Evolving as we grow:
For the #SeattleCompPlan one big question is how to make room new people, fight climate change and undo inequities baked into Single Family vs Urban Villages.
We shouldn’t expand urban hubs, we should rethink all of it. Here’s one way: 1/7 #seattle6
people might be shocked at a proposal to eliminate side yards in SF zoning, citing lost of trees, daylight, open space
Let’s assume we add new a ton of new households, what is the best outcome for a livable, sustainable land use pattern?
Start with a typical block:
2/7
Seattle’s narrow deep lots create opportunity in the back yard for trees, gardens, recreation.
But w/ small bumps in households per parcel, like DADUs, the only place to add housing is in the backyard. If the site is redeveloped as townhouses, most new units face sideways. 3/7
It doesn’t preserves open space-but breaks up useful backyard space in to useless sideyards. It orients spaces toward neighbors rather than street or yard. Less eyes on street. And we lose more mature trees in the process
‘Gentle’ upzoning kills yards, not preserves them. 4/7
Side to side #seattle6, 8 or 10 unit ‘plexes trade sideyard for backyard. Every one of these flats looks out to street, yard or both. Yes, there is more shadow for old houses, but we’re not pitting people who need place to lives against trees & open space 5/7
In terms of number of households, we’ve gone from 20 to 48 (in the ‘gentle’ density sketch) to 70 here, but we haven’t eaten up the open space or exhausted the development capacity. 6/7
The progression after a few generations is a new pattern that balances housing and open space.
I’m not inventing anything new here-this is an ancient and popular way of living common in cities around the world-just we might not see how to get there from where we are today.
7/7
PS:
Put three of these blocks together, and you have enough kids to have a new daycare
Put six of these blocks together and have enough people for a cafe
Put ten of these blocks together, and you have enough for a 15 Minute neighborhood and lower carbon lifestyle for all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Case Study-Jansen Court by CAST architecture
Single stair, 4 story (1 down) 10 unit studio apt, developed on the back half of a 30' lot.
The complexity of regulations are magnified on a small project, making it quite the puzzle. We are right up against nearly every code limit.
First, site design: setbacks, facade length, exiting and amenity areas dictate the footprint.
The staircase, exiting, and the specific requirements for small efficiency studios drive the plan layout (these are early drawings so there are some deviations in the final building).
I want to illuminate why relying on additional upzones in the urban villages or tweaks to their boundaries is not the way forward given Seattle’s projected population growth and our current housing price spike. 1/8
For context, King County is projected to add nearly another Seattle in population in the next 25 years (nearly 700K) and the region will add 1.8 million people. 2/8
Our current #OneSeattle housing target is 112000 homes over twenty years, but the reality is we need to have about double that to meet demand and address affordable housing. So how do we get there? 3/8
Reforming Seattle’s Single Family Zoning: Three Truths:
Truth 1) We've outgrown the urban village strategy.
It has been a great success for locating 80% of the housing built over the last 20 years in proximity to transit, but we can't expect the same 6% of land to house the next generation of Seattleites--at least another 100,000 people by 2040. (Seattle Planning Commission)
2/
Urban villages are too small, too few, and the edges are highly contested because we’ve struck such a stark line between what is allowed inside or out. It is a equity issue now, and will get much worse. (image is of relative density across UV boundary street)