Balancing Urban Growth & Sustainability: Rethinking Seattle's Tree Code
Today, I want to delve into an article that recently caught my attention. Featured on TheUrbanist.org, the piece entitled, "Op-Ed: Seattle Should Look At Its Tree Code Through The Lens Of Housing," puts forward an intriguing argument, urging us to reconsider our approach to the Tree Code currently implemented in Seattle.
The Tree Code, as many of you know, has been a crucial part of Seattle's urban planning landscape. It's designed to protect the city’s natural beauty, enhance air quality, and contribute to Seattle's commitment to addressing climate change. However, it's essential to remember that we must continually adapt our strategies to the evolving needs of our city. The ongoing housing crisis and the increasing demand for affordable housing in Seattle necessitates a fresh look at this long-standing rule.
The forthcoming update to the city’s tree code presents us with a golden opportunity. It allows us to make the most of the tools we have at our disposal to tackle the housing crisis while maintaining and enhancing our tree canopy. If the city doesn’t strike the right balance, we risk going down the wrong path, where the city becomes increasingly unaffordable and inaccessible.
A key critique of Seattle's current tree code, as The Urbanist article suggests, is the lack of predictability. This quality is critical for accurately estimating the timeline or feasibility of building on any given lot. Without it, schedules can be drawn out for months or even years, escalating the costs of construction and making housing more expensive for potential buyers and renters.
Lawmakers appear poised to address this issue with the proposed introduction of a “capacity test” into the tree code. This addition is designed to provide predictability from the get-go for both builders and permit reviewers. It is a necessary adjustment that instills certainty into our tree code, making it vital that it remains permanent and protected from subjectivity.
The enhancement of predictability will allow more housing to be built faster. We can expect fewer plan revisions and work delays – common challenges in our current system that can quickly escalate home costs by tens of thousands of dollars. The City of Seattle alone is projected to need 112,000 new homes over the next 20 years. If other cities can learn from and adapt our proposed changes, we will be one step closer to addressing our region’s housing shortage.
The Urbanist suggests that we view the Tree Code through the lens of housing, emphasizing a potential conflict between preserving trees and meeting the pressing need for housing development. Yet, this isn't a call to disregard environmental conservation. Rather, it demands a nuanced understanding of sustainable development, one that encompasses both housing and environmental preservation.
We, the stakeholders in the real estate industry, must rise to the occasion. Sustainability is no longer a luxury, but a necessity. It's time to shift our perspective from merely adhering to environmental regulations to actively shaping them. We must explore how we can merge tree preservation and housing development into one cohesive solution.
So, let's use this as an opportunity to reimagine the way we think about urban growth. Let's rise to the challenge of creating livable, sustainable, and desirable urban spaces, contributing to the environment and urban growth simultaneously.
Together, let's ensure that Seattle remains a shining example of sustainable urban development. I look forward to the innovations we can bring to our beloved city of Seattle!
Source:
Ruiz, Aliesha (2023, May 9). Op-Ed: Seattle Should Look At Its Tree Code Through The Lens Of Housing. The Urbanist. https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/05/09/op-ed-seattle-should-look-at-its-tree-code-through-the-lens-of-housing/