Imagine it, no links and no angry comments. I’ve written an article on the latest density dust up for the Puget Sound Business Journal. The easiest way to read it is in print.
So all you density foes will have to take out your old Smith-Corona to bang out your response. Or you can use your phone to light up the switchboard with “I can’t believe such a reputable publication would allow…”
Or you can put all that in the comment section here. Haven’t read the article? Don’t let that stop you. I’ve got a pretty good guess what the comments will be:
- You haven’t read the neighborhood’s plan;
- We are “taking density,” more than there was planned for before;
- The neighborhood should decide what happens, not some bloggers; and
- How much density is enough for you people?
That last question was asked in the comments section.
it seems for some people it would never be enough: Make the sky the limit and let the market sort it out…… unfortunately, this would leave us all living for decades in a jumble of high-rises next to single-family houses — not the sort of livability or quality of life we should aspire to.
Yes, let the market sort it out. I think whatever demand indicates should dictate supply of housing and retail in station areas. And yes, even if what’s built is sky high.
As for the argument that such an arrangement would be unlivable, I’d simply ask “have you ever been to Capitol Hill, or even Queen Anne for that matter?” Roosevelt neighbors have confounded “livable” with “preferable.” Those aren’t the same.
And this is not, as Jim O’Halloran put it “your train,” as if light rail was an unexpected house guest. The train belongs to all of us, and parochial interests ought to give way to greater regional needs.
Frankly, I hope we build enough housing so the supply completely overruns demand. So much housing that developers have to put it out on the sidewalk with a “FREE” sign on it.