As sold by its proponents, the vision behind the zoning tweak was a potential “Maker’s District,” with smaller, more affordable industrial spaces that become feasible to develop with residential uses above. Under city code, half of new apartments in Urban Industrial (UI) zones like the stadium district one have to be set aside as affordable to households making anywhere from 60% to 90% of King County’s median income. Because of that, Nelson and her allies touted the bill’s passage being as a major win for affordable housing in Seattle.

But with significant freight corridors in the area including First Avenue S, Edgar Martinez Drive, and Royal Brougham Way, the council needed to repeal an existing prohibition on residential uses within 200 feet of a major truck street in this area — corridors that tend to be the city’s noisiest and most dangerous. The Port of Seattle and BNSF appeal called the city council’s process “hasty and irregular.”

Specifically, the appeal contended that the City had skipped over several requirements under state law to complete such a change, and that the environmental review conducted was not specific enough to understand the impacts of allowing hundreds of new homes in this specific area, close to some of the Port’s biggest container terminals.

In agreeing, the ruling by the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) lays out multiple “failures” on the part of the City of Seattle ahead of a final 6-3 council vote on March 18. They include unmet public participation requirements under the state’s Growth Management Act (GMA), a requirement to provide the state’s Commerce Department 60 days to comment on the proposal that was bypassed, and violations under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) when it comes to review of potential impacts.

Rather than sign or veto the ordinance, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell left it unsigned, allowing it to take effect this summer and letting the city council take full ownership for the change.

Notably, the board ultimately concluded that the 990 potential units of housing touted by both supporters of the bill and its opponents is overinflated, and that it would only be likely to produce around 375 units of housing within the vicinity of First Avenue S, given the limited number of parcels that would be impacted. While the stadium transition overlay district includes around 53 acres apart from the stadiums themselves, the board found that only around 7.5 of those acres are developable.

The board also found the city relied on the 2022 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a broad citywide industrial land reform, rather than conducting a separate analysis of the impact of Nelson’s bill more specifically. The city also did not complete a required Director’s Report laying out public comments received on the bill and how it was responding to them.

“There is no evidence in the record that the City considered the maximum potential development of property impacted by this Ordinance, let alone in a concentrated area. Nor is there evidence in the record that would demonstrate the City considered the environmental impact of placing 375 residential units in a liquification prone zone,” the ruling states. “the Board is left with the firm and definite conviction that the City’s failure to produce and consider the required Director’s Report before adopting this Ordinance was clearly erroneous and therefore concludes that the City did not comply with its code and, as a result, the GMA’s public participation requirements.”

The board did dismiss some of the Port’s other claims about the change, including the idea that more housing in the stadium district would have a negative impact on freight mobility and traffic safety in the neighborhood.

“While it is evident that intermodal rail facilities as well as truck traffic accessing the Port facilities rely on the City’s Major Truck streets […] there is an absence of evidence which would demonstrate the Ordinance, by its terms, fail to encourage or otherwise thwarts the goal of efficient multimodal transportation systems or that it is contrary to regional priorities or not coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans,” the ruling states.

Nelson has been touting the stadium district bill as one of her major accomplishments in four years, noting that she had to overcome “significant opposition” to get it across the finish line. That opposition included over 30 state legislators who wrote to the council in late January contending that the change would “likely harm current and future employment opportunities in the region.”

Her SoDo housing move did not appear to sway voters, who broke heavily for former Progress Alliance executive director Dionne Foster. The 25-point loss means Nelson will lose her citywide council seat after one term. Foster won the endorsement of a number of progressive groups, including The Urbanist Elections Committee (of which I am a member).

Port leaders celebrated following the ruling’s release Monday.

“This is a win for international trade, our region’s industrial workforce, and community advocates who stood against housing injustice. It’s disappointing that so many resources were expended fighting this bad policy. This was totally avoidable,” Port of Seattle Commissioner Toshiko Hasegawa said in a statement Monday, posted to her Instagram account. “I hope City leadership will join us in re-centering collaboration over conflict. We can build housing in appropriately zoned areas without compromising trade or commerce. Our communities, workers, and regional economy are counting on us to get this right.”

The City of Seattle could appeal the ruling to a Superior Court judge, or it could go back to square one and check all of the boxes that the growth hearings board says it missed and try and advance the proposal again. But with its biggest champion now heading out the door, it’s not clear that it will be anyone’s priority to advance forward at all.

The post Stadium District Zoning Change Declared Invalid After Port of Seattle Appeal first appeared on The Urbanist.

Opponents and supporters turned out in droves Tuesday to brandy their talking points in what turned out to be a marathon meeting of five hours.

Nelson has touted the proposal as paving the way for a new “maker’s district” — an area that could support both badly needed affordable housing while at the same time providing space for light industrial uses, which are becoming increasingly scarce in Seattle. The affordable housing component helped the proposal earn support from the Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King County, which represent affordable housing nonprofits, builders, and investors.

“This is a monumental step forward. We have an urgent need for more affordable housing throughout Seattle at every level, including workforce housing,” HDC executive director Patience Malaba said in a statement. “The Stadium Makers’ District will not only address our City’s urgent need for housing, but also support local businesses, create jobs, and make the area safer and more vibrant for all.”

In contrast, the Port of Seattle and its industrial allies see the bill as the start of a slippery slope when it comes to allowing housing in more industrial areas, and have cited pedestrian safety concerns that would come from citing development so close to major trucking routes.

The legislation comes at a pivotal and unpredictable moment for South Downtown:

• Sound Transit is preparing to embark on over a decade of construction in the neighborhood, as part of the Ballard Link and West Seattle Link extensions.
• The US Coast Guard is set to decide whether to expand its footprint at nearby Pier 46.
• Amtrak has petitioned the City of Seattle to permanently close or grade separate a stretch of S Holgate Street that runs through its maintenance yard to reduce conflicts and allow for expansion.
• King County Metro’s SoDo bus bases could be getting a major overhaul under King County Executive Dow Constantine’s ambitious County Campus Initiative, which aims to redevelop the County’s South Downtown landholdings with mixed-use highrises containing housing, while potentially shifting some county office space to SoDo.

That said, Nelson painted the move as providing a clear net benefit to the city, touting the potential addition of around 500 affordable homes as required by code, if redevelopment proceeds.

“The fact that the benefits so outweigh the costs that I’ve heard expressed by by some of the opponents, makes it a very easy decision,” Nelson said ahead of the final vote. “We’re talking about a affordability crisis in Seattle that keeps getting worse and worse. We’re talking about businesses that are leaving Seattle because they can’t find capable places to set up shop. And we have an opportunity to address both of those challenges right now, and these challenges will will only get worse with continued delays. We’re talking about helping working people and putting affordable housing in a place with frequent transit.”

The required affordable housing is in the “workforce housing” range rather than deeply affordable low-income housing. Legislation specifies rents be set between 60% and 90% percent of the area median income (AMI) and be built on site. Rent for a 90% AMI one-bedroom apartment could be as high as $2,400, based on current Office of Housing guidance, whereas the City caps 60% AMI rents at $1,694 for a one-bedroom or $2,034 for a two-bedroom.

The idea of allowing housing in this zone, known as the Stadium Transition Area Overlay District, has been studied and discussed for decades. The City contemplated doing so in 2022 as part of an overall environmental review of its industrial lands reform. But permanent housing never made it into the final piece of legislation that the council approved in 2023, in large part due to opposition from the Port. Instead, the City landed on a compromise that allowed hotels, but not housing.

Now that environmental review has become a key point of contention, with Nelson and her allies pointing to it as evidence that building up to 990 units of housing in the area won’t have a significant impact. But industrial advocates have pointed out a major difference between what was studied then and what was approved this week.

While that 2022 environmental impact statement (EIS) did study housing in a broad array of industrial areas — including the stadium zone — it included a mandatory 200-foot buffer between all of the city’s major truck routes and areas where housing would be allowed. The stadium overlay is bisected with numerous major truck routes, including First Avenue S, Edgar Martinez Drive, and Royal Brougham Way. Many of these streets act as last-mile connectors between I-90 and the port’s container terminals, and the 200-foot buffer would essentially amount to a de facto continued ban on housing in the area.

Councilmembers Dan Strauss, Alexis Mercedes Rinck, and Bob Kettle voted against the bill, with Joy Hollingsworth flipping to back the idea Tuesday after opposing it in committee.

In advance of the meeting, both Strauss and Rinck calling for the vote to be postponed after a slate of nine amendments were posted to the council’s website with just 24 hours for public review. Some successful amendments seek to mitigate housing in an industrial liquefaction zone where added risk of noise and air pollution exists, including earthquake warning labels on buildings and increased requirements for noise-dampening windows.

Another successful amendment proposed by Councilmember Cathy Moore keeps the housing ban in place west of First Avenue, closest to the Port terminal.

Hanging over the entire council meeting was the shadow of a 2016 vote against the ceding of city-owned land on Occidental Avenue, which would have opened the door to developer Chris Hansen building an NBA arena in SoDo. Hansen still owns a significant number of the parcels inside the stadium overlay district, and opponents, including Port Commission President Toshiko Hasegawa, have suggested that the move is being made to benefit his holdings.

“Today’s biggest winner is an out-of-state billionaire developer, who more than a decade ago made a bet that he could buy industrial land on the cheap and get the city council to add millions to his property value just by changing the zoning,” a Port of Seattle statement issued after the vote read.

Nelson denies coordination with Hansen.

“I have never talked to Hansen, but here’s what I will say: we’ve got a property owner that is willing to develop a piece of property and subsidize the ground floor square footage for the small businesses that desperately need more affordable work spaces,” Nelson told reporters Tuesday. “And so what I say is: to me, what matters is the outcome and who this is going to help.”

Up for election in the fall, Nelson has already made the Stadium District housing push a big part of her reelection pitch. Nelson’s campaign manager has granted that “[t]his will be one of the most competitive races in Seattle” as she faces off with former Progress Alliance of Washington executive director Dionne Foster.

“To tackle the housing crisis, I introduced legislation that will create up to 1,000 new housing units in SoDo — and 50% of them will be affordable. These are real, tangible wins, but we must keep pushing forward,” Nelson wrote in a March 4 campaign email [emphasis original].

Contrarily, Nelson’s stance on the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan has been more measured and opaque. Last month, Nelson told The Urbanist she would not take a stance on the citywide housing plan until legal appeals from opponents are concluded. Though, her stance was not terribly clear before those appeals were filed.

Rinck, who had avoided weighing in on the bill as it headed through committee, focused on the process Nelson used to advance her proposal, expressing a desire for more time for a compromise to be worked out. But she also described the proposal as a distraction from the city council’s larger work of creating opportunities for more housing across the city, such as via the long-delayed Comprehensive Plan and the Seattle Social Housing Developer, which many of her colleagues (Nelson included) sought to obstruct by blocking a dedicated funding measure.

“There was a lot of talk today about support for union-built affordable housing,” Rinck said. “And I truly hope to hear that same energy when we talk about our other opportunities for union-built affordable housing, particularly with making sure the social housing developer is stood up for success, because that will deliver pro-union jobs as well, and I hope we keep this pro-housing energy when we talk about the comp plan, a more comprehensive discussion of housing citywide, and allow for more housing in our existing neighborhoods that have cleaner air, green spaces, schools — because working folks deserve to live in those neighborhoods too.”

Dan Strauss, who had chaired the council’s land use committee while the broader industrial maritime strategy was being hashed out, also repeatedly attacked the process Nelson used to advance her bill, which included sending it to her own Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee, which generally doesn’t deal with land use matters.

“This proposal has merit,” Strauss said. “And there’s a process that we have to go through, together, to find the solution. This process has not been that.”

Meanwhile, the council majority painted themselves as working hard to find a compromise measure that everyone can live with.

“At the end of the day, voting in favor of this legislation is voting in favor of more union jobs, creating more living wage jobs for union members, for small makers, for people of color, for women, while at the same time attempting to maintain the jobs at the port, attempting to not encroach further on that important capacity that is so critical to this city, to our county, and to our state,” Councilmember Cathy Moore said.

The Port of Seattle urged Mayor Bruce Harrell to issue a veto, but with a 6-3 vote any veto could be overridden. Harrell has not yet said whether he would sign the bill, or let it take effect without his signature.

This article was made possible by the generous support of The Urbanist Fund. The Urbanist Fund is a 501(c)(3) organization that supports local, public-interest journalism. Visit theurbanistfund.org for more information or to make a tax-deductible gift.

The post Seattle Council Lifts Ban on Housing in Stadium District first appeared on The Urbanist.

Proponents of the idea, including the Seattle building trades, Pioneer Square neighborhood advocates, and stadium authority representatives, say that allowing housing above light industrial uses — creating a so-called Maker’s District — will increase the vibrancy of the area and help greater downtown thrive. They argue that the impact of additional residents in the area was already studied as part of a comprehensive environmental review three years ago and found to be insignificant. Nelson’s rezone would make room for about 1,000 homes, if built out to capacity.

But Port leaders paint that analysis as incomplete, alleging significant impacts to its operations that could come from new permanent residents on industrial land near busy freight terminals. Port of Seattle Commission President Toshiko Hasegawa, in a press conference ahead of Thursday’s vote, likened allowing housing in the stadium district to redlining, and warned of a slippery slope that could lead to the broader erosion of industrial areas. In recent days, the Port of Seattle has started to suggest they may take legal action to stop the move if it’s ultimately approved by the full council, expected as early as March 18.

The largest private landowner in the proposed SoDo housing district is California-based hedge fund manager Chris Hansen, who snatched up 14 acres near the stadiums nearly a decade ago in hopes of building an arena complex to one day host NHL hockey and NBA basketball games. However, Hansen’s plan relied on securing a street vacation from the City to host a multi-block development, which the Seattle City Council turned down in 2016 and instead advanced an alternate plan remodeling the publicly owned Seattle Center Arena. As a result, Hansen was left owning considerable SoDo land holdings and looking to build something other than an arena.

Critics have painted Nelson’s push as a giveaway to Hanson.

“This is more than an economic justice issue, this is about environmental and housing justice, and it’s a safety issue,” Hasegawa said. “It’s a carve-out for a specific property that would benefit a single out-of-state billionaire, undermining our collective goals for a healthy economy, environment, and quality of life for all of our residents. And it renegotiates a yearslong agreement between dozens of parties, for the benefit of a single party.”

In an op-ed last week in The Urbanist, Port Commissioner Ryan Calkins made the case for ensuring that industrial lands stay industrial, even as much of the stadium district remains dominated by non-industrial uses right now. “SoDo will be the place where greentech entrepreneurs can find industrial space well-suited to advanced manufacturing. Without industrial lands, those homegrown jobs will be lost to other markets,” Calkins wrote.

The area targeted by Nelson’s bill, officially called the Stadium Transition Area Overlay District (STAOD), is classified as Urban Industrial (UI) zone, a type of land use created in 2023 after a decade of debate over the future of Seattle’s industrial lands. Housing is allowed within UI zones in neighborhoods across the city like Georgetown, Interbay, and Ballard, but in the STAOD a prohibition on housing within 200 feet of a major truck street effectively keeps it banned, with First Avenue S, Royal Brougham Way, and Edgar Martinez Dr all highly used major truck streets that act as last-mile connections between port facilities on the waterfront and I-90.

Under city code, 50% of any housing allowed in the new UI zones must be made available to households making anywhere from 60% to 90% of King County’s area median income, or they must be completely live-work units or caretaker’s quarters. All residential units built in these zones have to have special windows built to handle additional air pollution and noise, and must be built with heavier-duty HVAC systems to improve air filtration.

Building owners also have to sign a special covenant that acknowledges future residents must “accept the industrial character of the neighborhood and agree that existing or permitted industrial uses do not constitute a nuisance or other inappropriate or unlawful use of land.”

Thursday’s committee vote saw Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth join with Bob Kettle, who has been clear from the outset that he opposes Nelson’s bill, in voting no. Hollingworth pointed to her family’s cannabis farm in Shelton, Washington, on the Olympic peninsula, as providing her direct experience with what it takes to get a product to market.

“The one thing that hit me is when I was talking to farmers from eastern Washington and they mentioned that, ‘Joy, getting through [Snoqualmie] pass is not hard for us, it’s navigating a Mariners game, or it’s navigating a Seahawks game’ and that potential impact of moving through SoDo and getting to the Port,” Hollingsworth said. “That’s what hit for me, the potential impact of adding more layers to that.”

Councilmember Dan Strauss has also voiced firm opposition to the proposal, which could make the full council vote razor-close.

Mark Solomon, who joined the council on January 27 to fill a vacancy left by the resignation of Tammy Morales, joined with Nelson and Maritza Rivera in voting to recommend the bill to the full council. Lamenting the divisiveness of this issue, Solomon suggested that there should be a way for the two opposing sides to come to an agreement, but didn’t offer any specifics on exactly how that would happen. For many freight and maritime advocates, the 2023 industrial lands legislation represents that agreement.

“We are looking at this as an either/or: either we build housing or we support the Port. I believe we can do both, I believe it’s a both/and,” Solomon said. “I’m still trying to wrap my brain around how doing a Maker’s District, doing housing in a small sliver [of SoDo] is going to have an impact on operations in and out of the Port. Because quite frankly, I think that the light rail expansion that’s going to happen in SoDo is probably going to have more of an adverse impact on freight mobility to and from the Port.”

Nelson, in response to the Port’s threat of legal action, suggested that the city would be spending additional time on legal analysis before putting the legislation to a final vote, but reiterated her support for moving forward with what she framed as a badly needed economic development tool.

“If I thought this was going to damage, irreparably, the Port or put it into a position, within a hundred years, where it would not be a strong viable entity I would not be doing this,” Nelson said. “If I thought it would significantly damage the industrial base south of city hall I wouldn’t be doing this.”

This article was made possible by the generous support of The Urbanist Fund. The Urbanist Fund is a 501(c)(3) organization that supports local, public-interest journalism. Visit theurbanistfund.org for more information or to make a tax-deductible gift.

The post Council Committee Greenlights SoDo Housing Proposal Despite Strong Port Opposition first appeared on The Urbanist.

But a port is more than just the docks. It’s an ecosystem of heavy haul roads, railways, and warehousing. The area south of downtown known as SoDo is the gritty backbone of that transport system, where heavy trucks and loud trains work with industrial businesses that manufacture goods, deliver fresh food to restaurants and grocery stores, and export products to the Midwest and Asia. 

And for our city, SoDo is also where the essential functions happen, too: It’s the heart of our electrical grid, it’s where we consolidate waste and recyclables, and it’s home to maintenance facilities for buses, trucks, and trains. SoDo will also be home to large-scale electric vehicle charging infrastructure for medium and heavy-duty vehicles, including the drayage trucks serving the Port, delivery vans covering the last mile, and even school buses that no longer run on diesel.

When the City of Seattle passed Maritime and Industrial Lands Protection legislation in June 2023, it was a recognition of the need to protect what remains of our industrial areas for those basic municipal functions and maritime activities that support tens of thousands of well-paid jobs. After a decade of negotiations, we had a deal.

Since the passage of the legislation and the certainty it provides, we are seeing promising developments toward a vision of SoDo as the heart of an innovative green energy and maritime economy, supporting new living wage jobs. Demand for industrial properties is healthy, with vacancy rates below 9%, compared to 26% for office space. The Port alone plans to invest more than half a billion dollars in new infrastructure along the waterfront in the next decade. 

Legislation recently introduced by Seattle City Council President Nelson would upend that vision, and thereby the deal that took years to craft. Despite the City’s current work to update its Comprehensive Plan, Council is being forced to consider a stand-alone bill on a separate, accelerated timeline with less public engagement and outreach than land use bills typically receive. This bill would allow developers to build housing on two blocks of SoDo along heavy-haul corridors, where industrial activities occur at all hours of the day and throughout the year all while removing safety protections for pedestrians and cyclists moving through SoDo.

No one disputes that our city needs more housing. One place that’s not great for housing is SoDo. Along with the health impacts of living near heavy industry, industrial areas don’t have the amenities people need. 

As my colleague Commission President Toshiko Hasegawa has pointed out, people deserve better than housing in a place with minimal public transit and no neighborhood schools, greenspaces, or grocery stores. As a transit, bike, and pedestrian advocate, I am constantly working to deconflict those areas of our city like Ballard and Interbay where industrial activities overlap with key commute corridors. The last thing I want to do is create another conflict.

So, rather than putting housing in a place ill-suited for it, let’s preserve SoDo for industrial uses. After all, population increases don’t just mean a need for more housing. We’ll need more buses and trains, food storage and distribution, and waste management. At the same time, a resurgence in American manufacturing has created a unique moment for new businesses to make products right here in Seattle.

In January, Mayor Bruce Harrell launched Seattle’s new Climate Innovation Hub, which he described as a “nexus for innovators and early-stage entrepreneurs focused on tackling the climate crisis and expanding the region’s green technology sector.” As those startups mature and seek space to move from prototypes to manufacturing, SoDo will be the place where greentech entrepreneurs can find industrial space well-suited to advanced manufacturing. Without industrial lands, those homegrown jobs will be lost to other markets.

Industrial lands in SoDo cannot be replicated in other parts of our region: the proximity of SoDo to the deepwater harbor is critical to its utility. Our maritime terminals serve as the transportation and logistics hub where trains, trucks, and ships converge. Pushing industrial activity outside the City would lengthen delivery and distribution routes resulting in more traffic and pollution.

The economic impact is widespread. We are a coalition of more than 70 organizations across the state concerned by the threat this legislation carries. Farmers, longshore workers, truckers, and small businesses have rallied to protect their livelihoods, with support from state legislators from Seattle and the region opposing encroachment on industrial lands.

Both the proponents of the amendment and the advocates for industrial lands agree that continued conversations among the parties could produce an outcome that would better serve everyone’s interest. 

In December, the City, Port, County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Sound Transit, and the Muckleshoot and Suquamish Tribes created the South Downtown Seattle Cross/Agency Intergovernmental Collaboration with the purpose of addressing the challenges identified during the passage of Maritime and Industrial Lands Protection. Council President Nelson’s legislation would kill that new mechanism for building a shared vision for the development of that area, including the Stadium District.

It’s not too late for the Seattle City Council to avoid an unforced error, table this proposal, and for all of us to work together through the collaboration to address the challenges and spur major revitalization.

The post Op-Ed: SoDo Is for Industry, Seattle Should Reject Rushed Housing Push first appeared on The Urbanist.

Council President Sara Nelson put forward the proposed code amendment earlier this month, and it would allow housing within what’s known as the Stadium Transition Overlay District (STOD), an area of around eight square blocks focused around First Avenue S and Occidental Avenue S. The bill would remove a restriction that exists in other industrial areas in the city that prevents housing from being permitted within 200 feet of a major truck street, which in this case includes both First Avenue S, Edgar Martinez Drive S, and Royal Brougham Way S. Nelson’s amendment is being considered outside of the broader Comprehensive Plan process, which has drew criticism from Councilmember Dan Strauss.

The goal is to allow up to 1,000 units of housing above light industrial uses, in what is touted as a potential “maker’s district” full of small business incubator spaces. The current uses in the area, in addition to the 2016 headquarters for KING 5 news, include the Showbox SoDo, and the flagship Filson retail store.

Stadium housing district: A long-time political football

The idea is not new. Allowing housing in the stadium district was studied in 2013 and again several years ago as part of a broad package of industrial zoning reforms, but it was not included in the final regulations approved by the council in 2023, in large part due to opposition from the Port of Seattle and other industrial groups. Allowing hotels in the area was seen as a compromise, and the new Urban Industrial (UI) zones created by the reforms allowed light industrial uses to coexist with mixed-use buildings elsewhere in the city, including in Ballard, Interbay, and Georgetown.

But advocates for the sports stadiums, housing groups, and labor unions representing construction workers have continued to advocate for the maker’s district to move forward. Under city code, at least 50% of the housing built in the district has to be made available for households making less than King County’s area median income, depending on the number of bedrooms included in each unit.

“Union-built affordable housing is a big deal for our members, and we can have it here,” Nicole Grant, political director for The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 46, said during public comment Friday. “I was the co-chair of the industrial lands advisory committee under Mayor Jenny Durkan, and I will tell you that this project was always on the table, but it had to be studied first to make sure that it would not compromise the Port of Seattle. It was studied, and it does not compromise the Port.”

The process Nelson is using to send this change through the council is atypical. Rather than send the bill through the Land Use Committee as customary, she used her power as council president to direct the bill to her own Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee, over the objection of several of her council colleagues. Land Use Committee had been without a chair until the recent appointment of Mark Solomon to fill the vacancy left by former Councilmember Tammy Morales’ resignation.

On Friday, Nelson invited a fair of advocates for the change to join city staff at the briefing table, not inviting anyone from the Port of Seattle or the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) to provide their perspective.

“This bill is not good,” ILWU’s Dan McKisson told the Seattle Freight Advisory Board last week. “This was negotiated and voted on just over a year ago, and they’re coming back and simply, it’s the same gentleman who wanted the area there, and that’s Chris Hansen — he owns these 14 acres, he’s getting help from folks, but there’s a campaign to not allow that to happen, because having housing in there is of course not safe. For pedestrians down there, adding more pedestrians without further mitigation is a problem. And it’s really impactful to the ports.”

A California-based hedge fund manager, Hansen snatched up the 14 acres near the stadiums nearly a decade ago in hopes of building an arena complex to one day host NHL hockey and NBA basketball games. However, his plan relied on securing a street vacation from the City to host a multi-block development, which the Seattle City Council turned down in 2016. Instead, Mayor Ed Murray and the city council advanced an alternate plan remodeling the publicly owned Seattle Center Arena, which was rebranded Climate Pledge Arena following the overhaul. As a result, Hansen is still sitting on considerable SoDo land holdings and hoping to build something other than an arena.

This week a group of 31 state legislators, including Seattle Democrats and Eastern Washington Republicans, signed a letter asking city councilmembers to oppose Nelsons’s bill. “[W]e stand together in opposition to the proposed ordinance because we represent an array of constituencies that will be harmed by this proposal,” the letter states. “Our farmers and agricultural exporters rely on the efficient movement of goods and easy access to international trade gateways. Healthy and resilient communities rely on clean, walkable neighborhoods with easy access to green space and public amenities.”

Economic development tool or developer giveaway?

Nelson has called her bill an economic development opportunity, and one that would improve public safety in the area by adding more activity and vibrancy.

“The conditions in that area are not living up to their potential,” Nelson said in presenting her own slides on the proposal, ones that went ahead of any presented by independent city staff, another unusual move.

Nelson didn’t put forward an amendment to allow housing in the STOD in the 2023 industrial lands proposal, and she blamed this oversight on the fact that she was a new councilmember, despite being in office for a year-and-a-half when the legislation was approved.

“I did not want to ruin that stakeholder process at the last minute and blow the whole piece of legislation, and so I did not carry forward an amendment at that point,” Nelson said. “However, the underlying zoning does support housing.”

“This proposal is a spot rezone to benefit one wealthy out-of-state developer,” Port of Seattle Commissioner Fred Felleman said. “The industrial lands package that was transmitted by Mayor Harrell in 2023 was a culmination of over a decade of work, with many stakeholders. Nobody got exactly what we wanted, but we got an agreement. As a compromise, the Port agreed to hotels in the stadium district.[…] but long-term housing in an industrial zone without basic amenities is unacceptable and compromises our ability to attract new tenants.”

“The development of this maker’s zone is critical. We have a huge economic opportunity here,” Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council Executive Secretary Monty Anderson told the committee. Anderson also said that representatives for Mayor Harrell communicated that housing would eventually be allowed in the stadium district, just not in 2023. “I was told by the Mayor’s office to come back in a year, and it’d be simple legislation, and we could support it. That is exactly what I was told,” he said.

Anderson’s account of being promised the change after a delay was backed up by Lizanne Lyons, a consultant for the Washington State Public Stadium Authority, which oversees the operation of Lumen Field and Events Center.

A steaming Kettle

It was in an exchange with Anderson where the meeting almost went off the rails. Councilmember Bob Kettle, a retired naval officer, took offense at an implication from Anderson that he was being fed talking points around why to oppose housing in the stadium district, though that was never actually asserted. Kettle insisted his own background has led him to where he stands on the proposal.

“My position on this, even as a candidate, was from that north star of understanding the international economics,” Kettle said. “It’s nothing to do with dirty tricks, or these kinds of things that you’re insinuating […] the idea that I’m getting talking points and that I’m just mouthing these, if that’s what you’re impugning, is absolutely false.”

Along with Kettle pushing back on Nelson’s bill was Dan Strauss, who shepherded the 2023 legislation as the former Land Use Committee chair, and expressed concerns about both the policy and the process that got the council to this point.

“There is merit to the conversation, and there are important things that need to go forward before I’m comfortable with housing in the stadium district,” Strauss said. “Because the transportation network between the port and I-90, in my opinion, is not working today, much less with any change.”

Strauss doesn’t sit on Nelson’s committee and will not get to weigh in on its recommendation to the full council.

Looking ahead

Meanwhile, Councilmembers Rivera, Saka, and Hollingsworth — the remaining members of Nelson’s committee — avoided staking a clear position during Friday’s meeting, though Rivera did note that she thinks the proposal would improve public safety and Saka praised Nelson for her “leadership and bravery” in putting the bill forward.

A public hearing on the bill is set for Monday, February 24 at 9:30am, with a committee vote likely later that same week.

Correction: A previous version of this article misidentified Nicole Grant as executive director of the MLK Labor Council, a position she no longer holds. Katie Garrow is MLK Labor’s Executive Secretary-Treasurer.

The post Seattle Council Sharply Divided Over Allowing Housing in Stadium District first appeared on The Urbanist.

The idea of allowing residential uses around the south downtown stadiums, creating a “Maker’s District” with capacity for around 1,000 new homes, was considered by the City in its original analysis of the environmental impact of changes to its industrial zones in 2022. But including zoning changes needed to permit residential uses within the “stadium transition overlay district,” centered around First Avenue S and Occidental Avenue S, was poised to disrupt the coalition of groups supporting the broader package.

Strongly opposed to the idea is the Port of Seattle, concerned about direct impacts of more development close to its container terminals, but also about encroachment of residential development onto industrial lands more broadly.

While the zoning change didn’t move forward then, the constituency in favor of it — advocates for the sport stadiums themselves, South Downtown neighborhood groups, and the building trades — haven’t given up on the idea, and seem to have found in Sara Nelson their champion, as the citywide councilmember heads toward a re-election fight.

“There’s an exciting opportunity to create a mixed-use district around the public stadiums, T-Mobile Park and Lumen Field, that prioritizes the development of light industrial “Makers’ Spaces” (think breweries and artisans), one that eases the transition between neighborhoods like Pioneer Square and the Chinatown-International District and the industrial areas to the south,” read a letter sent Monday signed by groups with ties to the Seattle Mariners and the Seattle Seahawks, labor unions including SEIU and IBEW, and housing providers including Plymouth Housing and the Chief Seattle Club. And while Nelson only announced that she was introducing this bill this week, a draft of that letter had been circulating for at least a month, according to meeting materials from T-Mobile Park’s public stadium district.

Under city code, 50% of residential units built in Urban Industrial zones — which includes this stadium overlay — have to be maintained as affordable for households making a range of incomes from 60% to 90% of the city’s area median income (AMI) for a minimum of 75 years, depending on the number of bedrooms in each unit. And units are required to have additonal soundproofing and air filtration systems to deal with added noise and pollution of industrial areas.

But unlike in other Urban Industrial (UI) zones, under Nelson’s bill, housing within the stadium transition overlay won’t have to be at least 200 feet from a major truck street, which includes Alaskan Way S, First Avenue S, and Fourth Avenue S. Those streets are some of the most dangerous roadways in the city, and business and freight advocates have fought against redesigning them when the City has proposed doing so in the past.

The timing of the bill’s introduction now is notable, given the fact that the council’s Land Use Committee currently has no chair, after District 2 Councilmember Tammy Morales resigned earlier this month, and the council has just started to ramp up work on reviewing Mayor Bruce Harrell’s final growth strategy and housing plan. Nelson’s own Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee is set to review the bill, giving her full control over her own bill’s trajectory, with Councilmembers Strauss and Rinck — the council’s left flank — left out of initial deliberations since they’re not on Nelson’s committee.

As Nelson brought up the bill in the last five minutes of Monday’s Council Briefing, D6 Councilmember Dan Strauss expressed surprise that this was being introduced and directed to Nelson’s own committee. Strauss, as previous chair of the Land Use Committee, shepherded a lot of the work around the maritime strategy forward, and seemed stunned that this was being proposed without a broader discussion.

“Did I hear you say that we’re going to be taking up the industrial and maritime lands discussion in your committee? There is a lot of work left to do around the stadium district, including the Coast Guard [base],” Strauss said. “I’m quite troubled to hear that we’re taking a one-off approach when there was a real comprehensive plan set up last year and to be kind of caught off guard here on the dais like this, without a desire to have additional discussion.”

On Tuesday, Strauss made a motion to instead send the bill to the Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan, chaired by D3 Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth. After a long discussion of the merits of keeping the bill in Nelson’s committee, the motion was shot down 5-3, with Councilmembers Kettle and Rinck joining Strauss. During public comment, members of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters specifically asked for the bill to say in Nelson’s committee, a highly unusual move.

Nelson framed her bill Tuesday as being focused on economic development, intended to create more spaces that will allow small industrial-oriented businesses in the city. Nothing prevents those spaces being built now — commercial uses are allowed in the stadium overlay — but Nelson argued that they’ll only come to fruition if builders are allowed to construct housing above that ground-floor retail.

“What is motivating me is the fact that small light industrial businesses need more space in Seattle,” Nelson said. “Two to three makers businesses are leaving Seattle every month or so, simply because commercial spaces are very expensive, and there are some use restrictions for certain businesses. And when we talk about makers businesses, I’m talking about anything from a coffee roaster to a robot manufacturer, places where things are made and sold, and those spaces are hard to find. […] The construction of those businesses is really only feasible if there is something on top, because nobody is going to go out and build a small affordable commercial space for that kind of use”

Opposition from the Port of Seattle doesn’t seem to have let up since 2023.

“Weakening local zoning protections could not come at a worse time for maritime industrial businesses,” Port of Seattle CEO Steve Metruck wrote in a letter to the Seattle Council late last week. “Surrendering maritime industrial zoned land in favor of non-compatible uses like housing invokes a zero-sum game of displacing permanent job centers without creating new ones. Infringing non-compatible uses into maritime industrial lands pushes industry to sprawl outward, making our region more congested, less sustainable, and less globally competitive.”

SoDo is a liquefaction zone constructed on fill over former tideflats and is close to state highways and Port facilities, but not particularly close to amenities like grocery stores and parks. The issue of creating more housing in such a location will likely be a contentious one within Seattle’s housing advocacy world.

Nelson’s move may serve to draw focus away from the larger Comprehensive Plan discussion, a debate about the city’s long-term trajectory on housing. Whether this discussion does ultimately distract from and hinder the push to rezone Seattle’s amenity-rich neighborhoods — places like Montlake, Madrona, and Green Lake — to accommodate more housing remains to be seen.

The post Sara Nelson Restarts the Debate About Allowing More Housing in SoDo first appeared on The Urbanist.

Situated along First Avenue S, the parcel is the former home of the Washington Oregon Shipper’s Cooperative Association (WOSCA), but was purchased over a decade ago by the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) as a space to stage construction while the Alaskan Way Viaduct was replaced. Within the past few years, the remaining buildings on the site were demolished, leaving a fully vacant lot.

Earlier this year, WSDOT and the City of Seattle announced plans to solicit redevelopment concepts for the site, with the intention of selecting a firm to implement the winning bid. That work is now happening on an international stage with the help of C40 Cities, a climate-focused coalition of global cities which has developed a framework to redevelop major urban sites like this after successful implementation of a program like it in Paris, following the lead of Mayor Anne Hidalgo, C40’s former chair.

Just last week, the City of Seattle, along with C40 and WSDOT, hosted a meet-up event at the WOSCA site and at Seattle City Hall to discuss the project and field questions from potential applicants. A cadre of interested parties joined prospective firms at the event, including folks from the Port of Seattle, the Public Stadium Authority that oversees Lumen Field, and Pioneer Square and SoDo neighborhood groups. Groups sought more clarity around the vision for this unique parcel.

There are only a few baseline requirements: the site needs to ultimately include space for a new headquarters for Washington State Ferries. The final design also needs to include some elements that help to reduce climate impacts, and it needs to be constructed using green building standards. But the big question is how well the final proposal stitches together an extra-large superblock and helps to turn the area around Seattle’s sports stadiums into more of a real neighborhood rather than a pass-through for eventgoers.

The idea of holding a design competition to determine the future of the WOSCA site, rather than simply surplussing the land to the highest bidder, represents a new way of doing things for WSDOT. “We’re really excited for the opportunity to watch this parcel actually evolve into something maybe much, much bigger,” WSDOT deputy secretary Mike Gribner told the attendees at last week’s event. “It is the first for DOT to work with a program of C40’s caliber, I believe it is a first for us to work with the City. […] It’s certainly a first for the State of Washington as a whole.”

“If we wanted to turn this into a hotel, we would have gone with the status quo, which is to sell the property,” Anna Lising, senior policy advisor on energy for Governor Jay Inslee’s office, told attendees at the event. “That’s probably what we get the highest bid for, is turning [it into] a hotel.”

“We have a number of strategic priorities at the state, we have very ambitious climate commitments that we need to achieve. We’re not going to do that with just electrifying every vehicle,” Lising continued. “This is prime property downtown. We’re really interested in how do we build and use our land to be able to get mode shifting, how do we get people out of cars, how do we make sure that they have all the amenities and necessities within walking distance. We also have a housing shortage. There’s a number of high priority needs that we have in Washington state that we want to achieve, and show as a model, using this property.”

As Seattle struggles to return to pre-pandemic levels of activity downtown, the Harrell Administration said it sees the work on the WOSCA property as a central element of its downtown activation plan, and its strategy to activate and redevelop South Downtown, specifically. Harrell has advanced a last-minute proposal with King County Executive Dow Constantine to bypass the transit hub on Jackson Street as part of the Ballard Link Extension project and instead move forward with new light rail stations shifted to the south and north, with Sound Transit’s new preferred alternative just on the other side of Lumen Field from the WOSCA site.

In recent months, Sound Transit has tried to engage community members around what a “South Downtown hub” actually looks like, and the final use of the WOSCA site will be a major determinant in the area’s evolution.

Will the WOSCA site include housing? This is likely to be one of the most contentious issues to come up during the entire process. Just last year, the City of Seattle approved a new industrial land use framework that seemed to put to bed the issue of whether residential uses would start to extend further south from central downtown into the industrial district in SoDo. After pushback from industrial interests, including the Port of Seattle, the idea of rezoning to allow housing was largely rejected. But as part of any proposal for WOSCA, the City is set to approve a unique master plan that would override any underlying zoning restrictions, and open the door to residential use.

“When we did the industrial maritime strategy, and that the rezoning of our industrial lands, very much in partnership with labor unions and the Port, we specifically set aside this site for a future master planning process,” OPCD Director Rico Quirindongo told last week’s crowd. “When we did the rezone, we did that because we were going to come back and make changes at some later date, [but] we didn’t have a plan to do that — the C40 opportunity came to us.”

Even with a site as large as this, there won’t be enough room to make everyone happy, with many maritime and industrial advocates seeing the conversion of the site to residential or mixed use, even partially, as a loss for Seattle’s industrial sector and a symbolic attack on long-protected industrial lands. But commercial or industrial uses on the site likely do little to advance the stadium district, a clear bright spot for Seattle’s economic growth in the post-pandemic era, toward becoming a real neighborhood.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) shared some skepticism in a stakeholder interview on the WOSCA project conducted in March: “We are aware that land use regulations recently passed by the City allow for a limited quantity of housing that is related to industry or is at least 50% workforce affordable in some areas. However, we are still concerned that any housing can have a big negative impact. And we are concerned that if any is let in there would only be additional future creep into more industrial areas.”

Though initial proposals are due by November of this year, it will likely be a long time before the WOSCA site’s future comes into full view, with applications initially shrouded from public view through non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). Meanwhile, Seattle is considering interim uses for the site during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, pushing the start construction on a permanent project to 2027 or 2028.

Even as the process takes place behind the scenes, WSDOT and the City are promising robust public engagement throughout, seeking the public buy-in that could be key to coming to a final consensus. In the end, whatever rises on the site will absolutely speak volumes for the future of the immediate area, but also downtown as a whole.

The post Stadium District Site Could Be a Bellwether of Downtown Seattle’s Future first appeared on The Urbanist.

An organization called Watershed Community Development (formerly known as the Georgetown Community Development Authority) is seeking to create a large mixed-use development community in the area on land that it owns. They’re calling it the “Georgetown Live/Work District” in what could span eight or more larger scale buildings. A district master plan was published late 2021 detailing the concepts for community spaces, maker spaces, and housing space nestled in between a busy industrial area.

With the area on the blocks east and west of 4th Avenue S between S Dawson Street and S Fidalgo Street, the district is separated from Georgetown’s main drag by eight industrial-length blocks give or take — about a half-mile.

In time, Watershed Community Development hopes that development on the blocks could deliver 900 to 1,000 homes, including affordable and workforce housing (many at or below 60% of area median income and homes with three bedrooms), new cultural resources, and childcare options to the community along with artisan spaces and retail.

The zoning changes only apply to Commercial 1 (C1)-zoned properties. Currently regulations cap building height at 75 feet, so the zoning changes will allow buildings in the area to go to 85 feet, the same height limit that applies to some uses in the abutting industrial zones.

A report by City planners outlined some of the rationale for the higher height limit. 

“The greatest number of wood-framed floors that can be constructed on top of a concrete base structure for commercial/light industrial/arts uses under the Seattle Building Code is six. With average floor to floor heights of 10 to 11 feet for residential stories, it is unlikely that a builder could construct six floors of housing in a 75-foot zone while also providing the type of tall ground floor spaces necessary to accommodate the light industrial and arts spaces desired in and around the Georgetown community,” the report states. “A height limit exception allowing an increase to 85 feet would address this by allowing a builder to maximize the amount of housing that could be built in wood framed construction and accommodate ground floor ceiling heights of approximately 20 feet.”

There are some conditions on the higher height. Councilmember Tammy Morales (District 2), who chairs the city council’s land use committee, detailed some of them in her remarks this week. 

“The provisions that are required in order for developers to take advantage of the height incentive include commitment to developing a green building, at least five residential floors…, providing residential units with sound insulating windows and air cooling and ventilation systems that are designed to improve internal air quality, and dedicate at least 20% of the street-level street frontage to neighborhood-serving uses that are intended to attract and support pedestrian activity, as well as providing space with at least 20 foot ceilings for use at street level,” Morales said.

Unanimous adoption of the Georgetown zoning ordinance comes mere weeks after the city council turned down Morales’ Connected Communities pilot program, which sought to provide zoning incentives to boost affordable and workforce housing and equitable development in areas of the city that have historically been redlined, disenfranchised, and that actively sought to block non-White residents through racially restrictive covenants.

The two votes’ diverging result suggests a legislative body that could often go either way on land use issues. The 7-2 vote against the pilot program came after councilmembers raised a laundry list of concerns — some of which could have applied to the Georgetown bill but didn’t really come up.

Councilmember Cathy Moore (District 5), who had no qualms in approving the Georgetown rezone this week, laid her opposition to Morales’ legislation last month on completion of the city’s much-delayed Comprehensive Plan update while blurring the lines between policy (the Comprehensive Plan) and legislation (zoning regulations). Meanwhile, Councilmember Bob Kettle (District 7) opposed Morales’ legislation in part because of process — which spanned over two years and six deliberative city council meetings — while the Georgetown legislation was only subject to two short deliberative city council meetings.

Also at odds with comments last month, Councilmember Maritza Rivera (District 4) opposed Morales’ legislation because she felt that the City had too many affordable housing programs and didn’t have a strong grasp of how they all fit together. But on Tuesday, she supported this new de facto affordable housing incentive provision. 

Rivera seemed to base her justification for this industrial-area rezone on the local context, as she understood it. 

“[T]his height provision brings this particular section of Georgetown up to the same height standards or… allowances as the buildings surrounding this area,” Maritza said. “So really, the buildings surrounding are already at this height allowance and so this brings this particular area up to that height allowance as well.”

Buildings in the area, however, generally are only in the one- to two-story range as it stands. (Side note: It may not be a bad idea to start getting comfortable with the idea of a seven-story building next to a two-story building.)

A big sticking point for redevelopment in the area is 4th Avenue S itself, which is a major trucking route with substandard sidewalks and streetscaping. Designed for speed, the street generally consists of four wide travel lanes plus turn pockets at intersections and often sidewalk-level on-street parking lanes; crosswalks are far and few between. Correcting this unsafe environment for people walking, rolling, and biking will require significant changes — potentially requiring the City to stand up to a change-adverse Freight Advisory Board and their allies at the Port of Seattle.

While overhauling 4th Avenue S is a tall task, the rewards would be significant; with a safe street grid, the potential is skyhigh for Watershed Community Development’s vision of workforce housing and makers district in Georgetown.

Seeming to recognize the likely freight interest opposition, Watershed Community Development has put out street concept plans that focus on street improvements east of 4th Avenue S, including some highly pedestrian-oriented east-west streets that rarely or never see freight activity. On 4th Avenue S, the concept plans essentially retain the same truck-oriented paradigm but with some targeted curb bulbs at intersections, planter strip enhancements, and removal of turn pockets.

The newly adopted Seattle Transportation Plan is mostly concerned with repairing and building new sidewalks along 4th Avenue S and making limited improvements to the street for safer pedestrian crossings. Transit enhancements may also come, supporting King County Metro Routes 131 and 132 that travel the corridor between Burien (via Highland Park and South Park) and Downtown Seattle.

The post Seattle Council Greenlights Upzone for Georgetown Live/Work District first appeared on The Urbanist.

On Tuesday, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell signed industrial land reform into law, capping a lengthy process of study, outreach, and debate, spanning at least three mayoral administrations.

The land use code updates will strengthen “protections for existing industries, allow flexibility for future growth near planned Sound Transit light rail stations, and create healthier transitions from industrial to non-industrial areas,” the Mayor’s office said in a press release “The updates are estimated to create 35,000 new jobs and 3,000 new homes over the next 20 years.”

“Our maritime and industrial lands are a unique, vital, and historic asset that strengthen Seattle’s economy and provide pathways to thousands of living-wage union jobs in our city,” Mayor Harrell said in a statement. “The policy leads with our values of inclusivity, equity, and innovation and sets the groundwork for the Seattle we want to see: a thriving city with diverse employment opportunities and vibrant, affordable places to live, work, and play.”

Harrell’s signing ceremony included representatives from the Port of Seattle, labor, housing partners, and maritime and industrial businesses. Many of Seattle industrial zones abut Port of Seattle facilities from huge container terminals in Elliott Bay to Fishermen’s Terminal on Salmon Bay.

“We have a green light for workforce development and jobs,” said Toshiko Hasegawa, Port of Seattle Commission Vice President. “We appreciate Mayor Bruce Harrell’s careful work brokering a compromise with stakeholders from around the state and Councilmember Dan Strauss’ leadership at the Seattle City Council.  The compromise legislation advances our economy by protecting the city’s highly productive industrial zones, and also benefits the community by preventing any new conflicts between our most active industrial zones and residential areas.  This is a win for economic diversity, resiliency, and Seattle’s future.”

What’s in the industrial land reform?

The thrust of the reform is to allow greater density of industrial uses and some increased mixing of uses, while weeding out unwanted uses like big box stores and self storage that have encroached on industrial zones and squandered real estate that had been intended for industrial businesses that generate more jobs with higher wages. Check out Ray Dubicki’s primer for a closer look at what the legislation does or give a listen to The Urbanist Podcast episode on industrial reform.

The legislation creates three new industrial zones:

• Maritime, Manufacturing, and Logistics: “This zone will enhance protections for both core and legacy industrial or maritime areas and help prevent big box retailers or mini-storage facilities from being built in these zones,” the Mayor’s release states. “This is particularly important for areas on or near the shoreline, as well as for locations near port and rail infrastructure.”
• Industry and Innovation: “This zone would encourage new development in multi-story buildings that accommodate industrial businesses mixed with other dense employment uses such as research, design, offices, and technology through a system of density bonuses. Modern industrial development would support high-density employment near Sound Transit light rail stations and commercial areas. ”
• Urban Industrial: “This zone would aim to increase employment and entrepreneurship opportunities with a vibrant mix of affordable, small-scale spaces for light industry, makers, and creative arts, as well as industry-supporting ancillary retail or housing spaces to create better, integrated, and healthier transitions along the edges between industrial areas and neighboring urban villages, residential, and mixed-use areas in Georgetown, South Park, and Ballard,” the press release states. (In other words, the brewery-topping apartments of Ray Dubicki’s dreams.)

Port squashes SoDo Makers District with capacity for 900 homes

In her statement, Hasegawa alluded to the fight that emerged at the end of the process over allowing more housing in SoDo near Port of Seattle operations. Proponents say the “Makers District” could add 900 homes along 1st Avenue S near the stadiums, adding workforce housing and street-level makers spaces, injecting some vitality into a neighborhood that tends to deaden quickly in-between event surges.

The Port of Seattle campaigned hard against this move and prevailed in getting its way, even as the decision cleaved the labor community in two. While the Port and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 19 opposed the Makers District, several other unions supported it, including Unite Here Local 8 and the Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council. Monty Anderson, the executive director of the council, testified in favor in earlier committee meetings.

“The original EIS (environmental impact statement) that they did said that housing was OK there,” Anderson told KOMO, “The mayor’s team kind of took it out.”

Councilmember Dan Strauss, who chairs the land use committee, said he was open to revisiting the decision at a later date, but didn’t want to tank the legislation by adding the Makers District provision and upsetting key stakeholders.

“Mayor Harrell and his team crafted a balanced proposal that protects both our maritime and industrial lands while supporting the flexibility needed to keep up with emerging industrial needs,” Strauss said in a statement Tuesday. ”Our maritime and industrial businesses buoy our economy in downturns and remain a vital part of our city’s fabric. When looking at Fisherman’s Terminal, every fishing vessel you see is a small business directly employing hundreds of people, and indirectly thousands in our community. I am thankful for the additional protections this bill provides to the lands that support these workers and many other family-wage industries.”

The Port’s argument was that SoDo was an inappropriate location for housing growth — in large part because of dangerous, polluting traffic generated by its container port — won the day.

“Some argue that if you oppose rolling back land use restrictions then you are opposing housing development in the midst of a housing crisis. In fact, the Port has never been more vocal in support of housing,” Hasegawa and fellow Port Commissioner Ryan Calkins wrote in an op-ed in The Stranger. “We see the impacts on our workforce of sky-high housing costs and have been advocating or greater density in the city and region with our colleagues on the Council and in the Legislature. But the proposed area is no place for affordable housing. Families deserve better than being surrounded on all sides by freight arterials, a 40-minute walk from the nearest playground, and no grocery stores or schools.”

The Port referenced the fundamental argument for segregating port facilities and heavy industrial uses away from residential uses — namely that industrial business is often loud, stinky, and generates heavy truck traffic that pollutes heavily and poses a danger to other road users.

“Are we listening to the folks of Allentown, Tukwila, who experience nonstop freight traffic in front of their homes?” Hasegawa and Calkins asked. “Or people from West Seattle, who are bothered by the noise of train sounds through the early hours of the morning? Or neighbors in near-airport neighborhoods, such as Beacon Hill, who experience regular flights overhead?”

Future fights between freight interests and urbanists

Lost in this eleventh hour argumentation is a clear sense of obligation to mitigate the harms the Port and associated industries generate. Hundreds of thousands of people live in the flight path of the airport and deal with noise on a daily basis and countless thousands live on heavy haul freight routes serving traffic headed to the port and breathe in pollution that shortens their lives and increases the risk of being injured or killed in a traffic collision.

Due to racist land use decisions of the past and socioeconomic jockeying that continues to this day, people living in those communities are more likely to be Black, Indigenous, and other people of color. Chinatown-International District and Pioneer Square — two densely populated neighborhoods with lots of low-income residents of color — are already just a few blocks from the proposed Makers District. Those residents already live with those harms.

The region needs a port and an international airport to function, but the debate that “saved” 900 families from living near the port, sparing them from pollution and traffic violence, ended up highlighting how many families won’t be saved because they already live near industrial pollution — plus the inadequacy of the Port’s efforts to mitigate that pollution and traffic violence.

The Port and the Freight Advisory Board have opposed bike lanes through SoDo even as Port commissioners lament the danger as SoDo emerges as Seattle’s biggest hotspot for deadly crashes. If we were farther along in improving safety and reducing pollution on freight corridors, perhaps it wouldn’t be so unfathomable and sacrilegious to put housing in SoDo or other neighborhoods on the edge of industry or port facilities.

While it has tried to do better lately, the Port was a key player in decisions that locked in a car-centric design to the new Seattle Waterfront even as environmental leaders and urbanists (including Cary Moon and Mike McGinn) fought to replace the Alaskan Way highway viaduct with transit, bike, and pedestrian improvements rather than a four-billion-dollar highway tunnel, a surface highway that is nine lanes at its widest, and a new four-lane bypass connector — all of which somehow manages to leaves a hole in the bike network and transit network. The Port has raised questions about a proposed highway removal in heavily polluted South Park and has also lobbied to add and expand urban freeways in the 21st century in the name of quicker access to to its sister port, the Port of Tacoma, with the long-envisioned Puget Sound Gateway project that is set to worsen pollution in communities of color.

To put an ironic cherry on top of the Makers District saga, the Port gave its blessing — albeit half-heartedly — to allowing hotel developments in the Makers District, which was already ramping up with several additions near the SoDo stadiums. So while the port might conceivably save a few local residents from traffic crashes on its heavy haul corridors, it’s open season on tourists.

The potential addition of 900 homes in SoDo will not make or break the region’s massive housing crisis. However, the larger issues exposed by this debate about mitigating pollution, freight traffic, and industrial uses will have a huge bearing on the region’s ability to provide safe, healthy housing in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of the working class, who are expected to work in those industries but with increasingly few places where they can afford to live.

The post Harrell Signs Industrial Land Reform into Law first appeared on The Urbanist.

While we may associate industrial lands with factories, these days in Seattle they are more likely to be the location of big box stores or storage rental facilities. This is problematic since, at their core, industrial zones are supposed to be job creators. Fortunately, the proposed policies do a pretty good job of addressing this issue. In the episode, we dive into how the proposed industrial rezones could make some positive changes and how they could be even further improved. Ray has become our in-house subject matter expert on industrial lands, and as such he also penned this article on the topic.

As always, we love to hear from you. Tell us what you’re reading, as well as any questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes. Reach out to us at podcast [at] theurbanist.org. 

You can find The Urbanist podcast on iTunes, Spotify, and other major platforms. And if you are enjoying the podcast, be sure to offer a “like” or “thumbs up” on your favorite platform. It’s a great way to spread the word to new listeners.

The post The Urbanist Podcast: A New Approach for Seattle’s Industrial Zones first appeared on The Urbanist.