GENTRIFICATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN SEATTLE, 1990-2000

1
GENTRIFICATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN SEATTLE,
1990-2000
Richard Morrill Geography University of
Washington January, 2003
2
GENTRIFICATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN
SEATTLE, 1990-2000

• Richard Morrill
• Geography, University of Washington
• Introduction
• My purpose is to use a set of maps of
  demographic change to depict gentrification and
  displacement within the city of Seattle, 1990-2000

• Background
• The city experienced moderate population and job
  growth. Expansion of the information and
  technology sectors fueled city growth.
• Seattle changed from a relatively egalitarian
  city in 1970 to one of startling income
  inequality.

3

• Higher returns to education were critical in
  encouraging gentrification that is, rising
  income, reinvestment in better housing, and
  displacement.
• Growth Management constrained growth on the
  fringe, enabling the city of Seattle to intensify
  and densify both jobs and housing.

• Scope
• Even though much of the displacement of the
  poor was to southern suburbs in King county, only
  the city of Seattle will be studied.
• Seattle is one jurisdiction and fully built,
  so the effect of redevelopment can be easily seen.

4

• Data include both 100 population data and sample
  data, including occupation, income and poverty.
  Most maps will be of 1990-2000 change.
• Seattle versus the suburbs
• For perspective here is a little information
  on how gentrification in Seattle has displaced
  the less successful to the suburbs.

• Change in minority share
• Seattle Suburban King 5.3 12.1
• Change in share 25-64
• 5.8 -.1
• Change in med house value
• 88 66
• Change in husb-wife families
• -1.9 -5.7
• Change in college grad share
• 9.3 5.0
• Change in prof. occup share
• 11.6 7.7
• Change in share of poor
• -.6 1.2

5

• What these differences tell us about
  gentrification and displacement.
• Greater increase in share of minorities in the
  suburbs
• Greater increase in share of workers 25-64 in the
  city
• Greater decline of husband-wife families in the
  suburbs

• Greater increase of median house value and rents
  in the city
• Astoundingly high shares of college educated
  (47) and of professional occupations (48) in
  the city.
• Reduced share of the poor in the city, increased
  in the suburbs.

6

• Population Change
• Almost all the growth in the city occurred in
  high density apartments and condominiums, mostly
  in and around downtown, where the population more
  than doubled.

7
Race and ethnicity Race is part of the
gentrification story. In the far north and far
south of the city, the share of whites fell
moderately, and were replaced by Asians, but in
the area of displacement east of downtown, white
numbers grew dramatically.
8

• The map of minority change is the obverse, and
  nicely depicts decline east of downtown and
  growth in the far north and south of the city.

9
Change in the Black population is a major
component of gentrification. The large area of
decline east and southeast of downtown is the
core of the historic Black community. Aggressive
white reentry and reinvestment displaced several
thousand Black persons. Even public housing
projects are affected, as they are rebuilt with a
share of market homes.
10

• AGE
• Seattle is unusually attractive to young adults
  and fairly unattractive to families with
  children.
• Numbers of children under 10 are declining over
  most of the city, from already extremely low
  levels and even affects minority areas, where
  many families have been displaced to the south.

11
Change in young adults, 25-34, is totally
different, and very high, despite already high
numbers. They are the main constituent of growth
downtown, on Capitol Hill, on Queen Anne and in
areas west of the University of Washington. Many
work in the engineering, information and
technology firms expanding in the area.
12

• Persons 45-64, the aging babyboomers, increased
  in numbers in downtowns condominiums, but more in
  the ring of family housing surrounding the core,
  and contributing to gentrification in the Ballard
  and Greenlake areas west of the university, and
  in the southeastern Seattle minority area.

13
The older population, over 65, declined in much
of the city, often displaced by the more
aggressive gentrifying 25-34 year old group
14

• Types of Households
• Seattle is not a family city, and shares and
  numbers fell in much of the city. Small gains did
  occur in areas of Asian immigration in the far
  south, and in the downtown core, over 90 in the
  form of husband-wife couples without children,
  both young and empty-nesters.

15

• Seattle has a very high share of singles over
  40 percent of all households. But many singles
  seem to have been outbid for housing downtown by
  double-income households, but they did contribute
  to gentrification and displacement east of
  downtown and west of the university.

16
Non-family households with 2 or more persons,
which in Seattle are about 2/3 opposite sex and
1/3 same sex grew very rapidly over most of the
city, but especially in and around downtown, in
the Fremont, Ballard and Greenlake areas, where
they often displaced aging families. These are
the dominant agents of gentrification.
17

• Housing
• Although most housing expansion in Seattle has
  been in the form of apartments, ownership shares
  increased slightly because of condominium
  construction and conversion. The map of ownership
  change highlights its role in the reinvestment
  and gentrification of the core.

18

• High proportions of single family housing
  dominate the periphery of the historic city of
  Seattle, before 1955. Large scale replacement by
  apartments has reduced their numbers and led to
  price inflation, as they are attractive to both
  family and non-family professionals.

19
The areas dominated by small apartment structures
(under 10 units) very much corresponds with the
areas of gentrification. However, in downtown
Seattle, new housing was mainly in the form of
large, high-rise apartment structures.
20
Change in housing values may be the single best
indicator of gentrification, especially areas
with over a 100 appreciation. This map is quite
different from one of the current values, as
change in most affluent areas was modest. Four
areas of gentrification include Capitol Hill
(east of downtown), Beacon Hill-Rainier Valley to
the SE
21

• The northern part of West Seattle (closest to
  downtown) and the Fremont-Greenlake area west of
  the university, areas with many high-tech jobs
• Change in median rents show a more concentrated
  downtown pattern of highest rent change, often
  from new construction of much higher quality.

22
Education Change in shares with college degrees
is another good indicator of gentrification.
Higher shares prevail in most areas of
gentrification, far to the west of the UW, and in
West Seattle and the southeast from low to
moderate levels, and in Greenlake and Queen Anne
from already high levels.
23
Occupation Areas with the greatest increase in
shares of professional occupations almost
perfectly correspond with areas of
gentrification downtown, on Capitol Hill,
southeast along Lake Washington, in West Seattle,
and in Fremont and Greenlake.
24

• Income, poverty and inequality.
• Change in Median household Income
• No surprise here! Areas of greater gain in income
  are the gentrifying areas in and around downtown,
  west of the UW and southeast along Lake
  Washington, while already affluent, less
  professional parts of the city had little change.

25
Change in the percent poor is a good indicator of
the displacement effect of gentrification,
evident mainly downtown and in areas of minority
displacement to the east and southeast. Poverty
rates increased in areas of recent Asian
immigration in the far north and far south of the
city.
26

• Income inequality, a measure of the gap between
  mean and median household incomes, increased
  markedly in Seattle from 1980 to 2000. It is not
  surprisingly high in areas with a high share of
  professionals, in and around downtown and the
  university, and far lower in both less and more
  affluent mainly residential parts of the city. It
  is high is in areas of partial displacement of
  Blacks southeast of downtown.

27
Migration The geographic pattern of
migrants, those from beyond King county is highly
concentrated, and a telling indicator of WHO is
doing the gentrifying not locals, but young
people from other counties, states and countries,
attending the university and filling hi-tech and
professional jobs in the gentrifying areas.
28

• Change in the percent foreign born has a very
  different geography. There is a downtown-Capitol
  Hill and Queen Anne cluster, more professional,
  but more dominant are areas of recent immigration
  of Asian (and Hispanic) families to the far north
  and especially the far south of the city.

29
Place of work The maps of change in Seattle
persons working in the city or in the suburbs
reveals an intriguing division higher shares
staying in the city occur in gentrifying areas
west of the university, as the workforce shifts
toward the professions.
30
But on prestigious Capitol Hill and high tech
areas around Lake Union, higher numbers like to
live in the urbane core, while working in the
suburbs (Microsoft, et al), leading to a broad
equivalence in the rush hour east and westbound
commutes.
31

• The final map shows persons using public transit
  yes the highest shares are indeed in the core
  gentrifying areas, as well as in less affluent
  minority areas (often core service workers who
  cant afford to live there).

32

• Summary and conclusion
• Gentrification is real
• Population, income, housing, jobs, education
  and race
• Agents of gentrification
• Geography of gentrification
• Reinvestment and displacement

• Why did this occur?
• High tech information economy
• Natural environment and recreation
• Social environment and tolerance
• Revitalization of downtown
• The Planning context
• Growth Management
• The New urbanist ideal
• Market and planning in sync

33
References

• Bourne, L (1993) The demise of gentrification.
  Urban Geography, 14, 95-107
• Hodge, D (1979) The Seattle Displacement Study.
  Seattle. Office of Planning
• Hodge, D (1981) Residential revitalization in a
  growth region, Geographical Review, 71, 188-200
• Hodge, D and Lee, B (1981) Spatial differences in
  displacement rates in US cities, Urban Studies,
  21, 219-231
• Ley, D (1996) The new middle class and the
  remaking of the central city. Oxford University
  Press.
• Smith, N (1992) Gentrification and uneven
  development. Economic Geography, 58, 139-155
• Smith, N (1996) The new urban frontier
  gentrification and the revanchist city. New
  York Routledge