Archive for the ‘Neighborhoods’ Category

D.C. project that houses homeless wins AIA award

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2015

Affordable housing has gotten a lot of press lately in Seattle, so it’s interesting to see how other cities are addressing the issue.
LEO A DALY and and its design partner Studio Twenty Seven Architecture were honored recently for a Washington, D.C. project called La Casa, which provides permanent supportive housing for homeless people.

Photos by Anice Hoachlander
Photos by Anice Hoachlander

The American Institute of Architects gave the firms a 2015 Housing Award for the project in the specialized housing category, which recognizes outstanding design of housing that meets unique needs — in this case, those of the chronically homeless, the architecture firms said in a press release.
The seven-story, 34,946-square-foot building provides permanent housing and supportive services for 40 men. Rather than functioning as a temporary shelter, where residents are housed at night and asked to leave during the day, each unit is a single-person efficiency that supports stability and predictability as tenants transition out of homelessness, the firms said.

La Casa employs the “housing first” service model, which offers permanent housing immediately rather than treating sobriety as a prerequisite, and provides supportive services that reduce the risk of participants returning to homelessness.
“This is an important milestone for the District of Columbia in its continued efforts to redefine the concept of transitional housing,” said Stephen Wright, managing principal of LEO A DALY Washington, D.C. “Most housing for the homeless focuses on meeting a temporary emergency. La Casa is different. Both its service model and the facility design embrace the individual, and serve his needs for rehabilitation and growth.”

The firms said their joint-venture team was challenged by the DC Department of Human Services to create a home rather than an institution, and to meet or exceed the quality of the adjacent market-rate apartments.
The project is situated among the high-density, high-rent apartment buildings of Columbia Heights. The architects said La Casa’s design defies the homeless shelter archetype with ample natural light, airy rooms and striking design.

The ground floor of La Casa includes a lobby, support offices, and a mail area. A community room on the second floor opens onto an outdoor terrace. The typical floor has seven dwelling units, including one ADA-accessible unit. A green roof contributes to the design’s LEED-gold certification. Security is provided by security officers, remotely monitored cameras, and secured door access.
The jury for the 2015 Housing Awards includes: Stephen Schreiber, chair, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Jon Dick of Archaeo Architects; Kathy Dixon of K. Dixon Architecture; Jody Mcguire of SALA Architects; and Clair Enlow, who writes the “Design Perspectives” column for the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce.

Seattle might keep going

Monday, April 27th, 2015

The duration and intensity of the Downtown Seattle development boom is getting a little surprising, beyond even my optimistic guesses from a few years ago. This isn’t just another Seattle-type boom. But here’s the kicker: things seem poised to keep going.

That’s saying something. Between offices, housing, and transportation, this is clearly the busiest we’ve ever been. And we’re four years into it, vs. the typical hard stop far short of that.

The current wave is over 7,000,000 square feet of office and 15,000 housing units by my napkin count, if you gerrymander things up Dexter and Pike/Pine a little, including projects that are at least in active site prep. For offices I believe it’s a record for greater Downtown. For housing it’s a modern-day record by a factor of two.

So why the optimism?
Insignia

First is tech. Amazon is obvious. But there’s also a pretty stunning wave of national or global tech companies setting up or expanding tech offices in greater Downtown. These companies need talent, and the word is out about Seattle. Even if one of our giants stumbles, is there any doubt that other firms would swoop in to hire waves of their people? This is giving developers the confidence to pursue additional projects at a high rate.

Second is a continued inflow of other companies into Downtown from around the region, for example Weyerhauser and MulvannyG2, as well as Expedia though it’s more distant. Companies value Seattle locations for stated reasons like recruitment, business synergies, public transit, and lunch options. Other local nodes are doing a good job of developing downtown-type amenities and synergies, but greater Downtown Seattle has a strong pull right now. (Bellevue will be fine of course; Downtown Tacoma, Downtown Everett, Kirkland, and others are doing a lot of great things too.)

There will be headwinds, like traffic. As the workforce grows, it’s clear that driving can’t grow much with it because there’s no space. Transit will need to improve a lot. Thankfully every new apartment helps reduce the number of inbound commuters.

On that note, housing will keep booming. New office buildings mean a lot more potential Downtown residents, both directly and indirectly. As more office workers compete for the same street, freeway, and transit space, the idea of a six-block walk to work becomes more attractive for longtime workers too, all the more so as district after district adds more residential mass and related services. Some point out that 25-year-old urbanites often become 30-year-olds with kids that want houses, but good news…today’s 20-year-olds will replace them. And how about baby boomers becoming empty-nesters?

Now about condos. Apartment pessimists often point out that renters might start buying in large numbers, sometimes implying that they’ll start picking houses. But many love urban living, roads aren’t getting any easier, and houses and house-ready properties aren’t cheap. If people start buying, many will choose condos. The old presale-based financing method isn’t viable yet, but equity-rich developers can still get loans, so condos are already coming back. We’re at the very beginning of what could be another wave, minus some of the feeding frenzy or zero-down formats that contributed to the bubble and bust.

The current wave of Asian (often Chinese) residents and investors will help our construction volume substantially, as Seattle becomes more of a global destination. Our prices are half of those in Vancouver or San Francisco, and should remain far lower because we can add supply relatively easily. Further, this is helping our status as a business and tourism center across the board, for example by bringing in more tech workers.

Hotels are also just starting. So far the new inventory only deals with 2014’s overly-high occupancy rate, not future growth. Seattle is becoming a bigger tourist destination, including stunning growth in overseas airline traffic last year and so far this year. We plan to build a second convention center (aka the “addition”). Our growing office base brings visitors as well as relocations and interns who live in hotels for weeks or months. Who knows where our hotel demand will go from here, but “up significantly” seems like a good guess.

Biotechs are talking about a lack of space again, particularly with the old Amgen campus off the table. Hospitals have slowed their construction programs after the last wave, but new significant construction is anticipated again at Virginia Mason, Swedish, and Harborview, including medical offices.

The convention center, a new ferry terminal, and post-viaduct streets and public space projects are all a couple years out. Imagine having those to soften any downturn.

Here’s another reason: we might not have a national crisis or massive overbuilding. People love to quote 1982, 1990, 2001, and 2008 like we’re automatically headed for their equivalent. The first dramatically overbuilt hotels and condos, the second did the same for offices in part because of the CAP initiative that curtailed further development, the third involved both a tech bubble and 9/11, and the fourth involved the mortgage crisis and a narrowly-averted depression. We could have another crisis, like Amazon or the global economy crumbling, but nothing looks imminent. As some point we’ll overbuild in key subsectors, but we have a good chance of avoiding the “brick wall.”

Of course all of that is independent of potential problems like the big fees the City might implement, a lack of construction workers, cost escalation if it exceeds market rents, higher interest rates, and so on. Challenges can happen on many fronts.

So caution, always. But so far so good.

My Micro NY is made of prefab modular

Monday, February 23rd, 2015

Brookyn firm nArchitects has designed New York’s first micro-apartment complex. The project, called My Micro NY, is made of prefabricated modular units that will be stacked into place this spring and go on the market this summer. The 55 units are 260 to 360 square feet, with rents expected to be $2,000 to $3,000.
For this, renters get kitchenettes, high ceilings, big windows, sliding glass doors, and Juliet balconies along with common spaces and access to storage units.
This is according to a recent story in The New York Times, which says the project is being watched by housing advocates and developers because of its modular construction and because it could mean cheaper housing options in the city where in 2013 about half of all residents were single. A total of 22 of the My Micro NY units will be designated as affordable housing.
The article mentions Seattle as a leader in the micro-apartment movement, and points to the city’s aPodments.

This shows how My Micro NY units are put in place. Images courtesy of nArchitects.
How would you and your stuff fit?
Living in 260 to 360 square feet.

Turn those substation sites into parks

Tuesday, January 6th, 2015
This former substation site at 3904 N.E. 65th St. was sold last year for development. Photos by Cass Turnbull.
Posted by Cass Turnbull

‘It’s not right’.’That’s what I thought when I heard Seattle City Light was going to sell 35 surplus properties to balance their budget. The surplus lots are what are left of 150 electrical substations that became obsolete because of new technology in the 70’s. Today they are typically just an empty concrete pad surrounded by a fence, surrounded by some really nice, mature trees and landscaping. I thought, ‘If you just took down the fence and added a gazebo or a bench and you’d have a great, ready-made pocket park’.

I joined Seattle Green Spaces Coalition, a group formed to Save Our Substations. We soon ran into a stone wall of laws, policies, seriously disinterested departments that said we couldn’t. We were told that legally the property had to be sold. The Parks Department said they didn’t have the money to buy them or maintain them. If we wanted them for greenspace, we’d have to buy them. It’s even crazier, I thought, to ask the public to pay for land that it already owns, so it can be kept for the public good. Over the years some substations have become parks, some have become public housing, but most have been developed by private interests.
Seattle isn’t meeting its current open space goals. With 100,000 to 200,000 new people headed our way over the next few decades, I suspect the amount of open space per person will be much less. The privately owned open spaces are shrinking. Just look at the McMansions, the Three and Four Pack condos, and the apodments. They haven’t enough greenspace to put out a kiddy pool.

I keep wondering where the people living in all those monolithic apartment buildings will go to find something green. Where will the mothers go with their baby buggies, dog walkers go with their dogs? How will they know it is spring if they can’t hear birds or smell the lilacs. Will the kids in those buildings get to play hide and seek, build forts, climb trees, make snowmen, run? These little properties may not amount to much but they can provide solace for the troubled, respite for the weary. They can be place for the young to dream, and a place for the old and the infirm to sit in the sun.

City Light will eventually put this former substation at 7750 28th Ave. N.W. up for sale.

Photos by Cass Turnbull

So I’m hoping that the City Council, courageously being lead by our friend, Tom Rasmsson, can find a way through, or under, or around the stone wall. Because we need all the open space we can get.

A partial list of substations is on the TreePAC.org website.

Cass Turnbull is a lifetime resident of Seattle and founder of TreePAC, a political action committee to advocate for the Urban Forest.

Volunteers to host holiday dinner for Nickelsville encampment

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2014

Volunteers of the Low Income Housing Institute will host a holiday dinner at 6:30 p.m. tonight (Dec. 23) for residents of Nickelsville, a tent city encampment in Seattle for homeless people.
The volunteers will also distribute donated winter clothing, blankets and toiletries at the event at the International District Community Center at 719 Eighth Ave. S.
Pastor Steve Olsen of the Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd will give a blessing. The church is the religious sponsor for Nickelsville, which is at 1010 S. Dearborn St. Chris Koh will represent the owner of the property.

Photo by Sharon Lee

In a press release, LIHI said the encampment consists of tents and simple sleeping structures for 40 homeless people and their children. It includes a kitchen/dining tent, cooking area, donation tent, hand washing station, and Honey Buckets.
Nickelsville formed in 2008 as shelters were full, LIHI said. It is a self-managed community of homeless men, women, children and pets.
LIHI said The Emergency Task Force on Unsheltered Homelessness has recommended to Seattle Mayor Ed Murray that additional homeless encampments be allowed to be operated by experienced shelter and service providers on public and private property in the city. This would be in addition to those sponsored by religious or faith-based institutions.

People can make a donation to Nickelsville at 1010 S. Dearborn St., at the LIHI main office at 2407 First Ave. in Seattle, or online at www.LIHI.org.

Microhousing: good or bad?

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2014

How Small Are They?

Microhousing: good or bad?

Did you know Seattle is the pioneer in microhousing – that is apartments with an average size of 150 square feet?  An article in Politico says this is because of our real estate boom, with a growing population of millennials, permissive city codes. Because of those permissive codes, Seattle’s microhousing units have the smallest square footage in the country.

Not everyone loves seeing these microhousing units popping up in their neighborhoods, tucked in between single-family housing.  What looks like a townhouse with eight small apartments could actually contain 64 units.

As reported in the DJC, Seattle City Council approved new regulations requiring micro units have a minimum of 220 square feet, two sinks and a food preparation area that includes “a cooking appliance.”

Sightline Daily blog says the city’s going backwards with these new regulations. Sightline Executive Director Alan Durning asks, why do we need two sinks in a 220 square foot apartment?

What do you think?

 

 

Will Council Raise Rents for Everyone?

Thursday, September 18th, 2014

It’s a repeated movie scene: soccer player dribbles down the field, overcoming all opposition and ignoring the shouting onlookers….and scores in the wrong goal.

City Council members say they want Seattle to be affordable, but the Land Use Committee is blindly heading the wrong way. They’re going to increase residential and commercial rents via massive development fees and new restrictions on the best way the market can provide cheap housing.

“Massive” is the right term. Basically, all multifamily and commercial developments would be subject to fees ranging from $7 to $22 per square foot (or alternatively $5 to $16), depending on neighborhood. Averaging out the higher version, that might be a 5% increase in development cost. Or development onsite, which tends to be much more expensive. The fees would apply to the whole building, vs. the current method of fees only above the old height limits. Houses would have no fees of course.

Micro project on East John, by DPD

The result is obvious. Higher rents won’t apply to just new buildings, but to every person or company that rents in Seattle. In a growing city, rents tend to follow replacement cost, plus a premium if vacancies get too tight. Replacement cost for all types of space would go much higher, even with a likely dampening of land prices. The fees would reduce construction until demand pushed rents up enough, then we’d start building again. It would be another “great reset” to higher rents. Some people counter that incomes are flat, but that’s not very relevant; in high-demand cities, people tend to pay a larger percentage of their income. The question of “what will the market bear” for a necessary product is based on customers’ pain thresholds, and prices rise until enough people let go.

Fee proponents seem to think the projects will keep flowing and costs don’t translate to prices. This is pure ignorance. Even without fees, the average project is on the edge of happening or not happening even in the weeks before it breaks ground. What will interest rates be? Will the market soften in the next two years? Is someone at DPD going to require an expensive change? Will the equity partner take the leap necessary to build offices on spec? We contractors hear about many projects that never even make the DJC because the pro forma doesn’t work. Once projects are public, or even permitted, a great many still never happen. There’s good reason behind that, and not just that returns might be disappointing – sometimes developers and financiers lose their shirts, as many did a few years ago.

Owners of existing buildings and homes would celebrate the fees of course (seriously, does the Land Use Committee know this?). Less competition means higher rents and higher building values. My condo would be worth more too. Commercial building investors love to buy buildings in areas with “high barriers to entry” for this reason.

So, rents would go up substantially for 130,000 renting households in Seattle (my guesstimate) and any business that rents space. That’s quite a price for a relatively small number of subsidized units.

We can do much better. There are methods that don’t restrict housing supply or punish companies for locating in Seattle. The existing housing levy is part of that; can it be expanded? How about making it easier for homeowners to build accessory units? How about micros? Or expanding the zones where townhouses can be built, even a little? Each can help fill part of the affordability gap for different types of people.

But most of those things are too scary for the Land Use Committee. The loudest voters want free, empty parking in front of their houses, and no “renters” (sometimes a euphemism) living nearby. Now micros, despite their popularity, have been slapped down already, and the Committee (motto: “You’re out of LUC”) wants to all but destroy the model entirely, with added parking, sinks, square footage, and entitlement process.

Some of that is understandable in the context of negotiating tradeoffs, like parking in certain zones, or even the design review process that adds costs, duration, and uncertainty to every project in Seattle. Other parts make no sense at all. Who does it help to outlaw the smallest micros, which are basically the size of a dorm room, minus the snoring roommate? If someone can afford 150 square feet but not 220, it’s off to the friend’s couch? (PS, as a donor to some of our outstanding nonprofits, I’d like to see money spread further with smaller units, like micro sizes for single people and micro+bedroom for families, with a focus on temporary rather than lifetime housing.)

About micro prices: Some say $700 isn’t really affordable (I’ve heard numbers from $600 to $1,000 for bigger units). It’s not low enough for everyone, and many people aren’t suited for micros. But it’s definitely a gap in our housing supply, and these units are popular. It’s notable that rents often include utilities, internet, and significant shared space. And don’t forget that the market is otherwise averaging over $1,400 for apartments. All things considered, $700 is a great price to live in a core Seattle neighborhood.

Hopefully the LUC and full council will listen to people beyond its own echo chamber and the consultants who want us to emulate the nation’s most expensive cities. The Mayor has shown signs of being reasonable. Let’s not look back on 2014 as the year we flubbed ourselves into higher rents for all.

Can growth reduce traffic?

Thursday, July 3rd, 2014
Via6, photo by Tim Rice

Often we look at development and wonder what will happen to traffic. This comes up a lot regarding greater Downtown Seattle, particularly the fast-growing northern portions. Actually, the truth might be pretty good.

The reasons are primarily these: 1. Congestion is mostly about peak times, and some buildings’ users spread their travel throughout the day rather than concentrating at rush hour. 2. A large percentage of growth does not add trips, but rather makes them shorter.

Category 1 includes hotels (a big growth area) as well as colleges, hospitals, retail, and art/tourist attractions. While these have peak times, they mostly spread activity throughout the day and night. Even at hospitals, only portions of the staff work bank hours, and few patients arrive at 8:00 am. Hotel guests arrive all day and evening, stay multiple nights while getting around mostly on foot, then leave throughout the morning. Destination retail is often busiest on weekends. Concerts are mostly at night. College students and faculty keep varying class hours. All of these uses avoid making rush hour much worse, while also activating our parks, spreading their lunch dollars to the slower times, and so on.

Housing falls heavily into Category 2. Greater Downtown residents are often greater Downtown workers. They’d already be traveling to these jobs daily, but living nearby means they can walk, use transit, bike, or drive a short distance instead of a long one. Working residents of the three major Downtown zip codes commuted on foot at rates of 47.6% for 98104, 34.1% for 98101, and 32.3% for 98121 in 2012 per Census.gov. They drove alone (often a much shorter distance) only 22.0%, 21.0% and 38.1% of the time. The gap between those figures was mostly transit, which is also much more convenient when you’re downtown. Working at home is also a major category. Expanding to the north, the 98109 area includes South Lake Union but also half of Queen Anne Hill, so its 13.7% walk and 47.6% drive alone rates are less relevant; perhaps SLU’s numbers are more like 98121’s.

Of course, those figures include people who commute to jobs far away from Downtown, who must represent a big chunk of the drivers and transit riders. The pedestrian numbers should be much higher if you only count those who also work Downtown. As for outbound commutes, these are added trips, but might peak a little earlier than inbound commutes (like 7:00-7:30 instead of 7:30-8:00?), and use the less-congested half of Downtown streets. In any case, it seems likely that most new Downtown residents also work here, so there should be a net reduction in traffic.

Many residents are in Category 1 as well, largely traveling outside commute times. This would include many retirees and students without jobs, who are apparently not counted in the commute statistics. These people seem likely to have low driving rates as well. Category 1 would also apply to many workers with non-traditional hours.

This is all relevant to transportation to and from greater Downtown as well. Turning thousands of 20-mile drives into two-mile drives and half-mile walks must be really helpful. If the current greater Downtown housing boom is around 11,500 units including tendrils up Dexter and Pike/Pine (my guesstimate), how many fewer inbound commutes might that represent, and and how many tax dollars might we avoid in future road projects, let alone less-jammed public transit? Between that savings, construction-related sales taxes, and new tax base upon completion, it’s a wonder we charge development fees rather than incentivizing new housing along with nice thank-you letters.

Offices (as well as laboratories) are the other big category of growth, and of course they contribute to rush hours. But our region needs their economic engine. That engine is best served by allowing companies to locate where workers want to work and companies can be near each other. Locating downtown means they’re transit-accessible and many employees can walk, meaning fewer cars on the road overall. They key is to balance office growth with housing growth. It would help if some companies changed their start times a little, much like the construction industry already has.

The concept of living Downtown is supported by demand. Apartments keep getting built because they keep filling up, at good prices. Maybe people like those leisurely walks to work, and choosing from the Downtown smorgasbord on the way home. Maybe they like walking out their doors on weekends and already being somewhere.

It works in other places too. Want less traffic in Redmond? Keep adding housing in that nice downtown area (seriously, take a look) as well as around Microsoft. Downtown Tacoma? Same thing. Everybody wins.

Should you mix affordable and upscale housing?

Wednesday, October 16th, 2013
Outdoor seating and landscaped areas would surround the ground floor of the R.C. Hedreen Co. project. Image courtesyof LMN Architects

Should “affordable” housing be mixed with high-income housing within the same building? That’s the subject of a short video by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat at http://tiny.cc/o5r04w/.

Addressing the question are Nigel Biggs of CBRE, Harry Handelsman of Manhattan Loft Corp., Christoph Ingenhoven of ingenhoven architects, Ian Simpson of Ian Simpson Architects, and Rafael Viñoly of Rafael Viñoly Architects. The video is part of a monthly series by the CTBUH.

In Seattle, R.C. Hedreen Co. has proposed including affordable units in a project that will not have upscale apartments or condos, but will have a hotel.
The project is a 40-story convention hotel complex at Ninth and Stewart that will have a five-story podium with a 35-story, 1,680-room hotel on the south end and 154 units of housing on the north end, reserved for people making 80 percent or less of area median income. Hedreen is building the north end units to get higher density through a city incentive program.

BIG unveils plans for Pier 6 of Brooklyn Bridge Park

Tuesday, September 17th, 2013
Image courtesy of BIG
BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group) and Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates have unveiled their design for Pier 6 of Brooklyn Bridge Park, a public space and pavilion in form of a massive wood-clad triangular viewing platform for events and skyline gazing.
BIG was selected as winner of the project in spring of 2013 and is collaborating with MVVA. The project has won approval of the city’s Public Design Commission.
BIG said its proposal for Brooklyn Bridge Park, a project that has revitalized the New York City waterfront, consists of a 6,000-square foot triangular cross-laminated timber structure, serving as pavilion and platform.
Sloping upwards 17.5 feet in height from the foot of the large gathering lawn, the platform provides views of the surrounding harbor, the Statue of Liberty, the Manhattan skyline, and the Brooklyn Bridge. In conjunction with the adjacent greenery, Pier 6 will be dominated by a flower field and treed areas giving the area seasonal displays of color.
BIG said the surface of terraced stairs, softly illuminated, will allow for large and small events and is ADA accessible. The pavilion, supported by thin steel columns, is brightly lit with up-lights and provides shade, shelter and space for indoor activities. Movable site furniture underneath the platform will accommodate a variety of programs, from food carts and picnicking to community events and small performances.
Image courtesy of BIG

Bjarke Ingels said in a press release that “The Mantaray is a small public platform at the end of the pier – equally accessible above and below. Its namesake organic slopes and curves have been shaped by concerns for accessibility, safety, shelter, structure – like a manmade reef evolved to accommodate human life.”
Pier 6, located at the intersection of Furman Street and Atlantic Avenue, spans over 1.6 acres and offers amenities, including sand volleyball courts, concessionaires, themed playgrounds, a dog run, plantings, and the seasonal Governor’s Island Ferry connecting Brooklyn and Governors Island.
Collaborators on the project also include Knippers Helbig (structure), Tilotson Design Associates (lighting design), AltieriSeborWieber (MEP), Pantocraft (code), Formactiv (expediter).
BIG is an international partnership of architects, designers, builders and thinkers operating within the fields of architecture, urbanism, research and development. It is led by partners – Bjarke Ingels, Andreas Klok Pedersen, Finn Nørkjær, David Zahle, Jakob Lange, Thomas Christoffersen and Managing Partners, Sheela Maini Søgaard and Kai-Uwe Bergmann – with offices in Copenhagen and New York.
Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates is a landscape architecture firm that creates a wide range of landscape scales, from city to campus to garden. It has offices in Brooklyn and Cambridge, Mass.