OPEN SPACE SEATTLE 2100

Open Space Seattle 2100
by Brice Maryman

On February 3 and 4, 2006, over 300 Seattle community members, planning and design professionals, and city officials gathered at the Green Futures Charrette to envision the next century of open space for the city. This event was the culmination of over 9 months of community-based planning designed to develop a contemporary network of open space building on the legacy left by the Olmsted Parks plan.

Rather than being commissioned by one non-profit or government organization, the Green Futures Charrette was initiated by Open Space Seattle 2100, a coalition of groups representing design, development, environmental, non-profit, governmental and health organizations. The effort was spearheaded by the University of Washington's College of Architecture and Urban Planning.

The seeds of this planning effort were laid during Seattle's Olmsted Centennial celebration in 2003. During the accompanying conference, attendees began to ask, "What is the legacy that we will leave the next generations of Seattle's citizens? What types of connections between home and nature will they have? Where will they be able to congregate to engage in public discourse? And how will our children's children move throughout their neighborhoods and the city in safe routes with minimal dangers from automobile traffic?"

All of these questions became even more pressing as citizens recognized the vast contextual changes that had occurred since the turn-of-the-century, as well as the extraordinary exigencies of forecasting into the future. Instead of a cityscape of isolated farms and outposts, as the Olmsteds faced, the Green Futures Charrette participants were now faced with the challenge of re-weaving threads into the interstitial spaces of the contemporary city. But these challenges were offset by the opportunities presented when we looked at the underlying systems like streams and critical areas and when we challenged ourselves to dream about how new forms of transportation (and potential displacement of the automobile) might allow us to create spaces within the right of way. Other opportunities included connecting existing open spaces-both private and public-and creating new civic spaces within projected urban hubs.

The Value of Green Infrastructure

Green infrastructure is defined by the Conservation Fund and the USDA Forest Service as "an interconnected network of protected land and water that supports native species, maintains natural ecological processes, sustains air and water resources and contributes to the health and quality of life for America's communities and people." But in the city, an area already impacted intensively by human development, the definition of green infrastructure broadens to include new spaces like plazas, riparian corridors, vegetated swales, playgrounds, ball fields, green roofs, boulevard medians and all manner of urban forests from street trees to extant stands of old growth.

Together, each of these types of open space forms a system within the city that helps the urban fabric function at several scales and in multiple ways. Research, from organizations like the Urban Land Institute, the Wallace Foundation and the Trust for Public Land, points to four key benefits of green infrastructure: economic benefit, ecological integrity, social cohesion, and health promotion.

Economically, open space has been found to increase property values significantly across socio-economic contexts. In Seattle, the Vulcan Corporation, which has many holdings in the South Lake Union neighborhood, has pledged significant funding for the refurbishment of the parks in the neighborhood, including Cascade Park (completed) and South Lake Union Park (on-going). Additionally, parks can draw both tourists and businesses. Indeed, one of the reasons Boeing cited for moving their headquarters to Chicago was the abundance of high-quality recreation spaces in the city.

The ecological benefits of green infrastructure are in some ways more intuitive. The green infrastructure of the city provides habitat, especially along the natural riparian corridors of the city; creates a better living environment for all creatures, including people, by filtering pollutants; reduces the impact of storm water flooding by infiltrating precipitation into the ground and evapotranspiring it back into the air; and improves the quality of urban waters by filtering out pollutants. While conventional thinking about open space in the city would focus on creating patches of land dedicated to "habitat;" new thinking about how green infrastructure functions as an interconnected system points toward a more diffuse and decentralized approach, where every parcel can contribute to broader ecological health.

From a larger perspective, however, the ecological impacts of urban open spaces are even more significant. By securing a level of livability within the urban setting, we can more effectively invite people back to the city center, thereby reducing our reliance on auto-oriented transportation, minimizing sprawl in ex-urban areas and helping to protect the wild and agricultural lands for generations to come.

Open spaces and the green infrastructure of our cities are often our social/public spaces as well: the places where we engage in civil discourse or communicate with our neighbors. In Seattle's p-patches, diverse communities come together to grow food. Public squares and civic spaces encourage us to participate in the democratic process and trails and pathways provide us with the opportunity to chance upon a neighbor, friend or colleague. For underserved or new-immigrant populations, these public open spaces are especially important, as they become de facto community centers, providing links between neighbors and the broader resources of the community.

In the fight against obesity, the evidence is showing us that how we shape our environments has a correlation to how our environments shape us. If we design our cities and spaces for auto-oriented travel, with priority given to traffic efficiency and ample access to fast-food culture, then we should not be surprised when health care costs for the impacts of obesity begin to rise. However, by encouraging healthy, walkable streets, trails and sidewalk that put the pedestrian and bicyclist above the automobile, research shows that residents will be more likely to engage in physical activity and use low-impact forms of transportation.

Reframing the Question

With all of the arguments for the creation and value of open space, the next task that Open Space Seattle 2100 faced was to establish the ways that the city would be divided up as parcels. Traditionally, Seattle's planning units have been social in nature; neighborhood organizations control and orchestrate interactions with the city and advocate for changes within their neighborhood district. Open Space Seattle 2100 took a different tack.
We asked three questions: what conditions are similar between the Olmsted Brothers' time, now, and 100 years hence? How can the city be divided up to reliably create connections between neighborhoods? What systems are in place that already provide a framework for looking at open space that maximizes return on investment? For each of these questions, the answer was watersheds. Using creeks, rivers and lakes, the city was broken into 17 watershed-based study areas.

This approach also tips the scales toward certain goals that were developed with the coalition's Guidance Committee during the planning for the charrette. Highlighting a constant, yet largely hidden system within the grid of the city forced participants to think in unconventional ways, transcending traditional neighborhood politics. These factors helped the charrette teams develop open spaces that were Integrated and Multi-functional, were Connective and Coherent, and had Ecological Function and Integrity. These elements were three of the eight principles developed by the Guidance Committee to direct the charrette participants (scroll down for complete list of principles).

Integral to the success of the charrette was the hard work and participation of design and planning students from the University of Washington, who developed detailed dossiers for each of the 17 study areas within the city, along with GIS maps that documented existing conditions and identified preliminary open space opportunities. These opportunities included steep slopes, riparian corridors, fault zones and waterfront areas.

Next Steps

As the work of Open Space Seattle 2100 moves forward, we will be refining charrette themes, developing implementation strategies and identifying next steps in a work plan. With a broad base of support across community groups, government agencies and non-profits, the work of Open Space Seattle 2100 has already reframed how Seattle residents think of green spaces, moving it from a neighborhood amenity to part of connective, integrated green infrastructure. By creating connective spaces that are valued for their economic, ecological, health and social benefits, Seattleites are creating an urban center that is leading locally on issues that will affect all cities globally.

Brice Maryman is a lecturer in the University of Washington's Department of Landscape Architecture. He is also a practicing landscape and urban designer with Charles Anderson Landscape Architecture. With Professor Nancy Rottle, he co-directs the Open Space Seattle 2100 planning effort.

Guiding Principles for Green Futures Charrette Teams

Below are the guiding principles for the Charette teams.

1. REGIONAL RESPONSIVENESS
   Consider Seattle's role as an ecological, economic, and cultural crossroads; its location in one of the world's great estuaries and between two dramatic mountain ranges; its critical position as a threshold to two major watersheds (Cedar and Green/Duwamish); and its relationship to salt and fresh water bodies throughout the city.
2. INTEGRATED AND MULTI-FUNCTIONAL
   Integrate a variety of types of open space within a unifying, coherent structure. Incorporate considerations for streets, creeks, parks, habitat, urban forests, trails, drainage, shorelines, views, commercial and civic spaces, back yards and buildings. Consider layering multiple functions and uses within green spaces to create high-functioning, high value open spaces.
3. EQUITY AND ACCESSIBILITY
   Within a network of open spaces provide equitable access for all persons to a variety of outdoor and recreational experiences. Distribute appropriate open space types to every neighborhood, in order to address the needs of diverse population groups. Prioritize public access to water.
4. CONNECTIVITY/COHERENCE
   Create a wholly connected system that facilitates non-motorized movement, enhances habitat through connectivity, links diverse neighborhoods, and is easy to navigate and understand. Connect these in-city amenities to surrounding communities, trails and public lands.
5. QUALITY, BEAUTY, IDENTITY and ROOTEDNESS
   Use Seattle's many natural strengths to create an exemplary, signature open space system. Build on intrinsic qualities, both natural and cultural; reflect, respond to and interpret geographic, ecological, aesthetic and cultural contexts; address emotional and spiritual needs; and inspire a deep connection to place.
6. ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION AND INTEGRITY
   Expand the quantity and quality of natural systems in the city: Provide quality habitat for all appropriate species, with a special emphasis on the waters' edge. Design for hydrological health (water temperature, water quality, water regimes, stormwater), and consider appropriate water and resource conservation strategies. Connect to regional ecosystems in order to achieve integrity, resiliency and biodiversity in ecological systems in the face of climate change.
7. HEALTH AND SAFETY
   Continue to make the city a safe and healthful place to live. Reduce the risk of natural hazards (slides, flooding, earthquake, soil and water contamination) while reclaiming and treating previously toxic sites. Provide multiple opportunities for exercise, physical activity, and a connection to nature to be integrated into daily lives.
8. FEASIBILITY, FLEXIBILITY AND STEWARDSHIP
   While visionary, the plan should be lasting and feasible, with a complementary set of near-term implementation strategies that includes mechanisms for both public and private investment that are achievable in incremental steps and adaptable over time. (e.g. codes, funding sources and incentives). It should be maintainable, inspiring shared stewardship between public agencies, private businesses, and individual citizens to foster pride, purpose and community.
   

Green Futures Charrette Images

Click on the images below to see the full-size versions.

Alyse Nelson, a student working with the Queen Anne/Interbay/Magnolia team, refined her team's concept for Smith Island at the south end of the Interbay neighborhood

The Downtown B team proposed a wetland system just south of the current stadiums that would be an asset to the revitalized neighborhood and perform wastewater treatment functions; image by Nathan Brightbill

Kenichi Nakano and Peitro Potesta illustrated the Downtown B team's concept for an integrated water management lagoon south of the stadiums

The Lake Union teams focused on connecting the ridges to the shorelines; student Garrett Devier pushed this idea at one of the most challenging areas of the watershed, bridging over a reconfigured Interstate 5

Ideas from all teams are on display on Saturday Night of the Charrette; credit: Hartson Photography, limited use, copyright 2006

BROWN BAG SERIES RECAPS

Recaps of the Winter 2006 APA Brown Bags
By Brown Bag Coordinator Steve Ladd except as noted

Seattle's High Point Development: Talk and Tour
1/25/06

Tom Phillips of the Seattle Housing Authority is the fourth recipient of the Brown Bag bright Idea Award for creating this popular event. High Point's size and abundance of progressive features are amazing. A WWII housing project undergoing reinvention, High Point is now a showcase of new ideas like low-impact development, new urbanism, resident engagement, and mixture of market and subsidized units. The very splash blocks (those things under downspouts) are works of sculpture. The buildings are the latest word in energy efficiency, and the Housing Authority / City cooperation is heartening. Thanks also to Peg Staeheli of SVR for exposing the project's labyrinthine drainage features.

What legitimizes planning as a profession?
2/1/06

Ron Turner asked what makes planning a profession as distinguished from an occupation. The discussion that followed expanded upon the notion of a contract with the community. But who is our client? How do we reconcile the "public interest" with our client's interests? Do we inform or reform? Attendees responded pragmatically, defining the planner as staff to the decision-makers (public or private), responsible for presenting facts and professional opinions within an inclusive process. David Anderson of CTED suggested that the planner's identity lies in technical work that results in policies adopted by the community. Martha Pansa of Enumclaw said that her idea of "professional" causes her to offer alternatives to her clients that they would ordinarily not think of, alternatives that expand the sense of public interest. William Osbourne of Kent noted that many planner activists exist in his community and it's hard to say which are "planners." Case studies were presented that emphasized the difficulty of working responsibly within political and social systems based on personal and group interests. Mr. Turner closed by stating that the ambiguity and uncertainty of the planner's role in our extraordinarily complex world helps make it a fascinating and stimulating profession.

Land assembly in support of economic development
2/8/06

Using the downtown rebirths of Kent (thanks to Nathan Torgelson) and Burien (thanks to Dick Loman) as case studies, Jay Reich of Preston Gates Ellis explored the intricacy of land assembly.

Kent paid $16 per square foot for the Borden Chemical Plant and later resold it to developers for $5-8 per square foot. This tested the limits of the state constitution's prohibition against the lending of public credit, and the limits of political capital as the mayor was criticized year after year. But Kent had no choice if Downtown was to move forward. The transactions stood.

In Burien too, the City's activism raised questions on the government's appropriate role in the economy. The first six acres were tough to acquire, but, with diligent door-knocking, succeeding parcels fell like dominos. Luckily, the only unwilling sellers were those whose parcels were needed for a street, allowing the use of eminent domain. (The state constitution allows eminent domain for "public use and public necessity," not for private economic development. The state's Community Renewal Law allows a more lax standard for fighting blight, but "blight" still generally implies public health hazards, not just more jobs.) Also, it was politically difficult to enforce the departure of two successful but uncooperative local businesses.

Lessons? 1) Communication is a constant theme to successful land assembly. Any interests left uninformed are likely to fight it. 2) A city's land purchases must be at fair market value. However, that can be construed to exceed appraised value if the seller and buyer stand at "arms length." No sweet-heart terms for the seller, no sweetheart financing for the ultimate developer. 3) Private corporations buying land rely on speed, secrecy, and high return. They make and lose money. Governments are open, political, and risk-averse. 4) Land assembly does not necessarily lead to quick private investment. Still, sometimes cities have no choice but to take risks.

See Land Assembly and Disposal by Cities for Jay's excellent paper.

How to get plans adopted despite intense conflict
2/15/06

Sandy Fischer told about managing Bainbridge Island's superabundance of citizen participation in the Winslow Tomorrow plan. 130 volunteered to be on the committee! The City hired 12 facilitators, also numerous speakers and consultants. Regular presentations were made to the City Council, who blessed progress to date. To avoid positioning, the managers forced the participants to focus on problems first, solutions second. They had a generous outreach budget (about $100k), a generous schedule, and an open mind. It worked!

Marcia Wagoner of PRR used projects in Bellingham and Redmond as examples. No matter how pessimistic her participants, she makes them commit to the process and schedule. Then she works them, with little spoon-feeding. Tours, events, and media coverage enliven the process. She builds common ground one piece at a time, ever ready for new approaches, like break-out groups or "voting" by having them place stickers on their preferred options.

Facilitator Jim Reid offered these points:

• Make sure your participants are weighing in with the people they represent.
• Facilitate diversity for different styles of learning, communicating, and decision-making.
• Facilitate compromise. Build compromise into every "option."
• Talk to committee members between meetings. Discuss interests and compromises behind the scenes.
• Give power away in order to get it back.

The Future in 3D: Innovative Tools for Visualizing Land Use and Urban Design
2/23/06

This exposition of computer-based tools was a repeat of the hugely popular session at the recent APA conference. Michael Stephan of CH2M Hill, Darby Watson of LMN Architects, and Kim Selby of NBBJ demonstrated GIS-based applications that incorporate photography, digitized design work, animation, and much more. These tools can help your community visualize what "it" will look like, from the site scale to the community scale.

Affordable housing
By Allan Johnson
3/1/06

The Mercer Island City Council Chambers were the site of a recent half-day discussion on housing affordability. This discussion occurred on March 1st and was the last of the "Brown Bag Lunch" series for spring 2006.

The program was divided into four one hour segments beginning with a presentation by Arthur Sullivan from ARCH (A Regional Coalition for Housing). This segment concentrated on tips for handling community discussions about affordable housing issues and projects. Arthur has developed a point of view after many years of discussions with communities about these issues that there is no such thing as NIMBY per se. Arthur's perspective is that the process of integrating affordable housing into communities primarily depends upon getting to know and then appropriately and adequately responding to the resident's fundamental values such as safety, schools and traffic. These will often be reflected as concerns about affordable housing but really they are an indication about what needs to be addressed to properly incorporate affordable housing into the community.

Following this discussion, the next portion of the program centered on the planning and regulatory environment and what planners can do to increase housing choice and affordability. Rob Odle, the Acting Planning Director for the City of Redmond, talked about a variety of measures that have been recently implemented there such as cottage housing demonstration projects, fee waivers and the City's inclusionary affordable housing requirements in the Downtown and several neighborhoods.

Rick Hooper, from the City of Seattle Office of Housing, spoke next on the successes of the Seattle's Multi-Family Tax Exemption Program. Rick also addressed the current evaluation of the housing market and regulations in downtown Seattle and efforts to support affordable housing development through changes to the zoning code.

Allan Johnson, of the King County Housing and Community Development Program highlighted a range of housing opportunities created through King County's surplus property program such as the Greenbrier Heights project in Woodinville and the Tashiro Kaplan Artist Lofts in Pioneer Square. Allan indicated a real strength of this tool was the ability to tailor an RFP that matched the local neighborhood's affordable housing needs and desires.

A conclusion of this discussion was that when incentives, such as density bonus, fee waivers and surplus property initiatives can be combined within one project it often has better results than when just one incentive is used independently. Greenbrier Heights, in Woodinville, was highlighted as an example of this convergence of a variety of incentives to create an outstanding final result.

The Housing Partnership's Mike Luis provided a thought provoking discussion about what role planning has in limiting housing choice and consequently compromising housing affordability. Mike talked about the Atlanta area and its relatively affordable housing in addition to minimal growth restrictions and postulated that the two were related. This prompted a lively discussion amongst attendees.

Linda Hall from the St. Andrew's Housing Group talked about the development process from the perspective of a non-profit developer. In particular she highlighted the complications presented by time and difficulty it takes to obtain the multiple subsidies needed to support a non-profit housing project and how each one of these funding sources has its own unique set of deadlines for development and occupancy. As a result, non-profit projects often have to proceed through the permitting process in a very different manner than private sector projects.

Finally, a panel composed of Steve Walker from the Washington State Housing Finance Commission, Marquis Frank of the King County Housing Finance Program and Carla Okigwe, the Executive Director of the Housing Development Consortium, spoke about the various different funding sources that support affordable housing projects and what cities and staff can do to help support potential projects in their community through the process of securing these various funds.

Approximately 25 people attended the session. Given the lively discussion and positive feedback from attendees, there will likely be follow up discussions at a future event.

PERSPECTIVES ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Perspectives on Affordable Housing
By Mike Stanger

The section's brown-bag seminar on affordable housing was an excellent program for planners and others to hear of a variety of aspects of this important topic. Time and format limitations did not allow attendees to offer much in the way of contrasting information, however, so I thank the section for this opportunity to respond.

Mike Luis, representing the Housing Partnership, suggested during his presentation that growth management is a major factor responsible for limited land supply and rising house prices in the Puget Sound region. (You can read Mike's arguments in substantial entirety in the Washington Research Council's Policy Brief entitled, "Housing Supply: The Quiet Job Killer.") Among the reasons supporting his claim was that the Atlanta region's population grew twice as fast as ours from 2000 to 2005, while our house prices increased about twice as fast as the Atlanta region's during that period - Atlanta's near limitless supply of land, due to less restrictive natural and regulatory environments, making the difference, he says.

The problem with this single comparison is that it overlooks relevant findings from other areas. In the five-year period ending December, 31, 2005, the repeat-sales (that is, same house, controlling for quality) price index from all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac conventional mortgages increased 28% in the Atlanta MSA, 52% in the Seattle MSA, 93% in the Phoenix MSA, and 104% in the Las Vegas MSA. Atlanta is ranked 186th highest, Seattle 104th, Phoenix 47th, and Las Vegas 35th among 275 MSAs nationwide (Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, 2006). Phoenix and Las Vegas, of course, have few if any growth restrictions. The point is not to confuse the issue with data, but to show that there are factors more powerful than growth management acting upon house prices.

Another source of evidence Mike used is an academic paper written by Edward Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko at Harvard. In this and other papers written between 2003 and 2005, the authors demonstrate that zoning strictness, measured as approval time, is more responsible for expensive housing than construction costs. They do not implicate land supply or development capacity. Growth management may restrict land supply, but in the Puget Sound region, so does topography and low-density residential zoning. Growth management is not designed to restrict development capacity; it is, in fact, supposed to ensure it.

Far be it for me to deny that house prices have burdened us in recent years. But the sticker shock we have experienced since GMA's implementation is no worse than what we had before GMA, and less severe than that of many regions without growth management. There is a great deal more evidence to support this than given here. And here I've only discussed house sales prices; the picture improves when rents are taken into account.

Also, of course, I mean no criticism of Mike Luis. In addition to being a very good-natured person, he understands better than most both the private and public perspectives on this issue. The seminar was fortunate to have him there.

My purpose here is to defend growth management and to urge planners not to "give up the ship." Be well informed, remember why GMA was adopted, and don't accept criticism of growth management without scrutiny. Most of all, perhaps, let's keep the discussion going.

Mike Stanger is a practicing planner/demographer and a student at UW. The views expressed here are his own and not necessarily those of his employer.

SPRING '06 BROWN BAG SCHEDULE

Spring 2006 Brown Bag Series Schedule

Come to the FREE session you need to do your job better! APA-subsidized lunches, only $2! RSVP to Steve Ladd, ladds@ci.bonney-lake.wa.us, or (253) 447-4350.

Improving the Pedestrian Environment

A half-day APA Brown Bag

Time
12:00 to 4:00, Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Place
Room L280, Level 2 of City Hall, 600 Fourth Ave., Seattle

Program
All topics are lecture plus Q&A. Come to one or all sub-topics. $2 lunches are available for the noon sub-topic.