A lot of my fellow Seattle-ites, especially liberal Democrats and Greens, have a sneering and dismissive view of the suburbs and suburbanities, straight out of the 1960s counter-culture. Split-level homes, strivers, drivers, highways, malls? A package deal of bland conformity and greenhouse gases destroying the planet; mindless lackeys of the imperial warmonger Bush (never mind all those Ds in Bellevue, Redmond, Mercer Island and Issaquah). Seattle's self-proclaimed intellectual elites, nattering to each other as they walk around crowded Green Lake, compound their ignorance with membership in The Church Of Open Space. It espouses a dogma that - in King County, for instance - any development east of Sammamish is a crime against nature. And so, at the far end of the spectrum, you occasionally even get "environmental activists" trying to torch new homes in the 'burbs.
But just as suburban and rural property owners are entitled to their vision of the good life, so too are we in the city. Part of my vision, and it's unfolding as we speak, is vital city neighborhoods with their own retail hubs and room for vertical growth. One thing that entails is multi-family apartment development. When Seattle Mayor Norm Rice and the city council began pushing "urban villages" in Seattle in the mid-90s, an opposition movement sprang up in my neighborhood of West Seattle. I knew many of the people involved. They feared multi-unit buildings wedged into neighborhoods of single-family homes. None of that happened. Now, instead of plotting secession, they're shopping in the neighborhood. And I'm here to tell you: urban density isn't just for blockheads.
Read on.
Urban density has certainly been fostered by the state Growth Management Act, and local governments.
But as multi-unit residential buildings sprout all over Seattle, here's what I see: free market forces at play; along with a growing need to expand parks, boost police and fire protection, and provide more and better transportation options.
Quality of life in Seattle has a lot to do with neighborhood amenities; this is a big part of why many Republican families I know choose to live here despite private school tuition and the smugly censorious, self-righteous Seattle Left.
The West Seattle Junction was pretty much a dank hell-hole when my wife and I moved here from Chicago in 1994.
Unless you liked to shop for used Ted Nugent records and Harley gear at Dogmeat's, sip lattes at Stubby's, or play bingo in a huge empty building that's now a PetCo.
These days, California Avenue S.W. in The Junction has undergone a retail renaissance, and a score of new apartment buildings just to its south add to the critical mass.
That's Great Harvest Bakery (left), flanked by Arts West theatre on the left. 
Just one tiny slice of what's going on in The Junction these days.
With new restaurants opening almost monthly, The Junction is something to see on summer nights. The streets are alive; they used to be dead.
And "eyes on the street," as Jane Jacobs noted in "The Death and Life of Great American Cities," are crucial for crime prevention.
Along Alaska Ave. S.W., leading into The Junction from Fauntleroy Way S.W. and the West Seattle Bridge, the vitality evident a few short blocks west on California is sadly lacking.
But "dense" development seems likely to change that. Here's a shuttered ex-Burger King on Alaska (below, far right). 
Pretty hurtin.'
Just west, on the same, north, side of Alaska, at the corner of 42nd Ave. S.W., stands an especially decrepit structure (below, right). 
As you can see from the telltale public notice sign, plans are afoot.
In this case, for an eight-story, 165-unit residential building with ground floor retail and parking for 371 vehicles in the building and below grade.
Across the street is Seattle Housing Authority apartment of the same height, and right on Alaska are about five different bus routes going downtown.
It'll be a boon to the neighborhood.
As is this (below): a new condo complex at 41st Ave. S.W. and Edmonds. It's a more typical four stories, with ground floor retail or office space planned.
Right across the street from Jefferson Square mall where all the necessities of life are within walking distance: a big grocery, UPS store, Bartells, Taco Del Mar, bookstore, pizza, coffeeshop, cigar shop. 
I'm all for taller residential apartment buildings downtown, a priority of Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels.
We're already looking at high-rise, mixed use complexes including apartments, under construction in downtown Bellevue.
We've got densely clustered townhomes in Issaquah, and yes, rising housing costs all over the region.
"Affordable housing" policies in Seattle amount to some subsidized housing and some units in new apartments at 80 percent of market rate. Affordable housing in the suburbs these days means Monroe, or Pierce County, or Kitsap County. That's life: the market rules.
Yes, the Growth Management Act means we can't build tightly-packed subdivisions all the way to Cle Elum. I have some problems with King County's Critical Areas ordinance, but not with growth management.
The challenge now is dealing with the pressures of density. Especially in the transportation realm.
When it comes to density, the train has left the station. So to speak.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at October 14, 2005 10:52 AM | Email ThisObviously you need to keep the historic buildings intact. The Admiralty Theater, etc. but there's no need to be tied down to any of the junk.
Tearing down nasty old rickety "war-houses" built in the 1940's and putting up these aesthetically pleasing (and somewhat environmentally friendly) multi-use buildings is the way to go...in Seattle.
The only drawback is that development like this pushes all of the undesirables, drug dealers, crooks, homeless, addicts, etc. out into the suburbs and rural towns like Granite Falls, Auburn, Graham and such.
If crime doesn't pay then they certainly can't afford to live in those new highrises.
Posted by: Reporterward on October 14, 2005 12:11 PM
Quite possible the single most brain-dead, insipid pile of over-ripe tripe I think I've ever read!
I will give them credit however; at the end of this self-indulgent masturbatory pretense at intellectualism, they do say one thing (entirely inadvertently): "You don't apologize for being right--especially when you're at war."
Thank you Stranger, for that brief moment of clarity!
I never apologise for being right!
(The Stranger "editorial board" may all go back to their bongs now ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 14, 2005 12:27 PMIn this age of terrorism vulnerability, density is a homeland security risk. The more spread out we are, the less damage any terrorist can do. Why do you think terrorists attack NYC skyscrapers and mass transit?
In this age of transportation inadequacy, density contributes to the problem. If we had office and retail space more evenly distributed around the region with nearby housing, we wouldn't have rush hour congestion.
In this age of overreaching government intrusion, density is a threat to our culture. The more people that are concentrated in dense zones, the more they need government assistance (welfare, mass transit, parks, freeways, single parent services, etc.). The secular elites want to replace (and already have for the major cities) the charity of the church and the comfort of the family with the cold bureaucratic assistance of government programs. People with houses, not apartments or condos, that have a decent separation from their neighbors have a greater stake in their own future and their local community and need less government services.
We (the U.S.) have vast swaths of unused land. All productive citizens should be living in houses on one acre lots in communities where they can work and live and participate and worship. We don't all now, because of the policies of the environmentalists, the density advocates, and the big government promoters driven by the self-serving interests of the downtown developers, the city politicians, and the government bureaucrats.
Density IS for blockheads.
This is not Hong Kong! We have not run out of land suitable for construction of new single family units with 3 car garages. The GMA and CAO are artificially creating a shortage of land.
Gotta tell you, i am born and raised in Seattle. I do not fit liberal green sterotyppe one bit. But honestly, those cookie-cutting split level homes in burbs are characterless. I have no opinion of folks who live in them except wondering why one would pay 400k in burb in new home vs 400k in City in old home with character and closeness to more then strips malls. Again, I am seriously not trying to make fun of folks in burbs, just wondering how different people look at the same thing and asign a greater/lesser value.
Posted by: Once AT City on October 14, 2005 01:45 PMJust a few years previous, the main points of it had been submitted to the voters as an Initiative (I recall some number like 530) - and been defeated by about 60%. And being as antidemocratic as these items indicate, it's no wonder that the GMA set up a politically appointed Board to overrule locally elected County planning departments, should they actually reflect their constituents' own hopes of realizing the American dream by disposing of their own property at will.
GMA is the seizure by the governing class of Washington of the property rights of individuals, in an attempt to force dense masses of sheeplike citizens into circumstances chosen for them by self-selected elites such as 1000 Friends of Washington.
It may gratify the urban intellectuals, but democratic it ain't.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on October 14, 2005 01:59 PMU are correct on all those points. U know what you are talking about for sure. Good for u. Many people on SoundPolitics when critical of urban intellectuals often do not have facts striaght on the SPECIFIC reasons why liberals are silly. U have the facts and the history that demonstrates it. good for u hank.
Posted by: Once AT City on October 14, 2005 02:19 PMAfter living in a cookie cutter, characterless warbox in Seattle for the past four years where we did nothing but spend our time dealing with:
1) The failing innards of a 60 year old house
2) A lot barely larger than the size of the house.
We decided to move. We found a cookie cutter, characterless split level in a rural area where we'll spend our time:
1) Enjoying not worrying about the failing innards of an 8 year old house.
2) Watching our child run around a fully fenced 1/2 acre lot.
It's all a matter of perspective. Enjoy the hustle and bustle of living in-city. I'm looking forward to putting my feet up and enjoying the sound of the crickets.
Posted by: robnix on October 14, 2005 02:23 PMBut, to continue with SFRs to the mountaintops and beyond is stupid. There needs to be limits. Should we abandon this sprawl in favor of taller buildings in the urban area? Yes, but we need to provide better incentives than preventing building outside the sprawl.
Why someone wishes to live in the burbs and commute 1 or more hours to Seattle is beyond me, but I remember a fellow worker who thought nothing of a two hour commute (one way) and another two hour commute back.
And we say we have traffic problems. How about them east coasters in the Boston-New York area that do that?
Posted by: baffles on October 14, 2005 02:32 PMHowever, it's a form of theft. Kelo is just another form of it - elites use government power to gratify themselves 'for the public good' at the expense of individual landowners.
What's left out of this picture? All those happy urbanites are benefiting for free, at the cost of all those unhappy landowners.
If there's any justice to be added back into this larcenous situation, it requires PAYMENT to those plundered owners from the pockets of those gloating urbanites.
Oregon's citizens did it with Proposition 37 (as revenge against their own Growth Management Act?). If we must import their growth limitations, we can surely import that Proposition.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on October 14, 2005 03:04 PM
Then again, you'd have to send your children to Seattle schools, homeschool, or private school...what's the cost of that?
Before I bought in southeast King County (hence the name) my wife and I looked at houses on the Eastside. At the time that was significantly less expensive than Seattle.
For what an 1100sf severe fixer would cost in Lake Hills (by severe I mean my wife wouldn't live there until we made the walls and windows reasonably sound) we bought a 2200 sf model home in a school district with great scores (Tahoma). I can walk to Safeway and I know my neighbors and it's safe for my wife to walk the dogs.
Gotta tell you, i am born and raised in Seattle. I do not fit liberal green sterotyppe one bit. But honestly, those cookie-cutting split level homes in burbs are characterless. I have no opinion of folks who live in them except wondering why one would pay 400k in burb in new home vs 400k in City in old home with character and closeness to more then strips malls. Again, I am seriously not trying to make fun of folks in burbs, just wondering how different people look at the same thing and asign a greater/lesser value.
Once,
The answer to your question is simple... different people look at the same thing and assign a greater/lesser value. Do you have a problem with that?
Posted by: huckleberry on October 14, 2005 03:23 PM
We have our city festival the second weekend of June, which involves a parade and no naked people on bicycles. I'm in the Chamber of Commerce with a lot of the local business people. I'm in Rotary. I can go just about anywhere and I know someone who's there.
Suburbia done right is small-town America the way it used to be. This stepford families crap is just that, crap. It has to be a pretty spectacular event to get me to Seattle, because as soon as I get there I want to leave.
Suffer!
Posted by: Your pal on October 14, 2005 04:45 PMIf you understand the goals of the Earth Charter will will understand how and why we got the CAO and the monorail. This is all part of the plan for a "sustainable development". Yes, they are trying to create a version of Hong Kong right here in Seattle.
While they have limited the Eastside from developing their land through the CAO, king county is increasing density on residential parcels in the city limits, and the vision is to connect this density with a transportaion system, the monorail.
Posted by: Susie on October 15, 2005 11:51 AM
It's just a matter of time before the entire population of Washington buys into this as well. Our states' department of education has agreed to implement UNESCO's (a division of the UN)curriculum for a sustainable future and are teaching this stuff to every kid in Washington state public schools. Here is a direct quote from their curriculum;
"Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes. In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainability.”
Lived on the West side of Cleveland for 15 years in a lovely old (1910) lakeside area. Grocery(s), bank, restaurant(s), medicine store, hair and beauty, lumber and building supply, doctors, bus and other services were 2 to 5 blocks away. Walking was an option. But you could not duplicate that environment, or yours, in today's Washington.
Think about zoning, and the sterility it enforces.
Posted by: Terry Jay on October 15, 2005 09:09 PMNew Orleans is Mecca to the community planners that worship at the altar of "smart growth".
Canal Street was the epitome of "intermodal transportation hubs", only it failed miserably as did the density quotients. I'm not alone predicting the entire "smart growth" concept in twenty years will fail generating even worse urban decay.
May not take that long. One more catastrophic event, say a dirty bomb, and suburban sprawl will lose its meaning as a pejorative.
Posted by: concerned voter on October 15, 2005 10:04 PMWhat is odd in the replies is the utter lack of common sense among the Seattle bashers. Cities evil, suburbs good goes the refrain over and over again.
What the real world tells you is that every decision you make has both positive and negative results.
For those who live in the city--you enjoy more easy access to culture--better restaurants, theater, etc. You also get the rich diversity of people living in an urban environment. You also are subject to the negatives of city living--more noise, schools with more challenges, higher crime rates, etc.
For those who live in suburbia or rural areas--You generally enjoy quiet, relatively safe neighborhoods, often better schools. But you also have a much longer commute, less diversity in your community, and you need to go to the city for your sports and culture.
Both are valid choices. It is popular on this site to bash Seattle for wanting more transit options and human services funding. In the SP world, city dwellers are greedy and self serving, while those outside of the city are noble folks who simply want to preserve their way of life.
Not true--when you lobby for more freeways to shorten your commute you are trying to have all. And you are asking ME to subsidize your lifestyle choices. This is no different than city folks wanting more transit options.
It is sad that we have come to this selfish "what is in it for me?" point in America. The great strength of our nation has been the willingness of Americans to sacrifice for the common good. But not in Bush's America.
We need better mass transit linking urban areas to give options to people. We need to all support Seattle in human services funding if we expect them to take all of our homeless and troubled people in society. We need to fix our roads where it makes sense. Safety first--this means the viaduct, 520, SR9, the 405-167 interchange. Then common sense projects like finishing 509, fixing pinch points around the county, etc.
We can't go on saying "no new taxes", but we want OUR priorities only to be funded. We all have an interest in a healthy region. Growth management is crucial in stopping this from becoming another Houston or LA. If it needs to be periodically adjusted, that is fine, but the goal is a noble one. Density makes neighborhoods easier to serve with transit and services and helps preserve single family neighborhoods and sensible road construction.
As Rodney King said, "why can't we all just get along?"
Posted by: bfree2think on October 16, 2005 01:10 AMOK bfree2think - let's go over this one more time.
I'm not seeing people (left or right) bashing "cities" on this site, but I am seeing people (myself included) bashing leftist (mis)spending notions. Your exhortation that "We need better mass transit linking urban areas to give options to people." is as phony and illegitimate as the socialists claim that "We know that Socialism can work, we just haven't had the right people try it yet!
In case you haven't noticed, we've been spending the bulk of our transportation dollars on mass transit, not infrastructure or maintenance for almost 40 years now (the last 20 in earnest!). For all that we've spent, the net number of mass transit commuters (per capita) has gone down! Who has been in charge during all of this? Who cannot be trusted to wisely spend our precious dollars? Liberals!
Personally, I've lived in cities, in the 'burbs, and rurally. Of the three, urban dwelling is my least favorite. It's a personal choice and, obviously, very subjective. Where you want to live concerns me not - that you want me to pay for facets of your lifestyle bugs me greatly!
As to Rotney King - I can get along just fine - Just keep yer mitts outta my wallet!
This is pure BS--by far the vast majority of funding has gone for roads, not transit. I am glad you like living outside of the city--but, hey, KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY WALLET! I hope that if you all get your wish and 912 passes, that the leg votes to keep gas taxes in their home counties so that you all have to live your own tax dollars. Then I hope cities get the power to keep their dollars at home as well. If this kind of balkanized society is what you want, than that is what you deserve.
As to liberals wasting money, take a look at the Bush administration. At least we try to do society some good, rather than just making the rich richer.
This is pure BS--by far the vast majority of funding has gone for roads, not transit. I am glad you like living outside of the city--but, hey, KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY WALLET! I hope that if you all get your wish and 912 passes, that the leg votes to keep gas taxes in their home counties so that you all have to live your own tax dollars. Then I hope cities get the power to keep their dollars at home as well. If this kind of balkanized society is what you want, than that is what you deserve.
As to liberals wasting money, take a look at the Bush administration. At least we try to do society some good, rather than just making the rich richer.
This is pure BS--by far the vast majority of funding has gone for roads, not transit. I am glad you like living outside of the city--but, hey, KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY WALLET! I hope that if you all get your wish and 912 passes, that the leg votes to keep gas taxes in their home counties so that you all have to live your own tax dollars. Then I hope cities get the power to keep their dollars at home as well. If this kind of balkanized society is what you want, than that is what you deserve.
As to liberals wasting money, take a look at the Bush administration. At least we try to do society some good, rather than just making the rich richer.
Which new freeways have we put in - perhaps I'd like to take a ride on one!
Answer: you can't.
Reason: They don't exist (except in your brain).
Unless, of course, you want to lump all the silly HOV lane nonsense, and the specialized bus access ramps. Spending that benefits 2-6% of the population doesn't count!
As to your closer "At least we try to do society some good, rather than just making the rich richer."
That's a pretty stupid thing to say, even for you. Do you realize how moronic saying something as addlepated as that makes you look? Do you walk around with pee stains on the front of your pants? (are you starting to get it?!)
Sure, it pains me to see so much spending, but what would you have cut out? Disaster relief for Katrina victims? Medicare spending for old folks? Oh! I know! you'd cut the investment we've made in Iraq...right?
You were probably perfectly content with the prior regime's approach to global terrorism - diddling with "Rome" burned! Well, nuts to that! Yea, it's unfortunate that so much has been spent, but you can't say that it wasn't necessary.
As I recall, it was the whiney liberals who started the "kind of balkanized society" you allude to in 2000, after losing that election. In various fits of pique, I heard liberals gnash their teeth and rend their clothing and profess that "We're moving to Canada, where men are free (and sheep are afraid)".
Y'all reprised the same ol, lame ol, after scary Kerry got dusted in '04. "I'd prefer to move to New Zealand" (Yea, right! If they'd have you!)
Go back and read the Stranger article Matt refers to and then tell me who is advocating Balkanization.
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 17, 2005 08:00 AM"What the real world tells you is that every decision you make has both positive and negative results."
True. People roll the dice to get what they want, or what they will put up with. But then you get very heavy-handed in the next point and invalidate your claims.
"For those who live in suburbia or rural areas--You generally enjoy quiet, relatively safe neighborhoods, often better schools. But you also have a much longer commute, less diversity in your community, and you need to go to the city for your sports and culture."
I hear this all the time by the (white) urbanites but it's not necessarily true. Not every job is in Seattle. Why does this always come up in every conversation on this topic? Seattle is not the center of the universe. More people commute FROM Seattle TO the suburbs for work than the other way around. Look at usage on I-90 and I-520. Look it up!
My HOUSEHOLD is more "diverse" than Seattle is. My neighborhood is quite "diverse." I have good access to "culture" (again, in and out of the home). I have as long of a commute as when I lived in Seattle (fifth generation, born and bred). I don't care about Seattle sports and I can can handle driving to Seattle once a month when my wife and I want to go run around.
I can also afford to own a decent home in a decent neighborhood with moderately high rather than outlandish (i.e. Seattle) property taxes. My wife fits your "more diverse" brush but wouldn't live in any of the neighborhoods in Seattle that we could afford. I can't blame her.
Before you wag your fingers at other people, take your own advice.
Posted by: Kyle on October 17, 2005 04:17 PMFirst, if you think development should be "market driven" then why on earth would you support artificial development in "urban villiages" selected by self-annointed social engineers?
Second, West Seattlites are right to be worried about destruction of our neighborhoods. Your statement that "it isn't happening" is incorrect. Maybe you haven't lived here long enough to distinguish that it is happening and in fact is getting worse.
Ignorant carpetbaggers. That's what we need in Seattle. More ignorant carpetbaggers.
80sHairdo