Newswise has an article about Mattel’s new “Architect Barbie.” She carries a hard hat and pink drawing tube and
is the 127th doll in the company’s “Barbie I Can Be…” series. The doll will be on the store shelves in August.
BIG, Martha Schwartz Landscape, Buro Happold , Speirs & Major, Lutzenberger & Lutzenberger, and Global Cultural Asset Management won the international
Seattle developers are paying more and more attention to bus-rapid transit, so on Saturday I went to check out Metro’s version, RapidRide.
As a transit geek, I’d been wanting to go since the A Line between Tukwila and Federal Way opened last fall. I mentioned this in passing to Paula Rees. It turns out her Seattle company, Foreseer, is doing “environmental
communications” consulting on the planned D Line from downtown Seattle to Ballard, so we headed out
together.
Here’s my take as well as the opinion of a frequent rider, Steve Elling. We chatted him up at the Federal Way Transit Center.
* The diesel-electric coaches did move at a good clip. But it was early and I wondered what the pace would be like during rush hour. A survey of A Line riders found 84 percent are satisfied with the service. Steve concurs: “The A Line is super.”
* I was surprised by how close some of the stops are to one another; doesn’t seem very BRT-y to me.
* The pay-before-you enter system speeds that processes up, and fare enforcement officers make sure people do that. We didn’t see any, but Steve said they’re around and have zero tolerance for scofflaws.
* At major stops on the north-south line there are east-west connections. In-coach signage, however, didn’t seem to indicate where these transfer points are. Plus, the same route signs are reversed. As we headed south, the signs made it look as though the bus was going north confusing for folks who are not familiar with the lay of the land.
* Steve said the east-west bus connections are too few. And those that do exist stop running too early at night.
* I liked the multi-modal character of RapidRide. The transfer from light rail to RapidRide in SeaTac was fairly convenient despite having to cross International Boulevard on a pedestrian bridge and then cross back at street level to catch a south-bound bus. I was impressed that RapidRide’s southern terminus in Federal Way is at a transit center served by different transit agencies. One complaint: it wasn’t clear where in the center you catch the RapidRide heading back north.
* Metro gave RapidRide its own brand. Instead of the regular blue and green and yellow regular Metro coaches, RapidRide buses are red and yellow. We found that scheme cautionary. This combined with the do-this, don’t do that, Hold On! signs was off-putting. “There’s very little customer information and way too much regulatory messaging. I felt like maybe I shouldn’t be here,” Paula said.
* I’ll catch heck from my fellow transit geeks for this, but it seems like Sound Transit and Metro and Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn’s expansion plans and dreams overlap. We already have the A Line, so why is a cash-strapped Sound Transit pushing ahead with its plans to extend light rail farther south from SeaTac along the A Line route. And if RapidRide is coming to Ballard and West Seattle, why is McGinn pushing to extend light rail to those areas?
* It took us 1 hour and 20 minutes to get from downtown Seattle to Federal Way via light rail and RapidRide. Impressive when you consider that before RapidRide and light rail, the trip would have taken almost forever. If you’re looking for a truly speedy route, take Sound Transit’s express bus from Federal Way. We did on the way back and it took only 25 minutes.
This morning on my bus commute, I assessed the newly completed suicide-prevention fence on the Aurora bridge. How’d it turn out? Depends on your perspective.
It isn’t so bad if you’re looking at it close up as the bus whizzes by. The view of the Olympics from the southbound coach was nearly transparent. Due to the speed of the coach and the narrow spacing of the fence “sticks,” I could hardly tell the new fence is in place.
Conversely, looking south and east at the skyline and Mount Rainier, the fence was as clear as the beautiful sunrise. But I do not deem it a disaster because you can still see the view.
Yes, it’s a change, but not too unsettling. People would have something to kvetch had WSDOT put an opaque fence in place
I doubt Seattleites will ever pine for the “good ol’ days.” Think how ridiculous such reminiscences would sound:
Remember back when depressed people jumped to their deaths off this bridge?
Yeah, that was sad, but at least we had slightly better views…
Architect, professor and writer Witold Rybczynski writes in Slate about the “ridiculous way architects talk.” Here is the item.
Let’s say you’re the mayor of a medium-sized city in Washington state —let’s call it Northlakeshoreline —and your city has a problem. The country’s economy is a mess, of course, and the closing of a large factory in your city hasn’t helped things locally. You’d like to be able to make some significant improvements in a part of your city that is really run down. But your budget is tapped out dealing with bigger demands on social services and just keeping up with basic city needs.
You have an idea. Why not draw a line around the part of the city — let’s call it the Sherwood Forest neighborhood — that has some of the lowest property values and the biggest problems with roads, drainage, and basic infrastructure needs. You ask the assessor to give you a snapshot of how much all that property is worth and you partner with a local developer who gives you a sense of how the value of the property could be increased. After a lot of discussions, meetings, and number crunching you realize that if you fixed the infrastructure problems you could attract new development that would significantly improve tax revenue from Sherwood Forest — enough revenue, in fact, to pay for the improvements. But that revenue is off in the future. What do you do?
What a great solution, you think. Borrow money now to fix up a neighborhood, create some jobs and economic activity in the process, and pay back the loan with the increased taxes you can collect. You’ve just invented Tax Increment Financing (TIF).
Tax increment financing is one example of something called value capture. It’s the idea that a good with future benefits that is out of reach today can be paid for with loans, and those loans can be paid back with the benefits of the good created with those loans. The increase in property values in the Sherwood Forest TIF district pay for the annual loan payments. This means as mayor you don’t have to make any cuts in order to pay for the improvements. And the best part is that after the loan gets paid off, the city can keep the extra tax revenue for use in the general fund. Tax Increment Financing has been used most notably in Oregon where the Pearl District in Portland is often cited as a big TIF success story.
Of course, in the real world, the implementation of TIF is far more complicated. But the concept is pretty straightforward. Cities and counties in Washington State don’t have access to this tool. Why not?
Washington State doesn’t collect taxes using a rate based system. Believe it or not, part of what makes the story I just told work is that there is a fixed rate of taxes assessed on the property from year to year. Attaching a rate—x percent of tax of the total value of a property—is important because as the value increases incrementally, a city can capture that incremental increase and pay off the debt.
Washington has what is called a budget based system of collecting taxes to fund the operation of government. That means that our fictional city of Northlakeshoreline would come up with its budget first, then levy a tax on all the properties so that they share the burden equally. That means the tax assessment is evenly distributed over all the taxable properties in the city.
Under Washington’s constitution a city is able to borrow money to improve public infrastructure and those improvement might result in increased property values. But the taxes that the city collects on those properties are NOT based on their assessed value. Those properties are taxed based on a rate set by the value of new construction throughout the city, the previous year’s city budget, and up to an additional one percent of the previous year’s city budget. That rate is applied, equally per $1000 of value, to ALL properties across the city.
Confused? Join the club. This budget-based problem is what makes TIF in Washington such a challenge. The framers of the Washington State constitution were aiming to create a fair and predictable system for assessing property taxes. They wanted to be sure that some people wouldn’t be unfairly targeted for extra taxes. Taxing all property uniformly—essentially a flat tax—seemed to them the best way to create a fair system. But it also creates other problems.
One problem is figuring out how to capture tax revenue to provide services that benefit just one part of a tax district. If I have a mosquito infestation near the river, why should the people who live across town have to pay to fix that problem? But I can’t tax the folks by the river more than the others because of uniformity. That means I have to pay to fix the problem out of the general fund that everyone pays into, in order to fix a highly localized problem.
But the framers, in their wisdom or by accident, allowed for the creation of taxing districts. So the city of Northlakeshoreline can create a Mosquito Control District (yes they exist!) so that people who live by the river can get taxed—uniformly—to attack the mosquito problem. So they will pay more property tax per $1,000 of value of property, but they also get the benefit of the services their taxes are paying for. A TIF district wouldn’t be providing services but infrastructure—roads, drainage, and parks for example—and paying for them over time. It is possible that the TIF challenge will be met by creating a new kind of taxing district.
And the other option might be to just amend Washington’s constitution to exempt properties in designated TIF areas like Sherwood Forest. There ARE already exemptions (in sections 10 and 11 of Article VII of the constitution) that tax property owned by senior citizens and certain kinds of farm and timber land, and open space at a different rate than other properties in a taxing district. A similar carve out could be made for properties in TIF areas so that they could be taxed with a rate that would allow the capture of additional value.
No matter what, the time is now for TIF. But the next part of the story will be whether the openings left by the framers for creating new districts are wide enough or whether a constitutional amendment is needed.
A developer is converting former dormitory buildings on Long Island into affordable housing, according to a story in The New York Times. In the project in Hempstead, the Community Development Corporation of Long Island, a nonprofit housing agency, and Conifer, a developer based in Rochester, are repurposing two former off-campus dormitories as 94 affordable rental apartments.
The New York Times has an interesting article about how some architecture firms are moving away from
It’s crucial for foreign architects to have offices in China with staffs that include younger, innovative Chinese designers, says Gary Larson, a senior principal with MulvannyG2 Architecture, in the firm’s “Design at Work” newsletter. According to Larson, here’s why:
The growing sophistication of Chinese designers
Western design thinking has become more seamlessly dovetailed with Chinese cultural underpinnings
China’s more discerning reception of architecture
In China’s building boom of the past 20 years, the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing represents both a high point and a turning point in China’s fascination with Western design. Foreign architects designed the Olympic Games’ major athletic structures and important civic and public buildings. These designs resonate in the collective memory of the Olympics as much, if not more, than the games and athletes do. Yet, post-Olympics, not all Western work is applauded and accepted, as before, without criticism. Today, the Chinese want to see their rich culture and heritage expressed in major new work, and that desire cues a new level of collaboration with foreign architects. MulvannyG2 has experienced that in creating Fujian Power and Electric Co.’s headquarters and the China Construction Bank, Larson says.
Higher expectations for client service and project delivery
While plentiful opportunities for that collaboration exist, competition among foreign architects is keen. That competition makes the foreign architect’s local office in China even more important because, as fees become more competitive, the ability to serve clients more completely, locally, grows in importance. And as the general level of expectation of quality from the consumer rises and delivery of quality by the construction industry increases, the need to have design and technical design expertise on the ground becomes imperative.
More influence on China’s sustainable future
A new level of collaboration among Chinese and foreign architects promises a steadily improving design environment, one that would benefit a project with sustainable goals. Characteristic Chinese determination can bring this new design excellence to bear on the country’s issues of growth and resource consumption. Indeed, nationally announced plans for sustainability and the ambitions of foreign architects and young Chinese designers will hopefully allow China to leapfrog the sustainable progress of today’s developed and developing nations.
Subscribe in a reader
