The Pros and Cons of CSAs
McGinn is Mayor
SAM Remix Hits Its Stride
Snowpocalypse 2010: Metro Strikes Back
Over at newbie blog Crosscut, Knute "Mossback" Berger has slipped right back into his prickly, contrarian stream of things with a post about "density (the horror, the horror)." In it he calls out Sightline, Mayor Nickels, greens and progressives, and San Francisco as skipping merrily toward a density Rapture. We're a little freaked out to admit this, but he's got a point when he asks what's the rush. (Some statements, like "We know that these green-backed policies are making the city more unaffordable," must be based on restricted intel, since there's no data offered.)
To catch you up, here are some rebuttals, some attempted takedowns, and then Mossback, bugling like an elk beset by Menudo (a nonsensical but vivid image), replies rampant.
We'd agree with Mossback that density uber alles is not going to solve every problem that Seattle's facing -- especially that density in itself isn't going to make housing more affordable. We attended the meetings about raising the height limits on buildings downtown, and were troubled by the steamroller nature of this thing called "development," watercolor promises about green gardens atop buildings notwithstanding. Replacing displaced affordable and low-income housing was clearly an ad hoc issue, to be discussed once progress was made. There was the market to consider -- a hot real estate sector to take advantage of. But like Mossback, we're not prepared to give up on demanding affordable housing just because "the market" says so or because of macroeconomic indicators. It's good to be a curmudgeon about things like that.
Yet, density isn't all tall, skinny condo towers, even if they are easier to spot cropping up. There are plenty of other versions of density. Does Mossback remember this Weekly article:
And the chance of an average single person being able to afford a three-bedroom Craftsman in Ravenna? Zip. Hence the need for more "multifamily" options (which really means more multi-single-person-household options), i.e., the decidedly unsexy and thankless task of changing zoning codes, which the city is just beginning to do. As always, the opponents' script is classic NIMBY-ism: "Our way of life and property values are being threatened!" The horror of density is invoked, that we should become more like San Francisco or Boston.
That article ends: "All we -- well, some of us -- want is a decent roof over our heads in a nice, tree-filled neighborhood instead of the apartment hell many of us are consigned to now." It's a thought backed up by Slate's article, "Why Do We Live In Houses, Anyway?," which begins:
Four out of five new housing units built in the United States are single-family houses. This statistic has less to do with the nature of the home-building industry, or the suburban location of new housing, than with buyers' preferences, that is, What People Want.
Thankfully here we've got Mossback standing up for the U.S. supermajority -- though he doesn't admit that, he's assumed the mantle of minority opinion and its voice of disempowered crankiness.
Frankly, the less time we spend inside Mossback's head, the better -- but if his point is that the tall, skinny condo tower has become affable, well-heeled wedge of density -- ALL MUST BOW! -- then it's well-taken. (In fact, though, the Stranger is no stranger to the downside of density as Mossback implies. They're losing some favorite eat-and-drink spots to it and have argued that some density is more equal than others.)
The defensive yelp from from those whose interests temporarily align with unfettered development (or a kind of it) sounds like what it is. We're sure that's the response Mossback was looking for -- a fevered defense of manifest density by people who sound like Great Leap Forward partisans, willing to scrap what makes Seattle Seattle if that's what it takes. We don't think they are, but calm, thoughtful debate doesn't sell page views.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
//calm, thoughtful debate doesn't sell page views//
I haven't read Mossback long (likely because Crosscut hasn't existed long, but maybe he published elsewhere), but so far I get the impression that he's trying to be the shock-jock of blog-based news. Throw together ridiculous yet passionate statements backed by no evidence regarding a subject that effects everyone, then stand back and watch the sparks fly.
I'm a little bit surprised anyone agrees with him. The choice is building out or up, and out is such a bad option that I can't imagine the logic behind it's proponents. Are they the type that wants an affordable yard? Well, you'll end up having to drive a few hours to work under this plan. Are they the type that don't want the feel of the city to change? Well, you'll just drive prices up to the point that nobody but the rich can live here - which will change the feel of the city anyway.
Perhaps that's what frustrates me most about Mossback. Even in his rebuttal he's given no logical arguements behind his point of view - just emotional rationalizations.
The utter failure of the Mossback argument here (and Matt--for the record, Berger is the former editor of Seattle Weekly; Mossback appeared there as a regular column) is that is takes on the issue in the abstract: high density v. low density. There's an argument to be made there, I suppose, but it dodges reality to take an academic stance.
The ability to build more low density housing in Seattle is virtually nil. Furthermore, lower density housing is more expensive that higher density housing--the Weekly article above is dead on, and there's a real NIMBY attitude when it comes to the prospect of making Seattle more affordable for people by building, you know, apartments or--dare I say--condos.
What both the Stranger and Mossback get utterly wrong is the nature of the debate; this shouldn't be about low or high density; low density arguments are for wealthy jackasses. Simply put: where they hell are they going to build more low density houses in Seattle? They're not. It's not even an argument about the right way to develop, it's simply against new development. The Stranger likewise argues for high density development as though it needed help. Surely ECB realizes that market forces are going to keep the condos coming no matter what The Stranger or the Weekly think.
No, the issues we should be dicussing are that, given high density redevelopment of Seattle is a reality we're facing, we need to discuss how to do it right. Are we developing solutions that work for families, or only for yuppies? Are we going to build schools? Are we actually going to build high-density neighborhoods with a sense of community, or is high-density only going to be a recipe for bland, street-level retail with residential above it? And finally, are we going to build intelligent infrastructure to address a higher density core with quality transit and well-zoned retail areas for groceries and other necessary sundries, or are we expecting everyone to hop on Mercer to drive down to Costco for their food?
Neither the Stranger nor Mossback ever really consider these questions, and that's why we're fucked.
Why the ewok?
Because Ewoks are the ultimate warriors. Just think about it. The Imperial Army had heavily fortified crack troops with heavy armor on the forest moon of Endor and the Ewoks and some hippie dippie rebel scum took them out with some rocks, logs and a wookie. The Ewoks are hard core!
Matt, what I agree with is that emotional, gut-level response that says, "Whoa, what are we actually getting ourselves into here?" Mossback's logic, on the other hand, is not exactly rigorous.
Anika, I recall some of those ewoks being pretty prickly. And they seem like a slow-density bunch, too. So there's a resemblance, although Mossback's beard is a little bushier.
Jeremy nails it: "No, the issues we should be discussing are that, given high density redevelopment of Seattle is a reality we're facing, we need to discuss how to do it right. Are we developing solutions that work for families, or only for yuppies? Are we going to build schools? Are we actually going to build high-density neighborhoods with a sense of community, or is high-density only going to be a recipe for bland, street-level retail with residential above it? And finally, are we going to build intelligent infrastructure to address a higher density core with quality transit and well-zoned retail areas for groceries and other necessary sundries, or are we expecting everyone to hop on Mercer to drive down to Costco for their food?"
Those are the real questions -- and the high-density vs. low-density debate is just (as I learned last night that Jonathan Lethem would say) an "insteadness" that indicates how badly we deal with change: either we deny that it should happen, or we foreclose on our ability to work with it.
Bugling like an elk beset by Menudo
Is there a Pulitzer for blogs?
"Insteadness"...that's a great concept--and widely applicable. It would, in fact, seem to describe most of what consitutes our news these days.
You know, I recently heard that Menudo was getting back together for a reality TV show. I should have known they were after me! Hopefully they haven't learned Eric C. Barnett's waterboarding techniques.
Plug-wise, let me suggest you check out the Crosscut comments sections (if you haven't already) on my article and Clark Williams-Derry's post; there's a great debate going on there.