We need more single family housing. There is plenty of space, just that all the commercial buildings are so squat. Furthermore, the lack of subways means half the city is paved roads
Obviously a restricted supply of housing with reasonable commute times via public transit affects the middle class in Seattle. There's a supply/demand problem created by people fighting for zoning regulations in areas like Queen Anne that are actively hostile to anyone who doesn't live there already.
Wanting to live in single family housing near the city and enforcing it legally is exactly why public transit projects like subways become impossible. You need to have critical pockets of density before it becomes a sensible investment.
I think there's a balance to be had with high density versus SFH neighborhoods. One example I think is worth considering, do we want to be knocking down turn-of-the-century craftsman and tudor homes? They can bring a ton of character to a neighborhood. In cases where that happens, the 3-story cookie cutter townhomnes or cheap construction material apartments take their place and look outdated in less than a decade.
Yes. Houses aren't works of art. They are meant to house people.
The city isn't the same a decade ago, or a century ago or when Capital Hill was called Renton Hill.
It is depressing that only new construction/condo to purchase in Capital hill costs 450k+ (e.g. 750 on the hill as an example.) because SFH are 750k+. IF they go for sale, and then there's a race of people who actively overpay for a property.
Also, I can walk to downtown in <30 mins, taking a bus is a pain, and the Link station is kinda convenient but not so convient (e.g. nothing near Volunteer Park because everything there is $1,000,000+)
Just because it's old doesn't mean it's good and whomever owns the property should feel fit to change it from SFH to MFH and the city should encourage MFH developments otherwise you have small houses on oversized lots and a poor use of space.
Give people that want to sell and people that want to buy the ability to rezone and allow construction - and density will solve itself.
Otherwise you're going to have people in decades old apartment buildings fight to fill it in, while the owner has no real incentive to upkeep property because they believe it's valuable and know it's a rotating door.
A diverse spectrum of zoning is important, but we also have a diverse free market that doesn't all want high-rise condos and apartments absolutely everywhere. Some people want a beautiful neighborhood, lots of space, privacy, proximity to the city, and have the means to get that, so that's what they will pursue. You should be okay with that because it's part of the same system that allows high-rise condos along the city's arteries.
My only point of contention against the apartments/condos themselves is the incredibly cheap materials and trendy designs that will look terrible in a decade's time. Look back on other periods of housing like the 70's Brady Bunch-style ranch houses to see how other trendy houses have aged.
> Capital Hill
With an "o", not an "a".
If you're using zoning to accomplish that, you don't have a free market.
And those century old houses would be a lot safer if they could be turned into multiple units, which can be done without demolition. The smaller old houses get knocked down to build a huge new house, which is made of the same materials and designs as those condos and apartments.
> do we want to be knocking down turn-of-the-century craftsman and tudor homes
Yes
> They can bring a ton of character to a neighborhood.
Who gets to decide what constitutes "character"? Who gets to decide that "character" trumps affordability? Who gets to decide when "character" supersedes property rights?
Moreover a lot of these craftsman homes were pretty "cookie cutter" when they were built, and a lot of them were ordered from catalogues. These things change with age as facades are updated, repaired, and replaced. Our cities have been so slavishly devoted to fictionalized imaginings of their own pasts that we are impoverishing real people today.
So who should get to dictate what gets built? People that don't live there (and therefore don't vote?)
> Who gets to decide when "character" supersedes property rights?
Most cities have a council that decides this, and often with input from the residents who actively live there, and care about their hometown.
Whoever owns the land it's getting built on, and whoever's doing the building.
For a country that supposedly prides itself on its individual freedoms, we have a surprising number of people who think they should get to decide what others do with their homes/land.
The main advantage of the Link is the total separation from traffic; even with the bus lanes, the bus on Pike and Pine will get bogged down waiting for poor drivers, pedestrians crossing the street, etc.
Link will get better over time of course and I'm happy for that, but I haven't seen any traffic crisis on the hill that's severely affecting peoples lives day-to-day: 30 minute commute is not bad.
Definitely much worse if some large event is happening (Seattle Center, Convention Center, even some games at the stadiums can screw up Downtown traffic.)
At least between Capitol Hill and Downtown the bus does not get anywhere near those speeds.
> "Wanting to live in single family housing near the city and enforcing it legally is exactly why public transit projects like subways become impossible. You need to have critical pockets of density before it becomes a sensible investment."
Also, Philadelphia has a ton of single family homes, and one of the best subways in the country. You are just simply wrong.
Going off of this comment it might be a trend.
If you'd like to discuss any of the actual arguments I'd be happy to. I had a lot of time to reflect on it while I lived in a 2br house with a garden a mile from 4th and pike!
Edit to address your edit:
Philly is an aberration. Obviously when presenting why to build a subway you have to present data to make your case. When an entire block has the housing density of a single apartment is a harder case.
So it's probably correct to say "All housing construction eventually helps affordability."
For this reason, building luxury homes is essential for housing the homeless.
It's funny how people who believe that more housing causes more affordability also tend to believe that building more roads doesn't clear congestion.
Your solution to homeless is to make cities so unattractive people flee? I suppose that would reduce rents, in a horrible way.