Down to Seattle last weekend: dismal weather, but an opportunity to see some of the city’s newest development.
It’s a good news/bad news story. The new light rail line connecting Downtown with the Airport is nearing completion. At least there’s enough on the ground to get a sense of what’s coming – and “on the ground” is the operative phrase.
To much objection, the rail was run at grade through the Rainier Valley along Martin Luther King Jr. Way. (‘Other parts of the route will be in tunnels; why not us?’ asked the residents and businesses in this predominately Black part of the city.)
But remarkably, not only is the rail in place but so is the residential redevelopment – built and occupied before the service even starts.
These mixed-use projects look nicely scaled to my eyes, even on a gloomy day, and I presume they incorporate a percentage of affordable housing. Most unusual to see transit-oriented development occur on this scale before the line is even open.
Not so good is the new townhousing popping up in Seattle neighbourhoods as the city tries to find ways to provide appropriately scaled densification. The idea is good; the execution isn’t.
Here’s just one project (they all pretty much look the same, at least in the Ballard/Phinney Ridge area). First the front view:
At least I think it’s the front. You can see the garage door and driveway tucked in below the main floor – and hence the problem. Because there is no underground parking (no doubt at considerable savings), the house does not address the street in a traditional way.
But worse is the cramped massing on the site, made even more problematic by the wooden fencing, cheap in appearance and doomed to age badly, that may give privacy but only at that expense of neighbourhood civility.
Same on the side, facing a heavily travelled street:
And worst of all, the lane at the back:
It’s a mystery to me why the parking is not accessed from the back. While this lane may be eventually paved, this is not a route anyone is going to want to use, particularly at night. Just waiting for the taggers.
Altogether, a very unhappy illustration of how ground-oriented housing can be fitted into existing neighbourhoods.
By comparison, here are some Vancouver examples where design has been a priority, and underground parking required. First, Towne near Oakridge:
And this charming complex on Oak at West 37th:
Design and parking aren’t the only big differences, of course. The differential in cost between the Seattle and Vancouver examples, I suspect, is huge – and hence the dilemma of affordability.
UPDATE: Town Homes Spark Neighborhood Debate (Seattle Times)
Your last point is the most valid one. Those west-side townhouses you show are completely unaffordable to ordinary people. It just encourages regular wage-earning people to move into the sprawling suburbs.
Which, it seems to me, is the desired outcome for Vancouver city planners – get the riff-raff out of the city so that the elite can enjoy all the natural splendour and amenities without ordinary people getting in the way. Then you can blame those ordinary people for driving around in cars and living in unsustainable communities, and get them to pay for the nice things in the city, as penance.
Maybe I’m an idealist but I’d like that great design can still be affordable, at least as far as materials go. If it weren’t for the bright new siding on those Seattle townhomes, I’d have guessed it were a gold rush town in the settlement days. That’s what that fencing and unpaved lane remind me of.
You don’t have to stick to Vancouver to see some gorgeous townhomes. I keep my eye out in Langley where I’ll move eventually, and some of the developments are just gorgeous. I haven’t seen much in person in Langley, and they’re not as upscale-looking as Vancouver, but they still look better than that Seattle example, and go for about $295,000 – $350,000. There’s actually a very well done example in Surrey in maybe an unexpected place, where they’ve really done a beautiful job incorporating natural features into the landscaping. In general I’m just envious of how beautiful the old neighbourhoods of Vancouver are. It’s a combination of every house looking different, some character houses, and gigantic trees. Sigh!
What worries me out here is the new developments popping up along Fraser Hwy will become occupied too far in advance of any decent transit. Who wants to take a packed bus?
Correction: I’d like *to think* that great design… sorry. 🙂
Would it be appropriate to include typical price tags along with the photos? I think price is a key issue in terms of housing projects.
There are lots of townhouse projects that have at-grade garages – in Burnaby and elsewhere – and particularly in Richmond (for obvious reasons). Those projects have driveways running through them, so I think that those townhouses probably have greater separation than the Vancouver examples shown because there is a driveway/roadway running through the complex (rather than just a walkway). They look fine – not as spiffy as the Vancouver ones (maybe more livable because of the greater separation) but not as bad as the Seattle ones either.
As an urban planner working in Seattle, I am well aware of the schlocky townhouse development occuring all over the city as a result of poorly conceived development regulations. The good news is that the discussion that has mainly been happening among planners and architects has hit the mainstream, with coverage in the Seattle P-I, the Stranger, etc., and considerable pressure is being put on our electeds to change the regs. The city is currently revising its multi-family development code, which will address some of the issues that drive the cookie-cutter townhouse design we have been getting for the past several years. HugeAssCity, a blog mostly about urban planning and design in Seattle and elsewhere has a good summary with links to further info: http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/03/27/ahoy-there-planning-wonks-tell-us-whats-good-or-bad-about-seattles-multifamily-zoning-update/#comments
these designs are great…, could there be price tags on them?