Let’s face it, zoning is obsolete; it’s a 20th century solution to a 19th century problem, the encroachment of intense and messy uses of land next to less intense uses of land. In the last century, almost a 100 years ago, toxic industrial uses and people shared the same block. Zoning was initially a kind of public health intervention. But we don’t need it anymore. I’ve been saying this for years. Many years, and I was sometimes being derided by professional planners being told, “Don’t say that,” or “You want to be Houston?”

Here’s what I said in 2011:

The idea that geographic parts of our city are zoned for use and standards–like single family or NC 85–is the relic of ancient zoning history. Zoning came about to separate use. We need to do the opposite. In a walk down any block in our city we should be able to see many uses and many typologies pushed together and even on the same lot. It’s going to take time to get away from the idea of preventing a “pig in the parlor” to welcoming the whole herd in the house.

But all the attention lately of trying to put more duplexes and triplexes in single-family neighborhoods, or deleting the single-family zone is becoming a distraction. Let me explain.

Back in 1989 the Washington State passed the Growth Management Act (GMA), legislation largely aimed at preventing the loss of habitat, farmland, and open spaces to sprawl. The operating mechanism of the GMA was to push and pour and pull growth in to cities, places where there was already dense population.

In Seattle, the approach was to create an analog to the GMA; protect single-family neighborhoods from density and push and pour and pull growth into urban villages, places with the zoning for density already. This was the real Grand Bargain struck between Mayor Norm Rice and single-family neighbors in Seattle’s comprehensive plan. That Bargain lead to years of neighborhood planning and neighborhood plan implementation. A similar effort went into planning around Transit Oriented Development (TOD).

In both cases the point was in exchange for conceding big changes in the urban villages and around stations, neighborhoods would keep their yards, views, and idyllic neighborhoods. Light rail station areas and urban villages would be upzoned and lots of growth would happen there and the City would put infrastructure investments into the areas that “took” the growth. Everyone came out of this process a winner, and even die hard opponents of growth and change found themselves arguing for things (like parks, and sidewalks) rather than waging ideological opposition to growth and big buildings.

The problem is that we have never really pushed as much growth into urban villages and transit stations. Before too long, this idea, growing big in every other zone but single-family dissipated. There was not meddling by single-family neighbors in every damn thing that was getting permitted. The murder of microhousing is but the last and most obvious example: it was killed by Councilmember O’Brien not at the behest of people living in it or really even near it, but people in single-family neighborhoods down the road from it.

Beacon Hill station area is another example. Twenty years after we were sitting in meetings doing neighborhood planning, the Red Apple is still the Red Apple with a big parking lot directly across from a billion dollar investment in light rail. This is largely because the upzones that could and should have happened all around Beacon Hill station never were executed.

Do I want the abolition of zoning? Yes. When do I want it? Now.

But the problem is that we’re draining away energy picking fights with neighbors about duplexes and triplexes. That’s a waste of time. Neighbors should be told, “Hands of multifamily zones!” No more design review, no more meetings, no more zoning in those areas already growing rapidly. I am not against upzoning single-family neighborhoods or abolishing most single-family designated zones turning them say into low-rise 1 zones. But that’s terrible politics. It’s going to be a battle to get modest uponzes part of Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ) in areas where there is no single-family.

Wading into open warfare with angry neighbors is not a good use of our resources right now.

So, if I was Mayor, I’d let the big downtown developers have their Grand Bargain with the non-profit housing developers. The City would give the big kids what they wanted provided they just write their checks to the Housing Development Consortium (HDC). Let’s just cut out the wasteful middle man. Many, many dollars of fines, er, fees will be wasted in bureaucratic nonsense trying to distribute Vulcan’s pay out for its upzones. Just give the money directly to the HDC or better yet, make the money a source in an actual development. Done.

Next, I’d scrap the ridiculous, wasteful, and inflationary MIZ idea. Done. Over.

Then I’d tell single-family neighbors they don’t have to worry about upzones of single-family or any triplexes or duplexes. However, down the road, in the urban villages, we’re doing away with zoning all together and creating Spontaneity Hubs in which the only rules that would apply would be the rules of the market and health and safety. Done.

There would be no hand wringing design review in the hubs. No limits on height, bulk, or scale. In the Hubs anything would be allowed that would create housing, office space, retail, incubator space, light industrial, and even bowling alleys and roller rinks. Anything. And there might even be negative taxes for arts and cultural spaces, improvised housing solutions for homeless people and families, and other public benefits.

That is truly a Grand Bargain and would, I think, keep us busy far into the 20 year period conceived up by the Mayor’s proposals in the Comprehensive Plan. But we need to get started. When we’re done with that, we can turn our attention to single-family neighborhoods.