Josh Feit continues his density boosterism in this week's Stranger. Following up on last month's Fear of Crowds, where he blasted Magnolia residents for wanting to keep their neighborhood single-family, he now criticizes Northgate residents for the same sin. (The Urban Ultimatum) A sidebar by Amy Jenniges praises Capitol Hill residents for accepting their urbanist fate while damning West Seattle and, again, Northgate.
Feit's advocacy rests on two pillars. First, increasing density in the city, as dictated by the state's Growth Management Act, will reduce sprawl in the suburbs and save forest land. Second, denser neighborhoods use roads and utilities more efficiently, saving resources. He praises Seattle city councilmember Peter Steinbrueck for proposing an amendment to the city's comprehensive plan which would allow more multi-family housing in currently single-family neighborhoods. According to Feit, more density will fulfill Seattle's destiny to be "a real city," and those who oppose this vision are NIMBYs.
But the whole analysis misses one critical point: most Americans prefer to live in and own single-family housing. Owning a home is a fundamental piece of the American Dream. A home is usually the largest asset a family has. A piece of land to call one's own gives a sense of security, a place for children to play safely, a place to be creative with landscaping or home improvement. Any growth plan which ignores this is no better than the failed urban redevelopment of the fifties or the loony arcology movement of the seventies.
Many people find Seattle attractive precisely because it offers them urban coffeehouse culture with the ability to go back to their private home when latte sipping is done. In this sense, Seattlites are not true urbanists, in the same way that Manhattanites or Chicagoans are. If forced to choose between living in a house or living in an apartment next to a coffeehouse, most homeowners would choose the former and flee to the suburbs, taking their Monorail-tax supporting cars and SUVs with them. The result would be the very sprawl the Growth Management Act purports to prevent.
Homeowners work hard to acquire their houses and plan their lives around being able to enjoy what they have built. Better than berating them for their "selfishness" would be to support them in their achievement. Seattle has many areas that could support high-density housing without forcing it next to little homes. Belltown has many more opportunities for growth. South Lake Union does, too. Central Ballard, the U District along the Ave, parts of Rainier Valley, all have blocks of low rise commercial space with good bus service that invites six story condominiums with ground floor retail. Let residents of Magnolia, West Seattle and similar neighborhoods live the life they have planned for.
Posted by Andy MacDonald at December 17, 2004 04:54 PM | Email ThisI had an Aunt that loved Seattle and moved to a condo downtown. I don't know why, because I'd rather move out of King County - or at least out of sight of Seattle. I have a cousin who has worked virtual at home for years now and commutes to his home office in another state by plane.
Successful people generally live where they want to. Unless the next generation is socially engineered properly at public schools, they may not follow the density boosterism mantra. Where there are still large farms or land to sub-divide for building tracks of homes, they will come. Sometimes I think it's smart to subsidize agriculture so the land owners don't sell off too quickly to land developers.
The ability to work virtually will allow more options to live where a family wants to and can also afford. If you work virtual from home, the commute is a breeze. What quality of life are people looking for? What jobs will they seek that supports the quality of life they seek? For my older single aunt it happened to be Seattle, but my cousin raising a family - it was far from a big city. For those who have families and love them more than climbing their personal career ladder, they will drive another 30 minutes to raise them their children the way they feel best.
Maybe that concept doesn't fit the Growth Management Plan of liberals, but that just plain reality.
Posted by: Mike on December 17, 2004 07:13 PMMost zoning schemes ensure vast tracts of residential areas are securely seperated from the commercial zones. You need a car or a bus or a very long walk to hit the grocery, the drug store, a restaurant, or most any other personal daily consumable provider. And no, you will not find a job that does not require a lenghty commute, and your day-care provider won't be in the neighborhood either. Nearby, accessible goods and services are required to make density work, and most zoning schemes prohibit them.
If you can't find what you want a block away, why not move to the single family areas? No fighting for a parking space, usually a lot more living space for the same money, and you get to practice horticulture and distance driving skills in heavy traffic.
Posted by: Terry on December 17, 2004 09:07 PM
I would respond: to the left, what people prefer is irrelevant.
Posted by: Bill on December 18, 2004 05:36 AMBut the GMA is just one of the antidemocratic capers that Washington lefties have imposed on mere citizens. Back in the 80s, GMA was placed on the ballot as an Initiative (523? Anyone remember?), and the insufficiently-indoctrinated voters seriously thumped it, 60% against. Shortly afterward, the Legislature (on very short notice and with no substantial publicity or debate) rammed it through as law.
To keep it as antidemocratic as possible, it provided that politically appointed Hearings Boards had power to overrule land use decisions made by elected governments of Counties not controlled by the party of the self-selected '1000 Friends of Washington' who provided the legal thinking for this obscene legislation.
Its intention is to make public transportation 'feasible' by compressing the seething multitudes into rabbit warrens of towering hutches with no parking spaces, connected by tubes in which occasional mechanical conveyances run.
Long-range, the friendly 1000 hope to impose on us the following:
More populations like that of Seattle, which can be infected with the lefty politics now ruling there;
An end to the automobile, and to the freedom of movement individuals gain by its use;
A drop in real-estate value of the verboten rings of rural property around the towering urbs, which will allow easy purchase of country estates for the benefit of the 1000 'friends' and their closest associates.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 18, 2004 11:47 AMhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/11/wneth111.xml
[ copy / paste if broken by word wrap, or try ... ]
http://snipurl.com/bala