The house on stilts

Today, density's flimsy foundations

I read with great dismay "Creating a vital and vibrant Seattle by increasing downtown density" [Times guest commentary, March 21].

In my small neighborhood, I can point out several recent density actions. You decide if they were for the better or for the worse.

• On the corner of Norman and Bradner in the Mount Baker neighborhood, two single-family houses were razed to make room for 10 — yes, 10 — townhouses. These townhouses are priced in the $400,000-plus range. This is affordable housing for whom?

• On the corner of 23rd Avenue South and Judkins Street, two single-family homes were razed to accommodate six townhouses a year or so ago. These townhouses are selling upwards of $350,000. Again — affordable housing for whom?

• On Yakima between Judkins and Norman, approximately 20 townhouses were built with prices exceeding $400,000. Again — affordable housing for whom?

Were bus routes added to handle the new riders? No. Were the streets widened to handle more traffic? No. Were the parking lots in the neighborhood shopping areas expanded to handle more cars? No. Were any neighborhood city streets improved? No.

As far as I can tell, the infrastructure has not changed to accommodate the increased density.

I am very dismayed in what I believe Seattle is becoming — more of the "haves vs. the have-nots," and the gap is growing, not narrowing.

Where are the affordable houses for those middle-income people who can't afford the median price of a home? What if they prefer not to pay $300 a square foot for a condo? What about the possibility of rent control? How many more people will be homeless as a result of the density building plan?

Do we need more libraries? Parks? Green space? Or do we need affordable housing and rent control for those who want to live and work here, support the city and service the community?

Meg McCarthy lives in Seattle.