Drop single-family zoning, Seattle housing panel considers (apartment, condos)

[Drew8888]

Just published on The Seattle Times website:

A draft of the work of the Seattle mayor’s housing task force includes a big surprise: They want to do away with the city’s single-family zoning.

“We can still be a city for everyone, but only if we give up our outdated ideal of every family living in their own home on a 5,000 square foot lot,” a draft letter from the committee co-chairs reads.

The draft report notes that “Seattle (single-family) zoning has roots in racial and class exclusion and remains among the largest obstacles to realizing the city’s goals for equity and affordability.”

Full article here:

Drop single-family zoning, Seattle housing panel considers | The Seattle Times

[homesinseattle]

Wow! I don't like it.

[HuskyDawg]

It's a sham. Won't do anything for affordability. The most expensive housing in the city is new housing. City just wants more tax revenue. Turn Seattle into Bejing and you'll get more people/taxes.

[CrazyDonkey]

Increased density, while desirable, will drive up land values and, thus, rents. Every single-family house will be valued based prospectively on being replaced with an apartment or condo tower.

[CarlB328]

I think it's a bunch of crap. Our society is so addicted to growth that we will do insane things to maintain it. Seattle's already overcrowded and they are rushing to destroy it as fast as possible but apparently it's not fast enough. What are they going to do when everyone that can afford houses moves out of the neighborhoods to escape the destruction? Also, I don't like the whole angle of forcing increased diversity. They want to push Washingtonians out and replace us with people from everywhere else in the world. That does not seem fair, moral or representative to me.

[Ira500]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Increased density, while desirable, will drive up land values and, thus, rents. Every single-family house will be valued based prospectively on being replaced with an apartment or condo tower.

The proposal doesn't allow single family houses to be demolished and replaced with condo or apartment towers. Current single family zones will be called “lower density residential zone” and would allow duplexes, triplexes, rooming houses and more backyard cottages and mother-in-law units.
In and of itself, it's not horrible. There are a lot of people moving to Seattle, and they need to live somewhere. But this proposal also would eliminate the parking requirement for builders. I'm all for encouraging people to walk or to take public transit, but are developers going to pay for increased transit service? No, they'd simply reap the benefits of not having to supply parking, without any responsibility to the communities they're building in.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by Ira500

The proposal doesn't allow single family houses to be demolished and replaced with condo or apartment towers. Current single family zones will be called “lower density residential zone” and would allow duplexes, triplexes, rooming houses and more backyard cottages and mother-in-law units.
In and of itself, it's not horrible. There are a lot of people moving to Seattle, and they need to live somewhere. But this proposal also would eliminate the parking requirement for builders. I'm all for encouraging people to walk or to take public transit, but are developers going to pay for increased transit service? No, they'd simply reap the benefits of not having to supply parking, without any responsibility to the communities they're building in.

Part of what is driving up housing values is an infux of upper-middle class families, looking to shorten their commutes. They're looking for houses, not duplexes. For some areas, zoning for higher densities definitely makes sense, but for others, especially if not as well served by transit, preserving single-family homes makes more sense. For the longer run, I'd rather add mid- to high-rise density within walking distance of mass transit.

[sean98125]

Glad I have off street parking available. The city-wide upzone of single family zones to LR1 will be ugly for anyone who needs a car.

[mkarch]

Originally Posted by HuskyDawg

It's a sham. Won't do anything for affordability. The most expensive housing in the city is new housing. City just wants more tax revenue. Turn Seattle into Bejing and you'll get more people/taxes.

No kidding. What we really need is more run down high crime areas to provide affordable housing, not shiny new homes starting in the $800K range.

[fy10fyr]

Originally Posted by Ira500

The proposal doesn't allow single family houses to be demolished and replaced with condo or apartment towers.

Maybe not towers, but.....

A developer and housing task-force member sells the


An excerpt--

"Neiman sketched out the upzone this way: Imagine a small $400,000 Seattle bungalow in, say, West Seattle. Under current boomtown conditions, that house is a candidate to be torn down and replaced by a new home, priced at $1 million plus.

With the changes, a developer could raze the bungalow and instead build three smaller homes or condos in a triplex building, with a goal of selling each for, say, $600,000, Neiman said. Suddenly the $1 million plus project is a $1.8 million project, with roughly similar construction costs.

“When you can put three units there instead of one, it’s got a lot more juice to it,” Neiman said."