West Seattle, Washington

13 Thursday

29℉

New group West Seattle Urbanism launches campaign to ‘Save the Neighborhood Centers’ in rezoning plan

January 27, 2025 4:21 pm
|      92 COMMENTS
 |   Development | Neighborhoods | West Seattle housing | West Seattle news


As we’ve reported previously, the rezoning plan that’s gone to the City Council as part of the comprehensive plan (aka One Seattle Plan) review includes a new designation for parts of the city, Neighborhood Centers. Some community groups have voiced opposition to them; a new group called West Seattle Urbanism has launched a petition drive to urge the council to support them. Here’s the announcement we received from Scott Berkley:

West Seattle Urbanism is circulating a petition in support of the proposed neighborhood centers in West Seattle that are part of the One Seattle comp plan. We already have 200 signatures and we’d love to double that! West Seattle has long been known as a neighborhood for raising families, but the rising unaffordability of housing threatens that. By allowing the continued natural growth of small neighborhood centers like High Point and Alki, we can allow more affordable housing options, as well as create walkable neighborhoods that support small local businesses. We encourage anyone who wants to see a thriving West Seattle for decades to come to sign the petition and join our call for continued thoughtful growth and opportunity!

actionnetwork.org/petitions/save-the-west-seattle-neighborhood-centers

West Seattle Urbanism is a newly formed group that cares about the affordability, walkability, bikeability, transit-access, and overall livability of West Seattle and our greater region. We meet on Wednesday nights.

The group’s next meeting is at 6 pm this Wednesday (January 29) at Great American Diner and Bar (4752 California SW). Meantime, the City Council’s next Comp Plan review meeting is Wednesday (here’s the agenda) and it’s holding a public hearing on February 5 (here’s that agenda, which explains how to participate).

Share This

92 Replies to "New group West Seattle Urbanism launches campaign to 'Save the Neighborhood Centers' in rezoning plan"

  • Keep neighborhood January 27, 2025 (6:29 pm)
    Reply

    Boo!  Not in favor. Where are the links to the organized opposition?

    • WSB January 27, 2025 (6:52 pm)
      Reply

      There’s no single West Seattle organization opposing the rezoning, but our most-recent mention of a neighborhood group raising concerns was the Fauntleroy Community Association’s letter-writing campaign:
      https://westseattleblog.com/2024/12/city-rezoning-plan-1-week-to-comment-3-things-to-know-new-city-meeting-morgan-qa-fauntleroy-call-to-action/

    • Dustin January 27, 2025 (8:08 pm)
      Reply

      Why are you opposed to more neighbors? Are you worried about traffic? parking? Do you just not like other people?Adding denser housing adds more tax revenue for the city to maintain its infrastructure, adds more customers for local businesses, and can allow people to live closer to the things they need so more of us can live car free. Every person who can live here without a car is a person who isn’t driving in from the suburbs, increasing traffic and fighting for parking once they get here. That’s better for everyone, including the people who do still choose to drive.If you just don’t like other people I’m not sure why you live in a major city

      • Justin January 28, 2025 (12:26 am)
        Reply

        I think you’re onto something here. I’m a millennial with two degrees, currently unemployed, and planning to go back to college for a third degree in tech, so I don’t yet own a home nor can I even think about saving for. 400,000 downpayment for a Seattle home.  You get the point – homes here are outrageously expensive.  There are several reasons for that – disability factors as well – but limited supply of affordable options for housing and high demand for those middle valued (slightly more affordable but still kind of pricey) homes.  Yes, rezoning can stabilize a housing market,  it not really make prices drop by much. Instead, you would see a slower appreciation of prices from where they are now.  So basically these homeowners have two possible futures to think of – one where the net worth of their homes is stable and slowly appreciates over time because the area was rezoned and now potential homebuyers have way more options to choose from – even slightly more affordable options.  (See where I’m going here?).  Or those homeowners can form little groups like this to demand that no additional housing is built!!!!!!!!  They already own their homes and probably purchased them when middle class jobs paid significantly better and homes were significantly more adorable, but now this generation is using their homes as retirement piggy banks, further adding to the major F*ck over of the younger generation in America.   (But I suppose I’d do that too if I were a lucky boomer who bought my first home on a west Seattle hill overlooking Puget Sound by working at a local diner and partnered with a manager of a gas station.). I’m serious.  This type of person makes up a large portion of Seattle suburbish neighborhoods.  And they are not happy about change even when the worlds population (currently surpassing 8b) is growing. Seattle is a growing city, but this also equates to better and more opportunities and everyone benefits in a way from this growth (with a few downsides as well,  but these can be managed well WITH GOOD POLICY LIKE REZONING ON LOW DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS TO STRATEGICALLY PLACED MEDIUM DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS  

        • Tracey January 28, 2025 (7:08 am)
          Reply

          Hey Justin.  My 2 bed/1bath home 670 sq ft home with lovely fenced yard for dogs and kids will be going on the market soon.  $575,000 list.  That is a $115,000 down payment not $400,000.  Keep your eye out.  Sunrise heights neighborhood.  This is called a starter home.

          • amd January 28, 2025 (9:30 am)

            Jesus, $575,000 for a starter home?  No wonder there are so many RVs.  With a 20% down payment on your home, whoever buys it will need to make about $120,000 a year to meet the “housing is only 30% of my income” threshold.  Who can afford dogs and kids with a $3500/month mortgage?

        • Tracey January 28, 2025 (7:16 am)
          Reply

          PS.  I paid $310,000 for it in 2006.  Using a Return on Investment calculator, it will yield me 3.31% annually.  The average annual inflation rate over the same time period was 2.39%.

          • walkerws January 28, 2025 (8:51 am)

            Hi Tracey, “starter homes” like that barely exist in Seattle. Your house is smaller than the average small condo, and so is an anomaly and is likely why its appreciation has tracked far below the market. It is not a useable example as it represents a fraction of a percent of the actual housing stock in the city.

          • bill January 28, 2025 (8:53 am)

            Tracey, you are banking on getting asking price and ignoring commissions and fees which will be around $40k at your asking price. If you paid cash in full yes your return will be about 3%. If you only made the usual 20% down payment your rate of return will be 7% on that investment. That’s the big picture without knowing everything about repairs and upgrades and your taxes.

          • Tracey January 28, 2025 (11:38 am)

            Bill, yes I was doing a basic calculation that didn’t include mortgage interest at 6.25% in 2006, upgrades, repairs, commissions, excise tax, etc.   My point is I didn’t get rich.  The return on the S&P 500 over the same period of time was 10.68% annually.  WalkerWS – my neighborhood is littered with “War boxes” from the 40s.  In fact an entire block of them. I get letters from developers every month to come tear my house down, build 3 and sell the cheapest one for $700,000 with no yard or storage.  Whoever buys my house will be very lucky to have an affordable home in a wonderful neighborhood.   Plenty of people are raising their kids in these homes on my street.  They are worth saving. 

        • YIMBY January 28, 2025 (9:21 am)
          Reply

          RIGHT ON.

        • Pelicans January 28, 2025 (10:28 am)
          Reply

          Justin, Thank you for your enlightening insights. They clarified a lot of things for me. But I beg to differ with you and others who want to vilify older people who want to age in place in their homes, which they worked for their whole lives. Those who count on their homes’ eventual sales to sustain them in their old age, or provide for their children. Who are you to say when a person should vacate/sell their home for the good of others? Give up their homes?? Just because it is their retirement security, or the “generational wealth” they pass to their children?  Take a hard look at how you feel about other human beings, even if they are elderly. Ageism is one of the last widespread acceptable bigotries.

          • Scarlett January 28, 2025 (11:35 am)

            No, actually, self-deception is vastly, universally, more ubiquitous.   Another ageism myth?  That the eldery are all sweet grandfather or grandmother types with not a selfish, or mean, bone in their bodies.  No one is telling anyone to give up their home, and no one wants to force anyone out, but the least everyone can do is examine the provenance of every dollar in their wallet, what advantages they had, or lucky breaks, everything that gave them a leg up on someone else.  Even that seems an impossible task with most people.  

          • Pelicans January 29, 2025 (8:42 am)

            Scarlett,  The provenance of every dollar in my wallet, legally, honestly and ethically hard earned is absolutely none of your business, and never will be. It is between me and the IRS.  And btw, the “ageism myth” about kindly old people you mentioned is an absolute stereotype you and others have bought into due to your apparent bitterness. We are human beings, not stereotypes, just like every one else.  And, oh, I’m not a grandparent, not a property owner, but a disabled veteran (I was priced out of the WS housing market over a decade ago, but manage to pay ever increasing rent.)  If I was a home owner now, I’d definitely hold onto that home as long as I could to tide me over when I decided to sell. Yes, it would be my “piggy bank” for retirement or elder care in the future. In case you don’t understand, I’m standing up for older people who are villified as being selfish by people like you.   If we don’t take care of ourselves, no one else will.  If the vindictive attitude toward the elderly is this widespread now, how bad will it be when you’re ‘old and in the way?’  What goes around, comes around, dear.

          • WS Urbanist January 28, 2025 (11:54 am)

            I appreciate your concern for older homeowners and their desire to age in place. It’s important to clarify that upzoning doesn’t force anyone out of their homes. Rather, it allows for more housing options in neighborhoods, potentially on adjacent properties. Long story short, you will not be forced to sell your home, but this will allow your neighbors to sell their home to create additional housing if they choose to. Additionally, financial experts generally advise against relying solely on the assumption that the value of your home will always increase when saving for retirement. A diversified retirement strategy, including 401(k)s and other investments, is typically recommended for long-term financial security.The issue of “generational wealth” through property is complex. While it benefits some families, it can perpetuate broader societal inequalities and make housing inaccessible for many. Seattle, historically, has been a tightly redlinded city. NIMBYism, often driven by a desire to maintain property values, has contributed to housing shortages and affordability crises in many cities, disproportionately affecting younger generations and lower-income individuals. This isn’t about ageism or forcing people to give up their homes. It’s about creating West Seattle into a more inclusive, diverse, and sustainable community that can accommodate a fast-growing population. While the character of what I like to call “Small Town West Seattle” is important to many, we must balance this with the pressing need for housing in our cities.

      • Karl January 28, 2025 (7:59 am)
        Reply

        Don’t put words in people’s mouths to push your extreme agenda. West Seattle has reached its saturation point. We used to have affordable housing at High Point, until it was sold off – why? None of the housing there is in my price range. West Seattle has many apartment complexes, but public transportation here is miserable now with reduced buses, reduced bus stops and reduced schedules. The streets are in disrepair, and the bike lanes are horribly incomplete. I’m in my sixties, and bike as much as possible, but riding here is dangerous in many places. If you add more people, Infrastructure has to keep up! Instead, schools are being torn down, independent neighborhood stores have closed and the crime rate is way up, among other problems. These problems need to be solved, but so far, it’s ‘just do more with less’. NOT acceptable!

        • WSB January 28, 2025 (10:40 am)
          Reply

          One datapoint: If you’re referring to West Seattle specifically, only one school has been “torn down” recently, and that’s because a larger one is being built in its place (Alki Elementary), as was the case with the three previous “torn down” schools in the past 15 years (Arbor Heights and Genesee Hill Elementaries, and Denny Int’l MS, also replaced by larger buildings). Meantime, additions have been built at Madison, West Seattle, and Fairmount Park. – TR

    • B W January 28, 2025 (8:13 pm)
      Reply

      Kill this plan before it gets off the ground. 

  • Alex January 27, 2025 (6:46 pm)
    Reply

    Their website allows for signing of the petition but doesn’t provide much detail what is in the Comprehensive Plan.     They do show a picture of what an apartment building could look like but it only has 3 stories.  Wish the City was talking about 30 foot high structures –  however the Plan calls for rezoning hundreds of ‘single family’ homes in West Seattle to allow for 5 story apartment buildings with 5 foot setbacks.    It’s a leap of faith that the Neighborhood Centers are going to provide ‘affordable’ housing with at least one Councilmember, Cathy Moore, publicly commenting that the Plan does not address affordability.

    • Pierre January 27, 2025 (8:01 pm)
      Reply

      The population is increasing, if we don’t build more housing prices will continue to climb. That’s just simple supply and demand. The issue with out current system is that we artificially restrict the supply with these strict zoning regulations, this comprehensive plan will allow the market to build more of the housing we so desperately need.

      5 story buildings would mostly just be allowed on busy arterial streets that already have existing businesses, I don’t think that would be such a terrible thing.

      If you oppose this, I would ask you to consider the alternative. Unless we are going to stop having kids, that new housing has to go somewhere, and without allowing more within the city itself that looks like cutting down forests to build more subdivisions further and further from the city. Baristas, service workers, your kids who don’t get tech degrees, all of those people will be forced to live far away and drive in, adding to pollution and traffic. Our city isn’t a museum, it should be allowed to naturally densify as needed.

      • JustSarah January 27, 2025 (9:46 pm)
        Reply

        “…your kids who don’t get tech degrees…” Honestly, tech degrees aren’t going to be worth much in the future with how quickly AI is growing. I think the jobs that will end up paying more are the trades that can’t be replaced with AI: plumbing, electrical, possibly (hopefully) teaching. And we have an oligarchy forming with massive wealth consolidation.

        So yeah, everyone should be on board with building more housing ASAP so we can aspire to a basic level of societal decency. Don’t listen to the people trying to distract you with the “affordable housing” argument. Housing supply increasing significantly is what will give room for prices to come down. 

      • Alex January 28, 2025 (8:06 am)
        Reply

        Hi Pierre, Go look at the maps.   Whole blocks that are not on arterials  are proposed for 5 story apartment buildings.    

      • Frog January 28, 2025 (8:30 am)
        Reply

        So many references to families and children in the urbanist pitch — it’s always for the children — but the densified West Seahattan environment won’t really be so child friendly.  Children don’t love being trapped in white boxes, and outdoor spaces are, by ideological choice, territory of the homeless with all their eccentricities.  Driving the kids anywhere will become more difficult as car haters progressively cripple the road system.  I think the child and family pitch is actually fake — Seahattan will be more an environment for child-free adults, sitting alone doom-scrolling in their micro-apartments, or hooking up in their polycules, or whatever they do now days.  In the future you will have a choice — you can be a tech worker or barista in Seahattan, or have a family, but not both.

      • Kyle January 28, 2025 (11:14 am)
        Reply

        Please look at the maps. The upzone you would be signing would increase density far off those “arterials”. We should plan for the growth, by going higher on existence neighborhood centers and arterials. Not the peanut butter approach that is planned here.

        • Matt Higgins January 28, 2025 (4:36 pm)
          Reply

          By peanut butter approach, I assume you’re referencing the urban sprawl of single family homes that you likely live in?

    • BJG January 27, 2025 (9:15 pm)
      Reply

      Sorry but not true. We see 5 story apartment plans for our tiny Rutan Place where now there are early West Seattle homes that we very much love. Our street is really just a  dead end alley, not an arterial. How we were chosen to be “the ones” we’ll never know. That’s how it works in One Seattle. The planners won’t have to live in the urban mess they will create. You won’t see this in Laurelhurst ever! Before you cry NIMBY again we have duplexes, triplexes and DADUs here. We look at apartments in the Junction. But there must be a sense of scale with the neighborhoods that is completely lacking in this plan.

      • JD January 28, 2025 (9:49 am)
        Reply

        BJG,
        Please share the “5 story apartment plans for tiny  Rustan Place that you claim? 

        And for any change, you and your neighbors would need to sell the old Seattle homes loved so much?

        • Brennen January 28, 2025 (10:30 am)
          Reply

          This piece of the discussion always seems to be forgotten – it’s up to the individual land owners what they want to do. If you live in a single family home and love it, you can continue living there until you die. But if you want to tear it down and build an apartment building with 4 units or 6 units instead, you can do that too and potentially make a bunch of money. And I just checked the proposed zoning maps (https://one-seattle-plan-zoning-implementation-seattlecitygis.hub.arcgis.com/pages/zoning-map), Rutan place is not getting upzoned to 5 story buildings, it’s getting the minimum treatment that every property is getting, which is 4-6 units max 3 stories per state law. 

        • BJG January 28, 2025 (11:18 am)
          Reply

          You are interested, why? It’s Rutan Place. You don’t know it obviously. There are 4 houses on a short street to a dead end alley.  The One Seattle Draft Zone Map is available online. Look it up. Rezone proposal to LR3- Multifamily up to 5 Stories. Do you think a developer will build less? Look around!

        • BJG January 28, 2025 (12:18 pm)
          Reply

          Rutan Place! Obviously you don’t know it. 4 houses long headed to a dead end. See One Seattle Plan Draft Map. Rezoned to LR-3 Multifamily up to 5 Stories. Developers will maximize build. Look around.

          • Brennen January 28, 2025 (1:30 pm)

            I looked at the map again and you are right, 2 of the 4 houses will be upzoned to LR3. Which makes sense, because it will soon be 2 blocks from a light rail station and even now it’s right on the edge of a very walkable neighborhood. But if the people living in those houses love them so much they don’t have to sell! Upzoning just adds the option of larger buildings, no one is getting kicked out.

      • Santiagou January 28, 2025 (2:01 pm)
        Reply

        BJG Rutan place is right next to the Junction. Perfect for more people to live there. Higher density is great for that type of area! Congratulations! You seem to have one of those eluding places where the price of the land is much higher than the house. You don’t need to sell, but that is high value land I tell you. Nostalgia is great and all, but I wouldn’t know where to draw the line, that area used to be woods probably, and territory owned by native Americans and we had no issue to move there. I’d say congrats and reap the benefits of more demand. 

  • Mike January 27, 2025 (6:53 pm)
    Reply

    If anything, the urbanization doesn’t go far enough. Wish we would actually meaningfully confront the housing shortage instead of listening to NIMBYs. 

    • Gary January 27, 2025 (7:10 pm)
      Reply

      If you’re looking for meaningful discussion, maybe don’t use the term “NIMBY” right out of the gate. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    • jOHN January 27, 2025 (7:32 pm)
      Reply

      Agree with Mike.
      Finally, changes  that can alleviate our housing shortage are on the horizon.
       
      Support urbanism for a better Seattle for all people, not just the haves.

      • EVGuy January 27, 2025 (9:00 pm)
        Reply

        If you read the linked article, or just go look at some of these “upzone” lots, the housing is not “for all people”, it’s once again for people who can afford it. You take a single house that’s usually older, knock it down, and now there’s 4-6 “houses” on the same lot – all selling for more than the single house would have. 

        • Build Baby Build January 27, 2025 (9:50 pm)
          Reply

          @EVguy: those 5 households are no longer competing with renters in apartments pushing up demand. We have three ways to deal with this: homelessness (2010-now strategy), degrowth, or build a lot more density to take into account the growing population. 

          • 1994 January 27, 2025 (10:43 pm)

            Have you been down to South Park lately to see the 5 or 6 homes placed on a 5000 SQ lot?  Take a tour of South Park to see what this plan will look like because some of it has been built there. If you like wall to wall structures with the only open space being pathways between the structures then you will get build baby build. No open areas, no green stuff….take a tour of South Park to see the future  what the One Seattle Plan will look like when built.

          • Humoo January 28, 2025 (8:39 am)

            South Park has lots of open space and single family homes, what are you talking about.

        • WS Urbanist January 28, 2025 (12:32 pm)
          Reply

          While it’s true that new developments often cater to higher-income residents initially, this actually benefits the broader housing market in a less obvious way. When new, more expensive housing is built, it attracts wealthier tenants who might otherwise occupy older, more affordable units. This creates a chain reaction:1) Affluent neighbors move into new, high end housing2) This frees up their previous, slightly older homes3) Middle-income folks can now move into those vacated units4) This, in turn, opens up more affordable housing for lower income residentsThis process, known as “filtering” in economics, gradually makes housing more affordable across all income levels. As more housing is built, regardless of its initial price point, it increases overall supply and puts downward pressure on housing prices/rents throughout the market.While it might seem counterintuitive, even luxury developments can contribute to overall housing affordability in the long run. This effect has been consistently observed in housing market studies and is a key reason why increasing housing supply, even at higher price points, is crucial for addressing affordability issues.

          • M January 28, 2025 (9:27 pm)

            Isn’t that the same way they sold trickle down economics to people?  

          • WS Resident January 28, 2025 (11:20 pm)

            Exactly @M. It’s a myth like trickle down economics. Increased density hasn’t done squat to reduce real estate or rental costs.  The prices climb with every new building or backyard cottage built.  

          • WS Urbanist January 29, 2025 (9:31 am)

            You’re right to be skeptical, but this housing market dynamic is fundamentally different from trickle-down economics. Here’s why, 1) Supply and Demand: The housing market operates on basic supply and demand principles. When we increase the supply of housing (at any price point), it helps meet the overall demand, which can lead to price stabilization or reduction across the market. 2) Direct Impact: Unlike trickle-down economics, which theorizes indirect benefits from tax cuts for the wealthy, the housing market effect is more direct. When new units are added, it immediately impacts the housing supply. 3) Observed Effects: The “filtering” effect in housing has been consistently observed and documented in numerous studies, unlike the more controversial and less proven effects of trickle-down economics. 4) Local vs. National: Housing markets are largely local, and these effects can be observed within specific cities or regions, as opposed to the broader, national-scale claims of trickle-down economics. 5) Time Frame: The effects in the housing market can often be seen in the short to medium term, whereas trickle-down economics relied on long-term, often unrealized promises.While it’s a fair question to ask, the comparison to trickle-down economics doesn’t really hold up when you look at the mechanics of how housing markets actually function.

    • BJG January 28, 2025 (9:23 am)
      Reply

      No need to go to South Park to see One Seattle future builds. Drive on 45th from Alaska to Edmunds and look up to the east. Three former craftsman homes were razed to build twelve structures called “condos” and four were priced at 1.6mil. Tiny rooms.  A few shrubs, no trees. Just hardscape. They’re in danger of sliding off the hill. If you can put 20% down and pay $9500/mo they can be yours. That’s making housing affordable in WS! 

  • Rhonda January 27, 2025 (8:15 pm)
    Reply

    Urbanization is destroying West Seattle. I guess we need to form a group to preserve West Seattle’s trees, zoning, and liveable density for future generations.

    • John January 27, 2025 (8:38 pm)
      Reply

      Couldn’t have said it better myself!

    • Build baby build January 27, 2025 (8:59 pm)
      Reply

      @rhonda: hope you had fun at the inauguration! Did you see all the EO deregulating the environmental protections? Maybe you caught on that there’s no more checking in with everyone at every single stage of the process? The number one priority is PROSPERITY and we’re going to BUILD THOSE CONDOS!! 

    • Build baby build January 27, 2025 (9:43 pm)
      Reply

      @rhonda: It was just announced that there’s a $500bn investment in AI. Where are all those 100k workers going to live? A lot of them will be in Seattle. This is just the start of what could be a massive jobs boom. They will need places to live. We have to adapt to the new 2025 realities.

      • Rhonda January 27, 2025 (10:17 pm)
        Reply

        Nevada, Kansas, Oklahoma, Eastern Washington, New Mexico, Eastern Oregon, Idaho, Indiana…..all places with LOTS of room for people to live, Build baby.

        • Build Baby Build January 28, 2025 (4:07 am)
          Reply

          @rhonda: it needs to be where the jobs are. Seattle is only going to boom since the unleashing of the massive jobs boom. 2025 reality. 

          • Karl January 28, 2025 (8:21 am)

            You can’t stuff ten pounds of s–t in a five pound bag. West Seattle needs a lot more buses, road improvement, bike lanes, small businesses and better police patrol to handle increased “urbanization”. That is not happening. I won’t support cramming more people into an area that’s not a decent place to live. 

        • amd January 28, 2025 (7:08 am)
          Reply

          Idaho and Kansas were identified as two of the states with the biggest increase in their homeless populations in recent years (along with Alaska and Utah), according to the recently released HUD report.  So, no, states are not just full of housing options because you seem to think they’re empty.

      • Pelicans January 29, 2025 (9:18 am)
        Reply

        To Build,Baby, Build: Telework, Baby,Telework!

    • Lauren January 28, 2025 (6:16 am)
      Reply

      Building “up” instead of “out” actually saves trees…

    • AK January 28, 2025 (9:38 am)
      Reply

      @Rhonda  Yes!! Agree.

  • Libra January 27, 2025 (8:30 pm)
    Reply

    https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/more-concrete-less-green-a-cautionary-tale-about-upzoning-from-south-park/

  • Up for upzone January 27, 2025 (9:18 pm)
    Reply

    Live in a SFH in an upzone area. Surprised the upzone didn’t do more. With the light rail (yes, hopeful for that too), we could have more density around it. Yes in my backyard. 

  • Build Baby Build January 27, 2025 (9:20 pm)
    Reply

    I never hear any alternatives from the opponents. Nobody ever says they’re for degrowth, less business opportunity, even fewer first responders who can’t afford to live here, decreasing property values or the continued rise of homelessness. I hear a lot of wanting to reap the rewards from Seattle while moaning about the problems that this growth produces. Seattle has grown over the last 15 years at a fast pace. We can either turn our back on more growth because we don’t want to create opportunity for new folk or we can start to consider what the next 20 years will look like. Yes, everything has downsides and I will be going to these meetings looking for growth that as much as possible takes into account affordability, transportation and the environment. 

  • Unfortunate January 27, 2025 (10:42 pm)
    Reply

    Wonderful! The NIMBYS here are so dishonest and wildly out of control it’s gotten to the point where I will support any and all honest attempts at improving the housing situation here. Thanks for sharing this!

  • I love the blogmeister January 27, 2025 (10:45 pm)
    Reply

    Just want to say I think this blog has done a great job covering this. I really appreciated seeing the detailed information, including in particular the videos of the meeting shared here for all to see. So thanks

    • WSB January 27, 2025 (11:34 pm)
      Reply

      Hi, I don’t know if you’re being facetious, but we don’t have video of this group, which just contacted us this morning.

  • H2OK9 January 28, 2025 (3:35 am)
    Reply

    I simply would caution to keep the notion of ‘ LIVABILITY’ in mind and that density without services, infrastructure or community is just over-crowding.

    • Emmit January 28, 2025 (8:00 am)
      Reply

      So true. Look, we can all get behind a just cause and not throw common sense – and LIVABILITY – out the window. Little to no investment in  services and infrastructure in the residential neighborhoods where a lot of the density is randomly happening right now, is not smart urbanism. And you Urbanists know it. 

  • Lauren January 28, 2025 (6:17 am)
    Reply

    Signed!

  • Emmit January 28, 2025 (7:51 am)
    Reply

    Here’s the thing: There are so many lingering unused spaces in West Seattle neighborhood centers right now that developers will not touch. Look at the California-Admiral Way intersection to see what I mean, which is 3/4 dead now with only a gas station as the “vibrant” corner. That’s commercial space that could be reimagined as housing hubs. But It’s easier and cheaper to knock down houses on residential streets, so that’s the go-to course instead of actually build up existing neighborhood centers. You can have higher density, more housing supply, more affordability in West Seattle by prioritizing development where it already exists- neighborhood centers. One Seattle should start there then initiate commonsense growth through targeted eminent domain rather than allow developers/builders to randomly reshape the aesthetic and character of residential neighborhoods. What’s happening is still sprawl, it’s like “micro-sprawl”. Look, we can have it all and make a future Seattle that meets the needs of more people. We can start by setting aside old tropes and putting some actual creative ingenuity into it. 

    • Laura January 28, 2025 (11:06 am)
      Reply

      Yes, this. The California/Admiral intersection makes no sense. Sure there’s former dry cleaning business hazmat to deal with but this is a prime location for apartments-over-retail projects like the Starbucks at California / Alaska.

  • Scarlett January 28, 2025 (9:12 am)
    Reply

    Got news for you all, nothing is going to be affordable from here on out.  Its a mad dash for survival and no one cares who they have to step on or what alleged principles and ethics they have to sacrifice. The only commodity that hasn’t increased in price is talk, it’s still very, very cheap.  

  • Kyle January 28, 2025 (11:26 am)
    Reply

    We should plan and increase density in accordance with State law. However I am more in favor of building higher on arterials and near commercial centers than the peanut butter approach here. The blue circles extend too far away from commercial zones.

  • Jenn January 28, 2025 (1:13 pm)
    Reply

    There is NO affordability in the “Neighborhood Center” plan. South Park WAS the most affordable neighborhood BEFORE it was upzoned under MHA, now all the affordable apartments are being demolished for LESS “luxury” townhouse units. And, we still dont have frequent transit or a grocery store. The “One Seattle” plan is no plan at all, just more blanket upzones that will cause more displacement! None of the new development is as affordable as the existing homes, and they’re TINY. Also, they have no trees, yards, parking. This is South Park tho, I’m sure the units built in Alki and Fauntleroy will be MUCH more affordable and accessible to working class families.Dont fall for the build build build Density con. It ruined my community. Now I dont have neighbors, I have airbnbs. These groups are often funded by the real estate lobby, the largest lobby in the US. Not grassroots, they are termed “astroturf”.  As far as “welcoming new neighbors”, my community was so diverse before we were upzoned for redevelopment. Immigrants from all over the world, now it’s less and less diverse as the affordable units were razed.Here is what market-rate “urbanists” wont tell you: Affordable housing developers can already get spot upzones and expedited permitting, etc., anywhere we want. This plan is about big profits per square foot, not building homes for the people who need them most. Just NO to the neighborhood center idea.  Who REALLY benefits? 

    • Jacob January 28, 2025 (1:36 pm)
      Reply

      lol I did a simple search using Airbnb app in South Park and there’s literal ZERO Airbnbs there. Fact check: False. South Park’s core has so many abandoned houses I lost count. This is what you’re defending? I love seeing all the busted out windows and depilated homes walking to Loretta’s. 

    • WS Urbanist January 28, 2025 (5:02 pm)
      Reply

      As the saying goes, a rising tide raises all ships. More housing benefits EVERYONE, which is why this plan is so important. There are numerous studies in multiple cities that show that increasing housing supply, even through “luxury” townhouse units, helps stabilize housing costs across the market (the affect is called filtering if you’re curious)The new neighborhood centers addresses our housing crisis by allowing more housing types in more neighborhoods. While concerns about displacement are valid, maintaining restrictive zoning only drives up prices further by artificially limiting supply. Cities that have embraced similar zoning reforms have seen increased housing production across price points and made housing more affordable for everyone (Minneapolis is a great example of this).By increasing the number of neighborhood centers, Seattle is actually repairing the damage done by aggressive redlining in our city and making our home more equitable and affordable for everyone.

  • John January 28, 2025 (2:37 pm)
    Reply

    Yes, “Who REALLY benefits”has become our standard response to  a societal problems.

    The deserving “who” may not be us with housing, amenities that shield us and traditions we wish to endure.  

    Empathy is a challenge.

  • wetone January 28, 2025 (4:51 pm)
    Reply

    If anyone thinks upzoning is going to really help housing affordability in Seattle, you better re-think your thought process. Upzoning is main reason single family homes are so expensive today and making them more so. Most all starter homes and any home on normal lot size can easily be upbuilt to 3 units, which drives value up. Investment groups will pay top dollar so they can build out then sell or rent for top dollar. City loves it and is pushing hard for these builds. Sad part is city is doing little towards updating infrastructure and in a few years will be greatly increasing taxes and trying to catch-up after damage is done.  Sad times ahead for Seattle area I fear and if you think housing is expensive today just wait ;) 

    • WS Urbanist January 28, 2025 (5:36 pm)
      Reply

      Based on what evidence?Minneapolis banned single family zoning in 2019. They saw that housing prices rose more slowly than in peer cities and that there was an increase in duplex and triplex construction. Portland is another great example. They allow 4 plexes on all lots in the city and limit the maximum size of a house. This led to the new houses being over $100,000 cheaper on average since developers were no longer allowed to build McMansions and the vast majority of housing built has been multi-family housing.

      • k January 28, 2025 (8:11 pm)
        Reply

        Houston is another good example.  They built and built and built and housing prices are way more stable than cities where building is restricted.  Nashville has done well by allowing tons of building as well.

    • YT January 29, 2025 (10:50 am)
      Reply

      @Wetone, My personal experience is obviously anecdotal, but when shopping for a home in west Seattle, I wasn’t able to afford any of the single family homes in the area. Even the run down fixer uppers were out of my price range. I could, however, afford a new townhouse that was part of 6 homes built where there was previously only one. My neighbors shared a similar experience. In this case, and I’m sure many others, increasing density absolutely made housing more affordable. 

  • Rob January 28, 2025 (5:52 pm)
    Reply

    Fully Oppose this.  1)In what universe does more density/more building create “greener” neighborhoods, as stated in the westseaurbanism propaganda?  More building is….more developed space, less green space, as well as more shadowed streetscapes without open sky sightlines; and 2)in what universe does dense housing equate to fewer vehicles?  We’ve been densifying West Seattle for 2 decades and the # of cars, lack of parking and traffic has increased with it.  You can’t ignore what’s real and just wish it’ll somehow be magically different with more of the same.You’re dealing in fantasy to think the outcomes you promise are achieved by the means you intend.  

    • Canton January 28, 2025 (7:14 pm)
      Reply

      Spot on. Completely agree. It’s just simple gentrification with the guise of creating affordability. I’ve seen older affordable apartments ~20 units, get torn down for 10 individual, million dollar townhomes. Hardly affordable to the previous renter… 

  • Rob January 28, 2025 (5:59 pm)
    Reply

    ws urbanist, do you have any reputable sources to support your specific claims above?  

    • WS Urbanist January 28, 2025 (8:51 pm)
      Reply

      Five minute Google searchhttps://www.npr.org/2024/02/17/1229867031/housing-shortage-zoning-reform-citieshttps://www.portland.gov/bps/planning/rip/news/2023/7/5/new-study-shows-promising-housing-production-results-residentialhttps://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-estate/high-housing-costs-minneapolis-solution-rcna170857https://tcf.org/content/report/a-bipartisan-vision-for-the-benefits-of-middle-housing-the-case-of-oregon/https://www.oregonlive.com/realestate/2025/01/6-townhomes-replace-single-house-on-a-portland-corner-lot.html?outputType=amp

      • Canton January 28, 2025 (9:28 pm)
        Reply

        If you want affordable housing, look at Detroit. High crime, no jobs, but one can buy a 3 br, 2 bath house for $6,000… West Seattle used to be a affordable enclave. Up zoning with high end interests is gentrifying the people you propose to help…

        • WS Urbanist January 29, 2025 (9:42 am)
          Reply

          Comparing Seattle to Detroit isn’t really a fair or useful comparison for several reasons:

          1. Economic Factors: Detroit’s economic struggles, particularly the decline of the auto industry, led to job losses and population exodus (about 1.2 million people since its peak in the 1950s). Seattle, on the other hand, has a diverse, growing economy.
          2. Crime Rates: While both cities face urban challenges, it’s not accurate to characterize Detroit as having significantly higher crime rates than Seattle. In fact, recent data shows that crime rates in many categories are comparable between the two cities.
          3. Housing Market Dynamics: Detroit’s extremely low house prices are a result of long-term economic decline and population loss, not a model of affordable housing policy. Seattle’s challenge is managing growth and affordability in a booming market.
          4. Gentrification Concerns: While gentrification is a valid concern, the alternative – not building enough housing – often leads to even worse displacement as housing shortages drive up prices across the board (when peoples rents increase, they are forced to leave). Additionally, current zoning reinforces racist redlining from Seattle’s past zoning laws.

          The goal of upzoning and increasing housing supply in Seattle isn’t to replicate Detroit’s situation, but to create a balanced market where housing supply can meet demand across various income levels. This approach aims to prevent the extreme price escalations that can occur in supply-constrained, high-demand markets.

      • NotInWestSeattle January 29, 2025 (2:25 pm)
        Reply

        Good research, thanks for links.

        One metric I don’t see addressed much in the various reports and studies is analyses of the impact of employment growth. For example, did Minneapolis or Portland have a similar explosion in high income tech jobs such as occurred in Seattle over the past twenty years?

        Here’s one article that turned up in response to search term “housing costs related to job growth”. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2025/01/06/higher-housing-costs-offset-higher-wages-in-big-cities-says-new-study/

        Another metric I don’t see discussed much in your citations is displacement, which often occurs in the wake of infill development.

        • WS Urbanist January 29, 2025 (5:16 pm)
          Reply

          The displacement concerns you raise are exactly why we need to act on zoning reform. If you want to read through some sobering numbers about Seattle’s situation(https://population-and-demographics-seattlecitygis.hub.arcgis.com/pages/displacement-risk). This isn’t theoretical – displacement is happening right now under our current restrictive zoning.You asked about job growth comparisons with Minneapolis and Portland. This actually strengthens the case for upzoning. While all three cities have growing tech sectors, Seattle’s median household income ($121,984) is significantly higher than Portland ($88,792) or Minneapolis ($80,269). The wage gap between tech workers and other sectors is also notably larger here – our median software engineer salary of $142,000 is about $30-35k higher than Portland or Minneapolis.This wage disparity makes Seattle’s housing shortage even more dangerous for displacement. Higher-paid workers can always outbid others for scarce housing. That’s why 34% of Seattle renters are now cost-burdened (spending over 30% of income on housing), compared to 34.4% in Portland and 26.5% in Minneapolis.The evidence from these cities shows that allowing more housing construction, paired with strong tenant protections and affordable housing requirements, helps moderate these pressures.I will agree with you that the anti-displacement measures in the current plan don’t go far enough (an earlier draft had stronger protections https://publicola.com/2024/04/23/mayors-office-removed-all-new-anti-displacement-proposals-from-draft-anti-displacement-strategy/) and we should be letting the city know that those measures should be brought back into the plan, but without any reform, we’re choosing to continue the displacement that’s already happening. Our current zoning isn’t preserving communities – it’s pricing them out.

  • Ceecee January 28, 2025 (6:25 pm)
    Reply

    Signed. I’m saddened by how many of the commenters here are echoing all the talking points of the anti-urbanist, anti-growth, and yes straight up NIMBY segments. Now, more than ever, Seattle should be open to all and livable for all. 

    • Rob January 28, 2025 (8:10 pm)
      Reply

      That makes no sense.  There is no inferred right to live anyplace.  I love Santa Barbara, but I can’t afford to live there.  Does that mean they as a community have an obligation to build me a house I can afford so I can live there?

      • Jacob January 29, 2025 (10:13 am)
        Reply

        No right to live? God maybe we need to start taking a deep look into society. There are tons of nicer places than Santa Barbara with homeless issues. 

  • mike January 28, 2025 (10:49 pm)
    Reply

    All this discussion of established neighborhoods vs new housing reminds of an older essay by Daniel Hertz titled “The immaculate conception theory of your neighborhood’s origins”.

    Here’s a link: https://cityobservatory.org/the-immaculate-conception-theory-of-your-neighborhoods-origins/

    Here are a couple of cites:

    These assumptions mostly revolve around the idea that older housing was built the right way: ethically, modestly, with an eye to community rather than profit. These older values, in turn, highlight the faults of modern buildings: gaudy and wasteful, disruptive to existing communities, and motivated only by money.

    […]

    Critics accused new bungalow neighborhoods not just of being ugly, but of ripping apart the social fabric of the city. One writer argued that in new neighborhoods full of many separate houses, “each building is treated in isolation, nothing binds it to the next one,” and as a result they lacked an “essential” “togetherness.” Another pointed out that the rise of bungalow neighborhoods coincided with the rise of decentralized business districts, as these sprawling areas—bungalows took up much more space per person than either the more modest single family homes or apartment buildings that had come before—encouraged outlying commercial development and car ownership.

    […]

    Home prices in the 1920s were rising rapidly, leading many people to talk about a housing crisis in terms not so terribly different from today’s. But as Gail Radford describes in her book Modern Housing for America, bungalows weren’t holding the line on cheap homes: in many cases, they represented the luxury housing of their day. Bungalows were so much more expensive than the more modest homes that had preceded them that while the overall cost of living increased by about a factor of two between the 1890s and 1920s, the cost of an entry-level home had increased by a factor of five and a half.

    There’s lots more, including thoughts about zoning and about maintaining property values; it’s worth reading the whole piece.

  • Arbor Heights Resident January 29, 2025 (12:05 am)
    Reply

    Signed this a few days ago, I’m glad this made it to the WSB. It really just comes down to supply and demand- housing supply cannot keep up with housing demand right now, largely due to overly restrictive zoning. The only logical thing to do is to allow more housing to be built. And this can absolutely be done while preserving greenery and keeping traffic congestion down.I’m particularly interested to see more development along SW Barton. Hopefully there will be more going on around there in the future. And someday it’d be nice to have some apartments and small businesses in Arbor Heights, though I’m not holding my breath for that to happen any time soon.

  • Fauntleroy Girl January 29, 2025 (7:03 pm)
    Reply

    I’m glad to see people advocating for the proposed upzoning! I grew up in West Seattle and hope to raise a family here in the coming years. I understand why people resist change, but cities are meant to grow. If we want a future where Seattle is affordable, where driving isn’t the only option for getting around, and where suburban sprawl hasn’t overtaken the whole region, then more housing is our only option.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.