I'm a liberal Democrat. I believe in affordable housing. I recognize the often desperate lack of affordable housing in Seattle, as well as in most other large cities. I'm pleased to see attractive large apartment buildings being constructed surrounding light rail stations. (I'm also a light rail fan.)
Unfortunately, like many other well-meaning citizens, I'm happy to endorse the efforts of city and private authorities to satisfy the need for such housing. But . . .
Not In My Back Yard!!
I live in a middle to upper middle income Seattle residential area. My neighborhood, Montlake, lies immediately south of the University of Washington, across a canal called the Montlake cut. The median value of a single residence home in Montlake seems to be about $1.4 million. That figure seems a lot to persons living in much of the country, but is only a bit above average for Seattle. I live on a rather long block that was platted and developed by two separate developers in the early 1920s. The street on which my house faces makes a small, funny jog about three lots south of mine, where the labors of the two developers met.
Unlike many or most post-World War II developments, the developers did not build houses all based on three or four basic floor plans. They seem to have done the platting, provided the streets and sidewalks, and, I assume, built the sewer lines. The lots were then sold to prospective homeowners who then built their dream houses with their own architects. No two houses up and down the streets of Montlake appear identical. Some are three-story semi-mansions, some are small one-story cottages, and others fall everywhere between.
But the lots are small, and zoning requirements for side and front yards restricted the size of the houses. They all appear quite "nice," to varying degrees, but not -- at least in my portion of Montlake -- in any way pretentious.
City zoning has long permitted apartment houses and other multi-family dwellings only on major thoroughfares. In my part of Montlake, that includes only 24th Avenue E. (Lake Washington Boulevard is also a thoroughfare, but it passes through the Arboretum and has no housing.)
We have a small business area on 24th. There are a couple of restaurants, a coffee shop, a bicycle shop, a small grocery, a cleaner's, and a branch of the Seattle Public Library. Aside from a couple of other very small specialty businesses, that's about it. Montlake's business area is smaller than those of most other neighborhoods. There are a few small apartment buildings, taking advantage of the traditional exception from single-family zoning along an arterial.
In 2023, the state legislature passed HB1110, which removed the ability of cities statewide to impose certain forms of restrictive zoning on residential housing. For cities Seattle's size, the act prohibits zoning that limits builders to one residence per lot. Local zoning codes must permit at least four residences per lot in general, and six residences per lot on construction within quarter mile of a "major transit stop."
The Seattle City Council is now considering specific changes to its zoning code, to bring it into compliance with state law. My own neighborhood, fortunately, would fall within one of the least-modified areas. The developer would be able to build four-unit housing with no more than three or four floors. Just a half-block to the north, in a block identical in character to our own, and considered part of our same mini-neighborhood, the Code would permit 40-foot-high, four-story apartment houses.
These changes all come to seem less theoretical when new construction begins appearing.
A few doors down from my own house, there was a modest house adjacent to an empty lot, both owned by the resident of the house. The empty lot, mostly lawn with a number of trees, one of them quite large, enhanced the character of the two lots, as well as the attractiveness of the neighboring lots. I always considered the homeowner lucky to have such a beautiful park-like area extending his overall living space.
A few months ago, workers began sawing down the trees. As work continued, it became obvious that the existing house's owner was building two large, blocky houses, one behind the other -- both now nearing completion -- on the previously undeveloped lot. Both new houses are a full three stories high, and they appear to have been built as close to the lot's boundaries as zoning permits.
Neither house appears designed to provide "affordable housing," either to homeowners or to renters.
Our neighborhood can absorb the sudden increase in heights and residential density imposed by this construction, viewed in isolation. But there are a number of houses in the neighborhood that are probably candidates as "tear-downs." Each such property is no doubt attractive to developers choosing not to replace them with attractive single-family houses, but instead to develop their lots to their full allowable density under the new state law and the proposed new city zoning ordinance.
I have already received a number of form letters from area realtors offering to buy my house, "as is," cash on the barrelhead. I have restrained myself from angrily replying to these letters.
But this is obviously our future. Seattle has beautiful neighborhoods, each resembling suburban areas outside other large cities. These neighborhoods have significant tree coverage, advantageous both esthetically and environmentally. The single residence atmosphere of these neighborhoods makes it possible to know your neighbors and work together on neighborhood activities as simple as street parties and children's holiday parades.
But Seattle also has a severe shortage of houses. We want to be a big city -- major universities, renowned symphony and opera and ballet, theater groups, museums, major league athletics. And we also want to be a city with a suburban residential flavor.
I guess we can't have both -- at least as comfortably as we have until now. "Comfortably" for those who happen to already own houses. Greater residential density is great in places like New York. I love walking along the townhouse-lined streets of Manhattan's Upper West Side; they have a pleasant urban "feel." But that's New York. That's not been Seattle.
But I guess it may be our future.