Little Saigon, to the north, is not very "urban" - it's a bunch of strip malls with little housing.

Chinatown, to the west, is OK but underdeveloped - quite a lot of it consists of street level retail with abandoned (due to fire code) apartments above, next to surface parking lots. It's picking up though, and there are about half a dozen projects being constructed right now.

Something to keep in mind is that this would be about half a mile (usually considered the limit people will walk to/from transit) from the International Station on the future light rail line, and you'd walk through both Chinatown and Little Saigon to get there.

This is key. At what point does ecomic development become gentrification?

I'm glad to read that Tom Francis brings some class analysis to the job.

That said, I can see why they want to redevelop, build some leasable space, and use the revenue to further their mission. But why does it have to be so monolithic? So big? So out of scale with the existing businesses of Little Saigon and the International District?

The developers who are partnering with Goodwill want to vacate the existing street right of way to make the project this size and a contract rezone for their height increase, so they don't necessarily have a legal right to build to the scale they propose.

Projects are being built all around the city without these bonuses. Given the size of the lot, and what they are allowed to build already, the developers could probably scale this project back by 1/4 and it would still be a sizable development that would yield sizeable profits.

Bigger is not always better, and upzoning large areas near historic districts and fragile communities that are worth preserving is a dangerous precedent.

Without a glimpse at the pro forma, it's impossible to gauge profitability on a project as complex as this. Scaling back would probably mean eliminating some or all of the (very much more expensive per square foot) residential and small commercial components, as the big box retailers are much cheaper to build for--one tenant is always simpler to suit than ten, after all. Another casualty might be the more affordable (i.e., smaller) apartments. Larger, luxury units can be cheaper to build per square foot. And though I am a big fan of Saigon Deli (try the barbeque pork and tofu sandwiches, still a deal at $1.25 each), and Szechzuan Cuisine (try the Hot Pot), as well as that great, cheap grocery store right at 12th and Jackson, gotta say that the architectural and urban street design of the Little Saigon strip malls are deadening. The vitality of the area exists despite the horribleness of the anti-pedestrian layout of the area. Why not start agitating at Preliminary Design Review meetings and other public forums for priority consideration and rent breaks for tenants of the new project that come from existing neighborhood businesses? Or parking reciprocity for the new project and adjacent neighborhood businesses?

The major question will be the street feel. And the need for pocket parks. If you build totally soulless, you kill it. If you make it very ID, good ethnic feel, could be very good, especially if heavy transit use, and especially if it stops people from driving to Northgate/Southgate/etc for big box.

So are you saying nothing will be built there unless they get their upzone and street vacation? Given the size of the lot and what they could build under the existing zoning, I think that's pretty obviously not the case. Rather, they are trying to do what any economic actor would do in that situation - mazimize their potential revenue. That doesn't mean that their ability to maximize their revenue ought to trump existing land use rules and the scale of their neighborhood, however.

This reminds me of Greg Smith trying to get the WOSCA property upzoned to 105'. As one developer I know said to me, if you can't make money on a lot that size under the current zoning (which, under the Nickels Administration, still has holes big enough to drive a Hummer through) you ought to get into another line of business.

You might ask the businesses and residents of the ID and Little Saigon about that. Evidently they don't know what's in their best interest nearly as well as you do.

1.) They want to get something out of it

and

2.) They don't want anything that might compete with them.

Human nature, but not something to be overly worred about.

Little Saigon and the Goodwill spot are in close proximity space-wise, but not from a pedestrian or car standpoint. Besides, the whole little Saigon business district is a dump that appeals mostly to a very narrow population. I doubt they'll be tempted by whatever goes in that location.

But as usual, we're channeling the supposed emotions of the locals, and trying to bask in what we perceive is their victimhood. We are always looking for a reason to get our panties in a bunch.

I'm mostly thinking that it's walking distance to light rail (which, it should be clear by now, is the only transit we're getting in this city), so we should get as much out of that area as possible.

I'm sensitive to the "we're just reporting" argument, but be serious for a moment...you're actually suggesting that the thesis of this post isn't "Big Development project may hurt Little Saigon?" Look at the title of the post, for christ's sake!

The current angle is about as anti-development as you can get, without actually taking a stance on the issue. You could easily make the story about a handful of cranky neighbors resisting density (and thus adding to the expense and ridiculous process of development in Seattle).

For the record, I don't necessarily think that you should write the story as blatantly pro-development, but don't try to convince me that your current angle is objective.

If you want to take the side of the little guy because it sells papers, fine. Just try to remember that the little guy doesn't undertake urban development projects, the next time you get a density rant stuck in your craw.

I keep in mind the upzone that was granted along Broadway. Without this upzone, many property owners said that there wasn't the return on investment that they needed to invest their time and money. They got the upzone, and voila, we have 500 units proposed for the Safeway and QFC sites.

Regarding the clutching of pearls over big box retailers and having 'suburban' type stores. I welcome it. I live on capitol hill, and I'll be able to walk/bike to a target now and still be home in a reasonable amount of time. As it currently stands, you have two busses to take to get the Northgate area from Capitol Hill/ID/Belltown/Rainier Valley neighborhoods. The only large discount store between Northgate and SW Seattle is the Fred Meyer's at 85th and in Ballard. Neither of which is very accessible from the center of the city on public transit. A Target would be extremely welcomed for this neighborhood, as it will definitely have a built in audience of people who live wihtin 2 miles of the center. Build it, trust me, they will come.

Something tells me that pedestrian issues aren't first ont he developer's list.

Many of the people who own these businesses came to this country with next to nothing, worked many menial jobs scrapping together enough money to start a business in pursuit of their own version of the American Dream.

They work 12-14 hours a day to keep these businesses going so they could feed their children, put a roof over their heads, and save enough to ensure a secure retirement. They weren't dealt the best cards in the deck but they're doing the best they can with the hand dealt to them. A victim is someone who is powerless in the face of circumstances. These people wrestled with their circumstances and made a livelihood out of it.

This is just another battle they're facing in their struggle to assert themselves as new Americans. Their reactions may seem "emotional" to some but when you invest the sweat, tears and long hours like these people have into their businesses you will damn well fight with passion anything that might threaten your livelihood. This is something faced by other groups before them and will surely happen again with the next immigrant or refugee group.

Little Saigon may seem like a "dump" to some but consider what was there over 25 years ago: a high-crime area full of abandoned buildings and drug dealers. It took a lot of guts to open and maintain a business there. The individuals who took the risk saw an opportunity to make a living to support their family. They weathered many years in a dangerous environment until things began to turn around. Today this "dump" is a thriving business district providing livelihoods and services for many families.

And it's still evolving. If asked, most individuals in this community wants to make it an even better place. They would like to see it being more pedestrian-friendly and have higher density. They want to make it into a place that has a unique ethnic flavor yet is still welcoming to all who want to enjoy it regardless of race or ethnicity.

The question is not whether or not people in Little Saigon want more density and development. The question is whether new developments in this neighborhood will have some soul and character, or be a nice shiny box that you can find in Anywhere, USA.

How many people actually bring their out-of-town guests to check out Bellevue Square?

Little guy might not "undertake urban development projects", but big guy is not neccessarily unjust and insensitive neither. It is nowaday's trend in developements and investments that companies are encouraged and missioned to employ delicate and ethically possible methods of doing business and, at the same time, not to alienate but to sustain the micro-environments surrounding it. Why settle for any developments or any investments when, as little people, we can select, among the big guys, just partners who would appreciate the opportunity and the challenge of doing business profitably but yet equitably? So, is it not the little guy who has been on the look out for us all thru-out this mankind's struggle on knowing what is just distribution of social goods and recognition? At somewhere, sometime or under certain circumstance in life, we all are little guy for some just cause; and we're desperately needed to be heard.

No! This little guy is for good progress, pro-developement and density; it's the Wal-Mart type crash-the-party-for-everyone invasion that could in a heartbeat turns the Downtown neighborhood businesses into painful memories, it's the casinos that replaced the good old family nights at the bowling alleys that the little guy is desperastely trying to keep out!

No! No! Actually this is not only a little guy vs big guy issue; this is the issue about self-sustaining, smart-management, and temperance that it is worth it for the people of Little Saigon, of the Downtown District, and of Seattle's, as a whole, to be sleepless with!

Danny Tran