Is it because it’s the same few people making it look like there’s a huge grassroots upswell for their causes? And those causes are often predicated off lies in the first place.
The “tony Bryant neighborhood” – HA! Erica C. is confusing lowly Bryant (slated for a lot of density) with neighboring Laurelhurst, Hawthorne Hills, View Ridge, and Windermere (oddly enough, all slated for very little if any density). Unfortunately, in the minds of Erica C. & others, if you want to preserve large trees while planning density around it, then a priori you must be a NIMBY and not a tree preservationist. It’s not true, but clearly much better to paint people with negative motives.
Bryant is certainly a high end neighborhood as compared to South Park, the neighborhood famous for the sewer backing up into people’s basements, though! I can tell you which neighborhood has 15 houses listed on the market that I can afford, and which has zero.