The good news is that people are paying attention to ideas for finalizing small-lot legislation in Seattle. Last week’s Seattle Channel panel gave us a chance to talk about our initiative and how it would create predictability while still creating more housing supply and choice for Seattle. Monday of this week led off with a front page story in the Seattle Times that was a bit off the mark. The headline screamed about “big houses” on small lots, when, in truth, small-lot proposals on the table will create smaller lots with smaller homes — smaller than what could already be built under the current code on regular, full-size lots.

Thankfully, Erica Barnett at Publicola, responded to the Times story:

So how big are these “BIG HOUSES”? In the example cited by the Times‘ reporter, Lynn Thompson: 1,050 square feet.

Interestingly enough, a quick search through the Times‘ archive finds that the paper has repeatedly referred to apartments and houses the same size as—or, in at least one case, three times the size of—the offending ‘BIG HOUSES” as “shoeboxes.”

In a story from 2003, for example, a Times reporter called a 1,000-square-foot condo a “shoebox” and discussed the creative solutions urban dwellers might consider to manage living in such a tiny, confined space. “This is a new lifestyle to most Northwest natives,” they wrote.

Interesting how context—neighbors angry at change in their single-family neighborhoods vs. urban dwellers comfortable with adjusting to an evolving city—can turn a “shoebox” into a megamansion.

We’ll be doing more work and more public appearances (I’ll likely be on the radio later this week) to make it clear that our proposal is a good one that will create appropriately scaled houses in single-family neighborhoods, not big houses.

Keep letting Councilmembers know you support the 80 percent rule and other aspects of the DPD proposal.