3 ms·

Despite the all complaining you'll see on the Urbanist, Seattle's process is pretty good for a big city -- which is probably why it's been one of the fastest gr

Despite the all complaining you'll see on the Urbanist, Seattle's process is pretty good for a big city -- which is probably why it's been one of the fastest growing prior to the Covid exodus from downtown. Seattle has recently had more cranes deployed than any other metro in the US, despite being a much smaller city -- not exactly the bane of the YIMBY. Design review can slow things down, sure, but they eventually do get built. These buildings will be around for 100+ years, taking a year to get the design right for everyone isn't the end of the world. And there are a bunch of easy things we could do to get more housing made, with fewer drawbacks like rushing out massive towers, like allowing duplexes or fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods.

WaxProlix 4y ago
> like allowing duplexes or fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods This is such a middle of the road, easy, low-drawback compromise that I can't believe it's not happened already.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  It's a perfectly reasonable proposal, unless you are living next to where a fourplex is being built, and you're worried about "those people" moving in nearby, where "those people" are either "poor" or "not white," depending on how much honest the NIMBY protestors are being. There are empty lots around the corner from me, and I hope they build as much housing on them as possible.
  - nostromo 4y ago
    > "those people" are either "poor" or "not white" This argument actually does your argument a disservice. And I agree with your argument. I've talked with plenty of NIMBYs in my neiborhood when an apartment building was going through approval. They aren't racists. And in fact they are often people of color. Their concerns aren't with poor people either. They tend to mention things like parking, traffic, density, character. Instead of immediately calling them racists, I think it's better to take them at their word and build and argument against it from there.
    - pwinnski 4y ago
      Their concerns aren't with poor people, but with "traffic" and "density" and "character," which... I mean... Okay. Existing houses clearly don't have cars, and were built to replace existing houses, not on empty lots, right? "I don't mind people being poor, so long as they don't drive on the same roads I do, and there aren't too many of them, and they don't in any way change the status quo as it existed the moment I finished unpacking my moving boxes." Call it whatever you want, but a focus on property values is always a push for higher economic brackets, never lower.
      - WaxProlix 4y ago
        I hear what you're saying but there's a difference - if a seemingly subtle one - between "their motivations are racist/classist" and "their choices result in effectively racist/classist outcomes[, and they don't care]". Leading with the former puts peoples' backs up and terminates conversations IME.

WaxProlix 4y ago

> like allowing duplexes or fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods This is such a middle of the road, easy, low-drawback compromise that I can't believe it's not happened already.

pwinnski 4y ago
It's a perfectly reasonable proposal, unless you are living next to where a fourplex is being built, and you're worried about "those people" moving in nearby, where "those people" are either "poor" or "not white," depending on how much honest the NIMBY protestors are being. There are empty lots around the corner from me, and I hope they build as much housing on them as possible.
- nostromo 4y ago
  > "those people" are either "poor" or "not white" This argument actually does your argument a disservice. And I agree with your argument. I've talked with plenty of NIMBYs in my neiborhood when an apartment building was going through approval. They aren't racists. And in fact they are often people of color. Their concerns aren't with poor people either. They tend to mention things like parking, traffic, density, character. Instead of immediately calling them racists, I think it's better to take them at their word and build and argument against it from there.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    Their concerns aren't with poor people, but with "traffic" and "density" and "character," which... I mean... Okay. Existing houses clearly don't have cars, and were built to replace existing houses, not on empty lots, right? "I don't mind people being poor, so long as they don't drive on the same roads I do, and there aren't too many of them, and they don't in any way change the status quo as it existed the moment I finished unpacking my moving boxes." Call it whatever you want, but a focus on property values is always a push for higher economic brackets, never lower.
    - WaxProlix 4y ago
      I hear what you're saying but there's a difference - if a seemingly subtle one - between "their motivations are racist/classist" and "their choices result in effectively racist/classist outcomes[, and they don't care]". Leading with the former puts peoples' backs up and terminates conversations IME.