12 ms·

i disagree with the general sentiment: "build more dense housing". Yeah, what we need is more condos with 1k HOA fees for housing affordability... We need mor

i disagree with the general sentiment: "build more dense housing". Yeah, what we need is more condos with 1k HOA fees for housing affordability... We need more single family housing. There is plenty of space, just that all the commercial buildings are so squat. Furthermore, the lack of subways means half the city is paved roads

nostrebored 7y ago
I've downvoted this because it contains no sort of reasoning. It's essentially "I feel". Obviously a restricted supply of housing with reasonable commute times via public transit affects the middle class in Seattle. There's a supply/demand problem created by people fighting for zoning regulations in areas like Queen Anne that are actively hostile to anyone who doesn't live there already. Wanting to live in single family housing near the city and enforcing it legally is exactly why public transit projects like subways become impossible. You need to have critical pockets of density before it becomes a sensible investment.
- autokad 7y ago
  yes, that's very useful for discussions. down vote people for saying what they feel. this isn't a research paper. > "Wanting to live in single family housing near the city and enforcing it legally is exactly why public transit projects like subways become impossible. You need to have critical pockets of density before it becomes a sensible investment." Also, Philadelphia has a ton of single family homes, and one of the best subways in the country. You are just simply wrong.
  - nostrebored 7y ago
    The thing is that your feelings are completely unmoored from reality add contribute nothing to the conversation. If you backed any of your statements up with some sort of thought it might be useful, but there's just nothing. Going off of this comment it might be a trend. If you'd like to discuss any of the actual arguments I'd be happy to. I had a lot of time to reflect on it while I lived in a 2br house with a garden a mile from 4th and pike! Edit to address your edit: Philly is an aberration. Obviously when presenting why to build a subway you have to present data to make your case. When an entire block has the housing density of a single apartment is a harder case.
    - autokad 7y ago
      I don't feel you are wrong, you just are. I already cited a city with twice the population of Seattle that has ample amounts of single family use and a great subway system.
      - darksaints 7y ago
        Philadelphia is nearly twice as dense as Seattle, and the subway only serves the densest parts of Philadelphia, and it was built when the city was much denser than it is today. Philadelphia's single family zoning is effectively as dense as Seattle's LR3 zoning: 38 ft height limits, no front setbacks, no parking requirements, and townhouse widths. Your assertion isnt just wrong, it is wackadoodle territory.
- btmiller 7y ago
  I'm a SFH owner in Capitol Hill, and I have 3-4 bus routes options that get me to downtown in ~30 minutes. Subways are cool(!), but not always necessary. I think there's a balance to be had with high density versus SFH neighborhoods. One example I think is worth considering, do we want to be knocking down turn-of-the-century craftsman and tudor homes? They can bring a ton of character to a neighborhood. In cases where that happens, the 3-story cookie cutter townhomnes or cheap construction material apartments take their place and look outdated in less than a decade.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    Cap Hill is 30 minutes walk from downtown.
    - btmiller 7y ago
      Situational depending from where on the hill.
  - rootsudo 7y ago
    As someone that lives in Cap Hill: Yes. Houses aren't works of art. They are meant to house people. The city isn't the same a decade ago, or a century ago or when Capital Hill was called Renton Hill. It is depressing that only new construction/condo to purchase in Capital hill costs 450k+ (e.g. 750 on the hill as an example.) because SFH are 750k+. IF they go for sale, and then there's a race of people who actively overpay for a property. Also, I can walk to downtown in <30 mins, taking a bus is a pain, and the Link station is kinda convenient but not so convient (e.g. nothing near Volunteer Park because everything there is $1,000,000+) Just because it's old doesn't mean it's good and whomever owns the property should feel fit to change it from SFH to MFH and the city should encourage MFH developments otherwise you have small houses on oversized lots and a poor use of space. Give people that want to sell and people that want to buy the ability to rezone and allow construction - and density will solve itself. Otherwise you're going to have people in decades old apartment buildings fight to fill it in, while the owner has no real incentive to upkeep property because they believe it's valuable and know it's a rotating door.
all_blue_chucks 7y ago
All housing construction helps affordability. That person who moves into a luxury condo leaves a vacancy elsewhere in the market.
- ch4s3 7y ago
  Well, that's sort of true. I'm about as pro-building as they come, but it's important to keep in mind that housing is a segmented market and that due to preference and affordability, people are only engaging on the demand side across a few segments. A glut of housing at the highest price tier will indeed allow people in the next tier to upgrade, but in the short run the affordability only ends up trickling down a few tiers. However, as housing ages it will filter down to lower segments if there is newer supply. So it's probably correct to say "All housing construction eventually helps affordability."
  - all_blue_chucks 7y ago
    If there aren't enough new luxury units to meet demand people will upgrade existing units to luxury status, thereby SHRINKING the supply of affordable housing. For this reason, building luxury homes is essential for housing the homeless.
  - Noos 7y ago
    I'm not sure. I only think this works if the local economy declines, to where enough people don't want the houses any more and the price naturally reduces. I can fully see Seattle simply charging the same or more rents as housing is added if the economy keeps growing.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  NYC and Detroit disagree with you. Housing may increase quality of life or income or total wealth, but it doesn't help affordability if it makes the city more attractive to families and immigrants. Cities have nonlinear dynamics. It's funny how people who believe that more housing causes more affordability also tend to believe that building more roads doesn't clear congestion.

nostrebored 7y ago

I've downvoted this because it contains no sort of reasoning. It's essentially "I feel". Obviously a restricted supply of housing with reasonable commute times via public transit affects the middle class in Seattle. There's a supply/demand problem created by people fighting for zoning regulations in areas like Queen Anne that are actively hostile to anyone who doesn't live there already. Wanting to live in single family housing near the city and enforcing it legally is exactly why public transit projects like subways become impossible. You need to have critical pockets of density before it becomes a sensible investment.

autokad 7y ago
yes, that's very useful for discussions. down vote people for saying what they feel. this isn't a research paper. > "Wanting to live in single family housing near the city and enforcing it legally is exactly why public transit projects like subways become impossible. You need to have critical pockets of density before it becomes a sensible investment." Also, Philadelphia has a ton of single family homes, and one of the best subways in the country. You are just simply wrong.
- nostrebored 7y ago
  The thing is that your feelings are completely unmoored from reality add contribute nothing to the conversation. If you backed any of your statements up with some sort of thought it might be useful, but there's just nothing. Going off of this comment it might be a trend. If you'd like to discuss any of the actual arguments I'd be happy to. I had a lot of time to reflect on it while I lived in a 2br house with a garden a mile from 4th and pike! Edit to address your edit: Philly is an aberration. Obviously when presenting why to build a subway you have to present data to make your case. When an entire block has the housing density of a single apartment is a harder case.
  - autokad 7y ago
    I don't feel you are wrong, you just are. I already cited a city with twice the population of Seattle that has ample amounts of single family use and a great subway system.
    - darksaints 7y ago
      Philadelphia is nearly twice as dense as Seattle, and the subway only serves the densest parts of Philadelphia, and it was built when the city was much denser than it is today. Philadelphia's single family zoning is effectively as dense as Seattle's LR3 zoning: 38 ft height limits, no front setbacks, no parking requirements, and townhouse widths. Your assertion isnt just wrong, it is wackadoodle territory.
btmiller 7y ago
I'm a SFH owner in Capitol Hill, and I have 3-4 bus routes options that get me to downtown in ~30 minutes. Subways are cool(!), but not always necessary. I think there's a balance to be had with high density versus SFH neighborhoods. One example I think is worth considering, do we want to be knocking down turn-of-the-century craftsman and tudor homes? They can bring a ton of character to a neighborhood. In cases where that happens, the 3-story cookie cutter townhomnes or cheap construction material apartments take their place and look outdated in less than a decade.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  Cap Hill is 30 minutes walk from downtown.
  - btmiller 7y ago
    Situational depending from where on the hill.
- rootsudo 7y ago
  As someone that lives in Cap Hill: Yes. Houses aren't works of art. They are meant to house people. The city isn't the same a decade ago, or a century ago or when Capital Hill was called Renton Hill. It is depressing that only new construction/condo to purchase in Capital hill costs 450k+ (e.g. 750 on the hill as an example.) because SFH are 750k+. IF they go for sale, and then there's a race of people who actively overpay for a property. Also, I can walk to downtown in <30 mins, taking a bus is a pain, and the Link station is kinda convenient but not so convient (e.g. nothing near Volunteer Park because everything there is $1,000,000+) Just because it's old doesn't mean it's good and whomever owns the property should feel fit to change it from SFH to MFH and the city should encourage MFH developments otherwise you have small houses on oversized lots and a poor use of space. Give people that want to sell and people that want to buy the ability to rezone and allow construction - and density will solve itself. Otherwise you're going to have people in decades old apartment buildings fight to fill it in, while the owner has no real incentive to upkeep property because they believe it's valuable and know it's a rotating door.

all_blue_chucks 7y ago

All housing construction helps affordability. That person who moves into a luxury condo leaves a vacancy elsewhere in the market.

ch4s3 7y ago
Well, that's sort of true. I'm about as pro-building as they come, but it's important to keep in mind that housing is a segmented market and that due to preference and affordability, people are only engaging on the demand side across a few segments. A glut of housing at the highest price tier will indeed allow people in the next tier to upgrade, but in the short run the affordability only ends up trickling down a few tiers. However, as housing ages it will filter down to lower segments if there is newer supply. So it's probably correct to say "All housing construction eventually helps affordability."
- all_blue_chucks 7y ago
  If there aren't enough new luxury units to meet demand people will upgrade existing units to luxury status, thereby SHRINKING the supply of affordable housing. For this reason, building luxury homes is essential for housing the homeless.
- Noos 7y ago
  I'm not sure. I only think this works if the local economy declines, to where enough people don't want the houses any more and the price naturally reduces. I can fully see Seattle simply charging the same or more rents as housing is added if the economy keeps growing.
lonelappde 7y ago
NYC and Detroit disagree with you. Housing may increase quality of life or income or total wealth, but it doesn't help affordability if it makes the city more attractive to families and immigrants. Cities have nonlinear dynamics. It's funny how people who believe that more housing causes more affordability also tend to believe that building more roads doesn't clear congestion.