When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivered the keynote address in March at the annual BuiltGreen conference here in Seattle, a dinner was held in his honor on the eve of the event. As a supporter of the BuiltGreen program, I was lucky enough to attend the dinner and to get up close with Kennedy, a man who bears a striking resemblance to his father, the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, and who is in person a soft-spoken, passionate environmental advocate with deep experience and a strong moral compass.

I was raised as an Irish Catholic and the Kennedys were iconic in our household. The dinner was a deeply profound moment for me and my twin, Patti Southard, seated on the other side of the table.

Prior to sitting down to dinner, Kennedy spoke fondly about his boyhood memories of exploring the natural beauty of the Puget Sound region with his father, along with friends such as U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas and famed climber and Northwest native Jim Whittaker. These experiences, it would seem, helped to form Kennedy’s passion for the outdoors and the environment. Through his work as the prosecuting attorney for the Hudson Riverkeeper and as president of the Waterkeeper Alliance, Kennedy has transformed his passion into his career.

He has since expanded beyond water issues into a holistic realm of environmental action, including serving on the Board of NRDC; one of the groups I believe is making some of the most significant contributions to protecting endangered species. During his keynote address, he referred to the economy as a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, and made it clear that economic opportunity is tied to strong environmental policy and practices.

With about 16 of us around the dinner table including director of the Washington State Department of Ecology, Jay Manning, along with designers, land use attorneys, developers, communications professionals, and other government and non-profit leaders, we each brought our own lens through which we viewed Kennedy’s work that evening. As the conversation warmed up and we discussed everything from skiing at Whistler to the country’s energy grid, Kennedy shared his thoughts on the growing list of environmental challenges we face today, the connections between them, and the role the environment plays in the economy.

Read the rest of this entry »

It was interesting to watch. On June 18 at the Central Library, civic leaders Gordon Price of Vancouver and Peter Steinbrueck of Seattle debated the merits of the two cities’ built environments, each arguing as mandated for the other’s city. CR Douglas, possibly the smartest person on Seattle TV, moderated. There was good audience Q&A at the end. You can follow what happened here, including a parallel event in Vancouver on June 16.

It’s not easy being Seattle! Rather than being compared with North American cities in general, where frankly the bar isn’t very high in our size range, we’re constantly getting compared with Vancouver, Portland, and San Francisco, each of which has plenty to be jealous of from an urbanist perspective, whether density (Vancouver and SF), narrow walkable streets (all), cultural diversity (SF and Vancouver), rail transit systems (all), or long history of smart planning decisions (all). Why can’t we go up against Houston?!

Price said lots of nice things about Seattle, noting that our topography helps give our neighborhoods identities, our waterfronts still have function rather than just looking pretty, and we have a strong cadre of rich donors to support civic causes. But as Steinbrueck correctly pointed out, few of those were about HOW we’ve built our city, particularly how we did it until recent years.

Steinbrueck has long used Vancouver as an example of how downtowns can attract families via measures such as inclusionary zoning, but he had a serious misconception and was corrected by Price. Steinbrueck claimed that Vancouver requires family-sized homes in new downtown highrises. Price corrected this, noting that only two megaprojects have this requirement, and the family-sized units are far too expensive for most families. (Edit: the negotiated zoning system does result in a lot of two-bedroom units.) Price noted that one reason for the large number of kids in downtown Vancouver is that many have moved from Hong Kong, where it is common for a family to live in a small apartment, and that these families tend to move out of Downtown when their incomes grow enough. In a different context, he also pointed out that the West End, which was mostly developed decades ago, is now a middle-low income area, which I suspect is related to the number of kids living there, along with the fact many of its streets are quiet and residential-only.

My opinion is that having more kids in Greater Downtown Seattle would be a good thing, but it’s not necessary for a fantastic downtown, and there’s no reason to mandate new family size units in new buildings, which has been discussed locally. We already mandate retail that the market doesn’t need, which is often vacant or rents at a loss. Rather than foisting these costs on the occupants of new buildings, why shouldn’t ALL of us pay to address civic problems? I suggest inclusionary zoning is based in part on cowardice by leaders who would rather ask a tiny number of people to pay, rather than ask the whole electorate.

Ah, retail. That didn’t come up. Vancouver has fantastic retail streets, including some in the West End. Why? Not just because their neighborhoods are denser, but because they concentrate retail on fewer streets. My own neighborhood of Belltown is the poster child of spreading retail to every avenue, meaning it’s far too diluted for a critical mass on any one avenue.

About Steinbrueck’s point that replicating Vancouver’s success will take Seattle a few decades, and that this gives us license to slow down … I don’t know what to think. On one hand he’s right that some development is poorly done. But adding process (at least temporarily) and construction costs (permanently, depending on the new requirements) has two side effects: the city becomes more expensive to live in, and development goes where it’s easier and cheaper, adding to sprawl. We can sacrifice the good in pursuit of the great. Still, I can’t argue for the worst examples of six-pack townhouses that wall themselves from the street and face interior driveway courtyards. Below-grade parking will add cost but perhaps it’s worth it.

There was a vote by applause at the end, which CR declared a win for Price’s defense of Seattle. (Steinbrueck won the Vancouver vote.) I wasn’t clear whether to vote for the city or the guy, or whether to vote for my city or the denser one, and clapped for both.

Early this year I wrote a post based on a quote from John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of the last century. Keynes had an idea about filling a hole with bottles filled with money, covering the hole over with dirt and then selling permits to dig out the bottles. His argument was that during an economic downturn the best thing was to spend, even if the spending seemed to contradict common sense.

Last week I wrote about the falling rate of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the United States and the Northwest. The post goes into a bit of detail about the numbers and asks the question, “Why invest huge dollars in capital infrastructure for new ways to carry cars?”

It’s far from certain what the downturn in VMT means. Part of it is attributable to last year’s price spike in oil and gas prices. But when you look at gasoline consumption (down), VMT (down) and car sales (down) you can’t help but wonder why we’re digging a big hole along the waterfront and filling it with cars. Does a tunnel that will cost billions of dollars still make sense?

Could the possibility that we are significantly changing our driving habits make Keynes’ idea more attractive?

Do what you say you’ll do. Whatever your business, there’s a good starting point for success. I’ve had two stark lessons in this as a retail customer recently.

In both cases, the businesses are large, respected Downtown establishments I want to support and have been loyal to for many years. In both cases, their failure to meet promises means they’ll lose my business.

What an excellent parallel for those of us in the A/E/C/RE world. Do your customers care about your basic integrity and follow-through as much as your skills?

The first was a new bed. The sales guy said eight weeks. With no word at 10 weeks, the rep said 12. With no word at 14 weeks, the rep said “it’s almost in the warehouse.” With no word at 18 weeks, it was “in the warehouse” but couldn’t be delivered the following weekend. Guessing it wasn’t really “in the warehouse,” I cancelled. Three weeks later they called and asked why I wasn’t home to take delivery, as if this had been scheduled. At that point, I still wanted the bed and could have taken delivery that very day. But after 22 weeks (incompetence? honest error? lies? poorly-managed supply chain? all of the above? who cares), I didn’t act in my own interest. Instead I punished the store by reiterating my cancellation. 

The second was my longtime barber. He’s always done a good job, with excellent service. But four straight times the wait was 20-30 minutes after the appointment. On the last occasion I didn’t say anything, but apparently the ice was obvious, because afterward the cashier cut the price in half. It’s admirable that he acknowledged the error. But the gesture was way too little and too late.  My decision not to go back was made in the waiting room. More importantly, once the impression exists that someone isn’t reliable, that impression sticks. 

At your business, you might assume loyal customers will give you the benefit of the doubt when you screw up. That’s probably true at first in many cases, due to the strength of your relationships, the customers’ inertia, and their human aversion to starting an argument. But eventually it works against you. A loyal customer expects service in return, and can take it personally and deeply when you don’t live up.

Much of it is about being honest when setting expectations. For the barber it might mean more time between appointments. For the bed seller, a realistic due date would have been a start, and a correction would have helped if a shipping error had been made.

In the A/E/C/RE world, that means living up to what you’re selling. Are you?

The concept of “urbs” and “suburbs” is one that we’ve lived with in the United States since the end of World War II. It might be time to rethink these categories or get rid of them all together.

In an article that ran in Crosscut last week Knute Berger characterized as simplistic the distinction between suburb and city.  I agreed with that characterization in a response at the Daily Score.

But I couldn’t abide with Berger’s claims that somehow smart growth or density (the dreaded ‘D’ word) somehow contributes to sprawl. This conclusion is fueled by the very simplicity Berger seems to deride.

What seems to be happening instead is that it is getting harder to develop large projects in Seattle because of a kind of strange single-family preservationist streak here.  My point was that projects like Bel-Red on the Eastside are almost impossible to do here because of vehement opposition by neighborhood groups and labor.  Neighborhoods oppose the density and labor hopes for more public benefits for their workers from the projects.

As time ticks off the clock projects like the redevelopment of the Campfire site in North Seattle and the Goodwill project in the Southeast part of the city languish and die.  So while we resist growth in Seattle most of the 1.7 million people projected people coming to the region in the next two decades may end up living in Bellevue, which may, ironically, according to the old view, make Bellevue the city and Seattle a “suburb.”

Want to speak out on Seattle’s pedestrian environment, and the City’s upcoming plans? Your best chance is between now and June 15, the comment period for the recently-released Draft Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan. In addition to the summary, remember to see the list of specific implementation actions.

It’s heartening to see so much effort go into boosting walkability, especially since the leaders are frequent pedestrians and experts in pedestrian issues. There’s much to love in the plan (not focusing on that here). At the same time, Seattle has a long history of well-intentioned plans being subverted by other goals, directly or indirectly. The plan addresses all of these general topics, but not in detail, and where it really matters is in practice.

An example is enlarged tree wells. These are good for trees that outgrow their old wells. But they can also interrupt pedestrian flow, they’re often muddy, and sometimes they’re even dangerous. This photograph is a rogue tree well on First Avenue, with a four-inch drop that must surprise a few people, at least those who haven’t walked in it countless times as I have (rather than wait for others to pass). Some hard-packed gravel at sidewalk level would be nice. Or maybe a walkable hard-surface platform of some kind.

At first look, the draft plan itself has some items that need adjustment. The yellow, bumpy plastic “tactile warning strips” it calls for at curb ramps are useful for the blind, but they’re slippery, which is something you don’t want at a street corner! A potential solution would be to build the same thing in concrete, integrally colored or painted so it’s more visible, though even then you’ve created a trip hazard.

Another usually good idea is chirping walk signals for the blind. But some of these signals, such as the ones at 6th & Bell, are incredibly loud, easily audible a full block away. How many advocates would live 50 feet from that? We encourage people to live near work, while making some intersections inhospitable for living. Turn the volume down.

“All way walk” intersections (like First & Pike) are also discussed in the draft plan. These sound like a good idea, until it occurs that at a standard intersection, they mean you can’t walk 2/3 of the time. First & Pike works because there are only two phases, “traffic” and “pedestrians,” plus it’s easy to jaywalk N-S during traffic’s phase. But at a regular multiphase intersection, all way walk is like punishment.

Let’s not get into the parking meters and light poles in the centers of many sidewalks, which exist because City liability fears have required them to be three feet from curbs. This was thought up by bean counters more worried about fenders and dollars than pedestrian safety or walkability. Even the new “pay stations” are often located within narrow sidewalks due to expediency, and can be barriers if people are standing at them. They should be in parking strips.

Curb bulbs are a great idea, to shorten crossings and improve visibility. But please make sure there’s room for not only the car lanes, but bicycles along the right fringe as well.  Just a couple feet. The same stretch of Bell, a significant bike route, is a good example. Hit Fifth Avenue, and either the driver or the bicyclist better give way, because the curb bulb sticks out too much.

Readers, please read the plan and comment. City, good job on the plan, but please make some adustments, and please follow through on implementation!

Seattle’s own Olson Sundberg Kundig Allen Architects has made national magazine Fast Company’s list of the Top 10 most innovative architecture firms in the world.

Bird's Nest

OSKA is in pretty good company on the list, which gives the No. 1 slot to international giant Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. Second slot goes to Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron, designer of the Beijing Olympics’ Birds Nest. The third firm listed is Zaha Hadid Architects, designer of London’s Millennium dome and that ET-inspired (or is that just me?) Chanel pavillion in Central Park last fall.

The list also includes a lot of global designers who’ve done projects in our own backyard. Rem Koolhaas’s OMA is fourth on the list. The Dutch designer’s recent projects include the CCTV building in Beijing and our own Seattle Central Library.

Holl's St. Ignatius

Steven Holl, designer of Beijing’s “Linked Hybrid” complex and Seattle University’s Chapel of St. Ignatius, was fifth on the list. London’s Foster + Partners, designer of the new Beijing airport terminal, and, possibly, of the pending Civic Plaza for Seattle officials, was No. 6. (That project was supposed to leverage a public-private partnership to get a new skyscraper with public amenities across the street from City Hall, but it’s currently a hostage to the downturn.)

Spot No. 7 goes to Italy’s Renzo Piano, which recently designed the new NY Times headquarters building. Then comes Christian de Portzamparc, the French architect who designed the Luxembourg Philharmonic’s concert hall and has some cool visions for the future of Paris. Spot No. 9 went to KieranTimberlake, who designed the Cellophane House for MOMA’s show last year on modular marvels.

Montecito Residence- by Jim Bartsch

OSKA was tenth on the list. The magazine noted the firm’s “dossier of important public buildings” (Seattle Public Library’s Southwest branch, Frye Art Museum) and “skillful hand with residences framing sublime natural vistas.” OSKA has won numerous local awards in the latter category over the past few years (see Delta Shelter, Montecito Residence, Rolling Huts, Outpost, just to name a few).

This year, the firm was awarded AIA National’s firm of the year award. In the AIA Seattle awards last November, OSKA won an Award of Merit for its design of the Noah’s Ark for LA’s Skirball Cultural Center.

In Olympia, legislators are patting themselves on the back after closing a $9 billion budget gap. But it’s likely that they have only deferred addressing some of the fundamental structural problems with the state’s finances for another 2 years.

Legislators also took a victory lap after “solving” the viaduct problem by creating a mechanism by which Seattle taxpayers would have to pay for cost overruns on what would be a state project—after Seattle voted down the tunnel option. But that’s a different post.

Two big ideas that didn’t make it out of the regular session had to do with the always unpopular and hard to understand subjects of debt and taxes. The state will eventually have to figure out how to make its tax system fairer and less regressive. An income tax of some kind could be part of that, but that ideal didn’t get far this year.

The other really interesting concept was offered by Rep. Hans Dunshee. His proposal would have authorized the state to borrow $3 billion to retrofit public schools. The bill was missing a lot of critical details, but underlying was a great concept that I called Green Increment Financing.

Like Tax Increment Financing, Dunshee’s bill would have allowed the state to make upgrades and improvements to infrastructure that would pay for the financing of the debt. In the case of Green Increment Financing, the money to pay back the debt would come from accumulated savings as previously inefficient buildings began to realize energy savings. The retrofitting would create new jobs, and reductions in energy use would also reduce green house gas emissions.

Like Tax Increment Financing, the hurdle with this kind of idea is two-fold. First, and probably most difficult, is the terminology which includes words like “tax,” “bonds,” “financing,” “public indebtedness,” and “increment.” Even if legislators understand this concept, debt and taxes are political dynamite.

The second problem has to do with math and forecasting. Will energy improvements actually save enough to pay back the bonds? Savings can be estimated and this kind of financing on projected savings is done locally already. So these numbers can be figured out. But getting the numbers will take time

Hopefully, Green Increment Financing will gain ground between now and the next legislative session along with a more fundamental look at how we generate revenue for public benefits.

Two regional projects by local architects got ink today:

• GreenMuze has an article on Vancouver’s Convention Centre (note the spelling if you don’t already know which Vancouver I’m talking about), designed by Seattle’s LMN Architects.  The design includes Canada’s largest green roof and a water treatment system that includes blackwater treatment and a seawater heat pump systemthat provides heating and cooling.

• The Idaho Mountain Express has a story on community support for Callison’s proposed design for Bald Mountain Lodge in Ketchum.  Apparently, the Sun Valley community actually liking a proposed luxury hotel project is pretty rare. The 85-unit, five-story hotel is for Rock Resorts, a subsidiary of Vail Resorts.

I also got a press release today from local architect HyBrid. They’re having a project release party Friday at their newest project, Remington Court.

The four-townhouse infill project has a gas-fired instantaneous hydronic system, providing both hot water and floor coil heating. They are designed for stack and cross ventilation.

The party is open to the A and E community (and friends) and runs from 5 p.m. to midnight at 1320 E. Remington Court (one block south of 14th and Jefferson). Local art will be on display and food and drinks are promised.

"Library Side East" by Stephen L. Rosen

Rem Koolhaas, who designed the Seattle Central Public Library, and more recently the CCTV Building in Beijing, told the Wall Street Journal that money is scarce for megaprojects, even for him.

“I don’t even know about the word ‘downturn,’ ” Koolhaas told the WSJ in his office in Rotterdam. “It seems simply the end to a period.”

Though his firm, the Office for Metropolitan Architecture, hasn’t had any projects canceled yet, Koolhaas said they have several projects on hold.

And they’ve had to make layoffs. WSJ reported that the firm, which had 270 employees last summer, is now down to 220. OMA is working on a theater complex in Taipei, a library in Qatar and new buildings in Holland, WSJ reports.

Has your firm had layoffs too? Respond to the poll on the right (scroll down just a tad) on area layoffs at A/E/C firms.