Is growth always a good thing? Are there cases where cities have hit a zone of diminishing returns. All cities evolve yet Seattle has lost so much of what made it unique.
Not building homes means more artists & teachers priced out to the ‘burbs. Incoming tech workers can simply afford to pay more.
Without new condos in Belltown or townhomes in Ballard, we get more McMansions replacing small homes. That’s much less space efficient, which makes the problem worse.
So far Seattle’s growth strategy has been to set the growth hose to jet mode and blast some neighborhoods. From 2010-2020, First Hill nearly *doubled* in population while Madrona’s pop barely changed (+3%).
We need to switch the hose to shower and spread new homes more equitably across the city.
IMO the mayors housing plan does far too little, which means more displacement to come as more low-income folks get outbid. To me, that loss of people, of community, of economic diversity, is far sadder than replacing some old kit houses with new apartments. More apts= more neighbors= more vibrancy.
One thing the mayor’s proposed plan does well is adding and expanding neighborhood centers in high-opportunity areas, like Bryant, Montlake, and Upper Queen Anne. These areas are well-served by transit, close to downtown, and full of older homeowners who have no nearby options for downsizing.
The city changes whether or not we build new housing. The choice is between preserving the buildings while pushing out poorer residents to make room for richer people, or making room for more people to live here while keeping longtime residents.
I grew up in San Francisco and I can assure you that despite building very little housing, it has changed immensely in the past couple decades. And not for the better.
If demand is growing—which it has been for a long time—then the only way to stop growth is to tell some people they can’t live here. Nearly always, the ones who lose out are the poorest people.
The culture, bohemian aesthetic and vibe that was somehow uniquely Pacific Northwest. I lived on Capitol Hill 1995-2000 and downtown 2006 - 2009. I spent last summer in Seattle and came to the conclusion that the city I lived in doesn’t exist anymore. Things change. Just part of life.
That's entirely subjective. I'm sure that when Manhattan Island was transitioning from farmland there were those who lamented "loss of character" or the like. I still find new things to love about Seattle after the decades of growth that have occurred since I moved here in college.
There were. I read an article on NOR about the last person alive from that transition from sheep farms to a metropolis in 30 years. She sounded like every NIMBY
As someone who was born in the city my feeling is then move to the outer City’s. Seattle is the 18th Largest city in the nation yet people want to treat it like the suburbs in many parts.
To add to this it’s worth noting for many who bring up the “Losing character” if the community cared then they should fight to address adding a Mix of unique designs for new buildings in their neighborhood rather then just fighting any growth in general.
The biggest risk to changing the city’s essential character is pricing poor folks out (students, artists, service workers, young families, retirees). If we don’t build, prices rise, those folks leave, and we lose a generation of culture and children
I spent the first 20 years of my life in Seattle (Ballard) and visit at least a few weeks a year - the best changes since my childhood have been increased density and better public transit
Comments
(Even if it were, it would be a pretty awful thing to do, given the national political situation.)
Without new condos in Belltown or townhomes in Ballard, we get more McMansions replacing small homes. That’s much less space efficient, which makes the problem worse.
We need to switch the hose to shower and spread new homes more equitably across the city.
Does blocking construction reduce rent increases? Is the solution to more people wanting to live in a city to put up walls to keep them out?