Sometimes the City of Seattle does something awesome. On Wednesday, the City Council Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee might move forward on reduced or eliminated parking requirements in new residential and commercial buildings in some core neighborhoods with good transit, as part of a broader Municipal Code update. Of course nearly all developments will continue to include parking, often lots of it; the point is the City won’t force developers to build it, or as much, in some areas. The Council is considering overlapping concepts by the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) and the Seattle Planning Commission. The Planning Commission link has a good map showing the relatively small areas affected.

Here are some reasons reduced requirements are outstanding policy:

1. It’s about “right-sizing” parking to what will actually be used. Developers want to have enough – too few spaces and their housing or commercial space won’t rent or sell, or won’t at the right price; too many and they’re wasting money. So they’ll guess, probably conservatively in most cases. The exceptions will be developers who specifically target tenants without cars, such as students, 20-somethings, or low-income seniors. Others will build more spaces than average. In neighborhoods with precedent, the developers have gotten good at predicting demand. For example, new mid-price apartment buildings on the edges of Downtown will often build 0.7 to 0.9 spaces per unit or thereabouts, with zero required.

2. Its about affordability. Unused spaces cost tens of thousands of dollars each to develop, even before specific site challenges such as inefficient geometries or groundwater. That’s a huge added cost shared by the developer (if the project pencils at all) and the residents of the building. Skipping that cost is a big help for providing new housing at reasonable cost. Regarding the lower price points not covered by subsidy, all housing tends to move downmarket over the decades; the units we’re talking about will drop at a similar pace from a lower starting point (or more quickly if you believe these units won’t be in demand). Also, with less parking architects can design more housing units or commercial space on a given site, which ought to reduce land costs per unit, even if the land itself is worth slightly more because it’s more developable. (Some detractors claim developers won’t pass the savings along, but when developers and building owners compete against each other, of course they’ll compete on price.)

3. It’s not a big reduction. The reduced requirements only apply to new buildings (obviously!). Even decades from now, most housing will still date to the years when parking was required for all units nearly everywhere. Mix in some buildings with ratios like 0.8 and the average won’t drop much. Tenants will self-select, with the car-less not paying extra for parking and those with cars choosing to pay their way. Detractors claim street parking will be jammed…not relevant if developers meet their targets, and a self-limiting factor regardless.

4. It’s about equality. Currently, people without cars are generally required to pay for parking they don’t use, effectively subsidizing the people who do use it. With reduced parking ratios, most owners will rent parking separately, and pay their own way – they’ll pay about what they do now, and the rest of us will pay less.

5. It’s already working. Much of greater Downtown hasn’t required parking in decades. Other districts reduced or eliminated their requirements more recently. So we’re seeing a lot of more reasonable ratios in those areas, balancing cost and demand. It’s the free market at work. Since there’s precedent, developers can see how a price point, unit size, and location translates, on average, into a number of parking spaces that will be used, meaning they can predict demand with decent accuracy.

Please pass this, Council!

Generally it’s a good idea to focus transit service on trunk lines, to put the service where the most riders are. So, generally, King County Metro should be congratulated for its proposed route changes.

But that’s not the only priority. While nobody expects Metro to go everywhere, it shouldn’t cut entire neighborhoods off, particularly job centers where workers have grown to rely upon transit, which benefits all of us as well as the riders. Outside the major nodes it’s ok to ask people to walk, in excess of a half-mile in some cases, but how much beyond that is ok?

Harbor Island is about to lose its service entirely outside of the SW Spokane Street corridor at the south end. It’s more than a mile from there to the northern-most employers such as Vigor Marine and Crowley, much of it not particularly safe or comfortable, particularly in the dark. Today Route 35 runs two buses each rush hour (none the rest of the time), a bit

earlier than normal closing times in the afternoon but moderately workable for now. This route will go away under the current proposal. Only Spokane will be served by the new Route 50, leaving the rest of the island 100% high and dry.

The current riders don’t want much, or so says the one who inspired this post — just a couple trips up the island at rush hour, ideally including one a little later than the current 4:09. Something a few blocks from work rather than the solid mile.

Solutions might be a special looping version of Route 50 a couple times per rush hour (either in addition to or instead of the main 50), or a separate rush hour shuttle connecting from the 50 to the north end of the island. Neither would be free, but either would be cheap vs. deleting a whole district from service.

Transit should help the the city function well, and parallel our regional strategy. Harbor Island packs a lot of economic punch, cramming in a lot of seaport and industry uses. It’s done this for generations. We’re not talking about leapfrogging new development and expecting new public services to cover it. This is about serving what’s existed for generations, and an existing community of riders.

Please don’t cut off this community.

 

On Monday (April 23), in celebration of Earth Day and Environmental Works 42^nd anniversary, the nonprofit community design center and its friends at John Barker Landscape Architects will occupy the parking spaces in front of Environmental Works at 402 15^th Ave. E. in Seattle,  converting them into a Parklet (mini-park).  They invite you to join them from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. in their outdoor living room  with plants from the green thumbs at Seattle Tilth, ice cream from Par Fait (a portion of ice cream proceeds will go to EW), and coffee courtesy of their neighbors at Victrola. And, yes, they know Earth Day is April 22, but they aren’t working that day.

 

 

 

Ground Zero – Melrose and Pine

To read the Capitol Hill Seattle Blog and its various commenters, that’s exactly how you might describe the current local sentiment about the impending redevelopment of a site at the southeast corner of this key “gateway” intersection, as it’s identified in the City of Seattle’s Pike/Pine Design Guidelines.
But seriously the collection of structures at this site (most recognizable as the “Bauhaus Books and Coffee” block) is definitely a character-defining element of the Pike-Pine Corridor, both in terms of its historic structures and some much-loved, iconic businesses located therein. In addition, as its “gateway” identification connotes, it’s one of the first remarkable collection of older, character-defining buildings as one arrives to the neighborhood from Downtown.
And now comes Madison Development Group (MDG) with a proposal to redevelop the entire site with a mixed-use building, which naturally raises local hackles.  Why, ask many locals, do these sites need to be redeveloped when they contain such lovely buildings?
Well, market forces are obviously at play here, combined with permissive zoning that allows substantially more development potential than the existing buildings embody – as the City implements its growth-management-sympathetic goals of accommodating urban growth, supporting transit-oriented communities and generally building urban villages.  In fact, the zoning has allowed greater development there for decades.  But market forces are finally catching up with that development potential.
What tempers the all-out higher development potential of the underlying zoning are the above-mentioned Pike/Pine Design Guidelines that contain some very specific language encouraging the most sensitive design possible where “character structures” are involved.  In essence, within the Pike/Pine Conservation Overlay District such “character structures” should be incorporated to the greatest extent feasible within the new development scheme.  Some purists scoff at this, labeling it as a “façadectomy” approach  to historic-building conservation, but frankly, short of full-on landmark or preservation-district level of control, that’s about the most the City can do legally to “conserve” these character-defining elements of such a neighborhood (be that Pike/Pine, Fremont or Greenwood).
What we should all hope for now is that MDG and its architects live up to the challenge to bring a truly sympathetic solution to this thorny design problem.  Somewhere between preservation of the buildings as-is and a pastiche-level façadectomy approach should be the right, elegant solution that melds the character and essence of these historic buildings with a handsome, contemporary companion.  This can be done, but it takes a high level of finesse not often seen in this neighborhood or elsewhere in Seattle . I won’t drag you through my list of successes and failures, but suffice it to say there have been some recent examples in this very neighborhood of both elegant additions, breathing new life into character buildings, and awkward, heavy-handed boxes abruptly shoved down on top of historic buildings.  Let’s hope the former examples inspire MDG, not the latter!

To learn more about the planned redevelopment, go to http://www.djc.com/news/re/12039698.html

An addition to Counterbalance Park at Queen Anne Avenue and Roy Street in Seattle is causing a debate about whether the public work of an architect should be changed without appropriate oversight. In this case, the work is by well-known Pacific Northwest landscape architect Robert Murase, who died in 2005. Here and here are some articles about the controversy.

 

The New York Times has an interesting article on the new office environment. It has less space per worker, no private offices, and more daylight and gathering spaces. The story looks at Seattle office spaces, including those of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, architecture firm NBBJ, and Russell Investments.

 

Scott Surdyke,  SeattleScape’s newest blogger, has some things to say about Amazon.com’s proposal to build a large office complex in downtown Seattle. Here is his take:

The news is REALLY BIG: Amazon and its architect, NBBJ, will present to the downtown Design Review Board on March 27^th its proposal for a MASSIVE new office tower campus in the heart of the Denny Triangle. The proposal is expected  include up to three (3) 1-million-square-foot towers, and may include up to two towers per block. In ANY city today, this would be viewed as a once in a lifetime project, a signature addition to the skyline, and an equally important opportunity to provide great public benefits such as open space and other on-site amenities. However, the scale and potential bulk of these proposed towers is concerning when you consider just how big (wide) a million-square-foot building has to be when it only has 500 feet of height to work with.

A tale of Two Towers:

The widest building on the Seattle skyline is the Russell Investments Center (former Washington Mutual Tower). This is a 1.2 million SF building, also designed by NBBJ,  squeezed into 575 feet of height, and it is a full block wide. The size and shape of this building was determined by the former “CAP” on building heights, which were first reduced to 450’ in the late 1980s.  Since then, height limits for major towers have incrementally crept upward as Seattle has warmed up to the fact that taller, narrower buildings (think Vancouver BC) are much more desirable than squat, full block buildings, which tend to block out sunlight, create a “canyon” effect and offer little or no public open space.

A major contrast to the Russell Investments Center is the original Washington Mutual Tower, which at 772 feet is widely considered one of Seattle’s most beloved skyscrapers. That building, even though it’s approximately 200’ taller, is roughly the same size (1.1 Million square feet) as the Russell Investments Center, if not a little smaller. Not only  is the building, now called 1201 Third Avenue,  a striking and elegant addition to the Seattle skyline, but it also offers substantial public open space with its sunny and lushly landscaped plaza.

Today our city planners and leaders have thankfully embraced the blueprint for a truly sustainable and livable downtown, whereby taller, more slender towers are encouraged in order to provide greater public benefits such as open space, light and air between buildings. Vancouver, BC is an ideal model of how this can be achieved, and even that city has now raised its height limits in anticipation of buildings in the 600-700’ range. However, in order to achieve that height, new towers in that city are subject to more rigorous design review, and they are expected to meet greater architectural standards as well as increased open space and LEED requirements.

Similarly, heights in Seattle’s central downtown core have been lifted. However, the adjacent Denny Triangle, often considered a “secondary” office core, has height limits of only 500’. Perhaps there was an assumption that those million-square-foot tenants (of which there are very few) would likely go in a single tall (or is that double-tall?) tower in the central downtown core.  Such is not the case for the Amazon proposal, where the preferred location of its new towers is appropriately much closer to its new campus in South Lake Union.  Planners at the time likely did not conceive that there would someday be demand from a single user for 3 million square feet in a neighborhood that is largely known for vacant lots and  car dealerships. This, then, may be one of those instances where it makes much more sense to consider allowing buildings with a taller, leaner profile.  As Seattle gets denser, we will have precious fewer opportunities to for light, air, open space and the views that are cherished by so many. It would be prudent for Amazon and our city leaders to at least consider an option that allows for a taller tower configuration (much like the way the City already accommodated Vulcan and Amazon by raising height limits for several of its South Lake Union buildings). Rather than three or more towers of 500’ each,  a tower campus with a true variety of heights might achieve greater long-term benefits for our city.

Before the City accepts a proposal that could equate to the combined mass of three Russell Investments Centers (see above),  we should at least give Amazon and NBBJ the opportunity to consider narrower, taller buildings for its new tower campus.  The current density would not have to be increased, however allowing flexibility for taller and narrower buildings could bring more open space and provide other public benefits to our “new” downtown.

According to the city of Seattle, a public meeting will be held Tuesday, March 13 at 6:00-7:30 p.m. at Seattle Municipal Tower, Room 4050 to identify concerns about the site and to receive public input into establishing priorities for public benefits which may include low income housing, townhouse development, historic preservation, public open space, implementation of adopted neighborhood plans, improvements to pedestrian circulation, urban form, transit facilities and, or other elements that further an adopted city policy and provide a demonstrable public benefit.

A copy of the proposal materials are available at the DPD Public Resource Center, 700 5th Avenue,  Suite 2000. The center is open 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and 10:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday. The telephone number is (206) 684-8467.

Rethinking the Seattle Center is a favorite civic pastime. When the general public hears about it, the topic is Big Plans, whether the ill-fated Disney concept in the late 80s, the more recent visioning, or whatever might happen to Key Arena. But meanwhile, little upgrades and outside influences are perhaps more important in what the Center is now, and what it will become.

At 50 years old, the Center is already pretty darn good, for all its imperfections and missed opportunities. It’s many things to many people — the first or second place tourists visit, an event center 365 days of the year, a park, and, if the Market is the city’s heart, certainly another vital organ…the lungs perhaps. It does all this while remaining a 24/7 great place to be,

whether raucous during an event, pristine for a walk late at night, or semi-active on a weekend morning.

Today is a good time to visit the Center House. The Food Court upgrades are one of those little changes, ”little” being relative. From a passer-by perspective, they seem to be somewhere after demo and some shell upgrades but before the addition of new food outlets. Yet what a cool new perspective right now! The west side of the main hall is opened up to the outer wall, with windows to a new dining balcony on that side. Also, more of the south entrance area is now open the to hall. Together, the feeling is a bigger, brighter space, but still the Center House many of us love. It’s worth a visit if you’re nearby and curious.

Other “little” items include the planned KEXP studio at First & Republican, which promises to enliven a dead corner, the recent skate park addition (teenagers are reportedly people too!), and the Theater Commons and Donnelly Gardens, which turned a block-long glorified service entry at Second & Mercer into mostly human space. The Chihuly Garden and Glass, rising next to the Space Needle, qualifies as big. Together, these changes and many others help the Center be more things for more people, and keep it fresh, both in repair terms and with new things to explore.

Maybe because the Center is such as good ”destination,” when people think of improvements they tend to think in those terms — filling the clock with more attractions and events. But the rise of the surrounding neighborhoods and new connections are showing new promise for the Center.

Some is the simple addition of more residents and workers. This is already happening and seems poised to continue, particularly on the residential side. The second is neighborhood connections. In the coming years, the Great Wall of Aurora will go away between Harrison and Denny, Broad will have less traffic (ending at 5th & Thomas), and the Mercer underpass will be rebuilt. Suddenly a horrible walk from SLU will be much nicer and shorter.

With more people and better access, in 2013 and especially by 2017, we’ll have a lot more people within walking distance. The surrounding neighborhoods will never be dense enough to make the Center busy by themselves; festivals or at least opera/theater/game nights are needed for that. But office workers and residents hang out, buy coffee or lunch, or simply walk through on the way home. When on foot or bike, they simply integrate the Center into their lives — more people being there, shopping there, whatever, while also sometimes attending events and visiting museums. The Center, like any urban retail, attraction, or park, doesn’t need to be in frenzy mode all the time; moderating the slow times a bit can be a big success.

And that’s where the Center is headed.

For more information about the Center House project, go here.

 

The city of Seattle has come up with a web portal — www.seattle.gov/walking – designed to encourage people to walk, hike and just get more physical activity.

Aging and Disability Services, a division of the Seattle Human Services Department, collaborated with the city’s Department of Information Technology to promote walking organizations, events, and resources for older adults. The page includes links to local walks and hikes, neighborhood walking maps, and volunteer opportunities like shelter dog walking as well as a selection of 5Ks and 10Ks by month.

“As part of Encore, Seattle’s Web portal for people age 50+, the walking campaign is meant to encourage older people to get moving and stay connected,” said Rosemary Cunningham, interim Aging and Disability Services director, in a press release. “But all ages can use this site. The sooner someone gets into a walking habit, the healthier they’ll be when they get older.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , 33.8 percent of U.S. adults and 17 percent of children and youth are obese, a growing trend. In King County, 54 percent of adults are overweight or obese, 20 percent are obese, and 5.4 percent have been diagnosed with diabetes.

“The benefits of physical activity are well-documented,” said Cunningham. “You can control your weight, strengthen your bones and muscles, reduce your risk of chronic disease and some cancers, improve your mental health, prevent falls, and increase your chances of living longer. And walking is a level playing field—people can walk regardless of income and any extra walking is beneficial.”

Aging and Disability Services and the Seattle Department of Information Technology created Encore three years ago to give boomers 24/7 access to information about programs and services that interest them, both within city departments and the community at large. The portal provides older adults with access to thousands of resources, under broad headings such as Work & Money, Arts & Recreation, and Health & Fitness. For more information, visit www.seattle.gov/encore.

Aging and Disability Services is designated by the State of Washington as the Area Agency on Aging for King County. For more information, visit www.agingkingcounty.gov.

 

The city of Seattle will remove a fence in the Madison Park neighborhood that for decades has blocked public access to a block-long swatch of Lake Washington shoreline, one block north of Madison Beach park.
The decision by Acting Seattle Parks Superintendent Christopher Williams follows a campaign by Patrick Doherty in SeattleScape to get that area opened to the public.
Removal of the fence was opposed by some Madison Park residents who cited safety concerns.
The city expects to start taking down the fence in early 2012, Williams said on Seattle.gov.
He said that all the 20-plus miles of city-owned shoreline along Lake Washington and Puget Sound and associated tributaries is accessible to the public except that stretch.
The fence was installed in the mid-1940s.