Current Readings

« On Public Education, Transportation, Collaboration, Marijuana and Tim Harris | Main | Wage Theft Bill Adopted 9-0 »

April 25, 2011

Comments

Bill Bradburd

building heights do not necessarily add people density. unit sizes and number of people in each unit do.

the surrounding areas will have more people, and all a short walk to PS from there or from the nexus of all the transit.

your proposal will only lead to the degradation of a historic district.

and increase the profits of a few developers and property owners.

is that the legacy you want?

Tim Burgess

Hi, Bill. Don't assume to quickly. The Council vote will strongly protect Pioneer Square.

David Miller

Also remember that our current zoned density is more than enough to handle our growth -- for residents and employment -- into the middle of this century. There is no "need" to upzone, so when we do it we ought to have very good and very specific reasons to do so. Further, those landowners who financially benefit from the upzone should be willing to share some of that benefit in the form of low-income housing and real contributions to GMA concurrency requirements.

Michael Archambault

David,
If you attest that the current zoned density is more than enough to handle our growth, then you shouldn't be at all afraid to let the market dictate how much housing to provide. At the very worst, any "overbuilding" will result in more affordable housing.
I agree entirely that landowners should share any benefits they receive from upzoning, but people are our future, and limiting the ability of the market to provide more housing options for more people is shortsighted and detrimental to the future of this neighborhood and the region as a whole.

The comments to this entry are closed.