Missing Tall Housing
The expanded allowance of “plex” size middle housing — duplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, etc— is spreading through North American cities, especially in northwest states Washington and Oregon. More middle housing is an important step towards dealing with rising housing costs and lack of housing options. Still, for the most in-demand cities and regions, like Seattle and the Puget Sound Region, “plex” size middle housing won’t be enough.
Building on the usage of the “missing” in missing middle housing, North American cities are missing quite a few housing types. There is middle housing, which includes lowrise multiplexes and three- to four-story small apartment buildings. You may have already started hearing the term “missing midrise,” which describes small lot midrise apartment buildings that range from five to eight stories. In contrast to the typical 5-over-1 (type 5 construction over type 1 construction) midrise buildings, the “missing midrise” buildings will likely come in the form of point access block/single-stair buildings. Then there is Alfred Twu’s “missing large housing,” which describes various missing housing types, including some already mentioned.
However, I don’t see enough arguments for more high-rise or taller residential buildings. Such residential housing types will be necessary for dense living in North American cities that support households in all life stages and provide the spacious units people tend to expect. The highest demand North American cities have a “Missing Tall Housing” problem where such cities lack a healthy supply of residential buildings 10–24 stories tall. It’s time to figure out the land use changes needed and the ways to build such housing in large, growing cities like Seattle.
Defining tall or high-rise housing
The International Code Council (ICC), which writes the template for the International Building Code (IBC) used by most North American cities, defines a high-rise building as a building taller than 75 feet. Using Seattle as an example, such a definition creates some murkiness. Seattle has a midrise residential zone that allows maximum heights of 80 feet. Additionally, developers are building eight-story 5-over-1 buildings in Seattle, which is a typical construction form for midrise buildings.
On the other end of the spectrum, very tall high-rise buildings, or skyscrapers, are generally defined as buildings of forty or more stories and taller than 150 meters (490 feet). A range from eight to forty-plus stories can make such a topic hard to discuss. Then you have organizations like Energy Star, which classifies buildings with ten or more stories as high-rise buildings, and housing providers who typically build 12+ story high-rises.
Considering all these potential definitions and the heights of both recent and older high-rises built in Seattle, I’m defining Missing Tall Housing as being concerned with high-rise buildings between 10 and 24 stories tall. Specifically, I’m interested in seeing more tall housing not just in downtown centers but in other parts of the city.
Locations
Downtown:
Like many American city downtowns, Downtown Seattle will have to continue building housing downtown to address housing affordability and downtown vibrancy. Generally, there is nothing all that special about tall housing in downtowns. However, specifically, American city downtowns will need to add family-sized or family-friendly tall housing to the housing stock. Family-sized multifamily housing has been a gap in housing choice for several decades in America, and without adding family-sized tall housing, American city downtowns will continue to struggle to rebound to pre-pandemic office use levels like peer cities worldwide have.
High-capacity transit & urban centers:
In Seattle, just about every light rail station should have zoning and development regulations that allow tall housing to surround or be in some proximity to the transit station. Too many parcels near Seattle light rail stations have maximum heights of 55 to 95 feet.
Similarly, Seattle has land use designations currently called Urban Centers and Urban Villages. Urban centers and villages are areas of the city designated for higher density and a mix of land uses. These should be prime areas where taller housing can be built, but there are too many parcels not zoned for maximum heights between 125 feet and 250 feet.
Near other desirable public amenities:
A lot of people will co-sign for more tall housing near transit, but there are other desirable amenities people look for when deciding where they want to live in a city. Parks, water access, connected bike routes, schools, and views are all additional public amenities that should have pockets of tall housing nearby. The lack of density near many of these amenities leads to a lack of neighborhood choice for households, which makes our city less equitable than it otherwise could be.
The eastern side of Greenlake has access to the park and water; bike lanes that connect to the zoo, U-District, and Roosevelt station; and two to three schools in the area. There is pent-up demand for sprinkling in tall, thin high-rises with views of Greenlake. Queen Anne’s has some of the city’s best views, Eastlake and Southlake have access to water, and Seward Park will one day have Lake Washington Blvd fully open to people, not cars (speaking this into existence). All of these parts of Seattle and more can handle Missing Tall Housing. Now, it’s time to figure out how to create the environment for it to happen.
