5 ms·

I suspect there are many people in Seattle who recognize the need for more housing and more affordable housing, given the number of neighborhoods that are tippi

I suspect there are many people in Seattle who recognize the need for more housing and more affordable housing, given the number of neighborhoods that are tipping over the million dollar mark. That said, where I get flustered is the number of new housing units with inadequate parking or where perfectly good houses are being torn down. Case in point: corner of Market and Phinney. Cute, well-maintained craftsman with a land-use sign in front of it indicating it will be torn down and replaced with a multi-plex unit with only two parking spots. It's likely already an $800K house in that neighborhood, but due to pure greed will become a 5x $800K property for someone. And therein lies an unfortunate twist on the Seattle market: at the moment, supply and demand are not in balance, so even as supply increases, housing still isn't affordable for many. I have no problem with creating greater density. I have no problem with incentivizing public transportation. But, when you tear down perfectly charming houses in already very crowded neighborhoods, it's just annoying on so many levels.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
How do you reconcile being "flustered" that housing density is being increased, and at the same time acknowledging the need for much more housing? And you claim have no problem with greater density and incentivizing public transportation, but still want to use up valuable space for parking?
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  Because I'd rather that density increase by replacing dilapidated buildings or ones that are actually in need of improvement rather than perfectly good ones. I don't know how to actually enforce that in any way, but it's a nuance that is one reason why it sticks in people's craw to see new housing units built. Regarding parking - the problem is, you put up a new space, but only provide parking for maybe 10% of the occupancy (which matches my casual observation of numerous land-use billboards). Ok - the problem is, there isn't enough public transportation for the other 90% of people. So we're creating a problem where we still have way too many cars, people, etc, we're just kicking the problem off into the distance. Or maybe said another way -- it's a perverse incentive, because it lets the land developer off the hook while creating greater strain on streets, parking, IE: it's adding density but not actually planning ahead to accommodate that density.
  - danans 8y ago
    > Because I'd rather that density increase by replacing dilapidated buildings or ones that are actually in need of improvement. People looking for housing in dense cities value location and access. Sometimes that means a house gets replaced. Dilapidated buildings are replaced with housing all the time, but only when the land they occupy is desirable for housing due to its desirable location. Just think of all the old centrally located decaying warehouses converted into condos in your city of choice. The alternative, building in areas people don't want to live, isn't going to happen soon. It was tried, most recently in the years before 2008.
  - losteric 8y ago
    Do you want to live in LA? Because that's how you get LA traffic. People own cars for convenience. If they have to pay $$$ for garage parking or deal with limited street parking, many of those people will stop owning a car. Sure, then public transportation sucks... but that's also good! When enough people depend on an inconvenient publicly funded service, that service magically improves after a couple election cycles. Then more people use it, creating support for further improvements, etc. But that's not all! More people on the sidewalks creates opportunities for small businesses to bring services closer to where people live (reducing demand without diminishing support for public transportation). Those businesses tend to pay workers better, which enables some to move into the city instead of driving from cheaper areas. The end result, a decade or two down the line, is a vibrant urban community. A region where the idea of even 10% parking spaces is absurd because friends and family, work and pleasure, everything can be accessed with some walking and public transportation... - Our car culture is a social addiction. Cars seem convenient in an environment shaped around cars... but if we step back and question the environment, the alternatives are much more attractive.
danans 8y ago
> but due to pure greed will become a 5x $800K property for someone. When you put 5 units where there was 1, the value generally doesn't multiply like that. The individual units aren't worth the same as the single original, assuming the same time frame, comparable features and condition. And going from 1 to 5 units seems like a pretty incremental change - it's not like a house being converted to a high-rise building. > But, when you tear down perfectly charming houses Given that the project fits local zoning laws, I don't see what the relevance of the existing house's "charm" is. Unless the house is of local historical or cultural importance - which planning commissions consider - it's nobody's right to prevent its replacement on the basis of such a perception. If opinions on the charm are important, one should advocate their planning commission to establish aesthetic guidelines.
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  >When you put 5 units where there was 1, the value generally doesn't multiply like that But it does in Seattle. Have you looked at any of those new units they've put in through Phinney ridge and Ballard? That's exactly how it works - tear out one, put up X, and sell at a multiple of what the original would have gained.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - losteric 8y ago
    I have seen $K single-family homes get replaced by $K condos in SF, but only because the original home was uninhabitable (ie property value discounted to offset demolition/construction) while the new condos were legitimately luxurious...

lotsofpulp 8y ago

How do you reconcile being "flustered" that housing density is being increased, and at the same time acknowledging the need for much more housing? And you claim have no problem with greater density and incentivizing public transportation, but still want to use up valuable space for parking?

poulsbohemian 8y ago
Because I'd rather that density increase by replacing dilapidated buildings or ones that are actually in need of improvement rather than perfectly good ones. I don't know how to actually enforce that in any way, but it's a nuance that is one reason why it sticks in people's craw to see new housing units built. Regarding parking - the problem is, you put up a new space, but only provide parking for maybe 10% of the occupancy (which matches my casual observation of numerous land-use billboards). Ok - the problem is, there isn't enough public transportation for the other 90% of people. So we're creating a problem where we still have way too many cars, people, etc, we're just kicking the problem off into the distance. Or maybe said another way -- it's a perverse incentive, because it lets the land developer off the hook while creating greater strain on streets, parking, IE: it's adding density but not actually planning ahead to accommodate that density.
- danans 8y ago
  > Because I'd rather that density increase by replacing dilapidated buildings or ones that are actually in need of improvement. People looking for housing in dense cities value location and access. Sometimes that means a house gets replaced. Dilapidated buildings are replaced with housing all the time, but only when the land they occupy is desirable for housing due to its desirable location. Just think of all the old centrally located decaying warehouses converted into condos in your city of choice. The alternative, building in areas people don't want to live, isn't going to happen soon. It was tried, most recently in the years before 2008.
- losteric 8y ago
  Do you want to live in LA? Because that's how you get LA traffic. People own cars for convenience. If they have to pay $$$ for garage parking or deal with limited street parking, many of those people will stop owning a car. Sure, then public transportation sucks... but that's also good! When enough people depend on an inconvenient publicly funded service, that service magically improves after a couple election cycles. Then more people use it, creating support for further improvements, etc. But that's not all! More people on the sidewalks creates opportunities for small businesses to bring services closer to where people live (reducing demand without diminishing support for public transportation). Those businesses tend to pay workers better, which enables some to move into the city instead of driving from cheaper areas. The end result, a decade or two down the line, is a vibrant urban community. A region where the idea of even 10% parking spaces is absurd because friends and family, work and pleasure, everything can be accessed with some walking and public transportation... - Our car culture is a social addiction. Cars seem convenient in an environment shaped around cars... but if we step back and question the environment, the alternatives are much more attractive.

danans 8y ago

> but due to pure greed will become a 5x $800K property for someone. When you put 5 units where there was 1, the value generally doesn't multiply like that. The individual units aren't worth the same as the single original, assuming the same time frame, comparable features and condition. And going from 1 to 5 units seems like a pretty incremental change - it's not like a house being converted to a high-rise building. > But, when you tear down perfectly charming houses Given that the project fits local zoning laws, I don't see what the relevance of the existing house's "charm" is. Unless the house is of local historical or cultural importance - which planning commissions consider - it's nobody's right to prevent its replacement on the basis of such a perception. If opinions on the charm are important, one should advocate their planning commission to establish aesthetic guidelines.

poulsbohemian 8y ago
>When you put 5 units where there was 1, the value generally doesn't multiply like that But it does in Seattle. Have you looked at any of those new units they've put in through Phinney ridge and Ballard? That's exactly how it works - tear out one, put up X, and sell at a multiple of what the original would have gained.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- losteric 8y ago
  I have seen $K single-family homes get replaced by $K condos in SF, but only because the original home was uninhabitable (ie property value discounted to offset demolition/construction) while the new condos were legitimately luxurious...