Money should be spent in minority/lower-income neighborhoods to improve infrastructure, but the work should be done in a manner that doesn't crash an already delicate neighborhood economy and should be accompanied by hardship grants, free advertising and other mitigators. A strong neighborhood economy is a boon to all.

Or just put a priority on the construction and wrap it up as fast as humanly possible instead of taking your sweet-ass time whilst waiting for the businesses to fail?

Can we talk about something else, please?

Great article. Gentrification comes from demand, and you can either slow demand (but making the neighborhood shitty) or you can provide enough supply.

Vulcan isn't causing gentrification, nor is the city. Protectionist SF homeowners are, with their limiting multifamily construction to just 13% of our land area. Want to reverse gentrification? Upzone. Not just in the CD, but everywhere.

@4
It's a big internet out there so sure there is something to interest you elsewhere.

I can see no way for the comment thread to go horribly wrong here.

Horeshit - when you pander to upscale residents (as Vulcan is, and as the has encouraged by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on symphony halls, art museums, and cruise ship terminals) that drives the demand for the sort of upscale services that push these folks out.

Upzoning without REAL requirements for low-income/actually affordable housing (far more than HALA will require) simply creates a massive gift of public value to developers and speeds the process up.

And no more stupid fucking road diets - anywhere.

Oops - make that "as the City has"....

What about bringing back redlining and not allowing whites to move into the CD? Or make them pay extra taxes? Or maybe wear a white kerchief?

Redlining and Gentrification are two sides of the same coin.

Gentrification, you are weighing pros against cons.

Redlining is basically purely bad.

Take your pick.

Should the tech boys or girls at SL check why posts register upon posting, then dissapear from the thread straight after, only to turn back up a few minutes later?
Yes. Yes they should.

@8 I think you have it backwards - upzoning isn't a gift, it's reversing a policy of limited density that we all as renters, taxpayers and homeowners pay for - creating artificial scarcity increases land cost and opportunities for speculation. In a free market system density would be set by demand levels; not proscribed by overly-restrictive zoning regulations. We see that in places with more liberal development policies, housing is significantly more affordable than places like SF with highly regressive, protectionist zoning.

I'm not sure that cutting a lane of traffic out of 23rd qualifies as upgrading, since it's a major N/S arterial with several bus routes. Apparently the original plan had pullouts for the bus stops, but they got rid of most of them to cut costs, so traffic (once it returns) will be held to the pace of the buses.

The length of the closure has also affected those of us using those buses, since they've had to reroute around construction or cut off this section of their route entirely.

Meanwhile, the other streets in the neighborhood are in truly awful condition. Yes, they'll come out and patch a pothole if you call them on it, but that doesn't do much good when the entire street is crumbling.

Some people might call our household part of the gentrifiers, but we're just as likely to be priced out of the neighborhood soon, ourselves.

Damned if you do...

@13,

Utter bullshit - nobody has a god given right to an upzone in ANY zone - be it SF, MF, LR or whatever. Even developer asskissers DPD understand this, which is why they are proposing measures (albeit too limited) that would require developers to give something to get upzones.

Name one city where upzoning has actually created affordability without requiring it, or where the lack of zoning has created affordability. Houston? Shanghai?

Why do people think upzoning and giving stuff to the poor will solve our problems? Seattle isn't a closed system. The more we build & give away, the more people will come. It will never stop. There is no "correct/non racist" thing to do because there will always be poor people getting screwed.

...and, conversely, the existence of single family zoning hasn't priced anyone out of Bakersfield or Aberdeen, either.

Name even one place with as hot an economy as Seattle or San Fran that has affordable housing because they lack zoning and/or because they don't require developers to provide it.

That simplistic Econ 101 New Urbanist mythmaking is straight-up Reaganomics, and is every bit as bad for poor and working class people at St Ronnie's voodoo economics was....

@17, you're in the wrong thread. Please move yourself over to one of the many blogs in Seattle that complain about homeless people migrating from all over the world to "Freeatle".

The CD and District 3 approved Move Seattle so they want improvements to infrastructure, including the 23rd Ave Project.

That said, it sure seems like SDOT botched this project. The Mayor and Council Member Kshama Sawant did the absolute right thing by proposing the mitigation funds.

Some people are never happy.

@19 Well now that you brought it up,

"Even as homelessness declined slightly nationwide in 2015, it increased in urban areas, including Seattle, New York and Los Angeles."

That was from the heavily-circulated AP story a few days ago. It is okay to acknowledge that there is a draw or magnet-effect pulling people who fell through the cracks in their rural community to places like Seattle where they can encounter more welcoming and (relatively) humane policies. The question is how do we deal with the influx. Denying the effect does nothing to further that conversation or burnish your progressive credentials.

It's not a choice between either racist neglect or racist gentrification. The non-racist/correct thing would be neighborhood investment at least equal to white neighborhoods, that in no way pushes out current residents. It should actually be greater investment than in white neighborhoods as partial reparation for redlining and Seattle's long history of racist ordinances.

"Should the City Stop Doing Road Repairs/Upgrades in the Central District?"

Dan is sure killing it with rebuttals to suggestions that nobody is making.

@24 exactly.

this piece is some strong work - right up there with a muedede piece in terms of not making any sense and half-heartedly attempting to provoke.

@14, the street improvement project on 23rd Avenue has passing lanes at bus stops, all except the one at E. Olive St., which should be a minor bus stop with minimal traffic interruptions.

@13, here we go again. Urbanist orthodoxy 101 -- just eliminate all zoning density limits and, presto, the market will magically begin building affordable housing for all.

@28

You'd think that the free-marketeers would at least nod in the direction of the idea that private developers might tend to prefer projects with higher profit margins.