hugeasscity

“They’re part of the problem.” So concludes Michael Grunwald’s recent Time Magazine cover story, “The Clean Energy Scam.”

Most readers are probably aware that biofuels have been the subject of increasing scrutiny over their potential to cause a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to deforestation, as well to raise food prices. But I for one, didn’t realize it was the completely “case closed” situation that is implied in the Time piece.

If true, does it not mean that biofuel production should be halted immediately? What’s Imperium Renewables to do with that $214 million they raised last year?  And what of Dr. Dan and all those biodiesel-burning VWs and Benzes with their “No War Required” bumper stickers?

Are there factors not considered in the Time piece that would support continued biofuel use under certain, perhaps localized circumstances? It’s probably safe to say that it’s still a net gain to burn waste vegetable oil, though that supply is relatively small.  Are there any other conditions under which biofuels make sense?

Apparently we better get used to this view of Press Condos across the fresh new gravel lot on the 500 Block of East Pine. But hey, nothing lost, nothing gained: the Press site was once a surface parking lot.

[ 18th Ave between Thomas and John on Capitol Hill ]

Townhouses don’t have to be awful. But even though the fence is better than most, it’s still an unfriendly barrier that pushes right out to the sidewalk.

The rendering above shows the mixed-use building proposed for 1126 34th Ave in the Madrona neighborhood. As reported here and here, there has been significant opposition to the project from the neighbors. I kept an open mind, but the more I learned about this case, the clearer it became that it is a quintessential example of a particular flavor of NIMBYism that is unfortunate yet inevitable in a growing city like Seattle.

Apparently the overarching complaint is that the building is too big — “enormous compared to its neighbors” according to the Madrona News. True, it is taller than the one and two story buildings on that side of the block. But almost directly across the street is the Bowling Green apartments, which is three stories and probably about three times the overall size of the proposed development.

The project complies with the site’s NC1-30 zoning, and, as detailed here (big pdf), the developer responded in numerous ways to the concerns of the Design Review Board and the neighbors, including a lowered building height and extra setbacks on the alley side. If people have problem with the bulk of the building it is the zoning code they should be attacking.

One interesting objection that was raised goes more or less like this: “we’re all in favor of increasing density, but even though this building is big, it’s not contributing much to densification because it has so few, large area, high-end units.” A valid point, but consider what would have happened if the proposed project was affordable rental housing and triple the number of units. Is there any doubt that there would have been an even bigger shitstorm over parking, traffic, “undesirable” renters, and lower quality building details?

The term NIMBY (not in my backyard) was originally coined to label people who had at least somewhat justified objections to uses such as incinerators or prisons. Amazingly, what we have here is NIMBYism against an appropriately scaled, nicely designed and finished, relatively high-end building that will be positive addition to the Madrona neighborhood business district. The building will replace a surface parking lot, which is pretty much the least sustainable land use possible in a city.

The neighborhood is also fortunate, in my opinion, that the building is being designed by Johnston Architects. My favorite small-scale multifamily development in all of Seattle is Johnston’s Fremont Lofts.

What it comes down to is there are people who would oppose this project no matter what the particulars, simply because it is change toward a more urban Seattle — the gist of the “slow growther” position. And people have every right to feel that way. But they do not, I believe, have a right to impede Seattle’s progress toward a more sustainable city by crying NIMBY over good projects like 1126 34th Ave just because they’ll be bigger than what was there before.

[ Thompson’s Point of View in the brick building, not associated with the defunct General Bar-B-Que ]

I have been living in the Central District for the past six years, and I must admit that in that time my culinary ventures have not taken me further than the half dozen or so Ethiopian restaurants in the area. So when I came home Sunday night, and my boyfriend suggested we try Thompson’s Point of View on Union and 23rd, I thought why not something new; it’s so close.

For those unfamiliar with the restaurant, Thompson’s has been around for long enough to gain both a good reputation for music and for soul food. However, if you are at all familiar with its location, you’ll know that it has the misfortune to be located next to Philly’s Best, home of the sub sandwich served with a side of homicide. In recent times, Thompson’s has had the misfortune of also serving up food to some of the neighborhood’s less than desirable customers.

I knew some of the restaurant’s background, but as I had never actually eaten there, I thought it was long overdue. As my boyfriend and I rounded the corner towards the restaurant, we saw quite an intimidating gathering in front. I am not sure if these people were corner dwellers or customers, but they were certainly an imposing block to the restaurant. After some deliberation, we crossed the blockade, where we were only approached for cigarettes, but otherwise left alone.

Upon entering Thompson’s, a large security (?) man ran a metal detection wand over our bodies to ascertain that we did not indeed have handguns with us. Having never had an encounter with a metal detector in a restaurant, I was beginning to question our dining choice.

The restaurant itself is rather dimly lit and not elegant. The menu is not elaborate, but if you are looking for soul food, a glance at the offerings will let you know you have hit jackpot. Fried catfish, chicken wings, pork chops and sides of mac and cheese, yams, stuffing, and mashed potatoes are just some of the entrees and sides. Having seen the menu, we began to feel a bit warmer towards our dinner choice.

The food arrived , and it was fabulous. Now, this is certainly not a place for vegetarians , dieters, or those watching fat intake, but for all others, you will find a mecca in this soul food establishment. Not since Ms Helen’s on 23rd, has the Central District had such fine soul food. My boyfriend ordered the fried catfish with a side of Mac and cheese and mashed potatoes. Either of the sides was a meal in itself, but he managed to finish all three without problem.

As for the clientele inside, the other customers talked to us about the upcoming band, and the waitresses treated us well. I do not know if I was expecting the whole room to go silent when two white people walked in, but it did not happen, and we were not regarded any differently from anyone else.

I would strongly encourage others in the neighborhood and in Seattle to go have a meal at Thompson’s. I won’t say that there is no gang / potential drug activity near the restaurant. However, this is not the fault of Thompson’s –nor do the restaurant proprietors encourage it. The restaurant should be a great local place for everyone in the central district to go and enjoy a meal and maybe even some live music. It should not, however, be allowed to turn into another Deano’s , formerly on Madison and Denny. Perhaps if Thompson’s got more local support and less hype by association, we could start to change the reputation of the 23rd and Union intersection. If nothing else, fearful potential customers can wait a couple months until the police officers take up shop across the street.

 

Didn’t know it was a Devil Town.”

- Daniel Johnston

All the prattle on design and development is getting old, no?

Last night I saw Daniel Johnston at Neumos.  Sold out show, the room totally packed with the youngest and hippest Seattle has to offer, and out walks this guy on stage all alone who looks like he belongs at a backyard BBQ in a Sopranos episode — puffy white sneakers, sweat pants, navy warm up jacket with stripes over a t-shirt, silver-gray hair, and Santa-sized belly.  And he steps up to the mic, his arms hanging down at his sides and visibly shaking, and his dry strained voice rings out accapella with John Lennon’s lines, “I don’t expect you, to understand, after you’ve caused so much pain, but then again, you’re not to blame, you’re just a human, a victim of the insane.”  And he had the crowd. 

Johnston doesn’t sing well, and he doesn’t play guitar well.  He’s very nearly a Saturday Night Live parody of himself.  But his raw, heartbreaking genius makes up for all of it. 

 

 

 

 

[ Old streetscape at 17th and Spring in the Central District ]

[ New streetscape in the Central District ]

[ Old apartment on Capitol Hill ]

[ New apartment at 23rd and Jackson in the Central District ]

This isn’t about nostalgia for old buildings. The old streetscape reaches out to the passersby, while the new turns its back. The old building had balconies that were shared by all the residents on a floor, while the new has individual balconies for each unit.

These differences may seem subtle, and they certainly don’t apply universally to new and old, but I see them as reflections of a society that is losing its sense of community. And it’s this same lack of connection with the community that is at the root of why so many newer buildings seem to lack the sole and pride found in older buildings.

People who are connected to and value their community aren’t inclined to build schlock and run.

“We’re talking about two different visions, one of trying to force people out of their car or of freedom for you to choose how you’d like to move about the region.”

So says the eloquent Dino Rossi. And also, “she wants to force 50 percent of us out of our cars by 2050.” (She being Governor Gregoire, who recently signed house bill 2815 that sets a goal of reducing VMTs by 50% by 2050).

Force! Be afraid! The freedom haters cometh!

Move over gay marriage, flag burning, immigration, affirmative action, etc, the Republicans have discovered yet another boogeyman for their arsenal. Yup, and it’s the same boogeyman who’s also going to force families to leave their picket-fenced houses in the burbs and live in high-rise apartments.

And also today the loopy John McCain proposes a gasoline tax holiday for the summer.

Like pandering to a crack addict. “Calm down, no one’s going to take your crack pipe away, here’s a free rock to get you through the night, and I hope you remember me on election day…”

Today’s puzzler: where in Seattle is this magnificent pile of concrete located?

Check out the random arrangement of those seriously cantilevered decks. Check out the openings in the roof overhangs at the top of each of the building-high pseudo-columns. Check out the vertical and horizontal concrete scoring. Check the two stories of blank wall at the base of the building. Zowie.

They’re getting less rare to spot.

(That Lusty Lady marquee reminds me of a maxim about the relationship between the size of your car and the size of your, ahem, manhood. It’s probably too early to tell if it applies to Smartcars. And in this case the flowers are yet another variable to consider. If the owner is a woman, well, it probably simply means she’s smart.)

…also known as rainwater harvesting. Humans have been doing it for tens of thousands of years, of course. But until this month, it has been illegal to harvest rainwater for indoor use in Seattle. Given that rainwater harvesting has the potential to reduce both potable water demand and sewer system load, how did this odd circumstance arise in the first place?

The Washington State Department of Ecology controls water rights for the entire State, and it’s serious business. Water rights regulation was first established to keep tabs on water used for farming irrigation, and set limits on the amounts that can be drawn from natural sources. As I understand it, rainwater capture has been off limits because it may divert runoff from natural water bodies.

Kudos to Seattle and King County for hammering away at the WA DOE to get these antiquated regulations updated. Rainwater harvesting for non-potable use is now permitted in Seattle, though only on sites that drain to the combined sewer system. With this limitation, there will be no effect on stormwater that drains directly to natural water bodies such as Lake Washington.

Though I shouldn’t speculate because I really don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, speculate I shall: I’m guessing that in Seattle there would have to be scads of buildings harvesting rainwater before the local water bodies would be affected in any significant way. Scads, as in, it would probably take decades for us to ever reach that point, if we ever would. If my guess is correct (and don’t hesitate to shoot me down if you can), Seattle needs to keep pushing for rainwater harvesting rights that cover the entire City, cause even here in the soggy Pacific Northwest, water can’t be taken for granted.

[ In the turquoise areas housing and transportation costs are higher than 48% of the area median income ]

The Center for Neighborhood Technology’s new Affordability Index, which includes transportation costs, has already buzzed around the local bloggies, see here, here, and here, but I can’t help piling on. Not least because I enjoy it so much when free-market-worshipping sprawl-apologists (e.g. Joel Kotkin and David Brooks) get smacked down with a dose of data-based reality.

Briefly the theory goes like this: sprawl is just fine and dandy because it is the result of good people making rational decisions to maximize their happiness based on options presented to them by the infallible free market. So naturally, people choose to live in the far-flung burbs where housing is cheap. End of discussion.

But oops, as the CMT study shows, many of those who are driving to qualify are not behaving like perfectly rational economic units, because they don’t have an accurate perception of the costs of transportation. And this is the way real life usually is — so complex and messy and partially understood that we can’t possibly be the rational economic actors upon which free market theory rests. So no, sprawl is not destiny, but rather the result of ill-informed decision making.

And such decisions look all the more dubious in the light of the inevitable rise in gasoline prices. Future costs tend to not weigh as heavily in decision making as do immediate costs — that’s human nature. And another inherent flaw in the free-market.

The CMT doesn’t include qualitative measures, but my sense is that many people who opt to drive till they qualify are also not fully cognizant of one in particular: time spent driving. Let’s say moving out adds an hour a day to your commute. If your time is worth $30/hour, that adds up to $650 per month.

And let’s not forget all the external costs of sprawl that do not enter into people’s decisions. And the fact that government policy has encouraged and subsidized sprawling development patterns. And all the warped cultural biases that come into play (e.g. white flight).

Observing objectively, the inescabable conclusion is that sprawl is a superlative example of market failure and its negative impact. But don’t try telling that to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. They’ll keep publishing Joel Kotkin and anyone else who helps keep alive the God of the Free Market.

In Seattle, there has been a recent trend toward developing twin towers that appears to driven, at least in part, by the new downtown zoning code. But the twin towers of the newly opened Bahrain World Trade Center have a much worthy raison d’etre: wind power generation.

As can be seen in the image above, three 100-foot wind turbines span the towers, and are expected to generate about 15% of the building’s energy needs. The architects designed the towers to act as airfoils, directing and accelerating wind through the turbines. It’s engineering with a grand scale and elegance that would make Nikola Tesla proud.

What doesn’t make me proud, however, is that this project is not in the United States. And the turbine technology was provided by the Danish firm Norwin. We’ve got some serious catching up to do.

[ From left: The Dalai Lama, “Junior Soprano,” “Morty Seinfeld,” Le Corbusier, David Hewitt ]

Something about all that real estate, especially when it extends so far below the eyes, tends to make people look goofy or dim-witted or both. There must be some universal law of design and proportion involved.

Christopher Alexander has a thing for four-story buildings (see the Pattern Language). And who wouldn’t agree that it’s a great to maintain a direct connection to the street — connection as in, you could shout up and ask your girlfriend to throw down the keys. But in today’s cities, does it make sense to put such a limit on density?

Following up on my street walls post, check out some more of the 4-story corridor that’s coalescing on the northern end of Eastlake Ave:

[ Funky: At the corner of Eastlake and Harvard Ave. ]

[ Across the street from the Coronado: If you can’t think of something nice to say… ]

[ Ruby Condominiums: Under construction, just after you come out from under the I-5 shipping canal bridge. ]

Commenter Steve surmised that this section of Eastlake will never be a vibrant pedestrian district because it draws from too small a residential area. But what if each of these new 4-story residential buildings had two more floors, i.e., 2/3 more units?

I don’t get Seattle’s NC-40 zone. You can’t even build a decent “3-over-1” mixed-use building in 40 feet because there isn’t enough height for a standard retail space (this is why NC-65 has that extra five feet tacked on). Fortunately, developers routinely get the extra ~ 5 feet they need through an allowance in the code. Even so, it can be a challenge to make a 4-story building pencil when underground parking is desired, and so the developer ends up cutting corners elsewhere in the building, e.g. facade materials and windows.

Seattle needs to take another look at its NC-40 zones to identify those that should be upzoned to NC-65. A prime example is 23rd and Union. Of course, there are places where a 40-foot height limit makes sense. But I suspect there are lots of areas where an upzone is warranted.

Upzones are always controversial. But if we’re serious about creating a more sustainable city through densification, we’ll have to accept that change is not painless.

(Note: Ruby Condos was designed by Johnson Architecture, who also designed Trace Lofts.)

I’m the kind of guy who gets excited about street walls. Like the beaut shown above, newly formed by the Trace Condo building along the east side of 12th Ave between Pike and Union on Capitol Hill. At six stories, it’s just the right scale to give a medium-width street like 12th Ave a nice sense of enclosure. European cities such as Paris are full of extended street walls like this. There’s something primitively satisfying about the feeling you get in these spaces — outside, yet inside and protected.

The image above is along Eastlake Ave just south of the University Bridge, and here we have a street wall that’s four stories instead of six. And that’s not tall enough relative to the street width to provide a good sense of enclosure. Apparently this part of Eastlake Ave is in a 40 foot zone. Which begs the question: why not 65 feet? The buildings along this side of the block are practically underneath I-5. What better place to put taller buildings? Perhaps the reason for the 40-foot height limit has something to do with this:

This insane thing, known as the Coronado Apartments, is six stories and just a block south of the building shown in the previous photo. I suspect it wasn’t such a popular building with the neighbors, and steps were taken to make sure another one like it couldn’t be built.

Below is another look. Even though it’s six stories tall, a proper street wall it fails to form, because of the setbacks at the street and at the fourth floor.

There are so many wacked out features of this building, I want to nominate it for historic preservation. By gosh there’s even a swimming pool behind that cedar fence.

UPDATE! UPDATE! UPDATE!

The huge hole is right on track to become a new QFC underneath nearly 300 residential units at the corner of 58tht and 24th in Ballard. Strangely enough, the recently completed yuppie projects nearby such as NO-MA and Canal Station are selling, even with 1 bedrooms between 350K and 400K. Long gone are the days of the Ballard Driving School!

And just on the opposite corner, a quaint little house was knocked down to make way for a 30-Unit condo, charmingly named Danielle. It is also, at the moment, a large whole in the ground:

Even at a smaller scale than the others, it will still dominate that corner. (SEE: http://daniellecondos.com/index.html) Goodbye quaint neighborhood. Maybe Ballard will run out of lots for this sort of thing, but I’m not holding my breath,

[ Photo: Dan Bertolet ]

Shown in the elevation above is the six-story mixed use building that has been proposed for the southwest corner of 23rd and Union in the Central District. The project was approved by the Design Review Board on April 2, but still needs City Council sign off on a contract rezone to raise the height limit from 40 to 65 feet.

Given the apparent popularity of bloviations on density such as this, as well as all the recent hyperventilating over proposed changes to Seattle’s multifamily zoning code, it is perhaps surprising that there hasn’t been more of an uproar over the prospect of tinkering with allowed building heights in a residential neighborhood. The short answer is this: 23rd and Union ain’t Wallingford. That intersection has been a gaping wound for so long that most neighbors are probably willing to cut the developer a whole lot of slack. Furthermore, the location of the building is such that it will impact very few surrounding properties.

But regardless of the context of that specific site, from the perspective of sustainability, the upzone is a no-brainer. Indeed, density in Seattle’s neighborhoods is a lot more controversial than it should be, given the City’s reputation for a green citizenry. It is indisputable that densification is a critical development strategy for achieving long-term sustainability. 23rd and Union is about a mile from the downtown core of one of the biggest cities on the west coast. If we can’t put a six-story building there, we can’t in good conscience utter another word about how green we supposedly are.

So now it’s up to the City Council to do the right thing. Is there anyone out there who’s had experience with a decision like this and could give us some idea of what to expect or how we might be able to make our opinions heard?

P.S. I like the design. It’s unique. It’s light and clean and coherent. For sure it has lost some of the elegance shown in the original rendering — the economic reality crept in. But even Hardie panel won’t stop a good designer. (Strange coincidence how similar the colors are to this just up the street at 14th and Union.)

P.P.S. Full disclosure: I live two blocks from the site, i.e., close enough to enjoy all the neighborhood benefits of the building, but far enough away to not be negatively impacted in any way.

This morning I attended a breakfast meeting put on by the Urban Land Institute featuring a presentation by Ewe Brandes on their recently published book “Growing Cooler,” which details the relationship between housing density and greenhouse gas emissions (see related post here). The room was filled with the likes of Diane Sugimura and Joe Tovar, along with the typical ULI real estate development crowd and a smattering of architects.

During the opening talks given by Bert Gregory of Mithun and a woman (I’ll get the name) with King County, and through the wonky (as he put it) presentation by Brandes, I kept having the feeling I was witnessing something almost religious in nature. Terms like “new economy” and “paradigm shift” and “new American dream” flowed freely. Now, I’m about as cynically skeptical as they come, but this sort of language in this context wasn’t setting off any of my highly sensitive bullshit detectors. On the contrary, I found it moving, and dare I say, hopeful.

Brandes wrapped up his talk discussing the reductions that the IPCC is calling for–70 to 80% from 1990 levels by 2050–and how difficult that will be, and how we have loads of potential ideas and strategies but it’s all so complex no one can possibly integrate it all into one well-defined plan of action, much less get everyone to adopt such a plan.

And the very last thing he said was this: “We don’t know how to get there.” Tell it like it is, brother!