Recently I have begun to envision Seattle housing affordability personified as an overmatched, undersized boxer who has gotten knocked down time and time again, but through sheer grit, courage and resolve continues to get up off the mat and keep fighting. The repeated knock downs represent the series of beatings Seattle housing has taken in the past year, in this particular order: 2013’s small-lot legislation (which cemented single-family neighborhoods as untouchable), 2014’s microhousing legislation (touted as a “compromise” even though it will make new units more expensive), the new linkage fee legislation, and to cap it all off, Sally Clark’s low-rise downzone proposal. Each of those four changes make things worse for housing affordability. The microhousing and linkage fee laws add costs to new developments. This has the double whammy effect of instantly adding to renters’ costs, but also discouraging new development, which adds more costs again by reducing supply and increasing competition over a scarce product. But there is still a fighting chance for Seattle to get back up and be a winner on housing affordability.

The small-lot and low-rise downzone laws skip straight to discouraging development. You feel like you are taking crazy pills when you hear the Council say that this is all in the name of affordability. But the pieces of the puzzle start to come together when you remember that last year we voted to create district elections, where council members will be voted in by their district constituents instead of by the city-at-large. Like gerrymandering, this has the effect of splintering the voting power of urbanists, and giving single-family neighborhoods more power. As such, the Council has done a housing 180 to protect their political careers.

The boxing metaphor I have in my head ends with the boxer getting up off the mat. Housing affordability in Seattle can get up too. We must not resign ourselves to letting Seattle become San Francisco – a gated community for the rich. Today, we must be optimists. Even in this crazy climate, there are signs of hope: Mayor Murray’s housing affordability has a chance to lead to positive outcomes (I am particularly glad to see Alan Durning of Sightline Daily is on the committee). Sally Clark has hinted that maybe, just maybe, it’s silly to keep 65% of the city off-limits to development. And prior to his linkage fee push, Mike O’Brien suggested he wanted to make the land-use code friendlier to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s). An optimist might even say that now is a better time than ever to lay the ground work for a paradigm-shifting housing discussion while we wait for next year’s district elections to come and go. Because once the elections are over, there is a chance a more reasonable discussion about things like up-zoning can take place. So let’s talk about it.

The concept I am most intrigued by is the idea of “gentle density”. This is a coin termed by Vancouver-based urbanist, planner, and overall awesome-guy-I-wish-was-in-Seattle, Bren Toderian. Toderian, and his consultant company, Toderian UrbanWORKS, have given a new name to a very old and successful concept: density done well. What is gentle density, and why is it crucial for Seattle? Gentle density is density that blends in, fits the scale of its surroundings, and best of all, is capable of being a compromise between pro-growth urbanists and slow-growth NIMBY’s. Gentle density is dense low-rise rowhousing in single-family zones. It’s granny flats and ADU’s that take on the appearance of detached homes. It’s duplexes and triplexes.

Now, I am as pro-growth as they come, and I think it’s selfish and classist of neighbors to fight taller structures in their neighborhoods because it’s “out-of-scale.” If I were in charge of the city, new housing, in whatever form, would always trump “neighborhood character.” But. I will also admit that pro-growth advocates in Seattle have recently done a poor job of making NIMBY’s our allies instead of our enemies. Both sides have entrenched themselves and the result has been the supply crisis we face today. A conversation that reaches across the aisle would remind NIMBY’s that due to Seattle’s desirability and strong economy, growth simply can’t be avoided. And it would remind growth advocates that many NIMBY’s would welcome new growth if it was achieved at a less overbearing, more human scale.

And this is exactly why gentle density can be a powerful tool right here in Seattle. If, hypothetically, significant portions of our single-family zones were re-zoned as even just LR-1 (the smallest change possible), and parking requirements were eliminated, there would almost assuredly be an explosion of humanly-scaled, neighborhood-enhancing rowhomes, townhomes and duplexes built in our low-density neighborhoods. It would happen organically, because developers wouldn’t have to rush (while the local economy is white-hot) to cram huge buildings into little slivers of land like they do now. And best of all, even the NIMBY’s would come around to like the new developments. Why? Because who could possibly take issue with this?:

Or this?:

If we had neighborhoods full of rowhomes, duplexes, and block housing, we would be creating thousands of housing units for families (currently not happening) and we would take enormous pressure off the rental market, putting the power back in the renters’ hands and dropping rental prices. There would be other benefits: with so many new people in previously sparse neighborhoods, there would be thousands of families putting pressure on the city for great mass transit. And yes, density has historically come before transit.

Can this not be a common-sense middle ground for pro-and slow-growthers to come together? Major increases in density, but done at a human scale that can be architecturally uplifting and neighborhood-unifying. This may sound like a pipe dream given the incredible polarization in this city between supply advocates and opponents. And it’s true, some NIMBY’s really do want nothing more than to pull up the city’s draw bridge to newcomers. But there are also many who are more in opposition to bad design and bigger scale than more density. This position is at least somewhat reasonable, and it is these folks who we have a chance at persuading.

So yes, we are still the fighter who has taken a beating. Blow after blow, in fact. But if we find the resolve to stand up and fight back, we can still be victorious. The city council has made it clear that they won’t take up the fight for us. Therefore it will be up to us citizens, who know how affordability can be achieved, to pressure the city and do the work ourselves. We must demand that they act in the city’s best interest instead of their own. What, specifically, can be done? Simple: email. Tweet. Call. Get the attention of the mayor, as he prepares his housing committee. Let the councilmembers know that positive steps toward real affordability now will earn them your votes next year. Tell them that you support gentle density and all the benefits it brings, including a chance at compromise. Tell them we are ready to have a discussion about changes to our single-family neighborhoods, and that the answer lies in rowhomes, perimeter block housing, ADU’s and other forms of gentle, dense housing. Above all else, never stop fighting.