TL;DR Sara Nelson is a bad person thus this must be a bad proposal.

It’s idiotic that we maintain competing taxpayer subsided port authorities - every Puget Sound based port should be under one authority and the associated land should be best used for the benefit of the people (even if some rich guy may make money off the deal - welcome to America).

If tourists somehow survive the “toxic” environment (along with the existing multi million dollar condos), I’m pretty sure it’s safe enough for whoever has the privilege of landing a spot.

“ where you can tell the full nine to kill it and put more density into rich North Seattle neighborhoods instead”

That statement write there encapsulates Seattle progressive urbanism the best. It’s not enough to build housing. We need to punish “rich” neighborhoods to do it.

@2 "punish" how exactly? Urbanists just want more housing in places people want to live, which seems pretty rational.

If this was being proposed by Alexis Mercedes Rinck or Tammy Morales or Kshama Sawant there would be 47 Slog posts about how the proposal was self-evidently correct and anyone who opposed it was an evil Trump Republican.

The Stranger, year after year after year: "HOUSING CRISIS! HOUSING CRISIS!! HOUSING CRISIS!!1!"

Sara Nelson: We could build some more affordable housing, right near some working-class job--

The Stranger: BAD WOMAN HATES PORTS! BAD WOMAN TAKES BRIBES!! BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING ONLY IN EXPENSIVE PLACES WITH LONG COMMUTES TO JOBS!!1!

Also, what @1-2 and @4 said.

Isn't it possible that bike and pedestrian infrastructure would actually improve if we built housing (and retail) in this area?

Industrial lands are different from neighborhoods - they aren't made for housing. The erosion of lands around Ports is how Ports are shutdown. SODO is for industry. Every other part of the city is for housing. Pretty simple, support our maritime industry, preserve industrial lands.

@3 it will also cost the most to build there and be the most expensive. So if you want more housing quickly you build where there is room and land is cheaper. Or you can complain about the “rich” people up north, spend years fighting to change all the zoning in the city, spend millions of dollars to build there and improve the infrastructure to support it. What is the best use of time and money?

“where you can tell the full nine to kill it and put more density into rich North Seattle neighborhoods instead”

1975 called. They want their cliche back.

SODO is built on fill, people are always talking about how it will "liquify" when the big one hits. Are we sure this is a good idea (oh, and happy day after Nisqually Earthquake Day)

@8 I think we should be building more housing in all parts of the city, but given the circumstances (especially skirting the Land Use Committee) I don't think it's unreasonable to ask whether this is a serious housing solution or just a handout to a rich guy.

@8 I think we should be building more housing in all parts of the city, but given the footprint and skirting the Land Use Committee I don't think it's unreasonable to ask whether this is a serious housing solution or just a handout to a rich guy.

@10 fair enough but urbanists continually talk about the housing crisis yet focus on building in areas that are not ready to support development or are more costly to build in. It undermines their argument that this is a housing crisis when they dedicate do much resources focused on things that are more costly and time consuming. Fix the immediate problem than worry about building apartments in Broadmoor.

@11 the immediate problem is zoning, which is what urbanists are focused on. Currently it is not legal to build apartments in most of the city, so any question of cost effectiveness is entirely beside the point. All urbanists are trying to do is give people the option, should they choose, to build apartments in Broadmoor whereas the other side wants the government to prohibit it. I'd think a free market enthusiast like yourself would be firmly on the side of the urbanists on this one.

@12 Zoning is not the immediate problem. There are plenty of areas in the city along transit corridors that are already upzoned where you can build thousands of units. Fill those in and then accept as well that there are areas of the city that should be only SFH. There is a reason while those areas are desirable. People don't want to live on top of each other nor share walls with their neighbor. Many of these areas are also not connected to transit corridors so increasing density will lead to traffic and parking issues. Again focus on where you can get the most bang for the buck if this truly is a crisis.

@13 "Zoning is not the immediate problem. There are plenty of areas in the city along transit corridors that are already upzoned where you can build thousands of units."

So I take it you're opposed to Nelson's effort to fast track rezone this part of the city as entirely unnecessary? You must agree it's an obvious handout to a developer given there are so many other parts of the city already ripe for redevelopment. You must be pretty frustrated about this cynical cronyism from Nelson, right?

"accept as well that there are areas of the city that should be only SFH. There is a reason while those areas are desirable. People don't want to live on top of each other nor share walls with their neighbor."

So you believe the government should continue to restrict the ability of landowners to do as they wish with their property in those areas? The free market should be subservient to the greater societal good?

“So you believe the government should continue to restrict the ability of landowners to do as they wish with their property in those areas? The free market should be subservient to the greater societal good?“

Sounds good to me. Look, I’d love to live in Blue Ridge or North Admiral, but I can’t afford it. So I settled for Beacon Hill.

@14 “So you believe the government should continue to restrict the ability of landowners to do as they wish with their property in those areas?”

that’s not what’s happening. In this case gov is forcing density on communities that don’t necessarily want it. Read HB 1110. In fact Inslee through a hissy fit last year when kenmore turned down a Plymouth housing development. That is all tangential to the point through. If this is a crisis build where you can immediately and then worry about other areas of the city.

@16 that's exactly what's happening. The only thing HB 1110 "forces" is municipalities to stop artificially limiting what landowners can do with their property. You are advocating for centrally-planned statist restrictions on property rights.

The density should be added outside the city. The affordable housing should be added outside the city, where land prices are… affordable. It’s really stupid for the city to build low income housing in high priced areas. Especially when the majority of city/state funding cones from property taxes. That kills your tax base. And your tax base is how you fund these things in the first place.
BTW, it’s not a housing crisis. It’s an unproductive people crisis.

@18 or better yet don't even build housing just camps. We can concentrate all the "unproductive people" in camps far away from our precious high priced urban land. That can be reserved for productive people like retired SFH owners and those who inherited fortunes. Very notcrazy idea thank you.

Either this land is not needed for maritime/industrial use or Port Commissioner Toshiko Hasegawa and her staff are doing a very bad job implementing it as such. Which is it?

This SoDo "industrial" land is unproductive. This land is located near the heart of the city, has been zoned maritime/industrial for decades, get’s no shortage of attention, yet fails to create meaningful family-wage job as intended. It’s a wasteland. The intent of the zoning was not to let the land lay fallow for decades and decades. The intent of the zoning was to create family wage jobs. Many jobs paying significantly more than minimum wage that can benefit from the proximity to the city, trains, and the boats. The land outlined as the Maker District does nothing, kudos to the city for re-visiting the zoning.

Regarding the July 2023 legislation (We had a Deal????), an Urbanist article (https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/07/27/harrell-signs-industrial-land-reform-into-law/) states "Councilmember Dan Strauss, who chairs the land use committee, said he was open to revisiting the decision at a later date, but didn’t want to tank the legislation by adding the Makers District provision and upsetting key stakeholders." For all this city council's faults and failures, good on them for making this happen! It is time to revisit this legislation. Revisit we must. Industrial and maritime zoned land has a purpose - its not for free parking, its not for childcare, its not for endless seas of mini-storage - its to create family-wage jobs. When the family wage jobs fail to appear, its time to revisit and re-zone to a better, more productive use.

@13: “There are plenty of areas in the city along transit corridors that are already upzoned where you can build thousands of units. Fill those in…”

This is what the Stranger, and sympathetic commenters here, should be demanding to address the “housing crisis” they’re always talking about. As you note, their real agenda is to eliminate the SFH neighborhoods they despise for ideological reasons. Years ago, I commented on this, using this quote from long-time Stranger columnist Geov Parrish:

"...a coalition of developers and climate change-obsessed environmentalists … concentrated development near arterials but left many single-family home neighborhoods nearly untouched."

That’s right, Geov complained the new housing units were going into the most environmentally-friendly places! And why was he upset at building housing near jobs and transit? Because it didn’t increase density in remote SFH neighborhoods!

Ideology always wins with these people. Then they rage when Seattle’s liberal, educated electorate rejects their ideas.

@21 "This is what the Stranger, and sympathetic commenters here, should be demanding to address the “housing crisis” they’re always talking about."

News outlets and commenters can't "demand" builders build, but we can "demand" our elected officials enact sensible zoning reform. Like, for example not gutting proposals from subject matter experts like Harrell did this update round:

https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/04/16/planners-proposed-bigger-upzones-before-harrells-team-intervened-records-show/

You'd think an "educated electorate" would prefer to follow the expert recommendations but it turns out those opposed to zoning reforms are the actual ideologues, as CM Moore's simultaneously uninformed and condescending comments on the comp plan made clear:

https://publicola.com/2025/01/08/im-not-prepared-to-sacrifice-my-neighborhood-councilmember-cathy-moore-takes-hard-line-against-apartments/

And given you put scare quotes around 'housing crisis' it's abundantly clear you are in the ideologue camp.

@22: 'News outlets and commenters can't "demand" builders build...'

Of course you can. You demand things all of the time. This headline post most certainly did not demand additional construction in the already-upzoned areas, and Geov's quote from long ago explains why. The Stranger shouts "housing crisis" only to advance an anti-SFH agenda. If housing sufficient to alleviate the housing crisis was built elsewhere, the Stranger would no longer have "housing crisis" to shout when attacking SFH neighborhoods. Never let a good crisis go to waste!

'You'd think an "educated electorate" would prefer to follow the expert recommendations...'

Because experts are always right, all of the time, eh? Or maybe the citizens, through their elected representatives, should have input? (Oh, wait, we saw what you think of that...)

@23 "Because experts are always right, all of the time, eh? Or maybe the citizens, through their elected representatives, should have input?"

Bobby Jr is that you?

@7: "The erosion of lands around Ports is how Ports are shutdown."

So, everything is working to plan. We've lost much of the maritime business in Fremont and a good chunk of it in Ballard. And most of it along the Seattle waterfront (The grain elevators are still hanging on. For now.) Lost it to rich software businesses, rich condo dwellers and rich yachters.

Fisherman's Terminal was nearly lost to the ascot-wearing class were it not for the Alaska fleet owners noticing that chandlerys were being sneaked out in exchange for fancy restaurants, cafes and art galleries. The fleet owners screamed their heads off and stopped the steal. For now.

@1: "every Puget Sound based port should be under one authority"

I think we tried that one with Tacoma a while back. We'll take all the billionaires. You can have the dirty freighters. We'll split the profits. Tacoma laughed so hard, I think they wet their collective pants.

Look. If Seattle doesn't want a marine industry, fine. Just be honest about it. Hand the waterfront over to the developers.

I guess @25 is unaware that the ports of Tacoma and Seattle formed a public development authority in 2015 resulting in the formation of The Northwest Seaport Alliance (going strong since August 4, 2015). Ideally the alliance would include all Puget Sound ports but that’s unlikely (and unfortunately the ports both maintain separate commissions - it would save money if these were combined).

It would also be nice to see a level of automation on par with Asian ports (even just automating the movement of containers between ports and rail lines would be an environmental win).

@24: Bobby Jr. was elected to what office, exactly?

Seriously, from the point of view of actually providing affordable housing, building affordable housing in the SFH neighborhoods is the worst option -- and the one the self-described 'urbanists' always go to first, for the reason Geov revealed. (His comment about climate change seems to have aged even worse.) A single new apartment tower in Belltown could provide as much new housing in a single go as decades of waiting for up-zoned housing to be built in Maple Leaf. And Belltown has room for more parking (under the new building) and access to just about everything on foot. There is currently not even a proposal to build grade-separated mass transit into SFH neighborhoods, so building more there simply means more surface traffic. Up-zoning SFH is a 'solution' which will create as many (or more) problems than it solves. (But that's ok, because it serves the needs of the Stranger's ideology, not the needs of actual human beings.)