Some Seattle developers have said they intend to build smaller housing units to keep price points lower and therefore more appealing to workers downtown.

New York City

But they’re living large in New York City. The New York Times reports that sales of three- and four-bedroom apartments jumped last year, and that the mini-trend is continuing. This is another sign NYC is becoming more family friendly, according to the newspaper.  Here’s the story.

If NOAA ships lift Newport’s spirits, their hopes will be dashed soon enough but not before $30 plus million is spent on a pipe dream. I’ve watched the NOAA drama play out for the last year through the lens of NOAA engineers close to the crazy decision to move the Marine Operations Center-Pacific, a large vessel maintenance function, to a place with no marine infrastructure to support it. This guarantees added cost to all taxpayers, and little payback to Newport despite their wishful thinking.  The “175 family wage jobs” used to sell the proposal as an economic development project is greatly exaggerated.  Counting all the NOAA officers, civilian engineers and technicians who are the permanent MOC-P staff, the real number is 77 at best. The rest are wage mariners and scientists who are unlikely to take up permanent residence in Newport because their ships will only be tied to the new expensive and oversized wharf a few months of the year.  Most of the time the ships are at sea or in a drydock for major repairs in Seattle, Portland, Bellingham, or even San Francisco because that’s where the real shipyards are, not in Newport.  The majority of the scientists are also in Seattle at the Western Regional Center at Sand Point.
A little known fact is that the Oregon taxpayers are subsidizing NOAA to the tune of $19.5 million to build

NOAA Ships at WRC in Lake Washington, 2009. No Complaints from the neighbors. Photo courtesy of Irene Wall.

And—surprise—NOAA Corps officers and mariners who may move there don’t have to pay Oregon income tax.  They can call any state their Home of Record and avoid paying state income tax this way.
If this seems like a terrible hoax, it gets worse with a closer look at the reasoning behind the move and the “circle the wagons” mentality NOAA officials took when Senator Maria Cantwell and two independent watchdog agencies asked questions about NOAA’s decision to build in a floodplain and reject offers by the General Services Administration to use existing federal buildings and waterfront facilities in Seattle rather than spend millions on new buildings and piers in Newport.
On May 26th the Office of the Inspector General sent to NOAA a memo essentially saying STOP until we sort this mess out.
Instead, NOAA joined a party June 6th at the Port of Newport to show off its newest ship the Bell M Shimada which arguably should have been using its high tech multibeam sonar to track the Great Gulf Oil Slick instead of making PR appearances in Newport.
Environmental Roulette
Why should we care about this?  It’s just a few ships leaving Seattle, and we’re just being sore losers.  Maybe, but the NOAA move raises an even greater question —what is the environmental price for moving ships to Newport?  The Newport boomers see dollar signs; they want growth. It’s Deus Ex NOAA. Yet why would NOAA, whose Fisheries Service branch,  “is dedicated to the stewardship of living marine resources through science-based conservation and management, and the promotion of healthy ecosystems” chose to build a huge 64,000 SF wharf in their own recently designated Critical Fish Habitat for the endangered green sturgeon?
The recently filed  Oregon State Lands permit application on the project goes on for pages describing how critically important eelgrass habitat is for a dozen species of fish in Yaquina Bay and how difficult eelgrass mitigation is and how they searched the entire area and could only find three disconnected little spots to attempt the “restoration” of eelgrass. Yikes, how about NOT destroying it in the first place. Conservation before mitigation!  As local officials clamp down on permits for any new habitat shading dock, you would expect NOAA to model better behavior.
The permit’s spin is that the mitigation eelgrass will be “better” than the existing resources (if it gets established!). This sounds like destroying the village in order to save it. If there is a compelling reason to plant more eelgrass in Yaquina Bay, NOAA should just do it, but not hold eelgrass restoration goals hostage

NOAA Ship at Federal Center South, June 2010. Plenty of room here.

At a time when President Obama is asking all federal agencies to cut back, NOAA is insisting on all new digs for ships that will only be tied up at the “homeport” a fraction of the year.
The Port of Newport and NOAA appear to be trying to box in the Corps of Engineers by going ahead with upland construction even before the formal public notice period on the permit. There’s still a chance that the Corps will see the light and deny the permit because by their own rules, they must only approve the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” and they are not limited to NOAA or Newport’s definition of what that should be.

Office building construction has been a mainstay of urban and suburban development for decades. But will it always be, at least in decent economic times? To some extent it likely will in the Seattle area, with our always-growing population and our success in key industries. But even here, the volume will probably slow down compared to recent decades. In metros that aren’t growing, I suspect that office development will slow to the level needed to replace whatever is lost, or even start to shrink a little.

The drivers of heavy past growth have played out — particularly the conversion to a white collar economy, and massive employment growth as women entered the workforce. Today, plenty of drivers point in the other direction, or might soon.

It used to be that most white collar jobs didn’t offshore easily. Many now do, or soon will. This trend isn’t a steady line and each industry’s experience is unique, often resulting in fits and starts, but the general direction seems clear. Our economy might get noticeably less white collar in the coming years.

Telecommuting is starting to live up to its potential. Even while most of us crave human contact, the basic telecommuting tools are finally getting easy. Broadband on the computer and phone. Teleconferencing with a simple webcam. Home access to networks rather than just email. If commuting is a challenge too, or expensive as oil prices rise….the planets are starting to align for more telecommuting.

Office square footage per person seems to be shrinking. Some of this is a reaction to cost, both in a great economy when space is expensive, and in a bad economy when tenants have less money. Some of it is cultural, as companies choose communalism over personal space. But it’s also structural — things that have always required a lot of space are requiring less and less, from filing cabinets we no longer need because of digital documents, to flat-screen monitors that allow shallower desks, to cell phones that allow people to step away for private conversations rather than relying on walls.

Some companies are going as far as not having assigned desks at all, which is related to the telecommuting trend and the digital trend. Maybe each person has a rolling cart with his or her personal stuff, plus a laptop on Wi-Fi. Maybe the office has 50 staff but only 20 or 30 desks, where people camp as-needed.

I don’t expect age demographics to have a big effect, at least not directly. Some suggest that as baby boomers reach retirement, they’ll take white collar jobs with them, particularly fewer new people will be entering the workforce (boomers’ kids are entering the workforce now, but after them comes another baby bust). But I suspect that the number of white collar jobs will be tied to demand for the services they provide, not the availability of the same people to provide those services. The main age-related demographic effect should be cultural, as younger people adapt better to freeform offices, and might be more open to telecommuting from the coffee shop.

Even as some trends become clear, there are too many questions to be sure about the bottom line. As some office jobs go away, will others take their place? If not, what other jobs will? Will wages in other countries rise relative to ours, which might help keep jobs from offshoring? What will the dollar do? Will people really telecommute effectively, in large numbers? Will anyone retire anytime soon?

If you’re looking for a positive on the commercial development side, here’s a big one: There might be a lot more housing construction in business districts. These will pencil more often because, for one, they won’t have to compete as much with office developments. The same traffic and oil price issues that may reduce commuting will encourage proximity for many people, even as some telecommuters head for the hills. Living in a mixed-use district seems poised to keep growing as a lifestyle choice, as each wave of added residents makes a district more attractive for the next wave. Heck, if you believe that the US will lose some of its economic primacy, maybe places like Seattle will end up being second home destinations for people from overseas, like Vancouver.

Unrelated aside: The City should go easy on the Macy’s skybridge. The store is important to Downtown, and we should support it rather than penalizing it. I agree that Seattle shouldn’t have a skybridge network, but they’re ok in special circumstances, particularly when they already exist.

Next American City has an article that looks at bringing cars back to pedestrian malls. It says that four decades

Sacramento’s K Street Transit Mall. Credit: El Cobrador.

New York sure treats pedestrians better than Seattle does.

I’m in Manhattan for a few days, walking loops from the Battery to Harlem. Being used to Seattle, I’ve rarely felt so coddled by a city.

Many Seattle annoyances are gone. Sandwich boards are neatly out of the way. Jaywalking doesn’t require looking for cops first (still honoring right of way of course), and sidestreets are narrow so crossing is quick. Tree wells aren’t designed to hurt you or make you walk single-file. Dog owners keep their leashes short so they don’t trip people. I’ve yet to see a push button. Cars stop before crosswalks, not in them, in part because there’s (presumably) no free right turn, and in part because they’re not rude.

In other words, both New York and its public have learned that walkability is more than platitudes, and living close together comes with a code of conduct. Seattle should learn from that.

Without waxing too poetic, I love this city…not in the critical but permanent way I love Seattle, but more a deep admiration. Manhattan’s density of buildings, residents, tourists, jobs, and transit is phenomenal, both in ambiance and in the great things it supports. And the architecture! It’s scientific fact that the two best highrises in the world are the Chrysler and Woolworth Buildings, and the midrise vernacular…

My hotel computer is running out….off to the view from Empire State!

There are some things we know about the deep bore tunnel proposed as a replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct. It’s going to be expensive, costing the state, city and port a combined total of at least $4.5 billion dollars. We also know that it will only add to Seattle’s carbon emissions problem. Building highways has a tendency to do that. And most experts agree that there will be cost overruns on the construction. That means the project will likely encounter problems that will slow the project down (see the Brightwater debacle) and materials and labor will end up costing much more than expected. Right now the legislation authorizing the tunnel project says that Seattle is on the hook to pay all of these overruns. But what happens if the revenue for the tunnel doesn’t come in? Even if all the projections for the costs of the tunnel are spot on (which is unlikely) if tolling revenue doesn’t come in as expected, the cash strapped City of Seattle will have to make up the difference. And a closer look at the revenue claims—both tolls and promises from the port—should give the Seattle City Council another reason to pause before diving into an agreement in which it obligates Seattle taxpayers to pay for overruns.

Will drivers really pay to use the deep bore tunnel?

The legislation states pretty clearly that the state’s contribution will not go higher than $2.4 billion dollars. It further stipulates that “if costs exceed two billion four hundred million dollars, no more than four hundred million of the additional costs shall be financed with toll revenue.” First off, the legislation makes it impossible for the project to make up cost overruns using tolling revenue because it limits that revenue to $400 million. But what happens if that revenue doesn’t even get to $400 million?

Just do the math. If the project comes in perfectly on budget but tolling revenue ends up being just $300 million, that extra $100 million comes out of the City of Seattle’s budget. And is there reason to think that would happen? Just consider State Route 167. That project was supposed to be paid for largely with toll revenue. The problem is that the Hot Lane experiment—allowing drivers to buy their way onto a special lane to beat congestion—is failing. People aren’t buying into the program. Less than half of the drivers expected to use the Hot Lanes actually are doing so, and the revenues aren’t paying for project costs.

And why would people want to pay extra for a trip through a gold plated tunnel? Consider the fact that projections indicate that the trip along Alaskan Way—which is not tolled—will take the same amount of time as going through a tolled tunnel which will cost $7.50 or more. Why would drivers spend that kind of money when they can literally just by pass the tunnel for free? And strangely, the Washington State Department of Transportation’s projections have been revised down from about 118,000 vehicles per day down to more like 49,000 cars at peak use. Mayor McGinn’s most recent review indicates that number may be even less, more like 26,000 vehicles. One way to help with the problem might be to increase the toll, but wouldn’t that just push more cars on to Alaskan Way?

And what about the $300 million the port has said its going to kick in for the project? That would likely come from property taxes levied on people throughout King County, most of whom won’t ever use the tunnel. And if they did they’d still have to lay down the cash for a trip through it. Imagine how a family in North Bend will feel paying for the deep bore tunnel on their property tax bill and then, in the unlikely event they would ever drive through it, pay a hefty toll. The politics of property tax hikes for things property owners will never use are pretty dicey. The Port of Seattle might change its mind.

So add these sketchy revenue predictions to the sketchy cost projections and any policy maker and any level of government would have to wonder what on earth are we doing here? But the Council seems determined to plow ahead insisting that, in the words of Council President Richard Conlin, “there will be no cost overruns.” This is the same Richard Conlin who recently in Yes! Magazine was giving the rest of the region lessons on how Seattle is going to achieve carbon neutrality. Talk about a Sustainability Gap!  If the Council President manages to get his way on the tunnel we’re almost certain to see overruns because of higher costs. And we may see overruns because of poor performance of tolling revenue and a collapse of the promise from the Port. We might get overruns because of costs and flagging revenues. And these overruns will come out of the wallets of hard working Seattleites. Is it too much to ask our City Council to get us off that hook?

Town Hall Seattle is one of 25 sites hoping for cash. Photo courtesy of Partners in Preservation.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has launched a contest in the Puget Sound region called the Partners in Preservation program that will provide $1 million in grants from American Express to local historic sites.

The online program encourages people to vote for their favorite historic places from among 25 sites in the region.

For information about the sites or to vote, go here. Votes can be cast until May 12. People can also post personal stories about the sites and share photos. Open houses will be held May 1 and 2 at the sites.

A press release from the trust said the winner of the public vote is guaranteed grant funds. Funding for the runners-up will be determined by an advisory committee of civic and preservation leaders in collaboration with the American Express Foundation and the trust.

Grant recipients will be announced June 15.

At least someone is having fun in Seattle city government. Just read City Councilmember Richard Conlin’s not so modest proposals for the SR 520 Bridge replacement project.

Here they are:

The replacement of the SR 520 Bridge continues to be a high priority project, as the need for safety improvements and transportation enhancements remains great. However, the options currently under consideration are limited in their creativity, focusing primarily on what planners call the “Goldilocks Set” – a 4-lane alternative that is ‘too small’, an 8-lane alternative that is ‘too big’, and a 6-lane alternative that is ‘just right’. Although other ideas have been suggested in the past, such as a group of drivers calling for a dedicated SUV bridge and a so-called “Chartreuse Green Alternative” that appears to be focused on the color of the bridge, it is only in the last few weeks that some truly visionary ideas have been proposed, such as the following:

•  The “Rabbit Hole” alternative. This would consist of interlocking bored and/or floating tunnels that serve multiple locations on the east and west sides of the lake. On the west side, there would be tunnel entrances at Sand Point, Laurelhurst, Madison Park, and Madrona Park, while on the east there would be entrances at Kirkland, the Point Cities, and Mercer Slough in Bellevue. All of the tunnels would meet in a submerged roundabout in the center of the lake, so that vehicles would be able to get to various destinations. This would decentralize traffic, therefore allowing it to be absorbed by existing roads (e.g., Madison Street, Sand Point Way, etc.), thus eliminating the Portage Bay viaduct and connections through Montlake.

•  The “Train to Anywhere” proposal. This would involve creating a six lane bridge with tracks in all six lanes. At the Seattle side, one set of tracks would run north over the Montlake Bridge, and then split and run on the surface down Sand Point Way and NE Pacific, another would run south along 23rd Avenue with a spur through the Arboretum, while the third line would continue to I-5 and run in tracks embedded in those lanes as well. This alternative assumes that there will be virtually no cars in the future, so there is no need for lanes for them. Any remaining vehicles other than trains (such as horse and carriages) can share the rail lanes (as is done in the Third Avenue tunnel currently). Trains running the in the same lane will notify the horse and carriage operator via GPS, and the operator can move his vehicle to one of the unoccupied lanes. This will require the nimble use of technology as well as genetically modified (GMO) horses that can shift from side to side very quickly.
 
•  The “Greener Than Thou” proposal. This would rebuild the bridge with only a pedestrian/bike path. There is a variation on this proposal, called the “Lemming Alternative”, that would include vehicle lanes, but terminate them at the current ‘Ramps to Nowhere’ in the Arboretum.

•  The “Zero Lake Option”. This was inspired by the bold and visionary actions of our ancestors, who reshaped the landscape in major ways such as the Denny Regrade, the rerouting of the Cedar River into Lake Washington, and the lowering of Lake Washington by 9 feet. Proponents of this option ask the logical question: ‘If we can do 9 feet, why not the whole Lake?” The savings in concrete are enormous, as is the potential for development on the slopes and valley floor that would now be available. There are moderately significant impacts on fish resources.
 
•  The “Dunkirk Strategy”. This alternative was inspired by the heroic World War II experience when yachts and fishing boats were mobilized to evacuate the British Army from France when Hitler overran the continent in 1940. Since there are many yachts and pleasure boats in the Seattle area, most of which are only used a few hours a month, why not mobilize a ‘Dunkirk Fleet’ of hundreds of these small boats to carry people across the water instead of rebuilding the bridge?
 
•  The “Sustainable Surface” alternative. This proposal is designed to counteract the impact of global warming on Lake Washington by submerging a system of pipes under the SR 520 corridor, and then continually pumping liquid nitrogen through them to create a frozen surface. The cooling effect would spread through the Lake and protect fish against excessively warm temperatures. Travel across the Lake could be by dogsled caravans, and there could be year-round winter sports adjacent to the travel corridor. Since the ice bridge could not be raised to allow boats to go through, there would be an icebreaker stationed in the corridor, which would simply break through the bridge at regular intervals, and allow it to refreeze to restore travel across the Lake.

• Perhaps the most radical proposal is the “Cloud Suspension Bridge”. This would synthesize the use of cloud computing with visualization techniques and nanotechnology to construct a bridge suspended by trillions of nanowires connected to individual droplets of rain and microparticles above the bridge. As particles fall or dissolve, new nanowires will be deployed using spider-like spinnerets to seek out newly formed droplets and dust. The bridge will look like it is suspended from thin air. On extremely windy or clear days when this technology may be unstable, drivers will rely on visualization techniques to imagine that the bridge is still working, as they already do in its current condition.Perhaps the most radical proposal is the “Cloud Suspension Bridge”. This would synthesize the use of cloud computing with visualization techniques and nanotechnology to construct a bridge suspended by trillions of nanowires connected to individual droplets of rain and microparticles above the bridge. As particles fall or dissolve, new nanowires will be deployed using spider-like spinnerets to seek out newly formed droplets and dust. The bridge will look like it is suspended from thin air. On extremely windy or clear days when this technology may be unstable, drivers will rely on visualization techniques to imagine that the bridge is still working, as they already do in its current condition.
It is important that all reasonable choices are considered as we move through the key stages of decision making on this critical transportation facility. These and other ideas will now move into the state’s process for selecting a ‘Draft Preliminary Preferred Alternative’ in April. Following public hearings on the draft in May, a ‘Revised Draft Preliminary Preferred Alternative’ will be recommended in June, followed by a public hearing in July. Based on the response from this hearing, in September the State will select a ‘Consensus Draft Preliminary Preferred Alternative’, which will have a public hearing in October. After that there will be a “Revised Consensus Draft Preliminary Preferred Alternative”, which the State will consider in a Decision Agenda at a meeting to be determined at some point in the future. Once this meeting has taken place, there will be an opportunity for further public comment prior to the State selecting a ‘Final Preliminary Preferred Alternative’, which will then move into the next stage of the decision-making procedure.