Aubrey Cohen at the Seattle P-I lets loose on urban NIMBYs. It’s a good piece, and while I have no doubt that the NIMBYs will come out and vilify him, they should re-read the piece first. It’s actually quite moderate and constructive. As I wrote recently, many folks that you’d normally consider left-center liberals (and who would certainly think of themselves as environmentalists) are passionate defenders of suburban, car-centric lifestyles.
The challenge is that re-shaping the built environment is exceedingly difficult. Much more difficult than starting from scratch. The much-loved car-free city of Vauban is car-free largely because it was built that way 60 years ago. Which is why Cohen writes:
It’s a lot less trouble to allow different types of development where there aren’t already neighbors, which is why it’s easier to build small-lot cottages in Issaquah than in Seattle.
Without condemning entire city blocks, it’s hard to reshape the landscape. And when large lots do become available (Northgate, Dearborn), they tend to be developed by a single developer, which often leads to a certain monotony. I don’t know how you untie this knot. Backyard cottages, which Cohen mentions, are a pretty neat trick, but probably not sufficient on their own.
Finally, I’ll also note that I enjoyed the tone of the article, which was a pseudo op-ed, presumably a new degree of stylistic latitude afforded by being a web-only paper. If the paper is still going to have straight news, though, it might be worth clearly labeling separately from “opinion.” If they want to mesh them, that’s totally fine (and very bloggy of them), but they need to be consistent about it.
I have neighbors that would be considered quite liberal by most standards, but when townhouses (no, not even a condo complex) were being built down the street they argued for fighting it in order to keep our street parking. The good news is that it wasn’t too tough to soften them up by reminding them about the benefits of density – that more people will mean more local stores and perhaps someday we’ll have a streetcar again.
I think all that most liberal NIMBYs need is a little push to remind them to think of the long term density benefits rather than the possible parking shortage (which is really what most density complaints come down to).
I welcome density. My hope is that by the time parking gets so bad that it’s worth giving up a vehicle, we’ll have good transit solutions that are easier and cheaper than driving anyway.
Small correction: while Lorig was the lead developer of Thorton Place at Northgate, it’s actually several distinct buildings with different architects (IMAX, apartments, townhouses, Aljoya retirement). Wallace Properties also separately developed the “507northgate” nearby.
I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for NIMBYs who park several vehicles on the street. A lot of Seattle was built as streetcar suburbs and is quite walkable.
Small correction: while Lorig was the lead developer of Thorton Place at Northgate, it’s actually several distinct buildings with different architects (IMAX, apartments, townhouses, Aljoya retirement). Wallace Properties also separately developed the “507northgate” nearby.
I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for NIMBYs who park several vehicles on the street. A lot of Seattle was built as streetcar suburbs and is quite walkable.