This is just a quick follow-up to Wednesday’s Ugly Townhomes post. I wasn’t able to go to the Seattle City Councilmember Sally Clark’s townhome forum on Saturday, but thankfully intrepid reporter Tracy Record with the West Seattle Blog was, and she reports on it there at length: Townhouse forum consensus: They CAN be saved, if…
By most accounts at this morning’s townhouse forum, an official meeting of City Councilmember Sally Clark’s Planning, Land Use, and Neighborhoods Committee held at the Capitol Hill Arts Center, townhouses themselves are not inherently evil. “There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with” them, Clark said in her opening remarks. However, the current form so many of them take — and if you think West Seattle has its share, it’s nothing like some of the photos shown of sprawling blocks of them in the North End — is primarily blamed on the city code, which as reported here and elsewhere, may soon be changed. Clark half-joked that the topic was a sneaky way to engage citizens with those upcoming revision proposals, saying at the start, “this is a way to keep people from getting narcoleptic about the Multifamily Code.” Definitely not a sleep-inducing event. Our full story, ahead…
If you’re interested in the regulation side of the townhome debate in Seattle proper, I highly recommend you check out the full article.
Civil Servant » Jun 9, 2008 at 11:25 am
I will add one observation to what is an extremely comprehensive report. Record writes, “Councilmember Burgess asked what would stop the city from repealing the ULS rules and imopsing a moratorium; Duffus replied, ‘I think you would kill development in Seattle…’”
At that point there was WILD applause. The “not a civil way to live” line, delivered with great passion, also earned applause.
This is perhaps OT, but two concepts that kept coming up were “design around the automobile” and “design around the context of the neighborhood.” I wonder who will be the first to acknowledge that these goals are at cross purposes and that in very few contexts — and only at a high, SFH-equivalent price point — is it going to be possible to have both at the same time. Why *not* put it to the market? I am sure there are some young hipsters out there (I bet I know some) who could be induced to give up their cars in exchange for the opportunity to live a little more centrally and a little more affordably in a well-built, attractive townhouse flexible enough to suit their changing needs and priorities over the next x years. Or what if they could pay HOA-type dues to retain a parking space in a garage some distance away, for occasional errands and weekend trips out of town? Is the car the priority, or is design? I wish the Council would step up and bring this question into the discussion.
Also, at the forum there was Top Pot coffee and donuts, in case anyone is on the fence about going to future such events. Thanks, Sally Clark!
AndyMiami » Jun 9, 2008 at 11:33 am
Tim,
In case you missed this article in the Puget Sound Business Journal comparing San Diego and Seattle and how Seattle has seen the worst…
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2008/06/09/story1.html
The Tim » Jun 9, 2008 at 11:36 am
Thanks Andy, I saw it and plan to read the full thing today. See this discussion on the forum.
jon » Jun 9, 2008 at 6:06 pm
There seems to be a market here for a system for pooling ownership of a group of cars for a block. Residents would use a website, accessible from a cell phone, to reserve a car or take one if one is available. The cost would be apportioned based on time and mileage as determined by a computer on the car. A service could perform scheduled maintenance by making reservations on the cars ahead of time. The residents would decide what types of cars to purchase and decide how many to buy.
The Tim » Jun 9, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Jon, is what you’re describing significantly different than Zipcar?
jon » Jun 9, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Zipcars seems centered around places where people work rather than where they live. I was thinking in terms of matching it to where residential parking is a problem. Obviously, Zipcar would have thought of that.
Their model is patterned after car rentals. I thinking more on the lines of shared ownership. (That would get around this bit of retardedness: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004279983_flexcar14m.html).
So the financing would be based up front on a buy-in by a group of users, rather than recovered as a rental. People would only be sharing the cards with their neighbors.
I could be wrong, but based on the comments of others, Zipcar doesn’t seem to have a way to reserve a car.
Civil Servant » Jun 10, 2008 at 7:51 am
Jon: Yes! A fantastic idea. And if the four people/families who live in the townhouse complex all share that car, think about all the extra space that’s freed up for nice design and/or shared outdoor space. I appreciate attention being paid to The Townhouse Problem, but the solutions-seeking approach thus far does not challenge certain orthodoxies which to me seem weak, especially as market conditions have begun to change.
McMansions, Condo Conversions, Delays, & Sunny Ballard | Seattle Bubble — News & discussion about real estate & the housing bubble in the Seattle area. » Jul 1, 2008 at 12:01 pm
[...] the Seattle City Council is apparently in a development-regulating mood lately. Not only are they tackling the ugly townhome issue, now they’re going after “megahomes” as well. After years of complaints about [...]