An effort to push back on Seattle City Council legislation to upgrade the city’s zoning laws has again found root on Capitol Hill. A flyering effort has posted notice of Monday night’s Council land use committee hearing on utility poles across the Hill — and in other parts of the city. But someone from the group also chose CHS to create a community post about the proposed changes and extension of the Living Building Program. Details on the post — and a counter argument in favor of the program — below.
Flyers like this are popping up on the Hill (Image: CHS)
Seattle’s Living Building Pilot Program is detailed here:
The Living Building Challenge requires buildings to meet a series of prerequisites relating to site, energy, materials, water, indoor quality, and beauty and inspiration. The purpose of the Pilot Program is to allow additional flexibility in the application of development standards in the Land Use Code (Title 23) through the design review process in order to accommodate innovative technologies or design approaches that might otherwise be discouraged or prohibited.
Included in this are incentives that allow buildings that are part of the program to potentially exceed the existing size limits of zoning in their areas. E Madison’s under-construction Bullitt Center is the highest profile effort in the program. This Capitol Hill cohousing project is another — it’s at the heart of the argument agains the program posted to CHS. We’ll follow up with the “Monster Buildings” poster to find out more about who they are and why they oppose the Living Building program and incentives.
The City Council committee meeting is set for 5:30p (Monday, July 9th) at City Hall.
The City of Seattle has crafted a “loosely based” version of the Living Building Challenge that will delight developers. Lots of extra height, well beyond the zoned height limits for making an attempt to be green. The program will probably be extended after the July 9th meeting of Seattle’s PLUS Committee at Seattle City Hall , 600-4th Ave, 2nd floor. The Committee is hearing public comment on these monster buildings, the extended deadline and amendments that make life easier for the developer. You might want to consider responding because if you don’t, you might never want to use your backyard, patio, deck or vegetable garden, again. You might never have the awesome sight of mountains and water from your neighborhood, again. Letters, calls and emails to Council Members are also encouraged. Contact information is listed below.
Monster buildings cast monster shadows. The one proposed at 1720-12th Avenue is estimated to cast a shadow over 400 feet long in the winter time. That building will be approximately 78 feet high in a 40 foot zone. Wallingford is getting an 82 foot high building in a 45 foot zone. More info: [email protected]. With the extended deadline, these buildings will be sprouting up all over Seattle so you might want to pass this information along to the rest of Seattle. Hope they are listening.
As one neighbor put it, “What they are doing is not human. They are selling sunlight. There isn’t enough sunlight here, already.” More…
Simply put, an incentive zoning program would give developers a chance to increase return on their investment and reduce costs in exchange for providing some public benefit the City is unable or unwilling to provide. The City’s Living Building Program is essentially just that, allowing departures from zoning limits in exchange for producing buildings that meet a high standard for lowering energy use and creating fewer environmental impacts.
On Monday, the Seattle City Council is considering amendments that would extend the life of the program and allow for more flexibility in meeting the requirements of the program. The changes would allow the Stone34 project to move ahead, building a project in Fremont that would be a showpiece of green building. The Council should move forward on this without any hesitation. The program is limited (only 12 projects can be built) and departures have to be approved by through the design review process.
This is pretty simple. More…
I moved to the Hill in 1976. Everyone who has moved here since then need to go away, and anyone who has built a building needs to tear it down. Please bring back the drug dealers, the transient hotels and the weed filled lots. Get rid of all the fancy bars and restaurants. Me and Dick’s. That’s it. And some car dealerships.
Boys and girls, you can build up, or out. Out means more freeways, more sewers and electrical lines and more government and so on. Up is cheaper, greener, and much more efficient. More density for Capitol Hill. It’s good for the planet,
this! building needs to happen, and this incentive program is a good step toward ensuring that when it does, it’s not the same cookie-cutter condo boxes that have plagued ballard.
Whether you go up or out you still need more infrastructure.
The Living Building Challenge Program was developed by the Seattle-based International Living Futures Institute as an innovative and visionary program for sustainable neighborhood and building development. The City’s Living Building Pilot Program is entirely independent and was established as a test for up to 12 projects to see if the City could encourage construction of higher quality buildings that make significant strides toward the goals of the Living Building Challenge. https://ilbi.org/lbc/
A neighbor asked why our building isn’t more like the proposed one across the street at 1711 12th Avenue: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/AppDocs/GroupMeetings/DRProposal3
1711 is a typical apartment project proceeding as a typical development on Capitol Hill and throughout Seattle: it will comply fully with current land use codes, and meet minimum building and energy codes. The individual units are studios and one-bedrooms that will very predictably rent up fully and help meet the current demand on Capitol Hill. The micro-apartments at 1806/1812 will also comply with minimum code standards, as will the 12th Avenue Arts building at 1620.
The City put in place the Living Building Pilot Ordinance that allows for some limited departures in exchange for a commitment to a minimum 75% reduction in energy and water use, over a more conventional building, as across the street at 1711. With a smaller lot size at 1720 (we only have 40-feet of street frontage, versus 60-feet at 1711), we obviously have to do more with less. This includes a larger courtyard space for passive energy strategies surrounded by 2-bedroom 800 square foot homes, and 3-bedroom 1,200 square foot homes; three homes per floor. We already have 3 families with children that are committed to the project. We have seniors moving in as well, and all the homes are being designed for aging-in-place and incorporate Universal Design: the idea that a senior or someone with limited mobility can live out their lives comfortably, but this also translates into more circulation space than typical within a home.
We believe that this unit mix in this building will help retain families as long-term residents on Capitol Hill. In exchange for a commitment to the Pilot Program goals from the 7 families developing the project (it should be noted that there is no developer profiting from this project, we are self-developing it for ourselves and 5 additional households who want to join us), we have asked for an additional 10-feet/1-story of height above what is being built around us as conventional apartment buildings.
Dpt, that’s of course correct, but the fact is you’re choosing one or the other because our city’s (and our country’s) population is increasing. The fact that both cases require more infrastructure than we currently have isn’t relevant – what matters is that, as JayH said, “up is cheaper, greener, and much more efficient.”
Completely agree. As much as I support more housing for the Capitol Hill area, I can’t argue that much of it is boring, uninspired, or outright ugly. As long as the developers are held to a truly innovative standard and not just getting rubberstamped through with some minor improvements to buildings and such, this is a great way to facilitate better, more interesting design while also providing more space for the people who would like to live on the Hill.
It does not mean go up in every neighborhood which is the point being made.
I cannot get over the illustration showing the tower next to one story homes. What a complete fabrication! The Schemata building that is proposed is going ten feet over the zoning. Just because you own a single family, single story house in NC zoning, doesn’t mean it is wrong for a tall building to be built next to you! Arterials like 12th Ave are the PERFECT place for more density and height. (Also CHH’s 12AA is being built one block south of the Co-housing project and it is way bigger in mass than this project will ever be.)
Moreover, Schemata is the model neighborhood oriented small business. They really care about the Hill, and will take care of their investment, unlike other developers in the neighborhood. I support them wholeheartedly.
Fair enough, but it makes more sense to go up where the fundamentals and the mindset are already there, and Capitol Hill is definitely one of those places.
The Schemata building will be 67 feet high from the alley and approximately 78 feet high from 12th Avenue based on statements and drawings turned into the City of Seattle by Schemata Workshop. The building will not be 55 feet high due to all the extras. It will be almost four times higher than surrounding buildings and nearly double the height of buildings on the other side of the street. The CHH buildings on the next block will be 6 story buildings in a 6 story zone. This building will be an enhanced 6 story building in a 4 story zone. Seems the illustration is accurate.
I’m very much in favor of the 1720 project as it will add so much more vibrancy to the urban fabic of the 12th Ave neighorhood. Yes, my view of First Hill will be impacted but I see the need for more guided dense growth within the Transit Overlay and Urban Villege. This project fill those needs and moves us forward..
My neighbors with the huge house behind the 1720 project are among those spearheading the NIMBY campaign. Let us please stick to the facts and avoid being “Henny Penny” crying that our neighorhoods as we know them are doomed. Our neighorhoods will continue to evolve as they have done since buildings were first built here.
Grace, I think it’s also a bit misleading to compare it to the neighboring buildings. I live at 1729 12th Ave, so I’m very familiar with the area, and the deli to the north of it is a total dump (that I still use on occasion) that is almost certain to be redeveloped at some point. It’s just a quirk of that area that both buildings next door happen to be very small, but that won’t be the case for very long. They have far too much potential and proximity to the light rail line to remain undeveloped forever.
Giving more space to groups that are doing unique things in the area–exactly what people complain about the cookie-cutter box condos/apartments not doing–while also improving upon the already high efficiency gains made by living in multifamily housing is exactly the type of thing we should be promoting in Capitol Hill.
for whom?
You are missing my point. Just because there is a one story building in a 40 foot zone doesn’t mean this is the way the street should be. Arterials like 12th is where the density should go in order to protect our single family areas as such. I would argue that it is the one story building that is out of place, not the proposed schemata building. Are folks not paying attention to the fact that schemata will be amazing and accountable neighbors, investing AND living in their investment!
Right-on, JayH….great satirical comments!
I know many people use “gentrification” as a negative word…I think it’s a very positive thing that Capitol Hill is being gentrified, and I am all in favor of it. It’s called “progress” and “neighborhood improvement.”
We’re reversing urban sprawl and moving into the cities. Young people what amenities and proximity. We’re getting licenses at the record setting low rates and starting bike shares. We want buildings that can manage themselves: energy, waste, water. We want buildings that dont contribute pollution to the Puget Sound or the atmosphere. We want buildings that will last.
Living Buildings are a chance for our future. They’re for our kids and grandkids. Its a philosophical movement in building and its happening right here in Seattle. Right here in Capitol Hill, and I want them to keep coming.
Change is hard, but we’ve got to start somewhere. I’m proud to live in Capitol Hill, I’m proud to walk by these buildings and know even if they dont make the full challenge, they are light years better than the buildings being built beside them.
At the July 9, 2012 Seattle City Council Meeting, the International Living Futures Institute said that Part C of the Seattle law does not qualify a building for certification or use of the trademarked name “Living Building Challenge.” Both the Capitol Hill project and the Wallingford/Fremont project were trying to use the Part C of Seattle law. Sounds like neither of these projects qualifies or can lawfully use the name Living Building Challenge.
Dpt’s comment is exactly right. Seattle needs to increase density, to avoid sprawl and accomodate our growing population. I don’t disagree. But our top priority for increased density is Capitol Hill, which is already one of the densest neighborhoods in the city, if not the Pacific Northwest?
Let’s pretend for a minute that this makes sense. Here’s my question: how is everyone supposed to get from point A to point B? If you want to go to Husky Stadium or the airport, you’re in luck. Take light rail. But what if you need to go to Ballard, Greenlake, Fremont or Discovery Park? People will not spend an hour or more taking multiple buses to go 6 – 10 miles, when they can drive to the same destination in 15 – 20 minutes in the comfort of their own vehicle. The idea that we’re going to build up, up, up, and that everyone will live a utopian, carless lifestyle, is pure fantasy.
I think the developers, who are no doubt turning a tidy profit from the many zoning exceptions/changes being made for them, should be required to pay into the transportation infrastructure. Otherwise they reap all the benefits/profit, while the rest of us get to pay for it in terms of higher taxes and decreased quality of life.