The Seattle chapter of the American Institute of Architects is putting out a call for designs for residential buildings that provide "progressive solutions for urban living." The criteria, according to the AIA press release, include "forward looking solutions," "new models," and "innovative approaches to economic inclusion."
So why does the panel of "public judges" consist of two Crosscut columnists (Knute Berger, one of the city's most voluble opponents of growth and density, and Kent Kammerer, a prominent neighborhood activist who opposes increasing density even around transit stops) and a real-estate agent who described the minimal density increases associated with mother-in-law apartments as "not pleasant" on his blog?
The competition also includes a jury of professional architects. But it would be nice if the "public" view included someone who actually supports new, forward-looking solutions, instead of three guys who oppose even the most modest changes to Seattle's single-family neighborhoods (and thus support the old, backward-looking "solution" that is suburban sprawl).