Two people who will play major roles in the way new Capitol Hill developments look and fit into the streets around them are about to be appointed by the City Council. Given the importance of the city’s design review board process, we thought you might like to meet them.
First, some background on the boards. There are seven design review boards in Seattle. The board that reviews Capitol Hill projects also will cover work on First Hill and in the CD. The boards are responsible for working with developers to ensure projects meet zoning requirements and community guidelines. This process plays out most publicly in the design review meetings for projects where the latest plans are discussed publicly before the board and then approved or sent back for refinements. The board positions are volunteer and the term lasts 2 years, at which point a member may be reappointed. You can read more about the boards here.
Here are the Capitol Hill review board members sticking around for another year: Evan Bourquard, a project architect for the Miller | Hull Partnership and Brian Cavanaugh, an architect and principal at the firm Pb Elemental Architecture. Meanwhile, Rumi Takahashi, Jason Morrow, and Sharon Sutton exit the board. Never heard of them? That’s OK. You were never introduced.
Unlike Wolf. Meet Wolf Saar, appointee for the Architect and Community at Large position on the Hill board.
Here’s what Wolf had to say about his hopes for the role at this week’s land use committee meeting with chair Sally Clark:
I am really encouraged by the quality of design that we’re seeing on Capitol Hill now, particularly the Pike/Pine corridor and I see my role as assisting and helping proponents get their projects through Design Review Boards. I think time is money to developers and I think making the right decisions early on and guiding them through the process, I see that as a prime part of my role.
Wolf is currently at Weber Thompson and before that, Mithun, where his bio notes his projects included the expansion of the Seattle Aquarium and 2200 Westlake. You can see some of Weber Thompson’s mixed-use projects here.
Meanwhile, Lisa Picard is the new appointee for the Development Position.
Lisa is the managing partner at Muse Development, developers of projects across the country including several resorts and a golf course.
A few of Lisa’s statements from the committee session:
I quickly realized that a lot of developers fail to recognize the opportunity of good design.
I felt I could help designers and help the community to understand how financially we could do good design.
I believe in this economic time it’s good to have choice and it’s actually good design that is going to succeed.
And a look at one of Muse’s projects to give you a sense of their designs:
There’s your introduction. Knowing names and faces should make things easier when you want to complain about the latest ugly project sprouting up on the Hill. And, who knows, maybe these two can help turn things around when it comes to Hill development design.
The candidates are brought through the Council committee process and then must be approved by a full Council vote. This year’s appointments and reappointments will likely happen next week.
Here’s the video archive of Wednesday’s land use committee meeting if you’d like to hear more from the Hill appointees or find out about the board appointments and reappointments for other areas of the city.
I’m not usually a property rights type but something about the whole concept of design review rubs me the wrong way. It seems so arbitrary and elitist and will never represent “the community” (whatever that is). I like the idea of modifying the building code to limit the width of projects, which is nice and clear cut. These design modifications never do much for me, although I’m sure these folks will do the best they can
If an architects has a sense of the place where their building will be located and decent aesthetics, it’s possible that the smorgasboard of public comments will end up damaging a perfectly good design. Unfortunately, there are plenty of architects who have neither of these attributes. This is where public comments can come in and make a mediocre design out of an awful one. It’s not perfect, but it seems to be the best we can do in many situations.
The quote from Wolf Saar makes me a little nervous. He’s encouraged by the quality of design on the Hill…did he forget about the Weber/Thompson horror that was never built on Pine between Belmont and Summit (was a night club hotspot, now parking lot)? Is he not counting the block of blah that will replace the B&O building in a few years time?
Maybe I’m being too negative(there are some lovely projects that were built recently), or just super protective of the ‘hood, but there have been too many ugly buildings planned in prominent places on the Hill for my taste. Cap Hill should be a showcase of architectural talent, not a dumping ground for get-rich-quick developers.