Same as it ever was:
"Opponents of new housing are pulling out all the stops to convince the council that allowing renters to live in neighborhoods will destroy urban forests, kill birds and orcas, and make life unbearable for property owners across the city."
Sightline's Housing+Cities team left its fingerprints on pretty much all of Washington's major statewide zoning reform bills, but there's still plenty more to do.
Join us?
www.sightline.org/lead-researc...
Wondering why Washington just passed the first statewide elevator reform bill?
Still not elevator-pilled?
@sightline.org and @welcomingneighbors.us have a webinar for that!
Friday April 10 at 11am PST, register at this link:
www.sightline.org/going-up-or-...
Your buildings cover half the lot (assuming 100' deep lots), so they need to be a a tad more than 4 stories on average to hit that FAR, yes? We Sightliners love the 4-story sweet spot.
Thoughts on how the transition to buildings with different owners that touch eachother might work?
Same FAR in both plans? Or does the perimeter one get a little bonus as you suggested?
I shared that article as a rebuttal to your "neither is true."
How does funded IZ put a higher property tax burden on renters?
Seattle's MHA is unfunded IZ. It block new homes until after prices rise, putting an invisible tax on tenants in older buildings.
It would be illegal under the funded IZ bill just passed by Oregon.
The city should fund it or ax it permanently.
www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...
When SB 6026 goes into effect, ground-floor commercial will be completely optional in all subsidized affordable housing developments in most of WA's urban areas.
It's especially important not to bog down affordable housing with these rules because project funding is typically so challenging.
WA is not the first state to legalize housing in commerical zones, but it is the first to limit local mandates for apartment buildings to include ground-floor retail spaces.
These rules force too much of a good thing and make everyone's housing more expensive.
www.sightline.org/2026/03/11/w...
WA still has work to do on condo liability reform, and CA's new bill AB 1903 has a good list of smart ideas that WA could also consider (see legislative council's digest at the bill link below)
@housingconsortium.org
@futurewise.bsky.social
@seattleyimby.bsky.social
And here's a five-story one with 20 studios, no elevator, on a 3,185 sf lot.
blue.kingcounty.com/Assessor/eRe...
This pic didn't make the cut for the article but yes, in Seattle we do have some 6-story apartment buildings without elevators.
This one has 23 studios on a 3,380 sf lot.
blue.kingcounty.com/Assessor/eRe...
Posting-to-policy pipeline, elevators addition:
Not quite two years after @stephenjacobsmith.com published his wonktastic report that put elevator reform on the YIMBY map, WA state got a bill passed.
SB 5156 allows smaller elevators for small apartment bldgs.
www.sightline.org/2026/03/19/w...
WA will likely try again in 2027 with some sort of harmonization legislation.
I stand corrected! Thank you @tmccormick.org for your pioneering thinking on funded IZ!
(and yes, I agree that IH is a better term, but alas)
Huge congrats to all who worked to pass Oregon's trailblazing funded IZ bill, but especially to my @sightline.org colleague @andersem.bsky.social who has been a thought leader on this idea for several years and who, as far as I know, was the one who first coined the term "funded IZ."
Another WA first for housing:
SB 6026 just passed the House 69 - 27!
Other states have passed bills to allow housing in commercial zones, but WA took it a step further by limiting the amount of ground floor commerical cities can require.
Thank you Sen. Alvarado and @davina425.bsky.social!!
WA's elevator bill passed the House last night 93 - 1 !!!
Once signed by the Gov, it will be the nation's first state legislation for elevator code reform.
Yes, it would have been a bigger win if the global standards intent language had not been amended out. @sightline.org will keep pushing!
Too bad this good article is marred by such a bad headline.
Fixed it:
To Cut Housing Costs, Some States Are Reforming Fire Safety Rules That Don't Make Buildings Safer
For the record, WA was the first state to pass single-stair legislation, but is now lagging other states in implementation.
Brick your phone!
Most of the opposition to WA's mobile dwellings bill HB 1443 was over concerns that motorized RVs are somehow not good enough for people to live in.
Meanwhile, cities like Seattle sanction living in RVs in tiny home villages.
Makes you think!
www.sightline.org/2026/01/26/f...
Yeah, the city needs to offer them as an alternative to undergrounding. Prolly around 10X less cost than undergrounding and no delay from a city process, so builders would jump at the opportunity.
An early draft of the bill before it dropped said that housing had to be permitted outright in commercial zones, but that was later changed to: "prohibited from excluding residential uses"
I interpret this as still allowing conditional, limited, and accessory use restrictions, what do you think?
You mean that the 40% cap will still allow most cities to require ground-floor commercial in most places?
Yet another example of how local policymakers burden home building with extra costs that should instead be funded through a broad tax because they provide broad public benefits.
www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...
Here's some empty retail in the front of the same building, and also in the money corner of the Africatown building right next door.
I'm not sure the impact is bigger in those cities than in Seattle. Cities that have a smaller amount of mixed use relative to commercial will be able to maintain ground-floor commercial in more of their existing mixed-use under the 40% cap, which has mixed-use + commerical in the denominator.
My pic is on 24th between Union and Spring, in the yellow NC zone.
