Family-Friendly Urban Neighborhoods

Center City Seattle

family-friendly urban neighborhoods !nitiative
Workgroup Report
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Development, September 2009 1

2

Report Overview
Mayor Greg Nickels initiated Seattle’s Center City Strategy in 2003, recognizing the downtown core’s critical role in regional growth management. The Strategy is predicated on the forecast of dramatic continued growth in the Puget Sound region’s population over the next several decades, and on the belief that Center City Seattle, as the region’s largest urban core, has the capacity to accommodate a significant amount of that growth. Through 2024, nearly 50% of Seattle’s residential growth and 60% of its employment growth is targeted to downtown Seattle and to the surrounding neighborhoods that make up the Center City (see maps in Section 1). The Strategy embraces the principle that, if the City is to be successful in reaching its sustainability goals, a holistic approach is necessary to create the kinds of urban neighborhoods that people want to live in. Making Center City neighborhoods attractive to youth and to families with children is an important component of this strategy. There are many reasons to encourage children and families to visit and to live in the Center City. Families can especially benefit from, and support, the abundant cultural opportunities and conveniences that characterize living in an urban core. Also, designing a city for kids requires special attention to pedestrianfriendly, accessible, and safe design, which makes Center City Seattle healthier for everyone shopping, living, working, and playing here. The Family-Friendly Urban Neighborhoods (FUN) Initiative is about making the Center City more supportive of and attractive to youth and families

with children. In this report, the FUN Team will share staff findings to date, and present decision makers with policy recommendations to encourage youth and families to play and live in the Center City. Although families come in different sizes and span a range of generations, our work is focused on youthand child-friendly elements in the Center City. For the purposes of this report, we have defined a “family” to include at least one child under the age of eighteen.

Section 1. Seattle’s Center City Today and Tomorrow
Seattle is at a critical fork in the road to successful regional growth management. Attracting youth and families to live more compactly, in the urban core, is crucial to promoting regional sustainability and neighborhood vitality. In addition, studies have shown that the pedestrian-oriented nature of urban cores helps to combat childhood obesity and to promote culturally rich lifestyles in families. While the City’s efforts to encourage more people to live and play in the Center City have been successful to a degree, families with children still tend to move away from the City’s urban cores and to contribute to residential sprawl. Today, children in the Center City are disproportionately underrepresented, comprising just 5% of the population. This presents the City with both an opportunity and a challenge. Center City Vision: The Recent Past and the Near Future.............................. 1 Why a Family- and Youth-Friendly Center City?..............2 Seattle Population Trends................................................3 i

Section 2. The Family-Friendly Urban Neighborhoods Initiative: An Overview
The FUN Initiative aims specifically to encourage the development of new housing, public spaces, and other amenities that support families who are raising children in Seattle’s urban core. To reach these goals, the City of Seattle must sustain a multi-pronged effort that targets not just families who visit the Center City, but also families who currently or who might potentially live in the Center City. Key to this strategy is that the City be deliberate in its efforts and focused with its resources. Beginnings........................................................................ 8 Target Demographics ..................................................... 9 Key Findings.................................................................... 10

Possible Family-Friendly Amenity Clusters................... 13 S2. Create Partnerships................................................. 15 S3. Create Communities of Family Clusters................. 17 P1. Pursue Affordable Family Housing. ........................ 18 P2. Develop a Center City Public Elementary School.. 21 P3. Increase Support for Child Care Centers................ 21 P4. Improve Streets.......................................................22 P5. Improve Transportation..........................................23 P6. Coordinate Open Space and Programming........... 24 P7. Amend Design Criteria and Guidelines...................25 P8. Address Safety Concerns........................................25

Section 3. Policy Recommendations by Topic
Staff suggests that the City begin by identifying specific geographic areas within the Center City for family cluster pilot projects. The City should then strengthen interdepartmental and public-private collaboration on family-oriented policy, and aggressively market the concept of a family-friendly Center City to a larger audience. The City will need to apply a family-oriented lens towards its existing policies, programs, and projects, in order to assess their ability to promote and support families within the downtown area. Specific areas for policy focus include streets, transportation, open space, affordable family housing, design guidelines, safety, schools, and child care. S1. Be Intentional. ........................................................... 12 ii

Section 4. Strategy for Implementation
This section outlines a proposed plan for implementing the policy changes recommended in Section 3. The City would begin by immediately increasing its support for families who enjoy visiting the Center City, while laying the foundation for family clusters that will develop into well-supported, family-rich communities. 2009: Strategize and set a policy framework.............. 28 2010: Coordinate existing resources.. ........................... 28 2011: Develop new initiatives, projects, and tools....... 29 2013: Review results and refine strategy...................... 30 2015: Mature and replicate program citywide............. 30

Section 1. Seattle’s Center City Today and Tomorrow In This Section:
ƒƒ Center City Vision: The Recent Past and the Near Future................................ 1 ƒƒ Why a Family- and Youth-Friendly Center City?..................2 ƒƒ Seattle Population Trends................................................. 3

Center City Vision: The Recent Past and the Near Future
Erin is watching from the window of her kitchen as her seven year-old daughter Sophia plays tag in the courtyard with some friends from school. Sophia’s grandparents are also in the courtyard, under the shade of its laptop shelter, watching the horseplay while uploading some photos they’d taken earlier that morning. It’s the year 2020, and Yesler Terrace is a thriving family cluster. A large number of families live in this neighborhood, hosting play dates and taking groups of kids on the direct bus connections to Seattle Center and the waterfront. Erin’s family lives only a few blocks away from groceries and from the doctor’s office. On weekday mornings, Erin walks with Sophia and four other children in their building to the nearby Bailey Gatzert Elementary School. There are signs everywhere that this is a family-friendly community. Ground floor walk-up units line some streets, and since it’s a Saturday, two blocks in the neighborhood are closed to traffic for the weekend. The weather is clear, so five neighbors are setting up a volleyball net across one street, and a few kids have already rolled out temporary skate structures in the other. Erin’s older daughter has just woken up, and plans to take the streetcar later 1

this afternoon with her friend Steve to go shopping on Broadway for a Halloween costume. Steve is 16 years old and lives in Redmond, but comes to Seattle almost every weekend. He used to come downtown with his parents as a younger kid, and now he often brings his friends to catch an event or just to hang out at Westlake Center or the Freeway Park, where there’s almost always something going on. A Fork in the Road Today, in 2009, Seattle is at a fork in the road. Regional growth management policies are laying the framework for a more compact urban living arrangement than Seattle has seen in past decades. However, the resident population of the Center City continues to consist mostly of young adults and empty-nesters, while families with children prefer to move out of the urban core when their children reach school age. Shifts in the national economy, the housing bubble and the increased cost and diminishing supply of fossil fuels are making this desire to move into suburban fringe areas an increasingly costly and unsustainable choice. The Creative economy is now drawing to the housing market an entire demographic of young adults who are ready to start families and who are increasingly attracted to urban living. The City must seize the opportunity to build on this demographic trend and to make the responsible next move towards regional sustainability and Center City vitality.

Families are the demographic group most likely to sprawl into suburbs, so attracting families to the City is key to managing regional growth. With parents being an integral part of the urban workforce (see maps in Section 1), shorter commutes to work would provide numerous benefits, from more time with children to reduced regional congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Although the cost of providing family-friendly amenities, from open space to affordable housing units, can be higher in the Center City, doing so has far-reaching benefits. Neighborhoods that work well for children work well for everyone. Nothing signals a healthy, sustainable neighborhood like the presence of children. Clean and safe streets, delightful pedestrian corridors, active park spaces, accessible transportation, and other amenities that support families with children serve a neighborhood’s other demographic groups well. The existing and proposed density of the Center City, and particularly its residential population, needs the stability and identity that youth and families bring to neighborhoods. (See Key Findings under Section 2.) When children are present, parents have incentive to invest in their local community and to be socially proactive in child-oriented associations, from playgroups to parentteacher associations. They are more concerned with their community’s safety, and form more social connections in their neighborhood.

Why a Family- and Youth-Friendly Center City?
Youth and families are pivotal to regional sustainability and a high quality of life. In order to help meet the Mayor’s Climate Action Now goals, families must be encouraged to live in Center City Seattle.

“Children are the indicator species of the health of our communities.”

2

Kids who grow up enjoying the urban lifestyle are more likely to support and champion it later as adults. Today’s kids are tomorrow’s civic leaders, business leaders, and cultural supporters. In order to manage long-term regional growth, Seattle must grow its workforce and leaders to continue the City’s success in fostering high-tech, biotech, and internationally known businesses. Providing opportunities for diverse age groups to live in the Center City allows people to live in a community throughout each phase of their lives, enabling them to invest in their community and maintain strong social networks. Center City is home to the bulk of Seattle’s cultural resources, and its neighborhoods are excellent places for children to explore and learn about the world. Many of Seattle’s cultural resources—from the Central Library and the Seattle Art Museum to the aquarium and the cultural facilities at Seattle Center—already serve as extended educators for the region’s children. Urban core neighborhoods contain a diversity and richness of experience that can provide a stimulating and educational environment in which to raise children. Such a setting can teach children about the desirability of diversity, empathy, and cooperation. Studies have shown that urban living encourages healthier lifestyles that counter the childhood obesity epidemic. Due to increasing obesity rates, today’s children are the first generation in American history with a lower life expectancy than that of their parents. In urban neighborhoods, however, children are less dependent on their parents’ vehicles for mobility, and have more options for accessing goods and services on foot or by public transit, contributing to a healthier and more active lifestyle.

Seattle Population Trends
Seattle is a relatively childless city, dominated by singles and couples without children.  With only 16% of its population below the age of 18, Seattle is well below the King County average of 23%. In the Center City neighborhoods there is an even greater disparity, with only 5% of the population under 18. The Center City workforce needs family-friendly solutions in the Center City to mitigate climate change impacts.  8% of the workers living in the Center City have children, while 36% of those working in the Center City do. Making the Center City an attractive home for these commuting families can have a profound impact on regional growth management. There is a dearth of family-sized housing in the Center City.  Of the 29,705 housing units in Center City Seattle in 2000, only 17% have at least two bedrooms. This is in stark contrast to the entire Seattle housing market, in which 76% of units have at least two bedrooms.  The housing market does not provide enough living space for families to live and grow within the Center City. If the Center City is to become more amenable to family living, incentives or requirements must be established to encourage a better diversity of housing options. Current growth projections for Center City Seattle reveal a need for more family-oriented facilities.  Seattle expects to add 24,000 housing units to the Center City by 2024. If even just 15% of these units house families, the City could expect at least 3000 additional children under the age of 18 in Center City Seattle. Assuming an even age distribution, the City could expect at least 800 of these children to fall within the demographic for a K-4 elementary school in the Center City. 3

Center City Seattle Neighborhoods

Center City Housing: Multiple-Bedroom Units

Uptown

South Lake Union

Cascade

Capitol Hill

340 (22%) 290 (11%)

140 (12%) 1150 (17%)

Belltown

Denny Triangle

Pike / Pine First Hill

560 (21%)

410 (15%) 440 (20%) 470 (21%) 19% 480 (25%)

Commercial Core

Yesler Terrace
420 (18%) Center City Total: 32,000 housing units 200 (12%)

Pioneer Square

Chinatown / International District
410 (15%)

40 (3%)

2 or more bedroom units Other housing unit sizes Number of 2 or more bedroom units Percentage of total units

80 (8%)

Center City Boundary

4

Source: 2000 Census

Employees Who Live in Center City with Children

Employees Who Work in Center City with Children

30 (2%) 100 (12%) 80 (5%) 285 (4%)

3,300 (32%) 400 (22%) 6,200 (35%) 6,500 (35%) 3,500 (34%) 2,200 (34%)
50 (2%)

115 (6%)

1890 (8%)

85 (6%)

115 (7%) 75 (6%)

1,300 (27%)

9,400 (36%) 1,800 (33%)

84,000 (36%)

135 (10%) Center City Total: 25,000 workers 30 (5%) 130 (11%)

Center City Total: 236,000 workers

23,900 (34%)

6,100 (38%) 1,600 (35%)

Have children under 18 No children under 18
1890 (8%)

115 (25%)

Have children under 18 No children under 18
84,000 (36%)

1,100 (39%)

Number of workers with children Percentage of total workers

Number of workers with children Percentage of total workers

Source: 2000 Census, Long Form

Source: 2000 Census, Long Form

5

Regional Population by Age

Center City Population by Age

23%

22%

86 (4%)

Central Puget Sound: Total pop. 3,580,000

King County: Total pop. 1,860,000

101 (3%)

Cascade
325 (9%) 311 (3%)

5% 16%
169 (3%) 203 (5%) 118 (3%) 106 (3%) 75 (3%)

169 (4%)

Yesler Terrace
0-17 18-24 25-34 35-49 50+ Seattle: Total pop. 590,000 Center City Seattle: Total pop. 60,000
492 (8%)

0-17 18-24 25-34 35-49 50+

62 (3%) 458 (18%)

I.D. / Chinatown

The presence of children in the tracts representing Cascade, Yesler Terrace, and the International District makes them likely opportunities for success as enhanced family clusters.

6

Source: Claritas Inc. population projections for 2008

Source: Claritas Inc. population projections for 2008

Comparisons: Age Across Similar Land Area
8.4% 8.0%

Comparisons: Housing Across Similar Land Area
6% 16% 23% 6%

San Francisco

Manhattan

San Francisco: 74,000 units

Manhattan: 86,000 units
2%

3.6%

5.4%

5% 18% 15%

Portland

Seattle (Center City)

Portland: 21,000 units

Seattle (Center City): 30,000 units

3+ bedrooms 0-17 18+ 2 bedrooms 1 bedroom / studio
26%

50%

Seattle Citywide

For the purposes of comparison, we have defined the urban cores of each city above to encompass a similar amount of land as Center City Seattle.

7

Getting Ideas
Internal Focus Groups  January 19, 2007: Open Space & Streets  February 23, 2007: Housing  August 30, 2007: Programming & Public Art  September 27, 2007: Housing Follow-up  December 6, 2007: Interdepartmental Focus Group Summary Session External Focus Groups  March 7, 2008: Non-Profit Housing Developers  March 21, 2008: Real Estate Marketers  April 14, 2008: Planning Professionals  April 25, 2008: Urban Advocates  June 9, 2008: For-Profit Housing Developers 8  June 25, 2008: UW Medicine South Lake Union Campus Employees

Section 2. The Family-Friendly Urban Neighborhoods Initiative: An Overview In This Section:
ƒƒ Beginnings.......................................................................... 8 ƒƒ Target Demographics ........................................................ 9 ƒƒ Key Findings...................................................................... 10

Beginnings
The Center City Strategy began in 2003 to help coordinate the growth of ten of Seattle’s core neighborhoods. The overall Strategy aims to encourage new housing, great public spaces, economic growth, public safety, and improved transportation in the downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods. One component of that strategy is the Family-Friendly Urban Neighborhoods (FUN) Initiative, which is designed to make visiting and living in the Center City more attractive and amenable for youth and families with children. The FUN Initiative embodies the belief that making Seattle’s urban center inviting to youth and families with children is a socially responsible choice towards building an inclusive and sustainable Seattle. Over the past few years, FUN staff members have been gathering data on Seattle’s current conditions, while taking lessons from peer cities. As a result, FUN staff drafted a workbook for city staff (see Appendix) in order to clarify the primary points of focus in shaping a family-friendly Seattle: schools, housing, open space, streetscapes and public realm, interior space, and programmed activities. With the workbook in hand, the FUN Team held a series of focus groups with City staff, housing developers, parents, urban advocates, and others. The aim of the focus groups

was to collectively envision a family-friendly Center City, to brainstorm methods for implementing that vision, to broaden the shared understanding of goals and obstacles, and to prepare for interdepartmental collaboration. (See Getting Ideas sidebar.

Emerging Families (“Tentative Urbanites”) These are the young couples who currently live in the Center City and who have just started, or who may be on the cusp of starting, a family.  What They Need: The City should market the idea that continuing to live with children in the Center City is an enticing and viable option. Encouraging and establishing affordable family-sized housing units, schools, and private open space are key strategies. Youth The City must remember in these discussions that “youth” refers to a diverse group from infants to teenagers, and encompasses a broad and changing set of needs and priorities.  What They Need: First and foremost, children and youth must be included in future efforts. The City must make a focused effort to listen to the voices and needs of its pre-voting population.

Target Demographics
The best way to approach the process of making the Center City more appealing to youth and families is through a multi-pronged and multi-phased effort that targets different demographic groups. These groups are described below, with naming conventions borrowed from the CEOs for Cities report (in parentheses). Center City Families (“Urban Pioneers”) This is the most immediate demographic to target: families who are already raising children in the Center City. Strategies aimed at increasing the population of youth and families downtown must first ensure that the City encourages its pioneering urban families to stay where they are and to love where they live, as their children grow up.  What They Need: This group generally loves the conveniences of urban core living, but is frustrated at attempts to connect to other families raising children in their neighborhoods. An expanded FUN website that provides a way for Center City families to network with each other would add to the satisfaction of this group. Other ways to help existing families connect with each other include the development of more community centers, familyfocused programs, and family-oriented open space.

False Creek North Post-Occupany Evaluation
With the provision of an urban school, spacious public parks, numerous transportation options and dense, family housing, False Creek North in Vancouver, BC has become a magnet for families and has seen such success that there is currently too much demand for its current housing capacity. False Creek North clearly shows that, when the right balance of amenities and proximity to other families is provided, families can thrive in a dense urban setting. A post-occupancy evaluation conducted in 2007 details the success of False Creek North and the changes needed for the neighborhood to continue to provide an excellent urban home for families. (See Appendix)

9

Commuting Employees Large companies located in the Center City have it in their own best interests to make life easier for their employees with children. Employees can benefit from the same improved public space and transportation network that is needed for families in the Center City.  What They Need: On-site child care and employerassisted housing close to work are two areas in which employers can contribute to the desirability of living and working downtown while raising children. Potential Recruits (“Discontent Suburbanites”) Concerned with affordability, safety, and schools, but also attracted to the practicality of urban living, this group could be attracted to live in the Center City. This would enable the City to reach the tipping point necessary to create a vibrant community of families with children in the Center City.  What They Need: Family-sized housing must be available and affordable, and a downtown public school will ultimately be a key factor. In the interim, however, the City can do a lot to shift this group’s perceptions of living in an urban core. The Center City’s cultural opportunities offer important education outside of school, and the complexity of urban environments contribute to exploration and growth. The City can begin to market these qualities, using existing cultural events and amenities as a venue to seed discussion on the merits of living close by. Families Visiting the Center City These are families who may live elsewhere in Seattle, or in the suburbs, but who come to the Center City for leisure and shopping. 10

 What They Need: Even if they live elsewhere in Seattle, the City can increase the amount of time that these families spend visiting and making use of Center City amenities. What contributes to the enjoyment of this group when they visit the Center City will also appeal to families considering a move to the Center City. Unlikely Movers (“Suburban Loyalists”) As this group might visit the Center City occasionally, and may look to move into the City in the future, they will likely benefit from the efforts of the FUN Initiative. Despite the Center City amenities this group may make use of, their lifestyle needs make them highly unlikely to move to the urban core. The FUN group recognizes that there are families who will not or can not move to the Center City.

FUN is serious business.



Block party on Bell Street. July 16, 2009 

Key Findings
An interdepartmental family-oriented policy lens should be instituted in order to help realize the goals of the Mayor’s Climate Action Plan. In order to successfully bring families to the Center City, Seattle must be very intentional and direct in its efforts. Families have needs that are affected by a wide range of city initiatives and decisions, and thus a successful familyoriented initiative will rely on a citywide effort in which all departments constantly, and instinctively, filter their policies and actions through a youth- and family-conscious lens. There is a tipping point at which the idea of the Center City as a desirable place to raise children will attain widespread acceptance and response. The false perception that cities are not proper places to raise children is beginning to disappear, but reaching this tipping point will require a strategic, multi-pronged effort over an extended period of time. The City must effectively market urban living and change remaining negative perceptions towards raising children in the Center City. The City must also invest in important large-scale projects that support and signal the presence of families in the Center City—family-oriented destination spaces, affordable family-sized housing, and a public elementary school—as a necessary precursor to reaching a critical mass of families. The City should develop a strategy of promoting and encouraging groupings of families in clusters. The City has limited resources. Rather than spread these resources thinly over the entire Center City, the City can concentrate its resources for families around clusters of housing targeted for families to establish family incubator neighborhoods. The FUN Initiative’s focus group

participants agreed that a number of families clustered in a small geographic area would be more likely to build social connections and utilize neighborhood resources than the same number of families dispersed across a larger area. There is a chicken-and-egg stalemate between the development of family-sized housing units and the establishment of a public elementary school. Public schools are an essential piece of infrastructure that the Center City will need if it is to be home to numerous families with children. While Bailey Gatzert Elementary School serves Yesler Terrace, the Chinatown / International District, and Pioneer Square, it does not serve the rapidly growing north downtown / South Lake Union area. Developers, real estate marketers, and other focus group participants emphasized that the lack of a public elementary school is a frequent reason cited by potential residents who reject the Center City as a place to live. Meanwhile, Seattle Public Schools is hesitant to invest in capital facilities when current demographics indicate a relatively small number of school-age children in the Center City. Deliberate planning and innovative thought is necessary to break this stalemate. The City should consider partnering with private sector companies, foundations, and other nonprofit organizations to explore the feasibility of building a school facility, perhaps as part of a private development project. There are remarkable resources and potential partners in the north downtown and South Lake Union area. The Cornish College, Antioch University, Pacific Science Center, and a number of biotech and high-tech businesses are among the many organizations that have expressed interest in collaborating on a school. The City can bring development incentives and other resources to the effort. 11

Section 3. Policy Recommendations by Topic In This Section:
The following ideas have emerged from the FUN Team’s focus group sessions, and are intended to showcase the broad range of possibilities for the City to explore. ƒƒ ƒƒ ƒƒ ƒƒ ƒƒ ƒƒ ƒƒ ƒƒ ƒƒ ƒƒ ƒƒ ƒƒ S1. Be Intentional.............................................................. 12 Possible Family-Friendly Amenity Clusters. ..................... 13 S2. Create Partnerships.................................................... 15 S3. Create Communities of Family Clusters. ................... 17 P1. Pursue Affordable Family Housing............................. 18 P2. Develop a Center City Public Elementary School...... 21 P3. Increase Support for Child Care Centers................... 21 P4. Improve Streets. ........................................................22 P5. Improve Transportation.............................................23 P6. Coordinate Open Space and Programming.............. 24 P7. Amend Design Criteria and Guidelines......................25 P8. Address Safety Concerns...........................................25

Proceed incrementally and consistently. It will take commitment and patience to create a familyfriendly Center City. If the City is serious about bringing families into the Center City, staff needs to start planning now for the next generation. New infrastructure, housing, and schools will take time to establish. Interim actions—such as improvements to existing parks, additional programming of activities and events, and early policy work—are critical to laying the foundation for that future. It will be a continuum of actions over ten or twenty years that will ultimately bring families into the Center City to live, work, and play. Focus resources on target demographics and family clusters. The City should focus its resources and efforts. Rather than target everyone and everything in the Center City, the City of Seattle would do better to focus on target demographics (see Section 2) and on small geographic areas, or family clusters, within the Center City. (See S3. Create Communities of Family Clusters). Research the target demographic. The City needs to better understand the needs of parents, children, and families living and playing in urban cores. The results of surveys and studies may be used both to shape and to evaluate policies.  Define the tipping point, at which measurable indicators align to create the perception that the Center City is a desirable place for families to live.  Collaborate with realtors in distributing exit surveys for families and couples as they leave downtown.

STRATEGIES S1. Be Intentional
In order to make the Center City youth- and family-friendly, the City must declare its intention to do so, as the necessary changes will not happen by accident. It must create the vision, lead the conversation, capture imaginations, and follow up with strengthened policy direction and support throughout the City. Family-supporting initiatives should become part of departmental Accountability Agreements, and the City should consider the formation of an interdepartmental team to coordinate implementation. 12

Possible Family-Friendly Amenity Clusters
Denny Park Cluster
Affordable family housing Slow traffic on 8th

Street-car line New mixed-use development Green street

Denny Park Cluster

Cascade Cluster
New pedestrian and bicycle paths across Aurora connects to Seattle Center

Pedestrian amenities Churches Daycare centers

Denny Park Improvements Possible community center

Grocery Store / Mixed-Use Development

International District Cluster
Bailey Gatzert Elementary School

Kobe Terrace Park Nihonmachi Terrace affordable family housing Hing Hay Park

Yesler Terrace Cluster

Streetcar line connecting to Capitol Hill and Downtown

Wing Luke Asian Museum

International District Cluster

International Children’s Park, Domingo Viernes family housing, Community Center, library branch

13

Set strategic, quantifiable targets. Through researching target demographics, the City can begin to set quantifiable targets for evaluating the success of its family-oriented policies and pilot family clusters.  Create a checklist of measures that would certify a housing unit as a family-oriented unit. This can be used both to track the progress of family clusters, and to provide realtors with an indicator for units that are marketable as family-friendly. Update the Comprehensive Plan. While there are currently some general Comprehensive Plan policies that address the need to develop infrastructure to support families, these policies should be refined during an upcoming Comprehensive Plan update process. For example, the City might set desired ratios of households with children in the Center City and other Urban Villages, and determine what infrastructure investments (schools, acres of open space, etc.) are necessary to meet those needs. Any new policy should emphasize the important role children play in creating vital urban neighborhoods. Market the message. Utilize Internet technology to grow community involvement. The City should use its web presence to coordinate and market family-friendly Center City amenities, such as venues and events. The Internet can be used not just to promote city-created programming, but also as a resource for finding programming open to the public at all Center City venues, including schools. The more attractive Center City is as a place for families with children to visit, the more it will seem like a great place for families to live. An expanded FUN web page could actively market the Center City as Seattle’s playground and an extension of every family’s neighborhood.
gg Sunset at Olympic Sculpture Park. June 27, 2008.

14

 Provide businesses and organizations with tips and information on hosting family-friendly events, as well as a forum for positive post-event feedback.  Collaborate with the Downtown Seattle Association to begin developing an online map of great family-friendly events and spaces, including hidden gems and hill climbs. Make the map open to contributions from parents and businesses.  Use the website as a way for families living in the Center City to connect to other neighbors with children. Maintain the dialogue. Family-friendly public events that keep the public informed of work done by the City to promote family friendliness would serve the City well. These events can serve as venues not only for marketing the family-oriented Center City image, but also for receiving input on future plans, and for developing an organized constituency.

Parent Testimony
“I’m writing to let you know that I am in great support of a downtown elementary school. My husband and I and our two pre-school children moved into the South Lake Union area in December of 2006 and really enjoy living here. We love the ability to play at Cascade Park or take the streetcar to Lake Union. We commonly hop on the monorail to the Children’s Musuem or Pacific Science Center. We walk to Pike Place Market and the Seattle Aquarium. We enjoy the Tiny Tots concerts at Benaroya Hall. My children attend a downtown daycare and we ride the free buses to transport them around town. As you can see, downtown Seattle is a very livable and fun city for a family with children. Unfortunately, we’re looking to move out of the downtown in a year or so to get our son, who’s now 3, into a good neighborhood public school. I believe that having a downtown public school is essential in attracting young families and revitalizing downtown/South Lake Union as a vibrant and livable area.” 15

S2. Create Partnerships
There are many groups that can benefit from an increased focus on family-friendliness in Center City neighborhoods. The City should make full use of opportunities for collaboration with these groups. Partner with the retail and service industries. Retail is a key area in which the City should make sure that teens are being taken care of as well as younger kids are. Affordable dining options in family clusters, for example, may be crucial in supporting the teenaged population.  Encourage kids’ corners in shops and businesses.



Child at play on Western Avenue. August 7, 2008 

 Support locally owned shops, which add character to a neighborhood and a significant multiplier effect on the local economy. In family clusters, it would be useful to note what some landowners, like those at Belltown Court, are already doing: renting retail space at below-market rates to local shops, with the understanding that this adds value to the residential units above.  Target the incorporation of affordable retail outlets from the early stages of the development, in order to meet the needs of residents from a variety of socioeconomic levels.  Consider supporting a discounted monthly pass for admittance to museums and cultural amenities for families with kids. Partner with neighborhood associations, youth, and families. The City needs to strategically plan for the inclusion of children in its planning process for the Center City. Youth are the greatest resource in monitoring the success of the City’s family-oriented policies.  Coordinate with community groups to get youth and families engaged in the planning of family clusters  Establish a City of Seattle Children’s Rights charter.  Conduct annual child impact assessments and evaluations of city policies, pulled together in a “State of Seattle’s Child” report that also reveals the portion of the City budget spent on children annually.  Increase the role and inclusion of the Mayor’s Youth Council on projects affecting the Center City.  Assign a City staff position to coordinate and facilitate youth-related projects with the help of youth in Seattle.  Put teenagers in charge of their own programs. The Seattle Center Teen Tix program, the Public Library Teen Advisory Board, and the Vera Project are excellent precedents for this. 16

Partner with employers.  Encourage employer-assisted workforce family housing. Center City employers would equally benefit from being able to promote the availability of family-oriented housing and amenities close to work.  The waiting list for downtown child care is extremely lengthy. Center City employers can benefit from providing child care and kids’ corners at work, which will increase the appeal of working in the Center City for parents with children. Partner with business associations. Neighborhood business associations and chambers of commerce can play a significant role in promoting the positive benefits of attracting families with children to live in and visit the Center City. They can also help by working with member firms to increase the “family-friendliness” of their businesses. Partner with educational institutions. The Center City is blessed with a richness of educational institutions, which include the Cornish College of the Arts, Antioch University, the Pacific Science Center, and the Central Library. These institutions can be great resources to families, and may be particularly important in helping to create an urban public elementary school. Partner with developers, landowners, realtors, and marketers. The City should work with developers, landowners, realtors, and property marketing firms in order to market the concept of family-friendly development in a family cluster. The current housing market is clearly lacking options for families in the Center City.

The FUN Team’s demographic research on the needs of families living in the Center City can help developers in planning their projects. In conducting this demographic research, realtors can help the City survey the families and couples moving out of downtown, which is a crucial group to understand if the City is to grasp the needs of families in the Center City. The City should look for mechanisms that encourage landowners to develop affordable family housing. After the character of a family cluster develops, the market can be expected to drive the development of more family housing. If the City develops a checklist of criteria for certifying a family-friendly housing unit (see S1. Be Intentional), the marketing of Center City housing for families can be made significantly easier.

cc An adventure playground, designed for creative play

S3. Create Communities of Family Clusters
It takes a village to raise a child. Families and family life are most successful when located in proximity to other families where there is mutual support amid a mix of housing, open space, and necessary services. Dispersed family housing and resources are less likely to succeed; when concentrated in clusters, these same resources can increase the value of investments in infrastructure, services, and amenities within that cluster. In effect, the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts As the City has limited resources, family-friendly amenities should be concentrated in order to serve as anchors for dense groupings of families. For this reason, the FUN Team recommends the establishment of family-friendly clusters within the Center City. Families are more likely to move into areas of the Center City where they have more opportunities for interaction with other families, and where

amenities have been provided. This self-reinforcing grouping of families can help ease the concerns about safety and isolation that push some families to the suburbs. Serving as a catalyst, successful clusters can shift urban life perceptions and encourage other families to move into the Center City Possible neighborhoods which may serve useful as familyfriendly clusters are South Lake Union near Denny Park, Cascade, and Chinatown/International District, each of which has stated in their neighborhood plans their desire to evolve into neighborhoods that welcome families with children. A redeveloped Yesler Terrace, meanwhile, offers a singular opportunity to create a family-friendly neighborhood.  Partner with private development to create residential family clusters.  Work diligently to retain existing families living in the Center City, allowing them to be the trailblazers for others to follow. 17

 Ensure that residential family cluster planning considers multicultural needs.  Direct City investment: the City should target investment in community centers, park features and other familysupporting amenities to family cluster areas. Neighborhood Identity Parents currently living in Center City developments that already have a small population of families with children, such as the Tashiro-Kaplan Lofts or Hillclimb Court, enjoy the fact that their children can grow up in an urban community, which allows them to collaborate in creating their own events and programming. It’s important to recognize the role that community identity plays in the upbringing of a child, both for the children who will become attached to the community that raised them, and for their parents who need the support of a parental network.  Create visual cues in the built environment that signal the presence and desirability of children. Examples include special signage, public art, and child-friendly open space, including playing fields.  Maintain community centers, and look into activating schools as open space after hours.  Create intergenerational connections between seniors and kids. Family Cluster Pilot Project The City should seek to develop neighborhoods in the Center City with existing family clusters, such as Yesler Terrace and the Cascade neighborhood, into family cluster pilot projects. These focused efforts would encompass streetscape improvements, affordable highdensity housing for families, and open space design. The specifics of these improvements are outlined in the “Policy Recommendations” portion of this section. 18

Within these family clusters, there should be specific pilot projects for affordable family housing. Design guidelines for family housing are touched upon in this report, and are also the subject of Vancouver’s High-Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines. (See Appendix) The City should set quantifiable targets for these pilot family clusters and housing projects. The City should also set time frames during which these targets and measures are re-evaluated for effectiveness, relevance, flexibility, and simplicity, as part of the aim of the pilot projects is to define quantifiers for the tipping point at which places develop into family communities.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The FUN Team’s discussions and research have revealed that a multi-pronged policy approach that addresses many facets of the Center City is crucial to attract more families to play and live in the Center City. The two most fundamental pieces of essential infrastructure that the City must provide, however, are affordable family housing and schools.

P1. Pursue Affordable Family Housing
The cost of housing in the Center City is prohibitive for many families. As the Center City works towards attracting residents of all ages, it must also provide opportunities for families of all income levels. The private housing market is not providing a sufficient supply of affordable, familysized units. Consequently, the City should encourage and incentivize affordable family housing. City funding should serve as a catalyst to leverage other funding. The False Creek North Post-Occupancy Evaluation (see Appendix) indicates that affordable family housing remains a fundamental issue in Vancouver when developing inclusive, diverse family clusters.

International District Night Market. Aug. 1, 2006

19

Procure funding for family housing.  Use the upcoming housing levy as an opportunity to set aside funding for subsidized affordable family-sized units in the Center City.  Allow density bonus money, currently available only in the downtown core, to be used toward affordable family housing the in Center City.  Give priority to specifically designated family clusters when funding family housing. Strongly encourage developers to provide affordable family housing.  Use additional density or other incentive zoning measures to encourage affordable family housing developments.  Investigate providing property tax exemptions to parents whose children attend public school in Seattle  Consider requiring a percentage of family housing units in residential developments within designated family clusters. Create guidelines or requirements for family-oriented design.  Take tips from the Vancouver High-Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines (see Appendix).  Establish a checklist of criteria for family housing that determines eligibility for funding and for categorization as a family-friendly housing unit for marketing.  The False Creek North Post-Occupancy Evaluation indicates that open space at the building scale is important.

 Design guidelines should take surrounding open space into account. A façade that fronts a street or a park, for example, could be encouraged to have ground-floor residential walk-ups. Developments that lack nearby open space, meanwhile, could be encouraged to provide a courtyard for play and neighborly interaction.  Partner with organizations such as the AIA, ULI, and Affordable Housing Consortium to address existing barriers to building family-sized housing units.

20



Victor Steinbrueck Park. April 12, 2008 

P2. Develop a Center City Public Elementary School
The FUN Team’s focus group participants and others, have consistently cited schools as a crucial factor in reaching the tipping point towards a new perception of the Center City as a place for families with children to live. Center City schools also provide an additional opportunity that should not be wasted: the possibility of collaboration with a rich array of cultural and business partners. Parental feedback outlined in the False Creek North PostOccupancy Evaluation (see Appendix) indicates a strong sense that social infrastructure, such as schools, must be in place before families move into a neighborhood. In addition, parents who are raising children in the Center City have cited the difficulty of finding a network of other parents as a primary challenge. Schools provide events and venues for creating a community of families. As many as 2,000 children are currently enrolled in Center City childcare centers. This group of pre-school aged children could potentially augment the numbers of k-5 school aged children already living in the Center City and provide the “critical mass” necessary to make possible the development of a public elementary school. Children living in the school’s catchment area could be given enrollment priority to help serve as a magnet to attract families to move to the Center City. (For more, reference p. 5 of the City staff workbook in the Appendix.)  Make use of public-private collaboration opportunities with the arts, science industry, other businesses and charitable foundations to enrich curriculum and provide funding.

 Specifically take advantage of the opportunity to work with the developing biotech industry to establish a science/math-oriented magnet school.  Establish a K-3 or pre-K-3 school to meet current demand and expand to K-5 as the population of children grows in the Center City.  Design a school to be a multi-use public facility that serves as a community gathering space or adult learning center after normal school hours. Consider offsetting operating expenses with rental income.  Provide extra density, expedited permitting, or other incentives in exchange for the incorporation of a school facility in a development.

P3. Increase Support for Child Care Centers
The long waiting lists for child care in the Center City indicate a dire and urgent need. The city must look to increase the incentives for developers to build child care facilities—in particular, facilities for infant and toddler care, which are in the shortest supply.  Provide incentives for the inclusion of child care in new developments.  Be specific when encouraging child care: create an extra bonus for infant and toddler care facilities, and for beforeand after-school care.  Designate priority parking spots for child care facility loading zones, to allow room for school buses.  Work with the State and the City’s Human Services Department to add flexibility in open space requirements for childcare.  Promote shared senior centers and child care facilities.  Collaborate with nearby businesses to fund child care facilities. 21 23

P4. Improve Streets
The Center City streetscape offers many opportunities to make downtown safer and more appealing to kids of all ages. The City should examine how Seattle’s Right-ofWay Improvement Manual, Bicycle Plan, and upcoming Pedestrian Plan currently address family and youth needs, and consider adding new language where appropriate to further encourage the use of streetscapes for youth. This may include setting more robust standards for alternative street typologies that favor pedestrians, and envisioning temporary street closures for family and youth-related events. (For more, reference p. 23 of the City staff workbook in the Appendix.) Build a walking culture.  Integrate facilities around walking tours of history or art.  Increase incentives for hill-climbs. Make them easier to find, and more approachable to people of all ages.  Examine streets from the perspective of a parent with a stroller, adding curb cuts and widening sidewalks where necessary.  Install wayfinding elements for youth.  Develop a design catalogue for child-friendly street improvements. Keep key streets residential in scale.  Identify and develop pedestrian corridors. (See Appendix for Home Zones)  Develop conceptual street designs that can be implemented simultaneously with development projects.  Target and create quiet, green, non-arterial neighborhood streets to support and amplify the residential character of family cluster areas. 22 24

 Investigate design guidelines for streets that provide ample play opportunities during temporary street closures.  Incorporate detail into the streets, including elements of art and nature, to create streetscapes of delight.  Include benches and other interesting resting points, particularly in hilly areas. Benches provide seating for watching activity on the streets when they are temporarily closed or when children are at play. Take advantage of streets as Center City open space.  Use alleys as pedestrian corridors with both commercial and public use.  Continue to exploit underused street rights-of-way, and make it easier to apply for intermittent street closures. The current Car-Free Sundays program and Park(ing) Day are good examples of temporarily closing streets to create space for everything from block parties and pocket parks to temporary play structures.

P5. Improve Transportation
Connectivity between important destinations for families and children is crucial in making the most out of the Center City’s resources for families and its role in sustainability based on regional growth management initiatives. An urban core also offers better opportunities for independent youth mobility, freeing parents and their vehicles from the task of driving their children around. Promote healthier and more sustainable modes of transport for children.  Identify where children want or need to go within the Center City. Provide ways of getting there on foot or by bike wherever possible.

 Co-locate places that children frequent, placing playgrounds near libraries and childcare centers in schools or community centers.  Promote the location of childcare centers in or near commercial nodes, where transit service is good and parents can combine shopping with picking up children.  Establish direct transportation routes between childoriented destinations, including family clusters, to minimize transfers. Where transfers are unavoidable, make them as easy as possible with safe, well-lit bus shelters.  Add novelty for children, in the form of art and unique experiences, in Center City transit.  Ensure that every part of a transit system is safe and welcoming to a child, and affordable.  Separate sidewalks used by children and youth from heavily trafficked roads, particularly where traffic is stationary with engines idling for long periods.  Ensure that sidewalks are suitable for tricycles and bicycles.  At destinations, provide secure, convenient parking facilities for bicycles and strollers.  Consider children and youth when designing new light rail stations and bus stops.  Establish a bicycle sharing program.  Establish a tricycle and wagon sharing program in parks. Ensure safety and accessibility in the transportation system.  Consider dedicated bike tracks and ensure that bike riders are well provided for and easily visible at street intersections. These measures are aimed not only at young bicyclists, but also at parents who might transport their children using trailers and other bicycle attachments.

23

 Establish networks of “walking buses” (a group of children and a few parents walking to school) and other measures that allow children to walk to school. Ensure that transportation hubs cater to teens.  Many high school students transfer downtown, particularly at the Westlake station. Programming, vending, and amenities should be available for teens and kids at important transfer hubs.  Consider using bus tunnels as temporary programming plazas.

 Promote programs in urban agriculture for kids at the P-Patches or in street planter boxes.  Remember to create places for relaxation in addition to places for recreation. Invest in playgrounds for all ages.  Investigate adventure playgrounds that provide many opportunities for unstructured play.  In order to create a network of spaces that are within walking distance to the places where children spend their days, invest in a range of park types and sizes. Both pocket parks and ballfields are needed.  Invest in fountains and public art in open spaces.  Encourage elements in open spaces that provide excitement for older children, including spaces that encourage skateboarding and climbing, or that otherwise provide an element of “healthy risk.”  Provide comfortable and attractive seating for parents.  Add free public Wi-Fi and laptop shelters with electric outlets at play spaces, so parents can go online while kids play.  Make large public sports facilities accessible for public use during idle times.  Consider taking advantage of indoors spaces and rooftops to provide bowling and other for-profit recreational centers in a high-density environment.  In the process of renovating large parks like Seattle Center, take advantage of opportunities to create shortterm play spaces and fields.  Community centers are necessary to service the 8-14 age population, who have grown out of playgrounds and are possibly not yet old enough for public transit. Swimming pools, skating rinks, organized sports, and youth specific club spaces within a community center could help service this population.

P6. Coordinate Open Space and Programming
One of the biggest draws for families to the suburban lifestyle is the ability to have children play in the safe environment of a private backyard. Available land in the suburbs also allows for large parks and playfields. While these amenities are difficult to find in city centers, there are quality urban alternatives that can be provided. Urban living also provides the vibrant street life of shopping, art, and community interaction lacking in suburban areas. The False Creek North Post-Occupancy Evaluation (see Appendix) indicates that there is a strong tendency to forget about the needs of older children when creating recreational amenities in public spaces. In designing open spaces, it is critical to remember the wide age range of youth that is being targeted by the FUN Initiative. (For more, reference p. 15 of the City staff workbook in the Appendix.) Provide backyard substitutes.  Utilize woonerf or home-zone planning to provide safe, public play space in the right-of-way.  Convert under-utilized streets into linear parks.

24

Provide both consistency and variety when programming activities in public spaces.  Streamline the permitting process for temporary use of open space for farmer’s markets, street vendors, performers, and art.  Investigate ways to provide more permanent markets or night markets.  Be thoughtful of the programming needs of children of all ages, including teens.  Host “Play Date Saturdays” downtown  Build on existing events like the Sandfest and the Winter Carousel, and host one aggressively advertised kidoriented event for each season of the year.  Support large, visible, destination spaces for kids, and let these spaces serve as unmistakable signs that children are present in the surrounding neighborhoods.

 Promote open floor-plan units in which bedrooms can be added with partition walls.  Include requirements for interior common space.  In designated family clusters, use Neighborhood Design Guidelines to provide direction to multi-family and mixeduse project developers. Seattle Design Commission reviews of City capital projects  Encourage the Design Commission to address the unique needs of youth and families citywide when reviewing capital improvement and right-of-way projects.  Assess what makes a feature or design element friendly and accessible to various age ranges.  Quantitatively measure good family-friendly design or create a family-friendly checklist.  Consider creating a recognition or awards program for family-friendly developments. Interdepartmental collaboration  Departments including Parks, Transportation, and Arts should consider adopting their own design checklists focusing on all-ages appeal, on a variety of scales.

P7. Amend Design Criteria and Guidelines
Family-oriented design and policy offers a new lens through which the City can approach Center City development. In order to ensure the proliferation of family-oriented design, the City should adopt a set of guidelines outlining the criteria used to evaluate family-oriented design and policy. Design Review  Design Review Boards and Commissions should be encouraged to consider the needs of youth and families with children as they review development projects and advise City staff and elected officials on planning policy and capital projects.  Use the design guidelines update, currently underway, to include family-friendly policy directives. Create guidelines that encourage family-friendly design elements such as interior courtyards, tiered setbacks, and shared community gardens.

P8. Address Safety Concerns
 Work towards making Center City safe, not sterile. Don’t sacrifice urban vibrancy, activity, diversity.  Keep the “broken windows theory” in mind for streetscape maintenance and be swift to repair signs of neglect, from broken windows to graffiti “tagging.”  Encourage ground-level residential and open-late commercial developments to maintain eyes on the street.  Provide foot and bike beat patrols in family cluster areas.  Expand Metropolitan Improvement District to South Lake Union to provide a higher level of clean and safe services.

25

Strategy for Implementation: Overview
Draw Families to Visit Draw Families to Move In

Strategize 2010

Mayor and Council agree on the importance of a directed familyoriented citywide initiative. Mayor holds a Center City for Families press conference.

City departments begin reevaluating existing policies with a family-friendly lens.

City begins strategic support of families already living in Center City. Mayor markets living in Center City family clusters.

Coordinate 2011

A developing parent community strengthens the coordination of information on the Mayor’s family-friendly website. Investment in public transportation and public realm amenities makes the Center City an active and accessible place. Public, non-profit and private organizations continue to collaborate. Citywide family-friendly events and projects continue to flourish.

Departments continue to revise existing policies with a familyfriendly lens. City provides increasing support for teenagers in Center City.

DPD finalizes the designation of family enclaves, and work begins on developing the character of the clusters. Housing and public realm in family clusters continues to develop.

Develop 2012

Refine 2014

City re-examines its FUN initiative, evaluating successes and weaknesses of policy to date. Consideration of the needs of children and youth permeates all City departments’ daily business.

Character of family clusters is apparent.

Mature 2016

Seattle Public Schools establishes a public elementary school in Center City.

26

Section 4. Strategy for Implementation In This Section:
In this section, the FUN Team has sketched a potential outline of where a well-implemented family-oriented policy initiative might take the City of Seattle over the next decade. The team derived the preceding ideas from our focus group discussions with city staff, developers, and citizens into the following potential implementation strategy. ƒƒ ƒƒ ƒƒ ƒƒ ƒƒ 2009: Strategize and set a policy framework................. 28 2010: Coordinate existing resources............................... 28 2011: Develop new initiatives, projects, and tools.......... 29 2013: Review results and refine strategy........................ 30 2015: Mature and replicate program citywide................ 30

2010: Strategize and set a policy framework.
Mayor and Council agree on the importance of a directed family-oriented citywide initiative. Mayor markets Center City as a place for families to visit and live. (See S1. Be Intentional under Section 3)  Mayor convenes a Center City for Families event day.  DPD, Arts, Parks, Library, and other collaborating departments develop a website with a master events calendar to market Center City programming and amenities.  Programming around transit stations provides consistent events for young age groups and promotes new light rail system. City departments begin re-evaluating existing policies with a family-friendly lens.  Housing Levy update includes targeted funding to support housing clusters

 Office of Housing and DPD look for additional mechanisms to encourage affordable family cluster development.  Office of Economic Development pursues assistance from Center City employers such as Fred Hutchinson, Group Health, Microsoft, and Amazon to market and financially support family housing as a benefit for young employees. (See S2. Create Partnerships under Section 3)  SDOT builds on the success of the Car-Free Summer, re-evaluating permitting for temporary street closures and permitting within temporary spaces. (See P4. Improve Streets under Section 3)  SPL continues to examine ways to make public/ private and public/non-profit partnering easier with organizations like Seattle Art Museum and the Science Center.  Parks examines park rules, such as skateboarding rules, with an eye towards being approachable to youth and families. Parks also continues to gear capital improvements and events programming towards more frequent family-friendly elements. City begins strategic support of families already living in the Center City. (See S3. Create Communities of Family Clusters under Section 3)  DPD continues to survey families to research the market for family clusters. In addition to the survey currently available online, DPD distributes exit surveys for families and young married couples as they leave downtown.

27

2011: Coordinate existing resources.
A developing parent community strengthens the coordination of information on the Mayor’s family-friendly website.  Parents contribute on the Mayor’s website to a map of family-friendly public spaces, including many hidden gems.  Events calendar continues to develop with parental contributions.  Parents advocate for family-friendly housing and child care assistance from their Center City employers. Departments continue to revise existing policies with a family-friendly lens.  DPD and OH develop evaluation criteria for family housing goals and begin monitoring progress.  Screening criteria established for capital projects to implement FUN elements.  Faster permitting for temporary street closures to allow block parties, farmer’s markets, basketball hoops, pocket parks, temporary play structures, street vendors, and performers.  Parks modifies policy in public spaces to be more accommodating of youth of all ages, from increasing adventure play spaces to potentially allowing skateboarding after certain hours.  Citywide design guidelines are amended to include child-friendly criteria.  DPD finalizes the designation of family clusters, and work begins on developing the character of the family clusters. CityDesign aids neighborhoods in adding family-friendly criteria to the various neighborhood design guidelines. 28

City finalizes strategy for building pilot family clusters. (See P1. Pursue Affordable Family Housing under Section 3)  OH and DPD finalize funding mechanisms for familyfriendly housing.  DPD compiles survey research into design guidelines and a quantitative measure to certify family-friendly housing units. (See P7. Amend Design Criteria and Guidelines under Section 3)  City considers inclusionary zoning to begin requiring affordable family housing in family clusters.  OACA and SDOT pursue the SDOT arts plan and other opportunities for public art with a family-friendly lens, incorporating youth-oriented details into streets and open space, concentrated in family clusters. These details may include wayfinding for youth, elements of art and nature, and walking tours of history or art.  DPD continues to encourage developers to include well-marked, stroller-friendly hillclimbs and interesting resting points along these streets.  Parks begins to acquire public space for pocket parks. Some undeveloped street rights-of-way might be designated as permanent open space, paving the way for play structures or P-Patches with benches nearby.

2012: Develop new initiatives, projects, and tools.
Mayor markets living in Center City family clusters.  Mayor encourages businesses to add on-site child care, or kids’ corners in shops.  Website takes on residential character, with networking functionality.

Character of family clusters continues to develop. (See P8. Safety under Section 3)  Parks establishes a community center for the South Lake Union family clusters, potentially in collaboration with area schools, to establish opportunities for creating intergenerational connections between seniors and kids.  SDOT establishes safe routes to neighborhood schools. City provides increasing support for teenagers in the Center City.  Teen-friendly amenities target popular bus transfer points, such as Westlake Center and 3rd & Pine.  DPD, SDOT, and Arts collaborate to create elements that allow skateboarding and other elements of healthy risk for teen-aged youth.  City continues to promote new and existing youth art development programs such as the Vera Project and Center School.

City re-examines its FUN initiative, evaluating successes and weaknesses of policy to date.  City partners with local academic institutions to conduct post-occupancy evaluations of familyoriented housing in family clusters.  City conducts another survey of parents and youth visiting, living, or working downtown, to gauge areas of success and areas with room for improvement.

2016: Mature and replicate program citywide.
Family-friendly events and projects continue to flourish, and are adopted in other Seattle Urban Villages.  The city embarks on developing more family clusters, using the experience gained from the pilot family cluster projects and ongoing surveys to improve the supporting design guidelines and benchmarks. SPS establishes a public elementary school in the Center City. (See P2. Develop a Center City Public School under Section 3)  The school partners with the Center City’s high-tech industries and cultural resources to become a wellrounded elementary school focusing on a strong science and math curriculum.  Begins as a K-3 school and expands to K-5 as youth population rises in the Center City  Center City school is active during the entire day, serving as a combined community, recreation and performance arts facility during non-school hours.

2014: Review results and refine strategy.
Character of family clusters is apparent.  DPD design guidelines for family housing fuels the appearance of ground-level residential units.  Most pocket parks include areas for structured or unstructured play, including areas for teens with sports courts. Free public wi-fi at laptop shelters in these parks allows parents to go online while kids play.  City website becomes visitor-oriented in nature as families take ownership of programming and networking within the family clusters.

29

In Closing
 The FUN Team urges the Mayor and City Council to adopt a resolution clearly stating the City’s commitment to attracting and retaining youth and families to and in the Center City.  The FUN Team recommends the development of policy language that clearly states to all Departments the priority of attracting and retaining youth and families to the Center City. A FUN section should be added to departmental Accountability Agreements.  The FUN Team recommends the appointment of an interdepartmental FUN team to oversee and facilitate implementation.  The FUN Team urges the Mayor and City Council to adopt an implementation timeline similar to the one outlined in this report.

30



Pioneer Square Art Walk. August 6, 2009 

Appendix
Center City for Families Website www.seattle.gov/dpd/centercityforfamilies Austin Report www.ci.austin.tx.us/housing/downloads/factf_report_08. pdf CEOs for Cities CityKids Report www.ceosforcities.org/files/CEOs_CityTalent_Kids.pdf False Creek POE www.pricetags.ca/pricetags/pricetags104.pdf San Francisco Department of Children, Youth and their Families Community Needs Assessment 2008 www.dcyf.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=3528 Vancouver’s High-Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines vancouver.ca/commsvcs/Guidelines/H004.pdf

31

City Staff Focus Group Attendees:
Arts and Cultural Affairs Irene Gomez Patricia Hopper Kathy Hsieh Michael Killoren Paul Rucker Ruri Yampolsky Council Legislative Staff Neil Powers Economic Development Steve Johnson Finance   Amanda Allen Karen Grove Jan Oscherwitz Nathan Torgelson Fleets and Facilities David Kunselman Housing Laura Hewitt Walker Human Services Jean Bombardier Randi Solinsky Information Technology David Keyes Library   Cass Mabbott Amy Twito Neighborhoods Laurie Ames John Eskelin Rich Macdonald Sara Wysocki Parks and Recreation BJ Brooks Adrienne Caver-Hall Victoria Schoenburg Kevin Stoops Planning and Development Lyle Bicknell Peter Dobrovolny Valerie Kinast Susan McLain Dennis Meier Steve Moddemeyer Jerry Suder Policy and Management Craig Benjamin Seattle Center Jill Crary Layne Cubell Transportation Barbara Gray Pete Lagerwey Kate Leitch Freddy McLaughlin Angela Steel Sandra Woods

32

33

Family-Friendly Urban Neighborhoods Initiative Workgroup Report
Prepared by: FUN staff Gary Johnson Vanessa Murdock Cheryl Sizov Seth Geiser Boting Zhang Report Design Seth Geiser Boting Zhang

34

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/centercityforfamilies