Those who oppose development in Seattle have no greater symbol than the so-called “Up House” in Ballard where Edith Macefield held out against the developer who brought Trader Joe’s and LA Fitness to the neighborhood enveloping her home on three sides.

You can listen to her story on this 99 Percent Invisible podcast, which is titled Holdout.

The surprising thing about Edith’s story is that the construction foreman (who works for what many consider big bad developer) ends up being the hero of the story. He became Edith’s friend and primary caretaker, and she ended up thinking highly enough of him to leave him her house, which the developer had previously offered her one million dollars only to be rebuffed. People generally don’t leave their inheritance to random jerks, but to anti-growth folks who have taken up the mantle of Edith’s story generally paint the developers as jerks worthy of scorn and definitely not inheritances. As the Washington Post reported:

Macefield became a neighborhood fixture. Her little blue car sat curbside. She played her music loudly. “I went through World War II; the noise doesn’t bother me,” she told the Seattle paper about the construction project surrounded her. “They’ll get it done someday.”

While she had a reputation for being a bit cranky, Macefield befriended a number of the people working on the project engulfing her home — particularly Martin, the construction superintendent. “From all the stories I had heard, I expected her to be angry or whatever,” he recalled this week. “But she was actually pleased and excited for there to be activity around there.”

And it wasn’t that she was mean, Martin said; she just had defense mechanisms. You had to earn her trust.

That’s what Martin ended up doing over time. It began with a hello, and soon he was driving Macefield to hair and doctor appointments, and buying her groceries and cooking her meals.

And Edith for her part claimed she didn’t even mind the construction noise. “I went through World War II; the noise doesn’t bother me,” she told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Edith didn’t want to be famous and cussed out a few of the reporters who came knocking on her door, likely with a story angle already selected.

The story gets at why we should be wary of stereotyping developers. Many are hardly the boogeyman they are in pop culture. And they employ people who are stand-up human beings like the construction foreman who befriended Edith.

Ballard keeps growing but it remains a handsome neighborhood in this author’s eyes anyway.

Moreover, developers perform a necessary service even as they become pariahs to some. If they don’t build then competition for existing, housing stock only increases. Instead of moving into newly-built housing stock, wealthy folks would compete for older stock with middle income folks. Just saying no doesn’t work with housing, particularly for tenants who make up about half the city of Seattle.

Yes, developers hope to profit nicely and in a city with nation-leading housing price increases like Seattle many probably profit handsomely. But when housing crashes come, some see their investments evaporate, too. Risk is inherent with so many moving parts to a project.

One thing this city can do to help more people think more positively about developers is to pass Mandatory Housing Affordability and guarantee each new project contributes to affordable housing for those making below 80% of area median income. Enacting this inclusionary zoning program would harness growth for greater good and demonstrate development isn’t just about profiting the few.

Seattle Times Indulges He Said, She Said Displacement Analysis

We hope you loved this article. If so, please consider subscribing or donating. The Urbanist is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that depends on donations from readers like you.

Doug Trumm is The Urbanist's Executive Director. An Urbanist writer since 2015, he dreams of pedestrianizing streets, blanketing the city in bus lanes, and unleashing a mass timber building spree to end the affordable housing shortage and avert our coming climate catastrophe. He graduated from the Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Washington. He lives in East Fremont and loves to explore the city on his bike.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brian Schend

You also forgot to mention that she actually supported the new development in Ballard and loved the neighborhood’s building boom. She just didn’t want to move.


As you say, developers are so easily maligned, but if people looked into the history of their homes and neighborhoods, modern America was built by developers. We are a capitalist society and professional builders have specialized knowledge needed to build efficiently and the ability to get financing, which is the ultimate barrier in our country. It isn’t that developers are crooked, but we have a crooked capitalist system. This is why we need MHA.

If I could wave my magic wand I would open a city bank that would lend liberally to home owners to develop their properties in more creative ways and eliminate as much of the land use code as possible so we could have more organically grown multifamily housing across the city, but we live in Trump country. The combination of MHA and expanding our urban centers seem like the best ways to keep pace with the skyrocketing real estate market and ensure Seattle does not continue its current path to becoming an exclusive enclave for the wealthy. Without MHA, we just saw a 20% increase in home prices in the last two years. Try to buy any sort of home, anything, for less than $300,000 in Seattle. That is ten times what my parents bought their home for in the 80s.

Everyone needs to let their council members know that they need to support MHA and increased density in the U District upzone.