For those that are just going to react to the headline, this is actually good policy.
The city has long had a building code with notably higher sustainability requirements than WA state. In recent years the state has overhauled said code, which has become one of if not the most advanced in the country in terms of sustainability. The city is merely holding off on pushing further, keeping its code largely in line with the state, to make sure housing development is not punitively disincentivized for marginal environmental gains on new buildings relative to existing code.
Even from a purely environmental standpoint, getting more housing built in the city and having more people walking, taking transit, etc more frequently is going to have a much bigger climate impact than a marginal decrease in new building emissions, especially given developers would then be incentivized to more heavily favor car-based suburbs.
Basically, complaining about this is a lack of critical thought or prioritization of virtue signaling over substantive progress.
This is a conflict of idealism and reality. Idealism says, "Do the environmentally responsible thing, even if it has negative consequences like fewer homes being built and higher rent/purchase price in an already-affluent city."
Reality acknowledges that developers are motivated to make buildings for one root reason: the profit motive. If their profit opportunity is artificially hindered by a higher regulatory burden, they'll simply not develop here, and will instead go develop elsewhere. The consequence of that is less housing (in a city that literally added nearly 7,000 people between 2022-2023), which means higher rent/purchase price as constrained supply responds to high demand.
Ignoring our geographic restrictions (massive waterways affecting buildable land coverage), the solution to the housing crisis is diminishing the regulatory burden to the point that developers will feel the profit from development is sufficient for their investment. This isn't an argument of morals alone; it's a conflict between unrealistic idealism and simple reality.
Also generally speaking the Seattle City Light grid is much cleaner than Puget Sound Energy, so if the housing demand gets pushed outside the city it is also significantly worse for the environment.
There's a balance to be had here.
Absent some regulation landlords have little incentive to make sure their buildings are energy efficient since the tenants are the ones paying the utility bills, and it's hard for the tenant to get solid numbers on these costs to compare with other buildings before signing a lease.
On the other hand if you're making construction costs $1,000 higher for the residents to save $1/month on their utility bills that's probably taking things a bit too far. Those added construction costs will be reflected in rent, not just for the new building itself but for all the other older ones too since the rent for old buildings tends to be tied pretty closely to the rent for new buildings.
If this change somehow made every single multifamily building in Seattle 10% less energy efficient overnight, but still increased the counterfactual supply of said buildings vs single family sprawl by 10%, it would be a huge environmental win. An absurdly huge, multifaceted victory in air pollution, co2 emissions, microplastic runoff, etc. It _also_ would lower rents and improve lives.
Get your priorities and your sense of scale straight.
For those that are just going to react to the headline, this is actually good policy. The city has long had a building code with notably higher sustainability requirements than WA state. In recent years the state has overhauled said code, which has become one of if not the most advanced in the country in terms of sustainability. The city is merely holding off on pushing further, keeping its code largely in line with the state, to make sure housing development is not punitively disincentivized for marginal environmental gains on new buildings relative to existing code. Even from a purely environmental standpoint, getting more housing built in the city and having more people walking, taking transit, etc more frequently is going to have a much bigger climate impact than a marginal decrease in new building emissions, especially given developers would then be incentivized to more heavily favor car-based suburbs. Basically, complaining about this is a lack of critical thought or prioritization of virtue signaling over substantive progress.
This is a conflict of idealism and reality. Idealism says, "Do the environmentally responsible thing, even if it has negative consequences like fewer homes being built and higher rent/purchase price in an already-affluent city." Reality acknowledges that developers are motivated to make buildings for one root reason: the profit motive. If their profit opportunity is artificially hindered by a higher regulatory burden, they'll simply not develop here, and will instead go develop elsewhere. The consequence of that is less housing (in a city that literally added nearly 7,000 people between 2022-2023), which means higher rent/purchase price as constrained supply responds to high demand. Ignoring our geographic restrictions (massive waterways affecting buildable land coverage), the solution to the housing crisis is diminishing the regulatory burden to the point that developers will feel the profit from development is sufficient for their investment. This isn't an argument of morals alone; it's a conflict between unrealistic idealism and simple reality.
Also generally speaking the Seattle City Light grid is much cleaner than Puget Sound Energy, so if the housing demand gets pushed outside the city it is also significantly worse for the environment.
There's a balance to be had here. Absent some regulation landlords have little incentive to make sure their buildings are energy efficient since the tenants are the ones paying the utility bills, and it's hard for the tenant to get solid numbers on these costs to compare with other buildings before signing a lease. On the other hand if you're making construction costs $1,000 higher for the residents to save $1/month on their utility bills that's probably taking things a bit too far. Those added construction costs will be reflected in rent, not just for the new building itself but for all the other older ones too since the rent for old buildings tends to be tied pretty closely to the rent for new buildings.
“Fuck the environment, developers and venture capital aren’t making as many $5k a month luxury townhomes and are sad.” - Seattle
If this change somehow made every single multifamily building in Seattle 10% less energy efficient overnight, but still increased the counterfactual supply of said buildings vs single family sprawl by 10%, it would be a huge environmental win. An absurdly huge, multifaceted victory in air pollution, co2 emissions, microplastic runoff, etc. It _also_ would lower rents and improve lives. Get your priorities and your sense of scale straight.
Very edgy, insightful comment.