Comments

2

"Seattle does not need pandering, self-aggrandizing, or absentee council members."

Kshama thinks that's exactly what the City needs, in fact, more of them. .

3

So, return to Plan A: level the Showbox for more luxury high rise housing! Because housing is housing, and Seattle’s lost its soul anyway.

4

Seems to me the movement to save the Showbox had pretty broad support and that perhaps the council members were simply serving their constituents.

5

@4
Silly chicken, you must be new here.

6

@3 Housing at every income level is needed. Unfortunately, when the wealthiest folks don't have a place to go, guess what happens to affordable neighborhoods?

I have a few fond memories of the Showbox as well—the Sub Pop 10th anniversary party, Shellac's first visit to Seattle... hmmmm, god my memory is horrible. It was a decent theater with some unique charms, sad to see it go but...

7

Just occurred to me: Occidental Square would be a GREAT place for a luxury highrise. It's just wasted space full of gawking tourists. Think of the tax base!

8

Silly Spunkbutter -- I'm a native Seattlite.

The author argues that this attempt to save the Showbox was a "primal fear of change" which is ridiculous. This was a propaganda piece by someone running for her seat.

9

@6 Yea for real. I'd really like to know what "anti-gentrification" advocates suggest people looking for anywhere that they can actually afford do! Everyone is going to appear apathetic if you make unreasonable demands. I live in San Francisco/work in tech. I have a rent controlled apartment some deserving artist or student can have just as soon as someone builds a place I can actually afford to own.

11

@6, the wealthy that have no luxury housing move to another city or build it somewhere else. They do not slum it out in low-rent districts. Adding new luxury units is NOT trickling down to the housing unstable. Neoliberal spin took your brain.

12

@3: It’s entirely possible for the city to negotiate a deal with the property’s next owner. This deal would allow the new owners to demolish the old furniture store, build a new club to code (one with sight-lines for an actual majority of patrons!!) and a huge luxury residential tower atop it. Artifacts from the current Showbox could decorate the future one.

But CM Sawant wanted to fight instead. So, here we are.

13

Fear of change, housing shortage, homeless off the streets...
It’s a shortage of Affordable housing. We’re all for change but this is more of the same. Rich people making money building housing for slightly less rich people.
What they want to replace the showbox with doesn’t help low income residents or the homeless. people make empty gestures to issues like homelessness to distract, sidestep issues of income inequality and affordable housing and further their own agenda.
Logan sounds useless and disingenuous

15

Logan’s trickle down economics rationale for building high rise rich people housing is garbage.
People who support him use pejorative terms like SJW which tells you all you need to know.

16

Thank you, Logan. Well-said. Stay honest, stay strong, stay the course.

17

I'd rather see high rises in Magnolia and the top of Queen Anne. Why are those neighborhoods exempt from this massive need for housing inside the city limits? Oh yeah, that's right.....

18

The housing need is a false narrative. 1 in 10 Seattle apartments are empty. Lots of new apartment complexes are springing up in Queen Anne and Magnolia.
The need is Affordable housing, rent control, etc. We need representation for renters and owners not just real estate developers
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/amid-building-boom-1-in-10-seattle-apartments-are-empty-and-rents-are-dropping/%3famp=1

19

The Seattle Trump International Hotel and Tower will fit nicely there.

20

@11 or @15: Could one of you address https://www.dropbox.com/s/zuzxvupdbqcvhql/Mast%20Luxury%20Housing.pdf?dl=0?

The author, a Stanford economics PhD, tracked specific households as they changed addresses over many years. The study concluded that "Building 100 new luxury units leads 65 and 34 people to move out of below-median and bottom-quintile income neighborhoods, respectively."

Basically, 100 new luxury units opens up 65 lower-middle class and 34 low-income (bottom 20% of income) units as people move up. Here's a summary: http://cityobservatory.org/bacon_musical_chairs/

The author is employed by a non-partisan, independent, non-profit think tank called Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

22

@21 Thank you for citing research or supported facts instead of an unsupported opinion or anecdote. I just finished reading two summaries of that study[1] and it's different in one important way: it studies the impact of a zoning change, not of additional units.

It draws conclusions about parcel valuations and housing unit construction during and after zoning changes, not what happens after housing is actually constructed. As the author summaries: "The two conclusions of this study reflect in part the fact that development is a lengthy process; it takes time to move from a policy like zoning to actually getting housing units in the ground. They also reflect the fact that property buyers did rather quickly take the zoning change into account—they were willing to pay more for buildings and land in the upzoned areas."

Stated another way, the question that this study poses is interesting (and may well be relevant for other parts of the city), but hasn't been applicable to this parcel since its zoning was last changed many years, if not a few decades, ago. For this parcel and similar parcels, specific housing projects with lots of units have already been proposed -- that is, this parcel was already way past the question that this study tried to answer.

The study I cited tried to answer the specific question that @11 and @15 asked - basically, "If a luxury highrise is built, are middle and/or lower income housing units made available, and if so, how many?". It's a subtle distinction but at least for the Showbox parcel right now, a very important one.

[1]: The full study isn't public, but the author's own summary is: https://urbanaffairsreview.com/2019/03/29/upzoning-chicago-impacts-of-a-zoning-reform-on-property-values-and-housing-construction/

23

It is also bad governance because they fucked it up. They fucked it up in several ways. They didn't include the building in the original list of historic sites. Had they done that, it would have been treated like the Paramount (which you can't just bulldoze). They also fucked up in failing to plan ahead, and consider preserving performance space (if that is really the goal). Everything about this is reactionary, like so much that happens in the city (who knew that having a huge influx of wealth along with a great disparity of income could lead to an increase in homelessness?).

They also fucked up after the fact. There was no carrot, only a stick. They could have tried working with the group to try and save a performance space. But it was never clear whether they were interested in the building (like the Paramount) or a performance space (like El Carazon -- https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/06/21/40520678/a-mixed-use-high-rise-with-a-rowdy-rock-venue-el-corazons-owner-says-he-can-make-it-happen). They have muddled goals with a stupid strategy, so it should be no surprise why they fucked up.

24

@22 It is obvious that upzoning increases prices in the short term, any increase in affordability would necessarily come later after enough housing is online. This plan is not a solution to, but rather a driver of at least near-term displacement. And it is potentially worse than that. If you look at Vancouver Canada's actual experience:

"...Dr. Rose went back to the 2001 census, covering a 15-year span. He found that for each household added during this period, the region added 1.19 net units of housing. Put another way, for every 100 households that came along, Metro Vancouver added 119 net units of housing. According to census data, there are also 66,719 unoccupied dwellings in Metro Vancouver.

And despite a surplus of housing stock, affordability has significantly worsened – a contradiction to the supply mantra."

https://www.kpu.ca/sites/default/files/The%20Housing%20Supply%20Myth%20Report%20John%20Rose.pdf

Why does their experience contradict Econ 101? Because the world is not that simple, and housing is an asset class, not a simple good only used for its original purpose.

If you believe the only thing we can do is add more housing supply, then you also need to advocate for laws ensuring that any new units only be used as a primary residence.

25

So this guy sold his start up to Amazon. Took that money and opened a weed shop, moved to the CD (the prime example of current day housing displacement) and he is complaining about affordable housing and the Showbox? Obviously this article is an attempt to get votes and is based on knee jerk half-baked hypocrisy. He’s using generic talking points used in court rooms by the biggest developers tearing down historic sites across town. Sell out.

26

@11, look at the changes in Columbia City over the past decade and tell me wealthier folks won't slum it. A lack of luxury housing in the city center encourages people with cash to move further out, bulldoze a lot and stuff a McMansion on it.

I'll also note, since nobody's mentioned it in this thread: The proposed luxury high-rise building would have generated roughly $5m in fees for the affordable housing fund. Doesn't that count for something? Would we prefer to be sued for $40m in damages, or pay millions to fossilize a two-story building?

27

Seattle needs more housing, but does it need more luxury apartments and condos which YOU KNOW is what will replace the Showbox. How many of those luxury places are going to be purchased by foreign investors who buy and hold but rarely reside in or rent out their purchases? There are areas of Yaletown in Vancouver that are condominium ghost towns - bought and sold but vacant. Many get rich on real estate deals, but a city loses its soul.

29

@27: Want more affordable housing in our distant future? Build a lot more luxury housing now. As @26 notes, we can also use the taxes on new luxury housing to build new affordable housing in the near term. So, yes, we need more luxury housing as part of our solution to affordable housing, in both short and long terms. The flip side of @24’s point is that while building new luxury housing stock does not necessarily lower prices, not building it will eventually cause price increases.

(Also, including @3, I’m nominating “city losing soul” as the pseudo-urbanist hipster equivalent to the NIMBY cry, “character of the neighborhood.”)

30

maybe... we could save the Showbox AND build more housing? you know, walk and chew gum? 2 things at once?

the Showbox IS worth preserving - the exterior is OK Deco, but the interior is a sprung ballroom floor and a lovely dome ceiling. how many of those remain on the West Coast? 3? 4? Its a venue or a size and quality that just doesn't exist elsewhere in this city and state.

with it demolished, you're going to be enjoying the sterile concrete prison of the Century Link Field Event Center for most mid-size concerts. fun times, all so 77 year old Roger Forbes can roll around on a slightly larger pile of cash and stripper tears until he croaks within a decade.

the Showbox needs either a white knight like Jody Allen, or a public foundation to buy it from that asshole.

it doesn't need this "more important things" bullshit.

31

Anyone who wanted to save the Showbox aka steal money from the legal owner, is a child. A stupid, ignorant, ridiculous child. The Council knew they their illegal move would be thrown out. But they love to save face and make children like you feel special.
It is a dilapidated 100 year old 2 story building in the heart of downtown. A fire hazard. An earthquake hazard. And $40 million would buy the land, not build another 2 story venue to replace it. Renovation? Ha! I saw cool bands their too. Guess what there are more venues than ever, more bands than ever, more shows than ever. Fuck you and fuck the Showbox you fucking children. Go get your pitchforks and find some other illegal unconstitutional cause to fight for and shoot yourself in the foot. Fucking idiots

32

Oh and one more thing. The funniest part about this, is you just fucked venues for the next decade. What property owner wants to lease to a music venue if the city is going to try and steal their property? Fucking idiots

33

@30 I appreciate your argument. While I disagree that Centurylink is part of this conversation, the Showbox is a medium capacity theater I can't think of an analogue for in Seattle (besides the not-at-all charming Showbox SoDo). Most clubs are less than half the size, but the closest thing I can think of, the Moore, is considerable larger (and I'd guess a considerable jump in house fees for artists). Are there any other old ~1,000 capacity venues?

34

@29, I think you missed part of my point. Which is that in the absence of regulation preventing money laundering, speculation, and short term rentals, you can build all the luxury units you want with no real dent in long-term housing prices. The only effect is deplacement and rising property prices now and into the future. There is a reason every international city's home prices are rising to similar prices. It's not because they all have Amazon HQ1. It's because international investors are moving their (occasionally illicit) money around to what are considered safe assets. The marketing materials for most of these new buildings are specifically pitched to non-resident investors. There is no musical chair effect if a current resident is not actually moving in. This is what happened in Vancouver, and can easily happen here.

35

Good for The Stranger for publishing this piece. I don't like Sawant and most on the City Council, but I'm fine with people who do--provided it is not deemed absolutist orthodoxy that one loves her and hates capitalism. Too often in The Stranger anyone who even briefly or slightly defended conservative positions has been mocked, insulted, dismissed, misrepresented, and essentially deemed not worthy of acknowledgment, much less respect. Open up the floor to a much broader range of perspectives. It's not simply "Sawant" who is the problem, but bullying sanctimonious orthodoxy. And, yes, the same thing occurs on the right, with hard rightists calling anyone who disagrees with them "libtards," "dumbocrats" and the like. Mutual respect, genuine listening, thoughtful exchange, real respect for life's complexity and consequent humility, not knee-jerk insult for "the ruling class," "RINO's," "libtards," or whomever. Raise the bar, Stranger staff. You have influence. Use it well.

36

@34: If you have any evidence for any of those claims, please present it. If there are shenanigans, we can start the process of crafting laws against them.

You seem to be describing a very risky investment strategy, especially given how easily local governments could simply seize the large, immobile assets and use them to, perhaps, house people?


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.