How much is enough?

Upon reflection it seems important to elaborate on my last post on Beacon Hill. First of all, my post was mainly about the proposed 30-unit development on the currently vacant station block. I think the proposal is fine, although I worry that it locks up a key piece of property with less intense development than might be possible if the whole block were developed at the same time. What drew the most comments, however, was the question of whether Beacon Hill, as a neighborhood, supports density. It sounds familiar, especially when we remember the ongoing debate about Roosevelt.

In general my rule of thumb with these things is to “never complain and never explain.” But when I wrote about the “vigorous opposition” in the neighborhood to upzones, I was speaking about the balance of some 16 years since neighborhood planning began there. And while there have been many positive statements on the record by neighborhood planners there has been opposition. One effort was made to appeal the revisions to the neighborhood plan by one group of neighbors. Knowing Beacon Hill as I do, I would guess that those neighbors weren’t completely alone in their views.

That fact is that there has not been, on balance, huge consensus around or for increased density around Beacon Hill’s transit station. That’s why more than two years after the opening of light rail, and 12 years after the completion of neighborhood planning there is still a vacant lot around the transit station and a parking lot across the street at the Red Apple. While I appreciate language like this in the neighborhood’s latest proposal for changes in land use, it isn’t a stretch to have a “believe it when I see it” attitude:

Participants also recognized that the existing town center is generally underdeveloped under current zoning and does not reflect the desired future character of a more vibrant and diverse mix of shops, restaurants and housing.

More after the jump.

The attitude has changed about density compared to what it was when I was a neighborhood planner there in the 90s. The term “underdeveloped” and “Beacon Hill” would never have been uttered in a consensus document 12 years ago. But the same paragraph acknowledges what I have also said about the rezones.

The close proximity of single family and low- density multifamily areas means that there are limited opportunities for higher density development in the station area. Below are the most key goals, policies and strategies relevant to the rezone proposal.

That limit is a self imposed one. And in spite of the change in the valance of neighborhood opinion, suggesting that adjacent single-family homes limits opportunity only makes my point that very often those adjacent areas are essentially off limits, which limits density. Not only that, the proposal makes allowances to “buffer” those areas by creating transition zones between them and mixed-use commercial development. It calls for

A Town Center urban form that transitions from denser development at the Town Center core to less dense and single-family residential neighborhoods in a manner that is responsive to the context and character of the North Beacon Hill neighborhood.

The proposal itself admits that it “provides for a modest increase in new, slightly more intensive neighborhood commercial and multifamily structures.” That’s the proposals language: modest and slightly more intensive. These are not big changes, and as in Roosevelt, some of the neighborhood planners have been offended by the idea that they don’t support density. I think the defensiveness is understandable, especially when reaching consensus on these things isn’t easy. But I think we have more work to do when that consensus is limited by a conceptual framework that sees density, which is essentially more people, as something that has to be mitigated (“taken” in the words of Roosevelt), rather than embraced with a big hug.

Beacon Hill seems much more progressive on land use than it was. The plan even upzones one area of single-family to L3, an idea I would expand to lots more single-family around the station. I actually think the plan is a big improvement, but it could go much further. From the outside looking in, I still don’t think it’s enough. The changes are incremental and not bold.

I understand that the neighborhood worked hard on this and that it does represent a willingness to increase height on some parcels around the station. Those things are true and I respect the work that neighbors did. But just like the work done in Roosevelt, hard work doesn’t mean that a plan or proposal shouldn’t get a grade less than A. Contrary to what one commenter suggested, this plan hasn’t been approved yet. There is still a chance to do more and the planners, and others of us outside the neighborhood, ought to roll up our sleeves and push for even more density in a wider circle around the station. That would be more hard work, but it would also be a tremendous act of leadership that would show other neighborhoods how to make density around transit work.

41 Replies to “Beacon Hill Can Still Lead the Way on Density Around Transit”

  1. But just like the work done in Roosevelt, hard work doesn’t mean that a plan or proposal shouldn’t get a grade less than A. Contrary to what one commenter suggested, this plan hasn’t been approved yet. There is still a chance to do more and the planners, and others of us outside the neighborhood, ought to roll up our sleeves and push for even more density in a wider circle around the station.

    The key phrase is “the plannrs, and others of us outside the neighborhood.” Isn’t it interesting how Seattle’s liberals make such a big deal about neighborhood autonomy until a neighborhood wants something they they think isn’t “progressive” enough?

    That’s when you find out what the liberals here are really all about, which is telling other people how they ought to live. It’s so thrilling to do that! There’s no satisfaction greater than reforming the other guy‘s sins, whether it’s smoking cigarettes, driving a car, or living on a quiet street lined with houses and yards.

    Maybe this just might have something to do with the current, and growing, resistance to Michael McGinn and his earnest allies. It just might be that people in Seattle don’t want people telling them what to do. Imagine the idea! Terrible, just terrible.

    1. “telling other people how they ought to live” I don’t think you understand. This is our city too. Those that live in a neighborhood right now have the loudest voice about the future of that neighborhood. That’s probably fine. But the future residents to density should have a say too. And the rest of us in the city that are paying for a multi-billion dollar investment in your neighborhood – we should have a say as well.

      I don’t remember ever making a big deal about neighborhood autonomy – are you sure those “Seattle liberals” you’re picking on aren’t a straw man you’ve created?

      Light rail is a regional investment in a very small set of locations. Putting the fate of this investment in the hands of those that perfer only single family homes as their neighbors would be crazy.

      Don’t want your home to become a condo? Don’t sell it to someone that will make it a condo. No matter what happens with zoning, nobody is going to touch your house. But keep in mind it’s you that’s “telling other people how they ought to live”.

      1. When I see, for example, the bicyclists and McGinn wanting to contravene 50 years worth of state law and settled traffic engineering practice abd let the city cut speed limits without doing an engineering study, the various liberals typically cite neighborhood autonomy. They’ll say that neighborhoods out to be able cut speed limits if they want to.

        But let the neighborhoods turn around and tell you that they don’t want the “density” that you do, and then you’ll scour the thesaurus in search of insults to hurl at them. NIMBY, too old, too rich, maybe even racists. The hypocrisy and self-righteousness is stunning, even for Seattle, where these things are coin of the realm.

      3. Light rail is a regional investment in a very small set of locations. Putting the fate of this investment in the hands of those that perfer only single family homes as their neighbors would be crazy.

        It’s not an “investment” at all. It’s an amenity, much like a big flat-screen TV or a piece of bling-style jewelry. It is an aspirational purchase by Seattle’s liberals, who yearn to be considered “world class” by the East Coast.

    2. I think the point has been made on this blog and elsewhere that current residents of a neighborhood are not the only ones with a stake in it. Some people that don’t live in a neighborhood shop, dine, or recreate there. Some people travel through it. Some people work there. Some people would like to live there, but are currently priced out – perhaps due to artificial constraints on housing supply. Some people may be opposed to growth and are tired of all the growth going to their own neighborhood because other neighborhoods are better able to block development (similarly they may also be tired of seeing the farms, forests, and rivers they visit and recreate in getting ruined because rabbits and fish don’t attend public meetings to block development).

      I guess my point is that just like neighborhood planning shouldn’t be fully imposed from the outside, it also can’t exist in a vacuum where only property owners within a certain boundary have a voice.

      1. I guess my point is that [zoning] just like neighborhood planning shouldn’t be fully imposed from the outside, it also can’t exist in a vacuum

        I fully agree.

        may also be tired of seeing the farms, forests, and rivers they visit and recreate in getting ruined because rabbits and fish don’t attend public meetings to block development

        So fight the density advocates (i.e. developers) that want to turn 5+ acre minimums into things like Redmond Ridge, the Issaquah Plateau and Snoqualmie Ridge. Say “stuff it” to the Futurewiseguys that sued Bellevue because they thought putting 4X as many suburban style houses in Bridle Trails was better land use.

        The arguement for increased density around Link Stations always falls back on “we invested in this billion dollar baby” so now we need to make it pay off. Continuing to make bad decisions to support previous bad decisions on routing and station placement is like doubling down in Vegas. It’s a 100 year project, right? It’ll sort itself out in a century (give or take). Right now there are several craters in downtown and buildings like the Smith Tower, PAC-MED and Columbia Center that are in a world of hurt. How does allowing cheaper alternative development on Beacon Hill and the Rainer Valley really promote density? It’s the polar opposite; a ruse.

      2. What does downtown office vacancy have to do with increasing housing and mixed-use development around neighborhood Link stations?

    3. If we keep giving you a voice in neighborhood development, you choose that old growth forest should be cut down in Sammamish, and that roads should be clogged, and that CO2 emissions should be through the roof – because of your view.

      Because you don’t have to bear the brunt of the negative impacts you cause, you don’t weigh them correctly in your assessment.

      You shouldn’t have a voice in how high a developer wants to build on their property next door to you.

      1. You shouldn’t have a voice in how high a developer wants to build on their property next door to you.

        That’s interesting. So no zoning. Try selling that one here. “Seattle as Houston.” Great slogan, wouldn’t you agree? I must say that I didn’t know until now that the transit types are one in the same with the real estate sharpshooters. Good to learn new things.

      3. Really? No voice?

        Why then isn’t the opposite true as well – you should not have a voice in changing existing rules to alter how high a developer can build.

        Zoning is regulation that we impose on ourselves – it is, at the end of the day optional. What keeps it in place is that the rules have buy in from the folks that they’re imposed on. We have political processes to do that. Some times it’s slow, sometimes subject to compromise, sometimes change happens incrementally.

        Good.

        We’re messing with huge private investments, huge public investments, and things like buildings that tend to last a long time. Speed is not necessarily a good thing at all when land use rules are being changed.

      4. Yup, no voice. That’s the word from Seattle’s liberals. No voice. So much for their belief in neighborhoods, huh?!

      5. It’d be good for the city, region, state and nation if Seattle was a little bit more like Houston in one sense. We WANT Houston like population GROWTH, just not the growth PATTERN. Loosening overly restrictive zoning in the city would go a long way to getting there.

    4. That’s when you find out what the liberals here are really all about, which is telling other people how they ought to live.

      An upzone is, almost by definition, a lessening of restrictions on the property owners. If you don’t think the area should be upzoned, then what you’re actually saying is that you want to tell your neighbors how to live, and are upset that they’ll have the freedom to do something other than what you want.

    5. “It just might be that people in Seattle don’t want people telling them what to do.”

      You are quite correct. However you are on the wrong side here. It is those people who want to limit development that are using the government to force their views of their neighborhood on the property owner.

  2. On the question of rezoning single family areas, few people would be willing to say, “redevelop my home”, so it should be no surprise that few people who live in single family homes would call for the zoning on their own block to change. How do you go about convincing them, or the City, that the time has come?

    One way is for someone to purchase the property and let it go into disrepair, as a particular grocery store chain has done around a couple of its northend stores. Eventually the neighbors get on board after they get tired of the rats.

    Short of that, you can try to convince people using your visionary charm that everyone would be better off if they moved out and let some other people move in. It’s just a tough sell.

    1. You’re missing the obvious benefits.

      1. An upzone comes with an increase in property value. If you ever do want to move, you’ll get more for your house.
      2. An upzone allows for more nearby retail. There are far fewer fun places to be built in low-density areas than high-density areas.
      3. An upzone increases the odds of getting good transit. Check out today’s post for the 2012 bus routes. You’ll notice the large holes are in the low-density areas. It makes more sense to put the buses (/streetcars/gondolas/light rail/heavy rail) where the people are.
      4. An upzone decreases your odds of having to walk far. You’ll be more likely to have a school nearby (they put those where the people are), libraries (ditto), retail, and even jobs.

      There are more, but I’ll stop there. Density is the best thing that can happen to a neighborhood.

      2. [lmbotmb] Here’s a little constructive criticism: try to articulate more in your comments. You often come off as a bored high school student trying to avoid homework.

      3. Here’s a constructive criticism, Matt: Try to see it from someone else’s point of view. You often come across as a self-satisfied, middle-aged liberal who loves the sound of his own voice.

      4. 1. An upzone comes with an increase in property value property tax.

        2. An upzone allows for more nearby retail cut through traffic.

        3. An upzone increases the odds of getting good transit higher car tabs.

        4. An upzone decreases your odds of having wanting to walk/jog/enjoy your yard.

      5. Bernie, as has been explained multiple times on this board your 1st point doesn’t really apply to Washington State. Property tax here has a set growth limit. Your percentage of that will only change if you grow faster than those around you, which if you are in an upzoned area and you don’t develop but others do can mean that your taxes can actually go down (although only by a small amount, just like they can only go up by a very small amount) as your value decreases compared to those around you.

        As to your 2nd, lobby for a Road Diet. :D

        3 and 4 are just non-sensical.

      6. There is a limit on how much the percentage of assessed value can go up. There is no limit on how much they can bump your assessment. Our assessed value increased by more than 13% between 2009 and 2010 even though there were no changes to the property and real home values have dropped by 20% (and still nothing is selling). The real stinger is that the county routinely assesses commercial property at about 1/10 of it’s real value but single family homes are close to market value. That is until you get over a million dollars and then the assessed value starts to drop so that a $4 million dollar home is assessed at $2 million. Browse through the records with King County Parcel Viewer and compare sale values with tax assessments.

      7. Bernie,

        From the WA Department of Revenue:

        Q. What is the 1 percent limit on increases in property taxes?

        It limits increases in taxes by individual taxing districts to 1 percent annually. For example, if a city received $1 million in property taxes one year, it can only receive $1.01 million the next year, plus any tax revenues generated by new construction added to the tax rolls in the past year.

        The limit is on how much additional tax revenue can be raised. If the total assessed value of property in a district grows by more than 1%, then the tax rate (as a percentage of assessed value) is required to go down. If the tax rate is raised by more than 1%, then the total assessed value in the district has to go down.

        It’s certainly possible for a district to change the relative assessments. But WA state law *requires* that the total tax collected grows by no more than 1%. So if your tax went up by a lot, then someone else’s went down.

      8. By new construction they mean development and the revenue growth is decided by whatever the County Assessor’s Office says it is. This number is in reality what the County needs wants in revenue. Then they divide up the pie and decide how much to charge everyone. From 2009 to 2011 my rate went up from $6.80/1,000 to $8.71/1,000. The actual increase after “growth” was just shy of $1,000 for the year or +20%. Good thing I wasn’t the beneficiary of an upzone!

        if your tax went up by a lot, then someone else’s went down.

        Well, not to pick on any one land speculator in particular but I pulled up the Columbia Tower. From 2009 to 2011 Beacon Capital Partners tax contribution to the County has dropped by over $1.2 million per year; that’s a 30% decrease. I guess if your a developer the government says, “don’t worry we’ll give you a break.” If you an ordinary citizen the story is, “Sorry, them’s the breaks.”

  5. People buy in a single family zones because that is the life style they want. Other people buy or rent in a more dense zone because that is what they want. All of the bad press sprawl might get and all of the good press density might get is not going to change each of our preferences on how and with whom we want to live. Single family has a place in cities, and it’s better for single family to be here (in-city) than on the Sammamish plateau. Redmond Ridge or a 1000 others. We like our single family trees and we like our single family gardens and we are what make Seattle a desirable city. Walking to the library is not the be-all, end-all of urbanity.

    1. Not everyone who lives in a house prefers living in a house. I’ve been forced to live in rental houses from time to time even though I far prefer living in an apartment.

      Let me put it another way: People aren’t choosing to live in mid-rise apartments next to Beacon Hill Station because the apartments don’t exist. I would move there in a heartbeat if the opportunity arose.

      Neighborhood planning processes are not a market force.

    2. You can walk to the library or grocery and have a single family home. Just make the houses and lots smaller. You can have a surprising amount of density with single family homes.

      We live in a single family home. It is not the life style we want anymore. We don’t have the time or money to maintain yards and gardens. Moving is not an option due to the financial state we’re in but once we get through it, this house is going to be sold.

    3. Sorry, but the “progressives” of the Seattle Transit Blog have decided that your single-family house is the enemy of everything that’s Good and Right. You’d better start dreaming of an apartment on a “lively” street near one of the mayor’s all-night bars. That’s what you’re supposed to want, so get with the program!

      1. Could you please provide a link to the STB post that calls for the wholesale redevelopment of all single-family homes in Seattle? I must have missed it. Thanks.

    4. “People buy in a single family zones because that is the life style they want. Other people buy or rent in a more dense zone because that is what they want.”

      And God created them as either single family zones or dense zones at the same time he created man to walk on the earth hand in hand with the dinosaurs and unicorns. To make a single family zone into a dense zone is to sin and blaspheme against God. Or so it seems some people believe.

  6. “I think the proposal is fine, although I worry that it locks up a key piece of property with less intense development than might be possible if the whole block were developed at the same time.”

    Well I’m glad the whole block isn’t being developed at the same time. It is much more interesting when there are different buildings next to each other on a block, with different architecture/age/function, rather than one huge monolith (e.g. the recent block-long developments on Broadway). Breaking a block up into multiple parcels is more conducive to a variety of uses, and also increases competition in the rental market – which is good for renters and small businesses looking for retail space.

    1. “It is much more interesting when there are different buildings next to each other on a block, with different architecture/age/function, rather than one huge monolith” — that was one of the comments made at the design review meeting tonight, that we are actually better off this way in the long run since the site isn’t getting developed as one big project.

  7. Pingback: Beacon Hill Starts to Lead on Density Around Transit - Seattle Transit Blog

  8. I don’t see any single family homes at risk of re-development in the above picture. In fact, most of the lots considered for up-zoning in the various station area plans are not single-family lots, so why does the argument always seem to center around a perceived threat to single-family housing? And with or without light rail, single-family homes have been being redeveloped for decades, just look at Capitol Hill, most of which was originally largely single-family. This is normal for any growing city.

  9. I live in a single family home on Beacon Hill and I would love to see the area around the rail station start growing. bring it!

Comments are closed.