Post navigation

Prev: (11/16/14) | Next: (11/16/14)

‘Don’t let the coolness of a neighborhood kill itself’

Mike Powe’s message is probably coming a bit too late for the taste of many Capitol Hill residents.

“Don’t let the coolness of a neighborhood kill itself,” Powe said, speaking November 7th inside Pike/Pine’s Odd Fellows building to a gathering of about 30 members of the Cascadia Chapter of the Congress for New Urbanism, a group that among other things, advocates for denser, more walkable communities.

Powe is a research manager for the Green Lab of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a Seattle based arm of the nationwide group. He delivered a keynote speech based on his group’s report about the value of older, smaller buildings in supporting a dynamic neighborhood.

Perhaps it’s not surprising that an historic preservation group supports older buildings, but the study itself used cutting edge big data to come to its conclusions that neighborhoods with older, smaller buildings are often better.

The report studied Seattle, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. The authors broke up each city into a grid of 200-meter squares, but only analyzed those with some sort of commercial component — tossing out purely residential neighborhoods. CHS shared the study here earlier this year.

Using public data, they looked at age of buildings, the diversity of the ages of the buildings, and what they called granularity, the number of different buildings on a block. They combined these data points to develop a “character score” for each square on their grid.

Then they compared the area’s character score against a number of social and economic metrics. What they found, Powe said, was that neighborhoods which were able to preserve some of their historic buildings performed better.

“A mix of old and new buildings lends itself to more dynamic neighborhoods,” Powe said.

These older areas tended to be more walkable, tend to be a magnet for younger people, often have lower rents (Yes, rents are high, but they study finds they tend to be even higher in brand new shiny buildings).

character-scoreThe study was able to gather cell-phone data, looking at how much cell phone use there was in a given spot at a given time, in particular 10 PM on Friday. They correlated higher cell use with more active areas and found that areas with older buildings tend to have more night life.

The study further found that these areas have fewer chain businesses and a higher proportion of women- and minority-owned businesses.

Economically, they can be large contributors. Powe, whose office is in the Piston and Ring Building at 12th and Pike, pointed out local examples, such as Melrose Market, which have a number of small shops within one larger building, something he called hidden density. This sort of thing helps increase economic activity to the point where it actually generates 37 percent more, on a per-square foot basis, than those skyscrapers downtown. Those buildings, of course generate more commercial activity overall, just less per square foot.

The jury is out on the new hybrid buildings going up around Pike/Pine – where an older façade is preserved and a new building rises above it. Powe said this is probably better than just tearing the whole thing down, but he speculates that this type of construction will end up behaving more like the new buildings than the old.

The study, available to read at www.oldersmallerbetter.org, explains further the methodology and findings. Missing, however, is a definitive causal link. While the study found that neighborhoods with these older buildings correlate with being more dynamic, it did not establish that the older buildings are what causes that dynamism.

In his closing, Powe said that character and scale for buildings matter and encouraged the re-use of buildings. He was also not completely opposed to new construction.

“Don’t be afraid to mix old and new, just be smart about the design,” he said.

Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

22 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joseph Singer
Joseph Singer
9 years ago

Unfortunately, economics will win out and we’ll basically have all cookie cutter five over one buildings and any charm or class the older structures had will be gone and replaced by bland “modern” buildings that have no character at all. It’s much better money-wise for a land owner to have a five over one and of course it’s better tax-wise for the city to have a five over one instead of a one or two story building with or without apartments.

Michael Schuler
Michael Schuler
9 years ago
Reply to  Joseph Singer

To say “economics will win out” unfortunately ignores the fact that everything that existed in Capitol Hill prior to the recent development boom was also created by “economics.” The one- and two-story buildings that are there exist because they served the market (the developers, tenants, and customers) when they were constructed and have served the market to the present day.

One can argue that hipness is a public good, like clean water, that everyone has the opportunity to enjoy but that very few are actually responsible for creating. The way to protect it is to voice your opinion economically, legislatively, or otherwise. (Or your can get involved in development and take matters into your own hands.) There are plenty of examples of successful character preservation; there just needs to be interest in pursuing it.

ERF
ERF
9 years ago

Any chance there is money to fix the sidewalks, or is it all tied up in bike lanes and turning Broadway into a two lane mess?

Joseph Singer
Joseph Singer
9 years ago
Reply to  ERF

I’m sure that you should be aware that the city has X amount of dollars to spend on infrastructure and usually the most important projects or those the scream the loudest get taken care of first. The 2nd Avenue protected bicycle lane was planned and was not due to be done til next year (I seem to recall) but because several bicyclists have been hurt or killed there it was rushed through. There are streets in my neighborhood that are in terrible condition and truthfully I don’t expect the city to repave them. If I’m lucky the worst of it will be patched… maybe. Whose dog gets the preferential treatment? Hard to say. If you have a strong lobbying group like Cascade perhaps what you want will get priority just because you have someone with an agenda. Who are you or I to say that *our* project is more worthy than another?

I would imagine but do not know this that probably maintenance of sidewalks is a lower priority than many civic infrastructure projects and as long as they are not a hazard they’ll probably not get fixed quickly any time soon with perhaps just shoveling a few scoops of asphalt and maybe some white paint to make it evident where there’s a bad rise in the sidewalk.

If you take an me vs. them attitude you do not accomplish much except for angering someone else who has a different priority than you do. Lots of stuff needs to be done but unfortunately there’s often not enough time or money to fix it all as soon as you or I might like.

Binky
Binky
9 years ago
Reply to  ERF

I agree; there are more pedestrians than bikers, so I don’t understand why the sidewalks lag behind. I know several friends that ended up in the hospital with broken ankles, legs, knees because of our sidewalks, but I guess it isn’t “sexy” like a bike or car accident so it doesn’t get the press coverage.

andy
andy
9 years ago

facadism is gimmick to make the sting of new development not so sharp. it serves no purpose and most times, is poorly done.

Max
Max
9 years ago

Keeping the facades is arguably disgusting and offensive. A hat tip to maintaining the old buildings but literally just a surface one. I don’t give any credit to that method and the fact that it allows the old buildings to be gutted means it’s terrible.

As for urban planning in general, clearly it has no place in Seattle. Clearly.

calhoun
9 years ago

Mike Powe’s comments, and the study he is basing them on, lend credence to what many of us have been saying….that preservation of some older buildings is a good thing for a neighborhood. I hope those who are always pushing for “more, more, more density” and “taller buildings” will take note. Like Mr. Powe, we are not opposed to change, but it needs to be done with some respect for the past, and with the goal of maintaining a human scale.

Stephen Poulakos
Stephen Poulakos
9 years ago

Density is the result of a city that is growing exponentially and it should not be perceived as a negative aspect of good urban planning. The geographical connection to downtown Seattle proper makes it an inevitable neighborhood that will continue to evolve and change through time. The 4-5 story buildings are not out of character to the many earlier apartments of the 20th century that already exist on Capitol Hill (many which never had underground parking beneath them). Many of the 1-story businesses on the Hill were auto-related businesses that today are home to some of the “cool” businesses and retail establishments that make CH vibrant. There are good examples of adaptive reuse and urban block infill that are the epitome of Capitol Hill “cool”. The Trace Lofts, Oddfellows, and Melrose Market Blocks are three really great examples of appropriately fitting into the neighborhood by creating great new buildings while incorporating good historic buildings into a modern-day recycled use of a neighborhood. For the examples of buildings that do not live up to the appropriateness of the neighborhood, we should ask ourselves why we are not demanding more from the architects and developers that are building and designing buildings that don’t respond to the spirit of this evolving neighborhood. For those architects and developers of the above mentioned projects, we should thank them for paying attention to what makes Capitol Hill “cool”.

chipr
chipr
9 years ago

If you truly want to help, show up at neighborhood Design Review meetings and make your case for preservation and good design. Design Review board members respond when they see a room full of concerned neighbors. Join PPUNC, get involved, make a difference.

zverina
9 years ago

Five over one is a great model and is the norm in Prague, where I’ve lived on and off for years. The difference in Europe is that that density was built in a time before automobiles, which has served to preserve a lot of the intangible appeal. Increasing density is a good idea (maybe just inevitable) so long as we don’t genuflect to car culture. Capitol Hill in particular is already ped friendly and steps should be taken to ensure that it’s not (further) overrun by cars–e.g., by not including gobs of free underground parking with every new building. People who are attracted to walkable neighborhoods should be ready to walk the walk, literally.

calhoun
9 years ago
Reply to  zverina

Not even those who advocate for some underground parking in new buildings do not want “gobs” of parking. But some parking is needed to keep already-tight parking availability from getting worse. No way is the old 1:1 ratio (parking spots:units) needed these days in a neighborhood like Capitol Hill, but something like 0.5:1 seems like a reasonable compromise.

Joseph Singer
Joseph Singer
9 years ago
Reply to  calhoun

And who gets chosen for the lucky parking spots?

LeonK
LeonK
9 years ago

1 – A five year moratorium on all new construction.

2 – A tax on all construction currently in process to pay for (in order)

a) Increased bus & mass transit service
b) Repaving of all streets
c) Refurbishment of all sidewalks
d) Necessary designation of bike corridors (away from heavily used streets wherever practicable)

3 – Raise property taxes on homes over a given value (i.e. the very rich) to continue paying for #2 above.

4 – Raise business taxes on business over a given income level (i.e. the very rich companies) to continue paying for #2 above.

5 – Make the process of setting up a national chain store of any kind within the city limits as arduous and costly as possible. No new chain stores. None.

6 – At the end of the five year construction moratorium, all new buildings will have to be approved by locally elected and locally staffed community members. No one from the Issaquah plateau (let alone from an out of state development company) should be able to tell what kinds of buildings go up in your neighborhood.

7 – Rent control (perhaps for only new construction, or newer than x-years old) and new rental laws that favor renters and building occupants, not landlords.

poncho
poncho
9 years ago
Reply to  LeonK

im sorry what is this? is that a list of 7 ways to destroy the seattle economy?

matt
matt
9 years ago
Reply to  poncho

Remove #1, why do you want to wait 5 years? Do you need to sell your condo?

#1 This has two main effects: current owners keep their views, and the look’n’feel of their street; rents skyrocket for people and businesses, the character of the neighborhood fades away.

#2, b) and c) should be mostly covered with property taxes. If the revenue from one block can’t cover for the sidewalk and road we need to raise taxes, or put more houses per block. Money from new development should go only to a) and d). Obviously development should cover b) and c) for the affected blocks.

#3 define very rich. 300$/sqft? 400$/sqft? I’d take into consideration the amount of road/curb they need.

#4 Again, define “very rich”. Also, tax higher businesses that generate noise, garbage, smells.

#5 That’s probably illegal. What do you have against big chains? That they can afford higher rents? That they don’t look cool? I guess your next suggestion is to ban Amazon people?

#6 Let the City Hall estimate the loss of taxes caused by blocking development and add that to the property tax of the area of the local council. Preventing economic development has a cost. Let’s make sure that everybody pays for what they want.

#7 Sure, just allow rent prices to adjust to market rates every 5-10 years.

citycat
citycat
9 years ago
Reply to  matt

$300 a square foot is rich? The value of a modest 1200 square foot home at $300 per square foot would be $360,000. You would likely have to go to the Rainier Valley or further south to buy a house at that price. People buying in those locations are hardly rich.

DB McWeeberton
DB McWeeberton
9 years ago
Reply to  LeonK

“1 – A five year moratorium on all new construction.”

Why don’t we just ban people from moving into Capitol Hill for 5 years? It’s just as plausible as plan #1.

davmar
davmar
9 years ago
Reply to  LeonK

“yes, it’s horrible, this idea”

LeonK
LeonK
9 years ago

Thank you poncho, Matt, citycat and DB McWeeberton.

Your insights align nicely with all the other petit Trumps quickly turning Seattle into a bland, soulless shell of its former self, closer to a larger version of Spanaway than, say, Paris.

You should take your horrid, short-sighted and greed-riddled schtick back to San Bernardino or West Las Vegas. It seems to be a better locale for people with your mindset.

matt
matt
9 years ago
Reply to  LeonK

Do you realize Paris has 3 times the density of Seattle?

trackback

[…] hearing comes amid increasing recognition of the economic and cultural value of preserving older buildings intact in neighborhoods like Pike/Pine where a “conservation overlay” provides incentives to […]