Density as practiced in Seattle to date is not a pretty thing, with some notable exceptions. Portland and Vancouver do it sooo much better. You'd think our elected officials would take note. Portland has a design review commissions with real teeth and lots of attendance because things happen. They've also got a genuine planning department. Their architecture is much more inspiring, on a general basis, not everything, than Seattle's. Vancouver has a high standard for developers. You must prove your projects benefit the community. They're doing lots of smart things that most Seattleites don't notice unless they're pointed out, i.e. Street level live-work sites. Separation of wheeled and foot trails. Tall skinny buildings which allow people blocks away from the water to see. Admittedly the skyscrapers are a bit more homogenous design than either Portland or Seattle but the street scene is better even though the climate is not.

Seattle styled density is like the new development at the corner of 23rd and Madison. Vancouver achieve the same density with amenities that reduce street crime by putting lots of eyes on the street and a combination of heights and widths of buildings. A recent survey of the rezone for Broadway found that most people felt that there were no significant benefits extracted from developers in return for the increased, and blocky zoning. If we keep allowing development like this people will rise up in revolt, unfortunately the thing likely to be lost is density, not the crummy excuse for it we 'enjoy' here.

Our density looks more like the mayor - bloat. Bigger does not mean better, neither does density.

This sounds like letter to the editor material if you ask me. letters@seattleweekly.com

It's like they're the church kids who want to be cool. remember them from high school? the ones who didn't have the nuts to be straight-edge, but tried to dress with a little "edge" and would tell you about how "jc" is so rad and because they're "down with g" they won't blow you. but they still like the Replacements [or say they do, but how can you listen to "Hootenany" and not smoke cigarrettes and get hammered?] and they would probably vote Kerry if forced to choose.

Fuckers.

i don't disagree that Portland and Vancouver have "done" density better than Seattle has, up to this point. i also don't pretend to know much about urban planning, so you've got me there.

however, i am worried for the future of this city and i am worried about sprawl. we have a choice coming soon: we can either strive to do better in density (and strive to be more like portland and vancouver) or we can become the houston/atlanta of the northwest.

it seems that the only intellgent way to stop spawl in its tracks, lower housing prices in both dowtown and in the neighborhoods, and decrease traffic is to go about creating density in this city. that means creating density downtown.

we may never be a good as it as portland or vancouver, but to do nothing is to make the same mistakes we've made over and over and over again in this city and in this region.

we have a choice, and i'm choosing density!

I would never say that the Seattle way is perfect, but I feel like you are leaving out some of the good things that Seattle has going on in terms of planning. Most of Seattle's neighborhoods are designated as "urban villages" in the city's comprehensive plan-- mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development is the standard, and through their neighborhood plans and local councils communities have a lot of say in what the development looks like in their neighborhood.

New construction in Seattle must go through design review, and while the recommendations of design review boards are generally not binding, the clout of the boards and the activist nature of Seattlites pretty much forces developers to listen. About 100 people came to the design review meeting re: the new Walgreens at Broadway and Pine, and thanks to their input Walgreens is partnering with CHHIP to build a multi-story building with low-income housing on top and a parking garage underneath.

I disagree with you that "Seattle-styled density" doesn't put eyes on the street. By its very nature, mixed use development-- putting residential and commercial in the same building-- and development that focuses on pedestrian use, gets more people walking around, living in contact with each other, and looking out for themselves and one another.

Sure, Seattle isn't perfect and there's a lot we could learn from Portland and Vancouver. There's a lot of learning out there for everyone to do. But just because there have been mistakes in the past doesn't mean that we should abandon density altogether.

i wont endorse density blindly... it's important that we recognize that loosening building regs is a good way to make high rollin' developers happy and line the pockets of politicians. so, while i agree that urban density is preferable to suburban sprawl, i encourage eveyone to keep an open mind and look with a suspicious eye at anything our corporate whore of a mayor proposes...

Raise your hand if you'd move over the mountains to a dry place with an affordable mortgage still within driving range of Seattle?

Bottom line: Seattle and suburbs are by nature of geography at capacity. Increasing core density will place more stress on an already saturated regional road network. And I don't believe for a minute that enough housing stock can be built that will bring down the median house price in either Seattle proper or the 'burbs - we are still constrained by geography (water and mountains). With or without increased density downtown metro Seattle is all built out. We WILL get suburban sprawl AND core gentrification, the worst of both worlds.

A better answer to regional woes lies in radically altering the economic geography of the State. Core employers (Boeing, Microsoft, UW) should receive incentives to move entire business units to less-densely populated cities east of the Cascades - Yakima, Ellensburg, Tri-Cities, etc. Freeze the growth of one giant metropolis by building up the constellation of smaller ones within two hours of each other.

This would serve multiple purposes: decreasing sprawl pressure in metro Seattle, encourage diversification of the economic base in central and eastern WA, shore up a regional rail transit by expanding it eastward, and lower the level of political rancor between the I-5 corridor and the rest of the state (by injecting blue carpetbaggers).

Seattle is what it is today partly because of a State decision 40 years ago to make UW a major economic engine for the area. That mission was wildly successful, so much so that maintaining our collective quality of life here along the I-5 corridor now requires the State put forth a similarly bold vision for parts over the mountains.

A better answer to regional woes lies in radically altering the economic geography of the State. Core employers (Boeing, Microsoft, UW) should receive incentives to move entire business units to less-densely populated cities east of the Cascades - Yakima, Ellensburg, Tri-Cities, etc.

Absolutely. I totally agree. However, I don't think it's a better answer, but an answer which should be considered in tandum with increasing density in downtown.

In my opinion, doing nothing in regards to density downtown is simply sticking your head in the sand. It's a problem that, if we're going to be responsible to this community and its future, that we have to try and deal with.

We aren't the Seattle that I grew up in. We aren't the Seattle my parents grew up in and we certainly aren't the Seattle my grandparents immigrated into. Knute Berger might wish we were, but it's time for him to wake up a realize that the old Seattle is gone, and if we want to keep any of it alive- the parts we love- then we need to address density and sprawl- in tandum with economic incentives for the eastside or without.

I'm fine with some economic development in the rest of the state, but this isn't going to fix anything either. Seattle's growth is largely from people who are moving here from other states, and people who would move across the country to take a job in the Seattle area wouldn't necessarily move across the country to take a job in Yakima. I know of studies of high tech company locations that have determined that the notion of people moving to where the jobs are is often backwards; the success of a company can be determined by whether it's located in a place people want to move to. This is why one of the most resource independent industries has found itself concentrated in a few Metropolitan areas which just aren't the cheapest places to live or run a business.

The root cause of Seattle's problems is simply that people want to live here. This is not a terrible problem to have, nor is it something we should try to fix. A freeze on metropolitan growth means only the richest of those who want to live here can. Seattle is not grown out, even without destroying single family houses there are so many parking lots in Denny Triangle and South Lake Union (not to mention Bellevue) that can be (and are being) redeveloped, and I for one am not going to miss the boarded up QFC and parking lot taking up an entire block on Broadway when some greedy developer makes money by replacing it with a six story building that actually gets used.

Folks do indeed move away from Seattle, driven away by affordability and quality of life issues. Long-term urban living appeals to a minority of prospective homeowners.

Geeky demographic discussion follows:

1. The state population is pretty stagnant, only growing at a rate of about 1.3% a year.

2. Seattle, while growing, is growing at a rate more slowly than NINE other cities in the State. In particular, several exurban counties are growing at rates much higher than State average - Pierce, east KingCo, Snohomish, Camas, and Franklin.

3. Seattle is indeed "built out" in the sense that demand exceeds supply - current and foreseeable. Consequently, house prices in Seattle are beginning to exceed what can be comfortably afforded.

The Seattle median household income for a family of four stands right at $65k/yr. The median house price stands at around $352k. Assuming a generous downpayment of 20% ($70k), at today's interest rate the payment on a 30 year note runs about $1500/month.

A mortgage shouldn't consume more than 28% of household income, meaning folks who somehow came up with that downpayment are right at the tipping point of payment affordability. Most folks can't come up with that kind of cash, meaning they're stretching to make payments.

As the State growth rate is so slow we can conclude this pressure is part of what is driving growth in the exurban counties.

Accordingly, the assertion that folks won't follow the jobs away from Seattle isn't borne out by fact (or anecdote, in my experience. Seattle is a great place to be young and childless, as it was for me. But when it's time to start a family other areas gain appeal.

Stranger is just a better rag...

Can you afford an 80% note on $368k?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002319705_homesales07.html

Bottom line: no amount of density, no amount of condo construction in Seattle is going to reverse the prices of detached single-family homes that families demand.

So, we have a choice:
-New Los Angeles: We let the market meet this demand by sprawling outward in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. We kill what we love about metro Seattle.

-Preserve Seattle: We attack the problem on a State level. We build economically and culturally thriving communties elsewhere in the State. We preserve metro Seattle by making it smaller.