(Photos courtesy of City of Seattle). Both photos, taken from the same location, illustrate the vast changes the shoreline and downtown area of Seattle have undergone between 1907 and 2002.
Home | The City of Seattle and Affordable Housing | Housing Development Consortium | HomeSight & Habitat for Humanity | Closing
BACKGROUND
Since the City of Seattle was founded in 1869 the population has rarely declined. According to the Seattle Times the population of Seattle was: 1,107 in 1870; 3,533 in 1880; 42,837 in 1890; and 80,671 in 1900. [1] For the years following 1900, the City has made available to the public a decennial chart showing the percentage increase or decrease of the population. The City’s chart reveals that between 1900 and 1910 the population increased 194 percent to a level of 237,194 residents. Contrariwise, 1960-1980 was a time of population decrease: in 1960 the population was 557,087 and by 1980 it was 493,846. However, since 1980 the population in Seattle has grown to 563,374--as of the year 2000. [2] While we recognize that many factors affect housing desirability and availability, two distinct phenomena occurred in Seattle during the period between 1980 and 2000 that hold great importance to the changes in the city’s housing market: the economy and the Growth Management Act.
The first phenomenon we focus on that affected housing prices in Seattle during the 1990s is economic. Fueled by the new economy, economic prosperity coupled with natural and media-driven desirability led to financial and population growth for the city. Indeed, the country’s economy began to reflect a great increase in prosperity. Microsoft®, the startup of myriad dotcoms, as well as the proliferation of other businesses increased the number of jobs requiring a higher level of skill and education within the Seattle area. Consequently, this period marked an increase in the number of college-degree-holding adults: in 1990 the percentage of adults over the age of 25 with a college degree in the city was 37.9 percent while in 2000 the percentage was fluctuating around 50. [3] The desire to construct and attract economic prosperity is well illustrated through the statement put forth by the Seattle’s Convention and Visitors Bureau:
The Convention and Visitors Bureau is a non-profit economic development agency responsible for competitively marketing the Seattle area as a destination for conventions, tour groups and individual travelers. The goal of these marketing efforts is to enhance the employment opportunities and economic prosperity of the region. Our members benefit from the Bureau's marketing programs by gaining direct access to the visitor market. [4]
More telling is the list of mostly media-driven accolades the Bureau has chosen to post:
2003- #2 fittest City in the U.S.- Men’s Fitness magazine, February issue.
2002- One of the Top-Ten “Best Places to live” in the U.S.- Money magazine, December issue (note: Cities were not ranked by order).
2002- 2002 Gold Service Award recognizing Seattle as one of the top convention & visitor bureaus in the world - Meetings & Conventions, November issue.
2002- Inner Circle Award, annual readers survey of best convention & visitor bureaus and convention centers – Association Meetings, August Issue.
2002- Among the top-ten arts destinations in the U.S. – American Style magazine, Summer issue.
2002- Ranked first atop list of “America’s Sweet Spots” in a survey of cities and towns across the U.S. which exemplify acts of volunteerism, heroism and sweetness – Hershey Foods Corporation, January 2002.
2001- #1 for bicycling in North America among cities with a population greater than 500,000 – Bicycling magazine, November 2001.
2001- Ranked among the top-five American arts destinations – American Style magazine, Summer 2001.
2001- Ranked among the Five Best Ski cities in the Continental U.S. and Canada – Ski magazine, January 2001.
2000- #8 Among favorite cities in the Continental U.S. and Canada, World’s Best Cities annual readers’ poll – Travel & Leisure, September 2000.
2000- #8 among the top cities in the Continental U.S. in the 2000 Readers’ Choice Awards for ambiance, people/friendliness, culture, entertainment and restaurants – condé Nast Traveler magazine, October 2000.
2000- #10 among America’s top arts destinations – American Style magazine, Summer 2000.
2000- #1 Family-Friendly City in the Northwest – Family Fun magazine, April 2000.
1999- #5 favorite among Continental U.S. and Canadian cities, World’s Best Cities annual readers’ poll – Travel & Leisure, September issue.
1999- #4 among the top U.S. Arts Destinations – American Style, Summer issue.
1999- #1 Best Place for Doing Business (Ranking of top U.S. metro areas) – Forbes magazine, May 31, 1999.
More Accolades – A Selection of Classic Rankings from Past Years:
Conde [sic] Nast Traveler 1996 – #6 Best U.S. Destination.
(Annual Reader’s Choice Poll): 1995 – #6 Best U.S. Destination.
1994 – #6 Best U.S. Destination.
1993 – #6 Best U.S. Destination.
1991 – #6 Best U.S. Destination.
1990 – #6 Best U.S. Destination.
1989 – #6 Best U.S. Destination.
1999- #3 among the Top-Ten Wired Cities in the U.S. – Yahoo! Internet Life survey.
1998- #1 American City in Which to Start a Business – POV magazine.
1998- #1 healthiest city for women – American Health for Women magazine.
1998- #8 among Ten Best Restaurant Cities in America (except New York) - Esquire magazine.
1997- #6 among North America’s Most Improved Cities – Fortune magazine.
1997- #6 favorite U.S. city – travel Agent magazine (readers’ Choice Poll, April issue).
1996- #1 Best City for Work and Family – Fortune magazine, November issue.
1996- #7 favorite U.S. city and 25th favorite city in the world – Travel & Leisure magazine (World’s Best Award).
1995- #1 Most Honest Place, Readers Digest magazine.
1992- #1 Best City for Business – Fortune magazine.
1990- Best North American city for Bicycling – Bicycling magazine.
1989- #1 Most Livable City in U.S. – Places Rated Almanac (Prentice Hall).
1989- #1 City to Live in America – Money magazine. (Seattle has finished in the top-ten several times over the years, including #2 in 1990 and in 1996 #2 Big City/#9 overall).
1989- #1 City of the Future – USA Today.
1986- #1 vacation destination – Vacation Places Rated (Rand McNally).
1986- Most Livable City – Partners for Livable Places.
1982-86 #1 Recreational City – Places Rated Almanac (Rand McNally).
1984, 1975- Most Livable City – National Conferences of Mayors. [5]
The Second phenomenon affecting the housing prices in Seattle was the Growth Management Act (GMA) put forth by the Washington State Legislature in 1990. As stated in RCW 36.70A.010 the legislature found:
[U]ncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals expressing the public’s interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state. It is in the public interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning. Further, the legislature finds that it is in the public interest that economic development programs be shared with communities experiencing insufficient economic growth. [6]
The GMA required counties and cities meeting the requirements of the Act to develop urban growth boundaries (UGB) and comprehensive plans within two years (1992). Seattle was indeed a city required to comply. The UGBs are designed to prevent sprawl by containing growth; however, in their effective effort to curtail sprawl they can also increase housing values by limiting the availability and space of and for housing.
The healthy economy coupled with the GMA definitely played a key role in designing some of the housing issues that a Seattle resident now faces when searching for a home to rent or purchase. The Seattle Office of Housing as well as the Human Services Department of Seattle currently have programs and literature geared towards assisting residents in their efforts to find an affordable and livable space.
As you navigate this site, bear in mind that in 2001:
-
Seattle was home to nearly half the low-income households in the county [King].
-
The city contained two-thirds of all the subsidized housing in the entire county.
-
In Seattle, just over half of all housing was renter-occupied. In the county, 62% of the stock were owner-occupied.[7]
NOTES
[2] (The City of Seattle, 2002)
[3] (United States Census Bureau, 2000)
[4] (Seattle's Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2004)
[5] (Seattle's Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2004)
[6] (The Washington State Legislature, 2004)
[7] (The City of Seattle, 2001)
REFERENCES
Kueter, V. (2001, November 13). Seattle through the years. Retrieved May 5, 2004, from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/seattle_history/articles/timeline.html
Seattle's Convention and Visitors Bureau. (2004). Home page. Retrieved April 25, 2004, from http://www.seeseattle.org/aboutUs/
The City of Seattle. (June 25, 2001). 2001-2004 Consolidated Plan: Housing. Retrieved April 25, 2004, from http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/humanservices/director/ConsolidatedPlan/HouseSupply1.htm
The City of Seattle. (October 30, 2002). Population & Demographics Homepage: Seattle's Official Census Site. Retrieved May 01, 2004, from http://www.cityofseattle.net/dclu/demographics/prior.asp#century
The Washington State Legislature. (2004). The Growth Management Act. Retrieved October 19, 2004, from http://search.leg.wa.gov/
United States Census bureau. (2000). U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved April 27, from http://www.census.gov/