While I believe that better infrastructure (light rail, roads) translate into economic growth, I would have to say that I don’t totally understand the argument (or have heard it expressed) that density improves a city.

That said, I believe up-zoned development around the light rail stations is positive. If private interests think the area around light rail worth it, then I’m sure job creating businesses in the area will also see the worth in placing themselves in proximity to the stations.

One thing I am thinking about lately is whether there is enough commercial zoning around the stations, particularly CC, where I now live.

But I doubt those arguments will really help.

The bottom line is that 1.7 million people are expected to join this region, upzones are no — and the only choice I see is where to put that growth, not whether or not to accept the growth. Ultimately, I feel that density is a moral obligation, yes, and I will continue to uphold that — but not as an end unto itself. I am not really a “density” advocate. I am an advocate for responsible growth management, for environmental sustainability, for social equity, for economic prosperity, for good urban design. Density is just the tool to get us there.

So perhaps all I can offer to Doug Cargill is to say with the utmost sincerity that I am not trying to destroy his neighborhood. I truly believe that density can happen with respect to neighborhood values and character. It means change, yes, but it doesnt have to mean change for the worse. But the only way to get change right is for neighbors to take part in the process, and to fight together for the amenities and infrastructure investments that make increased density livable — and that cant happen if they are already setting up armies before the process even starts.

He says “… the City wants to up-zone vast areas in order to “promote ridership goals for the regional line” (last sentence on page 3 of 5). This is the tail wagging the dog. Since it doesn’t appear that Sound Transit is going to reach their ridership numbers (and thus jeopardize further federal funding), the residents of SE Seattle are gong to be forced to accept a significant increase in density surrounding the platforms.”

Nobody in City Hall expects Sound Transit to not meet ridership goals. First, those goals were set with current zoning and development patterns in mind. Federal regulations don’t permit ridership estimates to be based on speculative new development. With the unexpected rise in fuel prices, the better expectation is that ridership will be more than predicted, not less, when the line opens a year from now.

Yes, you can list lots of places that this very first line does not go. Big deal. The first line in Denver only went 5 miles to a nowhere neighborhood, but look at their system today. And I wouldn’t put Southcenter real high on the priority list, what with development patterns that provide one free parking spot for every shopper and employee. There needs to be major policy changes made for that area, before it can become an effective transit hub.

I haven’t seen the City document(s) to which he alludes, but his reading seems rather limited. Better to simply encourage people to be engaged in the process and insist on high design standards. My observation is that people don’t so much object to new development per se (at whatever density) but rather that it’s so poorly designed, so ugly.

http://www.seattle.gov/council/attachments/2008neigh_plans.pdf

The rail line will not serve Southcenter and UW. It also has no link to Redmond or Bellevue. This means that it will be a poor commuter rail system IMO. Poor public transport encourages car ownership.

Encouraging higher density with no good public transport will make things worse. The right thing to do is to build rail to Bellevue, Redmond (near MS), Southcenter, UW, Downtown and the airport. Once this has been done, you only have to allow higher density development - it will encourage itself.