Making a Livable City The Case of Seattle

Making a Livable City:
The Case of Seattle
Prepared for Graduate Students of
College of Agriculture & Life Science,
Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
Chang-Hee Christine Bae, Associate Professor
Dept of Urban Design and Planning, Univ. of Washington
June 22, 2009
1

SCOPE OF PRESENTATION
• Livability Principles
• Seattle Background
• Seattle Case Studies
• Implications for Korea
• Conclusions

Livability Principles

INTRODUCTION
• Should livability be part of a regional
development strategy?
• Yes, because living standards mean not
only jobs and income but also QOL
(quality of life) and amenities
• Demand for livability is income-elastic
• Important for attracting migrants and
highly qualified professionals (the
“Creative Class”; Rich Florida)

Livability: Historical Context

“LIVABLE CITY” PRINCIPLES
• Implementing livable city projects is easier
in cities that are wealthy and may already
be livable in many dimensions
• Seattle is already regarded as one of the
most livable cities in the United States
• Major part of presentation is visual to
illustrate a few neighborhoods and
projects involving community participation
6

“LIVABLE CITY” PRINCIPLES (cont.)
• Livability is a complicated, multidimensional
concept that has different meanings in different
places
• The livable city depends heavily on citizen
perceptions. This implies a need for community
participation
• Some projects are cheap (e.g. those relying on
volunteerism), but others are expensive
7

“LIVABLE CITY” PRINCIPLES (cont.)
• The resource constraint problem requires
the involvement of government, business
and NGOs as well as the community
• The problems are not merely physical, but
also social
• The next batch of slides present data and
facts about Seattle
8

JANE JACOBS’ CONTRIBUTION
• Jane Jacobs also made an important link
between livability and urban economic growth:
– Creativity and diversity: “engines” for city growth
– Eclecticism & inventiveness of city life
– ‘New Ideas must use old buildings’
• Livable cities attract highly qualified and
educated migrants who are conducive to strong
economic growth
9

Goals for Livability and the
Role of the Planner in the Livable City
Planning/Livability Goals
• Mobility and Accessibility
• Public Participation
Programs
• Compact Urban Centers
• Economic Vitality
Planners’ Role
• The Planner as an Advocate
• Serve as a Resource to
Citizens
• Maintain Balance of
Livability Elements
• Local Environmental Quality
10

Seattle Background

The Pacific Northwest and the
“Cascadia” Region
Vancouver:
222 km north
2 million people
(Metro Region)
Portland:
283 km south
1.3 million people
(Metro Region)
12

Growth of the Puget Sound Region,
1950-2000
• 1950:
– Washington State:
2.4 million people
– Puget Sound Region:
1.2 million people
• 2000:
– Washington State:
6.3 million people
– Puget Sound Region:
3.5 million people
13

Seattle vs. Seoul
Dissimilar
• Seattle’s land area is 60% of Seoul, but pop is 5.6% of
Seoul.
– Seoul’s gross pop. density is 10.8 times higher than Seattle.
Similar
• GDP/capita is similar, Seoul’s GDP/capita 80% of
Seattle
– Seoul: $30510; Seattle: $36392
• High housing costs
• Growing income inequality
• Regulatory environment: Urban Growth Areas, Greenbelt
policy
14

Seattle: Brief Overview
• City is first settled by non-native settlers in 1851
• Economy was originally based upon natural
resources (timber, coal)
• Boeing aircraft became major regional employer
beginning in WWII
• Today:
– High-tech (Microsoft: 33,000+ employees in Puget
Sound area)
– Research (Univ. of WA: 28,000 faculty & staff)
– Aerospace (Boeing: 69,000 employees in WA)
– Healthcare sector (96,000 jobs in Seattle)
15

Seattle Demographic Characteristics
(Figures for U.S. shown in parentheses)
• Population: 562,106
• Total Occupied Housing Units: 259,163
• Median household income: $58,311 ($48,451)
• Median owner-occupied home value: $447,800
($185,200)
• Individuals below poverty level: 12.5% (13.3%)
• Adults 25 years+ with 4-year college degree:
53.4% (27%)
• % Foreign Born: 18.8% (12.5%)
16

Relative Size
S. Korea Seoul City US WA
Seattle
City Hawaii Honolulu
Area (sq. mi.) 38,492 233.8 288,378 71,342 142.5 10,931 85.7
Pop (million) 49.02 10.3 302.41 5.89 0.582 1.29 0.371
Gross Pop Den (per
sq. mi) 44,055 82.6 4,084 118 4,329
*GDP/capita or
**Med Inc
/capita
(US$,2005) 24,500* 30,510* 25,035** 26,662** 36,392**
25,035
** 27,661**
17

American Style Urban Growth
• Centrifugal Forces
• Centripetal Regulation
Bellevue
Bremerton
S S
e S
e S
a e
a e
t a
t a
t t Tacoma
t t
l t
l t
l
19

Projected Future Growth of the
Puget Sound Region
By 2040:
1.6 million more people
1.1 million more jobs
Historic
constant
growth rate
15 year
regional
analysis
National
Econometric
models
WA State Growth Management Act
20

Washington State Growth
Management Act (워싱턴 주 성장관리법)
• Adopted in 1990 to prevent Los Angeles style
sprawl
• Influenced by Oregon State GMA (1973; UGB)
• Allows urban development in designated urban
growth areas
• All cities with rapid growth should have
“Comprehensive Plans” (도시 기본계획) and,
Development Regulations (개발 규제)
– planning via land use regulations key to GMA
implementation
21

Key ideas of WA GMA
• Environmentally friendly urban development
• Compact urban development via higher
densities within UGAs
• Preservation of agriculture, forest, and other
resource lands
• Reducing automobile dependency via
multimodal transportation
• Coordinating economic development
• Participatory decision making via “early and
continuous citizen participation”
– Neighborhood, city, county, region
22

Foundation of GMA implementation:
4Cs
• Comprehensive Plan
• Compact Development
• Concurrency Requirements
• Consistency
23

워싱톤 주 성장관리법: 14 개의 목표
1. 도시 개발은 도시 성장 권역 (UGA) 내에서 유치
2. 도시의 평면적인 확산과 저밀 개발의 지양
3. 다양한 교통수단 장려(multimodal
transportation)
4. 저소득층 주택 보급 (Affordable housing) 장려
5. 경제 개발 장려
6. 사유재산권의 공정한 보상
7. 개발 허가의 적시적이고, 공정한 처리
24

워싱톤 주 성장관리법: 14 개의 목표
8. 자연 자원을 이용한 산업 권장
9. 녹지와 다양한 레크리에이션 기회의 확보
10. 자연 보호와 주(State) 거주민의 삶의 질적 향상
11. 계획 절차상 주민 참여 권장
12. 공공 기관 시설과 서비스 가능성의 확보/권장
13. 역사 보전 지역의 규명과 관리
14. 해안선 관리법 적용
25

Regional Planning (지역 광역 계획)
• Puget Sound Regional Council (퓨젯 사운드 지역 의회):
– 70 cities (시 정부)
– 4 counties (카운티)
– 2 State Agencies
– 7 transit agencies
– tribes
– Long range planning (20년을 내다보는 장기기본성장계획 &
교통계획 수립)
• Vision 2020
• Vision 2040
• Destination 2030
26

The Puget Sound Region:
Major Urban Areas
•Puget Sound
4 counties
71 cities
Pop: 3.3 mil
• Seattle: 0.55 mil
•UGA adopted in 1990
• Urban lands
• Rural lands
• Resource lands
WRSA 2008 27

25 Urban Growth Centers in the Puget
Sound Region
Map source: PSRC (www.psrc.org)
Urban Growth Area
980 square miles - 16 % of total land
area of 4-county region
28

Regional Land Uses
Agricultural
• Three (3) land
uses designated
by the GMA:
– Urban Land
– Rural Land
– Resource Land
• Agricultural land
is a “gray area”
29
Map source: PSRC (www.psrc.org)

Salmon(연어) Endangered Species Act,
1999
• Key regional
resource
• “Extinction is
not an option”
• Currently
listed as an
“endangered
species”
(federal)
• Extensive
intergovernmental
cooperation
30
Map source: PSRC (www.psrc.org)

Planning in Seattle:
Various Scales of Governance
Planning
Framework
City Plan
“Bottom-Up”
Neighborhood
Planning
31

Seattle Comprehensive Plan
• Titled “Toward a
Sustainable Seattle”
• 20 year plan for
residential and
employment growth
• Growth encouraged in
“urban centers” and
“urban villages”
(neighborhoods)
• Includes plans created
by individual
neighborhoods
32

Seattle: “A City of Neighborhoods”
• 13 neighborhood districts
Each district contains several
neighborhoods
• The Department of
Neighborhoods has a staffed
office in each district
• Many neighborhoods have
created their own local plans
33

Neighborhood-Focused Planning and
Community Involvement
• Neighborhood planning program (1995-1999)
• Neighborhood Matching Fund (Est. 1989)
– $3.2M per year for citizen-led neighborhood
improvement projects
• Many active non-profit organizations
34
Photo credit: Jim Diers
Photo credit: Jim Diers

• 10 Neighborhoods
• 2024:
– 50,000 new jobs
downtown
– 22,000 new housing
units
• Key themes:
– Affordable housing
– Sustainable building
– Multi-modal
transportation
– Arts & Culture
35

Seattle’s Cheonggyecheon?
Existing
waterfront
freeway
Concept plan for
a new waterfront
36
Image source: Seattle DPD (http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Central_Waterfront/Overview/)

Seattle Case Studies
38

SEATTLE
• Examples: Queen Anne, Belltown, Columbia
City, and Olympic Sculpture Park, Pike Place
Market
• A wealthy city with a few marginal
neighborhoods
• Many community activists
• Already highly regarded nationally as a very
livable city
• High-tech economy results in many wealthy
donors
39

SEATTLE (cont.)
• Queen Anne: high-income neighborhood with
very few problems
• Belltown: rapidly changing neighborhood.
Livability upgrades creating major gentrification
+ conflicts between old and new residents
• Columbia City: Recent progress, but community
participation, while longstanding, less visible
than role of other stakeholders
40

SEATTLE (cont.)
• Pike Place Market: Seattle’s major tourist
attraction saved from threatened
demolition in the 1960s by community and
business action
• Olympic Sculpture Park: Expensive project
with significant private sector financial
support
41

SEATTLE (cont.)
• Conclusions
– Easier to build on an already livable city
– Community participation increases with
neighborhood income
– In marginal neighborhoods, upgrading can
result in adverse distributional impacts via
gentrification
– Emphasis on physical improvements is easier
to justify when poverty is not a major problem
– Livability components can be expensive
42

NEIGHBORHOODS IN SEATTLE
• 37 neighborhoods, 13 neighborhood centers
• Each neighborhood has distinctive
characteristics with its own neighborhood plan:
– Income
– Ethnic and racial mix
– Education levels
– Natural endowments
– Built environmental challenges
43

CITY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS
• Citizen-led advisory groups:
– comprised of elected members from each of the City’s 13
Districts
• organized under the authority of Seattle City Council Resolution
27709 in October, 1987 (1989, 1994)
– Goal: to provide city-wide coordination for the
Neighborhood Matching Fund, Neighborhood Budget
Prioritization, & Neighborhood Planning programs
• (시 전체 지역간 조화를 유지, 근린지구 대응기금, 예산, 계획 달성
사업)
– Monthly meetings are open to public
44

NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING
• There is no one recipe
• A neighborhood planning process
– provides opportunities for the residents to
enhance their livability based on their own
needs
– helps to articulate visions, goals and
objectives
– guides development and funding priorities
– identifies existing problems
46

NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING (cont.)
• 1970s: neighborhood improvement programs
started with help from the Community
Development Block Grant program (federal govt
funding)
• 1980s: Department of Neighborhoods was
established with Neighborhood Matching Funds
(NMFs)
• 1990s: Neighborhood planning process
consolidated under the WA Growth Management
Act (GMA, *optional element). A comprehensive
plan by city level was mandated. City of Seattle
adopted an ‘urban village’ strategy
47

NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING (cont.)
– Mismatched boundaries in the urban villlage
vs. neighborhood concepts
– City met with residents to draw up their own
boundaries for the neighborhood planning
area
– > City officials review the plan
– > Communities prioritize top five projects in
their plans
– > Results submitted to city for funding and
implementation
48

Queen Anne
49

QUEEN ANNE STATISTICS
• Median Household Income: $50,703 (about 42m.
Won)
• % of Pop. Living Below Poverty: 6.4%
• % of Pop. 16 and Over Unemployed (3.4%)
• Total Number of Housing Units: 19,851
• 60% Renters
• Mean Household Size: 1.69 persons
• % Foreign Born: 9.8%
50

Upper QA vs. Lower QA
• A hill divides QA into two neighborhoods:
upper QA & lower QA
• Uptown Neighborhood Park
– Community strives to create neighborhood
amenities
51

Main street in QA: Many Americans prefer to live in small towns.
Upper QA maintains its character of old world charm.
54

Counterbalance Park
55

Funding for the Counterbalance Park
project (~40% private contributions)
Seattle Pro Parks Levy funding $304,000
Lead gift from Shah Safari, Inc. (Local clothing
company) $225,000
City of Seattle, 2007 Capital Improvement Fund $200,000
City of Seattle Neighborhood Matching Fund
Grant $100,000
Metro/King County Funding $50,000
Grant from the Miller Foundation (used for plant
materials) $45,000
The Norcliffe Foundation grant (local private
foundation) $20,000
Safeco Insurance Company grant (Seattle-based
company) $10,000
Individual contributions $38,000
Business and corporations $35,500
Total received to date $1,027,500
Keys to project success
1) City support through
the neighborhood
planning process
2) Citizen leadership
3) Support by the
Mayor’s Center City
Parks Initiative.
56

QUEEN ANNE (cont.)
• What makes QA different and livable?
– Location
– Topography
– Socio-economic & demographic composition
– Family friendly neighborhood
– Strong community organizations, e.g. QA Historic
Society
– Proximity to downtown
• Commercial core, walkable from much of the neighborhood
• Entertainment core (ballet company, Opera House, Seattle
Center, Experimental Music Center, and proximity to Pike
Place Market, restaurants, museums, science park, etc.)
• High tech hub (IT, bio tech, etc)
57

QUEEN ANNE (cont.)
• Why is Upper QA
neighborhood so popular?
– Upper QA: historical
neighborhood with
sidewalks, small town
ambience, view of
downtown & the water,
proximity to downtown,
quality housing on small
lots (3,500 sq. ft. [~325 m 2 ]
lot)
– Success: continues to
attract high income,
educated residents
58

QUEEN ANNE
• Downside of Upper QA
– Narrow streets (high auto insurance because
of accident rates)
– High house prices
– Difficult terrain in bad weather (especially ice
and snow)
59

Belltown: Efforts to keep its character &
heritage
60

BELLTOWN STATISTICS
• Median Household Income: $31,943
• % of Population Living Below Poverty: 20.7%
(highest rate of poverty is within the 65-74 yearold
age bracket, with 24% living in poverty)
• Unemployment: 5.3%
• Total Number of Housing Units: 6,918
• Renters: Almost 80% of households
• Mean Household Size: 1.3 persons
• % Foreign Born: 14.3%
• The densest neighborhood in Seattle
63

BELLTOWN (cont.)
• P-Patch (Cottage Park): open space (in the form
of community gardens) created by demolishing
derelict cottages, but preserving 3
• Elite contribution to community building, e.g.
Geiser (architect Growing Vine Street Project),
artists, community activist
• Mixed income community
• Very high density (but not by Seoul standards)
• Close to Downtown
• Traditionally an artist village
64

Cottage Park Project
• 1916: 11 cottages (420 sq.
ft.), 2 on a lot
• 1950: 5 cottages were torn
down (Now, it is the P-Patch
site) + 3 cottages were
removed by Sky Luggage
Company
• Mid-1997: 3 cottages left
• 1998 Plan: Make 3 cottages
habitable for artists, etc.
65

BELLTOWN: P-PATCH
• 6 years collaboration to open the P-Patch
garden
• City of Seattle purchased the site ($3.5 m via the
1989 Open Space Programs Opportunity Fund)
• Opened in 1995: 42 patches (10x10, 5x5)
• Collaborations: The Friends of Belltown P-
Patch+ The Parks Department+ City’s P-Patch
Program+Belltown resident volunteers (5,000
total person-hours)
66

GROWING VINE STREET (GVS)
• A runnel: 8 blocks long urban stream
management (8개 블록 연장의 도시하천 수로 관리)
• 1. biofiltration of the roof runoff (지붕으로부터
오는 우수(빗물)의 자연정화)
• 2. provides green space (녹지공간의 제공)
• 3. introduces the natural hydrologic cycle
(자연적인 물순환체계의 도입)
68

GVS (cont.)
• Treated runoff water
will continue its
journey via terraced
water gardens and
reach the ocean
without going through
the City’s water
treatment center.
69

GVS: THE BECKONING CISTERN
• Designer: Buster Simpson
• Idea from the Sistine Chapel
70

WHAT MAKES BELLTOWN LIVABLE?
• Tenacity: on-going community participation, especially
since mid-1990s, with strong community leaders and
government, business and NGO support
• Leadership:
– Cottage Park/P-Patch: Glen MacGilvra, Myle Woodwell
– Growing Vine Street: Carolyn Geiser, Buster Simpson
• Community support
– King County, Seattle Parks Dept., Seattle Foundation, IntraCorp,
Skyway Luggage, Starbucks, RealNetworks, Triad, Ewing &
Clark, the Belltown Business Association and many Belltown
residents
74

BELLTOWN: REFLECTIONS
• Recent growth has been very rapid, but
projects have been on a small scale
• Will it continue to be an artistic community
in the future?
• Potential conflicts between new (gentrified)
and old residents
• Potential obstacle to the level of
participation: 80% renters (homeowners
are more involved; Fischel)
75

COLUMBIA CITY
• “Just a short drive from downtown Seattle,
Columbia City is worlds away from
downtown congestion, high rises, and
parking challenges”
http://www.columbiacityseattle.com/
77

MERITS
• Proximity to downtown
• Ethnic and racial diversity
– Diverse restaurants
(Vietnamese pho, Sicilian,
Ethiopian, Mexican, soul food,
etc)
• Organized business
community
– “Beatwalk”
– Farmer’s market
78

FIGHTING BACK FROM DILAPIDATION AND
ECONOMIC STAGNATION
• Better organized business district & official
landmark status
• Columbia City Development Association (CCDA)
formed in 1976
– Streetscape improvement
– Landmark designation
• South East Effective Development (SEED)
– non-profit community development organization
– Institutions: Rainier Valley Cultural Center, the
Columbia Hotel, the Columbia City Gallery building.
79

GRASSROOTS EFFORTS IN 1990s
• Columbia City Revitalization Committee (CCRC)
in 1995
– to protect the business core
– Launched “BeatWalk” & the “ Farmers’ Market”
• The Columbia City Business Association
(CCBA): Two Organizing Principles
– 1. a pedestrian-friendly, “one-stop shopping district”
that meets the day-to-day needs of the surrounding
neighborhood
– 2. a region-wide destination for “dining and
entertainment”
• food, art, entertainment and specialty shops.
80

LANDMARK DISTRICT
A few blocks only
http://www.cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/preservation/columbiacity
_map.htm
82

CHARACTERISTICS
• A bohemian community contributing to
Seattle as a creative city
• Tenacity: active community organizations
for more than 30 years (however, less
strong than in some other neighborhoods)
83

Pike Place Market
84

PIKE PLACE MARKET
• Seattle’s biggest tourist attraction as well
as an active farmers’ market
• Attempts in the 1960s to demolish it and
replace it with large-scale development
• Successful resistance by both market
businesses and community activists
86

Hill & Tower, Los Angeles
www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal8.html
Olive Street, Los Angeles (1960)
88

Bunker Hill after Urban Renewal
89

Olympic Sculpture Park
90

OLYMPIC SCULPTURE PARK
• The most recent example of city-wide
participation on a former 9 acre brownfield
• Total cost = $85 m.
• Stimulus came from private sector art supporters,
architects, and the Seattle Art Museum
• Private donations supplemented public funds
• Very expensive art exhibits (e.g. Richard Serra)
• CCTV system to protect against vandalism
91

IMPLICATIONS FOR KOREA: SEOUL
• Resource constraints are a major problem: much easier
to make progress in Seoul than Gwangju
• The Cheonggye Cheon project is an example of an
expensive project that has more than a marginal impact
and may be justifiable in a very wealthy city, despite
some unaesthetic elements
– A strongly top-down project led by ex-Mayor now President Lee
(part of his political campaign)
– Problem is how to achieve urban regeneration in the area as a
whole. The restoration area is surrounded by incompatible land
uses and activities
97

Ochi Dong, Gwangju

Ochi Dong, Gwangju
BUK-GU (continued)
• Citywide problems
– Need for redevelopment (costly)
– Trash
– Traffic and Parking
– Lack of support in the business community
– Signage (ubiquitous in Korea? Compare with
US)
99

BUK-GU, Gwangju
• Buk-Gu took a big step towards participatory planning
• The projects in Buk-Gu, Gwangju (Ochi and Munhwa
Dongs) are interesting, mainly low-cost except for the
recreational area project in Munhwa, but do they make a
difference?
• The arts projects are visually exciting and useful as an
example of the community participation process but lack
a broader impact
• The recreational area project is non-marginal, but much
more expensive
• In terms of the built environment, Gwangju has major
challenges to improve its livability.
100

MUNWA-DONG,
Gwangju

MUNWA-DONG, Gwangju

BUK-GU: CONCLUSIONS
• A few micro-level demonstration projects have
minimal impact on the macro scale
• Making a city livable is not always cheap. To
obtain resources and to permit the replication of
successful projects in other cities/dongs, there is
a need for a combination of top-down and
bottom-up planning.
• Community participation is valuable, but it
cannot solve the problem alone
• The role of the business community is critical
(Example: US concept of business improvement
district)
104

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
• Seattle was built upon a firm foundation of
natural beauty
• Seoul’s livability undermined by the
repercussions of rapid economic growth
• Korea’s provincial cities and towns lack the
resources to implement livability projects
• As Korea’s incomes continue to grow, the
demand for QOL and community character will
increase

Thank you!
Please visit me in Seattle.
Questions?