http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20050511/New-Building-Heights-0511.gif

Future downtown buildings would grow dramatically taller under a proposal Mayor Greg Nickels will unveil today as part of a plan to create a denser and more vibrant urban core.

Although many support that goal, concerns are being raised about blocked views, loss of affordable housing, and whether developers are being asked to provide enough public benefits, such as open space.

"I think residents definitely want investment in their communities, but at the same time not everyone wants to be crammed in with tall structures," said Laine Ross, chair of the Downtown Seattle Residents Council, a neighborhood advocacy group.

Nickels said yesterday the proposed changes grew from a yearlong and inclusive discussion about what people wanted from their downtown. It borrows tools being used in Vancouver, B.C., and San Diego to create thriving center city neighborhoods, he said.

Nickels has proposed doubling the number of downtown residents over the next two decades to 66,000, in part to lessen growth pressure on single-family neighborhoods and curb suburban sprawl.

"We've got good job density downtown, we have a very healthy retail and cultural life, and we think if we add a significant number of new residences then we will have a downtown that will be the rival of any in the United States," Nickels said.

The proposed zoning changes that will be sent to the City Council this week would allow skyscrapers in the city's commercial core to rise to 700 feet -- slightly shorter than the Washington Mutual Tower.

It would wipe out a cap on downtown building heights that residents -- fed up with a slew of office towers -- voted to impose in 1989.

In parts of the Denny Triangle, where planners envision more office buildings, heights could double to 600 feet. In areas where the city would like to encourage more housing, height limits will be expanded to 400 feet.

The changes don't apply to the retail core, Pioneer Square, the International District and most of Belltown. The mayor dropped plans to raise height limits along the waterfront south of Pike Place Market after residents complained.

Jim Mueller, a principal for Gregory Broderick Smith Real Estate, said the current height restrictions have made some projects economically unfeasible. They've also created shorter, stocky buildings that architects and residents alike have complained are unattractive.

Under the mayor's proposal, the taller buildings would be more slender and spaced farther apart. Proponents say that helps preserve view corridors and allows for more light and air between buildings.

It also tweaks a program requiring developers to provide public benefits if they want to maximize profits.

For the first time, developers who go above a certain height limit would be required to build "green buildings" with environmentally friendly features, such as rainwater collection systems or recycled building materials.

Residential developers would now have to contribute to an expanded program that builds affordable housing, potentially increasing that pool of money by $35 million over the next 15 years.

Heather Trim, who works on urban issues for the environmental group People for Puget Sound, said the public should get the amenities that make dense neighborhoods work: open space, nice pedestrian features, greenery, transit options.

She said the city had made some improvements, such as providing enticement for developers to build showers for bike commuters. The proposal also revamps open space requirements to encourage public areas on the street level rather than rooftop gardens or private balconies.

But she said there are concerns that the incentives still won't provide enough money to buy enough open space downtown and that the city lacks a coherent plan to acquire it.

"We want the whole package -- we don't want half of the package," she said.

John Fox, who heads the Seattle Displacement Coalition, which advocates for low-income residents, panned the proposal as a blueprint that will lead to the destruction of low-income housing in favor of high-priced condo towers. But Sarah Lewontin, executive director for the non-profit housing developer Housing Resources Group, said the changes will provide more affordable housing in the long run.

It will expand the city's housing incentive program that contributed a critical $1.3 million toward the group's Stewart Court project, which provides 65 apartments for lower-income workers. That's one of the few funding sources for housing aimed at workers earning a few dollars more than minimum wage, she said. "Otherwise, the only people who can afford to live downtown will be really rich people and really poor people," she said. "It's a very difficult problem, so ... why turn our backs on an opportunity that will help create affordable housing?"

Nickels said he expects a fair amount of debate on whether the proposal offers the right mix of public benefits. But with an extensive involvement process, he said, it represented a good start toward something that "everybody can buy into."

He also said the proposed zoning changes are just part of a larger effort to create a more livable downtown, which includes sprucing up parks and working on safety issues.

Elle Tracy, who has lived in Pioneer Square for 21 years, complained that the mayor has been responsive to developers' problems while dragging his feet on quality-of-life issues that downtown residents have been complaining about for years.

"We would love to have more neighbors, because it seems like we can't get anyone's attention from the city when it comes to things like a noise ordinance and enforcing the laws we have," she said. "But the only beneficiary that we can see as we look at the fine print are developers."

TO LEARN MORE

For more information on the mayor's proposal to raise downtown height and density limits, visit www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Downtown_Zoning_Changes/default.asp.

i think they should go with that idea! sounds pretty cool. ive been in seattle's downtown a few times and i think it's alright, but it could be better.
and housing in seattle is already not affordable.

allow skyscrapers in the city's commercial core to rise to 700 feet -

-spoiled :)

I like your mayor's idea, dont listen to the NIMBYS, this will create more vibrancy in downtown Seattle.

Capital plan! Great to see Seattle fighting back against those annoying NIMBYs.

allow skyscrapers in the city's commercial core to rise to 700 feet -

-spoiled :)
Have you ever been on the ferry from Bainbridge or Bremerton? The scenery is ruined with the likes of the Bank of America building protruding over the Cascade Mountains backdrop.

But that is just an outsider's perspective. I take it you've got more pressing needs than the city's aesthetic appeal to tourists.

^that's what happens in a city and population growth. There are still some good vistas from different vantage points, like crossing the I-90 floating bridge. ;)

Have you ever been on the ferry from Bainbridge or Bremerton? The scenery is ruined with the likes of the Bank of America building protruding over the Cascade Mountains backdrop.

But that is just an outsider's perspective. I take it you've got more pressing needs than the city's aesthetic appeal to tourists.

Actually, I've never been to Seattle. Its just here in San Diego 700ft is immposible so to have that height makes me jealous, but in a nice way.
:)

As for that scenery I think Seattle looks fine, and I don't have any care about "the city's aesthetic appeal" Im just commenting. Sorry if I came off as something Im not.

This is a great start but still too regressive & extortive. The mayor needs to stop listening & attempting to please the loonies out there. Also the media, print & broadcast, need to stop printing/broadcasting John Fox & his lies & misinformation that in turn give some people the wrong idea which in turn leeds to regresive regulation or thivery which helps make Seattle more unaffordable while also contributing to sprawl.

If Seattle was less regressive & extortive, we would have less sprawl in the Puget Sound area & more populated central Seattle. This is a good start but goes way to far in appease groups that create sprawl & unaffordable housing under the guise of fighting for affordable housing & less sprawl. We need to better educate people in this state in economics.

http://www.komotv.com/news/images/city_heights_051105.jpg
pic (http://www.komotv.com/news/images/city_heights_051105.jpg)

This is great news. Plus more affordable housing downtown would be great which is part of the plan.

This is great news. Plus more affordable housing downtown would be great which is part of the plan.

The "affordable housing" extortion part of the plan should be killed in the name of affordable housing. More supply leads to more affordable housing. Increasing the costs to develop dense residential makes housing less affordable & increases sprawl.

If Seattle wants to take steps to curb srawl & increase affordable housing, it will stop making housing more unaffordable with taxes for "affordable housing." Like I said above, people in this state need to be better educated in economics.

cool pic by komo 4

The "affordable housing" extortion part of the plan should be killed in the name of affordable housing. More supply leads to more affordable housing. Increasing the costs to develop dense residential makes housing less affordable & increases sprawl.

If Seattle wants to take steps to curb srawl & increase affordable housing, it will stop making housing more unaffordable with taxes for "affordable housing." Like I said above, people in this state need to be better educated in economics.

Sorry, this kind of caught my attention. More supply does not equate to Affordable housing for the poor, especially for low income earners who live on minimum wage. For example, Toronto is now gutted with a new supply of condos. Rents are going down, the vacancy rate is going up, but for the people at the bottom of the income ladder, rents are still unaffordable.

To my knowledge, Seattle's average home price is at least 20% higher than Vancouver, and that's Canada's most expensive market. No way will rent ever be affordable to everyone in Seattle if it purely relies on market forces.

If Seattle wants to take steps to curb srawl & increase affordable housing, it will stop making housing more unaffordable with taxes for "affordable housing." Like I said above, people in this state need to be better educated in economics.
It should also consider demolishing the freeways running through the downtown core and tolling the bridges.

Sorry, this kind of caught my attention. More supply does not equate to Affordable housing for the poor, especially for low income earners who live on minimum wage.

More supply does equate more affordable housing for all income ranges. Making housing more expensive by extorting developers to pay for pet charities, which in turn only helps a tiny minority of the poor, makes housing more unaffordable for a big chunk of the population. Making housing less affordable to pay for charity housing is a regressive idea as it prices more & more people out of the housing market. People who earn a minimum wage should be doing everything in the power to improve their jobs skills or find another job. Minimum wage jobs are not intended to be jobs to support a family on & the low wage is incentive to improve one's job skills which in turn not only improves that individual but society as a whole.


No way will rent ever be affordable to everyone in Seattle if it purely relies on market forces.

Rent will never be affordable for everyone. Private charity, church, & family should take care of those folks. It will be way more affordable for a vast majority of people under a fair & free system than under the current supply limiting extortion & thivery by greedy politicians & special interest groups that has artificially raised the price of housing & has chased growth out of Seattle which has lead to mega suburban sprawl.

It should also consider demolishing the freeways running through the downtown core and tolling the bridges.


Do you want to totally kill Seattle & have the Puget Sound area forever sprawling with suburban campuses? Or do you want one healthy mega core city center?

Do you want to totally kill Seattle & have the Puget Sound area forever sprawling with suburban campuses? Or do you want one healthy mega core city center?
Discouraging vehicle traffic and sprawl is exactly the idea behind getting rid of the freeways. Building them right into the downtown core in the first place was poor urban planning.

Discouraging vehicle traffic and sprawl is exactly the idea behind getting rid of the freeways.

That would make sprawl worse by making Seattle even more inaccesable. Do you want Seattle to become a private country club or an urban center?

Building them right into the downtown core in the first place was poor urban planning.

Building them poorly & not correcting it after all of these years is poor planning. Still to this day I-5 only has two lanes passing through the heart of downtown & has many exits/unramps that exit/enter on the left side.

If freeways downtown are such a bad idea, why did Seattle push so hard for the viaduct? If your logic is correct, eliminating it altogether is a good idea.

That would make sprawl worse by making Seattle even more inaccesable. Do you want Seattle to become a private country club or an urban center?
I figured if it weren't for the freeways giving people the incentive to commute to work from long distances, there would be more condos and other high density housing sprouting around the downtown area.

If freeways downtown are such a bad idea, why did Seattle push so hard for the viaduct? If your logic is correct, eliminating it altogether is a good idea.
Perhaps it's because there are still too many selfish motorists lobbying for it?

I figured if it weren't for the freeways giving people the incentive to commute to work from long distances, there would have been more condos and high density housing sprouting around the downtown area.

Nope, people & businesses will flee the extortion & avoid the awful commute & will build towers in Bellevue & sprawling suburban campuses elsewhere instead. Sports teams, such as the Sonics, will ponder suburban areans. Eventually Seattle will become less of an important center to the area. Walling people out of the city so the extortion can continue is a stupid idea to curb sprawl. Making it more affordable & easier to build in Seattle is the correct & most progressive approach.


Perhaps it's because there are still too many selfish motorists lobbying for it?

Wrong. Seattle pushed for this. Ed Murray, Helen Sommers, & company fought for this. Watch the motorists of this state repeal the gas tax this November via iniative.

Nope, people & businesses will flee the extortion & avoid the awful commute & will build towers in Bellevue & sprawling suburban campuses elsewhere instead. Sports teams, such as the Sonics, will ponder suburban areans. Eventually Seattle will become less of an important center to the area. Walling people out of the city so the extortion can continue is a stupid idea to curb sprawl. Making it more affordable & easier to build in Seattle is the correct & most progressive approach.
Pass zoning by-laws to restrict development in and protect existing wilderness and agricultural space.

And improve public transit service within the inner city. (Okay, the monorail and LRT are on their way.)

More supply does equate more affordable housing for all income ranges. Making housing more expensive by extorting developers to pay for pet charities, which in turn only helps a tiny minority of the poor, makes housing more unaffordable for a big chunk of the population. Making housing less affordable to pay for charity housing is a regressive idea as it prices more & more people out of the housing market. People who earn a minimum wage should be doing everything in the power to improve their jobs skills or find another job. Minimum wage jobs are not intended to be jobs to support a family on & the low wage is incentive to improve one's job skills which in turn not only improves that individual but society as a whole.

Lifting everyone out of minimum wage is an idealist's dream. It's never going to happen. A. Because the business community needs it to stay competitive B. Not everyone has the chance, the $$$, or the time (picture single mother with four kids living at the bottom of the barrel), to enhance their job skills.

I don't know how Seattle does it, but in Vancouver 5% of the new condo housing stock is dedicated to affordable housing, and in turn developers receive concessions... like receiving higher densities, or building past the height limit, or any other quarks that will benefit the developer and the building's residents. As you know, Vancouver doesn't impose a height limit to "punish" or "extort" its developers, but rather they are utilized to maintain the North Shore mountain view corridors for the Lower Mainland.

Affordable housing a lot of times really help does make a difference for the bottom rung of society. For example, a lot of minimum wage earners are single mothers with young families, and by freeing up their income from rent and by allowing them to live in a safe community with mixed income levels, their chance of contributing something meaningful back to society would be much higher than if they were forced to live in a crime-infested, run down section of the city (or even worse, on the streets).

Rent will never be affordable for everyone. Private charity, church, & family should take care of those folks. It will be way more affordable for a vast majority of people under a fair & free system than under the current supply limiting extortion & thivery by greedy politicians & special interest groups that has artificially raised the price of housing & has chased growth out of Seattle which has lead to mega suburban sprawl.

I wish people would be generous enough to donate sufficient capital to fund these private NGOs. I've also volunteered at Habitat for Humanity before, and let me tell you, a lot of times we were living by crumbs just to reach our quota. Housing is prohibitively expensive to build, so therefore, it's hard to raise enough money to pay for such projects (especially the downpayments). Even when some of our building materials are donated, it still costs tens of millions to erect for example a little neighourhood of townhouses. If we didn't have volunteers, I wonder how the organization would ever be able to afford to build such projects.

BTW, you have not accounted the large demand in Seattle and the short supply of developable land in the city. Picture Hong Kong, that's the most pro-developer city in the world. Developers can get away with practically anything, and the government's all too willing to help them (tax breaks, additional incentives, etc.) Then why is Hong Kong's real estate much more expensive than Seattle? Because supply is even tighter there, and there's always enough demand to keep prices high. Also, the greedy Hong Kong developers have actually supported high prices, because this inflates their profit margin and allows them to maximize their investment.

Seattle is not Toronto, and Seattle only has a finite amount of land to develop from. Naturally, this will keep Seattle's real estate prices high, especially since Seattle is becoming an increasingly popular urban destination for Americans.

^that's what sounder considers extortion...

Nope, people & businesses will flee the extortion & avoid the awful commute & will build towers in Bellevue & sprawling suburban campuses elsewhere instead. Sports teams, such as the Sonics, will ponder suburban areans. Eventually Seattle will become less of an important center to the area. Walling people out of the city so the extortion can continue is a stupid idea to curb sprawl. Making it more affordable & easier to build in Seattle is the correct & most progressive approach.



Wrong. Seattle pushed for this. Ed Murray, Helen Sommers, & company fought for this. Watch the motorists of this state repeal the gas tax this November via iniative.


But lets say from the start you didn't build a freeway that cuts into downtown, there would be no sprawl then. Now its hard to get rid of it, because so many people live far out, thats simply not good planning.

Pass zoning by-laws to restrict development in and protect existing wilderness and agricultural space.

We have that. How about liberal zoning laws in Seattle so we have more urban development & less demand for sprawl.

And improve public transit service within the inner city. (Okay, the monorail and LRT are on their way.)

What good is that if the city isn't densifying?

Lifting everyone out of minimum wage is an idealist's dream. It's never going to happen. A. Because the business community needs it to stay competitive B. Not everyone has the chance, the $$$, or the time (picture single mother with four kids living at the bottom of the barrel), to enhance their job skills.

Minimum wage is a skilless wage. An overwhelming people who are skilless or too lazy to find a new job & are stuck working at the minimum wage are under the age 25.

I don't know how Seattle does it, but in Vancouver 5% of the new condo housing stock is dedicated to affordable housing, and in turn developers receive concessions... like receiving higher densities, or building past the height limit, or any other quarks that will benefit the developer and the building's residents.

So Vancouver is artificially limiting supply so housing commands a premimum price so they can extort developers so a tiny majority of the people can benefit. That is stupid & regressive.

As you know, Vancouver doesn't impose a height limit to "punish" or "extort" its developers,

So this isn't true? -

in Vancouver 5% of the new condo housing stock is dedicated to affordable housing, and in turn developers receive concessions... like receiving higher densities, or building past the height limit

That's is using limits to extort developers.


Affordable housing a lot of times really help does make a difference for the bottom rung of society.

That is why govt. needs to stop artificially limiting supply & extorting developers. Do you folks in Canada learn basic economics like supply & demand?

For example, a lot of minimum wage earners are single mothers with young families, and by freeing up their income from rent and by allowing them to live in a safe community with mixed income levels, their chance of contributing something meaningful back to society would be much higher than if they were forced to live in a crime-infested, run down section of the city (or even worse, on the streets).

Then donate to a charity that provides that service. I personally believe that encouraging people to live minimum wage lifestyles by giving them subsidized housing discourages them from learning skills & furthering society. You shouldn't be having kids if you don't have a job or on minimum wage.



I wish people would be generous enough to donate sufficient capital to fund these private NGOs.

If govt. stopped artificially bloating housings costs, more people could afford their own home.

BTW, you have not accounted the large demand in Seattle and the short supply of developable land in the city.

Which is why the regressive height limits, extortion, & NIMBYism needs to cease in Seattle. There needs to be a supply to quench that demand. Since there isn't, we contintue to sprawl out. Seattle is to blame for sprawl around here.


Seattle is not Toronto, and Seattle only has a finite amount of land to develop from.

Dude, you have no clue of what is going on. I mean folks in one neighborhood adjacent to downtown are fighting to preserve 4 story maximum height limit; developers don't break even unless they build 7 to 8 stories. The higher they can build, the cheaper price per housing unit. So now that neighborhood sits dying with vacant buildings while developers hope & pray the NIMBYs finally wake up.

The demand in Seattle is big but if not enough adequate supply is built, prices will continue to rocket higher. How does limiting supply help make housing affordable? IT DOESN'T!

But lets say from the start you didn't build a freeway that cuts into downtown, there would be no sprawl then.


Wrong. It would encourage more sprawl as it would be harder to get into Seattle so many services would have to locate in the periphery. Take an urban economic geography class someday; you will learn about central place theory & the bid rent curve. If things were your way, we would have more centers like Bellevue springing up. That ultimate solution to slow down sprawl is to build the new supply in Seattle. To make that supply affordable, we need to end the extortion & have more liberal regulation.

Minimum wage is a skilless wage. An overwhelming people who are skilless or too lazy to find a new job & are stuck working at the minimum wage are under the age 25.

Yes, many times it's a skilless job, but none the less there are reasons (other than being lazy) that forces people to take on such occupations. I don't know if the same is happening in the US, but many immigrants in Canada have to take jobs that pay minimum wage because A. Their credentials are not recognized in Canada B.They lack Canadian experience C.They never had proper schooling before in their country, so they lack the knowledge and skill to upgrade. Of course, in the ideal world, no one would be forced to do a minimum wage job for a prolonged period, but in the end, conditions force them to take on such a humiliating position. And Besides, the economy needs minimum wage jobs to substain itself, so punishing people for having minimum wage jobs doesn't seem humane doesn't it?



So Vancouver is artificially limiting supply so housing commands a premimum price so they can extort developers so a tiny majority of the people can benefit. That is stupid & regressive.



So this isn't true? -

in Vancouver 5% of the new condo housing stock is dedicated to affordable housing, and in turn developers receive concessions... like receiving higher densities, or building past the height limit

That's is using limits to extort developers.

Not really. Considering that the height limits and densities was to ensure a livable downtown(e.g. people in condos should have enough private space between each other, etc.) and to preserve the area's views (reason why the condos are highly desired in the first place)... no way are the rules set to punish or extort developers. If the skies the limit, Vancouver's natural beauty would be ruined, public opposition would cause city council to ban residential buildings downtown, and Vancouver would be going down a downward spiral. Many developers actually enjoy building in Vancouver, for the rules are clear, and they are able to build attractive neighbourhoods that are highly desired by the middle class.

That is why govt. needs to stop artificially limiting supply & extorting developers. Do you folks in Canada learn basic economics like supply & demand?

??... You're too immersed into the textbook version of this economic theory, you're not considering the real life scenario. The problem is that housing prices are not elastic enough to become affordable for everyone, so therefore you need a small % of housing set for public housing. Of course, affordable housing is best build and administered by the private sector, but they're needed to restrain the rich & poor gap in a city.


Then donate to a charity that provides that service. I personally believe that encouraging people to live minimum wage lifestyles by giving them subsidized housing discourages them from learning skills & furthering society. You shouldn't be having kids if you don't have a job or on minimum wage.

Believe it or not, no charity can provide this service as effectively as affordable housing. Once rent is affordable, and their children is growing up in a safe and comfortable environment, he/she would most likely actively pursue avenues to upgrade their social standing. Affordable housing should offer the bare essentials, and if they want luxury, they would work hard and strive for it. That's how it's done in Hong Kong, and clearly, it has worked. People live comfortable in public housing estates, but all will always work hard in order to upgrade and move into private estates, since it offers even more luxuries.

If govt. stopped artificially bloating housings costs, more people could afford their own home.

The government doesn't bloat housing costs though. If I remember correctly, taxes and building permit costs are waived for Habitat housing in Toronto.



Which is why the regressive height limits, extortion, & NIMBYism needs to cease in Seattle. There needs to be a supply to quench that demand. Since there isn't, we contintue to sprawl out. Seattle is to blame for sprawl around here.

Dude, I don't think you realize how high demand is in Seattle. It's a West Coast paradise, and many people are aching to move there. Yes, the height limits are ridiculous, but I don't think they're the only problem causing sprawl in Seattle. You also have to consider accessibility. If people can easily drive to Seattle 40 miles away...a lot of people would think "why would I want to live in a box in the sky in Seattle if I can buy a big lot with a big house in the burbs for the same amount of money?"

Dude, you have no clue of what is going on. I mean folks in one neighborhood adjacent to downtown are fighting to preserve 4 story maximum height limit; developers don't break even unless they build 7 to 8 stories. The higher they can build, the cheaper price per housing unit. So now that neighborhood sits dying with vacant buildings while developers hope & pray the NIMBYs finally wake up.

Well, the NIMBYs are quite out of line in this case....

Yes, many times it's a skilless job, but none the less there are reasons (other than being lazy) that forces people to take on such occupations. I don't know if the same is happening in the US, but many immigrants in Canada have to take jobs that pay minimum wage because A. Their credentials are not recognized in Canada B.They lack Canadian experience C.They never had proper schooling before in their country, so they lack the knowledge and skill to upgrade.

Canada should crack down on immigration then. If the taxpayers are subsidizing these people, that is pure thivery.

Of course, in the ideal world, no one would be forced to do a minimum wage job for a prolonged period, but in the end, conditions force them to take on such a humiliating position. And Besides, the economy needs minimum wage jobs to substain itself, so punishing people for having minimum wage jobs doesn't seem humane doesn't it?

Minimum wage jobs are designed to be skilless & temporary. People who do not advance beyond minimum wage are stuck there for their own doings. It is not the job of govt. to take other people's money & make things more unaffordable for everyone to subsidize the skilless & lazy. That is what private charity & family is for.


Not really. Considering that the height limits and densities was to ensure a livable downtown(e.g. people in condos should have enough private space between each other, etc.) and to preserve the area's views (reason why the condos are highly desired in the first place)... no way are the rules set to punish or extort developers.

The rules are:

- limiting supply
- making downtown less affordable
- & are extorting developers

Maybe this isn't the intentions but they are the real world externalities of such regressive policy.

If the skies the limit, Vancouver's natural beauty would be ruined, public opposition would cause city council to ban residential buildings downtown, and Vancouver would be going down a downward spiral.

Not at all. If the rules were more liberal, less extortive, but still preserved important view corridors, etc. Downtown would be even more popping than it is right now as it would have more people & would be more affordable.


??... You're too immersed into the textbook version of this economic theory, you're not considering the real life scenario.

So no, they don't teach basic economics in Canada I guess. Supply & demand is not only economics 101, it is real life 101.

The problem is that housing prices are not elastic enough to become affordable for everyone, so therefore you need a small % of housing set for public housing.

Housing prices are already artificially inflated due to govt., then after making it even more unaffordable, they artificially raise prices again in order to subsidize a tiny minority. THIS IS INSANE!

The idea of making housing more unaffordable in order to provide more affordable housing is beyond insane.

Of course, affordable housing is best build and administered by the private sector, but they're needed to restrain the rich & poor gap in a city.

It isn't the government's job to restrain the gap between rich & poor but if they want people in the lower economic end of the spectrum to build equity & afford a home, they need to stop this crazy extortion that makes no economic sense unless the goal is to price development out of the city & make sprawl worse.


Believe it or not, no charity can provide this service as effectively as affordable housing.

The answer to affordable housing is affordable housing, not govt. extortion which raises the price of housing for 98% of the people to subsidize the rest.


The government doesn't bloat housing costs though.

Absolutely they do. Re-read this thread; this whole argument came about because government in Seattle is being regressive & extortive when it comes to new highrise developement.


Dude, I don't think you realize how high demand is in Seattle. It's a West Coast paradise, and many people are aching to move there.

I lived in Seattle for 6 years & am a Real Estate agent in the area! You are the one that is ignorant here. Yes demand for Seattle is high but supply is low & only a small fraction of that small supply is affordable for a majority of people. Seattle has a lack of supply problem that is easily resovled with more liberal regulation & less government extortion.

Yes, the height limits are ridiculous, but I don't think they're the only problem causing sprawl in Seattle.

That, extortion, Seattle NIMBYs, crime, UGBs & crappy schools are the biggest reasons for sprawl here. I mention that a few times in this thread.

You also have to consider accessibility. If people can easily drive to Seattle 40 miles away...a lot of people would think "why would I want to live in a box in the sky in Seattle if I can buy a big lot with a big house in the burbs for the same amount of money?"

People are moving 40 miles away & commute through traffic hell because they flat out can't afford Seattle. So even if the freeways were clear, people would be priced out of Seattle. Lessing the extortion & having more liberal regulations would encourage more develpment in the city as opposed to the periphery.



Well, the NIMBYs are quite out of line in this case....

That is not an isolated case; welcome to Seattle. The NIMBYs hate change, the politicians love the money they can extort, special interest groups love to receive the extortion money, & middle class America can't afford to live in Seattle anymore. Pretty soon we will be like San Francisco; home to the ultra rich & ultra poor, no longer home to children or the middle class.

Canada should crack down on immigration then. If the taxpayers are subsidizing these people, that is pure thivery.

? The business community actually demands more immigrants because this keeps wages reasonable and allows businesses to stay competitive. Imagine paying more than $7.50 for basic job functions. That would be financial suicide for a lot of small companies.

Immigrants on the most part give back way more than what we subsidize them for. Many immigrant children become quite successful when they are older, and it is because of them that Canada still has a dynamic economy. Also, immigrants are willing to fill jobs that no local Canadian is willing to fill, so they ensure that no labour shortage will occur in the country.

You have a somewhat distorted view of immigration, but it's understandable, given your unpleasent experience with illegial aliens from Mexico.

People are moving 40 miles away & commute through traffic hell because they flat out can't afford Seattle. So even if the freeways were clear, people would be priced out of Seattle. Lessing the extortion & having more liberal regulations would encourage more develpment in the city as opposed to the periphery.

Well it's kind of impossible to ever afford a detached home in Seattle, isn't it? There's no way developers, or the city could ever satisfy this demand.

After living in North America for a while, I have realized that many people chose to live in the suburbs because they want to fulfill the American dream and live in a detached dwelling.

Absolutely they do. Re-read this thread; this whole argument came about because government in Seattle is being regressive & extortive when it comes to new highrise developement.

Dude, I was talking about housing built by habitat for humanity. The government waives fees for such developments, since they're built by a charitable organization.


It isn't the government's job to restrain the gap between rich & poor but if they want people in the lower economic end of the spectrum to build equity & afford a home, they need to stop this crazy extortion that makes no economic sense unless the goal is to price development out of the city & make sprawl worse.

Restraining the gap between rich and poor is the best way to ensure social stability and cut down on crime... well, it kind of falls in line with Canada's constitution of "peace, order and good government". I wonder if the US is bound by the same political tradition.

Not at all. If the rules were more liberal, less extortive, but still preserved important view corridors, etc. Downtown would be even more popping than it is right now as it would have more people & would be more affordable.

That's what regulations in Vancouver do. For all its worth, developers are happy with Vancouver's planning code, so it goes to show that clear and concise rules does not equate to extortion.

So no, they don't teach basic economics in Canada I guess. Supply & demand is not only economics 101, it is real life 101.

lol. Sounds like my economics course from Grade 12. How simple the real world was back then....

Housing prices are already artificially inflated due to govt., then after making it even more unaffordable, they artificially raise prices again in order to subsidize a tiny minority. THIS IS INSANE!

Could you give me a rough percentage estimate of how much the government inflates prices in Seattle? Thanks.

You have a somewhat distorted view of immigration, but it's understandable, given your unpleasent experience with illegial aliens from Mexico.

I have had no unpleasant experiences with illegal or legal aliens.

Well it's kind of impossible to ever afford a detached home in Seattle, isn't it? There's no way developers, or the city could ever satisfy this demand.

They could supply that demand with high rise condos if they were affordable enough. With current extortion & regulation, they aren't affordable enough.



After living in North America for a while, I have realized that many people chose to live in the suburbs because they want to fulfill the American dream and live in a detached dwelling.

Supply & demand. The suburbs don't regulate or extort as much on top of that land demands are much less which equals much more affordable housing. To compete with this, the urban centers should lower artificial costs to encourage growth in the urban center. If it was more affordable to live in Seattle, people would totally do so.

Dude, I was talking about housing built by habitat for humanity. The government waives fees for such developments, since they're built by a charitable organization.

And I am talking about housing for everyone. Govt. is making housing more unaffordable which is leading to housing problems, supply problems, & sprawl.



Restraining the gap between rich and poor is the best way to ensure social stability and cut down on crime...

That's your religious ideology. That is not the best way, or even a decent way to ensure social stability or cut down on crime.

well, it kind of falls in line with Canada's constitution of "peace, order and good government".

Peace, order, & good government through communistic thivery & handouts? Canada is not following its Constiution that well I guess.



That's what regulations in Vancouver do. For all its worth, developers are happy with Vancouver's planning code, so it goes to show that clear and concise rules does not equate to extortion.

What is it then? Is what you say above false? Above you admit to extortion that allows developers to bypass rules to build higher, etc; does this not happen?



lol. Sounds like my economics course from Grade 12. How simple the real world was back then....

If you don't understand the basics, how do you expect to understand the rest? Supply & demand is a universal law of humanity; you experience daily whether or not you realize that or not. Sorry, your religious/socialistic utopian ideas don't exceed the laws of gravity or supply & demand.



Could you give me a rough percentage estimate of how much the government inflates prices in Seattle? Thanks.

30%, at least. We have a mega artificial supply shortage here. Properties are growing by over 30% in value per year in some areas. UGBs have the greatest effect but if Seattle were more liberal when it comes to development, would could see a massive supply increase of units priced under $400,000. Under current regulation, you have to be at $400,000 minimum to have a prayer of breaking even.


Seattle's problem is lack of supply. Seattle needs to liberalize regulations in order to attract more dense residential development & needs to end the extortion so these residential units are more affordable.

Supply & demand. The suburbs don't regulate or extort as much on top of that land demands are much less which equals much more affordable housing. To compete with this, the urban centers should lower artificial costs to encourage growth in the urban center. If it was more affordable to live in Seattle, people would totally do so.

No. Many people will still chose the suburbs because they get a backyard and a detached home. My mother was and still is a real estate agent, and she handles clients on both sides of the Pacific, so she knows whats in demand and what's not.

Peace, order, & good government through communistic thivery & handouts? Canada is not following its Constiution that well I guess.


That's your own religious theory. It has worked perfectly fine up here, so I don't know what you're complaining and whining about.

What is it then? Is what you say above false? Above you admit to extortion that allows developers to bypass rules to build higher, etc; does this not happen?

? ? The rules are set on the table. It's a give and take situation. One exchange for the other. Vancouver's planning board, as you know is not controlled by politicans, so there are no so called "pet projects" that you often like to refer to. In the end, developers are happy, the city is happy.

If you don't understand the basics, how do you expect to understand the rest? Supply & demand is a universal law of humanity; you experience daily whether or not you realize that or not. Sorry, your religious/socialistic utopian ideas don't exceed the laws of gravity or supply & demand.

You're living in the utopia, not me. I wish supply and demand could be so easily applied in real life, but the fact of the matter is that there are far too many variables to simply conclude that increased supply would make it affordable for everyone.

Seattle's problem is lack of supply. Seattle needs to liberalize regulations in order to attract more dense residential development & needs to end the extortion so these residential units are more affordable.

30%, at least. We have a mega artificial supply shortage here. Properties are growing by over 30% in value per year in some areas. UGBs have the greatest effect but if Seattle were more liberal when it comes to development, would could see a massive supply increase of units priced under $400,000. Under current regulation, you have to be at $400,000 minimum to have a prayer of breaking even.

Seattle's problem is lack of supply. Seattle needs to liberalize regulations in order to attract more dense residential development & needs to end the extortion so these residential units are more affordable.


Well, why don't you elect a pro-development mayor?

Wrong. It would encourage more sprawl as it would be harder to get into Seattle so many services would have to locate in the periphery. Take an urban economic geography class someday; you will learn about central place theory & the bid rent curve. If things were your way, we would have more centers like Bellevue springing up. That ultimate solution to slow down sprawl is to build the new supply in Seattle. To make that supply affordable, we need to end the extortion & have more liberal regulation.


I dont need to, i live in a city where that has worked, and it does work, i suggest you take a urban planning course. Look how much Seattle sprawls, its so obvious, then look at Vancouver. The more freeways you add the more people will move out further from the city center, because they think it will be easier to get there since there is a rediculous 6+ lane freeway beside their house. You cant get rid of it now, but the area of Seattle would be a much different place if there wasnt one.

I dont need to, i live in a city where that has worked, and it does work, i suggest you take a urban planning course. Look how much Seattle sprawls, its so obvious, then look at Vancouver. The more freeways you add the more people will move out further from the city center, because they think it will be easier to get there since there is a rediculous 6+ lane freeway beside their house. You cant get rid of it now, but the area of Seattle would be a much different place if there wasnt one.
Would it absolutely not be possible, if a good public transportation alternative is put in its place? Portland and San Francisco have managed to undo some of their freeways.

I dont need to, i live in a city where that has worked, and it does work, i suggest you take a urban planning course.

I have taken plenty.

Look how much Seattle sprawls, its so obvious, then look at Vancouver.

Then look at Washington DC. No freeways through the city so Tysons Corner, VA becomes a hub, Pentagon City a hub, Reston a hub, Arlington a hub, etc.

Vancouver, BC is blessed with geography conducive to not building a freeway through it. Vancouver was pretty much the end of the line until the Sea to Sky was constructed & the Whitler area become popular. Seattle on other hand is on an isthmus in between two important deep water ports. Seattle's founding and original importance had a lot to do with its proximity to the original railroad terminus ports of Everett & Tacoma. Also Seattle is located almost halfway between Seattle & Portland. If Seattle wants to maintain its role as the prominent NW center, acess to both markets is crucial.


The more freeways you add the more people will move out further from the city center, because they think it will be easier to get there since there is a rediculous 6+ lane freeway beside their house.

People are doing that even without the freeways. It is the cost of housing & quality of life issues that drive people out further into the periphery, not freeways.

You cant get rid of it now, but the area of Seattle would be a much different place if there wasnt one.

It would be Tacoma like dead in many parts if that were the case with many of the suburbs stealing many of the businesses & services out of Seattle (this has happened some even with the freeway, but it would be worse without).

No. Many people will still chose the suburbs because they get a backyard and a detached home.

Because supply is so short, demand so high, & prices so artificially inflated, they aren't building many yards with detatched homes. Lot sizes are tiny around here due to UGBs & infill pressures in the burbs which is leading to patio subdivions.




That's your own religious theory.


My opposition to communism is not religious.

It has worked perfectly fine up here, so I don't know what you're complaining and whining about.

Canada is slowly dying because of socialism. It hasn't worked fine up there; your govt. is crumbling, healthcare in shambles, & of course the Province most liberal & least statist-socialists is the one thriving the most.



? ? The rules are set on the table. It's a give and take situation. One exchange for the other.

So they do extort. Want to bend the rules? It's a give and take situation ala extorting the developer so he can bend the rules.


You're living in the utopia, not me. I wish supply and demand could be so easily applied in real life, but the fact of the matter is that there are far too many variables to simply conclude that increased supply would make it affordable for everyone.

So you didn't take any econ classes or didn't pay any attention. Anyone who says something as silly & wrong as: "there are far too many variables to simply conclude that increased supply would make it affordable for everyone." missed basic economics. Your silly statement flies right in the face of the universal economic law of supply & demand.




Well, why don't you elect a pro-development mayor?

Seattle finally has one but he kowtows too much to the special interest groups that profit from extorting developers & NIMBYs. He is a mega improvement over anyone Seattle has had for a long, long time. Seattle also needs to elect a liberal city council instead of group of special interest sellouts, statits, & socialists.

I'm noticing a flaw on everyone's "description" of sprawl. First of all, Seattle does NOT sprawl. The suburbs do. If Seattle was a sprawling city, there would have to be an incredible amount of annexation going on. Phoenix is sprawling. Las Vegas is sprawling and Atlanta is also sprawling. Those are true sprawling cities. So to say that Seattle sprawls is a ignorant to the true meaning of sprawl. Not even Los Angeles sprawls anymore, it's suburbs do.

Maybe Factually correct but still, BS. METRO Sprawl is attributed to its base city. Its about ppl driving 50 miles from outer suburbs to work in the city. Cities are only lines, sprawl is sprawl

Height limits suck.

I love Seattle, my gf is from there, so I love it even more now. I'm so glad she is not from somewhere like, say, Iowa, not that there's anything wrong with Iowa, but, you know...

Maybe Factually correct but still, BS. METRO Sprawl is attributed to its base city. Its about ppl driving 50 miles from outer suburbs to work in the city. Cities are only lines, sprawl is sprawl
It's not much more than technical and political distinction, but I think that's just his way of trying to absolve himself of the blame as a resident of Seattle proper.

^ The residents of Seattle are the ones that voted in that height limit. It is also residents of Seattle that elect knucklehead politicians that are anti-development which has forced growth into the low density suburbs. Seattle proper may not sprawl but it is the primary source of sprawl in the area.

Maybe Factually correct but still, BS. METRO Sprawl is attributed to its base city. Its about ppl driving 50 miles from outer suburbs to work in the city. Cities are only lines, sprawl is sprawl

^oh yes, let's not use facts to determine what it trully means.

It's not much more than technical and political distinction, but I think that's just his way of trying to absolve himself of the blame as a resident of Seattle proper.

I live in and work in Bellevue actually...pretty self-sustainable suburb unlike other suburbs in America according to someone's statement.

Vancouver, BC is blessed with geography conducive to not building a freeway through it. Vancouver was pretty much the end of the line until the Sea to Sky was constructed & the Whitler area become popular. Seattle on other hand is on an isthmus in between two important deep water ports. Seattle's founding and original importance had a lot to do with its proximity to the original railroad terminus ports of Everett & Tacoma. Also Seattle is located almost halfway between Seattle & Portland. If Seattle wants to maintain its role as the prominent NW center, acess to both markets is crucial.
Pass-through traffic can be redirected over the 405, and the downtown segment of the I-5 can be abolished and replaced with a good rapid transit alternative. I think it would be better that way, with the I-5 used only for traffic stopping within Seattle, the air there would be cleaner and the local roads less congested.

I don't think you'd have to worry much about losing business to the east side of the lake, because Seattle will still have the ports.