A Different Kind of Gentrification: Seattle and its Relationship with Industrial Land David Tomporowski A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Urban Planning University of Washington 2019 Committee: Edward McCormack Christine Bae Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Department of Urban Design and Planning College of Built Environments ©Copyright 2019 David Tomporowski University of Washington Abstract A Different Kind of Gentrification: Seattle and its Relationship with Industrial Land David Tomporowski Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Edward McCormack Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering / Department of Urban Design and Planning Industry in Seattle often talks about how they are facing their own kind of gentrification. Rising property values, encroaching pressure for different land uses, and choking transportation all loom as reasons for industrial businesses to relocate out of the city. This research explores this phenomenon of industrial gentrification through a case study of Seattle’s most prominent industrial area: the SODO (“South Of Downtown”) neighborhood. My primary research question asks what the perception and reality of the state of industrial land designation and industrial land use gentrification in Seattle is. Secondary research questions involve asking how industrial land designation and industrial land use can be defined in Seattle, what percentage of land is zoned industrial in the SODO neighborhood, and what percentage of the land use is considered industrial in the SODO neighborhood. Finally, subsequent effects on freight transportation and goods movement will be considered. By surveying actual industrial land use compared to i industrially-zoned land, one can conclude whether industry’s complaints are accurate and whether attempts to protect industrial land uses are working. Literature details cases that encapsulate the industrial gentrification debate and Seattle has undertaken many studies of its industrial land. Methods involve a case study approach coupled with a field survey. The survey area chosen is the SODO neighborhood, which is part of the locally and regionally-designated Duwamish Manufacturing/Industrial Center. Industrial designation is defined as any of the four types of industrial zoning in the City of Seattle. Industrial land use is defined with the help of the Land Based Classification Standards’ Function dimension, with the following subcategories considered industrial: manufacturing, warehouse, storage yard, marine terminal, railroad, and utility. Results show that over 99% of the study area is designated industrial. After classification of each parcel in the study area, 62% of the study area’s parcels, or 85% of the land area, contain actual industrial land use. When land intensive uses such as marine terminals and railroads are removed from consideration, the percent of industrial land area is only 42%. The conclusion of this study shows that 1) the narrative of industrial gentrification in Seattle is not as universal as initially perceived, 2) being designated as industrial land by zoning is not a surefire way to achieve what some would consider actual industrial land use, 3) actions undertaken by the City in the 2000s—namely increasing the size limits on non-industrial land uses in industrial zoning—have been effective at keeping SODO industrial, and 4) the question of whether Seattle is losing industry and industrial land rests on how one defines and perceives those terms. While much of SODO’s land area is still industrial, market forces and trends are drawing more non- traditional land uses to SODO, such as boutique manufacturing, breweries and distilleries, event venues, and commercial offices and retail stores. Examples are prominent and give the perception of industrial loss even if, technically, much of SODO is still designated industrial. ii Acknowledgements Thank you to my committee members, Professors Ed McCormack and Christine Bae, for your guidance and support. Thank you to Professor Anne Goodchild for your faith in me by hiring me as a research assistant and letting me be a part of the SCTL Center, and for your advice and mentorship. Thank you to Barb Ivanov, Bill Keough, and the rest of the SCTL staff for your professionalism and encouragement. Thank you to my fellow SCTL RAs; you are all brilliant in your fields and some of the hardest workers I’ve ever seen. You all will make excellent PhDs, and it was my pleasure to work with you. Thank you to Branden Born and Katya Kolesova for your critical help and guidance with forming my thesis proposal during URBDP 512. Katya, you were the most helpful TA I’ve ever had. Thank you to Diana Siembor in the Department of Urban Design and Planning for your unwavering and dedicated advice and guidance, starting all the way back in November 2014. Thank you to my fellow MUPs, whose professionalism and camaraderie made getting my master’s degree a wonderful experience. You have become my friends in a new city. Thank you to my friends in Minnesota, who supported me during my grad school decision process and continue to support me now from afar. Thank you to my family members in Seattle, especially Julie and Colleen. You have welcomed and supported me as I established myself in a new city. Finally, thank you to my partner Amber and my parents, Tom and Alyce. Quite simply, you three saved me, and I would not be here today without each of you. iii Table of Contents 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Specific Cases .................................................................................................................................3 Purpose, Research Questions, and Importance ...............................................................................5 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 7 History of SODO .............................................................................................................................8 Regional and Local Industrial Land Planning and Study Efforts ....................................................... 12 City of Seattle 2007-2009 Work on Industrial Lands .......................................................................................... 14 City of Seattle 2013 Duwamish M/IC Policy and Land Use Study ...................................................................... 18 PSRC’s 2013 Regional Centers Monitoring Report Profile on the Duwamish M/IC ........................................... 23 Manufacturing Industrial Council Land Use Map ............................................................................................... 27 PSRC’s 2015 Industrial Lands Analysis ................................................................................................................ 29 City of Seattle’s 2015 Duwamish Industrial Lands Study ................................................................................... 32 City of Seattle Industrial Zoning Code ........................................................................................... 34 Land Use Classification ................................................................................................................. 40 Activity Dimension ............................................................................................................................................. 40 Function Dimension ........................................................................................................................................... 42 Structure Dimension .......................................................................................................................................... 44 Site Dimension ................................................................................................................................................... 45 Ownership Dimension ........................................................................................................................................ 46 LBCS Usability ..................................................................................................................................................... 46 Implications for Transportation and Goods Movement ................................................................. 47 3: Methods .......................................................................................................................... 49 iv Study Area ...................................................................................................................................49 Defining “Industrial” .................................................................................................................... 58 Defining Industrial Land Designation ................................................................................................................. 58 Defining Actual Industrial Land Use ................................................................................................................... 62 Classification Process ................................................................................................................... 71 4: Results ............................................................................................................................. 74 Land Use Categories ....................................................................................................................