How urban do you see Seattle?

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by mhays

We don't need to grow outward, but developable sites are expensive, so we need more capacity. We should upzone some of our dozens of metro urban village nodes for highrises instead of just mostly six-story woodframes. We should upzone some single-family areas for multifamily. Outer greenfield development should be encouraged to be townhouses above a certain density, like 10-20 per acre. Accessory units should be allowed and even encouraged. And we should get rid of the fees that are adding substantially to in-city infill prices.

Do you think that's likely in the near future for Seattle? I recall the city having to roll back a major breakthrough proposal to upzone SFH neighborhoods to due resident opposition. I recall being very excited at the idea of a return to medium density, mixed pre-War type neighborhoods--the kind where detached homes would sit next to duplexes, triplexes, and small apartment buildings (I mean it really shouldn't be all that revolutionary, especially in the core of one of the country's most "progressive" metropolitan areas). I hoped Seattle could pave the way for other American cities. But no. Ed Murray had to bow to public pressure. Do you see this liberalization of zoning being revisited?

[mhays]

Slowly.

Highrise zoning has spread outward slowly already. South Lake Union and the Denny Triangle are recent upzones that have turned into big booms. South Downtown has been upzoned but aside from a spot rezone hasn't had highrises in the new zones yet (for some good reasons). Next up are Lower Queen Anne and the University District.

Turning SFR areas into slighly denser areas might happen in limited ways. Areas right on the edge of current urban villages could be the most likely, along with some arterial corridors elsewhere. We might lighten up on accessory units someday...developers won't be involved so that might be politically easier.

In the meantime, we'll keep filling up the areas that have zoned capacity, which will cause those properties to keep rising quickly in price.

And we'll probably keep charging millions to anyone who uses the new zoning to build anything. For example a 440' residential tower in a former 240' zone probably has 16 additional floors (up to the 400' habitable limit). At the standard (max) floorplate of 11,000 sf, 176,000 sf of space will require height bonus fees, x $29/sf, for a fee of $5,104,000 if I'm getting the numbers right. Divide that by 350 units (common for a 440' tower) and that's $14,500 per unit for the whole building, which doesn't count the developer's other costs like financing that amount. So let's lowball that at $16,000. But double that because Seattle also charges $19/sf "linkage" fees in key neighborhoods (for the whole building). Actually triple/quadruple it, because we charge sales tax unlike some places which is another 10% or so.

Basically we (the Council etc.) are trying our best to make Seattle more expensive. Even though we say we want the opposite.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by mhays

Slowly.

Highrise zoning has spread outward slowly already. South Lake Union and the Denny Triangle are recent upzones that have turned into big booms. South Downtown has been upzoned but aside from a spot rezone hasn't had highrises in the new zones yet (for some good reasons). Next up are Lower Queen Anne and the University District.

Turning SFR areas into slighly denser areas might happen in limited ways. Areas right on the edge of current urban villages could be the most likely, along with some arterial corridors elsewhere. We might lighten up on accessory units someday...developers won't be involved so that might be politically easier.

In the meantime, we'll keep filling up the areas that have zoned capacity, which will cause those properties to keep rising quickly in price.

And we'll probably keep charging millions to anyone who uses the new zoning to build anything. For example a 440' residential tower in a former 240' zone probably has 16 additional floors (up to the 400' habitable limit). At the standard (max) floorplate of 11,000 sf, 176,000 sf of space will require height bonus fees, x $29/sf, for a fee of $5,104,000 if I'm getting the numbers right. Divide that by 350 units (common for a 440' tower) and that's $14,500 per unit for the whole building, which doesn't count the developer's other costs like financing that amount. So let's lowball that at $16,000. But double that because Seattle also charges $19/sf "linkage" fees in key neighborhoods (for the whole building). Actually triple/quadruple it, because we charge sales tax unlike some places which is another 10% or so.

Basically we (the Council etc.) are trying our best to make Seattle more expensive. Even though we say we want the opposite.

Wow. That was painful to read. And it sounds like the current system will just create a city of high rises and SFHs. A lot of American cities are developing this way though. Kinda boring, IMO. I much prefer the Montreal model to the Toronto. I hope the "missing middle" people start to gain more traction.

I came across this blogger a while back: http://citytank.org/
He has (had) a lot to say about the regulatory machine in Seattle hurting affordability.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

^
When I got kicked out of that house I moved here, another house-with-roomates situation. When I lived there the house was a dump (lived there 1995-97). The rent was pretty cheap, again.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/53...49140018_zpid/

Somebody bought it in 2003 for $342,500 and did a nice job fixing it up. It's now worth $763,880. That's 123% price appreciation in a dozen years. Even if it "only" appreciates another 50% over the next 10 years or so, that's $1.1 million. Once you start playing with a bit of math you can see how insane it's getting there.

In less than 2 weeks the value of this house has appreciated 1.03% to $771,781. At this point I'm pretty sure I could simply refresh my browser every minute or so and watch its price go up.

The other house I referred to a couple weeks ago here has had its price appreciate a much more modest 0.09% over the same time frame. Still, not bad for a couple weeks' work!

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Wow. That was painful to read. And it sounds like the current system will just create a city of high rises and SFHs. A lot of American cities are developing this way though. Kinda boring, IMO. I much prefer the Montreal model to the Toronto. I hope the "missing middle" people start to gain more traction.

I came across this blogger a while back: http://citytank.org/
He has (had) a lot to say about the regulatory machine in Seattle hurting affordability.

In most urban village nodes, the predominant construction type is six-story woodframe apartments. That's most of our total residential construction volume. Sizeable parcels are far less plentiful these days. (Larger lots can help keep rents in check by sharing static costs among more units.)

Many of these nodes have 45' (and lower) zoning on their perimeters. The outcome is often townhouses. Seattle has a standard "four pack" where a bungalow is replaced by two townhouses in the front and two in the back, or various similar versions. Often these avoid the condo collective thing that results in unnecessary defect suits. But land is getting scarce for those too. We need to upzone more land.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Here's one take-away from this article: High real estate prices encourage sprawl.

Home prices charge ahead, driving some buyers farther afield

With prices rapidly escalating in Seattle and the Eastside, some would-be homeowners are finding new answers, and extending the definition of what qualifies as a Seattle suburb.

The list of cities some might call suburbs of Seattle now stretches to places like North Bend, Poulsbo and Cle Elum. More homebuyers are willing to trade longer commutes to buy a house they can afford or for more space and features.

Some would-be buyers are looking at such alternatives as a lack of available homes on the market drives up prices in the hot housing markets of Seattle and the Eastside.

The median price of a home in King County soared by 12.5 percent to $540,000 in April, from $480,000 a year earlier.

[...]

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

In less than 2 weeks the value of this house has appreciated 1.03% to $771,781. At this point I'm pretty sure I could simply refresh my browser every minute or so and watch its price go up.

And now, just one day later, the value of this house has risen another $905 or 0.12%. In just one day.

Anyone who thinks Seattle can somehow avoid becoming yet another uber-expensive World City only the rich can afford to buy a house in, is engaging in a heckuva lot of wishful thinking.

[ssiguy]

Sorry but being in Vancouver I have to laugh if you think that is expensive. The average price of a SFH in the city of Vancouver {pop 630,000} is $1.9 million. Seattle may be 'relatively' expensive compared to many US cities but compared to nearby Vancouver it is ridiculously cheap.

[ssiguy]

When I moved to Vancouver in 1990, Seattle was bigger then as well but I wouldn't say it 'felt' a lot bigger. I always viewed Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver on roughly the same gauge. Now that has totally changed and Seattle is far and away the most important and cosmopolitan city in the PNW.

Seattle is FAR more urban than Vancouver and has a much more interesting urban vibe and way more character. Seattle also views it's historical structures and houses as important to the community where as in Vancouver they can't be ripped down fast enough for the Chinese money launderers.

My cousin from England { and now lives in Rome} really liked Seattle and far preferred it to Vancouver which he found very parochial and sterile, which it is.

[James Bond Agent 007]

As if skyrocketing house prices weren't enough, skyrocketing rents add fuel to the fire.

Seattle 1-br apartment rents rise 11% - IN ONE MONTH!

Seattle's 11 percent rise was the only double-digit rise in the nation and blew way past other big cities such as Chicago and Boston (four percent). $1,906/month puts Seattle in 15th place overall according to Abodo's numbers.

[mhays]

In some ways I'd put Vancouver's urbanity over Seattles...mostly residential population density and the resulting commercial corridors on the Downtown Peninsula and other highrise nodes. And better transit. Those gaps have been narrowing but we're still far apart.

On the major-business side however Seattle is the bigger PNW city.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Sorry but being in Vancouver I have to laugh if you think that is expensive. The average price of a SFH in the city of Vancouver {pop 630,000} is $1.9 million. Seattle may be 'relatively' expensive compared to many US cities but compared to nearby Vancouver it is ridiculously cheap.

Actually, Vancouver is a great example of what I'm trying to demonstrate here. In spite of building a zillion new housing units over the past 20 years or so, prices there have skyrocketed to stratospheric levels. I remember going to Vancouver in the early-mid 90's and seeing new downtown condos being advertised for, like, $100K (or even less?) and thinking they were cheap. Not anymore! It goes to show how much prices can skyrocket in a short amount of time even if you build new units up the kazoo. Seattle is clearly headed in the same direction.

[mhays]

Vancouver is building less units than demand requires. That's the issue. It looks like a lot because so many are highrises in certain areas.

The 11% figure is BS...that's year-over-year, not one month.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by mhays

Vancouver is building less units than demand requires. That's the issue. It looks like a lot because so many are highrises in certain areas.

The exact same thing can be said for Seattle.

The 11% figure is BS...that's year-over-year, not one month.

Wrong. Here is the graphic from the article:



April: $1722
May: $1906

That's a 10.69% increase.

[mhays]

Then the report is wrong.

The source shows wild swings up and down in many cities. That's a sign of bad information. My guess is they're studying examples rather than the whole market.

This is click bait.

Apartment reports are like university studies...you can find a study to say anything. Other sources (ones I've actually heard of) don't show anything remotely like this.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Wrong. Here is the graphic from the article:
April: $1722
May: $1906
That's a 10.69% increase.

I wouldn't freak out about a one month spike. Similarly, that one month dip in Colorado Springs isn't indicative of a long term trend either. If it were to continue, then the average apartment would lease for less than $275 by New Year's. I wouldn't hesitate to give up Denver's diversity and walkability to move there if that were the case.

There are a lot of clickbaitey articles about increasing rents with dubious sources for their data. Relevant article: http://cityobservatory.org/a-field-g...tistics-contd/

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Sorry but being in Vancouver I have to laugh if you think that is expensive. The average price of a SFH in the city of Vancouver {pop 630,000} is $1.9 million. Seattle may be 'relatively' expensive compared to many US cities but compared to nearby Vancouver it is ridiculously cheap.

It might be laughable to you, but it doesn’t mean that Seattle’s prices are necessarily healthy or sustainable. You’re comparing Seattle to a city which is often compared alongside London and San Francisco for unaffordability. Time will tell, but maybe it's like the 1999 Nasdaq being amused by the S&P's pawltry growth. If Seattle wants to continue being a major business and innovation hub in the long term, rather than a resort city for the super-wealthy and investment parking for Mainlanders, then this isn’t something to take lightly.

Originally Posted by mhays

Many of these nodes have 45' (and lower) zoning on their perimeters. The outcome is often townhouses. Seattle has a standard "four pack" where a bungalow is replaced by two townhouses in the front and two in the back, or various similar versions. Often these avoid the condo collective thing that results in unnecessary defect suits. But land is getting scarce for those too. We need to upzone more land.

This sounds a lot like Denver. And I agree, zoning efforts are ages behind.

[skyreach]

Seattle is super Urban. We are kind of their neighbours (Vancouver). Size wise, its pretty big but we still have them beat when it comes to natural beauty. Sorry Seattle

[ue]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

When I moved to Vancouver in 1990, Seattle was bigger then as well but I wouldn't say it 'felt' a lot bigger. I always viewed Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver on roughly the same gauge. Now that has totally changed and Seattle is far and away the most important and cosmopolitan city in the PNW.

Seattle is FAR more urban than Vancouver and has a much more interesting urban vibe and way more character. Seattle also views it's historical structures and houses as important to the community where as in Vancouver they can't be ripped down fast enough for the Chinese money launderers.

My cousin from England { and now lives in Rome} really liked Seattle and far preferred it to Vancouver which he found very parochial and sterile, which it is.

I'd say Seattle would be the obvious dominant city in a hypothetical Cascadia nation-state and it does overall feel the most like a huge city of the 3 PNW metropoli. The big freeways, giant CBD, endless suburbia, big business, strong local culture, etc really make it.

Vancouver does exude some elements of 'bigness', mostly through its extreme density and robust public transit, but it doesn't feel like a place where the movers and shakers are like Calgary or Toronto. One thing Vancouver has though is that it feels a lot more international and multicultural. Seattle reminded me more of how people describe Chicago, a big, amazing, powerhouse, but very American and parochial.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by ue

I'd say Seattle would be the obvious dominant city in a hypothetical Cascadia nation-state and it does overall feel the most like a huge city of the 3 PNW metropoli. The big freeways, giant CBD, endless suburbia, big business, strong local culture, etc really make it.

Vancouver does exude some elements of 'bigness', mostly through its extreme density and robust public transit, but it doesn't feel like a place where the movers and shakers are like Calgary or Toronto. One thing Vancouver has though is that it feels a lot more international and multicultural. Seattle reminded me more of how people describe Chicago, a big, amazing, powerhouse, but very American and parochial.

I agree with all the above. Vancouver somehow manages to feel extremely worldly and yet provincial at the same time. Perhaps it feels more like a world city as it has the density, diversity and better infrastructure to back it up. But where it seems lacking is that it can often feel a lot like a resort city...there's not much of a "pulse".

I think Seattle does have an edge in regards to having a distinct culture and *far* better architecture (this is obviously just my opinion). The various neighborhoods have a lot more individual character, whereas Vancouver can feel a bit redundant across the board. I noticed that chains are actually really common in Vancouver whereas at least in the central Seattle neighborhoods, they're not--we have a lot more independent coffee shops, restaurants, and stores. Either way, I find both cities to be fantastic and more alike than they are different. I think Seattle will catch up on its shortcomings for sure in the next 10 years. There's a lot of exciting stuff going on here.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by ue

I'd say Seattle would be the obvious dominant city in a hypothetical Cascadia nation-state and it does overall feel the most like a huge city of the 3 PNW metropoli. The big freeways, giant CBD, endless suburbia, big business, strong local culture, etc really make it.

Vancouver does exude some elements of 'bigness', mostly through its extreme density and robust public transit, but it doesn't feel like a place where the movers and shakers are like Calgary or Toronto. One thing Vancouver has though is that it feels a lot more international and multicultural. Seattle reminded me more of how people describe Chicago, a big, amazing, powerhouse, but very American and parochial.

Seattle and Chicago are about as different as two American cities can be, demographically, culturally, and aesthetically, but I digress. With that said, Seattle is a beautiful city but like most large coastal cities, the cost of living has gotten obscene.