It’s hard to nail down a specific definition of TOD, mostly because it can be so many things. However this video (part of a 1 hour show) from Arlington County (via GGW) shows development that without a doubt is TOD. Seattle needs to get over it’s fear of height if real TOD is ever going to be built here. I’m not saying we need skyscrapers around every Link station, but the fact the Beacon Hill station overlay zoning only called for an additional two floors over an area of four blocks is absolutely pitiful. That is not TOD.
54 Replies to “This is TOD”
Comments are closed.
IE Zoning: How many times do we have to discuss zoning, interstates, mortgage tax credits, utilities rate regulations and the host of other government interferences in the market before we realize that government IS NOT ALWAYS the answer, and in fact is in a large part the problem?!?!
I love this city to death, but the nanny statism (everything from fear of alcohol deregulation, fear of street food, byzantine zoning regulations, Nickel’s gun crusade, etc) is one of it’s worst traits.
Wait, why can’t government be the answer? Just as zoning can be used for evil, zoning can be used for good as well. Zoning can enforce density minimums, height minimums, parking maximums just as easily as the opposite. It’s just a question of public will to get those things in place.
B/c once you grant it the power, even to do ‘good’ things, when different people come into power they might use it for ‘bad’.
I’m not advocating complete government pullout from the market, but we need to recognize that in many instances it’s interference has caused more harm than good, and try to start scaling it back IMO.
Arlington’s governance seems to have produced pretty good results overall. The regulations involving TOD development around Metro stations have resulted in increased densities that provide residents various amenities within walking distance of their homes. Over the past few decades, this not only has resulted in decreased traffic congestion despite a continuously increasing population, but it also ensures a continuous feed of transit riders to the DC Metro. Without this continuous transit demand, the DC Metro would likely have larger headways, which in turn would greatly reduce the usefulness of the system, and likely result in increased traffic congestion due to the loss of “choice” transit riders opting for automobile travel. If anything, Arlington is an example of precisely why zoning is incredibly important, not only in contributing to a successful rail system, but also in creating environments that allow people to either live without vehicles or use their vehicles less often.
[snark] Where do you live, Anc? I’d like to build a large, uniquely designed home that will take up the entire lot next to your home or across the street from it — preferably one that blocks a view or takes up space and light that you really love.
How about we REALLY let fast food joints put whatever quality of meat into their food that would be cheapest? [/snark]
So, let’s fight to make it good…
[snark]Fayetteville North Carolina. Village at Lakewood. And I’d love for someone to move into the vacant lots. When can you buy?!?!
As for meat quality, I buy outside the regulatory system whenever possible.
How those FDA approved eggs treatin’ ya? I’ll keep buying actual farm raised eggs from my local Halal grocer.[/snark]
Although you should notice I never suggested we remove every single regulation. Just that obviously we have way too many now. THIS is what overbearing regulations get you:
http://seattleurbanism.blogspot.com/2009/10/townhouses-part-2-problem.html
Adding new, ‘better’ regulations isn’t going to change anything. We’ll just get tons of ‘better’ cookie cutter townhomes.
I FULLY AGREE! GO ANC!
I think We should go like houston and not zone period. I don’t really see the point, really, Zoning is what has created such TERRIBLE Urban form.
zoning residential here, and commercial there and such, that is how suburbs came to suck!! You can’t put a grocery store in the middle of a neighborhood.
I think we should look at the way Turkey’s urban form has developed, it is EPIC, most people there can’t afford cars, so even a town of 10000 people has many 8 story buildings because towns have to be dense to allow people to get to where they need!
a town of 60,000 people here takes up 30 square miles, where the same population there takes maybe 5 (it seems) Their cities are just soooo awesome!!!!!
Look at Istanbul, shops on the lower floors, housing above them, throughout the 8-12 story city!
their restaurants are typically about 10-12 feet wide, 30-ish feet deep, and 4 floors high! its EPIC. I think we need wayyyy more of that here in the U.S.
Seriously? Houston? That city is a shithole sinking into the gulf. It is ugly, menacing to navigate, incredibly wasteful and the most toxic urban environment in the country, loaded with carcinogens spewed out by the petrochemical industry. Private covenants there make wealthy residences just as isolated as poorly zoned suburbia anywhere else. And the poor are stuck living next to factories and strip malls with no protection of thier property value. Land is cheap there because it’s worth-less.
Government itself is neither the problem or the solution. It’s a machine and the outputs depend on the inputs. There are very good progressive and very good libertarian points to be made, the question is how responsive is government to new information and novel ideas. When zoning separated uses based on rapidly increasing populations and the harm being caused by large industrial operations in our cities it did much good, but there were unintended consequences and it was carried too far. Astute citizens like Jane Jacobs called those excesses out and modern leaders of the new urbanist variety have followed by offering a different path. Any particular ideology has faults and weaknesses, but everything can be improved, if we are open minded and willing to alter course when that is appropriate.
“When the facts change, I change my opinion.” Lord John Maynard Keynes.
“Astute citizens like Jane Jacobs called those excesses out and modern leaders of the new urbanist variety have followed by offering a different path. Any particular ideology has faults and weaknesses,”
And it’s good to remember that Jane Jacobs’ plan also had its weaknesses. It preserved a walkable neighborhood and mixed use, but it could not counteract the genetrification that soon swallowed the area. In fact, by limiting the amount of housing, it can be said to accelerate gentrification, like the CAP initiative in Seattle. This doesn’t mean urbanism is bad; it just means there are other factors that also need to be addressed.
I’ll just assume you’re being ironic because the result of no zoning in Houston is the absolute opposite of the Turkish city layouts that you describe.
Given cheap land, no zoning, relatively cheap cars and gas and unrestricted road development you end up with lots of low flung sprawl.
I tend to believe most cities develop organically based on the collective decisions of the inhabitants and the geographical/economic conditions that exist on the ground. Government actions can affect this process through zoning, infrastructure construction, tax policies etc. but sometimes I feel like folks over-estimate its power and underestimate the natural direction development is likely to take all other things being equal.
For instance, if Beacon Hill really is poised to become more urban even the derided upzones are just a starting point. If developers take advantage of them and the area becomes popular this will start to create pressure to expand the upzoned area and apply for exemptions (which in Seattle seem to be relatively easy to obtain). Given the current economy this growth wouldn’t possibly start to occur for several more years. And while there are other competing close in neighborhoods with more amenities I’m not sure Beacon Hill is necc. the one that’s going to grow first.
Ben
IMHO investors will buy and hold any land around the stations. It won’t be developed until the investors feel they can maximize their investments, probably waiting for major upzones. I’ve noticed a distinct lack of sellers on Redfin right around the Link stations in the SE.
The problem with growth in Turkish cities (especially Istanbul) is the vertical growth of buildings in earthquake-prone areas. People install windows near ceiling level for breezes, open up street-level rooms for storefronts, build additional storeys on existing buildings—all things that increase a building’s seismic vulnerability. Sure, the density is great, but building upward out of sheer necessity is not the same as building densely anew with safety in mind. Istanbul is a city at risk.
Houston has parking minimums.
You could always go with the English system. They have no zoning as far as I can tell… but *every single project to change anything whatsoever* requires “planning permission”, with public hearings and all that. They don’t get locked into one-size-fits-all regulations, but they do have to deal with NIMBYs and delays on much smaller things than we would.
Exactly who do you think should make those decisions in a Democracy? The invisible hand of the market (i.e., those that have the most power and/or money)?
I think people should have the right to choose for themselves to the maximum extent possible.
On the examples I have provided do you think our current system is providing the desired results?
I like height as much as the next fan of urban density, but is there really demand for more height along the Link corridor at this point? I’d rather invest energy in getting the existing/underway projects (e.g. the one at Othello) to draw more demand in the corridor first.
It’s a zoning change, not a mandate. Comintern isn’t telling you that you MUST build to 85 feet; it’s just no longer illegal to do so. You can leave it as a vacant lot if you want – see the empty gravel south of the BH station for an example.
Plus, as a private citizen we can actually influence the Seattle government zoning process. There usually isn’t much individuals can do to lobby businesses to build in a certain area.
This was my biggest pet peeve of the BH neighborhood plan meetings – people would say “I want a pizza place!”. Well, you can’t zone for a pizza place or force a pizza place to open. If you add enough density there might be enough customers so that a pizza shop owner will take a shot at the area, but even that isn’t a guarantee. Even at NC-85 it might be years or decades before anything gets built.
Right, but having a big community process to change the zoning to NC-85 or HR or whatever is totally pointless if the zoning is already NC-65 and the only project that could pencil in the next 5 years is a 4-story woodframe or a 5+1 building. Seems better to use your energy to show that density is a good thing for the neighborhood so that there *is* demand for more density in the future.
I’ll go out on a limb and say that overzoning can even slow development, because while developers maximize land values by building as tall as possible, tall buildings cost more per square foot to build. Imagine a lot where a 4-story woodframe would pencil out but anything taller doesn’t right now. If it’s zoned for 4 stories, a developer will likely break ground now. But if it’s zoned for more height, a developer might hold out for better market conditions, assuming a bigger profit on a taller building. In the meantime, the neighborhood gets a vacant lot.
Obviously, things would be different if there were no zoning anywhere or if we switched to Georgist property taxes, but those kinds of changes are much, much more radical than a rezone.
It’s better to change the law once now for our ultimate vision than halfway now and the rest later. If you change it halfway now, somebody might build something to that level and will be reluctant to tear it down for decades, and the same NIMBYs will oppose the second change saying the first change was enough (or too much). You might end up with a halfway solution forever.
Steve, after reading your comments, I’m beginning to think we *should* have a English-style system in the US, where there’s no zoning as such, but *everything* requires the sort of hearing and permission that “zoning variances” require today. *Everything* — there is no building “as of right”.
It would eliminate the “waste” of going through the rigamarole of changing regulations when it doesn’t really matter.
Keep in mind the Arlington zoning largely took place decades ago, and the density wasn’t all built overnight.
“Smart growth” is the ultimate oxymoron.
There is no such thing as “smart growth”. Any growth in the population is extremely stupid at this point. Over-population is the single greatest problem in the world, in the U.S., in WA state, in King County, and in the City of Seattle.
People have got to get over the antiquated notion that “growth is good.” Growth is not good. Growth is evil. Over-population is destroying the planet.
If you are concerned about global warming, pollution, quality of life, et. al. how can you possibly believe that any growth is “smart”?
The idea is that growth is inevitable, so try and control it in already created metropolitan areas as much as possible.
Unless of course you are advocating legislating the amount of children a couple can have to reduce the overall population. In this country it would be a waste of time, since the TFR in the United States is 2.1, as close as you can get to replacement.
Actually, the single greatest problem in the world is overconsumption of resources by a small percentage of the world population. It’s the fossil fuel driven economy that’s causing climate change, and car-oriented land use that has lowered our quality of life.
Also, “growth” in the case of Seattle and most US metropolitan areas is driven by people moving from elsewhere (smaller towns and rural areas), which is not actually any net “growth in the population” for the whole world. In the developing world, there is good evidence that empowering women leads to lower birth rates, one of many reasons we all should be working toward universal women’s rights:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009107.html
The WA natural population growth rate (deaths minus births) is actually slightly below the replacement rate of 2.2, as it is for most modern economies. That said, we definitely could be doing more to reduce unplanned teen pregnancies:
http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2009/02/25/baby-boomlet
The birth rate has already dipped below replacement levels in China, Mexico, and other places, so the overpopulation problem will solve itself. But there’s still the 50-year lag time as the last large generation is born and grows up, so the population is still expected to rise to 9 billion (1/3 higher than today) and then drop significantly.
Pugetopolis has a separate population issue. People are moving to this area because a lot of companies have started here and it’s seen as a good place to make money, plus the natural scenery and ski opportunities. Some of those people will rigidly want a city condo or an exurban mansion, but many of them will be willing to take either depending on the overall attractiveness of the location. That’s why Seattle needs to be ready to absorb its share of the newcomers, with smart growth (efficient housing and frequent transit) that at least approaches the Vancouver situation.
Norman reminds me of the good folks in Belmont CA, who were always complaining that their grownup children couldn’t afford to live in their hometown. Of course they always voted to block the city from allowing housing to be built above the single story stores in the downtown area, which was the easiest place to add housing.
The power elite in this city still harbors the same anti-Jew bias that doomed Forward Thrust. They won’t admit it, but “no subways” and “no tall apartment buildings” is two sides of the same anti-semitic coin. Thankfully ST2 has a healthy TOD budget, and Metro is doing what it can with limited resources in S. Kirkland. It’s sad, but old prejudices die hard.
Care to explain how the city is anti Semitic because mass transit measures have been voted down in the past?
If you throw out the anti-semitic card you need to provide more background.
Your comment is immensely puzzling. What is the connection between Jews and subways or high rises which Seattle now seems to have both of?
As for forward Thrust, I see plenty of evidence of it’s success around the city including remembrances of the quality natatorium I used when in high school.
@ Charles, I assume he’s referring to the Forward Thrust transit measures (1968 and 1972).
Seattle has one of the smallest Jewish populations of any major American city. I’ve lived here since I was 6, and never have I heard anyone connect high density or any other density with Jews. In fact, the largest Jewish concentrations are around Mercer Island and Seward Park, and there are no subways and few highrises there. One little Link line is going through Mercer Island because it’s on I-90.
There’s also Arlington’s Smart Growth Journey (free online), a 52-minute documentary that tells the history:
http://arlingtonsmartgrowth.wordpress.com/watch-video/
My brief review: “In the 1950s Arlington’s civic leaders realized that interstate construction and shopping malls (like in Tysons Corner) threatened to divide its neighborhoods and ruin main street retail. In response Arlington used transit and land use planning to retain single-family neighborhoods while building density in quarter-mile “bulls-eyes” around DC Metrorail stations.”
http://joshuadf.blogspot.com/2009/05/lessons-from-arlington-while-back-npr.html
Could I ask a favor? This blog uses a ton of acronyms, and often doesn’t bother to define them. I’m sure there are others besides myself that didn’t study urban planning or aren’t otherwise in-the-know about transit terminology and acronyms. I have no idea what TOD is (besides “time of death”) and as a result, I have no idea what this blog post is about.
So, please, in the future, if you use an acronym, please state what it stands for at the first mention in the article (you can use text or the “define” HTML tag), so casual readers can benefit from the discussion, too.
See here: https://seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com/glossary/#T
Sherwin did a great job with that list.
I was impressed with the importance he put on maintaining a hard line between single family residential and high density, and how hard it is to fight to maintain those lines.
I know the folks in Bellevue drew some of those hard lines, and how hard the surrey downs people are fighting to maintain them. :-)
“I know the folks in Bellevue drew some of those hard lines, and how hard the surrey downs people are fighting to maintain them. :-)”
Nobody has proposed any up-zoning or increased density for Surrey downs or Enatai. The Surrey Downs folks are simply attempting to shove the trains into somebody else’s back yard – literally.
I guess HB 1490 just fell away on its own, sorry. Nobody, especially on this blog would promote TOD around the main and south-of-main stations. :-)
And that new concrete-walled high rise south of main — that must be an 80 foot tall piece of the wedding cake that fell off the top of Lincoln tower. No one meant it to be “south of main” and looking into the back yards of single family residents. That is one of the problems around the edges that was referred to in the clip.
VBD, I know you have spoken highly of Surrey Downs in the past, but some others here have made it clear they would like it and its people replaced with low income housing and other TOD.
I think that is why some of us are having problems with the location of the SBP&R. You can’t put TOD in a wetland.
East Link could, however, lead to TOD in Factoria, which is a short bus/bike ride away (or long walk—it’s 1.5 miles from SBPR to Factoria Mall).
“Seattle needs to get over it’s fear of height if real TOD is ever going to be built here.”
Do you consider London a transit-friendly city? Most of London contains relatively low, although dense, flats. The building I lived in was pretty tall by London standards at 5 stories. Many were in the 2 or 3 floors range.
DC also has a height limit: nothing can be taller than the Capitol. Yet the DC area has something like nineteen TOD neighborhoods.
Yeah but then *entire* city, every square inch of it is between 3-7 or so floor. Almost all new development zones have skycrapers and I would say more new developmetns are at least 10 stories.
What I’m saying is you can’t have a four block area of that with 6 story buildings and call it TOD.
Yeah, height does not equal TOD – nor does it have to equal density. In fact, the high rise condo development in Vancouver has turned that city into the most expensive in Canada by far. High rise development is expensive. Soon you’ll have neighbourhoods built entirely for the elite.
Low? London’s full of 6 story buildings, and *lots* of 4-story buildings.
Are you talking about Outer London… or perhaps about the parts distant from train service?
Or are you failing to count some of the stories? :-) The Victorian-era builders built a *massive* number of 3-story, 4-story and slightly taller buildings. This counts the ‘half-depressed basement’ level and the ‘dormer’ level in many cases, so maybe you were counting these as 2-story? They’re not 2-story.
Some years back while visiting London I spent a while riding to every Tube station I could get to, and I don’t think I saw a single 2-story or 1-story residential building, even in the outlying areas.
Of course this may be *exactly* the “six stories within four blocks of the station” situation, since I didn’t venture beyond the catchment of the trains. :-)
I don’t have the statistics handy – but I’m fairly certain that the “Seattle Area” has seen it’s average density fall, not increase, over the last three or four decades.
That’s not hard to imagine – it’s a combination of the spread of development outward overall, and residential development specifically developing at larger lot sizes than in Seattle proper.
I’m citing information I had maybe ten years ago – it would be interesting to prove it out, and see if over the last decade with increased residential development in Seattle, Bellevue and other established areas this trend reversed.
Does it matter that that section of Arlington is an awful place to be? Its like Bellevue on valium. The shots of the nightlife they show look like Georgetown to me – NOT ARLINGTON, and the shopping centers they show are just big box stores. I don’t know, maybe thats more a reflection of the people who live in that section of No.VA, but that part of the world felt so sterile to me, I could not stand it. If thats the future, f*ck it.
Edog has a point; T.O.D. can wind up painfully sterile.
And I have no pithy suggestions to put here. It’s very hard for new development ever to approximate what makes good old-city-building work. What to do when your city was originally built incorrectly, and it may be too late to rebuild it from scratch?
Well G-man having spent some time in Houston I disagree. Every city I have been in has places that are run down. Seattle has a bunch. Houston is better in the sense that housing is less expensive last time I looked thus money stays in the local community. Besides getting rid of zoning would help Seattle develop more sensibly.
At 4:48… “We have really developed a transportation system, not a ‘commuter rail’ system…”
[Ahem, people who think Link should stop every 3 miles and everything else should remain exactly the same…]
I have some anecdotal experience with Arlington/Alexandria.
Rosslyn station: immediately outside the entrance are skybridges to the surrounding properties. The next building contains an entire Costco built into the second floor (akin to the Northgate North development, which stacks several big-box stores on top of each other). One bridge goes to the Marriott hotels (plural), one of the main destinations in the area. There’s also a path to the Key Bridge across the Potomac.
Pentagon City station: a full-sized shopping mall is adjacent to the station. There’s a waiting area for pick-ups and shuttle vans. Shuttle vans go from the remote hotels to the Metro and shopping centers.
Huntington station (south end of yellow line): the area looks disappointing to me: wide streets, chain stores, suburban houses. Yes, a lot of northern Virginia looks “sterile” like Edog says. But at least the Metro runs full-time and people use it.
My friend lives in rented home half a block away from that LINK station with several other people.
There are nice, fairly large, family houses that radiate out from that area.
It would be a great tragedy here, and in many other Puget Sound area neighborhoods, if the result of LINK was to destroy them and replace them with ungodly concrete slab blocks.
Yes, John. It would be a great tragedy if we spent billions of dollars on a subway system and the stations didn’t remain in walking distance of a maximum few dozen households.
Say 100 houses are within walking distance of a Link station; that gives the station a “market” of around 200 people. Say those same houses are replaced by townhouses and 4-story condos/apartments. Now suddenly there are 10,000 people within walking distance of the station. Bad for the original 200 people. But what about the other 9,800 people who want to live near a rapid-transit station but otherwise couldn’t?
A lot of people want to live near a good transit line but can’t because only a few lucky houses are near the stop, and the multifamily housing that does exist near stations is often at premium prices ($1000+/month or $250K+). There has been a huge backlog built up of people who want to live in walkable neighborhoods near good transit, but the housing has mostly been built the other way, so we need a lot more TOD to bring it back into balance.