Dating sider com
In the span of 11 years (2005-2016) the city has reached nearly 150 percent of its 2024 assigned regional residential growth target – a target set in accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) to ensure we absorb our share of regional growth.
Compare that capacity of 205,000 units to the 70,000 units Seattle needs accommodate under our assigned 2035 GMA requirement.
I honestly don’t know if his religion is just an excuse because he fell out of love for me or if it is really true.
We have about 3 times what we need and enough capacity to take us nearly into the next century given longer term historical trends.
But no matter to the acolytes of density-at-all-costs, all the growth we’ve seen, all the upzoning, and added zoned capacity, it’s still not enough. When neighborhood advocates point to this excess capacity under current zoning and ask why still more upzones, some pro-density advocates retort that the planned HALA upzones “aren’t about adding capacity” but rather “it’s about inclusivity”.
Further, since the early 2000’s, and as the links below will document, Seattle leaders have been on an upzoning binge-fest raising zoned capacity from 118,000 to over 223,000 residential units by 2016.
From the most recent 2017 update by the city, our zoned capacity has fallen back slightly to a “mere” 205,000 units but that’s of course due to all the growth we’ve been hit with.
Most of our remaining affordable rental stock – it’s housing built before 1980, most in lower density multi-family and NC zones (roughly 50,000 units) – areas that are precisely in gunsights of pro-developer groups like Sightline.
Many of the upzones from the last decade affecting these areas greatly accelerated loss of these housing types and displacement of those who live there.
From the era dating back at least to the late 70’s when the first ‘skinny houses’ were added to the code thru additional allowances for “DADU’s” and “ADU’s”, thru adjustments to definitions of allowable heights and slope calculations to set back and front yard requirements, small lot allowances, inexplicable and contorted code interpretations, institutional expansion, upping SEPA thresholds, master planned developments, and at various junctures when, upon developer request, whole areas were lopped out of single family and lower density zoning, and rezoned for higher density, the amount of land given over exclusively to single family has steadily declined.
(Note that by freezing the writer’s animated maps for 1977, 19 in the Sightline piece, you’ll see a perceptible decline in single-family areas – but what is not noted is the dramatic increase over time from lower density to higher density multi-family and increases in neighborhood commercial to the 90’s minted urban villages and urban centers).
These are precisely the areas targeted for upzones under HALA and the Grand Bargain.
So I find it ironic that this Sightline writer laments the loss of opportunities like this mix of lower density structures in single family areas, when she and her organization are hell-bent on the wholesale removal of such a mix whereever it exists and in whatever zone it now exists.
I guess I just can’t comprehend how someone can choose religion over another person especially when he says we were made for each other.