31 ms·

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 thi

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that happens, the 3-story cookie cutter townhomnes or cheap construction material apartments take their place and look outdated in less than a decade.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.
- btmiller 7y ago
  Density is solving itself. If you live on the hill then you must have noticed the incredible explosion of massive apartment buildings and condos going up across the city. Note how it's concentrated in centers of commerce, and that's totally great. It reduces your (burdensome? I guess?) 30 minute walk, makes housing cheaper, and doesn't impede on those with the means to afford a century old work of art; they absolutely can be and to deny so is delusional, go walk east of Volunteer Park and see for yourself. A diverse spectrum of zoning is important, but we also have a diverse free market that doesn't all want high-rise condos and apartments absolutely everywhere. Some people want a beautiful neighborhood, lots of space, privacy, proximity to the city, and have the means to get that, so that's what they will pursue. You should be okay with that because it's part of the same system that allows high-rise condos along the city's arteries. My only point of contention against the apartments/condos themselves is the incredibly cheap materials and trendy designs that will look terrible in a decade's time. Look back on other periods of housing like the 70's Brady Bunch-style ranch houses to see how other trendy houses have aged. > Capital Hill With an "o", not an "a".
  - darksaints 7y ago
    > A diverse spectrum of zoning is important, but we also have a diverse free market that doesn't all want high-rise condos and apartments absolutely everywhere. If you're using zoning to accomplish that, you don't have a free market.
    - btmiller 7y ago
      Having limited SFH zones does not prohibit a person from pursuing any number of housing option that works best for them.
      - darksaints 7y ago
        Actually, yes, it does. That's exactly what it does.
      - nostrebored 7y ago
bobthepanda 7y ago
Capitol Hill also has one of the busiest Link stations in the system. Depending on where you are on the hill it's quite a hike, but to say that Capitol Hill lacks a subway is a half-truth. (A light rail is not a subway, but Link is definitely about as far as you can push light rail in the subway direction.) The main advantage of the Link is the total separation from traffic; even with the bus lanes, the bus on Pike and Pine will get bogged down waiting for poor drivers, pedestrians crossing the street, etc.
- btmiller 7y ago
  Improvements to Link notwithstanding, any of the available bus routes I take typically get me downtown faster. Link will get better over time of course and I'm happy for that, but I haven't seen any traffic crisis on the hill that's severely affecting peoples lives day-to-day: 30 minute commute is not bad.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    It depends where in Capitol Hill where you're trying to get to/from since Capitol Hill is much bigger than the station's walkshed, but definitely during the rush, east-west roads with bus routes are very slow, especially across I-5. I've definitely spent way too much time on the 8 or the 10, but unfortunately the First Hill station was never built due to poor geology. Definitely much worse if some large event is happening (Seattle Center, Convention Center, even some games at the stadiums can screw up Downtown traffic.)
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Link is fast because of the tunnel (which used to be a bus tunnel), not the train. The train is slow.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    The train goes at 55mph through parts of the line (though around Convention Place and the turn onto 3rd is quite slow due to the bus tunnel's old curve radius.) At least between Capitol Hill and Downtown the bus does not get anywhere near those speeds.
ch4s3 7y ago
I'm not sure that you as a homeowner should have the right to dictate what type of housing nearby property owners are allowed to construct solely based upon your proximity. > do we want to be knocking down turn-of-the-century craftsman and tudor homes Yes > They can bring a ton of character to a neighborhood. Who gets to decide what constitutes "character"? Who gets to decide that "character" trumps affordability? Who gets to decide when "character" supersedes property rights? Moreover a lot of these craftsman homes were pretty "cookie cutter" when they were built, and a lot of them were ordered from catalogues. These things change with age as facades are updated, repaired, and replaced. Our cities have been so slavishly devoted to fictionalized imaginings of their own pasts that we are impoverishing real people today.
- btmiller 7y ago
  This is so, so wrong it's delusional. The occupied homes that are left from 100+ years ago are there because they are solid construction. > Who gets to decide what constitutes "character"? Who gets to decide that "character" trumps affordability? Who gets to decide when "character" supersedes property rights? This is so ridiculous. Character does not come at the cost of affordability. And ok, would you still make the same decision to replace an SFH with an affordable condo if the current residents were impoverished? Spoiler: the new condo to take its place won't actually be affordable to the previous occupants. > These things change with age as facades are updated, repaired, and replaced Every aesthetic change I make to my century-old home honors the original character of the house. Most others do the same. > Our cities have been so slavishly devoted to fictionalized imaginings of their own pasts that we are impoverishing real people today. Your entire thoughts are so incredibly delusional that it's borderline offensive. Not fiction, and SFHs is not impeding housing for the impoverished. Downtown, SLU, and Belltown are going through an absolute explosion of housing growth. The city and real estate developers are the ones you should be targeting, they've got the biggest lever to make housing affordable.
  - ch4s3 7y ago
    Single family housing in city centers with zoning that excludes other construction absolutely makes housing less affordable. It constrains supply considerably. Furthermore the age of those houses is irrelevant to any other concern here. I’d argue that is an aesthetic anyway, and shouldn’t be a primary policy goal. As for the condos, sure they don’t house the poor and no one makes that claim. They do pull middle income out of housing that can then be occupied by lower income residents. [1] You still aren’t addressing property rights. Preventing owners from freely exercising their right to build is a taking. Finally, I don’t think your ad hominem argument belongs here. [1] https://furmancenter.org/thestoop/entry/supply-skepticism-housing-supply-and-affordability https://furmancenter.org/thestoop/entry/supply-skepticism-ho...

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.

btmiller 7y ago
Density is solving itself. If you live on the hill then you must have noticed the incredible explosion of massive apartment buildings and condos going up across the city. Note how it's concentrated in centers of commerce, and that's totally great. It reduces your (burdensome? I guess?) 30 minute walk, makes housing cheaper, and doesn't impede on those with the means to afford a century old work of art; they absolutely can be and to deny so is delusional, go walk east of Volunteer Park and see for yourself. A diverse spectrum of zoning is important, but we also have a diverse free market that doesn't all want high-rise condos and apartments absolutely everywhere. Some people want a beautiful neighborhood, lots of space, privacy, proximity to the city, and have the means to get that, so that's what they will pursue. You should be okay with that because it's part of the same system that allows high-rise condos along the city's arteries. My only point of contention against the apartments/condos themselves is the incredibly cheap materials and trendy designs that will look terrible in a decade's time. Look back on other periods of housing like the 70's Brady Bunch-style ranch houses to see how other trendy houses have aged. > Capital Hill With an "o", not an "a".
- darksaints 7y ago
  > A diverse spectrum of zoning is important, but we also have a diverse free market that doesn't all want high-rise condos and apartments absolutely everywhere. If you're using zoning to accomplish that, you don't have a free market.
  - btmiller 7y ago
    Having limited SFH zones does not prohibit a person from pursuing any number of housing option that works best for them.
    - darksaints 7y ago
      Actually, yes, it does. That's exactly what it does.
    - nostrebored 7y ago

bobthepanda 7y ago

Capitol Hill also has one of the busiest Link stations in the system. Depending on where you are on the hill it's quite a hike, but to say that Capitol Hill lacks a subway is a half-truth. (A light rail is not a subway, but Link is definitely about as far as you can push light rail in the subway direction.) The main advantage of the Link is the total separation from traffic; even with the bus lanes, the bus on Pike and Pine will get bogged down waiting for poor drivers, pedestrians crossing the street, etc.

btmiller 7y ago
Improvements to Link notwithstanding, any of the available bus routes I take typically get me downtown faster. Link will get better over time of course and I'm happy for that, but I haven't seen any traffic crisis on the hill that's severely affecting peoples lives day-to-day: 30 minute commute is not bad.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  It depends where in Capitol Hill where you're trying to get to/from since Capitol Hill is much bigger than the station's walkshed, but definitely during the rush, east-west roads with bus routes are very slow, especially across I-5. I've definitely spent way too much time on the 8 or the 10, but unfortunately the First Hill station was never built due to poor geology. Definitely much worse if some large event is happening (Seattle Center, Convention Center, even some games at the stadiums can screw up Downtown traffic.)
lonelappde 7y ago
Link is fast because of the tunnel (which used to be a bus tunnel), not the train. The train is slow.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  The train goes at 55mph through parts of the line (though around Convention Place and the turn onto 3rd is quite slow due to the bus tunnel's old curve radius.) At least between Capitol Hill and Downtown the bus does not get anywhere near those speeds.

ch4s3 7y ago

I'm not sure that you as a homeowner should have the right to dictate what type of housing nearby property owners are allowed to construct solely based upon your proximity. > do we want to be knocking down turn-of-the-century craftsman and tudor homes Yes > They can bring a ton of character to a neighborhood. Who gets to decide what constitutes "character"? Who gets to decide that "character" trumps affordability? Who gets to decide when "character" supersedes property rights? Moreover a lot of these craftsman homes were pretty "cookie cutter" when they were built, and a lot of them were ordered from catalogues. These things change with age as facades are updated, repaired, and replaced. Our cities have been so slavishly devoted to fictionalized imaginings of their own pasts that we are impoverishing real people today.

btmiller 7y ago
This is so, so wrong it's delusional. The occupied homes that are left from 100+ years ago are there because they are solid construction. > Who gets to decide what constitutes "character"? Who gets to decide that "character" trumps affordability? Who gets to decide when "character" supersedes property rights? This is so ridiculous. Character does not come at the cost of affordability. And ok, would you still make the same decision to replace an SFH with an affordable condo if the current residents were impoverished? Spoiler: the new condo to take its place won't actually be affordable to the previous occupants. > These things change with age as facades are updated, repaired, and replaced Every aesthetic change I make to my century-old home honors the original character of the house. Most others do the same. > Our cities have been so slavishly devoted to fictionalized imaginings of their own pasts that we are impoverishing real people today. Your entire thoughts are so incredibly delusional that it's borderline offensive. Not fiction, and SFHs is not impeding housing for the impoverished. Downtown, SLU, and Belltown are going through an absolute explosion of housing growth. The city and real estate developers are the ones you should be targeting, they've got the biggest lever to make housing affordable.
- ch4s3 7y ago
  Single family housing in city centers with zoning that excludes other construction absolutely makes housing less affordable. It constrains supply considerably. Furthermore the age of those houses is irrelevant to any other concern here. I’d argue that is an aesthetic anyway, and shouldn’t be a primary policy goal. As for the condos, sure they don’t house the poor and no one makes that claim. They do pull middle income out of housing that can then be occupied by lower income residents. [1] You still aren’t addressing property rights. Preventing owners from freely exercising their right to build is a taking. Finally, I don’t think your ad hominem argument belongs here. [1] https://furmancenter.org/thestoop/entry/supply-skepticism-housing-supply-and-affordability https://furmancenter.org/thestoop/entry/supply-skepticism-ho...