Critics of plans for taller buildings in Seattle's South Lake Union area have it exactly backward.
If anything, the city should encourage more building in the area, creating demand for transit rather than encouraging sprawl. Instead critics want to soak the developer to pay more into a fund to create "affordable" housing.
Now, zoning in the area requires special permission to build even 12 stories. Why not require that buildings be at least that tall? Set design review standards, sure. But let's build the workplaces for thousands of employees and new residents.
What's wrong with a supposedly sweetheart deal between developers and the mayor, as long as the city gains? Among the benefits: More housing supply in the city should lower overall prices and make transportation options feasible.
Of course the city should negotiate to get the best terms in this area, but better those rules be streamlined and transparent to encourage more, better building instead of hinder it. Unfortunately the potential benefits are totally lost in today's story and the reader comments.