Comments on: What’s Wrong With Four Stories?

By: Crosscut Wants Seattle to Do Density Right | hugeasscity

Crosscut Wants Seattle to Do Density Right | hugeasscity — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:44:07 +0000

[...] to suggest that there is a uniform answer, although some folks have tried to suggest that six (not four) stories is the way to go, while others think more than four causes [...]

By: Paul Krugman Joins Team Density | hugeasscity

Paul Krugman Joins Team Density | hugeasscity — Wed, 21 May 2008 07:34:12 +0000

[...] Krugman’s description of the Berlin neighborhood consisting mainly of four and five story apartments further congeals a thought that’s been knocking around my head lately: that ultimately the sustainable urban form of the future will be midrise. In this spicy essay on localism, James Howard Kunstler quips that “skyscrapers are an endangered species,” basically because they are too energy intensive. Midrise (4 to 6 stories) is relatively cheap to build, doesn’t necessarily need elevators, has an agreeable urban form, and can achieve high density (if there are enough of them). Maybe I should shut up about upzoning for taller buildings… [...]

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:36:55 +0000

Aurora and Eastlake seem pretty different to me — Eastlake at least has the potential to be pleasant (e.g. if there were a few more traffic lights, so nobody got going faster than about 30 mph). Aurora will never be a good street to live next to. I think this, rather than the height restriction, is why some of the big developments up in Bitter Lake are happening along Linden rather than along Aurora.

All that said, I believe the true distinction between where NC-65 zones exist vs. where NC-40 zones exist is the distinction between a neighborhood that wants development to happen and one that believe everything can stay as it is.

None of which is to say 4 story buildings are bad. But I’m with danb — there are a lot of places that could use NC-65 upgrades.

By: Josh Mahar

Josh Mahar — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:36:05 +0000

If I recall, Alexander’s argument revolves around the fact that no more than 4 stories is necessary for a vibrant city. In most cases I think he;s right (i.e. Europe).

I think you underestimate Eastlake, its on a route from the North End to Downtown and unlifting a bunch of those single family homes could easily double or triple the population in the area. Limiting the height helps maintain some connection with the water for everyone.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:55:20 +0000

BTW, the height is 40′ on aurora also,.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:54:58 +0000

It’s funny I was having this exact conversation with Ben Schiendelman (another guy at STB) and we came to the same conclusion, but this time about Aurora.

By: Dan Staley

Dan Staley — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:42:25 +0000

Huh. That was a regular bike route just a couple short months ago. Now looky. Rapid change indeed, Dan’l.