Hey, let's be careful so that private interests aren't allowed to dominate public policy!

I very randomly stumbled across this great case study which comes to us from Canada. Thought it would be an interesting read since we have our own parcel of distillery in Tumwater whose future is still up in the air.

In all, the city worked with developers to keep the historic look and feel of the buildings, which sat on a 2.7 acre parcel. The developers were given several incentives, including reduced impact fees, etc... to keep costs down. In total, over 200 units were created. The avg selling price was initially between $150 to $216K, with 95% of units sold within 3 years.

Here's the document:

Thought I would also round up some other growth that is on the table around the city. These are either priliminary submissions to the city or project discussions, or may have already begun. Like with the clearing near Division & Walnut Rd, these things can slip by with little to no fuss. Take the entire moonscaping of the development along Mud Bay & Evergreen Pkway/101 Interchange for example. That will soon be a 58-Acre development. It is slated to have 231 single-family lots, 24 duplexes, 63 triplexes, 54 sixplexes, 20 townhomes, and commercial buildings with at least 7000 sq ft of floor space. And lots of garage doors. Link to location here.

<break>

1. Trillium Neighborhood 'Village' Master Plan

• 79-Acre Master Planned Neighborhood here.
  
• A total of 517 housing units are proposed, with 311 single-family residences,
  26 duplex units, 180 multi-family apartments, and 1 unit in a mixed use building.
  
• Also proposed is an approximately 1.4 acre commercial site, a one-acre community green, other open spaces, and associated streets, utilities, and public services.
  
  

2. Bing Apartments

• 6-Story 133-Units. Location here.
  
  

3. Prather Valley Park

Much talk about TriWay right now. Though no one seems to be talking about the Colpitts development at Columbia & 5th Ave. For this project, 88+ parking spaces will be removed and the city will spend $200,000+ on clean-up. In the spirit of taking a look at what could be, I did some (crummy) photoshopping of what a 7-story building would look like around a sea of 1 to 3 story structures surrounding it.

The 100+ units of housing will sell for "market rate" which could mean anything from about $290,000 to $400,000. The project will also have a 2 level parking area.

So why aren't we as focused on this project as being out of place, or not catering to a more affordable level? With the 'view' and alternative use argument aside, these two projects only have a difference of a few hundred-thousand dollars.

A need for dense urban high rise living units: This need arises from ecological pressures. Our footprint as a society can be greatly reduced if we live more densely urban. On this there is wide ranging agreement. Who would disagree? Suburban sprawl has one of the most deleterious effects on ecology. It swallows up viable and useful farmland. It swallows up wilderness. It's not desirable. It's not sustainable. If we want to keep going as a culture, as a society and as a species, then we will need to "grow up." Wise and efficient land use is a major part of that equation.

360º Panorama:

Here's a more detailed 180º Panorama:

It's really weird to bike past the woods one day and the next see a big empty lot with a bunch of felled logs. Yes, I know that where my house stands there was once trees, but it's still pretty dramatic.

The location is on Division, south of Walnut. Anyone know what's going in? Probably a new housing development.

The housing crisis is hitting Thurston County pretty hard and we're seeing record numbers of people coming into our Advocacy Center. Every year it seems, there's more and more need. Thankfully, we've got an awesome group of interns who are up to the challenge.

Housing & Homelessness Advocacy Day 2008
"Home Is the Heart of It All"

Special Guest - Governor Christine Gregoire

Join hundreds of Housing Advocates from around the state for a day of activism, education and inspiration.

Click Here To Register

TESC recently notified the families residing in family housing that the college would not be providing family housing after June 2008.

The college has a nice family housing section, but families residing on campus as young adult parents pursue degrees have dropped over the past 20 years and relatively few of the "family housing" units actually accommodate families today.

The families who are residing on campus in family housing are pretty upset by this decision. These families chose Evergreen because of the college's commitment to social justice, fair treatment, and an apparent commitment to supporting the campus diversity that comes with families living on campus.

One of the families living on campus includes two of my grandchildren and I know firsthand how large a commitment it is for a young adult parent to choose full time education while parenting.

It seems likely that TESC can convert these family housing units to dorm style housing units housing 5 to 8 students paying a substantially higher "rent" than the families are paying for these units, and the revenue generation may be playing a part in TESC's decision.

Regardless of the motivation of TESC in terminating family housing, I think it is clear that TESC is not living up to its social contract with the families currently in family housing. These families made substantial changes in their lives to move on campus and pursue higher education. TESC was chosen in part because of its apparent willingness to support these young adults with families. If TESC really needs to abandon family housing and the support that family housing creates, the conscientious way to have done this would have been to "grandfather" the families already on campus and transition the housing as these families complete their education.

Shame on TESC for turning its back on families.