Boring, but this is the minutia that sometimes shapes the feel of a city. I can empathize with these folks in some regard (especially if zoning rules changed), but you've got to do your due diligence when making what will probably be the biggest purchase of your life. Is your house next to a large lot? What's there now? What's it zoned for? You can't count on things staying the same, you can only hope to be OK with what's coming.

Last September, the City published its Capacity Report documenting the capacity for new development under existing zoning. And the evidence is that existing zoning can accommodate 3X the expected population growth over the next 20 years. So whatever minor reductions in building size may result from these changes, coming and ongoing growth can still be easily accommodated. Urbanists: the sky is not falling.

Since 70% of the city is locked in as single family, we should definitely micromanage and restrict the just 10% of areas where density is allowed.

If Sawant is serious about fighting rising rents, she should be showing up at committee meetings like this and voting for density and development, rather than holding rallies for hypothetical "solutions" that violate state law. Perhaps if someone thought of a nice sound byte or slogan for her to use she would show up.

Any major city that lacks any kind of building codes or zoning is a developers dream. Crappy architecture, tearing down anything historic to build a bunch of shitty condos.The only thing that will control rents in this region is an extensive and viable public transportation system. You can't have density, density, density without good public transportation. Stop pretending we're Manhattan or San Francisco unless we get a subway system like Manhattan or San Francisco. Soho has buildings codes. Lots of neighborhoods in lots of populated cities have building codes that don't equate to NIMBY-ism. Not everyone stays single without kids their entire lives and wants to live in micro apartments.

@5:

Because this is about having "any kind of building codes or zoning," and our options are single-family homes or micro apartments. What bullshit.

I was at that meeting. Emotions were really charged. It struck me that it isn't really a policy issue for these folks, it's a deeply personal issue that only incident involves policy.
The moment when I got it is when I got mean mugged for clapping for the councils decision to allow passivehaus certification to count towards a green building bonus. I got glares for supporting energy effecting buildings.

@6,
Soho is actually a really strange example. It was a warehouse distribution t that slowly morphed into a office/res/service area and the zoning didn't catch up. NYC almost knocked it all down, because as a light industrial area it was failing, and that's what zoning said it should be...so demolish it. Soho is an example of the dangers of taking zoning more seriously than the market.

Fuck NIMBYs. They all whine and complain about rising rents and ineffective mass transit yet they pout and cry and whine and moan and complain because they're nothing more than selfish shits that personify the phrase, "Fuck You, Got Mine".

@2, just because existing zoning CAN be built up, doesn't mean it WILL be built up. Saying existing zoning can handle the next wave of residents (including our children) is putting your head in the sand. It's not useless, but it's not helpful. Existing zoning doesn't match where people want to be, nor where services to handle them will be. It doesn't help target infrastructure, schools, or anything else that requires generational planning. It doesn't create 'cores' around retail or amenities, and ends up with a lot of random out of place developments.

Fun fact (that comes up when you spend your time in college doing medieval studies):

A clerestory is the part of a Gothic cathedral's wall that is closest to the ceiling. It's basically that massive sheet of stained glass hanging between each of the buttresses over your heads, and plays a major role in not just admitting tons of natural light into the church but also transforming the space with floods of color. These curtains of stained glass were enabled by the invention of the flying buttress, which basically pushed the supporting structure of the cathedral outside of the walls. It was a major innovation in architecture, and allowed us to reach the limits of what stone structures can handle.

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sgparry/35…

I personally cannot wait until they change the zoning on Chez Vel-DuRay's neighborhood. Bring on the density, and maybe we'll finally get that offer we can't refuse.

Everyone wants to be the last person to move to Seattle. It's like "OK, I'm in, close the gates."

I can't wait to see how my neighborhood, the Roosevelt District, bulks up once the light rail station opens up. Particularly since The Sishole is finally, sorta getting dealt with. Yeah, there will be some drawbacks (metered parking, probably a minor uptick in property crime), but it'll also probably bring in a lot more interesting businesses. Yay urbanization!

Of course if we were talking about the Central District then that would be different. That place has to be preseved in amber.

@10, please read the city report. Most of that zoned capacity is right where we want it to be, in urban centers and urban villages, helping to create your cores. While there's no need for large-scale wholesale rezones, SF to MF for example, I'm sure there are areas in those centers where permitted densities could be increased somewhat, or urban village boundaries extended a block or two here and there. Rasmussen's amendments are fine-tuning which lowers permitted densities a tiny bit; I'm sure we can find other changes which increase them a bit. Like I said before, the sky is not falling.

@15:

We can fully in-fill all available capacity under existing zoning - at what price? That means razing and rebuilding at maximum capacity on every lot. So that's not happening. Don't even pretend.

Every "tiny bit" is a housing price increase at the margin. These crap-ass NIMBY policies are making Seattle safe for the privileged middle-aged class, and that's about it. We shouldn't be passing O'Brien's legislation, much less Rasmussen's disgusting amendments.

@16: I suspect that if we just built more 500 unit apartments on streets like Rainier Ave S and MLK, we could meet much of the capacity we need. These streets are already zoned for 65 feet. Maybe they should be zoned even higher, who knows?

There's around 1800 units of housing going on-line around Columbia City in the next 16 months and that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of places where you could build large apartments in that part of town.

LR zone developments have only added 4000 units in the last 4 years. That's two 500 unit apartment buildings a year. So let's just be honest. These developments in LR zones are low hanging fruit for developers. They add very little capacity, most of it is too expensive for low and middle income people, and these developments piss off the neighbors in a huge way.

Bitch all you want, but we've got district elections now. The conventional wisdom is that homeowners vote more than renters. Until renters and newcomers prove this conventional wisdom wrong, it's political suicide for people like Sawant and O'Brien not to take the concerns of homeowners seriously. So that's what they're going to do, because they know that in the long run these tweaks really won't make much difference in terms of limiting the city's ability to get more dense. The only people who will be upset are developers and density true-believers.

At least right now, it's just not worth fighting this issue. Save it for another day. The kind of developments that get build in these LR zones go up faster than a big apartment building. So I'm not worried that they can't quickly in-fill when the time is right for them to come on-line. And that time will come. But that time is not now. This LR townhouse stuff should be coming in after the large apartments, not before. And politically, right now is a bad time to push this issue too hard.

If you think this is an irrational, NIMBY snapback, just wait and see what happens if the density folks keep pushing the issue too hard. It's going to get really ugly and irrational. Then, we won't even be able to get these larger buildings built, which is really what's needed.

I think that will be far worse for density in this city than making a few compromises on this stuff right now.

@17:

Put them in Phinney, Greenlake, and Laurelhurst, you racist NIMBY redliners.

I think we should build residential high rises all over Seattle!! Let's bring Soviet Style Living to Seattle but with a developers cheap plastic capitalist flavor to it!!

Sierra Club's Jesse Piedfort is incorrect when he says that "new restrictions... disincentivize new construction."

Given the booming local economy and the overall desirability of Seattle as a place to live, new construction is inevitable. All that restrictions will do is help make new construction occur in a more responsible manner.

Groups like the Sierra Club should be embracing the opportunity to make their own demands on developers - like outright requirements for green construction rather than the typical 'tax incentives' and 'zoning easement' giveaways.

Jesus invented tall buildings so that we could continue procreating.

Seattle should look at San Francisco and plan accordingly. Don't be afraid of density. It's the only way to mitigate huge rent and property value hikes. Keep building more (smartly designed, well crafted) dense housing because whether you like it or not, people are moving to your city. Putting your head in the sand and singing LA LA LA will not make the problem go away and sticking with lots of low density housing will only serve to inflate rents as more people chase fewer houses and apartments.

SF has seen the results of 40 years of bad land-use decisions (low density, height limits, limits on new construction, red tape) come home to roost once again as rents have gotten as bad or worse than New York.

Be smart about it.

The less rare your house is the less money it gives the owner.

People who prosyltize about height and density don't give two shits about existing neighborhoods or livibility. Listen to them and they'll tell you how wonderful 50-story highrises would to live in. They're absolutely clueless, privileged, and most have not lived anyplace but the Seattle area.

If people keep having babies, the planet, including Seattle, will NOT be able to accommodate them unless we all live in 70-story projects. STOP crapping out kids, and please recognize that earth's resources are not limitless.

I'd like to point out having lived here for just 20 years all I have heard is how building more and more would eventually help bring down rents in Seattle or at least moderate the rent increases. That's been the story for 20 years. When can we finally call bullshit on that theory?

Looking at these new apartment buildings, something screams...fire code violations.

This article was so slanted it reads like a Fox News report.

I love how anyone wanting to stall the insane development in residential areas is considered an elitist who wants to keep Capitol Hill only for the rich - even though a lot of what's being demolished has been affordable and what's replacing it is always more expensive.

@27: the more is read about Seattle's development issues, the more I think that no one involved really knows what the fuck they want, or the consequences of any of it.

Except the developers. They seem to know exactly what they are doing, might be the reason they are the only ones getting anything out of it all.

@22,
Amen.

""I own property on Harvard Avenue," the woman in the photo above said during a public hearing earlier this month, just before choking up. "A lovely little two bedroom townhouse where we’re going to have 44 high-density apartments next to us. So, my husband’s and my dream of moving into Seattle and living where we’d only need one car or no car—I’m not sure that’s a dream anymore because of the way the street’s gonna get turned upside down due to this infill project.""

What? This argument is nonsense. If your dream is to live in an area where you don't need a car then you will need to live in a dense, urban area that has the shops and amenities you desire within walking distance. 44 additional apartments full of potential customers will increase the number of businesses that your area can support so you should be cheering the development.

I'm guessing she is fully aware but when she rehearsed her "I don't want my view compromised and I'd prefer the street parking stay open in case we have dinner guests over" speech in the mirror she realized that wasn't going to fly.

I am mostly in agreement with those arguing we shouldn't be making it harder to build higher and denser but if the area is zoned LR it should be LR. Clerestories that are really another full story are an obvious attempt to flout the limit and setbacks for taller buildings on a slope do make a big difference in allowing light down to street level. That said, Harvard Ave should probably not be zoned LR. It is walking distance to downtown and the new light rail station, seems like exactly the place we should be putting some new, large apartment buildings.

I've had the opportunity to live in multiple neighborhoods of Seattle over the last decade - some denser than others. I am sensitive to concerns about the drastic change in some of these neighborhoods. I like the idea of microhousing, but I'm also kind of aghast at some of the places where they're allowed - there's one going in Greenwood, which is a long ways away from downtown and not well-served by transit. This is probably more of a design review issue than a density issue, but whoever is responsible for the ugly monstrosities in Ballard north of Market Street should be shot.

That said, I'm mature enough to know that the design decisions we make now will affect the livability of our cities for decades to come. These may just be 10 percent of the city, but that's a 10 percent that's prime for more density - right on the margins of urban areas. I'd like to be able to call this city my home permanently, and I'm not going to be able to do that when 70 percent of it is million-dollar-plus single-family homes. I'd echo what someone said above about Sawant - this is where the rubber meets the road on systemic housing affordability across the economic spectrum. I know that fighting for developers isn't sexy, but I can't take a politician who doesn't recognize the connection between supply and price seriously.

There's a reason Tom didn't get endorsed by the 43rd Dems this week.

Being anti-density and pro-subsidized-car is part of it.

Look, the population of Seattle will double from 2010 to 2020, and sticking your head in the sand won't change that.

Notice how @18 avoids the large SF area known as Wallingford which has literally not changed zoning since 1989, other than next to Gas Works Park.

@22 - You have a point that San Francisco is not currently weathering this perfect storm of extremely high wages and low housing inventory very well, making it very hard on both newcomers and some of our economically vulnerable residence, but to say San Francisco is badly zoned I disagree with.

Downtown high-rises (not a solution for the masses btw, large buildings are incredibly expensive to maintain), density near transportation, 2 and 3 family homes in residential areas. It actually works pretty well and Seattle is obviously on a similar track. I'd like to say at least SF had the foresight to not to build our houses 30 feet apart—but it wasn't foresight, it was just people getting the most out of the plot they had.

For those that are curious what SF zoning looks like:
http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?pa…

The Stranger always casts this debate as NIMBY vs. density. I don't own a home and don't see much likelihood of doing so on Capital Hill or other desirable, walkable, trendy neighborhoods.
But I don't see why the developers should have free rein to build whatever and however they want in those areas. They're not in business to service the need for reasonably priced housing, whatever bullshit they spin. They're in it to make a buck. The rest of us get stuck looking at and living next door to whatever they come up with. There are ways to increase housing stock and to carve out space for affordable rents without just handing the city to the developers on a plate.

Go right ahead. Ignore the lessons learned in places like San Francisco. In 5 years a 1 BR apartment will be $2500-3000. Mark my words.

@30. Yeah, her comment made no sense to me, either.

I'm more concerned that increased density will include affordable options, and that public housing will be increased instead of bulldozed. All new growth should be greener than the old growth.

Those who say that the huge demand means we can require the right kind of housing are correct, I think. Now if we can only come together on what that housing means. When the boom is over, we may need to relax restrictions or hopefully have banked enough linkage fees to build public housing when development is less costly.

Whether density allows transit or transit allows livable density is a chicken and egg problem. We need both and we are behind.

@33:

Yes, my comment was part of the dark conspiracy to protect Wallingford. Do you ever take off your asshat?

I'm a progressive environmentalist who grew up in a large, dense city with great transit, and I have spent my adult life in Seattle. A smart city has great transit, walkable streets, neighborhoods that keep historical buildings over flimsy replacements, plenty of affordable housing, and equitable, sustainable resources/services/policies that help residents thrive. And even I can see that none of this is happening in Seattle.

This issue is about one thing only: developers who are invested in making money NOW doing whatever they will, and not caring what it looks like or how it shapes the city, and the city letting them that out of cowardice. Why should developers care? They'll be able to afford to live wherever they want with the spoils of their hand-over-fist greed.

The developers are tearing up and dumping well-made old houses and throwing up wasteful snap-together panel things sitting on asphalt. You think the people who buy these new things plan to live in them for a long time? The ones I talk to hope to sell them after a few years and use the profit to buy the kind of house those things replaced, and which the previous resident could no longer afford. For now, the new owners like living in a plywood-and-panel pop-up because the block is still full of trees and gardens from the houses that haven’t yet been torn down.

We're going about this wrong. There are whole stretches of our city that––were we doing any real planning instead of cowering to developers––we'd be building with genuine, planned density and minimal waste. Look at much of Elliott/15th in Interbay. There are stores and housing, sure, but also a lot of empty lots, abandoned factory buildings, and sprawl that could be transformed and developed without displacing or disrupting a single resident. It could be a vibrant, dense corridor with rail. If it were designed well and affordable, I'd live there. Our neighborhoods (including mine) have car dealerships, empty lots, abandoned industrial buildings, and parking lots. Focus on making these parts of our neighborhoods vibrant and urban, and keep intact the historical buildings, old houses, and trees and gardens in the surrounding streets. A green city needs all of this.

Incidentally, this article is written childishly. The Stranger's framing of this debate is manipulative and misleading. Not that I should even engage with your framing, but the term "NIMBY"––except when increasingly appropriated to beef up a weak argument about this stuff––is about people who complain against something hazardous near them but are fine with it happening somewhere else. The term is useful for making equitable change rather than being fine with a hazard to which other people (presumably poorer, less powerful) are exposed. This new appropriation dilutes it, which is pretty shameful. I admit, you've done a pretty good job of owning the framing on this one, so props to you for your marketing prowess, but a clever frame is, in the end, just a crutch.

@40,
I disagree that the old buildings are nicer than the new. Lots of the old buildings were poorly built by today's standards, and not at all pretty. In my view, cities change and that's fine. There is no reason to favor old homes over new apartments from a municipal perspective.

Interbay has actual industry. It's not really a good thing for cities to gut bluecollar job areas to avoid bothering some home owners.

If you want those parking lots gone, advocate a land tax like in denmark. Respricting development just makes it less likely for those parcels to be sold and turned into something fun.

@41 As I'm sure you'll remember next time you take the bus through Interbay: As I said before, there are plenty of empty, abandoned lots and abandoned buildings in between the stores, industry, and residential buildings. It sounds like you have some interesting perspectives I could learn from, and maybe vice versa, but they'll come across more strongly if you don't try to misrepresent what you're responding to. You sound too smart to need to resort to that.

Also, as you wander around Ballard, Beacon Hill, and other neighborhoods, look at the pricey plywood/panel structures that are getting thrown up and how they're built. Look at what's coming down. More often than not, I've found it's depressing––architecturally, environmentally, ethically.

It's going to hurt us all to keep pitting people who care about this city against each other (which, frankly, this article does). Then, let's admit that people on all sides of this are missing some nuance or seeing an incomplete picture. There are probably many different ways to make this situation better, including ideas that have happened in places like Scandinavia, as you mentioned, as well as new ideas. But turning a blind eye or talking to ourselves about urban planning while developers have a free-for-all just isn't the kind of approach it sounds like most of us want, whatever other issues or approaches we may or may not agree on. We can tell ourselves we're doing anything we want, but what it feels like we're doing is letting greedy developers make decisions about our city based on their short-term profits.

@39 I probably lived in Wallingford before you did, back when QFC was the Food Smurf.

Look, we know that we need to rezone all SF blocks adjacent to arterials as Mixed Use Residential 6 story +1 ground commercial +1 daycare/school use. Do this and we have enough capacity to handle the literal doubling of Seattle without major impact. Don't increase parking for the lots tho.