Since most of it was regraded a century ago, the area we now call Belltown has always been on the way to some fantastic destiny. The current vision has been clear since the 80s: Belltown should be a dense spinoff from Downtown proper, primarily residential but with offices too, and with lots of amenities.

Plymouth Housing's new project at at 2119 Third

I’ve always thought Belltown was just one more wave of projects away. After a few waves it’s not there yet. But it’s getting closer.

In many ways, Belltown is a huge success already, and I love living here. It’s vibrant to a point, and every convenience is either here or nearby. Young adults, empty-nesters, and a large poor population mix with less difficulty than some imagine. Half of us walk to work or use transit.

Traffic and street width are a hurdle. Belltown is “on the way to” Ballard in addition to destiny. The narrow streets and low traffic of Portland’s Pearl District magnify the feeling of people out and about, while Belltown needs lots of pedestrians to seem right, and busy crossings discourage strolling. Some avenues are probably unfixable, but Second and Third are low-volume toward the north and could be narrowed, perhaps replacing a lane or two with greenery.

We should concentrate our retail. Belltown is populated enough to have a couple good retail avenues, or one great one, but instead it has a lot of “sort of” retail streets. The culprit is code that favors/requires retail everywhere, and doesn’t require it to be wall-to-wall anywhere. We ought to pick a couple avenues for retail, and sharply reduce requirements elsewhere, leaving space for corner stores of course.

For those wishing for a bigger-city feel, another lesson is that a few hundred new housing units won’t have much effect in such a large area. That’ll take thousands of people, which will take years. Luckily some of us enjoy the journey.

Perhaps we can talk about amenities in another post!

Some are making lemonade from the housing bust’s lemons. The New York Times had an interesting story today on cities buying up foreclosed property to prevent blight from seeping into their towns. Boston, Minneapolis, San Diego and others are busy buying up land with public and private dollars, then redeveloping and flipping it.

Housing bust not a bad deal for all

On Morning Edition the story this morning was the “green lining” on the cloud of bad housing news. Nature and land trusts have taken advantage of falling prices and foreclosures to get good deals on properties or areas they plan to turn into open space and preserves, including a significant stretch of coastline on Oahu that will be turned into a wildlife preserve.

And, if you haven’t yet heard through the grapevine, two very non-serious new news sources have hit the Seattle media. One is about (supposedly) ugly condos, the other is Seattle’s own Onionesque fake news site, the Naked Loon that touches on development, politics and just how silly it is to be a Seattleite.

Portland, you make it look so easy

Portland’s historic Heathman Hotel already knew a thing or two about sustainability.

Riding up to our room last year in the elevator, the doorman noticed me admiring the Brazilian rosewood paneling. “We have to be careful with it,” he said. “It’s endangered so we can’t replace it.”

So how does the historic luxury hotel in downtown Portland keep its cache in the midst of a changing world? It goes green, of course. Green Building Elements has a story today on the undertaking.

USA Today also got smitten with the Rose City. A story in today’s paper marvels at how carefree and car-free you can be in our compact little cousin.

Portland rocks, and many of us here have long known it. But an even better descriptor found in the piece: “studiously hip.” So true.

It took moving – and cleaning out a storage locker – for this pedestrian to think about bicycling again. I thought of biking as something other people did, people with farther to go, in great shape, and more skilled with flat tires than I. But the idea grew, and after $200 of fixes at Elliott Bay, I was off as a recreational biker.

It has been AWESOME.

Getting Converted on the Sammamish River Trail

There’s something exhilarating about heading off to new places and doing it under your own power. Biking is a great mix of the “I’m here now” feeling you get walking, the changing scenery you get in a car or bus, and just enough risk. And our region is splattered with destinations – from pleasant town centers in places like Mercer Island (yes, really), to the Issaquah Alps, to close-in nirvanas like Green Lake.

In some ways it’s been easier than expected, and in in other ways it’s been a challenge.

The politeness of drivers has been a pleasant surprise. I’ve never been honked at or felt endangered riding on the edge of a street or occasionally taking a lane. Not even a clueless right turner or door opener…so far. It’s good to be wary. I ride a few feet away from any car door and signal where I’m going.

The biggest challenge has been the hills. Longtimers talk about riding over passes and up Tiger Mountain. I’m barely getting over “easy” in-town stuff like Bel-Red Road. But one lesson has made it easier: don’t try to power up big hills, because that only helps for a short distance, and then you’ve shot your legs. Just ride normally, and downshift as necessary to keep the strain sustainable. Ditch your ego, and be the tortoise, not the hare.

Eating during long rides is another leap forward. My favorite route goes past a sandwich stand at the midpoint. Maybe it’s taking a break, and maybe it’s the food, but either way the payoff is a boost of energy. Drink more than you want to.

A map is a good idea. There’s nothing like a missed turn forcing you to backtrack a few miles. Print out the necessary pages from King County’s bike map.

Be safe. Wear a helmet and gloves, make sure your bike works, and don’t take too many risks. But go for it.

As you may know, Seattle officials are trying to decide whether to extend the city’s incentive zoning program beyond downtown. The program gives developers more building capacity in exchange for earmarking affordable units.

In some cities like Boston, including affordable housing is required.

Expansion plans had a bit of a setback last week when city consultant Greg Easton of Property Counselors presented his analysis to city council’s Planning, Land Use and Urban Development Committee.

His numbers showed the program wouldn’t yield much in increased profits in Seattle neighborhoods.

The picture got even bleaker for mid-rise developments, where several scenarios showed razor-thin increases in profit margin for incentive zoning.

“Why would a developer take that?” asked council member Tim Burgess. “From a public policy perspective, it would seem like we should develop a program where most people would want to do it.”

Council members asked Easton to recrunch the numbers with some outlyers removed, and to include more comparative analysis.

The New Republic has an interesting piece today on America’s professional class taking over its innercities while lower-class Americans, many of them minorities or immigrants, are pushed to the outskirts and suburbs.

The piece, by Alan Ehrenhalt, describes this shift as going “beyond gentrification,” and says it is more appropriate to describe it as “demographic inversion.”

I just want to live closer to work. Is that so bad?

Chicago, Atlanta, and D.C. are all cited, along with Vancouver B.C., where “each morning, there are nearly as many people commuting out of the center to jobs in the suburbs as there are commuting in.” Sound familiar?

The article says downtowns have gotten more livable for the professional class because they’re no longer home to major manufacturing zones. Street crime has also gone down significantly since the 1970s, so people feel safer on downtown streets after dark, Ehrenhalt says.

Popular culture might play a part too. Many of these new urban dwellers are younger and seem to have more of an innate urban sensibility, the article says. They grew up watching shows set in cities, like “Seinfeld,” Sex and the City,” and “Friends.” A far cry from”Leave it to Beaver” and “Father Knows Best.”

But one hallmark of suburbia is still well-ingrained in this new urban class: They still can’t imagine living without their cars. Ehrenhalt describes one new development in transit-oasis Chicago where residents can ride up the elevator to their floor without ever leaving their cars.

So its not exactly 1870s Vienna.

You might have read that Seattle transit users save an average of $8,400 annually compared to drivers. That’s according to a recent study that assumed transit users have one less car.

$8,400 is quite a figure! Is it true? Who knows, but the approach looks reasonable.

Better than clipping coupons

It’s good to think about this. We talk endlessly about housing costs and taxes, but personal transportation costs were hardly mentioned until gas hit $3. Even now, people aren’t necessarily connecting the dots: Transportation is a variable expense, and ditching the car (or using it less) can save you a bundle.

We often hear that 30 percent of income should be used to calculate housing affordabilty. But that assumes big transportation expenses. I’d argue that a combined figure for housing and transportation is a better metric. Perhaps a number like 45 percent is reasonable for both.

We Downtown residents often hear that we’re paying too much for housing. So we explain that many of us are actually pretty thrifty, all things considered. In fact, we often save far more than $8,400, because we ride in the free zone, or walk, rather than buying bus passes. We can even rent out our parking spaces.

That said, you don’t need to be in the center of town to make transit convenient. Any bus that goes past work probably goes past residential areas. Even if those areas cost a few hundred bucks more, maybe it’s worth it.

Now we just need more transit!

It was Memorial Day weekend, a few years ago. A warm day but not hot. Great time to visit the Space Needle observation deck. Of course the Center was packed with Folklifers that day. Looking at this mass of people from 520 feet taught a surprising lesson.

Seattle residents love sun, right? They’ll do anything to get more of it. We design our parks and buildings to capture as much of it as possible. All good? Well, to a point.

New amphitheatre proposed at Memorial Stadium

Almost directly below the Space Needle is the Mural Amphitheatre, one of the Center’s larger concert venues. At first glance that day, it looked 1/4 full. On second glance, the people were there, but they were packed around the shade trees on the perimeter. People were out in droves, but avoiding the sun.

What does that mean? Clearly, anecdotal evidence isn’t a mandate. Sunlight is important. But it’s an interesting window on what people, many of them, really prefer.

A new amphitheatre is being discussed for the Memorial Stadium site. Will this have lots of trees around the edges? Perhaps a nice shady grove or two? I hope so. People sit in amphitheatres for long periods. Heat and glare are just the start. Two hours can be bad-sunburn territory. Other walkways at the center should have trees as well.

And yes, let’s add more street trees. For those of us who take long walks and aren’t sun worshippers, nothing is worse than block after block in blazing sun. And few things are finer than the cooling effect and ambiance of a canopy of huge trees, or at least mid-sized ones.

As the financial credit crisis puts the crunch on local redevelopment projects, an additional unpleasant consequence is the increasing number of vacant lots and vacant buildings, especially in Downtown Seattle and nearby neighborhoods.

Who knows how long these sites will remain vacant? In the interim, we’re stuck with illegal parking lots at best and eyesores at worst.

East Pine Street at Belmont

On a quick drive through Downtown the other day I spotted three illegal parking lots on stalled redevelopment sites. While some folks may enjoy the suddenly greater availability of low-cost surface parking, these impromptu parking lots fly in the face of the City’s vision for Downtown and often create a false “value added” that can perpetuate the parking use for years.

First, in many parts of Downtown, as well as other pedestrian-designated commercial zones, surface parking is NOT an allowed use by City code. Occasionally, temporary surface parking is permissible, but only with special approvals.

Second, even where allowed, surface parking obviously cannot simply be set up as dirt or gravel lots. They need to be paved, with adequate storm water drainage, as well as include landscaped buffers adjacent to the sidewalk, plus interior landscaping. If you’ve seen some of these impromptu lots around town you’ll notice that the cars abut or even hang over onto the sidewalk, with no buffer but for weeds and occasionally black tarp staked up a few inches, ostensibly to contain runoff.

Lastly, surface parking lots are a valuable commodity in certain parts of town. Look at the parking lot at the southeast corner of Second and Pine! It’s been there for generations – a missing tooth in the otherwise improving stretch between the retail core and Pike Place Market.

Suffice it to say, in some cases what may seem like a casual, impromptu use can last for years. And, if the parking lot is either not allowable in that location and/or lacks the appropriate buffering, drainage, landscaping, etc., it’s a real detriment to the streetscape and neighborhood.

Second Avenue in Belltown

And what about those other “eyesores?” Other locations where projects have been stalled simply sit fallow – vacant lots, vacant buildings, or even semi-demolished buildings. Overnight, of course, these become targets for graffiti, litter, vandalism and crime, or simply become weed-choked, litter-strewn lots. Think of the former Safeway site at 40^th and Stone Way N, or the collection of buildings along Westlake Avenue that Carr America hopes to redevelop. The list goes on.

This issue may be a bit more complicated, but the question is: should the City consider a minimum-maintenance ordinance for such properties?

Perhaps it’s time once again, as the economy has hampered yet another of Seattle’s famous boom cycles, to adopt legislation that requires property owners to maintain these sites at some minimal level of civility.

You may remember the condition of the Downtown block where Benaroya Hall sits. Previously that had been the site of a prior boom cycle’s bust – the “Marathon Towers” project. While not pretty, at least during the interim it was minimally landscaped with grass and trees and maintained relatively litter free. Maybe that’s all it takes. I’m not sure I have the complete solution, but I’d welcome thoughts in this topic and perhaps even public support for some relevant legislation.

Transfers of Development Rights are not new. In 1916, New York City planners zoned the city and included a provision letting owners sell their building rights to neighboring lots. In the 1960s, they changed the law so lots didn’t have to be next to each other to TDR-swap.

Thanks for the development rights

In downtown Seattle, the owners of older, landmarked buildings get money for selling their development rights, and downtown developers buy those rights to build bigger on other sites.

King County also has a TDR program that lets developers in areas targeted for growth buy development rights from rural landowners. Vulcan took advantage of that program in 2005, purchasing 19 private TDRs to build 40,000 more square feet at Westlake/Terry. The county’s TDR program sunsets this month.

Now, the Seattle City Council is considering expanding Seattle’s program to other areas of the city. Proponents like former council aide Roger Valdez say other neighborhoods like Capitol Hill and First Hill are also seeing rapid growth and the TDR program will help the city hold on to some of the older buildings that might otherwise get razed.

The Seattle City Council’s Planning, Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee could discuss the idea at its meeting at 9:30 a.m. this Wednesday.

The committee will also talk about raising allowed building heights in Interbay and South Downtown, and about extending the developer incentive program, where developers get to build higher if they build or pay for affordable units.