Salmo,
For all the planning Seattle has, where is the affordable housing within the city core? I have had planners tell me that economics has nothing to do with planning, eventually the costs will justify the outcome they want.
For all their planning, what happens is usually the exact opposite of what they want. They dictate 6 houses per acre, then ask for community parks, sidewalks, 60 foot roadways, and then can't figure out why the lots are only 3500 sq ft or how to get adequate storm water reabsortion. So then they dictate bigger storm water ponds, resulting in smaller lots. Since the lots are smaller, they dictate on site drainage for all the homes and driveways. When they are done, we have a 3500 to 4000 sq ft lot with $60,000 in development costs, but raw building sites outside the growth area selling for the same price for an acre to 5 acres. What they do is drive anyone who wants a parcel of land to build a decent size house outside the growth management area, creating even more sprawl. Then, when every inch of land outside the GMA is developed people are forced into the GMA and they declare it a success. Since the GMA was passed in Pierce County, I feel they pushed the development of Non-GMA land up 20 years. People who would have been happy on a 10,000 to 12000 sq ft lot were forced to buy up existing acreage, usually at one acre to 20 acre lots. The recent down turn has given some retrieve, but eventually people will be forced inward simply because they have allowed almost 100% development of the land outside the GMA. A slanted market approach with simpler requirements would have stated no land subdivision outside the GMA until all utilities are present and lots of no more than 20,000 sq ft. Development would have followed more natural paths, with expensive areas justifying larger lots, and lower income areas smaller lots and areas with high development costs or natural constraints generally being skipped over.