And I was walking down Olive the other day in the sun and was pleasantly surprised to see the entire sidewalk cast in blue light, due to the sun hitting the blue plastic wings that encircle the top of O8. I’m sure it was an unintentional bi product of the design, and was at best a temporary addition to the streetscape, but for just that moment, brief as it was, it was pretty neat.

But, if there is an existing house on the property, let’s figure out a way to get it kept. Incentives could include reduction in parking requirements, for example.

Yeah, that’s what happens when density is defined as “units” of housing and a studio apartment = 1 unit = a 5 bedroom rental SF house. Define density in numbers of people and things might change.

Kathryn, the NC buildings I’ve seen have a great variety of sizes in commercial space. Have you been to the newish City Hardware in SLU, for example? It’s quite small but a really great neighborhood resource. (Oh, and unfortunately Seattle’s historic inventory provides zero protection as you probably know.)

I don’t think they got everything, but a scan of Central Area streets indicates that there is a historical character interest here.

I would have preferred that the existing house be preserved with its current use and maybe a new building added to the land.

Zoning does not really translate to uses, either from an income perspective or economic development perspective, both of which are components of sustainable neighborhoods — homes, jobs, goods and services nearby for a variety of income levels.

How many of those Neoghborhood Commercial buildings have deep enough retail spaces for the inventory back room required for even a small hardware store, for example?

Thinking that overlays and other mechanisms may be needed in the code.

http://web1.seattle.gov/dpd/luib/Notice.aspx?BID=413&NID=9768

Its one SFH being replaced by five new townhomes. Sounds reasonable on the surface. But here’s the catch, the now-standing SFH is already divided into 6 residential units, one more than the proposed townhomes.

Granted the old units are probably much smaller, but I would say you are probably replacing about 8 people with maybe 12 – 15. That’s not even double. Plus, the current SFH is historic, affordable, and only takes up half the lot, leaving way more greenspace that could be used a garden, goats, chickens, or what have you. Oh, did I mention that the SFH was built in 1901 and has no parking. Correct me if I’m wrong but the new buildings are required to have one space per unit, total = 5. So which housing form is more sustainable here?

I’m not trying to go all mossback on you here but I think this situation is more the norm, rather than the exception and its an important issue in the affordability discussion.