posted 09/17/08 09:29 AM
Views: 521 | Comments : 11 | Off the Hill

Cap Hill views vs. high-rise development

By jseattle
Recommend this (0 votes) ( report abuse ) ( add your comment )

Last night, there was a public meeting to discuss development in South Lake Union. Capitol Hill stands on the edge of this discussion -- at stake, the Hill's views of things like Space Needle, Whole Foods, The Pink Elephant car wash. On the table for the first time last night, the start of a 12-month public process to determine impact of swapping taller buildings in exchange for development projects that include affordable housing. Here's the salivary write-up of the meeting and the proposals from the Seattle Times:


The proposal for South Lake Union would build on what has been done downtown. The City Council in 2006 approved new zoning rules, allowing more height for downtown builders who paid into an affordable-housing fund. Ten building projects have taken advantage of the program so far, city planners said.

First reaction to this is cynicism -- sure those dastardly developers will figure out loopholes to build taller AND screw us all. But what if this is really the best way to develop housing that regular people can afford? Would you trade the E. Thomas view of the Space Needle?

Tags: development + add tags
savecancel
Add Your Comment(11)
Add Your Comment
Name:
Email:
(will not be displayed)
Subject:
Comment:
or

CommentsRSS Feed
They should build taller!
It's more density, which means more restaurants, better transit, and less sprawl. Let them build taller so we can keep our wild areas wild and our neighborhoods neighborhood-y!
Comment by Galen
September 17, 2008
( 0 votes ) Recommend this
RE: They should build taller!
yeah, i was thinking that could be space needle solution, too -- it's time for an upgrade
Comment by jseattle
September 17, 2008
( 0 votes ) Recommend this
RE: They should build taller!
agree 100%. i like alternatives #1 and #2 from the seattle times article. 40 stories for residential and 24 stories for commercial sounds fine. just please, have some actual design oversight and no more tall buildings without ground-level retail on every side! nothing kills a neighborhood like permanent buildings with blank walls or office lobbies along the street.
Comment by jrrrl2
September 17, 2008
( 0 votes ) Recommend this
more views
View of the pink elephant car wash and whole foods?? I like the view of the space needle, because it's unique, but that view will remain (for the most part) due to the large park which it is situated on.

I also enjoy the view of downtown and the buildings there. If that gets extended to SLU, then I'll enjoy that view as well. The height isn't a concern, the architecture is! Make the buildings attractive (think anti-Westin hotel) and it'll be fine.

Ben
Comment by Ben
September 17, 2008
( 0 votes ) Recommend this
please block my view of the space needle
k thanks.
Comment by Meg
September 17, 2008
( 0 votes ) Recommend this
Let's make one thing clear
Taller doesn't necessarily equal dense, nor does it foster 'neighborhoo-y-ness'! There are many ways to make shorter buildings just as dense... Take Capitol Hill for example. We're the most dense neighborhood in town people.

Shorter buildings also bring in more sunlight. The developers want to build 'up' so they can make more money selling 'view' condos.

Boo for turning SLU (a neighborhood with so much neoborhood-y potential) into another Belltown!
Comment by sparklingallison
September 17, 2008
( 0 votes ) Recommend this
RE: Let's make one thing clear
Allison,

Taller is the means to more density. All things being equal, compare 'the village' (60k people/sq mile) of NYC to the 'upper east side' (118k people/sq mile) and tell me which one is made up of 4-6 story buildings (like Capitol Hill) and which one has the 20+ story buildings.

Now, things aren't equal. Right now, Capitol Hill is a livable neighborhood while Belltown is somewhat empty. However, if this expansion continues, there will be enough space to make Belltown the density king of Seattle. Projects may not sell right away and a few developers may go bust (or the project holding companies), but once the space is there it will get filled eventually.

Taller buildings also bring density advantages for transportation (fewer cars, same # of cars but less road to travel to get out of the core, eventually more transit).

I'm not saying that I favor manhattanization, but don't limit progress with fear.

-Ben
Comment by Ben
September 17, 2008
( 0 votes ) Recommend this
Smart Planning
As an architect who has studied urban planning issues, I'm going to advocate for 4-6 story mixed-use buildings. High rise structures aren't by nature very sustainable and once you exceed a certain number of units then the community element is lost because there are too many people. Look to the great European cities as examples. For those interested in learning about Urban Planning Issues, I highly recommend the writings of Jane Jacobs, Leon Krier, and James Howard Kuntsler.

We definitely have a problem with ugly, poorly constructed buildings in this city. Unfortunately as long as they sell, then developers will continue to build them. It's important that buyers become educated and demand higher quality, healthy buildings with better energy efficiency. Don't be wooed by the granite countertops and stainless steel appliances, most of today's new construction is not durable and quite toxic.
Comment by Semily
September 17, 2008
( 0 votes ) Recommend this
Correction
Just to correct a previous post - Belltown is the densest neighborhood in Seattle, not Capitol Hill. Capitol Hill's density is around 15,000/sq. mi., while Belltown's is around 27,000/sq. mi.
Comment by belltown
September 17, 2008
( 0 votes ) Recommend this
RE: Correction
True. That is how the data shake out. The Hill has about 4x as many 'residents' as Belltown according to the guvm't. Capitol Hill is the densest Seattle neighborhood with a population greater than 10k and change.
Comment by jseattle
September 17, 2008
( 0 votes ) Recommend this
Livability vs. Density? What now?
I'm all for preventing suburban sprawl by encouraging urban density. But there is absolutely no reason we need to sacrifice livability to density, especially since that'll send everyone running to the suburbs anyway. I think I can get behind Alternative #3, which brings up heights but also protects the views of the Space Needle, Olympics and the Sound. Who does it protect the views for? Why only Capitol Hill, Queen Anne and SLU itself. Saving views for the city isn't about NIMBYism (believe me, there's tons of development in my backyard either way). It's about letting thousands of people connect to their surroundings instead of being stuck staring at the back of concrete towers day in and day out.
Comment by ComradeBunny
September 17, 2008
( 0 votes ) Recommend this
advertisement