Every once in awhile I get writers block; what else is there to say about growth? It’s pretty simple, we are a growing city and we need more housing. Let’s get moving on increasing housing supply, choice and opportunity. How many different ways can we say that? Then sometimes I read someone else write something today I said a long time ago. 

Let’s stop thinking of “growth” as a monster threatening to swallow our city, and instead think of it as new people we should welcome. Let’s stop talking about “bearing the burden” of those new people and start figuring out how we can accommodate all of us without resorting to market-distortions like rules that make transit-oriented development impractical.

This is from a recent post by Erica Barnett who’s been writing about land use and housing for a long time. I don’t want to take away from her thought, but here’s what I said back in 2012 in a post called Density is People. 

What’s true is that the apocalyptic, dystopia foretold in old 70s sci-fi films like Solyent Green is more likely without density not because of it. When a NIMBY in Maple Leaf squashes 25 units of housing those people who might have lived in those units have fewer and more expensive options, including living further and driving longer to make their lives work. That means more pollution, more resource consumption, and environmental degradation.

Right now we all argue about buildings: height, bulk, and scale. One of the strangest things about the Roosevelt debate was that if revolved, in the end, around 25 feet, the height of a building rather than the principle that land use patterns around transit should accommodate people that aren’t here yet to advocate for themselves.

Making the density argument about people rather than buildings must be the strategy we use, even if the way to get there is increasing the height, bulk, and scale of buildings around light rail. But when we make our arguments they should always be about the new people coming to the neighborhood. It’s easy to fold one’s arms and stand firm against a big, imposing building—even if that isn’t what’s proposed; It’s a lot harder to say, “We don’t care about all those people.”

What I’ve found over the years is that as we’ve staked out the high ground on growth and housing, more and more people are finding their way to the realization that there isn’t much to argue about; either you support more housing to accommodate more people coming to our city or you don’t want them to come. I’d revise my last thought a bit: neighbors are now being more explicit in their denunciations of new people (see comments from neighbors about microhousing and the low rise zone). 

I also said this on The Stranger’s SLOG:

More supply and choice in the housing market will make our city accessible and affordable to more and different kinds of people. We are an open-minded people, aren’t we? Didn’t we get all excited at the hope and change offered by Obama? What happened to that? We are going to be fine. We need to relax and welcome change. It won’t hurt a bit. I promise.

Yes, density isn’t about buildings, or developers, or even jobs; density is how we efficiently and sustainably grow as city and community. Maybe someday we’ll stop treating growth as something that has to be “taken” and start welcoming new people. Do we have the courage to do that?