hugeasscity

Hey, what’s that Boart Longyear drilling rig doing down at 1st and University?  Even though my late-night couchbound googling could produce no confirmation, I’ll take a stab at it:  borehole testing for the deep-bore tunnel.

Meanwhile the bill that would fund the tunnel was approved by the Senate last week, and passed out of the House Committee yesterday afternoon.  Before coming to the floor for a full House vote, the bill now must pass out of the House Rules Committee, and House Speaker Frank Chopp has the power to essentially kill it there.  All indications are that the bill would pass a full House vote, yet Chopp has been skeptical of the tunnel plan.  Yup, the most powerful politician in Washington State.

“Nobody can be satisfied with the form of the city today. Neither as a working mechanism, as a social medium, nor as a work of art does the city fulfill the high hopes that modern civilization has called forth–or even meet our reasonable demands. Yet the mechanical processes of fabricating urban structures have never before been carried to a higher point: the energies even a small city now commands would have roused the envy of an Egyptian Pharaoh in the Pyramid Age. And there are moments in approaching New York, Philadelphia, or San Francisco by car when, if the light is right and the distant masses of the buildings are sufficiently far away, a new form of urban splendor, more dazzling than that of Venice or Florence, seems to have been achieved.

“Too soon one realizes that the city as a whole, when one approaches it closer, does not have more than a residue of this promised form in an occasional patch of good building. For the rest, the play of light and shade, of haze and color, has provided for the mobile eye a pleasure that will not bear closer architectural investigation. The illusion fades in the presence of the car-choked street, the blank glassy buildings, the glare of competitive architectural advertisements, the studied monotony of high-rise slabs in urban renewal projects: in short, new building and new quarters that lack any esthetic identity and any human appeal except that of superficial sanitary decency and bare mechanical order.

“In all the big cities of America, the process of urban rebuilding is now proceeding at a rapid rate, as a result of putting both the financial and legal powers of the state at the service of the private investor and builder.  But both architecturally and socially the resulting forms have been so devoid of character and individuality that the most sordid quarters, if they have been enriched over the years by human intercourse and human choice, suddenly seem precious even in their ugliness, even in their disorder.

“Whatever people made of their cities in the past, they expressed a visible unity that bound together, in ever more complex form, the cumulative life of the community; the face and form of the city still recorded that which was desirable, memorable, admirable.  Today a rigid mechanical order takes the place of social diversity, and endless assembly-line urban units automatically expand the physical structure of the city while destroying the contents and meaning of city life.  The paradox of this period of rapid ‘urbanization’ is that the city itself is being effaced.  Minds still operating under an obsolete nineteenth-century ideology of unremitting physical expansion oddly hail this outcome as ‘progress.’

“The time has come to reconsider the whole process of urban design.  We must ask ourselves what changes are necessary if the city is again to become architecturally expressive, and economically workable, without our having to sacrifice its proper life to the mechanical means for keeping that life going.  The architect’s problem is again to make the city visually ‘imageable’–to use Kevin Lynch’s term.  Admittedly, neither the architect nor the planner can produce, solely out of his professional skill, the conditions necessary for building and rebuilding adequate urban communities; but their own conscious reorientation on these matters is a necessary part of a wider transformation in which many other groups, professions and institutions must in the end participate…”

*by Lewis Mumford (pictured above), first published in Architectural Record in October 1962; also included in The Urban Prospect, a collection of Mumford’s essays published in 1968.

Q:  Did you hear what the WA State House of Representatives has proposed to help reduce the $9 billion budget deficit?

A:  The opening of 15 new new State Liquor Stores.

Q:  Did you hear what the WA State House of Representatives has proposed to help reduce the $9 billion budget deficit?

A:  A ten percent cut in the Alcohol and Drug Addiction Treatment Support Act program.

By the time you read this it will be April 2.

Last week Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels proposed legislation that would allow backyard cottages in single-family zones city-wide.  It’s a good policy move, potentially bringing the benefits of both density and affordable housing to single-family zones, with minimal negative impact.

Ah, but then there’s the caveat:  a maximum of 50 permits will be issued per year.

As of 2006, there were 135,000 single-family houses in Seattle (that’s just under half of all housing units).  Guestimating that 100,000 meet the minimum lot requirements, with a limit of 50 permits per year it would take 2000 years before every single-family home in Seattle could get a permit.  In 100 years, a maximum of about five percent of single-family homes could apply to build a backyard cottage.

In other words, 50 permits per year means the proposed legislation would have very little impact on the City’s urban form in our lifetimes.  So then, what’s the point?  If Seattle’s policy makers believe that backyard cottages are a good thing, why so timid?

There is unlikely to be a mad rush for permits.  Since 2006 when backyard cottages became allowed in Southeast Seattle, only 18 households have applied.  Indeed, this would suggest that the 50 permit per year limit is a moot point.  But then why bother including it at all, when it sends a mixed message that there’s something to be feared about too many backyard cottages?

It’s safe to assume that the permit limit was tacked on to appease a certain breed of single-family home owner, the type inclined to fits of shrieking when faced with any perceived threat to the sacredness of single-family.  But even the City’s own survey (pdf) found that the majority of people living near new backyard cottages had favorable opinions of the program.

A second stipulation of the proposed legislation that will limit the number of backyard cottages built is the requirement (pdf) for one additional off-street parking space.  A typical parking space takes up about 150 to 200 square feet, which will be impossible for many single-family lots to accommodate, and also eats into the area available to locate a cottage.  But alas, even in the age of Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize, in one of the most progressive cities in the country, it is still politically toxic to speak of adding housing units without off-street parking to single-family zones.

What’s needed is leadership.  If backyard cottages are good for the city, then city leaders should act as if they actually believe it.  This means active advocacy and promotion, such as incentives, permit fast-tracking, and pilot programs, in addition to elimination of the permit cap and parking requirement. 

Or how about this:  a City-sponsored design competition for a net-zero energy backyard cottage.  Nevermind.  Portland will do it. 

The WA State legislature, led by Representative Judy Clibborn (41st, Mercer Island), chair of the House Transportation Committee, has proposed eliminating funding for the reconfiguration of HOV lanes on the I90 floating bridge — which just so happens to be a prerequisite for running Sound Transit East Link across the bridge.  The STB crew is doing their job on this one:  start here, or go here for the background.  And have some hard liquor handy.

Time passes.  This is the recently completed Squire Park Plaza at the corner of 17th and Jackson in the Central District.  Developed by the Central Area Development Association and designed by Streeter Archtitects, the $15.5 million project features 59 apartments, 11,000 square feet of retail/office space (including 3,000 sf in live-work units), and 62 underground parking stalls.   Thirty-nine of the units are affordable to those earning 80 percent of the area median income (AMI).

So too just down the hill at Jackson Place, where behind the magnificent Washington State Lottery billboard at the corner of Dearborn and Rainier, Pontedera Condominiums is rising.  Developed by Homesite and designed by SMR Architects, the $35 million six-story project will house 94 condo units, 8 live-work units, and 128 underground parking stalls.  Financing assistance will be available to buyers earning up to 80 percent of AMI.

What is this magic number, 80% of AMI?  As of 2008, it was  $43,050, $49,200, and $55,350 per year, for a 1, 2, and 3 person household, respectively.  This is “workforce housing,” intended to be affordable to the backbone of our communities — folks such as teachers and firefighters (not to mention urban designers).

Both of these projects are good illustrations of what it takes to provide new housing in Seattle that is affordable even to those who earn only a little less than the average Seattleite. There is certainly nothing extravagent about these buildings, and the wood frame over concrete construction type is about as economical as it gets for midrise.  Still the developers have had to be exceptionally creative in bringing together numerous financial partners to get final unit prices down to the 80% AMI level.  And this only underscores the challenge of providing housing for the roughly two fifths of Seattle’s households that earn less than 80% of AMI.

While the sites are relatively close to downtown, both leave much to be desired.  Pontedera is part of an interesting little pocket, but backs up onto one of the most pedestrian-hostile intersections in the City.  The area along Jackson around Squire Park Plaza has great potential to grow into a vibrant urban village, but currently is still relatively desolate.

A less desirable location means cheaper land.  But since construction costs are relatively fixed — and are typically an order of magnitude higher than land costs — cheap land doesn’t typically translate to a significant reduction in total housing cost.  And thus midrise residential projects in low-rent neighborhoods often fail to pencil unless they are subsidized.  Projects like Squire Park Plaza and Pontedera are, by necessity, the trailblazers.

Other than a far too prosaic word to describe our aspirations in city building, that is.  Well, the DJC solicited 50-word answers to that question, and they were published today.  Here’s mine:

We thrive when we are connected — to people and place; to work and play; to past, present and future. A good city fosters connections. Diversity, local ownership, the public realm and environmental stewardship are all profound connectors. But above all, to achieve its full potential for cultivating connections, a city must be a place where people walk.

Read the rest here.

When mayoral candidate Michael McGinn showed up at the King County Municipal League Awards ceremony last Wednesday night at the Seattle Art Museum, he strolled in lugging two big, bright yellow bike panniers.  The fact that he was slated to address a room packed with Seattle’s most prominent players and politicos did not stop McGinn from riding his bike to the event in his city clothes.  And it wasn’t just a stunt — it’s well known that McGinn rides his electric-assist bike everywhere.  It says a lot.

Yesterday the McGinn campaign released a critique of Mayor Nickels’ environmental record — Publicola has a good summary here.  Nickels has a relatively solid green reputation, which will no doubt be tricky for McGinn successfully challenge and not be perceived by some as a fringe environmental wacko. 

One thing that struck me about the official Nickels campaign response is the strategy to play on people’s anxiety over the economy.  Spokesman Sandeep Kaushik told Publicola that “[McGinn] seems to be out of touch with the people of Seattle who are worried about jobs.”  This is not the message of a visionary leader.  The kind of leader we need now is one who recognizes our current challenges as opportunities.  Now is not the time to go backwards and neglect progress toward creating a sustainable culture in which everyone will thrive over the long term.  Now is the time to be bold.

 

Remember this post? 

Well, we hadn’t seen nothin’ yet.  The nightmare has become fully realized with the design review board’s acceptance of the development at the former Denny’s site in Ballard.  Even compared to earlier posts on this blog about this project which only showed (or mocked) the beginnings of what was obviously going to be a dog-of-a-development, the architects have honed this travesty even further. Check it out.  You can also go here to see some “better” renderings.

 

 

 

 

 

Back at ya, Sightline.  There are obvious conclusions to be drawn from the bar chart above, but when the interplay of land use patterns is also considered, the case for transit over cars becomes even stronger.

Since transit typically serves areas with higher levels of density and land use mix, transit trips tend to be shorter than car trips.  One credible commenter noted that in the U.S. the average commute distance by car is 15 miles, while by transit it is only two miles (if anyone has references to related data please comment). Thus compact, mixed-use development enables the double whammy of travel modes that emit less greenhouse gases (GHGs) per passenger-mile, coupled with fewer miles traveled.

And compact development is also essentially a prerequisite for what are by far the two most environmentally benign transportation modes — walking and biking.

As shown in the chart above, rail transit and a bus 3/4 full emit about half the GHGs per passenger-mile as does a Toyota Prius.  Some take this to mean that if we can double the gas mileage of a Prius — which shouldn’t be that hard — then why bother pushing for transit and compact development as a strategy for reducing GHG emissions?

The first and most obvious flaw in the above line of thought is that if we can double the efficiency of a car, then surely we can also double the efficiency of a bus or train.

The second flaw is that we know what happens to per-capita vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) when we build sprawl — they go up.  As noted in the book Growing Cooler, since 1980 VMTs in the U.S. increased at three times the rate of population growth.  Assuming business as usual, i.e. sprawling development, VMTs are projected to rise by 48 percent by 2030.  In this scenario, the average fuel efficiency of our fleet will have to be boosted by one half just to keep GHG emissions from rising above current levels.

The third flaw is that building sprawl not only increases VMTs, it locks in land use patterns that eliminate the possibilities both for transportation modes that are more efficient than cars, and for shorter trip distances.  When roads and parcels are laid out, they persist for hundreds of years.  While there is a severe urgency to address climate change quickly, the problem is not going to disappear in a hundred years, and all indications are that we will need to apply every strategy we can over the long term.

Compared to sprawl, compact development supports a much more balanced range of transportation mode options.  It does not render cars unusable — even in the densest U.S. cities large fractions of the population drive cars.  Meanwhile, transit and density are mutually catalytic and mutually supportive.  And in the U.S, walking and biking as practical transportation are almost nonexistent everywhere except cities with compact, mixed-use land use patterns.

Lastly, compact development and transit have significant benefits beyond the reduction of GHG emissions.  There is no question that improving the efficiency of cars is a strategy we should be aggressively pursuing, and that could yield relatively significant short term results.  But to focus solely on cars while neglecting land-use patterns and alternative transportation modes not only disregards the long-term perspective on climate change, but also ignores the myriad other negative impacts of a sprawling, car-dependent world.

To take but one local example, sprawling development is one the chief causes of the decimation of the Pacific Northwest salmon runs.  But even though that loss doesn’t appear on any accountant’s balance sheet for building sprawl, it’s a significant cost we all pay, whether or not we enjoy the benefits of spacious yards and convenient travel by car.  How many thousand salmon is one McMansion worth?

Yesterday I learned from Facebook that our next Mayor* was attending the grand reopening of the Crocodile Cafe.  That in itself is densely layered with cultural implications, but all I want to say is this:  the Croc had a great run, and it should have been laid to rest.  The space is a great site for a music venue, but let it become something new, a place that creates its own legends in its own time.  Instead, it’s like Kansas touring again.  Or the corporate blues bars in Memphis.  I heard they’re going to offer a package Copper River salmon dinner with admission to the Grunge Museum.

*that would be Peter Steinbrueck

UPDATE:  !

UPDATE 2:  *nope, that would be Michael McGinn

Witness two writers from opposite ends of the stylistic spectrum striking a similar chord:

Alex Steffan:

The single biggest delusion in North America today is that the interconnected planetary problems bearing down on us can be faced with slight alterations to the current order; that a model of delivery prosperity based on suburbs and big cars and consumerism and profligate energy use and the careless spewing of pollution in all directions can be fixed through the swapping out of some of its constituent parts for slightly greener parts — that green-built McMansions and hybrid cars and compact fluorescent light bulbs will prop the model up indefinitely. They won’t, because we are in a situation where incremental reform has already been made meaningless by a revolution in context…

We’re moving more and more quickly into a period of rapid transformation. We could be embracing that change and setting out to build the next smart, bright green economy. Instead, we allow ourselves to be deceived into thinking that the current models are “too big to fail.” They’re not, and the longer we listen, the more epic the failure will be.

Mark Morford:

But that leads to the larger theory at play here, a deeper — and perhaps slightly more frightening and intriguing — possibility. It is this: the old kingdom must fully crumble and die before the new can arise. The American empire, like every gleaming, overreaching empire of note before it, is near its end.

This is the long view, now coming into abrupt focus: Only from the death of all those once-definitive American mainstays: cars, newspapers, Wall Street, banking, home ownership, God — can something truly innovative and revolutionary be born.

>>>

And I just went to thesaurus.com and was served up ads for McDonalds, the Chevy Suburban, a diet plan, and the Seattle Mariners all on the same page.

>>>

Humans have a penchant for believing they are living in revolutionary times, on the brink of massive change.  Just ask anyone who spent time in San Francisco during the late 1960s (not me — I was here).  It’s a tendency lodged deep in our psyches, no doubt rooted in the same reptilian muck that fuels religious obsession with imminent Armageddon.

But oh yes indeed, there would appear to be some rather serious shit going down these days.  So then, are we truly on the verge of revolutionary change?  Or are we once again succumbing to the propensity to overestimate the importance of our own era?

Subjected to the ceaseless onslaught of reality, the normally implacable skeptical voice inside my head almost always loses the debate these days, as it has become impossible to deny that the array of apocalyptic forces now converging upon us is genuinely unprecedented.  But still, I haven’t completely closed my intellectual door on the possibility of apocalypse later.  Should I?

All of the above charts courtesy of Jonathan Rose Companies.  The original source of the GHG data is:  Journal of Urban Planning and Development © ASCE / March 2006.

Such a charming row of Victorian cottages — but wait, what’s that big brown box down at the end?

Why, that big brown box at 812 23rd Ave in the Central District is a brand new home designed by Pb Elemental, that just so happens to be located at one end of a highly unique row of five late nineteenth century houses with historic landmark status.

A similar sixth historic house once stood on the site, but oddly, was demolished in 1986, even though it had been landmarked in 1979.  And though the original house is gone, the landmark status still applies to the site — the Landmarks Preservation Board “indicated that it will not approve any development of the site that does not respect the historical character of the Twenty-Third Avenue Group” (via CD News).  As a result, Pb Elemental was granted a variance (pdf) to allow front and side setbacks that match those of the historic houses.

How else did the new house respect the character of its historic neighbors?  Study the photo below:

Surely no coincidence, the size and location of the windows and door, though the Pb house looks to be a tad wider, and the second floor window is higher.  I could find no documentation on whether or not these features were part of a deal, or a gesture made by the free will of the designers.  Either way, the result is an provocative twist on the idea of architecture responding to context.

Pb Elemental made a name for itself by blatantly disregarding context:  their Sterling Residence on Queen Anne was recognized with a 2007 AIA Honor Award Commendation for how it dared to be such an antithesis of its traditional bungalow neighbors.  And there is a similar smell of publicity stunt around the 812 23rd Ave house — it’s not hard to imagine the Pb’ers going after the site because of its potential for controversy.

Though some will no doubt opine that such obvious mimicry is sophomoric, I like it.  Old meets new, nothing subtle about it.  Mess with people’s heads a little, make them notice a building and think about it.  Good stuff.

[ Justin Carder, Michael McGinn, Denny Onslow, Michael Patten, Tony To, and Knute Berger ]

It happened yesterday at a CityClub lunchtime forum on “Tough Times in the Livable City.”  A recurring theme in the discussion was the question of how, in a time of declining tax revenues, can we maintain the public services that are essential to livability, such as public schools and transit.

The first question from the audience came from City Council candidate Sally Bagshaw, who asked Seattle Great City Initiative Executive Director Michael McGinn where he would make budget cuts.  In the 2008 presidential debates, Both McCain and Obama repeatedly dodged similar questions.  But McGinn didn’t.

McGinn began by reminding us that voters rejected a roads and transit measure 2007, only to approve a transit-only package a year later; and also that in March 2007, 70% of Seattle voted against replacing the viaduct with a tunnel.  He went on to point out that apparently the State has an extra $2 billion lying around to build a tunnel, and then finished by stating, “I’d start there.”

The muffled oohs and groans that erupted from the audience were an indication of what McGinn certainly already knew — that most of the people in the room were supporters of the deep-bore tunnel, or if not, they at least understood that disparaging the tunnel is a risky political position to take.

In recognition of his willingness to state his beliefs, however unpopular they might be, I hereby award Michael McGinn the prestigious Hugeasscity Badge of Integrity.  Whether he likes it or not.

As you may have heard, the transit-oriented communities bill is dead.  All I can say is that if, given all we know about climate change, we can’t manage to pass a relatively mild bill like HB1490, then the prospects for my kids’ future are so grim that I expect I’ll soon be seeking a sympathetic doctor willing to write me a lifetime prescription for designer anti-depressants.

No blaming John Fox for this one.  We’re failing as a society — all of us, together — to take responsibility and respond with courage and vision to the greatest environmental threat the human species has ever faced.  It’s surreal to write those words, and even though I’ve written them I’m still in partial denial.

But the denial busters keep coming:

Acidifying oceans caused by rising carbon dioxide levels are cutting the shell weights of tiny marine animals in a process that could accelerate global warming, a scientist said on Monday.

Do the politicians understand just how difficult it could be? Just how devastating 4, 5, 6 degrees centigrade would be? I think not yet. 

We will get what we deserve.

Today brings yet another in the endless progression of reports on how climate change is now projected to be more severe than originally thought:

Scientists at a climate change summit in Copenhagen said earlier UN estimates were too low and that sea levels could rise by a metre or more by 2100.  The projections did not include the potential impact of polar melting and ice breaking off, they added.  The implications for millions of people would be “severe”, they warned. Ten per cent of the world’s population – about 600 million people – live in low-lying areas.

But apparently our legislators down in Olympia didn’t get the memo.  As reported at Publicola — the go-to source for Oly action  — three climate change-related bills are sucking wind.

Sucking hardest is a bill aptly named “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” a.k.a. SB 5735, which was originally intended to establish a cap and trade system.  But legislators caved to pressure from the business community, and the watered down bill no longer requires a cap.

Next, a bill that simply sucks:  SB 5840 would undue the mandate established by Initiative-937 back in 2006 to achieve 15% renewable power generation by 2020.   Read Jay Inslee’s Seattle Times opinion piece for the skinny.

Lastly, the Transit-Oriented Communities bill, which has already had its density provisions gutted, is reportedly now stalled over objections that the affordable housing requirements are too stringent.

UPDATE:  I shouldn’t have neglected to note the recent passage of two pieces of legislation that violate the spirit, if not the letter of the WA State law mandating a 50% reduction of vehicle miles traveled by 2050.  First, the Senate vote to approve funding for the deep-bore tunnel, and second, the governor’s approval of a federal stimulus spending package that includes $71 million for freeway widening projects.

 

No, it’s not finished yet, but enough is already known about Escala to easily justify its nomination for Seattle’s Most Embarrassing Condo Project.  The array of qualifications is deep, but let’s start with the base of the building shown above.  It has all the grotesque faux-classical decoration that you’d expect to find on the new strip in Las Vegas, which, fittingly, is the home town of The Midby Companies, Escala’s developer.

The project’s San Diego-based design architect Paul Thoryk waxes eloquent: “I call this design style contemporary heritage.”  And in case you were wondering how so much profound inspiration could end up in one building, know that Thoryk “traveled around the world looking for ideas for Escala.”  He could have saved a lot of time and money by traveling instead to any one of dozens of Florida beach resort cities that are littered with Escala-esque towers.  Completing the picture, Bellevue-based architect of record MulvannyG2 supplied the “great local insight.”

According to Thoryk, the key programmatic driver for the project was to provide extra large units and balconies to make suburbanites feel more comfortable downsizing, because, “For all the talk about the joys of downsizing and how having fewer things makes life less complicated and more fulfilling, people naturally are attached to their belongings.”  Apparently we all should be grateful that Escala will offer humongous condos because it will help the urban lifestyle become more accepted.

As can be seen in the photo below, the building is indeed loaded with scads of spatious balconies, some as large as 1000 square feet.  All those exposed concrete slabs projecting out into space work great as heat fins to suck heat out of the building and increase energy consumption — no surprise that energy efficiency is not a high priority in a building like this.  And if Escala actually is pursuing LEED certification, they’re keeping it quiet.  A high-end project like Escala could be expected to have the budgetary flexibility to push the envelope on green design; and if the developers truly wanted to embrace the local culture, a green building would have been the obvious choice.

Add two letters to Escala and you get Escalade.  Coincidence?  Not likely that it escaped the notice of whatever branding firm it was that undoubtedly got paid an obscene sum to come up with the name Escala.  One would assume it was perceived as a good association, but either way it’s just too perfect, because Escala befits Seattle about as well as an Escalade does:  an ostentatious, oversized energy hog in a city of understated Prius admirers.

If you can stand more, go have a look-see at the piece of work that is the Escala web site.  Bet you didn’t know that “once upon a place” Seattle had a “midtown.”  Judging from the content of most of the photos, either they are planning to offer steep buyer discounts to female underwear models, or they are expecting an high-class escort service tenant.  Remarkable, is it not, that the same advertising psychology applies whether it’s a multimillion dollar condo or a two dollar tube of toothpaste?

And behold Club Cielo!  “Desire everything.”  Those who may harbor lingering doubts over if and when Escala will become Seattle’s resplendent nexus of high culture, worry not — high culture, like any other marketable commodity, can be readily manufactured and spoon fed.

Ultimately, what makes Escala most embarrassing of all is its timing.  Escala is the love child of pathological excess, a manifestation of a world view that is in the process blowing up in our faces just as the project is set to make its grand debut.

Escala belongs in a bygone era:  when Reagan and his acolytes preached trickle-down economics and government is the problem; when smug MBA’s high-fived each other over Gordon Gecko’s proclamation that greed is good; when Clinton deregulated while we all bought tech stocks; when everyone everywhere was getting rich just by owning a house; when pundits could get away with bloviating continuously about how the free market conquers all; when we ignored the glaring statistics showing that the ultra-wealthy were the only ones getting ahead because we deluded ourselves into believing we all were on the verge of ultra-wealth.

Demand for condos in Escala is likely to cool as downsizing suburbanites find it more difficult to sell off their estates.  But I suspect there is still more than enough affluence in the region to fill Escala quickly enough for the developer to avoid serious pain.  One can only hope that given the times in which we are now living, the fortunate residents of Escala might feel some little pang of embarrassment over their exclusive gated community in the city, some vague but troubling sense that success is little less sweet when it is not shared by the community as a whole.

Mark Morford, telling it:

Do you allow yourself, even now, to feel any sort of ongoing, relieved, merciful joy that Barack Obama actually is sitting in the Big Chair in the White House? That this elegant, articulate, Zen-like man whose integrity is rock-solid and whose ideas, while certainly not in perfect alignment with every ultra-lefty vision on the planet (clean coal? Please), are astonishingly ambitious and brave, is leading this nation during one of the worst economic times in its short and paroxysmal history?

Or do you say whatever, sorry, no time for that. Everything’s plummeting and jobs are dying and (in my case, certainly) the industry you’ve worked for your entire career is gasping its last breath, and therefore, melancholy and dread and panic are the only truly appropriate responses, because I don’t care how great the guy is, any smile that might cross my face when I see him gets immediately wiped out as soon as I ponder my 401k?

Have mercy
Been waitin’ for the bus all day…
Have mercy
Oh the bus be packed up tight…
Well, Ill be ridin’ on the bus till I cadillac*

An unprecedented funding gap could force King County Metro Transit to cut bus service by as much as 20 percent next year, leaving thousands of people without service and setting back the region’s efforts to relieve traffic congestion.

Because two thirds of Metro’s budget is derived from sales tax, it’s fortunes are linked to the whims of the consumer confidence index, which is currently at its lowest level since it was created in 1967.  Meanwhile, Metro ridership has risen by 20 percent over the past three years. 

Another twist:  Additional transit service is a key piece of the so-called bored tunnel hybrid solution to replace the Alaskan Way viaduct.  This fact is not lost on those who are looking for ways to shoot down the tunnel proposal because they still favor an elevated freeway solution.  And the prospect of an elevated monstrosity rearing its ugly head again is not lost on those still in the surface street camp, who, however peeved they may be that the transit component of the tunnel proposal has vaporized, are likely conflicted over how much noise to make about it. 

The deep-bore tunnel would likely cost at least $2 billion more than a surface option.  That cost difference would cover Metro’s projected 2010 deficit of $100 million for 20 years.

*Waiting for the Bus lyrics by ZZ Top