2015 General Election Candidates Survey – District 4

The 2015 General Election is November 3rd. Historic Seattle is conducting a candidates survey of those running for Seattle City Council. Responses to each question were limited to 200 words or less. We are posting responses as we receive them and will continue to do so through October 30, 2015. Here are the responses for District 4.

District 4 – Lake Union to Sand Point

Rob Johnson and Michael Maddux

 

Rob Johnson

1. What’s your favorite historic place in Seattle and why do you think it’s important?

I think Wallingford’s Good Shepherd Center represents my favorite historic place in our city because it brings the community together by housing local nonprofit organizations, live/work artist studios, an array of schools, and a performance venue all under the roof of a beautiful Seattle landmark. The Good Shepherd Center, combined with the adjacent Meridian Playfield, represents a fantastic model of a preservation project in District 4 that has kept the historic character of the building while benefiting hundreds of Seattle residents annually through the community offerings of its tenants.

2. How can Seattle accommodate the growing numbers of residents and increase in density while keeping neighborhood character?

We are a growing city and we need to acknowledge that we currently don’t have enough housing for all of the people that want to live here. With my background in urban planning, I believe that we need to be focusing on transit oriented development, especially near our light rail stations. By focusing development near frequent transit centers we can pursue our environmental goals of getting more cars off the road, preserve our neighborhoods by keeping big developments in or near our urban villages, as well as provide more housing and economic opportunities for folks of all incomes and backgrounds who want to make Seattle their home.

3. Do you believe historic buildings and places help create a more sustainable, affordable, and livable city? If so, how?

As a fifth generation Seattleite, I view the preservation of historic buildings as an important cultural investment. Not only are we protecting the heritage of our city, but we in turn share that outcome with thousands of citizens, whether they are patrons of businesses or organizations located inside historic buildings, employees of said businesses or organizations, or Seattleites who take pride in the character of our city. I think investing in the preservation of historic infrastructure that exists inspires a sense of pride in our residents, positively impacts both the economy and the livability of our city. As long as we are appropriating sufficient funds to ensure safety and energy efficiency, then I believe that the rehabilitation of historic buildings is a sustainable strategy for preserving our heritage and inspiring citizens to be proud to call Seattle home.

– Rob Johnson
October 9, 2015

Michael Maddux

1. What’s your favorite historic place in Seattle and why do you think it’s important?

Magnuson Park (Sand Point Naval Air Station). The combination of urban park, historic structures, and mixing the use of the older buildings is fantastic. Combining the historic buildings with more modern homes and affordable housing nearby and on site makes the park a real gem of our city.

2. How can Seattle accommodate the growing numbers of residents and increase in density while keeping neighborhood character?

We have to better define “neighborhood character.” Our city, like every city in the country and around the world, will change and is changing. There is a unique nature to our neighborhoods, and that will evolve as our city evolves. Our neighborhoods can remain unique while welcoming new residents and ensuring our children and grandchildren have affordable places to live. The commercial cores of our neighborhoods provide walkable, neighborly areas that get sunlight, and tend to keep traffic calm. Take 45th & Wallingford, for instance. Ensuring that we can maintain that affordability for small businesses, and walkable nature – much like Davie St. in Vancouver, B.C. – is important. To meet this goal, while also ensuring there is adequate housing for the people of our city, we need to consider what the alternative to our growth is going to be (and “move to Kent” is not the answer).

I speak with people across the district daily, and the recurring theme is that we are not opposed to more people – the majority want to welcome new neighbors. Starting the conversation with “this is what we need, and how can we collaborate to make this work” is not an unreasonable request.

3. Do you believe historic buildings and places help create a more sustainable, affordable, and livable city? If so, how?

I think that depends on the definition of “historic.” A building in disrepair that cannot be used for housing due to code violations that is otherwise deemed historic is doing nothing to support a more affordable and livable city. Buildings that are not being retrofitted to meet our low-energy use goals are certainly doing little to promote a more sustainable city. That isn’t to say that historic buildings cannot and are not part of what makes our city great. Magnuson Park, Hines Public Market, Wallingford Center, many structures on the UW campus add life to our neighborhoods. And there are plenty of really cool looking, older multifamily buildings that add affordability. Not to mention Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market. But we can build new housing within the aesthetic of our neighborhoods, while using green technologies such as passivhaus, to ensure families can afford to be a part of our neighborhoods.

– Michael Maddux
September 29, 2015