It sounds simple enough, but it has not been without controversy, and the implementation of the concept comes with additional challenges. For example, all planning concepts require political buy-in and funding is necessary for changes to actually take place. In addition, even when changes are made, they don’t necessarily serve all populations equally or in a culturally-specific manner. Furthermore, infrastructure and neighborhood improvements can contribute to displacement of low-income communities and gentrification.

Nonetheless, improving walkability, traffic safety, access to services, and ensuring that people have viable options to get around other than cars, are all important and beneficial urban planning goals. This article will first discuss how the 15-Minute City concept is defined. Then, it will cover the communication of the concept and pushback against it. Finally, it will go through the metrics of the concept, the implementation, and the effects, followed by a couple of real-life examples both in Seattle and elsewhere.

What is a 15-Minute City?

The roots of the 15-minute city concept go back a long way, and can be found in planning approaches such as New Urbanism, Jane Jacobs’ models of neighborhood planning, transit-oriented development, and others. All of these focus on proximity of services as a key element of high-quality urban space. 

“There’s nothing new about the concept,” Emily Talen, professor of Urbanism at the University of Chicago, said. “I’m glad it’s taken off like it has, but this is completely central to what urban planning is about, which is putting people in proximity to the goods and services that they need. It’s just that simple.” 

Dick Ettema, professor of Urban Accessibility and Social Inclusion at Utrecht University concurred. “We have seen various elements of this 15-minute city idea already before. We have had Compact Cities in the Netherlands. We have had New Urbanism. We have walkable cities, livable streets, and complete streets,” Ettema said. “It’s an appealing story. It’s also a simplified story.”

Carlos Moreno, a Franco-Columbian urban planner and Sorbonne professor, pioneered the 15-minute city term, which was quickly adopted by and popularized by Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo. Some of the key components include walkability, mixed-use buildings, bike lanes, public transport, and services such as supermarkets, doctors, schools, and parks. These should all be reachable within 15 minutes by foot or by bike. Other related concepts use different time frames or metrics to refer to a similar outcome, such as the “20-minute city”, the “20-minute neighborhood,” or the “one-mile city.” 

The intention is to improve the quality of life of residents, reduce carbon emissions, focus economic growth locally, increase active travel and health outcomes, and build strong communities.

Like some other urban developments such as bike lanes, bus lanes, or affordable housing, the 15-minute city concept has also faced pushback from conservatives, as well as conspiracy theories in both the UK and the US, particularly in response to the idea of reducing car dependency. This response is relatively unique, as most urban planning concepts do not draw such a large public reaction. The reasons behind this reaction seem to be multiple.

Devin Silvernail, former policy director for Seattle Councilmember Tammy Morales, helped promote 15-minute city style interventions in Seattle. 

“There was a misunderstanding that came particularly from one town in the UK,” Silvernail said, in which the 15-minute city concept was communicated poorly.“That [misunderstanding] spread, where people were saying, ‘You can’t drive through this neighborhood or you can’t park here, you can’t do this and you can’t do that.’ That’s what people heard, that some liberty they have, their movement, was being taken away. I think it really boils down to communication.”

Professor Ettema also agrees that the communication of the idea may have played a role: “If it’s about selling [an idea to the public], selling is often about simplifying. And while it makes it appealing for some, it may make it also more threatening to others.” 

Accessibility vs Walkability: 15 Minutes for Whom?

The 15-minute city is an intervention that is intended to increase walkability. However, a distinguishing point that is critical to note is that walkability is not the same as accessibility. 

As Anna Zivarts, Director of Disability Mobility Initiative at Disability Rights Washington, said: “A lot of places that people might consider walkable aren’t aren’t smooth, or they involve a lot of steps and so for folks who are using wheelchairs or walkers or canes like that can be really challenging.” 

Numerous walkable cities in Europe such as Amsterdam or Marseilles rate highly for walkability. However, these cities have numerous streets covered in cobblestones, with narrow footpaths. In the case of Amsterdam there is a high level of bicycle traffic, and in Marseilles there are many steps. 

These places may meet a 15-minute metric of “access to services,” but are not at all accessible for people with mobility devices such as wheelchairs or canes, as well as parents with prams or elderly people.

“[The 15-minute idea] sort of assumes that the distance someone could travel in 15 minutes is equal. But I don’t think people, who are not disabled, realize how much longer it can take someone who’s disabled to navigate a distance,” Zivarts said. “For some people, 15 minutes could be more like 45 minutes.” 

Without addressing concerns about accessibility and disability rights, cities that otherwise achieve the 15-minute ideal will have a big asterisk. To overcome this pitfall, cities should integrate accessibility into the 15-minute city concept, ensuring that pathways and transit are accessible for all, in addition to being high quality.

Barriers: Idea vs Implementation

In cases where urban areas might benefit from the 15-minute city concept, there are still a number of barriers. For example, in the US, Silvernail noted that there are big cultural barriers that prevent people from even necessarily wanting or considering the idea of the 15-minute city. “There is this very ingrained idea in the United States to say, well, you know, we’re not Barcelona, ​​we’re not Tokyo, we’re not Buenos Aires, and therefore it can’t happen here,” Silvernail said.

In addition, even if residents might want this idea, it always has to go through political hurdles, and the decision-makers are usually not at the neighborhood level that is primarily affected. City-wide or nation-wide decisions are made, governance levels at which the 15-minute city may not always be a primary concern. While individual initiatives or neighborhoods might be very keen, they don’t always have funding or any political power to make it happen.

“Unfortunately right now a lot of the ways that improvements get funded is through grants,: Zivarts said. “So communities have to go and apply to the state, or even the federal government for these grants. But you have to have a competitive application, and so you have to have people on staff who know how to write grant applications. And there are the communities that have the resources to do that and other communities that don’t.”

Wider implementation of 15-minute cities may also require easing zoning restrictions and other regulations, such as parking mandates, that slow down urban transformation. 

“We really need to change the rules of city building in the US.” Talen said. “There are small-scale developers who want to get in there and change the city, and they are getting blocked by zoning rules.” 

The Effects: Better Health, Quality of Life… and Gentrification?

Assuming that the 15-minute city actually gets implemented, having services in closer proximity and active multimodal travel options brings a number of benefits to the urban population. C40 Cities notes that the “physical and mental health benefits of active travel, cleaner air, easy access to healthy food options, quality green space, and stronger community ties that reduce loneliness are vast and well documented.” 

Unfortunately, the side effect of these improvements can be, in some cases, gentrification. However, it can be hard to know the direction of “causality” in such cases, Ettema said. For example, the area may already be gentrifying, and therefore provided with infrastructure improvements and investments. Or, these investments may actually cause the gentrification process. 

Devin Silvernail pointed to anti-displacement approaches that can help, such as ensuring that a large proportion of any new development or increased density includes social housing, and that additional services are appropriate for the existing population. 

“We need to ensure that we’re not putting in a Whole Foods [in working class neighborhoods],” Silvernail said. “Instead, we’re putting in something that is affordable to the people who live here.”

Ettema said that avoiding the narrow concentration of investments in infrastructure and amenities in one neighborhood (especially those vulnerable to displacement) but instead spreading them citywide, can potentially buffer displacement pressure.

Now let’s take a look at a few examples.

Seattle’s Plans and Potential

Adoption of the 15-minute city concept in Seattle has long been in discussion, but as of yet it appears that there is no concrete plan to adopt the approach. Instead, Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan 2015-2035 continues to focus on the “urban village” approach of planning, a concept that was adopted in Seattle in the 1990s. 

However, a 2021 moveBuddha study found that Seattle was somewhat of a 15-minute city already (it ranked #12 out of 25 cities studied). This was based on walking and biking scores, combined with other scores such as density of childcare, restaurants, and community services, as well as the affordability of housing. 

Another study by Nat Henry also showed that Seattle has some areas with high walkability and good access to parks, bus stops, restaurants and coffee shops. However, this map also showed that “only 44% of Seattleites can walk to basic city amenities,” and that “27 neighborhoods—including large portions of West Seattle, Delridge, and Northeast Seattle—are extremely unwalkable, with less than 10% of their residents able to walk to basic amenities.”

“Politically right now, Seattle is very skeptical about new things and bigger ideas,” Silvernail said. “There are bureaucratic barriers in place that are making it kind of difficult.” 

The challenge remains that transforming a potential 15-minute city into an intentional plan, with continual and specific steps in that direction, takes real political approval, financial resourcing, and planning.

Paris, the Poster Child

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo made headlines for her adoption of the 15-minute city approach. Some of her decisions and plans, such as pedestrianizing the Voie Georges-Pompidou, a large highway along the banks of the Seine, faced some pushback and controversy. Nonetheless, the rollout of bike lanes and walkable spaces under Hidalgo’s direction in Paris has been (so far), relatively effective. 

The French newspaper Le Monde reports that between October 2022 and October 2023, bicycle traffic monitored by sensors in Paris doubled. In addition, during rush hour, bicycles now outnumber cars. 

A study by the Paris Urbanism Agency (Apur) also found that walking increased by 50% between 2001 and 2018, that public transport overtook cars as the second-most popular means of transport (walking is in first place), and that “the rate of motorized households lowered generally: -17% in Paris, -5% in metropolitan municipalities outside Paris and a total of -7% for the Metropolis as a whole.” 

Many of these changes have been attributed to Hidalgo’s policies, showing a crucial shift in the urban experience in Paris. Nonetheless, a recent study from 2024 shows that the transformation in Paris is not yet complete, finding a “highly accessible city center (though with some internal differences in terms of types of amenities)” contrasted with “a less well-equipped periphery, where lower-income neighborhoods are more often found.” Even in the poster child for 15-minute cities, there is still a lot of work to be done.

Melbourne’s 20-Minute Neighborhoods

Another example of a city that is attempting to enact this concept under a slightly different moniker is Melbourne and its 20-minute neighborhoods. This initiative is being undertaken at the state level, with the Australian state of Victoria guiding the transformation of the city through the Plan Melbourne 2017–2050 strategy.

This includes safe, accessible and well-connected neighborhoods for pedestrians and cyclists, local services and destinations, high quality public spaces, and higher-density housing, among other things. On a positive note, the plan specifies what the 20 minute metric actually entails, stating that a “20-minute journey represents an 800 meter walk from home to a destination and back again or a 10-minute walk to your destination and 10 minutes back home.” 

The pilot programs and experiments with community partnerships have also informed the program further about how best to make and expand infrastructure improvements. Like other cities, interventions in Melbourne have applied more commonly in the inner city, while outer neighborhoods still require more investment.

The Roadmap is Clear

The 15-minute city idea is a new name for an old concept, but one that nonetheless does lead to improved health, quality of life, stronger communities, local economy improvements, and emissions reductions. There are also a number of challenges in the implementation of a 15-minute city, as well as unintended side effects, in some cases. 

Nonetheless, the benefits of 15-minute cities far outweigh the potential negative outcomes, particularly if development is done through an integrated and well-communicated process, that engages community and meets local needs. Cities like Melbourne and Paris are already showing the way.

The post Urbanism 101: 15-Minute Cities, Walkability, and Accessibility first appeared on The Urbanist.

It is usually used for preventing damage to property, limiting particular uses of public space (such as preventing skateboarding), or stopping homeless people from sleeping or resting in public spaces. It has also been applied in service of segregation and racial discrimination.

What defines hostile architecture?

Hostile architecture can, at times, be difficult to describe. Robert Rosenberger, an associate professor at the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology describes it as an “interdisciplinary topic” in a relatively new field of research. In addition, he says that “keeping it kind of invisible to most people is part of the larger strategy.” This means that elements of hostile architecture might be hard to spot.

Many of the urban design choices for hostile architecture include the use of anti-homeless spikes, bars on park benches, locked park gates, or bright lighting in subway alcoves. As these mechanisms don’t affect most people, they may go unnoticed. There are also more subtle design elements such as locks on fire hydrants, which can particularly affect people in already-overheated poorer areas, and prevent them from cooling down on hot days. 

Rosenberger notes that hostile architecture is often (though not always) being carried out by “powerful people putting in the design to stop the behaviors of the less powerful people,” limiting the uses of public space for already-disadvantaged groups. However, as Karl de Fine Licht, senior lecturer at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, explains in his research, skateboarders are not particularly disadvantaged, and the needs of the public must always be considered in light of the needs and benefits of all people who use that public space.

For example, it may affect a homeless man negatively to not be able to sleep in a bus shelter, but it also affects bus riders (who statistically come from lower socioeconomic groups) when they cannot use the shelter because someone is sleeping there. When considering the use of public space, de Fine Licht explains that often “there is a balance between two less well-off groups” that has to be determined.

Seattle bike infrastructure

One common application of hostile architecture is anti-homelessness measures. In Seattle, the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) undertook two different design choices that were widely reported as suspected hostile architecture.

The first of these was the placement of bike racks under an overpass, in an area where homeless people were likely to sleep, but where there was very little need for bike racks. The strange positioning of the bike racks indicated their true function: to prevent unhoused people from lying down or camping underneath the bridge. This is one way in which hostile architecture hides in plain sight: The use of otherwise normal or even beneficial infrastructure can be applied for ulterior motives, as a way of restricting use of public space by particular groups of people. Ultimately, the backlash against their hostile use led SDOT to remove the set of bike racks in question.

A further example of the use of bike infrastructure as hostile design is the SDOT replacement of an RV camp with a bike lane. While the addition of a bike lane in urban areas is important, in this case the planning was unannounced. This led to widespread suspicion about the bike lane, and questions about whether it was being employed as a tool to push RV campers out.

As Rosenberger says, the use of public space is complex: in all design decisions there is a question of “what public space means, and who gets to count as the public,” a debate that is still “up for grabs.” In addition, de Fine Licht says that certain political groups such as populist right wing parties also “typically see the disadvantaged to be responsible for their misfortunes and thereby a legitimate target of such design.”

Road closures and design

A historical example of hostile architecture in Memphis shows the ways in which urban design decisions can also contribute to, or enact, racism and segregation. In the 1970s, West Drive connected Hein Park, a predominantly White Memphis neighborhood, and Hyde Park to the north, a predominantly Black one. Residents in the Hein Park neighborhood petitioned for West Drive to be closed at the north end, under the guise of preventing through-traffic. This petition was granted, and the road was closed. A court later found that the road closure was a way of discriminating against Black residents in Hyde Park, and particularly that it was a “unique step to protect one neighborhood from outside influences which the residents considered to be undesirable.”

Rosenberger notes that the impacts of such decisions are not only historical: In Atlanta in the 1970s, the proposed extension of MARTA subway lines into the suburbs was much decried by racist suburbanites, who did not want the typically Black urban dwellers to have access to the outer suburbs. Nathaniel Smith, founder of the Partnership for Southern Equity, an Atlanta-based nonprofit, writes that the transportation landscape in Atlanta has “been undeniably shaped by a history of structural racism and divisive policy decisions,” leaving inequality present today.

Rosenberger explains that hostile architectural design decisions can effectively do “the same thing as regulations but they’re not subject to the same mechanisms of approval,” leaving people facing discrimination that operates at an infrastructural level rather than a legal or regulatory one, with fewer routes for resolution.

Camden benches

Another example of hostile architecture is the design of so-called Camden benches in Camden, London. These benches were created in 2012, and were specifically made “to resist criminal and antisocial behavior.” They are able to be sat on or used for brief periods, but due to their design cannot be slept on. Their lack of holes or crevices prevents drugs from being stored inside them, and the surface design is intended to prevent littering. The BBC has described these benches as a “masterpiece in unpleasant design,” especially given that they are also not comfortable to sit on.

Camden benches are just one instance of seats that are designed specifically to prevent certain behaviors. Others include benches with large arm rests segmenting the bench into pieces to prevent homeless people from lying down, or heavily-sloped surfaces so that they can only be leaned on. Alternative designs include “anti-skate bars,” which break up the smooth surface of the bench’s edge so that skateboarders cannot grind along the side.

In other cases, infrastructure is also not installed, leaving hostile infrastructure invisible. As de Fine Licht says, “when you design a square, for instance, there are a lot of things you can do but choose not to because that might attract ‘the wrong people.’” This could be, for example, choosing not to install a pavilion or roofed area, to prevent people from gathering or sleeping under it. As de Fine Licht explains, “the absence of a roof is hard to see.”

Encouraging social behavior

Urban design can also be used to encourage positive behaviors in public spaces, including promoting social interaction and connection. For example, bike lanes and walkways can be established that connect diverse neighborhoods, and parks can be established with free water fountains, sufficient benches, and structures such as pavilions, children’s playgrounds, and restaurants. 

One example is the Klyde Warren Park in Dallas, which has numerous amenities and park services, including what they describe as a “firm but fair” policy for handling park behavior. A team of undercover reporters even posed first as a homeless man, and then as a man in a suit, and in both cases lay on benches around the park to see how it would be handled. Regardless of appearances, park patrollers simply asked the reporter to sit up instead of laying down, so as not to prevent other park users from using the bench. This is one way of allowing public space to still be usable by anybody in the space, without pushing homeless people out of the park or employing hostile design elements.

Urban design can also be used to create human-centered spaces by employing elements that prevent or limit car access, and make things more accessible for people. This can include flat paths and low curbs, bollards to stop excess through-traffic, removing parking spaces, and installing more benches, public toilets, and trees for shade. While hostile architecture is one form of design, it is far from the norm: de Fine Licht says that “urban planners are trying all the time to create possible meeting places for people from all walks of life.”

All urban design choices have impacts on the people who live in our cities, and it’s crucial to get the balance right. When facing problems such as high levels of homelessness, it’s also necessary to consider the larger solution: Hostile architecture doesn’t really solve anything, and rather simply pushes the problem elsewhere. What’s more is that it can be hard to see, and most people don’t think about how their behavior is being shaped by the urban landscape around them. Part of what we can do next, Rosenberger says, is concentrate on the solutions to those larger problems one step at a time.

The post Urbanism 101: Hostile Architecture first appeared on The Urbanist.

The proliferation of lists begs the question of their quality. Who is making them, are they trustworthy, and are the lists even useful at all? In this episode, Natalie and Ray look at what makes a city ranking list good and how much entertainment can we draw out of the bad ones.

Here’s a couple of the lists we discuss in the show:

• Park Score by the Trust for Public Land
• How Much Apartment Space does $1500 Get You by Rent Cafe
• Best Place in the US for Electric Vehicles by Storage Cafe
• 2023’s Best Cities for Downtown Living by Storage Cafe
• Best and Worst Cities for Basketball Fans by WalletHub
• Urbanism in North American Cities by City Nerd

As always, we love to hear from you. Tell us where you rank Seattle and the metrics you’re using, 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: Your Guide to City Ranking Lists first appeared on The Urbanist.

• In This Digest:
• Important Bills At A Glance
• Weekly Focus: What is a “Striker” amendment?

The winnowing continues as the deadline for legislation to escape its house of origin passed at 5pm on Wednesday evening. Of the bills The Urbanist has been following, five continue and five do not.

The bad news first. Tenants rights and rent stabilization are done for the year as neither HB 1124 or HB 1389 made it to the house floor for a vote. This comes after HB 1388 to prevent predatory residential rent did not make it out of committee. It appears, again, that any change to Washington’s prohibition on rent control is an uphill slog.

Also missing the cut were HB 1026 which would have ended design review statewide for residential developments, HB 1131, the WRAP Act that attempted to improve the state’s solid waste system, and SB 5383 to ban jaywalking laws.

However, on to the good news. All of the major bills about missing middle housing, climate change, and transit-oriented development that we are following are moving ahead, with some amendments. Additionally, the lot splitting bill and statewide accessory dwelling unit (ADU) legislation are chugging along. The lot splitting bill actually has a public hearing scheduled for March 14th.

Note that the session’s hallmark missing middle bill, HB 1110, saw a striker amendment and some retooling of the varying tiers of housing permitted in the bill. We talk a bit more below about the function of a striker amendment and some other terminology. Suffice to say here that amendments further narrowed the bill’s scope, decreasing the number of jurisdictions impacted by the bill.

The original legislation started by requiring cities with a population of 6,000 or more, or any city within the contiguous urban growth area of a city with 200,000, to allow for the development of four units on all residential lots, or six units if the site is near a major transit stop or two of the units are affordable.

The initial amendments which passed out of committee split the terms of the legislation and raised the required population for applicable. Cities that were between 25,000 and 75,000 were required to allow duplexes on all residential lots, and four units on lots near major transit, a community amenity, or if one unit was affordable housing. Then for all cities over 75,000 or within a contiguous urban growth area with a city of 200,000 people, four units would be allowed on all residential lots and six units near major transit, community amenity, or if two units were affordable. There are only three cities in Washington over 200,000 people: Seattle, Spokane and Tacoma — with Vancouver a few thousand residents short.

The final amendments that passed out of the House changed the fourplex/sixplex provision to apply to cities of 75,000 people or smaller cities “within a contiguous urban growth area with the largest city in a county with a population of more than 275,000.” That makes it sound like the population count has shifted from the city to the overall county. The six counties with over 275,000 people are King, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane, Clark, Thurston and Kitsap. Yakima is just short. The upshot is that the amendment appears to have expanded the number of smaller cities that the rule applies. For cities in the Seattle GMA from Marysville to DuPont and Port Orchard to Pacific, welcome to the sixplex era.

The rest of the amendments to HB 1110 include some technical adjustments. A minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet in a lot split coordinates the bill with HB 1245. Extensions are permitted based on findings that service capacity for utilities doesn’t exist. And adjustments are allowed for communities where 25% of the residential lots are in critical areas, near an airport, subject to sea level rise, or several other criteria that the Department of Commerce can grant an extension. There’s a very smart provision that forbids the 25% to be in areas that were formerly covered by racially restrictive covenants, so eat it segregationists.

Important Bills At A Glance.

• HB 1110 – Missing Middle Housing  
  • Next Move – Voted out of the House of Representatives 75 to 21. Now in the Senate assigned to Housing.
  • More Coverage – Read about the most recent amendments it took to get out of committee and PSRC’s analysis of the number of potential homes the bill would create.
  • Notes – As noted above, striker amendment made a few changes.
• HB 1181 – GMA Climate Change provisions 
  • Next Move – Passed the House of Representatives 57 to 41. Now in the Senate and assigned to Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs.
  • More Coverage – Please see December’s Meetup with Futurewise and Futurewise’s campaign page.
  • Notes – Striker amendment made several changes including definitions of overburdened communities and vulnerable communities. Other proposed amendments were withdrawn or not adopted.
• SB 5466 – Promoting Transit Oriented Development
  • Next Move – Passed the Senate 40 to 8. Now in the House and assigned to Housing.
  • More Coverage – The Urbanist did a big breakdown of the bill from January and also has done a little coverage of transit-oriented development (TOD) in the past. Sightline Institute also has some good info on this TOD bill.
  • Notes – Amendments added on the floor include exemption from parking provisions with WSDOT findings, defines frequent bus stop, and commitment to accessible urban environments.

Other Important Bills

• HB 1026 – Local Government Design Review Reform – DEAD
  • Next Move – Placed on the floor calendar. Never called up for a vote.
  • More Coverage – The Urbanist’s coverage of Seattle’s need to overhaul design review and the first tacit steps.
• HB 1131 – WRAP Act (bottle deposit and packaging reform) – DEAD
  • Next Move – Host of amendments proposed. Never called up for a floor vote.
  • More Coverage – Check out Ashli Blow’s article introducing us to the Washington Recycling and Packaging Act (WRAP Act) and the need for it now.
  • Notes – Companion Bill SB 5154 did not escape Ways & Means.
• HB 1245 – Lot Splitting
  • Next Move – Passed House of Representatives 94 to 2. Now in the Senate and assigned to Local Government, Land Use and Tribal Affairs Committee.
  • March 14 – Schedule public hearing for Local Government, Land Use and Tribal Affairs, 8am.
  • March 16 – Scheduled executive session, 10:30am
  • More Coverage – See the March 1 WALeg Weekly Focus for more information about the bill.
  • Notes – Floor amendment by Rep. Andrew Barkis (R – LD2 Yelm, Eatonville), who is doing some interesting housing work this year, increased resulting lots to minimum 2,000 square feet and effective date to six months after a city’s comp plan update.
• HB 1337 – Easing Barriers for ADUs
  • Next Move – Passed the House of Representatives 81 to 15. Now in the Senate and assigned to Local Government, Land Use and Tribal Affairs Committee.
  • More Coverage – See the March 1 WALeg Weekly Focus for more information about the bill.
  • Notes – Striker amendment inserted language about Urban Growth Area compliance and coordination by the Department of Commerce.
• SB 5383 – Concerning Pedestrians Crossing and Moving Along Roadways – DEAD
  • Next Move – Never put on the floor calendar.
  • More Coverage – See WALeg Week 2 – Weekly Focus with the troubling origins of “jaywalking” and the ways removing these laws makes the streets safer.
  • Notes – Companion Bill HB 1428 did not escape Transportation Committee

Tenants Rights Bills

• HB 1124 – Protecting Tenants from Excessive Rent and Related Fees – DEAD
  • Next Move – Amendments proposed. Never called up for a floor vote.
  • More Coverage – See WALeg Week 3 – Weekly Focus with the difference between rent stabilization bills like these and the misnomer “rent control” that gets dropped pejoratively against any sort of benefit for renters.
• HB 1389 – Residential Rent Increases Under the Landlord Tenant Act – DEAD
  • Next Move – Never put on the floor calendar.
  • More Coverage – See WALeg Week 3 – Weekly Focus with the difference between rent stabilization bills like these and the misnomer “rent control” that gets dropped pejoratively against any sort of benefit for renters.
  • Notes – Companion Bill SB 5435 did not escape Housing Committee.

Amendment removing everything after the title and inserting a whole new bill.

Weekly Focus: What is a “striker” amendment?

As bills escape their house of origin, their legislative histories gets to be a little involved. Some of the terms make sense, like Original Bill and Analysis documents. Then it gets a little confusing as engrossed second substitutes and striker amendments start to appear. Take the (current as of Wednesday 3/7/2023) history for the missing middle bill, HB 1110:

Put simply, a striker amendment is one that wipes out all the text of a bill, keeping only its title, and replaces the guts with something else. This can be a positive development, where many amendments are quickly incorporated and preserve the intent and purpose of the legislation. Or it can be a negative one, where the point of the bill is gutted and a good idea is replaced with a very tiny advisory commission.

Why not just use a substitute bill that also replaces the entire text of the legislation and wraps a whole bunch of amendments together? Substitute bills are only allowed in a committee in the bill’s house of origination. As a bill moves to the floor vote or to the second chamber, as everything is doing this week, substitute bills are no longer allowed.

In the case of HB 1110, the striker bill is actually sponsored by the bill’s primary sponsor, Olympia Rep. Jessica Bateman (D – LD22). And we know that because it’s described as a Striker amendment and it’s labeled with Bateman’s name in the code and sponsor column. Strikers can be amended, as shown by the sub-amendments listed under Bateman’s. Some of these, like those from Rep. Barkis, were adopted. Others were not, like some from Rep. Pollet or Rep. Senn.

According to the Legislative Information Center, the next four letters (frequently SERE here) is the name of the legislature’s staff member who drafted the amendment, with the three digits following as the sequential number in the list of amendments drafted by that person. Amendments with the H and four digit number, such as Rep. Bateman’s striker or Rep. Senn’s first amendment in this case, were drafted by the Office of the Code Reviser.

Following the flurry of adopted, not adopted, and withdrawn amendments, a bill is actually voted on by the chamber. Happy to say HB 1110 decisively passed the House of Representatives on a 75 to 21 vote. Despite pressure from local officials and worries of a wave of defections from the Democratic caucus, only three Democrats voted against it: Auburn Rep. Chris Stearns (LD47) and Kirkland Reps Amy Walen (LD48) and Larry Springer (LD45).

The text of the bill that now moves to the Senate and contains all these amendments is labeled “engrossed.” Since the amendments were absorbed into the second substitute bill, that’s what gets the “engrossed” label, even though the striker amendment technically wiped out all of its text.

The post The Olympia Waltz Continues for Middle Housing and Other Vital Legislation first appeared on The Urbanist.

Two very important EIS are being prepared right now. Seattle’s Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) is studying how to rezone the city’s industrial lands. The agency released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement examining how much land should be reserved for traditional industrial uses and how much should be converted to new innovation and urban industrial zones. Comments are due March 2nd. 

At the same time, Sound Transit has released a Draft EIS for proposed light rail alignments to Ballard and West Seattle. Determining the preferred location for stations, rail lines, and the project’s expense, the agency’s document will set 20 years of transit expansion. The document will open to comments on January 28th and remain open until April 28th. (Our initial analysis is here.)

The projects are huge, the acronyms are intimidating and the heft is overwhelming, but in reality, an EIS is nothing more than a decision making grid. At its heart, an EIS is the same chart you mentally run through to decide what to eat for dinner. Should we order Thai delivery, go for pizza, or stay in and finish the lettuce that’s slowly liquefying in the bottom drawer? If you draw that out as a chart, you’ve completed the basics of an EIS. You are qualified to have a say in this process. And you should.

The Dinner EIS

Let’s consider that decision about where to go for dinner once more. We’re hungry and want food, and there are three ways to achieve that objective: eat what’s in the fridge, order Thai, or go to pizza. There is also an unstated fourth option of skipping dinner. 

To decide between these choices, we need some criteria. Those might include finding something cheap, particularly satisfying, and close to home. We might also have some particular issues today that don’t appear other times we make this decision. Maybe we know there will be pizza lunch later in the week. 

Normally, all that goes through our head and we start dialing for Thai because the need for garden rolls overrules all else. But if we pause, it’s possible to draw out our decision making as a table. Choices at the top and criteria at the left. 

And that’s all an EIS is. It’s a list of choices — called alternatives in EIS lingo. And they’re compared against a list of criteria — elements in the nomenclature of the day. This chart will not make the decision for us. How we fill in the chart and weight the criteria will not make the decision for us. But it becomes really evident how defining those choices and criteria, these alternatives and elements, is vital.

What makes an EIS a decision making tool rather than an overblown pro/con list is the legal requirement to stop, deliberate, and contact the public at three important places. The first is scoping. That’s when the agency starts the process by laying out the alternatives and elements. Have you ever heard the city made a decision and asked “why didn’t they even consider this idea!?” Well, it’s because that wasn’t one of their alternatives set at the “scoping” phase of the EIS. Scoping is the 30 days between when the agency announces they need to make a decision, and when they huddle with all the proposed criteria and alternatives.

The second public outreach happens with a Draft EIS. It’s when the agency takes all those proposed criteria and alternatives to make a first swing at filling in the chart. This is the point both Sound Transit and OPCD are with their projects. At this point, it’s a big document with lots of information. But again, at its core, it’s this simple chart of alternatives measured against criteria. 

The final public outreach happens with a Final EIS — the agency’s last try to address the public’s comments before the agency or electeds make a decision. This is a full public document with publication and official notice to impacted parties and folks who participated in the process. From here, the EIS goes to decision makers to read and absorb. It can also go to the municipal hearing examiner for an appeal (repeatedly, if it’s a bike path) before heading to the courts.

How to read the EIS

Now that we know the conceptual simplicity of an Environmental Impact Statement, can we translate that into a functional simplicity? Yes. Don’t read all of an EIS unless you have to. And the only time anyone needs to read an entire EIS is if they plan to sue the city for failing to develop a complete EIS. Otherwise, pick and choose the parts you want. 

Interested in historic resources? Read the section about historic resources. Noise? Read the noise part. Just like sections of the Sunday newspaper go straight into the bin, you don’t need to download and read an enormous section about soil stability if you don’t care about dirt.

To help focus on the parts that require attention, it’s useful to have a map of document. Each EIS has five parts.

Intro letter and Fact Sheet. These are very useful as synopsis of the agency doing the work and a 100,000 foot picture of the project. They’re also three to five pages. Read it.

Executive Summary. Unfortunately, these tend to be long versions of the Fact Sheet, often with some flowery language to appease the budget sponsors and back patting for consultants. Doesn’t even count as a section, except it is an overview of the whole document with some high points on impacts and mitigation proposals. Skim for titles and interesting charts. 

Alternatives. This is most of the mandatory reading. These are the alignments or big ideas being proposed. For Sound Transit, this is where the routes can go. For the Industrial Zoning, this is the maps of new zones and their definitions. Here’s where the important decision making starts. Also includes a lot of good maps and pictures. Read it.

Analysis. Here we have the bulk of the EIS, with sections of analysis running hundreds of pages delving into the meat of individual topical studies. The Industrial and Maritime DEIS has 500 pages here, divided among 14 subsections. This is the place to selectively spend your time. The topics covered here can get micro (light glare) or macro (land use) while very focused on a particular topic. Or, in the case of the Sound Transit DEIS, divided between West Seattle, Downtown, and Interbay/Ballard stations. If you’re not interested in that topic or area, skim or skip. Spend the time on what interests you.

Appendices. Often one finds the reports of public hearings and previous studies in the appendices. The only useful thing is to search through looking for your name if you commented on earlier scoping or drafts. Occasionally, there is a buried extra bit of analysis or deeply in-depth transportation study. Skip if that’s not your interest.

Reading for content and comment

Now, having winnowed 700 pages down to a solid 50 or so, it’s easier to find things to actually focus on. In the shorter document, it is easier to see connections between things that interest you and ideas that simply don’t make any sense. Unfortunately, that’s still a pretty big question, so it may help to break it down into parts. Here are two things I focus on while reading most reports:

• Is any of this making a decision before the decision? These documents are supposed to be providing information so policy makers can have a whole array of good ideas. Occasionally the report dismisses options for no reason. While it’s not an EIS, one of the best examples of decisions-before-the-fact is the Ballard Bridge study. It summarily dismissed a lot of intersection designs with very little justification. The report just tossed the idea for anything except a death pretzel at the south end of the Ballard Bridge. Keep an eye open for these.
• Does any of this information support or contradict something I already know? Many of us cross particularly busy roads or see people lined up waiting for buses at dangerous intersections. So when an EIS comes out stating that a bus route operates just fine, it should be called out. On the other hand, an EIS can have data we don’t see elsewhere. The Industrial EIS points out that only 2% of traffic in the city is truck freight. So it’s important to highlight that for when folks complain that we need to maintain urban highways to move trucks. 

Again, you know how you move through the neighborhood and what you see in the city. If something in the EIS contradicts what you have seen or an important fact you understand, bring it up in a comment. And boost the smart ideas. 

Those really are the easy foundations to an EIS comment. Just send an email to the listed folks in the EIS. All the agencies have websites and there’s someone to talk with next to the document download. For the Industrial Lands EIS, send your comments here. For the Sound Transit EIS, write here. You can start with these two things — ideas prematurely booted, and stuff in the report that contradicts your experience. That can be the end of your comment, or just the beginning. 

A Couple of things to note.

Dates. Being a statutorily required document, the dates for drafting and commenting on an EIS are vital. There’s 30 days to comment during scoping. There’s 45 days to comment during the drafting. They can be extended by formal request to the agency. During those times, there is also at least one required hearing held by the agency. These are official public hearings where comments must be logged and responded to in the final EIS. Missing dates means that comments will not be included for response.

Alternatives. It is also very important to get to the core of what the alternatives actually propose and whether they are all-or-nothing choices. For example, the Industrial and Maritime DEIS proposes three new industrial zones. However the zones are not the alternatives! The proposed alternatives are various combinations of the three new zones. This is why it’s useful to read the entirety of the Alternatives section because it helps clear up some of the issues around what’s actually being proposed.

The final decision makers. As often the case with deciding what to do for dinner, the person making the suggestions is not always the final decision maker. In the case of the Industrial and Maritime DEIS, the final decision maker will be the Seattle City Council when it decides what the language of the new zones will be and the specific areas to apply them. For the Sound Transit extensions, the final decision makers are the Sound Transit Board, themselves local electeds from the region. These are all stated under “Next Actions” or “Required Approvals” in the Fact Sheet at the front of the EIS. 

For folks interested in these projects, the important thing here is to determine how much effort is necessary and where it’s best spent. EIS are vitally important. But when there’s going to be a legislative process following them, it may be most important to get good information into the EIS rather than a specific outcome. However, when the document heads towards a final decision at a board or agency, it’s important to get the outcome exactly right.

You Can Love An EIS Too

The words Environmental Impact Statement can be scary and intimidating. Drafts, elements, scoping, proposed alternatives, interocitor. Please don’t let the terminology drive you away. Like Dr. Spock said to new parents: you know more than you think you do. It applies here. 

Behind all these big documents are just people. And their job is to help agency heads and electeds work towards a decision. They don’t want you coming late in the game to complain about the work they did. You can talk to them about the stuff that’s important to you. They actually want to hear from you! Look at the EIS. Read the parts that interest you. Submit comments about things that don’t make sense. Talk to Sound Transit about alignments here. Talk to OPCD about the Industrial and Maritime DEIS here.

Washington law says that big decisions in government need to examine impacts based on good information. This is the basis of the Environmental Impact Statement. But as we see, it’s just a what-to-eat chart putting information in front of electeds so they can make the best decision possible. It came under the environmental label because so many government decisions ended up dumping deadly sludge into waterways or poisoning towns. EIS have expanded to include many of the things like housing and equity we see today. The electeds can still decide to dump deadly sludge into the river, but the EIS makes sure there’s plenty of red flags yelling “THIS IS BAD!” Or lots of green flags to steer them in a better direction. 

You can help make sure all the red flags (and green flags!) are included in future decisions. Whether about industrial lands or light rail stations, please remember that you know how your neighborhood works. You know how you move through the city. OPCD, Sound Transit, the city council, the state, and the feds are proposing changes that will impact things you know and care about. EIS are here for you to engage. We believe in you.

The post Explainer: What’s an Environmental Impact Statement? first appeared on The Urbanist.

I recently attended a 2020 legislative preview hosted by Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness. Rep. Nicole Macri (D-Seattle) and Sen. Patty Kuderer (D-Bellevue) emphasized the need to preserve existing housing stock as a homelessness prevention strategy. Currently, Washington State and Seattle have several paths to preserving affordable housing. Strengthening tenant rights was also mentioned as a critical policy goal for this legislative session. 

Throughout the ten years I’ve lived in Seattle, as the percentage of renters has grown in Seattle, so has our power. There is a lot to celebrate. In 2012 Seattle passed a Rental Registration and Inspection Ordinance (RRIO). Recently, Washington Community Action Network led the organizing to pass a ballot initiative for state-wide ‘good cause’ eviction protections. Recent victories to combat rent gouging in California and Oregon have put pressure on Washington State to pass similar legislation. The movement for rent stabilization has strengthened as tenants have experienced more housing insecurity, organized and demanded their electeds provide answers.

The recent court decision to maintain Seattle’s First In Time anti-discrimination law for apartment applicants has broad implications for tenant rights and property laws across our state, not just in Seattle. We must build on this success to ensure tenants gain legal paths to purchase their buildings. Our current process for a notice of intent to sell by property owners to tenants is complicated because our state laws heavily favor property owners’ rights. In the case of condo conversions, renters are given the right of first refusal to purchase the unit in Washington State.

The other Washington has two policies we should study and implement in Seattle or Washington State: TOPA – Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act and DOPA – District Opportunity to Purchase Act.

Electeds in Washington State claiming to prioritize preserving affordable housing stock must understand the lessons Washington, D.C. has to teach us. A good starting place is the summary of TOPA and DOPA by Street Sense Media, a vendor supported newspaper in Washington D.C. The Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) allows tenants the chance to purchase their building; if they don’t, then the district has the “opportunity” through DOPA. These policies do not apply to all buildings or all tenants and they get in the weeds, as most land use laws do. While DOPA has been around for a decade, it’s rarely used. TOPA itself is so complicated that it leads to confusion, legal challenges, and a low rate of tenants purchasing their buildings.

Washington D.C.’s TOPA works in a tiered way: buildings with five or more units, two to four units, and a single family home are treated differently. Recent changes in TOPA recognize unique legal protections for people with disabilities and elderly folks in single-family housing. The District Opportunity to Purchase Act requires rental property owners to provide D.C with the opportunity to purchase buildings with five or more rental units, as long as 25% or more of those rental units are deemed as “affordable”. To repeat, TOPA happens first and then DOPA kicks in. Here’s a more in-depth explainer.

I’ve been educating and organizing for housing justice since 2015. Acronyms, jargon and land use code are barriers to civic engagement. Seattle is a majority-renter city and tenants want to know what can help us now, not 40 years down the road. Sometimes it feels like government officials are more focused on averting the next generation’s housing crisis, while residents are panicking about the current one. Tenants being tossed around by the whims of global corporate capital while facing the trauma of year-to-year rent increases with no limits do not have time to lobby for better policies because of the second job they take to avoid eviction.

But some leaders are grappling the housing affordability crisis. Portland City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly, a champion for tenant protections, recently announced she would like to see TOPA as part of anti-displacement protections in conjunction with Portland’s residential infill project which will end apartment bans in the city’s residential zones.

There’s an education gap. Both Seattle’s Department of Construction and Inspection (SDCI) and Office of Civil Rights (SOCR) have not seen adequate increases in staff for outreach, education or enforcement to keep up with the increase in renters and new tenant laws. Instead, nonprofits fill education gaps, like Tenants Union of Washington State and BE:Seattle. Like all city contractors, they have to compete for limited funds during budget season, and were not fully funded for the 2020 budget.

If we pass laws giving tenants a chance to own their rental units, we must increase funding for renter education, renter outreach, and compliance oversight. In D.C., notification and negotiation timelines, the offer, roles of tenant associations, and more, all add further complexities and opportunities for misunderstandings and legal challenges. If Washington State implements TOPA and DOPA, we must lower barriers to understanding and accessing government services for tenants most at risk of homelessness, eviction, and predatory landlord practices.

Let’s study what is working for housing justice in other cities, and other countries. 

Let’s organize to provide political pressure on our electeds to implement policies which immediately rebalance the power dynamic between renters and landlords. 

Let’s fund tenant education. Housing is a human right. 

This article is meant to spark interest in DOPA and TOPA for tenants, advocacy organizations and elected officials in Washington State, and to fund policy analysis studies to form better legislation for tenants to maintain a right to the city. 

Share The Cities is an organizing collective, dedicated to demystifying land use terms. We are available to host education sessions around Land Use 101 and provide support to your organization for developing land use curriculum for your communities. RSVP for Share The Cities’ Land Use 101 workshop on January 18, 2020.

Further resources:

• Washington Post on the fight around abolishing right of refusal for tenants in single family homes in DC.
• Greater Greater Washington

1. https://ggwash.org/view/73904/this-proposed-law-could-help-dc-tenants-facing-eviction-fight-back-against-dishonest-landlords
2. https://ggwash.org/view/65613/when-topa-fails-theres-always-dopa
3. https://ggwash.org/view/41981/a-new-owner-bought-my-apartment-and-wanted-to-tear-it-down-heres-how-i-ended-up-owning-the-place

Author’s Note: This is part of Acronyms for Action a series by Laura Loe, founder of Share The Cities organizing collective. 

The post Acronyms for Action: TOPA Could Help Tenants Buy Their Homes first appeared on The Urbanist.

The International Special Review District (ISRD) is where the future of the “look” of the Chinatown-International District of Seattle is determined. The most exciting part of sitting in any design review meeting is catching a glimpse into a rip in the fabric of space-time. As an amateur land use nerd, the most mentally taxing part of attending design review is the jargon, the acronyms, the formality, the rules, and feeling like an outsider.

The Chinatown-International District contains a National Historic District on the National Register. This is in part due to the architecture as an example of how immigrant communities blend traditions with those of their new home. According to the City of Seattle, in “1973 the International Special Review District and Board were established by Ordinance (SMC 23.66.302) to promote, preserve and perpetuate the cultural, economic, historical, and otherwise beneficial qualities of the area, particularly the features derived from its Asian heritage.”

Ethan Phelps-Goodman, who founded Seattle in Progress, notes that “[i]t’s ironic that historic districts, where we supposedly want stricter review, go through a far less public process than the rest of the city. I think we need to redefine our notion of what ‘public’ means in civic processes. If you can’t access the information online, then it’s not effective public outreach. If you can’t share your voice and influence the process online, then it’s not effective public engagement. I think the City gets this. But it will take time—and continued pressure on the City—to make it happen.” 

What does the ISRD Board consider?

Changes to the outside of any building or structure, installation of any new sign, changes to existing sign, or installation of a new awning or canopy fall under approval of the ISRD. Additionally, any of the following changes must be approved by the ISRD Board:

• Interior changes that affect the exterior;
• A new addition, construction, and/or remodel;
• A proposed new business or service;
• Change in the public right-of-way or other public spaces, including parks and sidewalks;
• Demolition of any building or structure; and
• Exterior painting.

In order to make these changes, an applicant must get a Certificate of Approval issued by the ISRD Board and the Director of the Department of Neighborhoods before the City will issue any permits.

A Typical Meeting

At the February 28, 2017 meeting there were two items on the agenda:

• A space formerly occupied by a hair salon requested permission to become an optometrists office; and
• A proposed seven-story mixed use building, with an emphasis on the external materials being considered for the street-facing side of the building.

The Board members in attendance were Stephanie Hsie, Tiernan Martin, Herman Setijono Valerie Tran, and Eliza Chan.

For the optometrist office project located at 720 8th Ave S, the Board heard a 20-minute presentation from applicants Ellen Hagen, Miller Hayashi, and a Dwayne Walsh construction representative. Tiernan Martin described the process as “pretty straightforward” and the ISRD Board unanimously approved the change of use. The applicants will return to the ISRD for approval signage and window treatments.

Next, the ISRD Board heard from the project representative for the 608 6th Ave S project, a proposed seven-story mixed-use building, which previously went before the ISRD Board twice last year on September 13th and December 13th. You can view more information about the project here.

Design review across the city has a specific vocabulary. This project review was no different. It can be very confusing to follow for a casual observer–not unlike watching a golf game. In previous design reviews I have attended, run by Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection, the hushed tones and inside information leave many first-time listeners feeling confused and intimidated. 

The 608 6th Ave S discussion devolved into an explanation of the history of the phrase “earthen tones” in the Land Use Code by board member Tiernan Martin. These earthen tones are meant to represent the values and aesthetic preferences of the community and to fit into the historic design character of the neighborhood. Rebecca Frestedt, Coordinator for Columbia City Landmark District and International Special Review District, mentioned that the restaurant nearby has a very long lease so one side of the building will be visible for a long time; therefore, the project representative needed to return to the ISRD with extensive slides from various perspectives in the neighborhood. 

During public comment James Wong, part owner of the Bush Garden building, said “this is way better than a parking lot!” He also mentioned that he preferred the bright red design chosen for the balcony, as well as the darker choice for the exterior of the building, commenting “you don’t want dragons flying around (but you do want a) modern Asian aesthetic.” He said that he looked forward to the block being “more vibrant.”

The ISRD Board has been created to be hypersensitive to the needs of the community. The ISRD process is part of Department of Neighborhoods, not Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection (SDCI). Board members ask detailed questions about the scale of buildings and how design elements would be perceived by nearby residents and future residents of the building.

At the same time, the design review process is inaccessible to a variety of community members in part due to location and inconvenient meeting times. For example, when I attended my first meeting I was unsure where to go. There were no signs posted until a few minutes before the meeting began. Signage in Chinese, Japanese, or Vietnamese is encouraged in Chinatown-International District businesses yet, ISRD materials were provided in English only.

When Does The ISRD Board Meet?

Meetings are on the second and fourth Tuesday of every month at 4:30pm, at the Bush Asia Hotel, 409 Maynard Ave S. The meeting can be hard to find, and is typically in the basement IDEA Space meeting room, unless otherwise noted. The next three meetings of the ISRD are April 11th, April 25th, and May 9th. Agendas for the ISRD Board are issued roughly one week in advance of each meeting. The meeting minutes are posted to the website after they are reviewed and approved by the ISRD Board. The Board will be reviewing the February 28th and March 14th minutes at the meeting on April 11th.

How To Get Involved

You can stay engaged by visiting the ISRD website. Throughout Spring 2017, there will high profile community discussions at the ISRD meetings, including a controversial hotel project. To learn about grassroots organizing to identify community-based priorities for development, visit Humbows Not Hotels. To view projects for Chinatown International District on Seattle in Progress’ website, you have to choose the filter “Include single-family homes and other projects that don’t go through design review.“

The post Acronyms for Action: ISRD first appeared on The Urbanist.

 (….and why do all these urbanists talk in this funny shorthand that makes me feel stupid…)

The abundance of acronyms in land use discussions frequently leaves newcomers feeling left out and overwhelmed. Many urbanists seem particularly caught up in using shorthands, like FAR, TOD, MHA, ROW, and MIZ. Are they showing off? Are they in a hurry to try to convince you of something? Is it an essential part of every nerd subculture? One year later, I hear myself doing the same thing I hated a year ago.

When I started attending various meetings and happy hours surrounded by Seattle urbanists, I was often one of the only women in the room. People were eager to share their knowledge with me and their passion about land use, but these discussions also felt a lot like mansplaining. The next time you are attending The Urbanist monthly meetup or city land use meeting, I encourage you to ask the person you are speaking with to define each and every acronym. We need to remind building professionals, city employees, and housing nerds that their technical language is not common knowledge. At The Urbanist, every article that uses an acronym, we always spell out what the acronym means in case it’s your first time seeing the term.

As a former Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) focus group member and former representative at the Northeast District Council, I have observed people intimidated to speak up because of the jargon. It is imperative that the city fund “Land Use 101” education like the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association. I suspect that much of the mistrust of city officials is a lack of shared language to discuss land use decisions. When planning professionals–often nervously and defensively standing in front of a concerned crowd–use a secret code, it hurts the transparency of the process. We need more plain human everyday speech to demystify land use terms. (Another gigantic barrier to understanding housing policy is the complex math equations that vary depending on land use discussions over public, private, commercial, single-family residential, or multi-family residential. Again, education is needed but we could all work harder to make the language simpler.)

One acronym that is thrown around amongst neighbors who are urbanists is “PLUZ”. Hey, you should attend the next PLUZ meeting! Wow, did you see the amendments introduced at that last PLUZ meeting?

What is “PLUZ”?

The City of Seattle’s Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee is tasked with providing “policy direction and oversight and to deliberate and make recommendations on legislative matters relating to: planning and land use, including comprehensive planning, zoning, design, and land use regulations as well as incentive zoning, the Affordable Housing Impact Mitigation Program, and equitable transit oriented development; major institutions; quasi-judicial decisions; and community development.” The PLUZ Committee is chaired by Councilmember Rob Johnson (District 4) along with Councilmembers Mike O’Brien (District 6) and Lisa Herbold (District 1).

The next meeting of the PLUZ Committee–which is a deeply important one–will be on January 19th at 2pm where Councilmembers will discuss the next steps for the University District rezone. I encourage you to listen or watch online at the Seattle Channel, even if you cannot attend in person. Local land use discussions are nuanced and wonky. Daytime meetings seem to favor attendees who are retired or who attend on behalf of an organization. It is important that the city host more evening meetings. November’s very well attended evening meeting on the U District rezone, the latest in over a hundred public meetings on that issue, spurred pro– and anti-rezone petitions, intense back-and-forths on NextDoor and competing yard signs, some even homemade.

The PLUZ Committee meets in the City Council Chambers. It is typically scheduled to meet at 9.30am on the first and third Tuesday every month, which will likely include upcoming meetings on February 7th, February 24th, March 7th, and March 21th. You can stay up-to-date on the meetings by signing up online for future agendas.

And in case you’re still curious about the acronyms from the first paragraph:

FAR: floor area ratio. The portion of the zoning code that largely determines density by stipulating a maximum ratio a building’s floor area can be in relation to the size of piece of land on which it’s built .

TOD: transit oriented development. Typically refers to larger development projects near light rail stations or bus stops, often more focused on pedestrian accessibility and with fewer parking stalls than auto-oriented development.

MIZ: mandatory inclusionary zoning. Zoning that requires a percentage of new units are set aside for low income people, usually in exchange for off-sets like density bonuses.

MHA: Mandatory Housing Affordability. The City of Seattle’s particular branding of mandatory inclusionary zoning, which would go live with passage of the requisite zoning changes (upzones).

ROW: right of way. The government-owned space that hosts our streets, including not just the roadway, but bike lanes, sidewalks, landscaping, and buffers.

Mayor Murray Unveils MHA Implementation Requirements

The post What Is The PLUZ Committee? first appeared on The Urbanist.