News

Oct 01, 2023

Seattle Transportation Plan: How to achieve a 15min city with the help of ultra

I think one of the best points Tacomee makes — because he understands builders —

I think one of the best points Tacomee makes — because he understands builders — is builders can and will build only so much housing in this region. In this market with rising interest rates, declines in stock markets, tech layoffs, higher mortgage rates, and less investment for multi-family development that amount of annual construction has gone down and will likely stay depressed for a while.

No matter how much upzoning a city does the amount of housing that is actually built will stay the same.

A point I try to make is how much unrealized zoning capacity we actually have throughout this region. Seattle recently expanded the UGA's and upzoned them, and now allows three separate dwellings per residential lot. Look at the upzoning in Bellevue. Despite very high future population growth estimates every city has zoning capacity that already meets their GMPC housing growth targets. I just don't think many on this blog want to understand that because it means upzoning is not the magic cure for housing affordability.

Even if the region never changed its current zoning it would take around 50 years for builders to exhaust that current existing zoning.

Another point I try to make is the term "greenfield" is legally irrelevant. The lot may be vegetated or undeveloped but it is still platted and zoned for development of privately owned. The number one way to incentivize these "greenfield" lots being developed is to upzone them. The second best way historically is to have a city folks don't want to live in due to crime, schools, jobs, cost of living, etc.

Another good point Tacomee makes and a former poster named Bernie — who like Tacomee called a spade a spade — use to make is all new construction has a minimum cost per sf, which rises each year, especially during a high inflationary market. Things like adopting the International Building Code and green construction mandates (both good things) also increase the costs of new construction. Folks talk about a $750,000 condo but forget about the $1000/mo. HOA fees.

Add in things like rising property taxes, desirability of neighborhood, inflation, and a constantly rising AMI and new and existing housing prices will only increase, and as I noted in another post the residential rental property managers I know expect rents to rise 20% over the next two years because their costs have risen 20%, and these are developments with earlier much lower interest rates.

I don't know what remedies there are. Yes, if you upzone SFH zones more of the limited new construction each year will move from more urban to more suburban areas because the housing prices will be higher, and probably there will be more "greenfield" development, and more gentrification in South Seattle, but that doesn't create more new net housing units or reduce the price of that new housing, and many of these areas have no transit, so what is the point or goal? I still don't think many on this blog understand the difference between use and regulatory zoning, and that all we are looking at right now when we talk about upzoning SFH zones is allowing a different use (multi-family) but with the same regulatory limits that in a city like MI means minimum lot sizes of 8400 to 15,000 sf, yard setbacks of 20’ X 25’ X 10’ X 5’ with a maximum impervious lot coverage of 45% with zero deviations and a GFA to lot area ratio limit of 40% with zero deviations. Oh, and at least one covered parking stall per unit. Listening to folks on this blog you would think upzoning the use on these lots would allow a Hyatt scale development.

One can move to a smaller unit, or less desirable neighborhood, or get a roommate but hoping new construction will result in lower or even stabilized housing prices — especially rentals — is probably just dreaming, especially if AMI keeps rising. Seattle has fewer and fewer desirable neighborhoods white urbanists want to live in and they keep getting pricier and pricier, or more folks move here which right now looks to be much less than estimated.

Some on this blog get emotional because they see their rent go up and up as AMI (but not theirs) keeps going up and up, those who own see appreciation, and builders keep building to this AMI crowd while replacing older more affordable housing so there is less and less "affordable" housing. Others like Tacomee get frustrated telling them their is no magic upzoning bullet, and a gentrifying city like Seattle sometimes loses its charm as it forces out the lower classes.

Seattle is not the first and it won't be the last city to go through this, but the initial shock for existing residents is tough. I remember when upzoning and development in Belltown forced all the artists to Georgetown, and now they are being displaced from there due to gentrification. Few on this blog wept for them.

About the only cities that have reversed this trend are those cities that suffered an economic meltdown and people with money started to move away. There are some grand old cities in this country where property values are now dirt cheap, and with WFH maybe worth a second look.