5 ms·

That's a contradiction in terms, AFAICT. I was excited to find this in the post: > Meanwhile, a bill moving forward in the legislature introduced by Representa

That's a contradiction in terms, AFAICT. I was excited to find this in the post: > Meanwhile, a bill moving forward in the legislature introduced by Representative Amy Walen (D-48, Bellevue) would ban design review for housing projects statewide. I have this bookmarked to contact my reps and senator to join as co-sponsors.[1] [1]: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1026&Year=2023&Initiative=false https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1026&Year=2023...

nerdponx 4y ago
Two new apartment buildings recently went up where I live. Both have roughly the same number of units inside, and the units are of similar size. One is ugly, and the other blends nicely into the neighborhood, even incorporating some green space and planted trees. There's no reason why the ugly one couldn't have been nicer looking, other than that the developers didn't bother to make the place look more like the surrounding buildings, and nobody required them to do otherwise, even though it would have been a trivial extra cost. Dogwhistle for NIMBYs though it may be, something akin to "neighborhood character" is a legitimate thing that residents benefit from (including and perhaps especially lower-income residents who would otherwise be priced out), and its loss is absolutely an externalized cost in terms of qualify of day-to-day life. Green spaces, shade trees, etc. are nontrivial in their importance to residents, and the importance of deliberately preserving or expanding those features actually increases as density increases, because otherwise they will be lost and possibly gone forever. So I don't think it makes sense to be an absolutist about design review. But there do need to be some checks in place to prevent abuse by incumbent property owners. I don't know what those would look like, but I also know that a treeless street walled in with apartment buildings and no local shops or other amenities makes for a sad shitty neighborhood. Housing equity needs to be about the complete lifestyle, not just about making more physical square feet that humans can theoretically inhabit. Otherwise we're just repeating a denser version of the same development mistakes that gave us stroads and suburban sprawl. Of course, "existing condo sues other condos" isn't quite the same thing. The loss of the view is legitimately an externality, but here I think it comes down to a question of whether the current owners are entitled to their view, or if it was always a temporary benefit that would exist only until other condos were built.
- __derek__ 4y ago
  Can you name a functioning example of design review, though? My experience with them is specific to Seattle, and the program absolutely does not work as your comment hopes.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    If anything, buildings in Seattle are uglier than their counterparts elsewhere.
    - karakot 4y ago
      Nah, it's all the same https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/20/realestate/housing-developments-city-architecture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/20/realestate/housing-develo...
      - bobthepanda 4y ago
        Eh, https://news.theregistryps.com/in-114mm-transaction-holland-residential-sells-the-275-unit-chroma-slu-apartments-in-seattle/ https://news.theregistryps.com/in-114mm-transaction-holland-... is fairly garish, and somehow passed design review
        nerdponx 4y ago
        I mean, I actually think that's pretty cool. I would pass that any day if I were on the review board, especially if that green space in front of it were part of the project plan.
        bobthepanda 4y ago
        Oh, that’s just a public park that was there before.
- firsttimebigboy 4y ago
  of course it would be ideal if everyone could be reasonable and not abuse these processes, but that's obviously not the case. So the decisions seems to come down to maybe having new ugly buildings vs having no new buildings. I think people that need somewhere to live would choose the new ugly building instead of overpaying for old buildings.
rootusrootus 4y ago
Seems like using the power of the State to overrule local city preferences is pretty universal, regardless of where someone falls on the left/right scale.

nerdponx 4y ago

Two new apartment buildings recently went up where I live. Both have roughly the same number of units inside, and the units are of similar size. One is ugly, and the other blends nicely into the neighborhood, even incorporating some green space and planted trees. There's no reason why the ugly one couldn't have been nicer looking, other than that the developers didn't bother to make the place look more like the surrounding buildings, and nobody required them to do otherwise, even though it would have been a trivial extra cost. Dogwhistle for NIMBYs though it may be, something akin to "neighborhood character" is a legitimate thing that residents benefit from (including and perhaps especially lower-income residents who would otherwise be priced out), and its loss is absolutely an externalized cost in terms of qualify of day-to-day life. Green spaces, shade trees, etc. are nontrivial in their importance to residents, and the importance of deliberately preserving or expanding those features actually increases as density increases, because otherwise they will be lost and possibly gone forever. So I don't think it makes sense to be an absolutist about design review. But there do need to be some checks in place to prevent abuse by incumbent property owners. I don't know what those would look like, but I also know that a treeless street walled in with apartment buildings and no local shops or other amenities makes for a sad shitty neighborhood. Housing equity needs to be about the complete lifestyle, not just about making more physical square feet that humans can theoretically inhabit. Otherwise we're just repeating a denser version of the same development mistakes that gave us stroads and suburban sprawl. Of course, "existing condo sues other condos" isn't quite the same thing. The loss of the view is legitimately an externality, but here I think it comes down to a question of whether the current owners are entitled to their view, or if it was always a temporary benefit that would exist only until other condos were built.

__derek__ 4y ago
Can you name a functioning example of design review, though? My experience with them is specific to Seattle, and the program absolutely does not work as your comment hopes.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  If anything, buildings in Seattle are uglier than their counterparts elsewhere.
  - karakot 4y ago
    Nah, it's all the same https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/20/realestate/housing-developments-city-architecture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/20/realestate/housing-develo...
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      Eh, https://news.theregistryps.com/in-114mm-transaction-holland-residential-sells-the-275-unit-chroma-slu-apartments-in-seattle/ https://news.theregistryps.com/in-114mm-transaction-holland-... is fairly garish, and somehow passed design review
      - nerdponx 4y ago
        I mean, I actually think that's pretty cool. I would pass that any day if I were on the review board, especially if that green space in front of it were part of the project plan.
        bobthepanda 4y ago
        Oh, that’s just a public park that was there before.
firsttimebigboy 4y ago
of course it would be ideal if everyone could be reasonable and not abuse these processes, but that's obviously not the case. So the decisions seems to come down to maybe having new ugly buildings vs having no new buildings. I think people that need somewhere to live would choose the new ugly building instead of overpaying for old buildings.

rootusrootus 4y ago

Seems like using the power of the State to overrule local city preferences is pretty universal, regardless of where someone falls on the left/right scale.