Pioneer Square, Seattle's beloved historic neighborhood, yet again needs some tender loving care. And it's about to get it in the form of sweeping changes to land use codes that will allow for taller buildings, more green streetscapes, and upper floor setbacks. This afternoon, the City Council will vote on a massive set of legislative adjustments to zoning and land use rules designed to create higher residential density in South Downtown neighborhoods, from Pioneer Square to Chinatown, Little Saigon and Japantown.
It is Pioneer Square that has dominated the discussion in recent weeks. Everyone has an opinion about what to do to protect and revitalize this historic district where Seattle got its start in the late 1800s.
More density? Everyone agrees Pioneer Square needs more. Taller buildings? Everyone agrees higher buildings are just fine, to a point. More residents? Everyone agrees more is better, hopefully in the form of more market-rate housing. Street-level retail stores? More."Eyes on the street?" More. Clean and safe streets and sidewalks? Total agreement. So what's the problem?
How we accomplish these things is where things get sticky and conflicted. Take building heights, for example. There is broad agreement that maximum building heights should be allowed to increase to 120 feet from current heights when builders are willing to provide affordable housing or open space or to purchase development rights from historic buildings in South Downtown. Current heights range from a low of 14 feet up to over 100 feet. Some have suggested—myself included—that we should allow buildings to rise even higher on the eastern side of Pioneer Square to a maximum of 140 feet in an effort to spur more density. Because of safeguards in the legislation, only a few parcels would likely take advantage of the higher heights. But the 120 height limit was accepted by neighborhood stakeholders and historic preservationist following nearly four years of debate and compromise, so there has been a fairly strong pushback against the added heights.
Fear and hope are driving the discussion.
Preservationists fear that increased heights above the 120 foot maximum will lead to a slippery-slope decline of the unique character of the historic district; they hope that retaining strong protections will maintain the authenticity of the neighborhood that attracts people. Developers fear lower height allowances will keep projects from “penciling out” and stall growth; they hope increased density will bring more residents to the area, drive customers to street-level retail shops, and generally revitalize the neighborhood. Who's right? Both.
There's no disagreement over the fragility of Pioneer Square and the need to protect the historic character of the neighborhood. The discussion centers on how best to do that. Good people on all sides don't see eye-to-eye on the path forward. Neither side is entirely right or wrong; they just disagree on how to achieve the end result everyone wants.
Personally, I strongly favor increased density in the right areas, an argument powerfully made and supported with exhaustive examples from cities around the world by Edward Glaeser in his book, The Triumph of the City. Seattle's downtown, including Pioneer Square, is the economic engine for the entire region, a powerful and incredibly important asset we must constantly nurture and protect. Glaeser writes that increased density is a key element of economic growth and strength. More people rubbing shoulders together creates innovation, jobs and growth. Urban density also leads to fewer greenhouse gas emissions from lower vehicle miles traveled.
So, the legislation the Council will adopt today will bring more density to Pioneer Square and eastward to Little Saigon. It's good public policy. This act will bring more people to the southern edges of downtown while also protecting the historic character of these close-in neighborhoods.
Tougher decisions lie around the corner when the Council considers increased density in South Lake Union, Northgate, surrounding transit and light rail stations and along major transportation corridors, such as Aurora Avenue North, Lake City Way, Rainier Avenue South and others. We need to think boldly. Our decisions will impact our city for the next 50 to 100 years.
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?
Posted by: Bill Bradburd | April 25, 2011 at 11:01 AM
Hi, Bill. Don't assume to quickly. The Council vote will strongly protect Pioneer Square.
Posted by: Tim Burgess | April 25, 2011 at 11:24 AM
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.
Posted by: David Miller | April 25, 2011 at 11:54 AM
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.
Posted by: Michael Archambault | April 27, 2011 at 12:57 PM