Abstract
This chapter focuses empirically on the “intercurrence of intentions” that characterizes the policy geographies of smart growth across Greater Seattle. Focusing methodologically on the substantive content of adopted plans at various territorial scales of authority, from the neighborhood to the federal government but especially local plans, I argue for the ideational and institutional coexistence of multiple orders as Greater Seattle seeks to reshape the uneven geography of local metropolitan life into putatively more sustainable forms and functions in the coming years. Local public plans, whether comprehensive, sub-area, or sectoral, are key governance spaces through which diverse values and interests in visions of urban sustainability inevitably emerge. Accordingly, the discussion considers various multi-scalar policy efforts to reshape the location, connectivity, design, and procedures associated with the uneven growth dynamics across the Greater Seattle city-region.
Among practitioner-theorists, we do not see one paradigm substituted by another…. Planners … produc[e] new theories of planning at the same time they [return] to old ones.… [T]heory [is] everyday rather than aloof.
—Andrew Whittemore (2015, p. 82)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The city is explicit about its deployment of New Urbanism , noting for example, that Snoqualmie Ridge, which was developed on land annexed after 1990, “is a master-planned community centered on the values of “New Urbanism,” a design movement that began in the 1980s focused on creating walkable communities with a diverse range of land uses” and that accordingly includes: “Alley Loaded Lots with sidewalks set back from the street by a landscaping strip; Numerous hard and soft surface trails connecting all neighborhoods (sidewalks) and parks; Grid system of roads allowing for numerous internal connections between neighborhoods; Pedestrian focused neo-traditional main street with parking behind the retail storefronts; A zoning mix of commercial, retail and residential to create a work, live, play environment; Urban Forestry Program; “Green” Building Codes; and, finally, Livable, Workable, Walkable, Communities” (see:http://www.ci.snoqualmie.wa.us/ SustainableSnoqualmie/NewUrbanism.aspx).
- 2.
At the time of writing, for example, registration for the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) waitlist lottery in Seattle was “currently closed to new applicants,” with the Seattle Housing Authority noting that, “If your household registered for the lottery between March 23 and April 10, 2015, you should have received a letter from us in the mail by May 15, 2015, letting you know whether or not your household was selected at random to be placed on our new waitlist” (http://seattlehousing.org/housing/vouchers/).
- 3.
Upon introduction of the new program to Congress in 2010, a flavor of this problem is seen when the Chair of the House Committee for Financial Services remarked that, “I understand that when you provide housing for people, you also want to provide them with a decent living environment, a good education, public safety, recreational space, and transportation, but not out of a HUD budget that’s already too limited. We have a HUD budget that is constrained. I agree with the comprehensive approach. I disagree strongly with the notion that these other services ought to be funded out of HUD. For example, transportation. Yes, adequate transportation is important. It can also be expensive. We have a transportation trust fund, and I—as well as others on this committee—will have some serious concerns about the funding coming from the HUD budget for programs that ought to be funded out of other budgets. Now fortuitously, the Appropriations Subcommittee that’s relevant here has both HUD and the Department of Transportation under it, and I intend to work closely with our colleague there, who has been very cooperative with us, so that if we’re going to be talking about funding here, the funding has to come from more than one source. Obviously, there are some incidental overlaps that are unavoidable. But I don’t see, in anything the Administration has sent me, requests that the Departments of Transportation, Health and Human Services, or Education provide some of their funds for housing. It seems to be a one-way street here. I understand there’s a need for some cooperation, but I will be very, very skeptical of efforts to deplete HUD funding, which is already, in my judgment, inadequate, not because of the Administration’s fault, but because of budgetary realities for other purposes:” (op cit., p. 3, emphasis added).
References
Altshuler, A. (1965). The goals of comprehensive planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(2), 186–195.
Baum, H. (2009). Fantasies and realities in university-community partnerships. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20, 234–246.
Beauregard, R. (2005). The textures of property markets: Downtown housing and office conversions in New York city. Urban Studies, 42(13), 2431.
Berke, P. R., & Conroy, M. M. (2000). Are we planning for sustainable development? Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 21–33. doi:10.1080/01944360008976081.
Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustaianable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 296–312.
Cervero, R. (2000). Growing smart by linking transporation and urban development. Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 19, 357–491.
Cervero, R. (2003). Growing smart by linking transportation and land use: Perspectives from California. Built Environment (1978-), 29(1), 66–78.
Cervero, R., & Sullivan, C. (2011). Green TODs: Marrying transit-oriented development and green urbanism. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 18(3), 210–218. doi:10.1080/13504509.2011.570801.
Chapin, T. S. (2012). Introduction: From growth controls, to comprehensive planning, to smart growth: Planning’s emerging fourth wave. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(1), 5–15.
City of Seattle. (2011). Yesler terrace redevelopment legislation. Seattle. Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/UrbanForestryCommission/2011/2011docs/YeslerTerraceDPDLaClerguepresentation120711.pdf
City of Seattle. (2016). Memorandum:Response to council SLI 18-2-A-1 (DON programs and City Council districts). Seattle: Office of the Mayor.
City of Snoqualmie. (2011). Inerlocal agreement between the city of Snolqualmie and King County regarding the annexation of a portion of the Snoqualimie Mill Planning Area. Snoqualmie: City of Snoqualmie. Retrieved from http://www.ci.snoqualmie.wa.us/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=14524&PortalId=0&TabId=273
City of Snoqualmie. (2014). Snoqaulmie 2032. Snoqaulmie: City of Snoqualmie. Retrieved from http://www.ci.snoqualmie.wa.us/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=22431&PortalId=0&TabId=273
City of Tacoma. (2008). Climate action plan. Tacoma: City of Tacoma.
Coffman, L. (1969). Summary of comparative analysis of alternative transportation systems. Seattle: Municipality of Metropolitan, Seattle.
Cowell, R., & Owens, S. (2010). Revisiting … Governing space: planning reform and the politics of sustainability. Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 28(6), 952–957.
Cox, K. (2011). From the new urban politics to the new metropolitan politics. Urban Studies, 48(12), 2661–2671.
Dreier, P., Mollenkopf, J., & Swanstrom, T. (2001). Place matters: Metropolitics for the twenty-first century. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Elliot, L. (2012). Embrace applied ecology for real environmental change. Naturehood. Retrieved from http://naturehood.ca/blog/2012-10-Applied-Ecology.html
Fainstein, S. (2010). The just city. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Feoick, R. (Ed.). (2004). Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition, and cooperation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Ferbrache, F., & Knowles, R. (2016). Generating opportunities for city sustainability through investments in light rail systems: Introduction to the Special Section on light rail and urban sustainability. Journal of Transport Geography, 54, 369–372. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.06.004.
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Foster, J. (2008). The sustainability mirage. London: Earthscan.
Godschalk, D. R. (2004). Land use planning challenges: Coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development and livable communities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 5–13. doi:10.1080/01944360408976334.
Goetz, E. (2011). New deal ruins. Ithaca, NY: Cornell.
Handy, S. (2005). Smart growth and the transportation-land use connection: What does the research tell us? International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 146–167.
Jonas, A. (2015). Beyond the urban ‘sustainability fix’: Looking for new spaces and discourses of sustainability in the city. In D. Wilson (Ed.), The politics of the urban sustainability concept. Champaign, IL: Common Ground.
Jones, M. (1997). Spatial selectivity of the state: the regulationist enigma and local struggles over economic governance. Environment & Planning A, 29, 831–864.
Katz, B. (2000). The federal role in reducing sprawl. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 572, 66–77.
Keil, R., & Whitehead, M. (2012). Cities and the politics of sustainability. In K. Mossberger, S. Clarke, & J. John (Eds.), Oxford handbook of urban politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keller, J., Stevens, C., Laasko, J., & Tashiro, C. (2013). Ethnically diverse hope VI redevelopments: A community case study from the Pacific Northwest. Cityscapes, 15(2), 29–46.
King County. (2012). 2012 King County countywide planning policies. Seattle: King County.
Kleit, R. G., & Galvez, M. (2011). The location choices of public housing residents displaced by redevelopment: Market constraints, personal preferences, or social information? Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(4), 375–407. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.2011.00557.x.
Knaap, G., & Zhao, X. (2009). Smart growth and urbanization in China: Can an American tonic treat the growing pains of Asia. In Y. Song & C. Ding (Eds.), Smart urban growth for China. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute.
Krishnan, S. (2007, August 14). Living near work? Great idea, in theory. Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/living-near-work-great-idea-in-theory/
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Levinson, H. S., Allen, J. G., & Hoey, W. F. (2012). Light rail since World War II: Abandonments, survivals, and revivals. Journal of Urban Technology, 19(1), 65–79. doi:10.1080/10630732.2011.649911.
Lewis, P., & Neiman, M. (2009). Custodians of place: Governing the growth and development of cities. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Lindblom, M. (2007, April 4). Light rail construction is a tangle of trouble in the Rainier valley. Seattle Times, p. C1.
Local Government Commission. (2003). Overcoming obstacles to smart growth through code reform. Sacramento: Local Government Commission.
Lowe, K. (2014). Bypassing equity? Transit investment and regional transportation planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(1), 30–44. doi:10.1177/0739456x13519474.
McCann, B. (2011). Perspecives form the field: Complete streets and sustainability. Environmental Practice, 13, 63–64. doi:10.1017/S1466046610000591.
MRSC. (2015). Comprehensive planning/growth management. Retrieved from http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Planning/General-Planning-and-Growth-Management/Comprehensive-Planning-Growth-Management.aspx
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. (1990). Transportation 2000: Metro high capacity transit program rail planning study: Initial operating segment, candidate segments for evaluation. Seattle: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.
Neuman, M. (1998). Does planning need the plan? Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(2), 208–220. doi:10.1080/01944369808975976.
Office of Derek Kilmer. (2015, December 26). Tacoma Link Light Rail extension receives small starts grant, Washington.
Pagano, M., & Bowman, A. (2000). Vacant land in cities: An urban resource. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
Page, S. B. (2013). Theories of governance: Comparative perspectives on Seattle’s Light Rail Project. Policy Studies Journal, 41(4), 583–607. doi:10.1111/psj.12033.
Parnell, S., & Robinson, J. (2012). (Re)theorizing cities from the global south: looking beyond neoliberalism. Urban Geography, 33(4), 593–617.
Pendall, R., & Hendley, L. (2013). A brief look at the early implementation of Choice neighborhoods. Washington, DC: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Puget Sound Regional Council. (2009). VISION 2040 & the regional growth strategy. Seattle: Puget Sound Regional Growth Strategy.
Richards, K. (2015, July 29). The hidden reason behind Seattle’s skyrocketing housing costs. The Stranger. Retrieved from http://www.thestranger.com/news/feature/2015/07/29/22612207/the-hidden-reason-behind-seattles-skyrocketing-housing-costs
Ryan, B. (2011). Reading through a plan: A visual interpretation of what plans mean and how they innovate. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(4), 309–327. doi:10.1080/01944363.2011.616995.
Salsich, P. (2012, March/April). The choice neighborhoods initiative. Probate and Property, pp. 34–39.
Seattle Housing Authority. (2011). Yesler Terrace development plan. Seattle. Retrieved from https://seattlehousing.org/redevelopment/pdf/DevPlanFinal-web.pdf
Seattle Housing Authority. (2016). Renewing Yesler’s promise: The redevelopment of Yesler Terrace. Seattle. Retrieved from http://seattlehousing.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Final-8-page-brochure-revised-2-2.pdf
Sound Transit. (2013). Tacoma Link expansion: Alternatives analysis report and SEPA addendum. Seattle: Sound Transit.
Stiles, M. (2016, May 26). Yesler Terrace: Soon to be Seattle’s densest neighborhood. Puget Sound Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2016/05/06/yesler-terrace-soon-to-be-seattles-densest.html
Stone, C. (2015). Reflections on regime politics: From governing coalition to urban political order. Urban Affairs Review, 51(1), 101–137. doi:10.1177/1078087414558948.
Stone, C., & Whelan, R. (2009). Through the glass darkly: The once and future study of urban poltiics. In R. Dilworth (Ed.), The city in American political development. New York: Routledge.
Strickland, M. (2016, April 30). We’re fighting for the soul of our city and its future. Tacoma News Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/op-ed/article74682727.html
United States Congress House Committee on Financial Services. (2010). The administration’s proposal to revitalize severely distressed public and assisted housing: The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative : hearing before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, second session, March 17, 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. G.P.O.
Whittemore, A. H. (2015). Practitioners theorize, too: Reaffirming planning theory in a survey of practitioners’ theories. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(1), 76–85. doi:10.1177/0739456x14563144.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dierwechter, Y. (2017). Plans: Policy Geographies of Sustainable Growth. In: Urban Sustainability through Smart Growth. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54448-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54448-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54447-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54448-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)