From the May 12 – May 18, 2005 issue

News

Over Hill

Team Nickels Confronts Anti-Density Stalwart Greg Hill

by Erica C. Barnett

Two weeks ago, at a "density forum" put on by anti-density activists from the Seattle Displacement Coalition, neighborhood advocates trotted out a litany of familiar reasons to oppose increased density. But among the more histrionic allegations (one speaker actually claimed that increasing the supply of housing would lead to higher housing prices everywhere, defying the law of supply and demand) were several charges that merited inspection.

They came from a slightly stooped, balding architect and Wallingford resident named Greg Hill, whose calm, intelligent rebuttals to the mayor's proposed height and density changes have made him a formidable foe of Nickels' citywide density agenda and a thorn in Nickels' side. Last year, neighborhood opposition organized by Hill led the mayor to shelve a proposal to allow detached "granny flats" next to existing houses, and helped at least temporarily defeat a proposal that would have allowed taller buildings for biotech citywide. In a memo to the mayor earlier this year, Department of Planning and Development head Diane Sugimura, a Nickels appointee, complained bitterly about Hill's "rants."

Under Nickels' urban-density proposals, the city would undergo a dramatic transformation: Building heights in neighborhoods would be increased, setback requirements would be slashed, and parking requirements for new buildings would be reduced to zero, allowing the market (not the government) to decide how much parking should be provided, and where. The changes would also allow residential housing on the ground floor in many mixed-use business districts, and would cut the amount of open space required at new apartments and condos , allowing half of that reduced amount to be built off-site or replaced by improvements at nearby parks. In addition, downtown heights and densities would be increased, allowing for taller, skinnier buildings--and also greater lot coverage in center-city neighborhoods.

"The mayor's proposal is basically, more Houston: No zoning, just do whatever you want to do," Hill says.

Among Hill's wide-ranging allegations are three claims about changes that would affect neighborhood business districts. Whether they add up to "Houston" depends on whether you believe Hill's explanation.

First, Hill argues that the mayor's plan "will wipe out huge areas of neighborhood businesses." To support his claim, Hill points to wide swaths of the city where, under the mayor's plan, residential housing would be allowed at the sidewalk level, defying conventional wisdom that all ground-floor development must be retail or commercial so that people will want to walk along the sidewalk. "Neighborhood commercial areas act as shopping malls. They depend on each other to survive," Hill says. Hill points out that the mayor's plan leaves open to residential development many areas, like parts of Greenwood Avenue North, that are currently home to numerous neighborhood businesses.

But Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis calls Hill's allegations "a basic misunderstanding of what the proposal is," noting that the change would not apply in the portions of neighborhood business districts that are specifically zoned for pedestrian use--presumably the heart of those business districts. "More residential [on the outskirts of business districts] is better because they're close to the main business core. People can live nearby and walk there."

Hill also contends that cutting the open-space requirement for new housing will "completely eliminate" amenities like courtyards and sidewalk plazas, allowing them to be replaced with indoor amenities like weight rooms and "trees in a nearby park." While Ceis doesn't deny that "open space," under the mayor's plan, can actually be indoors or off the premises, he says the mayor's proposal would free developers from requirements that have resulted in "odd building designs with things like private courtyards." Instead, Ceis claims, "we'll get more usable, better open space for people."

Finally, Hill claims that by cutting parking requirements to zero in urban centers citywide, the mayor's plan will destroy the pedestrian environment in neighborhoods like Wallingford, where Hill lives. "Usually when you get rid of parking, it's the pedestrian environment that suffers first, because people park illegally," he says. Ceis counters that letting the market dictate parking levels will make it cheaper for commercial and housing developers to move into business districts.

He acknowledges that the mayor's proposal, which still has to go before a (likely skeptical) city council, is "bold." But, he adds, "Allowing more density into these neighborhood business districts protects the single-family neighborhoods behind them."

"The fact of the matter is, we're going to grow," Ceis says. "If we do it the right way, it's going to be a great city. We don't want our neighborhoods to be oriented toward the automobile. That's a lifestyle we can't accommodate."

barnett@thestranger.com