The Alliance for Affordable Housing recently presented a draft of their findings to the Edmonds Planning Board. The report is titled: Housing Profile: City of Edmonds and is available on the city website here. This report, when it’s final, will become a basis for making long-range decisions about land use and zoning in the city. For those wishing to get a heads up about what could happen in the next 20 years, this report is a good place to start. It begins with some data that you may or may not find surprising, but facts that we should keep in mind when considering future population growth in Edmonds. What’s your housing vision for Edmonds?
Where are we now?
For starters, the population of Edmonds in 2013 was “estimated at 39,950, only slightly higher than its 2000 population of 39,544.” (pg. 13) Do some quick math and you’ll discover that Edmonds only added about 30 new residents/year over the last 13 years. I don’t know what your view of growth would be, but I think we could safely say that population increase has been at a stand still for the last 10 years. Certainly there are many factors that contributed to that level of stasis, including the great recession, which drastically reduced the number of new houses being built in Edmonds.
Let’s look at another piece of data, but let me pose it as a question. Of the total number of residential units in Edmonds (17,396, according to Snohomish county records), what percentage of those homes have children in them? Here are the choices: a.50% b.35% c.25% or d.15%. Lock in your answers now. The winner is “c” or about 1 in 4 houses have children in them. The implication being that the vast majority of housing caters not to younger families with children, but mature families that are past child-raising years. I suspect, but haven’t researched this assertion, that this household reality has flip-flopped from the way Edmonds was in 1950s and ’60s. Can anyone comment on this to provide some insight?
One more interesting piece of data I’d like to consider before making some summary observations, is that 36 percent of Edmonds residential housing is multi-family housing. That would include apartments, condos, duplexes, etc. This percentage is higher than the Snohomish County as a whole, which contains about 30 percent of residential units as multi-family.
What does the future hold?
So, what are the projections for population growth for the next 20 years in Edmonds? You may have seen the flyer published by Sound Transit citing anticipated population growth for our area at about 1 million people over the next 25 years. This is based on projections developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council. A significant amount of that growth will be coming to Snohomish County, especially Everett. But what about Edmonds?
The estimated population growth for Edmonds is around 5,800 new residents by 2035. It would require the addition of some 2,790 new residential units somewhere in our city over the next 20 years. Which assumes about 2 residents per household, which is about our average occupancy of 2.3 residents per household. So, in round figures Edmonds needs to add about 125 new residences per year over the next 20 years. We could also estimate that about one-third of those will be multi-family structures if the current ratios hold. Or, it’s also possible that Edmonds will increase the ratio and develop even more multi-family housing. What would Edmonds be like with 40 percent or even 50 percent of its population residing in multi-family structures? I don’t have an opinion, but it’s interesting to think about.
What are some possible scenarios for us to consider in Edmonds?
Let me summarize what this means for those of us who currently live in Edmonds. On the bright side, homeowners can anticipate continued appreciation of their housing asset. On the other side, renters will likely find it more costly to secure housing in our region. In a future article, I’ll pull out the data about affordable housing to give you a look of some options in that category. Here are some conclusions:
First, growth will pick up again in the Puget Sound basin as it did in the 1990s, but less of that population growth will land in Edmonds. The Growth Management Act requires that Edmonds accommodate a certain amount of growth, but realizes that much of our available space is taken.
Second, it’s likely that we will see an increase in visitors seeking entertainment, shopping and recreation. As we add regional sports facilities and waterfront recreation, we can expect more people making the trip to downtown Edmonds. More people will come simply because there will be more people in the region. This benefits local merchants as well as the possibility of new kinds of local entertainment, like live music. Even if our population doesn’t increase here, the surrounding cities will grow and create more visits to Edmonds.
Finally, all of us can expect to see more traffic on the arterials. Transportations systems will be stretched, especially on major corridors, but less so in the established neighborhoods. If your street is already built out, then you will probably see little change in and around your house. However, as congestion picks up on arterials, the tendency to find alternate routes through neighborhoods increases. For this reason, transportation infrastructure is important to all of us, even if improvements happen on the other side of Edmonds. Likewise, we will need to give more attention to pedestrian safety by completing our walkway systems and creating safe routes for bikes.
Now is the time to plan…
If any of these issues are interesting to you, stay tuned. A city-wide transportation update is already underway. Highway 104 is being studied in connection with the Westgate plan. Neighborhood business zones are being studied for development along with multi-use structures along Highway 99.
Where can you find the latest information about what’s being considered? Check out the Planning Board agendas available on the city website. They will have complete documentation of what will come before the Board and eventually the City Council. Remember, not every projection will come to pass, but our current data is the best we have to date. Preparing for growth by design is better than just letting it happen haphazardly.
Where do you think Edmonds has room to expand? What ideas do you have for preserving our livability? How do you think it will effect your children or friends who want to move to your city?
The link to the Alliance for Affordable Housing information is here.
— By Neil Tibbott and Stefan Carlson
Neil Tibbott is the vice-chair for the Edmonds Planning Board but is writing this article independent of the board to alert citizens to an important discussion happening related to development of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The views expressed do not represent the official position of the Planning Board. Stefan Carlson contributed as research assistant and editor.
Excellent article. Cities across the country are having to challenge themselves in becoming more “relevant” or risk severe financial crisis.
Thanks for sharing.
An important part of this discussion is how will today’s Boomers handle aging-in place; in the many ramblers/split-level homes built in an earlier time. What type of housing does Edmonds need to build for this large segment of the population? We may not need more single family homes, but a type of housing that supports an aging population, with young families filling the older homes. As important as it is to ‘hit our target’ for number of homes, it’s more important to be thoughtful in planning and building with this issue in mind.
Great observation Jim. Housing compatible with a Senior’s lifestyle is an important part of this discussion. I suspect you’re right. There will be a housing transition where people will be looking for accessibility and affordability.
Seattle right now is a good example of what happens when one industry has a monopoly on all things housing and calls all the shots all the way to the top of our state. A mish mash of developers gone wild, no AFFORDABLE housing, lots of cheaply built structures, neighborhoods that used to have character lost with many classic architecture torn down and lost forever…….and supposedly this was all “planned”….. let ‘s make sure we get it right in Edmonds and have widespread public support and what the citizens want and not just what the industry that profits from tear downs want. There is quite a bit of bad architecture that has been thrown up in Edmonds in the part 30 years just for profit……let.’s make sure we get it right…..and by the way., there will always be a market for classic architecture…….post modern from those good old’s 50s is a stunning example
We have a real need for real affordable housing in our town…..people that cant afford Seattle are already looking here……let ‘s not make the Nichols “million more people coming to town” mistake like Seattle…..or our town will be lost….just for quick profit
Tere has missed the point of what is happing in Seattle. It is not industry driven, it is Growth Management Act driven. The concept is to locate population close to where they work so they take public transportation, walk or bike to work. Originally, it was thought that all of the cities would take most of the mandated growth. The reality is that many of the suburban cities have ducked their responsibility under GMA. For instance, Edmonds mandates that 12,000SF lots equate to 4 dwelling units (DU) per acre ( 4 du/ac is simply not achievable with 12,000SF zoning), Woodway ignores the entire concept, Lynnwood changed no single family zoning to accommodate the new law and so on… so the unincorporated areas of the county are taking the density. Just take a look at the development in unincorporated Esperance. That development is closer to 6-8 DU/ac…or higher. I am not a believer of 4000SF lots. However, it does play into the affordable housing issue and accommodating an aging population because this type of development has minimal front ,back and side yards. There is limited areas for children to play, but less maintenance for the elderly to maintain.
To Mike’s Point… I happened to be in a Realtor’s office when a woman dropped in to learn about small single family homes she might purchase. She was told the opportunities were limited and that builders were filling the lots with as large a home as could be accommodated. She didn’t want a condo, but wanted to downsize. We have some interesting conversations coming in our future.
Neil and Stefan, thank you for this balanced and intelligent analysis.
You wrote:
“The estimated population growth for Edmonds is around 5,800 new residents by 2035. It would require the addition of some 2,790 new residential units somewhere in our city over the next 20 years. Which assumes about 2 residents per household, which is about our average occupancy of 2.3 residents per household. So, in round figures Edmonds needs to add about 125 new residences per year over the next 20 years.”
But some Edmonds residents will naturally move away — particularly if aging residents do not want to remain in a traditional detached suburban home + lot, but cannot find senior-friendly alternatives in town at an affordable price. Is the 5,800-by-2035 figure net growth, or should it be measured against outflux?
And it’s a real revelation that population growth in Edmonds has been flat for a decade or more while the Sound region as a whole is choking on new arrivals. Even allowing for the 2008-09 crash, that seems like a problem — and I think it’s rooted in high housing prices and younger buyers’ inability to muster what we think our housing stock is worth… plus a (nationally well-documented) decline in younger peoples’ interest in the traditional, car-dependent, energy-inefficient, postwar-vintage living paradigm Edmonds represents.
I am concerned that unless the community is receptive to new paradigms — more affordable, more dense, more “sustianable,” more in sync with public transit — we’ll find both younger and older people eventually “voting against” the living model we offer.
Tom, some available 2010 Census data, for Edmonds, supports your concerns. At that time 19.1% of Edmonds citizens were 65 or older, while the state average was but 12.3%. Homeownership, in Edmonds, was at 71% versus 62% statewide. And our median income was $73,072 while the state average was $59,374. What the date suggests is that changing the ways of Edmonds could be a tough nut to crack. The debate about Westgate produced a push-back against needed change to the status quo. This will make it difficult to change, grow and embrace new strategies for housing our residents. And then we’re just stuck with no options to move ahead.
Excellent article. Looking forward to the next.