Bellingham Retires 434 Subarea Plans — But Will It Silence Neighborhood Voices?

I keep coming back to this phrase: simplify to serve. But when cities try that, they often run into the hard edge of whose voice gets lost in the process. Bellingham is about to step on that knife.

In Bellingham (northwestern Washington), the city has long carried the weight of 25 neighborhood plans divided into 434 distinct subareas, each with its own rules, design guidelines, and local expectations. City planners now propose retiring those neighborhood plans entirely in favor of a unified, citywide plan. The pitch? A simpler, cleaner code. Less overlap. Less confusion.

But the pushback is loud and real. Some residents see those neighborhood plans as more than documents, they are lived promises, localized visions, and tools of grassroots power. To retire them feels like erasing community identity rather than simplifying it. Others point out that these plans were often hard fought, built from years of public input. To shelve them wholesale might be efficient, but could be ungrateful to the process.

Here’s where it gets tricky: many parts of those neighborhood plans have grown outdated. New state laws, local housing pressures, evolving zoning policies, many subarea rules just don’t map well onto today’s challenges. Planners say the code has become a patchwork that slows decisions, forces redundant reviews, and sends mixed signals to developers and citizens alike.

The tension is clear: simplicity vs. specificity, efficiency vs. democracy. A single, clean citywide plan may speed permitting and reduce staff burden. But what happens when the local charm that drew people to “neighborhoods” in the first place is flattened? When corners are lost, when nuance is sacrificed for uniformity?

‍