Slow growth groups continue pushback on Seattle development

IMG_8221-400x535 (1)A petition CHS first shined a little daylight on back in spring 2013 is now getting big media play — and apparently the attention of Seattle City Council member Nick Licata:

Seattle Council member Nick Licata says all council members are struggling with this very political issue, trying to balance development and urban growth while preserving neighborhoods

Licata’s recommending a special city review option for community’s (sic) to consider

“If a neighborhood has exceeded growth goals, which we know Ballard has exceeded it’s (sic) growth goal by more than 200 percent, then we should set up a special review in that community to look at how city investments are made and which additional ones maybe needed,” said Licata.

You can read the entire confused thing here. In addition to the TV station article’s challenges with apostrophes, the report says organizers “are working to hand in their petitions, signatures and letters soon to city leaders.”

CHS reported about flyers about buildings ‘way too tall for your lowrise neighborhood’ appearing around Capitol Hill last spring as anti-development activist John Fox’s Seattle Speaks Up petition began circulating.

Earlier this year, City Council member Sally Clark called for Seattle to consider lowering building heights in areas zoned for lowrise townhouses and apartments. That process was planned to introduce zoning change recommendations by the end of this month.

Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

12 thoughts on “Slow growth groups continue pushback on Seattle development

  1. trash cans over flowing at 422 11th ave e- micro apts on Cap Hill. Been that way for 4 days now! No apt mgr lives at building. This is an example of owners greed and disregard for their own tenants. PATHETIC.

    • At least they stopped storing their containers on the sidewalk 24/7, partially blocking it. But, yes, an apartment owner needs to be sure that their pickups are frequent enough to prevent overflowing dumpsters and recycle carts. Often, they take the cheap way out because adequate pickup frequency costs them more money, and they don’t give a damn if their garbage litters our streets.

  2. Let’s ban new development for 5 years. When their rents go up another 30% they will come crying the city is not building enough affordable housing, that the neighborhood is gentrifying and they are being priced out.

    Eventually they will demand fast transit, but nowhere near their homes. In fact, they will ask to cover the train station with a rarely used park and a farmers market that only opens once a week.

  3. Having lived on Capitol Hill since birth, I’ve learned to adapt, enjoy and sometimes mourn the changes.
    I enjoy the increased foot traffic that exists in some new areas, some of the new architecture( the building at 13th and Pine and 12th Avenue Arts come to mind) the parks and recreational activities.
    My pet peeves include the continued lack of affordable housing, which, over the years has continued to be promised in return for bigger structures and not materialized for anything under 1K a month,some design tragedies (note the monstrous apodments on 17th and east Olive street and the cheesy siding on the new building formerly The Undre Arms at 12th and Madison)
    I’m accepting of more density and upzoning, but in a conscious, thoughtful manner, but presently, here in the land of dark and gray (for 7 months of the year) full block seven story building on Broadway and the wretched thing that has stolen a priceless vista of the mountains and
    Space Needle where B&O stood ,will continue to block the remaining light and views *and please note* I only commenting on major thoroughfares or view corridors that, in my opinion will rob the area of vitality, beauty and probably business. ( I got bitched out over my comment before Pearl was built , but ever notice how little foot traffic exists north of Republican on Broadway since Pearl was built).
    It’s sad that Seattle has been the commercial dumping ground for thoughtless often out of state developers and people think we’re just NIMBYs but it has been going on for years, I admire the fact residents are fighting for the environment they actually experience daily and hope we can continue edging involvement towards livability.
    Sadly, a lot of the folks that want density at any cost will have moved on to where the grass is greener in 5 years.

  4. If you want “slow growth,” move to a city that is growing slowly. Seattle is growing too quickly for people to be whining about losing their views. Unless you live directly on the waterfront, you are not entitled to look at the Space Needle. Building more units will keep prices from rising even more quickly in our city, and when the current wave of demand subsides, rents will even be able to fall.

    Slow growth is for slow cities.

    • I don’t like the term “slow growth” as it implies NIMBYism and not increasing density. I think “thoughtful, careful growth” is a better term…and if that makes Seattle a “slow city,” then I’m all for it. Views of our beautiful natural surroundings are part of what makes our city better than most, and we should certainly preserve such views as much as possible.

      And, you’re living in some kind of dreamland if you think rents are every going to decrease. Not!

    • Well said. Of course I’m sure people were complaining about the same thing here when the first skyscrapers went up. People inherently don’t like change.

      • Where did anyone read “slow growth”? Good planning and providing reasonable rents,that have been promised in much earlier developments and you can have all the density you want and still leave peeks of beauty for everyone to enjoy, I made reference to one building that obscures a great vista.

    • Actually, we are entitled to our views, by city law. The city has established view corridors that can’t be blocked by new development. They include views from capitol hill of the Space Needle and Olympic Mountains, the view of Mt. Rainier from the University of Washington campus, and others. I believe they protect only public views, not views from private homes or other non-public places. These are the rules that make it possible to stand on a street corner and watch the Space Needle fireworks on New Year’s Eve. And if we didn’t have these laws, we wouldn’t have many of those views, I’m sure.

  5. update.. a non resident person came to put trash out in the afternoon BUT after the sanitation trucks came through SO recycle cans are all full already and weren’t even moved to curb! Calling the city is next step until owner takes responsibility or they get an apt mgr to properly handle the situation. Such stupid actions by a developer who doesn’t give a shit about the neighborhood. How difficult is it to maintain their trash/recycle situation?? arghhh…

    • I agree completely…it shouldn’t be that difficult to run a clean/efficient trash & recycling operation at your home or apartment building. SPU states clearly that bins must be put out by 7AM on the day of pickup, and taken in within 24 hours, but these rules are often ignored….especially in buildings with no onsite manager, which are numerous……such as apodments, where lack of any one person looking after things is a set-up for problems with the trash/recycle….only one of many reasons why apodments are a disaster for our residential areas.

      By the way, Steve, SPU does not require most apartment buildings to put their bins out on the curb….if the building has more than 4 units (I’m pretty sure that’s the threshold), the bins are picked up from wherever they are stored., so I’m not sure why that wasn’t done for the example you mention.

  6. Pingback: Local Development Roundup: March 2014 • Seattle Bubble