My last post questioned the idea of adding costs to microhousing projects by running them through the design review process. The reaction was mixed on the social networks. I think some people get the idea that if I show up at your new house and demand that you paint the trim a different color, at your expense, before you move in, that at a minimum you’d be unhappy, but you’d also be stuck with the bill. Someone would have to pay for the improvement to the aesthetics of your new house, even if, as it’s resident, you were fine with the color of the trim.

Here’s one reaction from a Facebook friend and Twitter follower.

I’ve written about this reaction before; it’s a common one among planners, architects, and, now, even City Councilmembers. The argument is that if we build “bad” buildings we’ll somehow turn people against density, cities, and new housing. I think that’s nonsense. What if we applied the same standards to something else people often use and see everyday, often parked all over the neighborhood: cars?

Take a look at this great slide show of ugly cars from over the past 50 years.

Do ugly cars cause “backlash and flight” from driving. Has anyone ever said, “you know, I used to drive but then I saw the El Camino. I was so offended and disgusted I could never drive again.”

Or how about, “one day I turned a corner and saw a Yugo. That changed everything. From that day forward I vowed never to drive or ride in a car again!”

Nope. Same thing is true of housing. There are great buildings and awful buildings. For example, I despise the Seattle Municipal Tower. My days as a City employee were spent in the iconic Arctic Building and going to meetings at the Alaska Building with its nautical themed upper floors (port hole windows!). Why the City ever sold those buildings for the dysfunctional monstrosity of the SMT I’ll never know. But that’s my opinion. And the SMT is working just fine; Department of Planning and Development staff can process fees for design review there just as easily in the historic Dexter Horton building.

And the truth is that microhousing and most new construction isn’t an El Camino or a Yugo. In fact most buildings, by code, have to include many energy efficiency features and other basic requirements that are as strict as fuel efficiency standards for cars. I don’t want to give the Seattle City Council any ideas, but we probably won’t hear mandates for design review for smaller cars like the Smart Car which almost anyone would agree is not an especially attractive car. But it works and it’s efficient and people want it. 

Nobody is fleeing the city because of the way buildings look. People are working and living in all kinds of buildings. Why add costs to microhousing and to rents for people who want to live there because someone doesn’t like the way they look? Life in the city goes on, with every kinda buildings, cars, houses and people.