Where I grew up in the rough-edged northern suburbs of Chicago—back in Paleolithic times—the streets were lined with fairly magnificent and tall American elm trees. Those trees added character and, of course, shade, to the streets and helped to cool off what I remember as ungodly hot summers. Dutch elm disease wiped out many of those fine old elms—and I also remember the municipal spray trucks billowing out clouds of DDT in an ultimately vain attempt to stem the spread of the beetles carrying the fungus that decimated them. That childhood spectator sport and the early exposure to an infamous chlorinated organic pesticide explain many things about my resultant adult personality, but that is another story for another day.
Seattle is blessed with an impressive cover of trees…they don’t call us the Emerald City for nothing, you know. But as we push to increase housing density in a region that never seems to stop growing, inevitably there will be conflict between development and preservation. Wallyhood reported on such a conflict earlier this year in the Tangletown/Green Lake area. In that case, unfortunately, the sequoia tree in question lost and was removed—along with 12 other large trees.
How the city of Seattle deals with these kinds of conflicts is incorporated into the comprehensive plan that is currently under review by the City Council. According to Tree Action Seattle, the current iteration of the Comp Plan allows 95% “hardscape” (buildings and pavement) in Wallingford (!) and other parts of the city. The comprehensive plan has been split into two bills. The first is vision-oriented, dictating how Seattle will grow (CB 120895). The second alters neighborhood residential zoning to implement the state’s middle housing requirements (CB 120993). Because CB 120993 will amend the tree code, there will be a new opportunity to close existing tree protection loopholes. Tree Action Seattle points out that this is something seven of nine (attention Star Trek fans!) Councilmembers promised to do when they passed the ordinance in 2023.
Wallyhood contacted Maritza Rivera’s office seeking comment on the tree-related provisions of the comp plan…twice…but did not hear back, much to our chagrin. She did, however, just send out this notice about the opportunity to comment on the plan and its components. YOU, the peeps, have an opportunity to make your opinions on the subject known on Monday, June 23rd, in person at 600 4th Avenue, at 3 pm, online at 9:30 am. One could be cynical about whether Councilmembers actually listen to anything that is said during these sessions, but if your faith in democracy remains intact after the relentless bulldozing of the component processes over the last few months, please take advantage of this opportunity to express yourself.
The full statement from Tree Action Seattle, with a few more details about the comp plan and the impact anticipated from its enactment, can be found here. A group called Seattle Residents for Thoughtful Growth has also created some point-counterpoint bullets related to the comp plan and housing concerns, shown below.
The Master Builders of King and Snohomish Counties, an association of local builders and construction industry professionals, speaks to the issue of trees and housing here.
Go forth, and comment!
Discover more from Wallyhood
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you for writing about this important topic. I just got back from a vacation in England, and I noticed in London that they are full of small pocket parks with lots of tree cover surrounded by multi- family housing built 125 years ago. They also created strips of tree covering in the middle of roads in islands. It was wonderful to see that they cared about green space for everyone, even folks that lived in tight vertical flats. I know we can do better.
London offers some great inspiration. The public right of way presents a huge opportunity to improve our tree canopy without stoking the conflict between trees and building more housing. Here is is an older piece from Sightline that makes this case with a lot of excellent data, and a more recent op-ed as well.
London has less tree canopy cover than Seattle. Please be for real.
The proposals all speak to more “HOMES”. If we need more density build high capacity. Build taller, and larger apartments in the available and obvious areas rather than cramped-together temporary-occupation town houses.
Study Berlin’s urban plan—an established green space of mature trees between and equal to the footprint of the adjacent apartment buildings.
Don’t disrupt solid neighborhoods and don’t spread the created toxic “waste” from usable craftsman-style homes into our air and our landfill.
I agree with the sentiment of this being an overall planning issue, not with individual trees and houses. There is no solution for neighborhoods like Wallingford though, where the lands are fractured with mostly single family houses owned by mostly people who have sufficient resources that likes the status quo.
I've been joking about tearing up the whole Wallingford and build only on 1/3 of the land with high density while restoring the rest to be forest. There is not even a path to do something like that in a small block. For a block of 20 single-family houses, in theory we can greatly increase both the number of trees and occupants by building a 50-family condo while turning half of the block into a park. With the increased density you can then justify more public transportation and naturally you are more likely to have a corner cafe/bar.
Right now what we get instead are just random houses turning into townhouses and only slightly increase density but also slightly reducing trees.
I agree with the sentiment of this being an overall planning issue, not with individual trees and houses. There is no solution for neighborhoods like Wallingford though, where the lands are fractured with mostly single family houses owned by mostly people who have sufficient resources that likes the status quo.
I've been joking about tearing up the whole Wallingford and build only on 1/3 of the land with high density while restoring the rest to be forest. There is not even a path to do something like that in a small block. For a block of 20 single-family houses, in theory we can greatly increase both the number of trees and occupants by building a 50-family condo while turning half of the block into a park. With the increased density you can then justify more public transportation and naturally you are more likely to have a corner cafe/bar.
Right now what we get instead are just random houses turning into townhouses and only slightly increase density but also slightly reducing trees.