Social Mobility
CORE VALUE OF THE [RE]VISION
A central goal of this project is to ease U-District members’ ability to adjust their social standing, generally referred to as social mobility. In pursuit of enhancing the neighborhood, an understanding of the neighborhood’s history along with an analysis of the factors that hinder social mobility will help guide suggested community interventions. Notably, the neighborhood continues to be a place where students pursue higher education, where small business owners can prosper, and where artistic expression is celebrated and explored. For these reasons, the community maintains a historic culture of self-enhancement. Nevertheless, the neighborhood’s historic role of providing residents the ability to increase their social standing is deteriorating, largely due to rising property values. This increase comes from the expectation that the neighborhood will experience significant growth, threatening to alter the character of the U-District. However, through informed intervention, there is hope that this increase in investment could also be utilized to uplift the community.
HOUSING DEFICIT
Specifically, rising housing costs within the U-District reduce the neighborhood’s ability to provide housing to its population of students and those involved with the University. Eighteen percent of University of Washington students live in university-owned housing, the lowest of all Pac-12 Universities. This situation creates significant pressure on the local private housing sector to absorb these students (Seattle Times, 2014).
While the U-District provides students with convenient access to the University, increasing housing costs amplify the fear that the University is becoming a commuter campus. Another fear accompanying increased housing costs is that the School may have difficulty recruiting talent because prospective employees and students would be unable or unwilling to pay for increased housing costs. Moreover, while Seattle’s office of housing notes the U-District’s relatively high vulnerability to displacement, there has been little city intervention to construct new housing. The Seattle Office of Housing has allocated $114.3 million for the development of rental housing and $2.3 million for the development of for-sale properties. Still none of that investment has occurred within the U-District(Seattle Office of Housing, 2021)
To increase housing stock and increase affordability, we propose the construction of two residential properties; one is market rate while the other is subsidized rental housing. Our parcel-specific feasibility studies gauge the viability of reimagining certain properties. These new residential developments would increase housing stock in the neighborhood and help to ease the housing crisis currently experienced in Puget Sound. We must understand the impact of our proposed uses in the context of broader housing policy that determines a neighborhood’s level of social mobility. Market rate housing alone will not solve the housing affordability challenge. Along with our proposed market-rate housing development, we suggest that development of the Sound Transit Property, located at 45th and Roosevelt, be constructed by a non-profit housing developer. Currently, this space is host to “tiny houses,” which provide critical short-term housing for neighbors in need. However, we believe it is critical to construct long-term housing solutions on properties such as this site.
AMENITIES
Along with our advocacy to increase housing stock, we considered providing needed amenities to the neighborhood population. We propose the inclusion of a childcare facility as a tenant in one of our examined parcels to address the rising cost of childcare in King County(Hiruko and Kunkler 2019). Ideally, by supporting additional residential developments and other demanded community amenities, the residents’ ability to thrive will increase.
ECONOMIC VIATALITY
Lastly, our analysis intends to stimulate economic activity throughout the U-District, expecting to benefit a diversity of stakeholders essential to the neighborhood. First, we seek to re-imagine economically underperforming sites and buildings into spaces that support economically advantageous uses. Second, by incorporating place-making elements, we hope to nurture increased human activity throughout the neighborhood, improving economic vitality due to the expected increase in retail sales.
By incorporating these examined interventions, we aim to increase economic vitality while providing fundamental and necessary amenities that encourage social mobility. While developers often incite change, there is often animosity between these developers and elements that preserve community character. Logically, if investment is guided by an understanding and desire to benefit the community, the relationship between the community and investors will be mutually beneficial. Due to this understanding, we advocate that investment be done with consideration for the needs of the community.