Did anyone ask the neighborhood?

Since at least 2000 the City has expected to build out Fowler Avenue from Oak to Babcock.  A ten acre parcel at the South East corner of Oak and future Fowler was purchased years ago because the build out was expected to be a five lane road.  Thanks to the neighborhood’s fierce advocacy, Fowler will not be the next airport landing-strip sized freeway through a residential section of the West side of town.  I’m sure if you ask most of the neighbors bordering the proposed road they would rather the Fowler Avenue Connection (FAC) not be built at all. The project is currently at the 60% design phase, and still controversial, though it has been downsized from five lanes to two, and spares a large portion of urban forest and riparian area from the bulldozers.  There will still be negative environmental impacts from this project.

City plans change all the time.  Consider the interpretation by City Staff that the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) Design Guidelines are only recommendations, not enforceable code, even though they are adopted in section 38.110.010.B.  I’m sure the creators of the NCOD and the Design Guidelines wrote them with the intent that they would be regulatory, not optional.  Plans change.  So it’s not unreasonable to think that the possibility remains for the Fowler Avenue Connection to continue to be reworked to achieve a more neighborhood friendly design.  I’m particularly concerned about the shared use path that will be mere feet from the front doors of existing residents on the East side of future Fowler.

Today, by shrinking the FAC from five lanes to two, the City now has a small parcel of land to develop for another use.

If you ask almost anyone what the greatest need in our community is, overwhelmingly you will hear affordable housing.  It is absolutely pressing, to the point that our current policy is to shoe-horn massive developments into existing neighborhoods at all costs.  The City is proposing to annex and zone this parcel R-3, which is refreshing because it says they have finally recognized that the “highest and best use” is not necessarily the highest density.  R-3 allows up to an eight-unit apartment building.  The land could be annexed and zoned R-5, to provide up to 180 units in four mega-buildings, but fortunately some are realizing maybe we don’t need any more undignified people storage.

The project is shaping up to include 84 units in 2-story buildings adjacent to the existing homes to the East, and 4-story buildings along Fowler and Oak.  The City is proposing to offer all of these units for sale.  The ability to offer any of them at affordable levels is uncertain and will depend on construction costs, interest rates at the time of build out, and the ability to find a land trust or other partner to “buy down” the final for-sale price.  More than affordable rental housing we definitely need affordable ownership opportunities for our professional workers that find themselves priced out of our market.

I want to pose a somewhat irreverent question… What if the greatest need in this part of town is actually something else?

Record scratch!  I know.  How dare I say that?  But hear me out. 

Our City professes to want “walkable” neighborhoods.  What does that mean exactly?  YIMBY think tanks, like Siteline Institute out of Seattle, have hijacked the word in order to disguise what they really want, which is high density housing.  But actually, “walkable” means that you can walk to places that serve daily or weekly needs.  Places like coffee shops, bakeries, daycares, corner stores, small neighborhood scale restaurants, maybe a local watering hole to meet friends after work.  Cities want to increase density in older neighborhoods because they are already walkable.  Though, I have to say, as historic homes and other contributing structures are demolished to make way for luxury condos, the gentrification of the core means you can more easily walk to buy a $600 pair of ripped jeans, than groceries or daycare.  

Conventional planning and development thinking says you can only get commercial after the housing has been built and occupied, and it must be high density housing or it wont support the commercial uses.  The West side has been developed without a lot of neighborhood scale commercial, which means folks need to get in their cars and drive to these "amenities."  What if this is an opportunity to directly influence the walkability of the existing neighborhoods (possibly improving their quality of life) by providing that thing that the private market doesn’t seem able to give us; small scale neighborhood nodes?  

What kind of commercial am I talking about…

I’m not talking about the kind that draws tons of people in cars from all parts of town.  I’m not talking about big box stores.  I’m talking about regenerative community spaces.  There could be housing too.  Live work spaces, or second story lofts. Human scale architecture, with services that are neighborhood supporting.  This could be a sort of entrepreneur incubator district that gives start-ups a small scale space to launch their endeavors, while giving the existing neighborhoods a place to go get pizza, or ice cream, take a pilates class, drop the kids at daycare, or a family friendly atmosphere to grab a beer, a glass of wine, or a mocktail.

I’m not saying this is the answer.  I’m saying, did anyone ask the neighborhood?  

There are already quite a few people who live in this area.  There’s a school, and a huge regional park.  When I think about what I love about my neighborhood, it’s all of these things.  It’s not really a complete neighborhood without each of them.  What if this is our opportunity to support a neighborhood by adding that thing that’s missing?

Maybe I’m wrong, but I do believe every neighborhood deserves to be a safe and desirable community.  The City’s approach right now feels like this neighborhood is in the way, so the existing residents need to let commuters (driving or biking) cut through them. Neighborhoods are ecosystems, and should be nurtured, rather than sidelined. So we should ask them; what would make your quality of life better?

Did anyone ask?