Comments on: What The Corner Really Needs

By: Opposite Ends Of I-90 | hugeasscity

Opposite Ends Of I-90 | hugeasscity — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:12:22 +0000

[...] agent we need is a leader bold enough to establish an organization like the BRA so we can actually get something done in this city. As in, transformational public investment and redevelopment at our pathetic excuses [...]

By: WA Insurance

WA Insurance — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:39:41 +0000

This is an unfortunate situation. I like the idea of a “fast track” section that can move certain areas faster but unfortunately the city and the neighbors and public will all have to fight about what happens and when.

While we may think it’s good to push certain areas through quickly, others will not.

By: Seattle Resident

Seattle Resident — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:49:07 +0000

Don’t blame the bureaucracy, blame the neighbors and the public.

By: Kathryn

Kathryn — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:57:27 +0000

If you really want to know the root cause of the year it took to get appropropriate zoning, look at the failure of the city to fund ongoing neighborhood planning activities. The neighborhood plans are supposed to be living documents. Sure, if you are in a community with a lot of — to put it nicely — capacity, then updating the neighborhood plan is an expense that the locals can absorb.

The 23rd and Union planning should have been re-addressed in 2004 IMO. Then the zonign would have made more sense to begin with.

By: City Comforts

City Comforts — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:08:42 +0000

Joshua Curtis.

Thanks for the pointer. Indeed there may be legal ways to fast-track projects. But the history of land use in Seattle is so fraught with distrust, discord and sub-optimum zoning codes that I can’t conceive of such an area-wide exemption being politically-possible.

Part of the problem is Seattle Land Use Codes which make it extremely difficult to forecasting impact (in terms of urban design, at least) with any accuracy. The only way an area-wide plan can work is if the code is very prescriptive, with very few development options on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The City will not make the investment in such fine-grain analysis and the citizens of Seattle don’t have the trust in planners (or their own ability to visualize the result of even simple codes) to allow reliance on the City government’s say so that “Don’t Worry. You will like the result of our plan when it is built out.” Does that one pass the smile test with you?

So that’s why I am dubious.

By: JoshMahar

JoshMahar — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:05:22 +0000

@7 JAM: Why exactly do you see re-zones as city, neighborhood, and then site specific. I think it makes total sense for it to be exactly the opposite.

Site specific rezones essentially require a developer to make their project attractive enough in other ways that neighbors are willing to give it extra height. If we just blanket rezone a neighborhood, or the city, there is the possibility of huge canyoned streets, or manhattanization, which is exactly what people are scared of. It also takes developers off the hook for public benefits as well as having the potential to very quickly increase density without the amenities.

Not to say that the current system is perfect. I think Dan rightly points out that it is far too difficult and time-consuming to get any non-conforming project through DPD as it stands. I think some kind of performance based system would be great, and I love the idea of a Development authority that could target specific areas for better, faster development. And no doubt a more informed and intelligent public is needed that doesn’t just refuse height for the sake of it.

But regardless I think tall buildings, and all buildings really, should be site specific.

By: Joshua Curtis

Joshua Curtis — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:03:15 +0000

City Comforts: There is a tool provided by GMA called “Planned Action”, in which environmental review for an entire sub-area (such as the Mt.Baker station area) is conducted, allowing subsequent projects to bypass this process (thus, “fast-tracking” them). I don’t believe it’s been used in Seattle, at least in recent history, though there have been some programmatic EIS’s in Northgate and South Lake Union. It requires upfront costs that can be prohibitive, but there are probably creative ways to mitigate those.

By: City Comforts

City Comforts — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:35:08 +0000

Btw, Dan, I think that such a “SWAT of Development” goes against the last 40 years of land use law in Washington State and even more so, Seattle. Such a group would have to, at least, be able to exempt projects it likes from SEPA…or what else could “fast track permitting and upzones” possibly mean? I don’t think we are likely to see that happen.

What Seattle needs is smarter and more sophisticated people and then the laws will change. So keep on working to change consciousness.

By: JAM

JAM — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:19:31 +0000

Thank you City Comforts for clarity on this one.
Re-zoning is not smart if the only purpose is to accommodate one developer.
Re-zoning is first a city-wide issue, second a neighborhood/district issue, then third a specific site issue – not the other way around as some developers prefer to propose.

By: City Comforts

City Comforts — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:01:09 +0000

An appealing idea in theory. Won’t/can’t happen in Seattle.

But I would like to make a comment on the notion that “The building didn’t pencil out at 40 ft which is why the developer requested the contract exception.”

I’d prefer it be stated as “”The building didn’t pencil out at 40 ft –
based on the price for the land requested by the seller or the profit level the developer thought he needed for such a risky site — which is why the developer requested the contract exception.”

Fourty-foot buildings work all over the place if the land is bought right or the site is not perceived as a somewhat risky, pioneering one.