“We don’t have a Bellevue”

Councilmember Carlotta Collette, Jon Scholes from the Downtown Seattle Association, and Councilmember Rex Burkholder

Bill LaBorde of Councilmember Tom Rasmussen’s office organized a get together of local people to talk with two members of the Metro Council, a regional government that encompasses much of the Portland metropolitan region. Metro Councilmembers Carlotta Collette and Rex Burkholder visited with people like me, Dan Bertolet, Rob Johnson, and Jon Scholes.

It was a kind of “grass is always greener” conversation. What things do we like about Portland and what things do folks from Portland admire about us when it comes to land use and transportation. Here’s an interesting twist. There were two things that I thought were compelling in what the two Councilmembers said about what works for them and advantages we have over Portland.

Regional government is clearly the big leg up they have on us. Think about it. Here we’re buildings billions of dollars worth of regional transit infrastructure and the land use decisions are local ones. That means that we can build stations but a few worried city council members in a city can squash the zoning that would actually lead to real TOD (see Beacon Hill and Pioneer Square discussions).

The other was a surprise. “We don’t have a Bellevue,” said Burkholder. I hadn’t thought of it till he mentioned it, but it’s true. Many of our “suburban” cities (I don’t like that term, suburb) have much more aggressive and sustainable land use policies than Seattle does. And transit has to be regional if it’s going to work. And Collette and Burkholder seem to instinctively think regionally rather than parochially. So the idea that density in Bellevue could help Seattle isn’t a stretch for them.

As long as Seattle takes a go slow approach on density and we shy away from powerful regional government, maybe the hope lies in Bellevue, Kirkland, and Redmond where there might be greater enthusiasm for higher density.

Update: I wrote this from the meeting so I didn’t get to add all the links I wanted, and maybe even fully explain everything. In any event, here is a link to the State of the Centers Report which was mentioned by the Councilmembers. It is worth a look.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to “We don’t have a Bellevue”

  1. Matt the Engineer says:

    “maybe the hope lies in Bellevue, Kirkland, and Redmond” That’s not good enough for me. Geography is important when building density and, more importantly, building sprawl. When Seattle was the major jobs center for the region, sprawl was limited simply because it was tough for people to drive from far away through constrained bridges. But as jobs build up in our region’s minor cities, people can move further away. And since geography is much less constrained on the east side, sprawl is only limited by their ability to build roads quickly enough.

    If we could convince Bellevue, Kirkland, and Redmond to just have dense housing and we connected them to Seattle by fast mass transit, then I’d agree with this point. But as job centers they immensely increase the potential for sprawl, no matter how tall they build their towers.

  2. Pingback: Tools for smart growth: Land Value Tax | Seattle's Land Use Code

  3. Pingback: Sound Transit: More leadership, please! | Seattle's Land Use Code

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s