Vancouver does exactly that. If you look at the West End (the hyper-dense, highrise neighborhood west of downtown that they are famous for), it has three main retail streets, but vitually no mixed use buildings. 90% of the retail are classic urban one-story retail like Broadway on Capitol Hill or the buildings being torn down here. Then, imediately behind these one-story retail businesses, the highrises start.

It actually creates a V-shaped street scape, letting in much more air and light to the main commercial strip than the 4-7 story street walls that seattle’s NC zones all but mandate. The result is a nearly complete preservation of small local businesses all thriving due to the huge population all within walking distance in the highest density neighborhood on the west coast of north america outside of San Francisco.

Another advantage is that the residents get to live on a quite residential street rather than a busy, noisy arterial. Of course the same concept can be applied at lower densities as well. It may not be what we want to do, but it has been done and it has worked very well by almost everyone’s assessment.

This doesn’t seem like a good idea to me, but it does seem like a logical outgrowth of the density-per-se-isn’t-bad-but-displacing-existing-retail-is-bad view.

If these large developments aren’t developed in a way that can attract independent businesses, then they aren’t adding to the city. They’re just vertical suburbs.

Is this the site with the rad grocery store on it? If so, I can really see why people are upset about moving that place. Or, is it that dive bar call The Court Room or something like that. If so, I still see why.

Joshmar, thanks for the constructive suggestions on how to be a better developer. I think a lot of them miss out on meeting neighbors to learn about each others point of view. So much is lost because of a few disgruntled individuals who talk louder than the rest.

There is a reason people choose to live in Phinney versus, say, Belltown or Ballard: they prefer smaller scale, single family home neighborhoods. A friend of mine just purchased a home a few blocks from Phinney for that very reason. Would it then be selfish and NIMBY of her to fight the construction of a four-story wall behind her and her neighbors? The consensus on HAC is that density is fantastic – seemingly at any cost, without concern for the current residents of the neighborhood, and with eye-rolling contempt for their reservations. So yes, in this instance, the residents of the neighborhood should fight their urban village designation. But simply throwing out the term NIMBY at anyone or anything going against your own wishes seems disingenuous at best, spitefully unsympathetic at worst.

While I agree with the concept of density, I get frustrated at the anger and hostility directed towards single family home neighborhoods and residents on this site. Direct your anger at the sprawling McMansions spreading like kudzu across the eastside and north and south sound regions. Stop seeing Seattle’s rather densely situated, walkable, and quiet neighborhoods as devil spawn (sorry, using hyperbole). Take a look at cheapshitcondos.com to see that density in Seattle is not always good.

So the true question is “does Seattle want to be a city?”