The mayor’s proposal for a new set of multi-family zoning rules has hit the Internet. You can read some interesting opinions about it here and here — and get a passable translation of the whole thing here. Included in the multi-hundred page PDF are proposed rules…
- Lowering allowable fence heights
- Reducing parking requirements developers must meet in urban areas like Capitol Hill
- Creating ‘incentive zoning’ that would allow developers to build higher in exchange for doing good things like being green and keeping prices down
- And, what will sadly get the most attention, bringing the heavy HAMMER down on townhouse development by requiring (gasp) design review of projects by city staff. I guess they haven’t been reading the plans to date.
What is not in the update are any solutions for improving the public review process of projects around the city. Following recent, um, streamlining of the environmental review process, the city needs to figure out a way to give neighbors a real and effective forum to discuss development in their neighborhoods. Why not make this part of the development discussion that is happening around the multi-family code?
We don’t get over there much but somehow managed to wander to the right spot for the news conference. Other media killed time till the mayor’s arrival by wondering if the Sonics jersey hung in a window of the townhouses chosen as a backdrop was some sort of deliberate protest. When I walked back to my car half a block away (YES! I found a parking spot!) a lady stopped me and asked, what’s all that going on in front of my house? I said oh, the mayor was talking about zoning and they chose the spot because they thought it was a good example of townhouse design. She said, these old things? and then gestured to the, um, character-laden old apartments next door, which is what she meant by “(her) house.” Which, as I told her, still look better than the, um, not-so-character-laden old apartments over here. But hey, how come there’s no left-turn signal going from Olive (I think it was still Olive) to Broadway? OMG!
It’s actually John and Broadway, and the reason there is no turn signal there is that there is no room for a turn lane with street parking and bus stops.
I like the first three ideas but would need to learn more about what “review by city staff” means.
Yeah, I have a feeling this portion of the proposal will undergo a makeover once city council, etc. get hands on it. Definitely needs to be a way to include a citizen component in the review and more structure about what the review process will let slide and what is will not.
Still, I really hope that putting the focus on townhomes doesn’t mean the city gets to cut citizens from the review processes for other development. Feels like the mayor is throwing townhomes to the wolves (us!) to keep them busy while moving the meat of the matter out of our reach.
Businesses (developers, pharmaceutical companies, banks) are always, always, always, always (x infinity) complaining that additional regulations will cause things to cost more, delay their introduction of new products, etc.
While not entirely false, it’s clearly only one side of the equation. Allowing “unfettered business” through lax regulations leads to situations where consumers get “cheap” things on the “way in”, but then screwed down the road (shady mortgages, PCBs in a river, companies that restate earnings and wipe our shareholder value). Essentially, the true “cost” is merely passed to the business or consumer of the future.
Back on topic. I think the old building codes clearly aren’t producing the type of multi-family housing that we all want in our neigborhoods. Too cookie-cutter, and too inward looking (literally and figuratively). To be fair to developers, they develop the auto-canyon townhomes to make the maximum amount of money and meet the existing regulations. I don’t think that simply requiring everything to be reviewed is necessarily a panacea. By itself it might just lead to delays and price increases – like every other project in Seattle the public thinks they need to get their $0.02 in on. I honestly don’t know what the exact answer is, but it sounds like better design/architectural regulations that encourage the types of multi-family housing we want, but allow developers to get fast approval for projects that meet those standards is probably better than just hand-reviewing every project individually ad-nauseum.
Well said, I especially like “too inward looking (literally and figuratively)”. I really think all main entrances need to be oriented toward the street, with the entrances fully visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk. It helps makes a city feel like a city
And I agree that we should be able to formulate consistent rules on these things (maybe neighborhood specific) and avoid ad hoc reviewing of individual projects.