There may be an economic downturn generally, but recently released city data contradicts the common assumption that Seattle's housing market has taken a hit. 

Since Jan of 2008, more than 6,500 housing units have been added to Seattle's housing stock with 2,800 of that total finished in the first three months of 2009. In fact, the rate of new housing development actually is up slightly from previous years.

What's even more interesting, the new numbers also directly conflict with the commonly held belief that Seattle and our neighborhoods somehow are not bearing their fair share of the region's growth. 

From 2004 to 2024, Seattle must add 47,000 housing units to its stock - a number set by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and based on what the planners and regional leaders say should be our share of anticipated regional growth. That's about one-third of all of King County's growth expected over this period.

View the city's most recent growth report here and see how your neighborhood is doing.

Setting these targets for Seattle and the rest of the region is mandated by the state's Growth Management Act with the aim of containing sprawl, getting us out of our cars, and curbing our carbon footprint. Cities must adjust their zoning and other policies accordingly to ensure these targets are met.

The new city housing numbers show that since January of 2005, more than 28,000 housing units have been added to Seattle's stock either built (16,504 units) or permitted and at various stages of construction (11,721 units).  Of course what this means is that since January 2005 - a little more than four years - Seattle already has reached 60 percent of it's 20-year regional target of 47,000 units.

By comparison, data provided by the PSRC indicates that nearly all other urban areas around the region like Everett, Bremerton, Tacoma, and most of the other smaller cities have fallen far short of their assigned targets.

And here's some residential growth figures for Seattle neighborhoods you might also find interesting. From January 2005 to March 2009, Ballard has reached 205 percent of its 20-year growth targets. West Seattle has reached 105 percent of its target.

Fremont has reached 124 percent and Capitol Hill 130 percent of its growth target.

And what about those so-called "TOD" (Transit Oriented Development) areas where routinely we are told that neighborhood groups are an impediment to the added housing densities we need to support light rail  In a little more than four years, Roosevelt has reached 66 percent of its 20-year target.

North Rainier (Mt. Baker Station) has reached 105 percent of it's target and Columbia City has reached 75 percent of its target. Around the Othello station, they've reached 77 percent of their required target. 

Northgate and the U-District are slightly ahead of their required pace, reaching 30 percent and 33 percent of their 20 year targets respectively. North Beacon Hill is right on pace reaching 20 percent of its target in a little more than four years. Only the Rainier Beach station area falls short reaching only 2 percent of its target. 

The State's Office of Financial Management recently released new population projections which show King County growing at a faster rate than previously forecast - one-third more growth in fact by 2022 than the prediction made back in 2002 which became the basis under Growth Management for the current 2024 targets.  It means that when new 25-year targets are set at the end of 2010 (for the period 2006-2031 it turns out), Seattle and it's neighborhoods will be called on again to absorb still more growth. 

Even so, this new city data indicates that we easily are adding housing units at a rate that would allow us to exceed these upwardly revised targets. Most importantly, it also means the new targets can be reached in most neighborhoods without dramatic changes to the underlying zoning including around nearly all light rail stations. 

Note also that we have current residential capacity under existing zoning to accommodate more than 150,000 additional housing units - more than three times the current growth target of 47,000 units and much more than we'll need even if those targets are raised by one-third. 

These are a lot of numbers to be tossing around but they tell an important story.

Some in the mainstream environmental community have resorted to leveling charges of NIMBYism (Not In My BackYard) against neighborhood activists who take a stand against zoning changes or individual developments planned for their communities that wipe out trees, urban streams, or existing low income housing.  They have been accused of contributing to sprawl or worse, called "anti-environmental" simply for standing up to preserve a quality of life in their communities.

Our city and our neighborhoods are getting a bum rap.  We're carrying much more than our share of the region's growth - leading the way in fact in the battle to contain sprawl especially when compared to the poor performance of other urban areas around the region. 

The burden of proof rests with the other side - the pro-density at all costs crowd.  Give us any reason - other than to enrich developers - why it's necessary to approve still more tax breaks, zoning incentives, and across the board upzones that only will further erode the scale, livability, and affordability of this city?