Later this 12 months, the Seattle Metropolis Council will adopt a new comprehensive plan to information how our metropolis grows over the subsequent twenty years. The draft, referred to as “The One Seattle Plan,” has already sparked heated debate. Whereas it fulfills the state mandate so as to add housing density, it does so in a manner that feels scattershot, missing the imaginative and prescient and cohesion that true city-building requires. The council is now contemplating greater than 100 amendments — an unmistakable sign that the proposal, as written, has critical flaws.
At its core, the plan is lacking two parts which have outlined Seattle’s most profitable eras of development: a transparent, inspiring imaginative and prescient for town’s future and significant neighborhood involvement in shaping how that imaginative and prescient turns into actuality.
Seattle has all the time been at its greatest when leaders paired daring concepts with neighborhood engagement. In 1903, town commissioned the Olmsted Brothers to design a system of parks and boulevards. Their plan knit collectively neighborhoods with inexperienced area and established the identification of Seattle as “an emerald metropolis” outlined by water and timber. In 1968, voters authorized the formidable Ahead Thrust bond measures, which funded the cleanup of Lake Washington, added parks and neighborhood facilities, and impressed the regional transit system we’re lastly constructing right now.
And in 1994, Seattle adopted its first complete plan beneath the state’s Progress Administration Act. That plan concentrated development in city villages, nevertheless it succeeded largely as a result of neighborhoods had a say in how development could be absorbed. Fifty neighborhood plans emerged from that course of, resulting in billions of {dollars} invested in libraries, bikeways, parks and transit. Communities welcomed development as a result of they weren’t passive bystanders — they had been companions.
Right now we face pressing challenges that demand the identical mixture of imaginative and prescient and participation. We’re within the midst of a housing disaster. Local weather change threatens hotter summers and worsening air high quality. Gridlock clogs our streets and undermines financial vitality. These should not summary points; they form the every day lives of Seattleites. But the draft plan fails to handle them with the creativity or coherence they demand.
As a substitute of clustering density across the billions we’ve invested in mild rail and bus fast transit, the proposal spreads high-density housing removed from main transit hubs. As a substitute of seizing the chance to remodel underutilized “grey zones” — the vacant, uncared for stretches of land that could possibly be remade into vibrant mixed-use districts — the plan leaves them largely untouched. And by growing lot protection for brand spanking new improvement, it dangers lowering the tree cover exactly after we must be planting extra to chill our neighborhoods and defend public well being.
Seattle deserves higher. A stronger plan would embrace the next ideas:
Construct on the Olmsted legacy. Combine town’s historic park system with its up to date framework, “Bands of Inexperienced,” in order that development strengthens — not diminishes — our identification because the Emerald Metropolis.
Make mobility and inexperienced infrastructure the spine of development. Pair sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit with parks and tree cover. That is how density turns into livable, not stifling.
Focus improvement in grey zones. Direct housing and funding towards underused corridors and vacant land the place transformation is most potential. Think about Aurora Avenue as a tree-lined boulevard with housing and companies clustered round bus fast transit stops.
Defend and develop inexperienced zones. Research and replicate what makes sure neighborhoods thrive — balanced transit, parks and housing — and apply these classes citywide.
Put money into infrastructure up entrance. Progress should be tied to new parks, improved sidewalks, transit entry and utility upgrades in rezoned areas.
Prioritize public land for public good. Associate with the Seattle Housing Authority and nonprofit builders to construct reasonably priced housing on land already in public fingers.
Interact neighborhoods as companions. Progress is sustainable solely when it’s equitable and welcomed. Neighborhood leaders ought to assist craft improvement plans for precedence areas.
Develop the cover, not shrink it. Incentivize planting timber, particularly in heat-vulnerable neighborhoods, in order that new housing additionally cools and sustains town.
This isn’t nostalgia for a bygone period; it’s recognition that Seattle has repeatedly confirmed its skill to pair daring planning with neighborhood voice. Our historical past reveals that after we spend money on each imaginative and prescient and belief, we acquire greater than housing models; we acquire civic delight and livable neighborhoods.
The council now stands at a well-recognized crossroads. Just like the leaders of 1903, 1968 and 1994, it has an opportunity to grab the second and lay a basis that may endure for generations. Any required upzones must be tied to binding commitments: parks and transit delivered on time, utilities expanded to match development and neighborhood facilities funded alongside improvement. With out these ensures, density dangers changing into an imposition moderately than a possibility.
Seattle can meet the housing disaster, confront local weather change and enhance mobility. However provided that we insist on a complete plan that’s daring, inclusive and rooted within the very qualities that made Seattle the Emerald Metropolis. Progress is inevitable. The true query is whether or not it is going to be chaotic, or whether or not, with imaginative and prescient and partnership, we will be certain that Seattle grows with grace.
