Blog

Jan 26, 2024

Open Thread 7

“Nimbyism is stronger in the suburbs and outlying cities, so that leads to less

"Nimbyism is stronger in the suburbs and outlying cities, so that leads to less growth."

I think that is a fair assessment. Now considers something else: much of Seattle is suburban by style, if not distance. Seattle is a very young city. A lot of it grew up after the automobile. So instead of an old big city or a collection of small towns that grew into each other, much of it is suburban. Just yesterday I walked around Discovery Park. On the way home we drove through a couple blocks of Magnolia, to turn around. This an almost mythical suburb — you can practically hear the "Leave it to Beaver" theme song playing. There are nice sidewalks, with a mix of housing, much of it middle class in nature. There are no cul-de-sacs, but it exhibits a major trademark of modern U. S. suburbs — separation of uses. It is a long walking distance from the nearest shop. In some cases, well over a mile. Historically, towns and cities simply didn't evolve this way. This exhibits a classic trademark of the modern suburb (you are expected to drive everywhere).

Of course the NIMBYism in this area is going to be stronger than in other, more urban parts of the city. The Central Area, for example, has always had a much more organic mix of uses from way back. They were used to change. There is a difference that Charles Mahoon points to: the suburbs were often built as if they will never change. Cities weren't. The same can be said for Magnolia versus the Central Area. People in the Central Area will fight to preserve particular buildings (sometimes with plenty of justification). They fight to retain a sense of identity and community. But folks are far less concerned with the size of the building, than what it will contain. In contrast, a lot of folks in Magnolia don't want change at all. They can live with the very long walk to a store or restaurant, or the extremely high cost of housing, as long as they are surrounded by houses, and nothing but houses. Yet Magnolia — as suburban as it feels — is remarkably close to downtown. It is less than five miles to downtown — short enough to bike to, if you have the strength (and courage).

urbanists encourage people who want to live in SFHs on large lots to move into suburbs.

I don't think that is quite true. Urbanists have no issue with someone who wants to live in a SFH on a large lot. They just don't feel that the laws should bend over backwards to favor that land use. I’ve yet to hear any urbanist suggest that we should tear down the mansions on Capitol Hill. Change the zoning? Absolutely. But if you can afford a mansion in Capitol Hill, or a big house on a big lot in Magnolia with a view, knock yourself out. What folks don't like is the laws that restrict middle class housing. Those "middle class" houses in Magnolia are no longer middle class. Here is a house that went for well over a million a couple years ago: https://www.redfin.com/WA/Seattle/3642-40th-Ave-W-98199/home/127775. In 1980 it was $74,000. The median income was $21,000 in 1980; it is about $70,000 now. Thus the house cost less than three times an average salary back in 1980; it costs well over ten times that now.

As a result, people are pushed out. A lot of people who would much rather live in a townhouse in the city, are forced to live in distant suburb, simply because they aren't building enough townhouses. This runs contrary to the goals of urbanists. They aren't encouraging anyone to move to the suburbs — quite the contrary. The policies they favor are designed to encourage them to stay. Those who place a high priority on having a house on a big lot (which is really a small minority of the population) will pay extra if it is in the city. But zoning has little to do with that — there is just more demand to live here than there was in say, 1980. But urbanists want people to have more affordable choices in the city. If townhouse (on small lots) were around 300 grand, and condos were half that, then a lot of people would have no interest in moving to the suburbs. This sort of thing is possible — if the zoning laws are changed. Unfortunately, the suburban nature of much of Seattle makes it more difficult than it should be.