The DJC recently reported that developers want to build two mega mixed-use projects in Federal Way near the transit center. To read the stories, click here and here.

Here’s what Patrick Doherty, Federal Way’s economic development director and a SeattleScape blogger, says:

Response to the two potential projects has really ranged the full gamut. There have, not surprisingly, been a

Lander Korus’ project would have 544 condos and 262,200 square feet of retail. Rendering courtesy of Lander Korus

few naysayers.  Some folks are simply taken aback by the notion of tall buildings in Federal Way, an environment chiefly characterized by low-profile, automobile-oriented, suburban-style development. There have even been some folks who are concerned about the influx of Korean investment, investors, businesses and even more residents and how that could change the character of the community.

Conversely, there have been many folks who are really excited about the prospect of the “big change” that such large-scale, high-rise development would constitute. It’s not only the Chamber-of-Commerce types who have expressed their enthusiasm, but folks right across the spectrum of the city’s residents.  There are many longtime residents, especially empty nesters, who love their community and don’t want to leave, but are no longer able to or interested in maintaining a large house.  There are also many first-time home buyers who may be scraping together the money to afford a condo and would prefer to live within walking distance of the regional transit center and shopping, entertainment, dining and other destinations.  In this way, perhaps they can either forego a car or reduce the need to invest in a new car so they can afford their home.

Twin Development plans a 45-story mixed-use complex in Federal Way. Image courtesy of Twin Development LLC

Projects such as these would be the first modern high-rise residential options in all of South King County, responding to the latent demand for such product in a market area of approximately 700,000 residents.

It is interesting to note, however, that both of these projects have been proposed by Korean-American developers/investors.  When asked about the wisdom of constructing new housing in this period of soft home prices and tough financing, I’ve repeated something that uniquely derives from that Korean connection: when it comes to either the investment opportunity or the housing market, these projects transcend the local South King/North Pierce market.  With Federal Way’s “regional center” designation, attracting EB5-visa foreign investors, its status as hub of the Puget Sound area’s Korean diaspora, and the direct connection that many local Korean-Americans have with their home country, Korea in essence becomes part of such projects’ market!  Or perhaps, the reverse is more appropriate: perhaps Federal Way and these projects become a satellite of the Korean economy.

With an economy that is almost fully out of the recession, with investors in Korea and neighboring Asian countries that have money to burn and are looking for places to invest it, and with investors also very enticed by the notion of securing a “green card” in tandem with their investment, Korea becomes a very viable economic driver in our region and in Federal Way, in particular.

So to summarize, I’d say that the response to these potential projects has been quite enthusiastic on the whole, but we cannot discount that they will represent a substantial change from the environment of today, and that will continue to engender some opposition.  Those opinions need to be respected and, in fact, may serve as useful insights into concerns that can be responded to in various ways in the design, construction and/or operation of these new projects.

Not long after the new Four Seasons Hotel and Condominium project opened across from SAM on First, Charles Mudede of The Stranger gushed effusively about its cutting edge architecture. That it may have, but its presence on the street level? No so much.

Given the stacks of liens and claims of unpaid contractors filed against the building, as reported in the Seattle Times, it might seem a bit like beating a dead horse to pile on the criticism. But this is one high-priced thoroughbred that does not deserve to take home the “Show” category — at least from an urban design perspective.

With the room prices commanded within the hotel, coupled with the almost usurious prices of the dwellings above it, we should have been given a lot more in the way of public benefit on the ground. OK, there is a grand staircase leading down to Western. And there is a piece of public space overlooking the Bay at the end of Union.

And I suppose with the presence of Fonte at the south end and Fran’s at the corner, there are some things of merit. (Hey, who can complain about a chocolate shop?)

But look a little closer and you find some offensively penurious attitudes, particularly when it comes to the public realm. The staircase is pitched like a big angled beam holding up a staircase. But there is little finesse to the thing – just a massive concrete blade supporting a relentless stair. The little pulpits are sort of nice, but there is nothing to perch on to enjoy the views.

Likewise, the tiny scrap of a belvedere at the upper street level is pretty miserly. OK, you can sit on the cold concrete, backless seating, but who would want to? At least for very long. The moving watercourse is a nice gesture (and undoubtedly expensive) but how about spending a little money on comfortable seating, huh? And perhaps a few plants while you’re at it. I could be wrong, but it almost seems as if the hotel folks really didn’t want to encourage anyone to linger. Just sayin.’

The end of Union Street essentially has become a drop-off for the hotel, with vehicles often choking up the space as valets rush about. This space — although likely intended as some sort of plaza-like area — is really problematic. The three planters that were plunked down onto the Union Street sidewalk hardly make up for the austerity of the street. Adding insult to injury, they even intrude into the sidewalk.

People on foot have to enter the hotel through what is essentially a suburban-style porte cochere, squeezing past cars and stacks of luggage. Just about every other major hotel in town offers an entrance for pedestrians directly from the sidewalk. Even the old Sheraton, with all its other numerous urban design sins, atones for them — at least partially — by a grand entrance on the corner.

But not the Four Seasons. What appears to be a recess leading to a walk-in entrance is simply a stark, concrete wall with a window well above the sidewalk — “taunting distance” away. In fact, this stretch of blank wall is truly inexcusable along a major downtown street, given the lively façade of the art museum across the street and every other neighboring building that has provided windows. As it stands, the high concrete walls, with the only detail being recessed holes at the corners, seem not unlike what encloses a major offender prison. Perhaps a little unintentional irony is evident?

Never mind the shifting planes and deftly detailed metalwork of the tower above, this class of hotel should have been spectacular at the street level. With the exception of the coffee, wine and chocolates, the effect is more Lowes than Luxe.

The Guggenheim in 2060?

Seattle-based Olson Kundig Architects is taking part in an exhibition that opens Friday at the Guggenheim Museum in New York, “Contemplating the Void: Interventions in the Guggenheim Museum.”

The iconic Frank Lloyd Wright building at the heart of the museum is mostly empty: The galleries are built along the spiral ramp that defines the shape of the building, leaving open a central rotunda.

For the building’s 50th anniversary, the museum invited 200 artists, architects and designers to think up ways to fill the space. OKA’s entry, featured in a New York Times blog post about the exhibition, envisions the Guggenheim in the year 2060, in a world dominated by poverty, overpopulation and food shortages. The building, ravaged by the elements, is no longer a museum but rather an open-air market, centered around a giant windmill made from reclaimed steel.

According to the proposal, the repurposed Guggenheim “underscores the importance of utility and longevity in design and witnesses the power of the individual in developing decentralized local and sustainable communities.”

The exhibition runs through April 28.

Sandwich boards done right in Pioneer Square

Isn’t it nice when progress is easy?

Poorly located sandwich boards, aka A-frames, next to businesses have always been an annoyance for many pedestrians. They force us to walk around them, they sometimes narrow sidewalks to single-file, they can be tripped over, and in some places they’re clutter.

I’ve taken to moving many of the worst ones to the side, sometimes day after day, hoping that the owners will get the message. That doesn’t work very well, though it solves the problem momentarily and is satisfying.

Lo and behold, there’s an easier way. SDOT will come to the rescue upon request. With great effect.

The signs are rarely legal, according to this City web page. ”Currently, A-frame signs are illegal except in a City-approved district that has obtained a street use permit to allow and regulate A-frame signs (see BIA).” These districts, where A-frames still face strict rules, are Pioneer Square, Broadway, and the Pike Place Market. A City web page about sidewalk cafes says that even legal A-frames must provide six feet of clear space past seating areas.

I’ve talked to some businesses directly, whether they storm out their doors indignant about “property rights” (this has come up twice, related to poor education presumably), or because I contact them. Sometimes they agree to keep the signs along the curb out of the way. Other times they don’t.

That’s when it’s time to contact SDOT. They regulate signs upon complaint. Just call (206) 684-5267 and leave a message with the address and business name.

I don’t know what they tell the offending businesses, but it works! A few days after a recent complaint about two businesses, both signs went to the side out of the way of pedestrians, and they haven’t offended again. SDOT appears to be enforcing the spirit of the law rather than the letter. I support the enforcement-as-appropriate approach.

There’s a legal side to this. I’m no lawyer, but if someone trips on a sign the City was warned about, shouldn’t the City be liable if it didn’t crack down, and the business be liable if it ignored a City request? Isn’t the business liable regardless? (Any lawyers want to clarify that?) Since liability law is often an excuse to shaft pedestrians (light poles three feet from curbs, crosswalk markings taken away, overly wide streets), it’s nice if the same system helps us occasionally. If the sign is a potential tripping hazard in your opinion, the City will enforce the law to protect itself from costly judgments.

On another tangent, some business owners complain that moving signs hurts business. Maybe that’s true for them personally, but overall, we’ll all buy the same amount of stuff. If the signs have an effect, it’s to move some sales from some businesses to others. Basically illegal signs move sales from complying businesses to non-complying ones. Moving the signs should even the playing field for the good guys.

Now it’s time to try the same thing with parking lot signs. King County’s parcel viewer is good for identifying absentee owners, which could expedite the process for SDOT…

The Palouse: No earthquake worries.

An earthquake won’t likely level the Palouse anytime soon, but Washington State University wants to put your mind at ease.

The school has released a two-minute video in the wake of the 7.0-magnitude earthquake in Haiti to discuss what caused the quake and whether anything like it could ever hit Eastern Washington. Catherine Cooper, an assistant prof in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, does the talking.

A mid-rise planned for the B&O Espresso site on Olive Way.

OK, I’ll admit it. I love the B&O Espresso on Olive Way. It’s not only been a Capitol Hill establishment for 30 years, it’s also a bit of old Vienna right here in the Wild West. It’s the kind of place where I’ve gone on dates, taken visiting relatives, and just stopped in for a quick Sacher torte and coffee.

And, yes, I lament that it may soon go the way of the dodo bird with a new mid-rise, mixed-use building being designed and proposed for that site.

But we’ve got to stop whining!

Over the last few years it’s become a new Seattle ethos to whinge and mope collectively about every new development project that may replace an existing restaurant, coffee shop, bar or bookstore. In some cases, neighbors have even gone so far as to wage appeals and litigation in hopes of thwarting a development, almost invariably in vain. (Case in point: the battle against the proposal for an East Pine Street mixed-use project that would’ve demolished several popular bars, with the result that the demolition occurred but the building never materialized. Result: a vacant lot!)

I’m not any happier to see my favorite bar, coffee shop, restaurant or chocolaterie demolished, but all of these establishments are tenants within a transitory vessel. Unless the building has heritage value (and some do go on to landmark status), what we lament is the loss of the establishment, not so much the actual building.

What we’re losing sight of is that buildings are simply the current vessel for that beloved establishment — or one very similar to it in the future. Take the Dilettante cafe for example. While we all came to know and love that famous dessert dispensary at its old Broadway location, its former “vessel” wasn’t even demolished, yet the owners decided for a markedly ampler and more creative space up the street in the ground floor of the new Brix building — a building, I imagine which had and probably continues to have its detractors because it replaced a formerly beloved Safeway (?)!

The developers of the proposed new building on the B&O site have been very willing to meet and work with the neighbors and other concerned parties. An offer has even reportedly been made to the B&O owner to relocate that use within the new building. I’m sure if he accepts that offer, he will likely be invited to participate in the design development of the ground-floor space. There’s no guarantee he will accept new terms and likely higher rent, but the new building will indeed include new commercial space for a shop, bar, restaurant or similar use. And if not there, the B&O owner will likely set up shop in another of the many vacant spaces around the Hill or elsewhere.

We need to support responsible developers like these who are willing to engage the community, involve their design input and seek to become community partners. There are far too many corporate developer-machines out there that would never deign to be so participatory. They should receive our assistance, prodding and even constructive criticism, but not our opposition and obstructionism.

And I want to make a particular plug for this type of smaller-scale development. While even this project will encompass a few parcels, it represents the scale of development that should be encouraged. While certainly a hodgepodge, the prevailing fabric of the Capitol Hill urban form is still characterized by midrise buildings that span only a few small parcels. This module provides a more human-scale context that we are more comfortable inhabiting and approaching. Conversely, many large-scale developers take on massive sites, often comprising full city blocks. Even with the most adroit design maneuvers and city oversight, it’s quite a challenge to break down such large projects into human-scale modules that creative an attractive and comfortable street environment.

So in cases like the B&O site, where thoughtful, inclusive, smaller-scale developers propose larger, yet still human-scale development, we should do our best to encourage them — not without due design vigilance and participation — even if it may mean the relocation or reconstitution of a beloved establishment.

Now that the rainy season has arrived full on, perhaps it’s timely to expose certain downtown buildings and their owners for a socially reprehensible offense to pedestrians. I am referring here to the growing prevalence of fake canopies.

Over the last year a number of older buildings around the downtown core have been retrofitted with projecting canopies constructed of glass and steel. Some are simple and serviceable, others are quite elegant. Some have been accomplished as a part of Metro Transit’s commendable efforts toward making downtown a better place to use transit. All of these improvements are welcome in a climate that demands cover over the sidewalk during the winter and sunlight in the summer.

However, the objectives of this general endeavor are apparently not universally shared. Whether done by individual merchants or property owners, we are seeing constructions of steel ribs and struts that extend out over the sidewalks but in fact contain no glass or other materials to provide actual cover. It’s quite the mean-spirited trick: What looks like cover is, in fact, open to the sky and, therefore, rainfall.

I have experienced at least three of these architectural cheats. One is over the entrance to Belltown Court on Second Avenue. Although a small canopy, I have seen more than one parent waiting to send a child off on a school bus while waiting under this false cover and getting soaked in the process.

More egregious is the one Third, just north of the Century Square building, which has recently had a handsome canopy added to its west- and south-facing sides. The offending canopy is actually a quite elaborate and costly structure but it offers no glass panels.

American Apparel:Thumbing its nose at shoppers.

The third one I have experienced is at the American Apparel store on 6th Avenue. This structure is really a sign disguised as a canopy, which should not be allowed at all. Here is a prime street in the retail core with a national brand business thumbing its nose at shoppers. How completely rude is that?

I’m sure there are other examples, which I leave to respondents to point out.

I fear that perhaps the city’s land use code does not mention the requirement of glass (or other solid covering) in its definition of canopies – a loophole that should be corrected immediately. If glass is indeed a requirement, then these parties should be sent notices of a city code violation with the associated penalties.

Now, for those who will undoubtedly send me some sharp retorts about how transients or teenagers will gather under these projections and businesses would have to pay more for cleaning, security, blah, blah, blah — save your breath (or typing fingers). Throughout downtown there are scores of glass and steel canopies, generous in width, high enough not to block storefronts and low enough to offer shelter that are not havens for antisocial or criminal behavior. To not provide canopies in this climate and latitude along primary pedestrian streets is either being lazy or insulting.

Besides, why would we ever take the view that, because of a few miscreants, 95 percent of the population must suffer?

Seattle is back in sole control of the top spot in an annual study of the country’s most literate cities.

The study’s author, Jack Miller of Central Connecticut State University, drew from statistics such as newspaper circulation, number of bookstores, library resources, periodical publishing resources, educational attainment and Internet resources.

Seattle was tied at the top of the list with Minneapolis last year. This year Washington, D.C., fills the number two spot, followed by Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Portland, St. Paul, Minn., Boston, Cincinnati and Denver.

The study found that the most literate cities tend to rank high in other quality-of-life measures such as health, safety, active singles scenes and walkability.

The Palm

The $12 billion man-made island off the coast of Dubai is sinking about 5 millimeters a year, CNBC reports.

The island was dredged from the seabed and is shaped like a palm to maximize waterfront real estate frontage. It’s one of several man-made islands that were constructed in the Middle East over the last five years, including Qatar’s The Pearl. More palm-shaped islands were also planned in Dubai.

In addition to loads of houses, the island is home to the megaresort - No, I am not making this up - Atlantis.

Developer Nakheel says reports on the sinkage by surveying company Fugro are “wholly inaccurate.”

Virtual Tourist is once again posting its list of the World’s Ugliest Buildings. Among those selected: Paris’ Centre Pompidou, the Royal Ontario Building in Toronto and the National Library in Pristina, Kosovo.

We know what Mark thinks. Does anyone else dare chime in on Seattle’s missteps?

Hat tip to Architectural Record.