Smart growth in form doesn't necessarily reflect the same in function. (image from VIA Architecture)
Dense pedestrian and transit-oriented “urban village” developments often receive the favor of public sentiment thanks to the warm connotations of sustainability, livability, eco-friendliness, and such. With planners and environmentalists touting density as a solution to combating sprawl and climate change by crafting our built environment, it’s easy to get excited about these kinds of developments, like the one recently approved in Issaquah.
With 4.4 million square feet on the drawing board, Skip Rowley’s proposed development is being lauded as a “catalyst” for growth, one that will purportedly transform Issaquah into a thriving urban destination from the sleepy suburb it has long been known as. Yet a closer look reveals much more– this development could increase sprawl, worsen traffic congestion, and perpetuate a precedent of badly planned growth.
While density is often perceived as the ideal combatant against sprawl, improper siting can actually encourage it. Sprawl is the result of growth patterns that radiate out from the center city core, i.e. Downtown Seattle. When new urban nodes are created outside the core, exurban tract developers have that much more of reason to develop far away, citing the provision of services, employment, and housing in these new urban areas as promising alternatives.
So instead of building property that is ‘only 15 minutes away from Downtown Seattle,’ developers can then alternatively market ‘Downtown Bellevue’ or ‘Downtown Issaquah’ as the premier destinations instead. This slowly ripples each new development out further and further, all the while becoming more and more auto-oriented with distance. Rowley’s project, in particular, won’t even be located in a designated urban growth area (PDF), a sign of poor planning right off the bat.
With the development expected to break ground in the next few years, many of the purported future homeowners, renters, and businesses will be getting around by car, a truism even more likely the further out you go. Issaquah’s stringent parking minimums could result in the addition of thousands of new parking spaces to go along with Rowley’s development, which may not only induce automobile demand, but also increase housing prices and rents.
What this means for traffic isn’t rocket science. Currently, Interstate 90 in the peak-period peak-direction is heavily congested, operating at LOS D, according to Issaquah’s Comprehensive Plan (PDF). The standard is expected to drop to grade F by 2020, evidence that with transportation capacity capped at the number of vehicles local roadways can accommodate, congestion is likely to worsen severely.
Yet what is most striking about the project, given Rowley’s political views, is its poor use of public subsidy. While the development is expected to occur in phases, its buildout will happen long before any proposal to extend light rail to Issaquah proliferates. Despite the awkward timing, the project’s justification rests in the hope that a future extension will come one day. According to Rowley, the transportation hell to occur in the intervening period will be worth it:
“Issaquah has got a few little transportation problems,” Rowley quipped. “The only way to cure that in the long run is mass transit. The only way we get mass transit is if we have density. We need to have ridership first, unfortunately, to justify the cost of the agency’s sending out transit, whatever it might be.”
The development is a clear example of allowing transportation to follow land use, a strategy that almost never solves sprawl. Maximizing the efficiency of mass transit isn’t in building new suburban villages, but redeveloping infill and areas in the urban core that can be accommodated by existing infrastructure, including roads, sewers, power, etc.
For the justification of expanding high-capacity mass transit to Rowley’s development, the ridership does already exist, but it’s in Seattle and Bellevue, where investment of public resources can be leveraged much more efficiently. Building a new mega-development outside of urban growth areas with massive parking and no transit to boot will only produce “smart growth” in name and form. The reality, though, is more pressure to perpetuate the culture of sprawl indefinitely.
