Our family recently looked in to subdividing a large lot we own in Seattle to create another building lot. The house is in a SF5000 zone, but recent small-lot legislation has made that division impossible. Needless to say, we will not be subdividing. The curious part of all of this is that in looking at the King County parcel viewer map, it is clear to me that most all of the lots in the neighborhood (North Capitol Hill) are below the 5000 sq. ft threshold. This is one of the most desirable neighborhoods in Seattle and most anybody would deem that the lots and houses are quite sizable. It is interesting to see that almost all of the properties are grandfathered in. Not even the single family code of Seattle is representative of reality. The zoning is actually taking a step backwards in this case.

When the bulk of Seattle’s zoning was instituted in the 1950’s, this was a reactionary event rather than a well-thought-out, forward-looking plan to steer growth in a positive direction. Prior to these reforms, Seattle grew as most cities did, organically. First a center city is developed, then as that grows denser, development occurs at the fringes. After numerous iterations of this organic process, you end up with a city that is like a wedding cake, dense growth in the center that gradually adjusts to less dense single family at the fringes and farmland and open space beyond. This model is sustainable and logical in that infrastructure grows with development and resources are more efficiently spent in denser environments–the needs of many are not sacrificed for the needs of one.

The 1950’s zoning went against this natural trend and pushed growth in Seattle in the opposite direction. It mandated a stop to this organic process and forced the emergence of sprawl rather than smart density. When tax dollars are forced to be spent on inefficient suburban infrastructure, the core suffers. We have seen this process play out numerous times in numerous cities: the center city becomes a downtrodden neighborhood due to lack of investment as money rushes to the fringes in a self-fulfilling cycle. The core of cities should be the most valuable and prized real estate as it contains the highest density of diverging uses and is an environment most conducive to economic growth.

The fact that we were not able to take some of our unused yard space to build another residence in an area of the city that is in high demand and is easily accessible is disappointing. It is truly deplorable that our archaic zoning not only prohibits such logical infill development, but in fact calls for less density than is currently in place. If we say that we want to maintain our single family zones in Seattle with mandates of up to 9600 square feet per lot (SF9600), then we must accept that there will eventually be sprawl from Seattle to Bellingham. If, however, we accept the fact that not everybody can afford to or should live in single family homes, then we can proceed to gradually alter our zoning requirements to allow for the steady organic growth of our city.

The natural process of growth and densification, if left to proceed on its own, takes nobody by surprise. Eventually, homes make way for townhomes, and these make way for apartments, and so on. Every major metropolis was a village at some point. We in Seattle need to decide: do we want to remain a village or do we want to become a city? I think the better question to ask is this: do we want to have a strong vibrant economy for all or do we want to risk becoming irrelevant as a city stuck in a 20th century mentality?