Mayor Durkan unveils biggest low-income housing increase in Seattle history

[mhays25]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

How so? Allowing higher residential heights (and thus densities) should lead to more units, not fewer. Being able to build more units on the same piece of land should lower per unit costs below what they otherwise would have been, even if some are required to be "affordable" or a fee is to be paid.

Someone earning $15/hr should be able to afford to pay $780/mo in rent (30% of income). The number of unsubsidized apartments currently available at or below that rent in Seattle is exactly ZERO.

It gives us more theoretical capacity. But the city only tries to equalize the cost of fees vs. new buildable area...it doesn't even attempt to reduce cost for market rate units. Further (a) their estimates can be problematic and result in increase costs, and (b) going taller is often possible only at much larger dollars per square foot. That's why we still see woodframes in South Lake Union despite highrises being allowed.

Tons of projects have been proposed but haven't moved forward. That's true in any boom as well as any downturn, but it's always a stark reminder of the large gray area where a ton of projects don't pencil, and even the ones that confidently go forward can lose money, and not just the tsunami of these in 2008-2012.

[CrazyDonkey]

In 2018, the city Office of Housing received 25 applications requesting about $245 million of funds for affordable housing projects totaling almost 3,000 new units. The Office of Housing had $70 million available. An infusion of MHA payments will get more of these shovel-ready projects into production.

https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion...s-find-a-home/

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by mhays25

It gives us more theoretical capacity. But the city only tries to equalize the cost of fees vs. new buildable area...it doesn't even attempt to reduce cost for market rate units. Further (a) their estimates can be problematic and result in increase costs, and (b) going taller is often possible only at much larger dollars per square foot. That's why we still see woodframes in South Lake Union despite highrises being allowed.

Tons of projects have been proposed but haven't moved forward. That's true in any boom as well as any downturn, but it's always a stark reminder of the large gray area where a ton of projects don't pencil, and even the ones that confidently go forward can lose money, and not just the tsunami of these in 2008-2012.

Well, we'll see how it works out. It is basically a tax on the value of anticipated development upzones. If too high, then development can be stunted; if too low, it can give developers a free-ride to untrammeled growth, with all the problems that attend that on the public dime. Fears of both have been expressed. Finding the right balance, for multiple project types, is a difficult, but key, process that will play out over time.

As to increasing costs, that a $3,000 unit might end up renting for, say, $3,250 is not, in itself, a problem. Believing that simply building more $3,000 units will solve Seattle's affordability crisis, however, is fantasy.

The same kind of dire predictions of "price shock" were made about the soda tax. Instead of falling sales and lost jobs, the opposite occurred. The laws of supply and demand are far from being iron-clad, but can be quite elastic.

Yes, middle-income families (above $57,000 for a family of four) are not being served, at least directly, although lower-income "working" families are. One way of dealing with that in the future would be to allow credits for building "workforce housing", if you will, to be applied toward paying some of the "affordable housing" upzone fees.

In the end, it shouldn't be forgotten that "zoning" is not just about encouraging growth, but also channeling and controlling it. Having the "speculative frenzy" turning over our neighborhoods cool off a bit might not be such a bad thing.

[CrazyDonkey]

https://seattle.curbed.com/2018/1/26...struction-2017

This is from last January (new apartment units in the Seattle MSA):

2016: 7,935
2017: 12,008
2018: 11,999 (projected)

Total: 31,942

This might seem like a lot of units, until you realize that Seattle, proper, added 55,094 new residents from 2015 to 2017:

http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-...le-population/

[mhays25]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Well, we'll see how it works out. It is basically a tax on the value of anticipated development upzones. If too high, then development can be stunted; if too low, it can give developers a free-ride to untrammeled growth, with all the problems that attend that on the public dime. Fears of both have been expressed. Finding the right balance, for multiple project types, is a difficult, but key, process that will play out over time.

As to increasing costs, that a $3,000 unit might end up renting for, say, $3,250 is not, in itself, a problem. Believing that simply building more $3,000 units will solve Seattle's affordability crisis, however, is fantasy.

The same kind of dire predictions of "price shock" were made about the soda tax. Instead of falling sales and lost jobs, the opposite occurred. The laws of supply and demand are far from being iron-clad, but can be quite elastic.

Yes, middle-income families (above $57,000 for a family of four) are not being served, at least directly, although lower-income "working" families are. One way of dealing with that in the future would be to allow credits for building "workforce housing", if you will, to be applied toward paying some of the "affordable housing" upzone fees.

In the end, it shouldn't be forgotten that "zoning" is not just about encouraging growth, but also channeling and controlling it. Having the "speculative frenzy" turning over our neighborhoods cool off a bit might not be such a bad thing.

I'll say a few things for the umteenth time:

Even expensive units are price-sensitive. Someone who stretches to $3,000 will not stretch further to $3,250.

Every unit at every price affects the overall supply/demand equation. If a ton of new high-end supply gets built, then a lot of people will edge up into the units those people vacate. It's a fluid dynamic...hard to visualize but very real.

Nobody has claimed that new market-rate housing will "solve" affordability. That's why we also need subsidy programs like Seattle's housing levy. If other municipalities would do their share too, things would be a lot easier. We also need to push the envelope on issues like micro housing and accessory units, both of which can play big roles for large numbers of people (singles and couples especially).

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by mhays25

Every unit at every price affects the overall supply/demand equation. If a ton of new high-end supply gets built, then a lot of people will edge up into the units those people vacate. It's a fluid dynamic...hard to visualize but very real.

Over the longer-term I don't disagree, although in the shorter-term I don't think that it is so clear-cut. Adding supply at the very top (luxury) and bottom (subsidized) segments of the market, while losing supply in the broad middle (due to rampant cannibalization and rehabs) can actually end up pulling rents up. As the old saw goes, prices are "sticky" downwards: landlords will run move-in specials, first, before dropping actual rents. Only subsidized apartments can be expected to rent below cost. Only with a real "bust" do prices fall precipitously (before rebounding). More likely, incomes will gradually rise over time to catch up to a pricing spike.

Subsidies, of course, have to be paid for, one way or another.