Michael H. Horner
Urban Design and Planning 450
December 7, 2005

Abstract
The South Downtown Project is part of the Center City Seattle strategy which seeks to make neighborhoods such as Chinatown/International District livable, vibrant communities. The International District faces challenges including poverty and vacant buildings as well as displacement due to gentrification. This strategy proposes several policies to stimulate new commercial and residential development in these neighborhoods while respecting their character. One major policy is downtown zoning changes to allow for greater density. Incentives such as Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) would be used to encourage the development of affordable housing and the renovation of existing landmarks. Providing an incentive to build affordable housing is appropriate in a neighborhood with an economically vulnerable population such as the International District. To prevent displacement, it is important that these incentives be used to encourage the development of affordable housing in this neighborhood and not other areas of the city, however.
Likewise the incentive to renovate vacant buildings addresses a persistent problem, however, it is important that these renovations include a mixture of housing types.
Because the South Downtown Project is in its early stages, it is hard to evaluate it.
Community groups should monitor its progress closely to ensure they do not mandate changes which could displace residents or change its unique character.
Introduction
In 2003, the Seattle Times published a piece which envisioned the South
Downtown neighborhoods including Chinatown/International District, as vibrant centers of employment and housing. To achieve this vision Mayor Greg Nickels mandated the Seattle Department of Planning and Development to initiate the South
Downtown Project as part of his administration’s Center City Seattle strategy. While the International District historically has been an important business and cultural center, it also faces serious socio-economic challenges. In recent years, however, the neighborhood has experienced some of the greatest growth in income, housing costs and other economic indicators. This growth is expected to continue. It is estimated that by the year 2024, South Downtown will be home to 22,000 new homes and 50,000 jobs. To address these challenges and opportunities, the Center
City Seattle strategy ’s goal is to revitalize the neighborhoods which compose downtown and nine neighborhoods in the immediate vicinity of downtown, including

Chinatown/International District. Specifics of the plan include stimulating economic growth, improving transportation infrastructure and creating dense, but livable residential neighborhoods in the core of the city (Center City Seattle; December 5,
2005).
Given the International District’s current economic and physical conditions, these proposals certainly offer a chance to revitalize the neighborhood. The danger exists, however, that in revitalizing the neighborhood the traditional residents who give the community its character will be displaced. It is important for this community to keep abreast of these developments and to lobby for increased opportunities for affordable housing.
Background
The International District neighborhood first started in the 1880s as the home of immigrants from Asia, including Chinese, Japanese, Filipino and most recently
Vietnamese communities. The district developed a vibrant business economy, based on restaurants, residential hotels (UW College of Architecture and Urban
Planning) and even public bathhouses (sento) such as the one found at the intersection of South 6 th and Main and known as Hashidate-Yu (Dubrow, G. &
Graves. Businesses such as this developed as engines of the economy and important social institutions. World War II, however, wrought major changes to the neighborhood resulting in a several-decades long economic decline. Many businesses owned by Japanese-Americans were closed when they were interned and few returned after the war. Increased levels of economic and social mobility resulted in many Chinese-Americans moving away from the district. In addition, the historic single resident occupancy (SRO) hotels built mainly for single, male workers were not appropriate to family dwellings (UW College of Architecture and Urban
Planning; 12/5/05). In 1970 a fire swept through the Ozark Hotel killing 20 people.

The city reacted to this by enacting strict fire codes which required expensive improvements to the structures. Instead of making the investment, owners usually left them vacant instead (The Seattle Post-Intelligencer; 4/26/05). The result of these changes was the neighborhood becoming one of the most economically moribund areas of Seattle.
This economic decline began to partially reverse in the 1990s as part of a regionwide economic boom. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, during the 1990s, the
International District experienced one of the greatest increases in household income
(see figure 4). New condos and high-end apartment complexes in the International
District have attracted a new population of single people and couples without children earning much higher incomes than the elderly and low-income population which has traditionally lived in this neighborhood (Seattle Post-Intelligencer;
9/17/02). Examples of these new residential developments include the Uwajimaya grocery store and apartment complex. In addition to these new residential developments are a number of large office complexes, such as the Amazon.com building located on 4 th Avenue South. Another engine of economic revitalization in the International District is the development of the business district at 12 th Avenue and Jackson Street known as Little Saigon located in an area of formerly abandoned industrial buildings (UW College of Architecture and Urban Planning). This has stimulated the development of a large commercial and residential development called the Pacific Rim Center. In contrast to these new developments, however, are buildings which have been standing vacant and dilapidated for decades such as the
Kong Yick building.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census the International District still has some of the lowest economic indicators in the Seattle area. In Census Tract 91 (see figure 3),

which closely corresponds to the core areas of the neighborhood (see figure 2) but excludes some areas on the periphery, median household income was only $13,057 compared with $53,157 county-wide (see figure 5). The International District has a far high poverty rate than King County; 966 out of 1,949, or 49.56% of the population living in Census Tract 91 lives below the federal poverty line (see figure 6). In King
County the poverty rate is only 8.35 %. The International District is a community with a high elderly population. People over the age of 65 make up 24.69% of the area as opposed to 6.14% in the county. Over half of the households (54.15%) in the district are people living alone compared with only 30.55% in the county
(American FactFinder; December 2, 2005).
The housing stock in the International District reflects the economic situation in the neighborhood. In King County 4.22% of housing units stood vacant in the year
2000. In the International District, however, the vacancy rate was 6.88%. Despite this high vacancy rate, however, the cost of owning a home in this neighborhood is out of reach for almost all of the residents. Fifteen homes (57.69%) in the neighborhood were valued under $300,000. Countywide, 71.22% of homes cost less than $300,000 to purchase. The vast majority of housing units in the neighborhood are rentals. Rental units account for 97.22% of the housing stock in
Census Tract 91 as opposed to 40.15% in King County (see figure 7) (American
FactFinder; December 2, 2005). While King County is a relatively prosperous region, with many people being economically secure enough to own their own homes, many residents of the International District are vulnerable to displacement.
Goals of the Project
While the South Downtown Project is at an early phase, it has stated its goals as the following;

• Use land use policy instruments such as zoning to increase jobs and housing; and
• Retain neighborhood character and existing neighborhood plans; and
• Expand mixed-use residential and commercial land uses; and
• Plan for regional services such as light rail and ensure they serve the needs of the communities affected; and
• Ensure economic and environmental sustainability (Dept. of Planning and
Development; 12/5/2005).
Because the South Downtown Project is currently at a preliminary phase, few specific proposals have emerged. However, it is likely to be generally consistent with the Center City Seattle strategy.
The Department of Planning and Development continues to develop a strategy to meet these objectives (Center City Seattle; 12/5/2005). One major proposal that has already been made, however, are downtown zoning changes proposed by the Mayor on May 11, 2005. Specifics of the zoning changes include changes to the regulations for height limits, floor area ratio and building bulk.
Another change is the elimination of minimum parking capacity requirements for new commercial development. Downtown neighborhoods will be rezoned in some areas to reflect these changes. To encourage development which benefits the community through the creation of affordable housing, “high-performance” green buildings, or the refurbishment of landmark structures, a new Transfer of Development Right
(TDR) would be introduced. In addition to this incentive, land use reviews would be streamlined to allow for more density in exchange for benefits to the community in new development (Executive Summary; 5/11/05).
Evaluation of Proposals

Given the facts on the ground will this strategy improve economic conditions in the International District and create a more livable neighborhood? One of the main issues in the International District is the concentration of poverty. The rezoning proposal addresses this by creating incentives for building affordable housing through TDRs and streamlining permitting processes. Once possible downside to this proposal is that TDRs could encourage the creation of affordable housing in other areas further from the core of the city. This could disrupt the character of the neighborhood, disrupting the traditional population of the neighborhood.
Another major issue that this plan addresses is the preponderance of fully or partially vacant buildings in the International District. One of the main reasons for this high concentration of vacant and dilapidated buildings is the lack of economic incentive to renovate them. The SRO hotels originally lost their profitability after the city required their owners to renovate them. The cost of renovating these buildings has only risen as they have deteriorated over time. The Hip Sing Association, a social club which owns a partially vacant building in the International District, estimates it would cost $2.9 million to make the upper floors of their building livable.
Many older landowners do not have an incentive to make these properties profitable again because they do not think they will live to see the benefits. Another barrier to redevelopment in this area is the regulations which prevent demolishing many buildings in the historic district (The Seattle Post-Intelligencer; 4/26/05). The Center
City Seattle strategy overcomes this by offering TDRs as an incentive to renovate landmark buildings. It would also make redevelopment potentially more profitable by allowing higher densities in exchange for the renovation of landmarks (Executive
Summary; 5/11/05). It is important that these incentives be used as much to create mixed-income housing as to renovate landmark buildings, however.

Conclusion
While the South Downtown Project offers a way towards a more vibrant community in the International District, community groups should work closely with the City to ensure equitable development and the prot ection of the neighborhood’s unique character. Many of the specifics of this strategy for South Downtown have yet to be ironed out. It has the potential to create a revitalized, vibrant neighborhood with adequate housing and employment opportunities. The International District, however, could also become like Belltown and other neighborhoods in which many of the residents have been displaced. As Sue Taoka, the executive director of the
Seattle Chinatown International District Preservation and Development Authority, said in reference to plans to rehabilitate a number of buildings in the International
District "we just hope it's the right kind of development making a difference in the neighborhood" (The Seattle Post-Intelligencer; 4/26/05).
Works Cited
American FactFinder. Retrieved December 5, 2005, from the
World Wide Web: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet.

Center City Strategy Shaping Downtown: Proposed Changes to Downtown
Zoning Executive Summary. (2005). City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/stellent/groups/pan
/@pan/@plan/@proj/documents/Web_Informational/cos_004746.pdf.
Dubrow, G. and Graves, D. (2002). Sento at Sixth and Main. Seattle, WA:
Seattle Arts Commission.
Ho, V.. (2005) . “Old Chinatown attracts new money”. The Seattle Post-
Intelligencer, April 26, 2005: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/221639_chinatown26.html.
Office of the Mayor: Center City Seattle. Retrieved December 5, 2005, from the
World Wide Web: http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/issues/centercity/.
Phuong, C. L. and Parvaz, D. (2002) . “Census 2000: Seattle's rich areas get richer
”. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 17, 2002: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/87354_census17.shtml.
University of Washington College of Architecture and Urban Planning. Retrieved
December 5, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.caup.washington.edu/larch/chiba/projectsS.php.

Appendices
Figure 1.
Figure 2. The City of Seattle
Figure 3. U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 4. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Median Household Income
$60,000
$53,157
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
$13,057
International
District
King County
Figure 5. American FactFinder
Income

100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Under Above Under Above
Poverty Poverty
International
District
Poverty
Figure 6. American Fact Finder
Poverty
King County
Home Ownership
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Rented by
Occupant
Owned by
Occupant
International District
Rented by
Occupant
Owned by
Occupant
King County
Figure 7. American Fact Finder
Poverty
Rentals