Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« The Morning News | Photo of the Day »

Thursday, July 13, 2006

BMW Building on Pike/Pine: Surround Sound

Posted by on July 13 at 9:07 AM

[NOTE: It was late Wed night by the time I posted this Boom column on a recently announced major mixed-use development in Capitol Hill . I hope to update it today. In the meantime, I thought I’d move it up for some morning discussion.]

I’m recently returned from the first design review meeting for the sprawling 6-story mixed-use building proposed for the BMW property in Capitol Hill. I wrote a brief about it in this week’s issue, which I somehow forgot to mention on Slog. Sorry to those who wanted to attend the meeting but didn’t know it was happening. Still, the Seattle Central Community College lecture hall was so packed with neighborhood activists and adjacent property owners that the review board barely had time to finish public comment.

I’ll try to atone by posting a short summary. We have to start with a picture of the site, which architect Clayton O’Brien-Smith aptly described as “somewhat irregular.” Take a gander.

unknown.jpg

Now let me describe the adjacent properties. We’ll go around the diagram clockwise. Starting in the upper left corner, that’s the mini-mart, Pine Food. To the right of that is Linda’s Tavern. Next to that is one arm of this development.

I should probably mention, by the way of context, that the developer Pryde + Johnson can build to 100 percent of the lot, according to code. And the company’s preferred design calls for 208 condos. The condo-owners’ windows would be right next to the Linda’s patio. Linda herself was there to remind the architect that her patio can hold 100 and it’s open till 2 a.m. every night of the week.

Back to the diagram. On the project’s other side, at Harvard and Pine, is Bill’s Off Broadway. Another popular bar with outdoor seating. Continuing down Harvard, you see another arm of the development poking out, and next to that is the War Room, at the corner of Pike. The War Room has that popular rooftop bar, and a partner from the bar attended the meeting to suggest that the architect and/or developers visit the site from the hours of 12-3 a.m. if they want to appreciate some of the challenges, noise-wise. Continuing down Pike, that’s Maharaja Indian Cuisine, which has a liquor license, too. The owner of that property (and, I believe, the War Room) attended the meeting and at its conclusion expressed his support of the project, mainly because he was glad to have more residential development near Broadway.

You can see the project’s Pike extension. And that’s a parking lot, I believe, at Pike’s corner with Boylson. It would also be part of the development. The project would build around both sides of the Starbird Apartments on Boylston. A resident of that apartment building attended the meeting simply to ask by what method he could access his building during the roughly 18-month construction. The DPD planner, Michael Dorcy, suggested parachute, but I think he was joking.

Another nightclub, R Place is just across Boylston, and management from that club attended the meeting, too.

The project calls for 50,000 square feet of retail space at the ground floor and below-grade parking for 190 cars. And if there weren’t enough concerns already about how prospective condo-owners would cope with noise, one resident close to the project also warned the architect about the semi-trucks that make loud deliveries at the QFC (diagonally across the intersection from War Room) during the wee hours of the morning.

The architect, O’Brien-Smith, didn’t have renderings yet, but he said the finished product would look a lot like other recent Pryde + Johnson developments, like this one, The Hjarta, in Ballard.

hjarta.JPG.jpg

Bad idea. A woman who owns a 4-plex on Harvard Avenue told the architect that there’s a “proliferation” of buildings like that one in Seattle and that “they’ll all look awful in 10 years.” Judging by the nodding heads, most everyone in the room seemed to agree with this sentiment. Also, there’s no rooftop culture with this project, which puzzled some.

Generally speaking, it seemed that neighborhood activists liked to see the aggressive residential development, but they were having a hard time liking this project. Personally, I’m having a hard time picturing something that doesn’t look like a college dorm. And while I’d love to believe that the real estate agents can find 208 buyers capable of coexisting happily with all five neighborhood nightclubs, that seems unrealistic. Maybe in Chicago or Manhattan or San Francisco, but there isn’t that much of a premium on space in Capitol Hill, is there?

I had a call into O’Brien-Smith in advance of the meeting, but didn’t hear back. I’ll give him another try tomorrow. I would like to post the graphics that he presented today and give him a chance to tell us how his design can deal with the surround sound.

Post your questions in the Comments thread and I can put them to the architect and developer when I talk to them.


CommentsRSS icon

And while I’d love to believe that the real estate agents can find 208 buyers capable of coexisting happily with all five neighborhood nightclubs, that seems unrealistic.

I believe the mayor has a team working on the paperwork to fix that as we speak.

I live in San Francisco and there's a club next door to me, another club across the street, and live-music venue on the corner down the street and none of it really ever bothers me. I live in a 90 year old, wooden, faux-Victorian (I guess it's Edwardian) and the noise isn't a problem often so I bet it won't be a big problem in a modern brick-and-glass sort of building.

I like reading this Boom column because I want to keep up-to-date on the Seattle stuff for when I go back to visit my family. When I went to college, nothing seemed to change that much when I went back to Seattle until I moved to Japan for my master's. After that, so much had changed that I barely recognized some parts of the city. I can read this column and when I go home for Christmas I won't be so suprised by how things are different.

Some day I hope to move back to Seattle and buy a condo on the 12th floor or whatever.

This seems corollary to Erica's article in last week's Stranger:
http://thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=40138
In summary: the mayor is forcing Belltown night clubs to sign highly restrictive "good-neighbor agreements", which include (among other things) restricting hours and severe noise abatement.

My biggest concern would be the owners/architects design a huge residential building with no consideration for the noisy block, sell them to unsuspecting buyers without telling them about the surrounding noise, which would trigger a huge fight with all the club owners, and eventually having the mayor come in and shove "good-neighbor agreements" down the throats of all the club owners.

I'm generally for letting developers build more-or-less whatever they want, but I think that in this case, at the very least they should be required to disclose the noise issue to any prospective buyers, and the buyers should be made to acknowledge that the clubs have a right to operate as they currently are, noise and all. Sure, that might somewhat reduce the theoretical value of some of the condos, but that's the price the developer pays for building a mega-condo on a block with a half dozen bars/nightclubs surrounding it.

A little common sense in design could easily mitigate a lot of the noise issues, if the architects spend 5 minutes thinking about it. Even something as simple as using exterior siding materials that absorb sound, rather than bounce it around could make a lot of difference.

I like the idea of more retail space on that block. Maybe I can start a new bar and install it in there. Or, a 24 food joint, because Capitol Hill needs one that's not Jack in The Box.

Thank you so much for going to that meeting and posting this info. This development will radically change the neighborhood. Most of us can't attend meetings so this is helpful.

SDA - You're right that there are some ways to mitigate the impact of sound, and It surprised me that during the architect's 20-minute presentation he never mentioned how that factored into the design. Could be he simply forgot to mention it. Could be it's not designed with a sensitivity to those impacts.

Andrew - Since they have the latitude for 100 percent lot coverage, they're building very close to the property lines. I think the architect said 5-7 feet of space between adjacent buildings. That's pretty intimate, especially considering all the smokers who crowd a bar's perimeter. Also, consider that there are big condo and apartment developments planned for sites four blocks east on Pine, then five blocks down Broadway. And none of those developments have anywhere near the sound impact of this one. Again, I think it would be a great sign for the market if people were still willing to pay $500,000 for a condo on this site, but I'll believe it when I see it.

I didn't mention in the original post, and I'll probably mention it in some future updated version, but there's no hint yet as to what will fill that 50,000 square feet of retail. Somebody at the meeting said that the QFC which is kiddie corner to the site is 40,000 square feet, if that gives an idea of the scale. It's safe to say this won't be a grocery store. More likely a mix of smaller retail.

The designer doesn't care if it looks awful. He just cares about making functional condos and getting paid for it.

You can't dictate how smart growth is done. Such is the peril of 'smart growth'.

SDA: Exactly. If the condos want to build by clubs they should sign a contract that they'll be a good neighbor to bars and clubs. And if the bar sells that they'll be a good neighbor to the new bar. Clubs and bars make the city a city rather than a short commute burb. Keep Seattle a city with great nightlife.

One good thing about this proposal: it appears to be taking advantage of the city's changes to parking requirements. In the current numbers, at least, there will be more units than parking spots, which is definitely right for as pedestrian-oriented an area as Pine/Pike.

That said, I can't imagine this project actually co-existing peacefully with Linda's' patio. As much as I tend to support the pro-density cause, I'm not sure this is the right location to in-fill.

Density is good for a city, change is good for a city. So what if Linda's closes? Another better bar will open. The NIMBY anti-density crowd can't stop progress. Cities grown and evolve, there's plenty of people from Manhattan and San Francisco who would love to buy one of those condos.


Quit whining about Seattle getting better.

hmmm.... what would be the price range for any of those condos be... and will they be urban family w/kid friendly as opposed to the young professionals/ "hip" empty-nest retiree partying set?

The developer must have a target demographic, I just hope it isn't the fussy-pants demographic that are pre-buying the Belltown, Allen-town or Olive projects, then speed dial the city council to complain about the urban enivronment (which for some curious reason) went unnoticed until the occupancy.

For many, many people, this Broadway/First Hill/Capital Hill area of town is vital to the spirit of Seattle, more so then Pioneer Square or Belltown are. It would be sad if the only retail that could survive a project of this caliber were the "close by 6" botique shops or the "hotel lobby bar feel" the 'good neighbor' agreement is forcing city bars to become. Drinking, scamming, partying and just letting off emotional steam is one reason partying in that neighborhood is so, well, so uplifting. It would be a shame if this developer (and the others in this area, for that matter) are more intent on making a buck, then trying to enhance a long established neighborhood. Which, for many folks, is the only Seattle neigborhood which is as fun today as it was when we were, oh, 10 or 20 years younger. While bars and clubs come and go, the 'vibe', I hope, will still be there and is a place to go back to, 10 or 20 years from now.

Regarding Linda's...don't forget that the patio is not legally designated for smoking. Sure, people smoke there, and the staff more or less looks the other way, but wait until you get one or two "condo owners" who live just above the patio to call and complain about the plume of smoke that rises up into their home. Linda's gets fined. Then complaints about the noise...Nichols sends in his "team"...it will be a mess

From experiencing fast condo development in Vancouver Canada (the model city for development that city planers look at now). I can say that the City will use the condo developments to change neighborhoods and push out bars and anything that promotes existing culture and diverse retail in favor of selling condos. Once this development is done a Seven 11, Subway Sandwich or some other fast food or convenience outlet will move in on the corners of the development and the area will become a victim of gentrification.
Developers are not interested in what exist they are interested in making money and moving on. The proposed building is no different than any other generic condo development. To design a building that takes into consideration all the existing business in the area is expensive. In the long run it is cheeper to push out and shut down business by playing a game of "bad business" because you make noise. The nature of bars is to entertain and to entertain you make noise probably less noise than living across from an elementary school and water park like I do with kids playing all day but that is part of acceptable noise in a city just like bars noise is acceptable it is what gives a city character. I hope City Hall does not pull the "bad noisy bar" card so that they can gentrify the area but when it comes to City Hall and developers they tend to work well together.
I would look into business that have already put applications in to open on the corners of this unbuilt proposal, my bet is that convenience stores have already been accepted or something that is not going to help define the existing neighborhood. In Vancouver I have seen a proliferation of convenience stores move in in the downtown core with the same store just around the corner and the second they open the front doors they attract drug addicts asking for money.
Personally I feel the soul has been sucked out of the city I live in from bad development, not overdevelopment but "bad development". Tourists love my city, and it is still cheep to live here but it is changing fast and boring as hell compared to what used to exist. I am all for development but only if it considers the existing neighborhoods and culture. I would hate to see Seattle get modeled after Vancouver Canada but we are the prototype for reinventing a city. The condo concept that is proposed is just another boring cheep condo development.
I would demand better design that respects the business that exist but because money speaks louder than anything else the people that will spend $500,000 on a condo, will have the louder voice in the end unless the community unites.
Hang onto your neon, established bars and sub cultures because it will all be pushed aside by bad cheep development that will promote generic living. You need something that lets you know you are in Seattle when walking down Pike or Pine Street with it's great "existing" bar culture and a recognizable distinctive restaurants and retail, you need new development that is also distinctive.

Density,

You wouldn't do so well on the Lower East Side or in Greenwich Village with an attitude like that.

Newer does NOT equal better when it comes to buildings that house clubs.

that part of cap. hill is ugly and disgusting anyway. i've never eaten at those restaurants and dont' care to. who gives a shit about those bars? the poster above was right, there will be more bars, better bars. it's called progress. get used to it.

I've never liked Broadway. It's creepy and empty. The new buildings will be better. Pike-Pine will get a lot better with more people living there. Linda's doesn't look like that great of a place and besides bars open and close all the time.


Quit whining about change. Many of the new residents living in those condos will not even know what Linda's was, they'll just enjoy the cool new places that open.


I just moved here from Houston and I love it. People said Seattle was empty in the 1980's, and gets better all the time. Change and growth can be painful, but that's life. Deal with it.

One more thing. It is Street level that defines a neighborhood. To show a rendering of a building proposal is just propaganda in my opinion. It says nothing about what is happening on the first 10 feet of an new building. If this view "the human view" from which we truly experience developments. If it is not planned as well as the condos above or thought out then it is open to bad development too. Will there be just convenience stores like I mentioned earlier or more retail and bars that add to the character of the existing neighborhood. The developers could come back with a great looking drawings of a new building to make everyone feel satisfied but but like I said renderings are just propaganda it does not explain all the street level details that make up the true human view of any building and neighborhood.
Look around you on a street level and see how much bad planning we take for granted and do not see. Take a picture of any street and that photo will reveal all the blank wall space and uninteresting sites that should be thought out in detail. Many new buildings fall pray to lack of detail and interest on a street level because it is expensive to work out or because developers don't give a damn.
Thanks Brian

GO BACK TO FUCKING HOUSTON IF YOU DON'T LIKE SEATTLE THE WAY IT IS!

Thank you.

Seattle is not going to stay the way it is. Cities change and grow. People who live in real cities know that and appreciate it. Density is good, look at Vancouver BC.


I've heard about the anti-density NIMBY crowd in Seattle, tetchy about even discussing growth. Isn't The Stranger owned by a Chicago company? Only outsiders have a real perspective on Seattle. Please keep pushing for change in Seattle, the "natives" are stuck in their anti-growth rut.

Go to Chelsea, Greenwich Village, or the Lower East Side of Manhattan (let alone Paris or Rome) and then tell me that old buildings must be torn down in the name of density/change/progress.

Bullshit!

Seattle is going for change, growth and density, that's just how it is. If the "natives" don't like it maybe they should be the ones who move. What's a native in Seattle anyway? Someone who's lived here six years? There are ton's of people who would love to live in a new condo like that, and could care less about a stupid hipster bar. The real estate market rules. If you can't afford a Pine Street condo quit whining and rent something in Everette.

Spoken like a native. FYI - Everett is spelled without an "E" on the end.

How long do you have to live in Seattle to be considered "native".

I won't vote for anyone who has lived here for less than 10 years, myself. But that still doesn't make you a native - being here during your childhood does.

After five or six years in Seattle, you are "native" that's the rule around the office. The Stranger has been around a little over ten years and most consider it "native". But being native has nothing to do with being born here or anything. Lots of my friends were born in Chicago and consider themselves Seattle "natives".

Go live in NYC for 5 or 6 years and call yourself a "native New Yorker" and see how far that gets you. Shit, try it just about anywhere in the world and see what the locals think.

After 10 years, you can call yourself a longtime resident, but ya ain't a native unless you actually come from there.

It's called density infilling.

If you don't like it move to the soon-to-be-deserted suburbs.

1 : INBORN, INNATE
2 : belonging to a particular place by birth
3 archaic : closely related
4 : belonging to or associated with one by birth
5 : NATURAL, NORMAL
6 a : grown, produced, or originating in a particular place or in the vicinity : LOCAL b : living or growing naturally in a particular region : INDIGENOUS
7 : SIMPLE, UNAFFECTED
8 a : constituting the original substance or source b : found in nature especially in an unadulterated form
9 chiefly Australian : having a usually superficial resemblance to a specified English plant or animal
10 capitalized : of, relating to, or being a member of an aboriginal people of North or South America : NATIVE AMERICAN
- na•tive•ly adverb
- na•tive•ness noun
synonyms NATIVE, INDIGENOUS, ENDEMIC, ABORIGINAL mean belonging to a locality. NATIVE implies birth or origin in a place or region and may suggest compatibility with it . INDIGENOUS applies to species or races and adds to NATIVE the implication of not having been introduced from elsewhere . ENDEMIC implies being peculiar to a region . ABORIGINAL implies having no known race preceding in occupancy of the region .

Q: "How long do you have to live in Seattle to be considered 'native'."

A: Your entire life, just like anywhere else.

The issue isn't whether change, growth or density is good or bad; it's inevitable. The issue is whether the growth, change or density has to come at the expense of existing patterns of use.

It's not just an urban issue: for years developers in East King County have been buying up land formerly zoned for agricultural use and turning it into residential plots, cramming scores of single-family homes onto land adjacent to where agricultural activities still occur. Then, the families move in and immediately start complaining about the smell of the cows next door.

What I can never understand is, the urban/rural environments are used as selling points for these types of developments, yet the first thing the new residents do after moving in is to start complaining about the very character of the environments that were used to sell them in the first place. If you want things to be nice and quiet at 11:00 p.m. on a Friday night, don't move into the heart of a club district; what's so difficult about that to understand?

As Mr. X points out above, if you were to try this sort of shenanigans in any REAL urban environment, both the existing businesses AND the long-time residents would laugh you right back to the 'burbs.

But then, these cities don't have Mary Poppins running the Mayor's Office...

You can be born in Chicago and be a Seattle "native". That's the way it works here. People who were born here and never moved away are generally dull. I read "The Stranger" because it's written by and for people not from here. (Thus - Strangers)

Anne,

That's just self-serving horseshit, and is about as "truthy" as any of the dumbest flat-earth statements that come out of the mouths of Shrub and his followers.

"People who were born here and never moved away are generally dull."

What an incredibly shitty thing to say.

I've lived here for 15 years and I would never, ever call myself a native. Seattle *IS* home to me though.

When does a person have to give up their "native" status? If one is considered a "native" after 5 years, is it the same for relinquishing one's geographic heritage? In which case, if one were to move back to their home city/state after five or more years, do they have to start over and wait five years before re-claiming their "native" status? What about visiting?

Being a native means you study Washington State History... in high school, college, something academic and didactic (not pop history). You understand the Yeslers, the Whitmans. You give a shit about the Nez Perce, Duwamish and other tribes. You understand why and who moved to Washington before and after statehood. You understand why developers fucked up the Seattle from the very beginning (an example is in the conflicting street grid, ever wonder why the grid is like a triangle instead of a square?). You also understand why Seattle is a great city, but wonder what all the fuss is for tourists (especially for the international crowd). This was one of the last frontier, lower forty-eight states in the Union and you understand the Spirit that continues to shape away a frontier life-style.


You are a native if you actually give a flying fuck about where you live, and you give a damn about the people that live there. You are not a native if you only vacation in-state on Lake Chelen, or Mt. Rainer Park. You never go further then the city limits and are pompous of that fact. You are not a native if you moved here because of a great job opportunity and the housing market seems like a good, short-term growth investment.

A native wants the Seattle to be great for their (or other peoples) future generations. You want to progress away from the mistakes of the past with concern for the future, without destroying the Spirit of Seattle.

I am not "native" to Seattle it is not about how long you have lived in Seattle it is about development being done right. I lived in Seattle for a year but have visited at leas 3 times a year for the last 30 years. I like Seattle and feel a need to express an opinion based upon developing some areas correctly with some sensitivity to what exists there. Any great city deserves that attention to existing culture.
This whole concept of "if you don't like it leave or shut up" lacks any constructive dialogue about developing an area. Just because I do not live in Seattle or only lived there for a year does not mean I like the city any less than people that have lived there longer. I think I am more passionate about Seattle and the Pike and Pine Street development than some people who can only come up with reasons like
"it's Creepy"
or
"cap. hill is ugly and disgusting anyway. i've never eaten at those restaurants and don't' care to. who gives a shit about those bars?"

these people seem to show fear of an area they have never even experienced and then call for it all to be torn down.
At least some people here are trying to say something constructive other than it is "disgusting or creepy".
Once you say that then you insult everyone that lives and works there. It is a great area and can be better if the Noise Ordinance situation is looked at in a constructive way.

Awsome! Now I can live just steps away from all of my favorite bars! When do presales start?

I sincerely appreciate the mini-recap.

It's called 'Growth'. They tore all that shit down in Belltown (etc.) because no one needed more than a one-story biz at that time. And there weren't enough people around to give a shit about more than one-story crap construction. "Growth".

And don't worry, all your kids will be natives. Relax.

The Stranger is owned by some folks who live in, uh, Seattle, myself included. And the Chicago Reader folks—one of whom lives in Seattle—own a small minority chunk.

The Stranger was started by people who moved here from Madison, Wisconsin. They've lived here long enough to be "Seattle Natives". They're living proof that if you live here for a while, your can call yourself "native".

As the owner of one of the businesses which will be greatly effected by this enormous, generic condo development I would like to remind the people in support of this to look around and notice that the interesting & creative businesses that have developed in the Pike/Pine neighborhood are all located in the older buildings. The first new development in the area is located on the corner of Broadway and Pike and was build about seven or eight years ago. That developer brought us a Burger King (no longer in business), a Subway, Bartells, Cingular and QFC. While it is convenient to have a grocery store nearby do any of those businesses add any charm or interest to the neighborhood? The next block west is an old apartment building with a great mix of restaurants, stores & bars. That block has a completely different feel. Will it be gone in five years and new condo developments with a Kinkos, Starbucks and a 99-cent store have taken its place? The truth is that it is rare for a condo developer to create an interesting mix of retail in their developments. Look at the Pike lofts located further west on Pike. Those retail spaces have never succeeded. When the building first opened 6 years ago there was an art gallery, which lasted for a year, a space that remained empty for about a year, and the existing optical shop. Now there is an office and the gallery space is once again empty. Not only are the retail spaces in most of the new buildings generic and cold with their aluminum windows and doors but they are typically far too expensive for many business owners. Developers (and their bankers) are not willing to take on a first time business owner short on cash but long on interesting concepts. They want business owners with deep pockets otherwise known as franchises. The fellow from Houston is naïve in believing that cool new places will be opening to take the place of Linda’s, the War Room and Bill’s. But I’m guessing he would love a nice new Starbucks to drink his Frappaccino rather that having to walk into a place like Bauhaus, which is a neighborhood classic, and he would prefer to get his hair cut at Super Cuts, as Rudy’s must look a bit dicey. I really hope he will enjoy his cold beer and burger at the Cheesecake Factory located a bit further down Pike Street where he will have a far better time than he ever would at a neighborhood bar like Linda’s.

In 1993 & 1994 when Linda’s, Rudy’s and Bauhaus all opened he certainly wouldn’t have found it safe to walk from QFC to the Cheesecake Factory after dark. Businesses like ours created the very vibrant (and much safer) neighborhood that is making all the developers see $$$. How long will it be before our landlords take the large amounts the developers are offering, we loose our leases and Pike/Pine becomes as bad as Broadway has? I owned a business on Broadway from 1987 to 1993. The reason I opened Linda’s on Pine Street instead of Broadway was the feeling that Pine Street could become a charming, vibrant and funky neighborhood and Broadway had turned a corner that it might never recover from. I still have high hopes for Pike/Pine and I’m not against development. I just hope it will be done thoughtfully and with consideration for the neighborhood.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).