A neighborhood full of offices might not seem like much of an attraction, but South Lake Union has undoubtedly increased the city’s appeal. More than 114,000 people have moved to Seattle since 2010, increasing the population by 19 percent and making it the fastest-growing big city in the U.S. this decade. There haven’t been nearly enough new places for them to live, leading to steep increases in housing costs in a city poorly equipped to absorb people.
About two-thirds of Seattle’s residential properties are single-family homes. (Similar tech-centric cities are much denser; for instance, in Boston, single-family homes account for just 14 percent of the housing stock.) Seattle homeowners have vigorously fought changes to zoning laws that would increase density on the grounds that it would alter the character of neighborhoods filled with picturesque (if small) craftsman-style bungalows. The Nimby-ism has led to scarcity and bidding wars, driving the median home price to $805,000 in July. In some areas once populated by Boeing machinists, houses routinely fetch more than $1 million. And developers have generally prioritized offices and high-end homes over more affordable housing in recent years, exacerbating the imbalance between supply and demand. A poll published in May showed that the soaring cost of living had overtaken traffic as residents’ most-hated part of life in greater Seattle.
Note also the story of the failed Seattle Commons initiative:
Some of the anger in Seattle stems from the fact that much of South Lake Union could have been a park. In 1991 a series of columns in the Seattle Times proposed building a giant green space that would extend from downtown a mile north to Lake Union, a large body of water in the middle of the city. An article waxed poetically about the possibility of “whispering firs” and “a brand-new salmon run.” Soon, prominent citizens formed the nonprofit Seattle Commons Committee, which developed a plan for a residential and commercial neighborhood with homes for 15,000 people surrounding a 74-acre park.
But Seattleites voted it down, twice, mainly because tax revenue would seem to have benefited developers. So now they have everything they feared, and no park.
