Live data from Hacker News

Lawsuits Block Thousands of Seattle Homes, $39M for Affordable Housing

theurbanist.org

31–40 of 165 posts

Re: Lawsuits Block Thousands of Seattle Homes, $39M for Affordable Housing

#31

Does any city have a well functioning design review process or are they all captured by incumbents to slow down development?

It is amazing how one person can have a view that developers have all the power and can never be stopped. Others have the view that NIMBY's have all the power and nothing can get developed. Yet somehow everything ends up paved over with a high rise on it eventually, like it or not.

Developers can bribe individual politicians but NIMBYs hold all the power. NIMBYs control the votes. Developers don't.

> Yet somehow everything ends up paved over with a high rise on it eventually, like it or not.

Also this is just false.

Re: Lawsuits Block Thousands of Seattle Homes, $39M for Affordable Housing

#32

Not everybody wants new tenements in their nice neighborhood.

Classy. At some point that 'nice neighborhood' was low-density farmland or widely spaced residential that no doubt didn't want to see new packed urban housing in their nice neighborhood. If you live in a city housing around you will steadily increase in density. You need to live with that, you own your property - you don't own everyone else's.

Re: Lawsuits Block Thousands of Seattle Homes, $39M for Affordable Housing

#33

Affordable housing is little better than the drinking fountains for colored people from years past. You don't build affordable housing. You build housing and then prices decrease from the increase in supply. If you're feeling extra bold, you build dense housing to massively increase the supply.

I'm not sure this is exactly true though. There's plenty of (common) ways to build intentionally expensive housing, whether that's large minimum square footage or fancy shared amenities that up the cost of living there.

There's certainly demand for those things, and it's probably more profitable to saturate the most expensive "high rent" portions of the market first, but it's worth having incentives to also build smaller 1-bedroom places, or complexes without a pool, or without hardwood or stone floors.

Re: Lawsuits Block Thousands of Seattle Homes, $39M for Affordable Housing

#34
I am just curious why we are allowing foreigners to buy homes in the US when we have a housing crisis. Here in New England, Chinese/Russians came in and started buying homes in the past two decades. Not only that, we end up educating their children for free in our public schools. Why? They don’t even let our companies operate in their country.

Edit: they should not be able to invest in real estate in the US if US citizens are not afforded the same rights in their county. Reciprocity. It’s not asking for much.

Re: Lawsuits Block Thousands of Seattle Homes, $39M for Affordable Housing

#36
post #23

Affordable housing is little better than the drinking fountains for colored people from years past. You don't build affordable housing. You build housing and then prices decrease from the increase in supply. If you're feeling extra bold, you build dense housing to massively increase the supply.

I think the idea is that the margins are better on luxury houses/apts/condos (less plumbing per sq ft, etc), so developers are incentivized to build at lower-density than is optimal for alleviating housing supply issues.

The concept of a "luxury apartment" is an oxymoron. It's a rhetorical tool used by NIMBYs. Those apartments that get labelled this way are barely sufficient to fit a family and cost less than the median house, yet the median house would never be labelled a "luxury house".

Re: Lawsuits Block Thousands of Seattle Homes, $39M for Affordable Housing

#37

Does any city have a well functioning design review process or are they all captured by incumbents to slow down development?

Design review in general is bad, if only because requiring individual approvals on projects is cumbersome to do for every single thing.

For example, projects compliant with zoning in New York can be built as-of-right and all review processes are administrative (e.g. fire code compliance)

Re: Lawsuits Block Thousands of Seattle Homes, $39M for Affordable Housing

#38

Does any city have a well functioning design review process or are they all captured by incumbents to slow down development?

Seattle has a particularly bad one. As far as I can tell it’s a general problem — our light rail expansion has been slowed down by the same tendency to wait until there’s near-unanimous consent.

Edit: I reminded myself elsewhere that SF is also pretty bad as this goes.

Re: Lawsuits Block Thousands of Seattle Homes, $39M for Affordable Housing

#39

Does any city have a well functioning design review process or are they all captured by incumbents to slow down development?

Despite the all complaining you'll see on the Urbanist, Seattle's process is pretty good for a big city -- which is probably why it's been one of the fastest growing prior to the Covid exodus from downtown. Seattle has recently had more cranes deployed than any other metro in the US, despite being a much smaller city -- not exactly the bane of the YIMBY.

Design review can slow things down, sure, but they eventually do get built. These buildings will be around for 100+ years, taking a year to get the design right for everyone isn't the end of the world.

And there are a bunch of easy things we could do to get more housing made, with fewer drawbacks like rushing out massive towers, like allowing duplexes or fourplexes in single-family neighborhoods.

Re: Lawsuits Block Thousands of Seattle Homes, $39M for Affordable Housing

#40

Does any city have a well functioning design review process or are they all captured by incumbents to slow down development?

That's a contradiction in terms, AFAICT. I was excited to find this in the post: > Meanwhile, a bill moving forward in the legislature introduced by Representative Amy Walen (D-48, Bellevue) would ban design review for housing projects statewide. I have this bookmarked to contact my reps and senator to join as co-sponsors.[1] [1]: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1026&Year=2023...

Two new apartment buildings recently went up where I live. Both have roughly the same number of units inside, and the units are of similar size. One is ugly, and the other blends nicely into the neighborhood, even incorporating some green space and planted trees. There's no reason why the ugly one couldn't have been nicer looking, other than that the developers didn't bother to make the place look more like the surrounding buildings, and nobody required them to do otherwise, even though it would have been a trivial extra cost.

Dogwhistle for NIMBYs though it may be, something akin to "neighborhood character" is a legitimate thing that residents benefit from (including and perhaps especially lower-income residents who would otherwise be priced out), and its loss is absolutely an externalized cost in terms of qualify of day-to-day life. Green spaces, shade trees, etc. are nontrivial in their importance to residents, and the importance of deliberately preserving or expanding those features actually increases as density increases, because otherwise they will be lost and possibly gone forever.

So I don't think it makes sense to be an absolutist about design review. But there do need to be some checks in place to prevent abuse by incumbent property owners. I don't know what those would look like, but I also know that a treeless street walled in with apartment buildings and no local shops or other amenities makes for a sad shitty neighborhood. Housing equity needs to be about the complete lifestyle, not just about making more physical square feet that humans can theoretically inhabit. Otherwise we're just repeating a denser version of the same development mistakes that gave us stroads and suburban sprawl.

Of course, "existing condo sues other condos" isn't quite the same thing. The loss of the view is legitimately an externality, but here I think it comes down to a question of whether the current owners are entitled to their view, or if it was always a temporary benefit that would exist only until other condos were built.

Post reply on HN