A developer's video tour of a smart, green neighborhood

Chewie — Mar 4 2011 10:04 AM

I was about to say "it's all residential" but I guess they're planning some shops. I wonder how this place links up with transit.

John Fox — Mar 4 2011 04:08 PM

In response to your recent article praising the greening of High Point, I understand and agree completely with the need to pursue green goals as our city grows, but what we have at High Point is something else. A better term for it would be"greenwashing".

At High Point, the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) took down 716 units of desperately needed low income housing - destroyed them - ripped out relatively new infrastructure including perfectly good sidewalks and streets. All of that had years of useful life still remaining. They replaced it with 1600 units but only 366 are comparably priced very low income units serving public housing eligible households. One hundred others serve special needs elderly. The rest serve a higher class of people including units that will sell for more than $450,000-$500,000. Over $300 million in monies that are supposed to go towards expanding our low income stock instead went into this project all to come out at the other end with fewer low income units.

In recent years, SHA took federal HOPE VI funds and redeveloped HighPoint, Rainier Vista, Roxbury Village, and Holly Park public housing communities. Combined these projects removed 2000 public housing units replacing only one half of them in the new developments. That was housing desperately needed in our community. These losses and other continuing losses of low income housing and gentrification of Seattle neighborhoods have forced thousands low income people out of our city and into the suburbs where they must commute (usually by car) longer and longer distances to and from work in Seattle (with all it's attendant environmental impacts on our region such as more gas consumption, auto, noise pollution, sprawl etc).

Further, as was the case at Rainier Vista and Holly Park, don't believe SHA baloney about tree preservation at High Point. You apparently had no familiarity with old High Point or these other communities. Here are quotes from an Aug. 2003 story from the Seattle Times (Eskanazi) about their tree preservation plan at SHA's Rainier Vista redevelopment.

In all, 198 of Rainier Vista's 428 trees are being preserved. Most of the survivors, however, line the perimeter....The Housing Authority is planning to plant 1,200 new trees within the new Rainier Vista, most along the streets. Within five years, the authority contends, the volume of trees — measured by total trunk diameter — will exceed what it was before construction began. "To them, I guess a sapling next to the street does what this does," said (Carolee) Colter, while standing under the shade of a mature silver-leaf maple that will face the ax.... It's genocide for cottonwoods,"

At High Point, they wiped out all but 100 of 650 older trees - a graceful green covered canopy leaving only about 1/6th of the older growth most along the perimeter of the new development. There also of course will be a dramatic expansion in the amount of 'impervious surface' on the site (there's another great euphemism too - why don't they just say 'concrete and asphalt'.

You redevelop the site to an intolerably high densities with canyons of sun blocking concrete and glass, eliminate open space, take out the grass, the community garden, the old community center, and wipe out darn near all of the tree canopy..... and then applaud that plan because it will "showcase" how we can create "walkable" communities.
Doing all these so called "environmentally sensitive" things are certainly better than not doing them at all, but let's be clear, all that combined will not be enough to off-set by any quantitative or quality measurement the environmental negatives associated with what happened on the site and at SHA's other HOPE VI sites.

First, the older low-rise buildings are wrecked to make way for bigger ones. Debris from demolition and construction makes up 30% of the waste stream choking our landfills. In the process, we waste resource that don't get recognized on the balance sheet—the embodied energy in the destroyed structure. Embodied energy includes the total expenditure of non-renewable energy consumed in the creation of the original developoment that was destroyed - the acquisition of raw materials (including chainsawed old growth trees that went into the lumber and that otherwise would have sequestered carbon), their processing, manufacturing, transportation to the site, and construction. Embodied energy represents 15 to 30 times the amount of energy involved in operating a building annually. No matter how “green” a new building is, it will still take 15 to 30 years before the embodied energy lost in destroying the original structure is paid off by the efficiency of the new one.

Meanwhile, the construction of new large buildings consumes prodigious amounts of concrete. Concrete manufacturing is responsible for 7 to 10% of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, partly because of the high temperatures required to create cement, its principal ingredient. Then consider how larger, bulkier structures increase lot coverage and crowd out trees. For example, the redevelopment of Seattle Housing Authority’s Rainier Vista project took out over 300 trees in one 65 acre plot. Mature trees store carbon, which is released into the atmosphere after they are cut down. Sure, we can plant spindly little saplings but it will be decades before those young trees begin to make up for what’s been lost. Aside from capturing carbon, mature trees also retain stormwater and shade buildings in summer, cutting down on air conditioning needs.

By demolishing an existing neighborhood and building to such a high density when there is a perfectly viable much less costly option available - a renovation and modernization option that won't result in these environmental costs, won't result in tree loss, won't consume millions of limited housing dollars, not to mention - won't displace hundreds of low income residents..... Well lets just say that it’s going to take a lot more than a few green roofs and bioswales to offset all that.

All of it this was totally unnecessary. There were numerous alternative redevelopment schemes SHA could have employed at High Point - modernization/renovation, new construction or a combination of the two that could have integrated green techniques galore without wiping out most of the tree canopy, infrastructure, or wiping out most of the low income housing..... No matter how you look at it, it's called "Greenwashing" gentrification, and "hype".

- John V. Fox, coordinator for the Seattle Displacement Coalition 632-0668

Bill Bradburd — Mar 7 2011 01:42 AM

High Point is far from the type of urban development we need to be producing more of. While certain elements of the project are good (higher insulation, swales, use of salvaged materials) and add to a great marketing brochure, more important elements have been neglected.

While future commercial development may be planned at spots within the project (the coffee shop and dry cleaners), there is limited access to the day to day needs of the people there. High Point is without job centers and adequate retail proximity . Access to the area by public transit is limited - most residents need a car.

High Point is well below the average Walk Score for the rest of Seattle.

There we have only extended suburbia. And one that fails a new urbanist vision.

Virginia Felton — Mar 7 2011 06:07 PM

John Fox remains blind to the real value of the master-planned community at High Point, and, in the process, reports erroneous statistics. High Point has been recognized widely as a highly sustainable neighborhood and a great place to live - whether you are a low-income immigrant or a middle-income small-business owner.

Here are the facts:
350 public housing units, 250 tax-credit rentals for people making less than 80% median income, 75 units for low-income seniors (equivalent to public housing) and 56 Habitat for Humanity Homes, in addtion to market-rate homes, most of which are NOT high priced. All of the low-income units originally at High Point are being replaced with equivalent units either at High Point or at other locations.

There are no "canyons of sun blocking concrete and glass." To read the Fox comment, I would guess that he has actually never walked around at High Point.

Otherwise he would know that there is lots of open space, beautiful community gardens in several locations (including the community's original P-Patch that was preserved) pocket parks thoughout and housing that really works for its low-income residents. Density there is about 15 units per acre - not all that dense.

Greenwashing? Ask the 60 families that live in the "Breathe Easy" homes where their children have experienced a 65% decrease in asthma symptoms. Ask the resident who said, "You have no idea how great it is to live in a neighborhood that other people want to visit." Ask the immigrant gardeners who sell their organic produce to their middle-class neighbors. Ask the people in the walking club who enjoy exercise on the walkable tree-lined streets.

John Fox dislikes High Point because it doesn't fit his vision of warehousing low-income people in high-crime, low-opportunity neighborhoods where the housing is full of mold, mildew and cracking plaster. All he can see is old-style ghetto housing, with no attention paid to the quality of life of the people who live there. No one -- not even Mr. Fox -- showed up at the City Council hearing to object when the plans for High Point were approved.

We recognized that High Point needs retail development to be a really great neighborhood, and we are still working to achieve that. Like all developers, we are not immune to the effects of the current recession. Regardless, all High Point residents will continue to enjoy the benefits of well-built, well-designed housing in a very sustainable neighborhood.

- Virginia Felton, Director of Communications and Strategic Planning, Seattle Housing Authority

SHA web site for High Point