If Linda Buck gets her way, her 1914 Craftsman home will be demolished. The blue house, which Buck has shared with her husband for 30 years, sits on a mostly vacant block where developers want to build six-story apartment buildings. A neighborhood group that Buck describes as “intimidating” is opposed to the taller buildings—the group even stacks public meetings with people who boo and hiss at speakers they disagree with—but Buck wants the taller buildings there for the city’s well-being, and so she wants her own house torn down.
“You are asking me to leave my beautiful old home,” says Buck, a silver-haired computer programmer who works at the University of Washington’s applied physics lab. “And if I do leave it, I will leave it for something I believe in.”
What Buck believes in, she says, is increasing density in the blocks east of the Roosevelt neighborhood’s future light rail station and across the street from Roosevelt High School. “You are going to get an enormous amount of density for these three homes,” she says of replacing her house and two neighbors’ homes with two blocks of six-story buildings affordable to renters. “A lot of people in the city helped me, and I am really grateful. It’s my turn to sacrifice.” She adds one more point: “I don’t have any arrangement with the developer.”
Years in the works, the neighborhood’s density issue is set to arrive before the Seattle City Council’s land-use committee on November 30, when council members will consider competing visions for the Roosevelt area. While Mayor Mike McGinn and Council Member Tim Burgess support buildings up to six stories where Buck’s home currently stands, the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association (RNA) is insisting on its own proposal for buildings only four stories tall. It’s a familiar clash over density. But now, when light rail lines are under construction from Tukwila to Northgate and the housing construction market is experiencing an uptick, Roosevelt serves as a bellwether for several neighborhoods up and down the Sound Transit corridor.
The critics of density use familiar arguments. The RNA fears that allowing the two additional floors on these blocks would obstruct views, create shadows, and conflict with their own dreams for the area.
“Our long-term vision was a classic wedding cake, stepping down from the middle [where the light rail station will be] to the edges of the neighborhood,” says Jim O’Halloran, chair of the RNA’s land-use committee. To his group’s credit, they agreed to allow 85-foot buildings in a three-block swath around the light rail line. From that apex, he says, “The ideal model is to step down: 85, 65, and 40 feet.” The block where Buck lives, however, is not where the RNA thinks a swath of 65-foot-tall buildings should go; O’Halloran says putting that layer of the cake in that particular spot would mean “the guy who lives in his house near the tall building is uncomfortable.”
But as it happens, one of closest residents is Jim Nobles, who has lived in his bungalow for nine years across from the two blocks in question. Would a six-story building so close make him uncomfortable? “I would not be uncomfortable—not at all,” says Nobles. “Get the density where it needs to be.”
It may be a choice, ultimately, between six stories or nothing.
The properties at issue are owned almost entirely by controversial landlord Hugh Sisley and his partner, the Roosevelt Development Group (RDG). Sisley says he won’t build unless he has six stories to work with, because it doesn’t pencil out to build four-story apartment buildings in this economy. Instead, Sisley would let his dilapidated properties—already the source of neighborhood complaints—further decay. “If RDG doesn’t build, and if no one else gets into the game to build, you keep a set of blighted properties that makes none of us happy,” says Sally Clark, chair of the council’s land-use committee.
Buck adds: “They have a fantastic idea that someone will build a gorgeous four-story building, but it’s not going to happen.”
Even if the council allows six-story buildings, the neighborhood group is certain to have its desired wedding-cake effect of declining heights. Why? City zoning maps already show the properties buffering the two blocks include—you guessed it—buildings zoned for 40 feet. So the buildings would stand 85 feet above light rail, 65 feet where Buck lives, 40 feet across the street, and then down to standard houses.
O’Halloran points out that neighbors would happily allow taller buildings on the other side of the neighborhood—above the light rail and next to the freeway.
Council Member Clark remains mum on how she’ll lean in the November 30 meeting. But here’s hoping she supports six-story buildings on the two blocks where development is actually possible by the time the light rail station opens in 10 years. More people, commuting people, non-car-owning and non-house-owning people—working people—need to live nearby. And as Nobles and Buck point out, some of the neighbors most affected are the ones most in favor.
But the RNA—some of them good folks—have clearly been bullies over this issue. At a September 19 hearing at the high school, RNA members reportedly booed and hissed at people who spoke in favor of the 65-foot buildings.
Buck sums up what the council should keep in mind about the activists who are sure to make a stink: “They represent the RNA, not the neighborhood.” 
I live up the street in Ravenna and frankly at this point I like the idea of leveling that entire area and put in a huge park. That way we get a nice chunk of green space in what is turning out to be nothing but gentrified crap. (I’m thinking Roosevelt Square)
@Cato – Roosevelt is already getting a huge park when the reservoir is lidded in the near future. Which brings the tally up to nearly half a BILLION dollars in public investments in transit, education, and public space.
I am relieved to see those in the community who bravely speak up in favor of allowing new people to take advantage of these amenities, too. Bravo Ms. Buck and Mr. Nobles. Thank you!
Nice to not mention the fact the Roosevelt’s revised update adds MORE density than the Mayor’s plan.
There is no reason why six stories needs to go by the high school. None. OK, none except one of the worst slumlords in the city wants it and will pout and cry until he gets it — all the while inflicting boarded up houses with trash-strewn yards on an otherwise vibrant and involved neighborhood.
What’s pathetic is how people who should know better get in line behind the slumlord and do his dirty work. This includes Mayor McGinn and the neo-urbanists he hired to do his PR for him.
Oh, and the nice lady in this article? Whether 4 stories or 6 for the zoning she’ll be very well compensated for her “sacrifice” — compensation made possible through the Roosevelt neighborhood’s own planning process that upzoned that previously single-family zone.
RNA did exactly what was asked of them by adding density around the station. They were told it was not enough, so they went back and added even more within well-accepted walking distances from the station. Anyone who argues against their plan isn’t arguing for density, they are arguing on behalf of a unprincipled slumlord.
David Miller is a NIMBY.
At least he’s being honest now.
It doesn’t matter whether the RNA plan has more density than the Mayor’s proposal. If I had my way there would be no zoning at all other than what the market would bear.
It is clear, too, that David didn’t get the messaging memo from the RNA: it’s not about the property owner. David is such a jack ass that he shows the RNAs cards. This isn’t about anything other than spite for Sisely. That and fear of change.
David your going to lose. And your going to continue to lose. Your efforts to pad your own political future by being THE leader of NIMBYism in Seattle will fail. First because your arguments for NIMBYism are lamer than the simple boos and hisses of Roosevelt neighbors and second because NIMBYism is a dying cause.
The simple truth is that the only unprincipled actors here are single family homeowners bent in limiting housing supply to pad their own equity. Less housing in Roosevelt means higher prices for housing everywhere else. The developer will make money, sure, but the opponents will too if they can stop this from happening.
Single family homeowners in Roosevelt aren’t worried about views or shadows. They’re worried about the resale value of their homes. They whine about the changes coming because they think it will make their houses less valuable.
More housing means lower prices for housing, that’s true. But David and his NIMBY friends will be crying all the way to the bank, because, in the long run, all this density will make this town and neighborhood a better place to live.
I’ve lived in the Roosevelt/Ravenna neighborhood for 24 years. That whole time I’ve had to endure the urban blight created by Hugh Sisley. His goal has always been to maximize return and that is why he initially proposed to build 16 stories in front of Roosevelt High. OTOH, the RNA is composed of members of the neighborhood. The RNA plan took years to put together. It is based on a careful consideration of the needs of all of the current and future neighborhood residents and businesses. This, in many ways, is like the 1% versus the 99%. Hugh Sisley is a multi-millionaire who clearly doesn’t give a damn about the other home owners in the area. Dominic, why are you playing the shill for a developer and ignoring the other 99% of us? How on earth did you find those two people that support the RDG plans? They are the exception, not the rule. Vilifying the RNA is like saying the Occupiers are a bunch of losers. Are you really on the side of big bucks? Man, this article is so distorted, painting the RNA as bullies. The RNA doesn’t “stack the meetings”. What an idiotic statement. The RNA is composed entirely of volunteers. It has almost no budget. The people who show up at the meetings are residents like me who want a safe and healthy place for their families. This article isn’t journalism; it reads more like paid propaganda.
Park over a covered Roosevelt Reservoir? I don’t believe there’s any money for something like that (the lid, yes; any fun stuff on top, no). I think we’ll be lucky to get a basketball hoop or two.
KoolDude and David Miller both hit the nail on the head. Sisley is a greedy asshole who has been bullying the neighborhood and city for years with his purposefully blighted properties and demands for maximizing profit. A more truthful story would be about the unfortunate renters Sisley has charged to rent rooms in uninhabitable housing. He is all about his own wealth and doesn’t give a crap about decent affordable housing or density. The two people interviewed for this article don’t represent the majority of residents in the neighborhood. But, I have no doubt they are anxious to be rid of the Sisley eyesores.
I believe that Ms Buck has already sold her house to … well, who else is going to buy her home? And that sale occurred well before she spoke to Mr Holden (in the last two months). It would be nice if the rail station would accept the height level that the city wants surrounding it (equal to the height over other rail stations on the line) but apparently that isn’t in their vision. Give the developer 45 feet and let them buy up with setbacks and amenities, as in other areas. Giving them 65 from the start gets the neighborhood nothing.
It would have been nice for Mr Holden to talk with the renters in Sisleyville: where will they go? They live there, too.
Wait…..Linda Buck??? As in the woman who won a Nobel Prize a few years ago for her work in olfactory receptors?
“..the group even stacks public meetings with people who boo and hiss at speakers they disagree with” Uh no, it’s stacked with neighbors who show up to a public meeting and express their views. (Not saying that hissing or booing is good civil behavior but the RNA only makes announcements of meetings – not what to say or how to act.)
The RDG – the development group that wants to build in that area – THEY are the ones who brought in young women to speak who didn’t even know what they were talking about and read from a script.
Look,several things to keep in mind:
– the RNA plan – Sustainable, Livable Roosevelt adds more density than the DPD or the Mayor’s plan. Period.
– The difference between where RNA wants the density and blocks in question is a block or two. I think if you live within 3-5 blocks of light rail, that’s damn close.
– Roosevelt High School is a City historic site. Their designation for protection, not RNA’s. Also, it is what our neighborhood is named for and a near-by park is named for its first principal. It is our landmark and our main physical feature. The school district spent $93M of taxpayers money to restore it. It deserves some protection.
– Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Do you know the history of the Sisleys? These people are not interested in quality-built housing. They have systematically shown contempt and disrespect to the neighborhood and cost the City hundreds of thousands of man-hours (not to mention fines) to try to get them to comply with even the most basic of zoning rules.
And these are the people the City wants to do business with?
– If Sisley wants to keep those blocks as blight, so be it. The neighborhood is tired of being bullied by these people.
Melissa Westbrook
Roosevelt/Ravenna neighbor
wow NIM(N)BY fest up there… (Not in my neighbor’s back yard)
@13
“- the RNA plan – Sustainable, Livable Roosevelt adds more density than the DPD or the Mayor’s plan. Period.”
The RNA plan adds more density than the Mayor’s plan by upzoning lots that won’t actually be redeveloped. It upzones the entire QFC lot, Cavalry Christian’s parking lot, and single family homes from 67th through 69th. This density isn’t going to be realized. The QFC isn’t going to be torn down. Dozens of single family homes aren’t going to be torn down. You might as well rezone the QFC lot to have 12 story buildings and wow, we just zoned in even more housing! But it won’t ever actually be built. Where the redevelopment will actually happen, RNA is still behind the Mayor’s plan. To claim otherwise is dishonest. We should not let our desire to punish a slumlord overcome our obligation to enact good policy.
It’s amazing that after YEARS of The Stranger’s reporting on Sisley the Slumlord and the RNA’s push for increased density all on its lonesome, Dominic Holden can swoop in and defame the RNA in Sisley’s defense.
You are a fucking credulous hack, Holden. Fuck off.
David Miller knows that the RNA plan will result in less density and that the method used to compute density used by RNA is considered unreliable. He is still bitter from having his butt kicked when he tried to run for office.
Mr. X lives in density on the Ave (not his sacred SF) and hates everyone. He sticks his nose into everyone’s business.
The world as we know it will end. Please call them a waaaaambulance.
@15
Actually, the QFC is due to be torn down as part of the construction of the light rail station. It is still unclear what will be built there afterwards, but I’ve seen at least one plan for a multistory building with underground parking and a new QFC on the 1st floor. I suspect most of the neighborhood would support higher heights there.
This is beginning to be a silly argument. It is especially unhelpful to vilify the neighbors and the neighborhood association. While intelligent, well-meaning people can disagree on the particulars of the rezone, no one can deny that that the RNA has been very proactive in seeking out increased density and in working with the city on a comprehensive plan.
Roosevelt is a credulous hack of a neighborhood. Writing credulous hack makes me feel stronger. Much stronger than “fuck off.”
Density is good for cities and most neighborhoods, especially urban neighborhoods. 6 stories right next to a train station shouldn’t be a big deal? This is pretty standard in a lot of cities. It’s not like they’re building a skyscraper. Oh Seattle…
@8 KoolDude: I’m sorry to hear that so many wonderful Seattle neighborhoods like Roosevelt & Ravenna are falling to assholes with big bucks who could care less.
It sounds like livability is being sold to the highest bidder!
This dispute is yet one more example of how Seattle’s “progressives” are all in favor of the neighborhoods until a neighborhood does something that they don’t like.
At that point, the wonderful neighborhoods become racists, NIMBYs, selfish old people, right wingers, bullies, you name it.
I guess I don’t fully understand the pejorative nuances of NIMBYism. Isn’t taking an active interest in the welfare of your community a good thing? If not wanting a shopping center to replace the Good Shepherd Center makes me a NIMBY, so be it. I suppose you have to “own” your right-wing manufactured labels sometimes.
Quite frankly I find the idea of surrounding picturesque Roosevelt High with condo-scrapers no better than surrounding it with a block of Sisley Slums. Furthermore, does anybody actually trust that he will build anything of respectful quality?
@bedbug, here’s the deal: The “progressive” hivemind around here has decided that your neighborhood association is (horror of horrors) “anti-transit.”
This means you are NIMBYs, racists, and (worst of all) old and white. The “progressives” hate old white people. Oh, and you like the high school? Your timing sucks. You need to wait until some planning nazi decides it’s a classic. Until then, you piece of shit, it’s time to sit down and shut up.
@24 Oh, goody, Mr. Gas Fumes is at it again, and Mr Exhaust is here to egg him on.