So while Mink and I strolled I was trying hard to imagine what Fremont Ave between 90th and 95th will look like in 2096. I have a hard time believing that any of that "chocolate"e will be there then.

For anyone who thinks government regulation is always the issue no matter what the topic is, there are lots of places where you can move your business and build as many ugly, overpriced townhouses as you want. Like Iraq. I hear it’s got more sun than Seattle too!

In any case, I will be going to the Saturday event, am happy to volunteer for Seattle Bubble reportorial duty.

“egad – what part of SF did you live in? I lived there 8 years and never saw those big back yards…”

Many of the single family homes on the west side of SF had narrow but deep lots, giving you a nice secluded garden in the back. Since the houses were built side to side, it not’s obvious from the street. You do end up with the garage at street level though. Here is an example of a wider lot with a 2 car garage, you’re more likely to see lots only wide enough for 1 car.

Then we won’t need jobs or cars, we can all become vagrants and simply break in and take ‘em over, before they’re bull-dozed down to create empty parklands again.

I watched many townhouses go up around Ballard in the last 2-3 years, and very few of them will be habitable in 5 years. No real code inspections, unskilled and semi-skilled labor, uncovered and exposed to the rain, no attempt to dry them out before finishing them, particle board walls….the definition of shoddy. I bet they have Granite and Stainless Steel inside, though!

The opportunity has pretty much passed to improve things, at least in the North End. The damage has been done. Perhaps if they did not “round up” the number of units permitted on a lot, they might have turned out better. The justification of them being relatively “affordable” is the ONLY thing really going for them. That will also disappear when they become “unaffordable” to maintain, some go into underwater mortgages, and they start getting condemmed and/or torn down in 3 –5 years.

Meanwhile those developers got their nut, and they ain’t sharing. I would not be surprised if these townhomes tanked harder than condos eventually.

BTW, RCC, the parking restrictions in the code were mandated by Hizzoner Nipples. This is deliberate social engineering, and they are upfront about that. Also, building to the curb was actually ENCOURAGED by the same brillant mayoral office staff and DPD. Except this is cart before horse. None of those overpaid brainiacs considered that you need much better mass transit BEFORE you intentionally restrict parking by design.

All the new houses are crap – they’re all McMansions.
All the new ugly townhouses are crap – they’re built cheaply.
All the old houses are crap – they were built too close together and are rotting away.
All the houses with space around them in the burbs are crap – there’s nothing to walk to.
All condos are crap – they’re built badly and all you ever hear is your neighbors humping.
Ballard is crap.
Belltown is crap.
Seattle is crap.
Everywhere *but* Seattle is crap.

Fair summary?

But of course, the houses in Seattle are really no better. One of the worst architecturally inspired places I have lived.

I honestly don’t get these “seattle sucks” bitterness posts. So you don’t like it? don’t live there. easy enough.

That’s a common sentiment, but I don’t think it’s the right one. There are problems almost everywhere. The “if you don’t like it, then leave” solution is neither a real solution, nor is it practical advice.

What I find works better is if everybody keeps their eyes out for better solutions. When we find one, then share it until enough people come around to the idea that it actually gets implemented. Saying “Seattle sucks” doesn’t get you anywhere. But saying “Seattle sucks because it doesn’t have ____” and then filling in the blank does have some value.

E.g. Seattle sucks because dense housing is designed to be neither particularly dense, now does it provide much “green” space. A better solution would be denser condos/townhouses with regulations encouraging/enforcing appropriate green space and parking. Given the choice of ten 2000 sq ft townhouses on 3000 sq ft lots, or ten in the form of brick row houses with a 10,000 sq ft shared yard, I’d pick the later.

smaller wooden houses on straight streets that are congested with enough parked cars to push traffic elsewhere seem nice enough to me. and they always have sidewalks. you are forced to look at your neighbors and therefore to get to know them. some amount of community is nearly unavoidable.

unlike the ‘burbs, where a lack of sidewalks, nothing to walk to anyway, and circuitous neighborhood layout help people talk to each other less.

i wonder what the social impact of townhouse farms are.

Instead of multi-unit row houses with large back yards like SF

egad – what part of SF did you live in? I lived there 8 years and never saw those big back yards… except the areas shared by 3 families in stacked flats and typically home to a block full of feral cats. Typical SFH lot in seattle is 4000 sqft. I’d guess thats the typical lot size for a double flat in SF.

I honestly don’t get these “seattle sucks” bitterness posts. So you don’t like it? don’t live there. easy enough.

Amen. Dumps all around.

Cheap foundations, cheap construction, wood homes that dont age well in this moss-infested climate. Tiny tiny bonzai lots, little or no accomodation for parking or visitors, tight narrow streets that barely fit a single car with cars parked on both sides. Streets that are also dangerous because of the lack of visibility and abundance of speeding drivers.

Instead of multi-unit row houses with large back yards like SF, you have tiny houses with barely useable space in between them which is often blocked by overgrown trees anyway and tiny backyards. I wont even get started on those alleyways.

A dense city with good transportation infrastructure to everywhere, strict zoning and large parks outside the boundary would be great. But it is not Seattle. And given our culture of civic incompetence, it never will be. Sadly.

I would love to see well considered row houses and brownstones. Even more modern designs like PB Elemental builds (some of it anyway) are additive to the neighborhoods rather than the cookie cutters that are destructive to the community and neighborhood character.

Urban density is great. But let’s have a brain about it. Look at Vancouver, look at Berlin — look at the First World, people. Seattle can do better.

Why can’t there be some nice rowhouses or brownstones that actually build or augment a community here in Seattle?

So…uh, can we get this solution to the rest of the cities?

Agree with sniglet about parking. Since when was it reasonable to provide exactly one parking space for each home? Even in the 1940s when families tended to have one car (and one working spouse), it was reasonable to expect company occasionally. Some people are hardly worth visiting anymore since you’ll have to park 2 miles away and take the bus just to get parking.

Ed McMahon May Lose Beverly Hills Home

Ed McMahon, the longtime sidekick to television star Johnny Carson, faces the possible loss of his Beverly Hills home to a foreclosure action initiated by a unit of Countrywide Financial Corp……

a change of regs to rationalize the parking requirements would be nice, though. it’d be tough to get a mini into a lot of these garages.