Comments on: Turning the ‘urbs’ inside out? http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/2009/06/01/turning-the-urbs-inside-out/ This blog will focus on how Seattle shapes itself — its design, its planning and its aspirations. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:46:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Joshua Daniel Franklin http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/2009/06/01/turning-the-urbs-inside-out/#comment-669 Joshua Daniel Franklin Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:17:37 +0000 http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/?p=1973#comment-669 This is just silly. Sure, it's easy to cherry-pick developments in Seattle that seem like they're going "too slow" and find ones happening elsewhere in the region. However, it's not like there's weren't lots of 4-6 story buildings going up all over the urban parts of Seattle (Fremont, Wallingford, Eastlake, Capitol Hill, U-District, Green Lake, and even SLU and Northgate) during the same cycle, not to mention the high-rise condos downtown. Can somebody give me a count of non-single family units added in urban areas vs the region? Personally I think the neighborhood NIMBYs have some of it right. Why should a developer be able to cut down Waldo Woods just so they can build on 30% more land? The zoo and UW have worked out ways of building while retaining most mature trees and I don't see why a private developer "needs" bigger margins at the cost of our tree canopy. Cleaner air and water management does grow on trees, but it takes time. This is just silly. Sure, it’s easy to cherry-pick developments in Seattle that seem like they’re going “too slow” and find ones happening elsewhere in the region. However, it’s not like there’s weren’t lots of 4-6 story buildings going up all over the urban parts of Seattle (Fremont, Wallingford, Eastlake, Capitol Hill, U-District, Green Lake, and even SLU and Northgate) during the same cycle, not to mention the high-rise condos downtown. Can somebody give me a count of non-single family units added in urban areas vs the region?

Personally I think the neighborhood NIMBYs have some of it right. Why should a developer be able to cut down Waldo Woods just so they can build on 30% more land? The zoo and UW have worked out ways of building while retaining most mature trees and I don’t see why a private developer “needs” bigger margins at the cost of our tree canopy. Cleaner air and water management does grow on trees, but it takes time.

]]> By: UW CM Student http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/2009/06/01/turning-the-urbs-inside-out/#comment-668 UW CM Student Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:52:34 +0000 http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/?p=1973#comment-668 "make Bellevue the city and Seattle a “suburb." Who would want to live in Bellevue? The "city" is dead after business hours... “make Bellevue the city and Seattle a “suburb.”

Who would want to live in Bellevue? The “city” is dead after business hours…

]]> By: mhays http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/2009/06/01/turning-the-urbs-inside-out/#comment-667 mhays Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:15:12 +0000 http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/?p=1973#comment-667 In terms of how the city (meaning urban agglomeration) functions for residents, businesses, tourists, etc., our municipal boundaries aren't that relevant. Due to the densification of suburbia (both newer sprawl and refill projects) and the lower densities of some of the outer parts of Seattle itself, there's not much physical distinction. Knute got suckered. He took a "study" by leading pro-sprawl activist Wendell Cox as legit, rather than as a heavily-slanted persuasion piece from the Rush Limbaugh of urban issues. I suspect Knute let his guard down because Rush, I mean Wendell, coincided with his own views. In terms of how the city (meaning urban agglomeration) functions for residents, businesses, tourists, etc., our municipal boundaries aren’t that relevant. Due to the densification of suburbia (both newer sprawl and refill projects) and the lower densities of some of the outer parts of Seattle itself, there’s not much physical distinction.

Knute got suckered. He took a “study” by leading pro-sprawl activist Wendell Cox as legit, rather than as a heavily-slanted persuasion piece from the Rush Limbaugh of urban issues. I suspect Knute let his guard down because Rush, I mean Wendell, coincided with his own views.

]]> By: Matt the Engineer http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/2009/06/01/turning-the-urbs-inside-out/#comment-666 Matt the Engineer Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:14:29 +0000 http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/?p=1973#comment-666 There's certainly something coming in the way of development in the city. Is our process too restrictive? It sure seemed like I had to jump through a lot of hoops just to rebuild my garage - I can only imagine trying to tear down a row of houses to build condos. Maybe it would make sense to change things at the city level. I have a feeling this is more of a NIMBY issue than a philosophical one, and our progressive citizens would collectively be for more growth and density. Put some change in the process up for a vote city-wide, and I bet it would pass. There’s certainly something coming in the way of development in the city. Is our process too restrictive? It sure seemed like I had to jump through a lot of hoops just to rebuild my garage - I can only imagine trying to tear down a row of houses to build condos.

Maybe it would make sense to change things at the city level. I have a feeling this is more of a NIMBY issue than a philosophical one, and our progressive citizens would collectively be for more growth and density. Put some change in the process up for a vote city-wide, and I bet it would pass.

]]>