Tag Archives: Urban planning

After a nine-year cleanup, Port of Everett site is a winner

ESY Before and NowThe Waterfront Place Central cleanup at the Port of Everett was named the Environmental Project of the Year by Washington Public Ports Association.

The site is a 65-acre former industrial property in the heart of the port’s 2,300-slip marina, which it says is the largest public marina on the West Coast. The site will become a new mixed-use development with public access, retail, commercial space and housing. Construction is expected to begin on that in 2016.

Between 2006 and 2015, the port has done cleanup projects across the 65-acre site, removing nearly 150,000 tons of contaminated soil, remediating groundwater plumes, dredging sediment from the bay, and removing failing bulkheads and other old creosote-treated wood structures.

Strider Construction did the upland cleanup, and Magnus Pacific did the in-water cleanup.

The port worked with Ecology to divide the 65 acres into six separate cleanup sites, with the ultimate goal of creating a new waterfront destination in Everett. The final, major cleanup at the site will be complete this month.

Port officials say Waterfront Place will unify the marina and surrounding property to create a unique community.

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Northgate – what exactly is light rail’s urban development responsibility?

On Nov. 17, the DJC published this article I wrote about Sound Transit’s Northgate light rail station. The Northgate station is one of three that will be part of Sound Transit’s North Link light rail extension, running from the University District to Northgate Mall. The Northgate station is the only one that it above ground. Because of this, and a number of other factors, it is also the most complex of the three. It is designed by Hewitt.

The article centered on the station’s design, and was based off a Seattle Light Rail Review

ST PowerPoint Template
Panel meeting I attended. The panel, which reviews the station’s design, had a lot of criticism that is detailed in the story. Their main point was that the structure wasn’t living up to its responsibility in helping to transform the neighborhood.

This is from the story:

Julie Parrett, who is on the review panel and the Design Commission, said this station is unique because the area around it is going through a transformation. Northgate was built for cars and a more suburban lifestyle, but today there is a city-wide effort to make it a place that works for pedestrians, residents and the surrounding community.

Thornton Place, she said, has helped set a standard for new development and the station can reinforce that. She said she doesn’t view the current design as helping shape a new Northgate.

“These are buildings and projects that are going to last for 50 to 100 years and we can’t forget that,” she said. “They do have a civic responsibility and right now, I feel like this building is really turning itself inward and not reaching out and not thinking in a conceptual way what its role (is) as a precedent or precursor in this area.”

After publication, Ian Hernandez, a friend of mine, posted this comment on my personal Facebook page:

“Speaking of, great article on the North Link Northgate station the other day! Some of those panel comments crack me up – it’s like they think that Thornton Place somehow turned that area into a shining jewel of urban transition, when it’s really still just a bunch of crapshacks bordered by a giant movie theater and ugly parking garage.”

Image courtesy Sky-Pix
Big, boxy Thornton Place certainly isn’t perfect but it’s better than the empty parking lot that used to be there. At least the space now offers movies and a few retail and eating options. Whether you like it or not, it’s there. The question is what happens next and what is the light rail station’s responsibility in helping to guide that change?

When I went to the last Northgate station open house, the audience members seemed generally pleased with the station design and some even commended Sound Transit for its work. The Light Rail Review Panel was quite critical, but it looks at the project with the eyes of people who have a responsibility of curating the city’s future through projects and urban development.

Here’s what’s sure: The Northgate area is changing and light rail will be transformative, no matter what it looks like. Given these two things, how much does the station’s design really matter? Does it need to serve as a bridge to the future or does it just need to be there? In a perfect world, what would you like to see the station look like?

Also, as a sidenote, this station will have restrooms unlike the ones at Brooklyn or Roosevelt.

Also, if you’re really intersted in this topic, go to this open house on Dec. 8 at Aljoya Senior Apartments (a part of Thornton Place). Sound Transit says it has drawn up a “few options that show future urban design and development possibilities for this area south of the mall.”

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

In 2011, Seattle moves towards district energy

This week, we ran this story in the DJC about Yesler Terrace, CollinsWoerman and the effort to start considering resources on the broader scale.

For those of you that don’t live in the area, Yesler Terrace is a 28-acre publicly subsidized housing community owned by the Seattle Housing Authority. It is  in the process of being redeveloped.

Imaging one energy and water system for all this space.
CollinsWoerman is a local architecture and planning firm.

District energy systems are common in Europe, especially Denmark. They allow buildings to connect to each other, increasing efficiency and reducing costs by letting several buildings share energy from a main source, such as steam, geothermal, biomass or waste heat.

But they are often cost prohibitive because streets must be torn up for a network of pipes to be built underground.

Steve Moddemeyer, principle of sustainable development at CollinsWoerman, said according to a CollinsWoerman study for SHA, a district water system could cut water use by half for Yesler Terrace and reduce wastewater flows by 70 percent for the same or less cost as a traditional system. Just imagine if you could do that for an entire city!

The fact that Yesler Terrace is considering a water and energy district is really exciting. But what’s more interesting is what it says about Seattle. District energy has long been a buzz-term in the city’s green community. It seems like we might finally be moving towards getting momentum on new projects.

The city of Seattle hired AEI and Cowi to study district energy opportunities for the city. They are looking at where these systems would be feasible and will identify the top three places. Moddemeyer has seen such interest in district energy and water, he said Yesler Terrace might not be the first project to employ the system. If private developers move forward, he said district systems could be the norm within five years. (Can you even imagine that scenario…?!)

Separately, the city is also working with Trent Berry, a partner with Vancouver, B.C.’s Compass Resource Management. Berry is also providing expertise on district energy systems.

The city of Bothell is also looking at installing a district energy system.

The new projects point in the direction Seattle is heading. But we are also lucky to have Seattle Steam here. Seattle Steam, a district heat provider for 200 downtown buildings, has been around for over 100 years. I’m sure there’s a lot of experience they can add to this discussion.

It seems like Seattle has an opportunity here to be a real leader.

Moddemeyer said the biggest obstacle to progress is our faith in the current system. Projects like King County’s $1.8 billion Brightwater Treatment Plant put all our water treatment eggs in one basket, betting that water will continue to be treated the way it is in years to come.

What do you think?

P.S. Like me on Facebook for regular updates on blog posts and similar green building information: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Katie-Zemtseff/301025823604

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

The UW’s Paccar Hall: creating places people love

Last week, I toured the University of Washington’s Paccar Hall at the Foster School of Business. I’m not an architectural critic so I won’t pass judgement on the space itself (Lawrence Cheek was on the tour, so  you might look forward to his take sometime). I will say the space itself almost tempted me to go back to school.

I wrote about the building in the DJC here. But what I didn’t write about was the way it made me feel.

Often, I tour a space and listen to the words of the architect. They speak about aesthetics, connections and a building’s grand goals. In Paccar Hall, I didn’t so much need to hear Mark Reddington of LMN speak about what the building was meant to do — as I needed to look around and see everything he was talking about playing out in person.

Creating space that fostered random conversations between people? Check. Creating space with lots of nooks and comfortable areas for people to rest and do their own thing both indoors and out? Check. Creating space that felt like a broader piece of the UW’s campus, rather than a segmented section of learning? Check. This is a building that was crawling with students interacting at all different levels, I’m guessing not all from the business school.

The sustainability features were also interesting, the most obvious one being daylit space. I’ve been in a lot of buildings that are “daylit” and sure, you see the outside and notice that you’re getting natural light. But in Paccar Hall, the daylighting wasn’t just a feature. It was the building and screamed for your attention. Having said that, I do wonder about the efficiency of a building that is over 45 percent glass. Architects on the tour assured me that numerous strategies had been put in place to take care of the solar load – very visible interior sunshades, exterior sunshades and glazing. I’d like to see the concrete operational numbers for the first few years to see how much energy it saves (it is LEED gold, after all).

The building has a number of other green features – it saved trees on the property, has automatic lighting controls and displacement ventilation. A planned green roof was value engineered out, though a decorative green space lines the outdoor terrace.

I’ve been thinking about the building and it raises a question for me: is it more sustainable to create a building that people love and will use thoroughly, or should teams concentrate on the green credentials?

In a perfect world, all green/sustainable/LEED certified buildings would also make you want to stay inside them. But the thing is, they don’t. Often, a LEED building feels just like any other building with the addition of that familiar plaque by the door. Personally, I wanted to spend more time in Paccar Hall. The more I digest this space, the more impressed I am. People end up loving buildings like this. And in 30 years, they won’t let it get torn down – a stark contrast to the original 1960s business school building just visible in the right corner of the first picture below that people can’t wait to demolish.

Can we say that for all the “green” buildings out there?

Here are a number of pictures I took from the tour. For more check out my Facebook fan page.

The backside of Paccar Hall
Ground floor of Paccar Hall, opposite the open cafe area
Open cafe space on the ground floor

Interior atrium

The front of the building, facing the UW\'s north entrance

Someone enjoying the sun on the building\'s outdoor terrace
Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter

Is this building ugly or not?

This week, Dan Bertolet published a great post titled simply ‘McNeighborhood,’ over at Publicola. The post discusses a project called The Corydon Apartments/Merril Gardens, located a few blocks north of University Village. Bertolet characterizes the project (which is pretty giant at two city blocks long) as a McNeighborhood and has this to say about its design:

“The overall effect is, well, just fine, I guess. Pleasant, though not inspiring. Sort of like the Pottery Barn aesthetic writ large—it looks good on a superficial level, but the soul is missing.”

I read the post with interest, then I read the comments. Many are quite positive. Commenter Cook says: “The building is actually quite nice compared to what could have gone in there.” Commenter Gomez said the design criticism has weight but the project is better than what was on site before — nothing.

Commenter giffy says: “I’d say this is exactly the kind of development we need more of in this city. And

Image courtesy Dan Bertolet, Publicola
really, much of the “lack of soul” is simply because it’s new. Wait fifty years and people will be bitching when they knock it down to put in support columns for our Jetson houses.”

Taken together, I think the post and comments pose an interesting question: just how much should we require of design? Should this project be commended for being better than what previously existed or should it be penalized (in our opinion) for not being as good as it could be?

In the interest of total disclosure, I’ll tell you that I grew up in this neighborhood and now live in it, so I’ve watched this site change and develop over a period of many, many years. Yes, the Corydon/Merrill Gardens is a big, big development for the area. But at street level, it is less jarring than a number of other nearby projects. Additionally, the storefronts are filling up with (mostly) local, user friendly shops. A liquor store, a clothing boutique, a Peet’s Coffee and a Japanese restaurant.

The new project is also a lot better than the burned out husk of an Italian restaurant that used to be there (Ciao Bella, though in all fairness, the space wasn’t a husk for too long and was renovated following the fire in 2003).

So here’s my question: just how ugly is this building? Is it an example of poor design? Or is it pretty darn good for the area it is in. What do you think? To see more pictures, click on the link to Bertolet’s post above or click on the link to Corydon.

Image courtesy The Corydon
Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter