I think that one of the most feared consequences of gentrification (the purely economic definition) is that “if I get priced out of my current housing situation, where else can I go?” I think the lack of regional affordable housing is the culprit in this situation, something that I think that is not only much more immediately approachable than the challenge of “build ‘as-market rate-as-possible’ affordable housing in an area with existing high rents and land values.”

The solution to gentrification (aka “I can’t afford a reasonable commute and quality of life if I’m pushed out of my current home)? Completely change the degree to which we build. Land values and existing dense structures in Capitol Hill are over and underwhelming respectively as a result of a lack of new construction over the years. Do you really think we’d have a regional affordable housing crisis on the scale that exists if new, denser buildings were built as soon as economically viable? Yes, maybe folks would still get priced out of Capitol Hill, but then maybe they’d still be able to afford a comparable home somewhere vaguely nearby and not in Black Diamond.

Land values have risen and will continue to rise, and don’t necessarily have to affect the affordability of a region. I point the blame at the lack of dense construction back when land values were actually reasonable.

How do you drop rents in Cap Hill? Upzone some of the single family zones and add supply to the market.

“The roof is on fire. What’s your solution?”
-Blue Scholars

So let’s just agree that this product will not be affordable, ever. Even if there is an over-supply someday soon of these new units, prices may come down in the interim, but but they will eventually go back up when the building-boom stops for a while. (Real estate always moves in these boom and bust cycles.) These buildings would not be built if not for the pension funds, insurance companies and REITS that are investing in them. They are an investment class that guarantees returns from a certain level of high rents. That is why they choose places like the Hill to build, because they know with good certainly that they can get the rents they are planning on.

So people might argue that with all this new expensive product the old buildings will become more “affordable” right? All you have to do is look at Capitol Hill to see that this is not true, either. While older brick buildings are indeed cheaper than new product, average rental prices in these units have been steadily creeping up over time, approaching that $1000/month mark as well.

When the neighborhood becomes more desirable via new development that caters to the high income, older rental product becomes more desirable too. And low-income renters are simply pushed to less-hot rental markets, which usually have fewer amenities (parks, grocery stores, transit access). And that is gentrification in a nutshell.

To answer Dan’s question of how to solve this vexing dilemma, I believe that the only way is through creative subsidy programs and policy. I would like to see local Housing Authorities target TOD stations for the placement of project-based Section 8 vouchers. I believe this is one of the only ways to create housing affordable to the truly poor and low-income in these locations (those making less than 30% AMI). For workforce housing between 30-60% AMI for the working poor and low-income, there should be policy priority at both the City Office of Housing and Tax Credit funding levels to prioritize development around transit. (Right now there is not). And for units above 60% AMI the City should continue to look at ways to incentivize private developers to “set-aside” units at these levels, either through incentive or inclusionary zoning. These are a few strategies, if implemented together, could help impact the affordability of neighborhoods that are developing fabulous amenities like Light Rail while becoming less affordable to the average Seattlelite.

However, folks like Babylonia whose intentions seem well placed view the gentrification issue with an equally oversimplified view of market dynamics as the “build baby build” choir. Dilapidated buildings may be affordable but they can have lots of negative impacts on society and the families that dwell in them. For example, no one deserves unhealthy living conditions and no region should be forced to sprawl because preservations of buildings are prioritized over preservation of green fields.

One solution:
Density (with low construction costs, quick permitting, and cheap equity) + public subsidy (levy and/or MFTE) + value capture (TIF and or inclusionary zoning) = affordable new development.

This post should hardly should be taken seriously – all logic is invalid and why did the author throw in references to NYC and Jane Jacobs as they do not help better establish any sort of argument – but rather they seem like they were thrown into the discussion to establish some sort of authority – hey look I know about Jane Jacobs and I have been to NYC – I am smart… this is the work of a grad student these days?