Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« re: You Were A Photograph It's... | War, Unedited »

Thursday, July 20, 2006

New Queen Anne QFC Plan

Posted by on July 20 at 17:32 PM

The planned transformation of Queen Anne’s beloved little Metropolitan Market into a city block size QFC has gotten tons of media coverage — mostly due to the persistent and vociferous anger expressed by the Queen Anne Neighbors for Responsible Growth, who aren’t letting their corner specialty foods store go without a fight. In addition to saying that the QFC will create a less pedestrian-centered village and replace a small local business with a “gigantic” chain store, the neighborhood group takes issue with the destruction of an apartment building and two homes to make room for the planned 35,000 square foot grocery.

A new development in the dramalicious project, though, has as of yet gone unreported:

In response to this community hostility, the developers have changed their plans for the four-story building. The new plans will be presented at a community meeting next Monday that QANRG member Audrey Wennblom promises will be “bulging with people who have concerns.”

The old design positioned retail and parking above the first-floor QFC, the new plan replaces this second floor retail and parking with apartment units — 55 of em! — on the top three floors and places at least 158 parking spots underground.

And now, some context. Here’s the site (in dignified, classic black and white):
queenanneQFC.jpg

The architect is required to submit three different design proposals for the building and I’ll post about the differences of all the designs after we hear from the developers and the community on Monday. Style-wise, they all look pretty much like this:

QFCscheme1.jpg

While QANRG members say the replacement of lost living space is an improvement, it doesn’t fix their root complaint of wanting to keep the little market in and the big QFC out. “This is radically different,” said member Kirk Robinson, “but not radically different enough.”

What the feisty neighbors hope now is that QFC will for some reason decide to get out of its lease… or even if the project goes through, to have sent a direct message to the city and developers about the ferocity with which the neighborhood will cling to its local businesses. The group plans to make the development process as costly as possible for QFC, via the land use lawyer they’ve hired.

“We want them to reconsider. Period,” says member Nancie Kosnoff.

Check out the meeting: Monday at 7pm in Bethany Presbyterian Church on Queen Anne Ave.


CommentsRSS icon

Don't be fooled. This isn't about a plucky neighborhood fighting an evil outsider to keep thier local business. This is about a group of well-heeled elitists who want to keep YOU out of their neighborhood. They have theirs - and now everyone can just fuck off! Here's a novel idea - if you don't want the QFC in your neighborhood, don't shop there. I guarantee that QFC did their research and found that thousands and thousands of people DO want to shop there. What gives you the right to take that opportunity away from them??

This is more of the old "natives first" thinking that has kept Seattle a second-class city throughout it's history (which is just the way they like it). I sincerely hope (for the sake of us all) that this is one of the last examples of such insular, backwards thinking. Eventually the tide will turn and us "newbies" (people who have moved here since 1980!) will make up the majority. It shall be strip clubs and QFCs galore...

eh, under your definition, I'm still a "newbie" (1991, holmes!) and I'm completely in support of what QANRG is doing. Will it stop this fugly unwanted project? No (or at least I highly doubt it), but it will cost the developers more (which may make them think twice about inflicting these kinds of projects on neighborhoods that don't want them), and eventually, the DCLU may finally get the message that they don't have to approve every hideous project that comes along.

Will the developers pass along their added costs to the people who will buy those units? Probably, but I don't give a rat's ass. Hey, the more expensive those units are to buy, the less demand there will be for them.

What I want to know, Genevieve, is how do you sleep at night? What do you tell yourself gives you the right to decide what store will operate there? In this case, you don't even have the usual conservative excuse that the project will "decrease property values".

Are you one of those airheads who tours impoverished villages in central America and says "It's so quaint! And they live so sustainably! I hope they never get influenced by consumer culture." Or are you one of the more conventional neighborhood busybodies, who are just born without an other-peoples-business gene?

All this about a new grocery store with housing a top - and parking below.

My God.......these people are truly aimless in life to fight such a monster.

The real story is why anyone gives what they thing a second glance.

By the way, since food is essentila, any growth plan worth anything would strive to have some good CLOSE BY SERVICES, FOOD.

Reality is that the QA hood drove Metropolitan Market away by niggling at every proposal for the site. Stores the size of the current one simply don't pencil out. Now they are stuck with the Kroger folks...serves 'em right.

The plight of the folks on the hill pales in comparison to the garbage dump the city wants to build in the heart of Georgetown. Can you imagine the QA reaction if they tried to put something really unpalatable there?

Screw you Jake! If I wanted to live close to ginormous traffic machine, I would have bought a house in white trash Lynnwood. If all of my goods and services were located close enough for me to walk what good would my 18- passenger SUV do me (the Hummer H8 Earthfucker). Just cause you're too poor to own a car that enables you to drive around the city - don't inflict your Capitol Hill lifestyle on me.

I used to live in Wallingford, not far from the old Safeway at 40th & Stone Way. That place was a DUMP - but it was super close to my place and i shopped there because it was easier than carrying groceries on the bus. I was psyched when they finally shut it down and I heard that they were going to build a new QFC in its place.

Just like in QA the neighborhood didn't like the idea of new "development" in their hood. They showed up en mass to the DPD hearings and talked about how this massive new store would ruin the "character" of their neighborhood. Boo-hoo, it was going to be the END OF THE WORLD if the city let them tear down the beautiful brick historic Safeway that was such a fixture in the community...

Hooray! Hooray! The neighborhood finally won. They bellyached long enough that they drove the developer away. So what did they win? A boarded-up chainlinked-wrapped eyesore that is now the home to dozens of crackheads and tweakers who are looking for greener pastures than Aurora. It has become the type of scary no-man's land that you'll travel blocks out of your way to avoid. I heard that there was even a rape in the building a few months ago.

Congratulations Wallingford - you turned what was a marginal district within your borders into a real shithole! I got so feed up with the nastiness surrounding me that I moved out two years ago.

I can only hope for such happy returns for the self-righteous douchebags in QA!

Intern -

Good job on bringing this story to the attention of Stranger readers. However, you should be ashamed of yourself for making these NIMBY morons sound sympathetic in your original post. These are selfish, narrow-minded people who care about nothing more than themselves. This is exactly the type of issue that Stranger readers should care about - but you're sending them into the wrong camp.

You missed one of the big points -- the Metropolitan Market people told the owners that they don't want to renew their lease in any event, because their own development plans were scuttled by NIMBY backlash.

In other words, the neighborhood has already chased Met Market away. They just don't like to admit it. Now they're angry QFC is coming in.

I live two blocks down the street from Met Market and it's a great store. I'm actually bummed the new second-floor retail was going away because I was hoping we'd get a Bartell's up there, as there is no drug store on top of the hill. But no, idiots rule.


You could go to any number of neighborhoods that actually still have character in any number of cities - say San Francisco or New York - and you would find locals had exactly the same concerns about any similar out-of-scale piece of shit building that was being proposed.

Of course, if you don't like Seattle the way it is, you can always leave, too.

What are you talking about? When the QFC plan was first announced, the Met owners were not happy about it. They had just renovated the interior of the store and wanted to stay.

If you look at those plans, there's a Safeway next door to the proposed QFC. The Metropolitan Market is a great little store and a good counterpoint to the overbearing Safeway. The QFC is unnecessary and unwanted, is overpriced and doesn't offer a significant alternative to Safeway. I hope Kroger loses money on this store. They deserve it.

A garbage dump in Queen Anne sounds like a pretty good idea. Or better yet, a homeless shelter. Hopefully when they have succeeded in their goal of making the site undevelopable as anything else, they will get one or the other.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Safeway up on top is as busy if not busier than the Met Market.

Not everyone in upper Queen Anne is a snooty elitest. There are some renters too who don't want to see their favorite store go away.

$5 says that if it was a Whole Foods TWICE the size of the QFC proposed that qanrng would bend over backwards to welcome them. F***ing snobs!

That Safeway is a shithole on top of QA. When I lived up on QA we'd go there for emergency things but I got tired of the moldy fruit/veg (just like I am SICK of it along with the expired products at both Rainier Ave Safeways).

Native:
You could look at those same NYC and SF neighborhoods and find dozens of projects that the neighbors fought that in the end turned out to be a great addition to the neighborhood. Just because you're the little guy fighting the big guy does not automatically mean that you're right.

You state that the project is a piece of shit? How do you know? I'm sure that you don't have a clue. You're the type that has subjective opinions about everything whether or not you have an inkling of actual information. Do us all a favor and keep those undeducated opinions to yourself.

You state that the project is out of scale? Again, I'm sure that you're simply talking out of your ass and that you don't know a single thing about the project (is arm-chair quarterbacking a genetic mutation of native Seattleites?)

If we stopped every building because a handful of small-minded people thought that it would be too big, we'd have no Space Needle, Smith Tower or historic Queen Anne High (all projects that were criticized for being too audacious or out of scale). In fact, if we lived up to Native's standards Seattle today would be nothing more than a handful of tents on Alki Point.

We live in a CITY. cities change and cities grow - or they die. People like you want to keep us trapped in the past. I resent that and everyone else that you (as a native) feel you have the divine right to control should resent it as well.

Genevieve,
It doesn't matter that you've been here for 15 years - unless you're a 3rd generation Seattleite your opinion doesn't matter in this town. This is a good thing in your case - as you appear to be a complete idiot.

You don't want to see the development happen becasue you think it's ugly? Give me one example. I'm sure you can't. You're just like all the other sheep in this town. You don't know a damn thing about the development - but if someone might possible be making money from it it must be bad - so you'll fight it. Yours must be a sad, hateful, pathetic life.

Please go back to Atlanta, Houston or whatever other stinking hole you crawled here from - and leave us alone. Our natives are doing a good enough job holding our city back - they don't need your help.

Seattle Native,
I sincerely hope you die soon old man - so that you're out of the way of progressive-minded people who want to make this city a better place than the one you left for us. Affordable housing, good schools and decent transportation are just a few of the goals that your generation have left for us newbies to fix. Thanks for nothing - now get out of the way.

Paul,

I see a full-block development that's way out of scale with its neighbors and neighborhood. I happen to have an opinion you don't like, but you don't know a thing about me or my background, and if you did you'd know that I'm far from ignorant about land use and planning. Bad projects get stopped all the time all over the country, and life goes on.

Newbie - I'll be here for a long, long time to come - probably long after you have moved on to fuck up the next city with a history and context you want to inflict yourself upon.

You're a real charmer, fuckhead.

Native:
So the character that you're so desperate to preserve is surface parking lots and squatty buildings? Nice!

I don't have to know anything about your background to deduct that you don't know the first thing about land use or this project. What about the articulation, the massing, the facade materials? You don't know or care. All you see is a development that takes Seattle further away from the way it was in 1965. Maybe it's time for you to move.

Worrying about the articulation, massing and facade materials of a block-long project that is going to be built to the lot line is somewhat akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Can you honestly say that design review has made a significant (or any) difference between the look/feel/effect on the surrounding community of any of the dozens of generic mixed-use projects that are rapidly converting Seattle into an upscale version of Anytown USA?

This isn't an either/or choice between "squatty buildings" (which, granted, I happen to like because light still hits the streets and you can still see the sky) and surface parking lots. If the City pushed back one iota on behalf of the interests of the public - many of whom have lived and paid taxes in Seattle for decades - you'd still have plenty of construction, only it could be done on a reasonable scale more sensitive to existing structures and the historic pattern of development in Seattle.

Gosh, that just sounds awful, doesn't it?

Sadly Design Review hasn't been as effective as it should be - largely because of the participation of uneducated, obstructionist busybodies such as yourself who claim to understand land use and the built environment but whose only goal is to stop any and all growth.

So what that the project is a block long. Have you ever been to Pioneer Square? In fact, have you ever ventured more than 10 feet from your front door? Nearly every block in the commercial neighborhoods in our city is a "block long project". They may be individual buildings, but the effect is the same - development from corner to corner.

This is why articulation, facades, setbacks and the like are so important. How the built environment interacts with the street is important - not whether or not the project is a block long. Once again you've made it clear that you don't care about the real issues - all you care about is the maintenance of the status quo.

Horsehit - design review isn't effective because it isn't binding, and it's no substitute for the land use code (and just to display what you consider my "ignorance" - I remember the not-so-distant past when the land use code was taken out of the SMC and put into the Comprehensive Plan.)

Just which Pioneer Square buildings are you referring to? Most of them aren't a full block (the only ones I can think of offhand are The Smith Tower, the Alaska Building, Merrill Place and the Grand Central Bakery Building, and I think the latter two were resulted from additions over time) - and even if they were - the logic of your argument is that they should all be torn down anyway to make room for something bigger and better, anyway.

The people who show up to comment at design review meetings usually know rather a lot about land use - they just don't agree with developer flacks and apologists like you. Boo hoo.

Oh, and if you can't distinguish the effect that a series of individual buildings constructed along the length of a block over time tends to have versus a single block-long project by a single developer done at the same time, you really ought to go back to architectural and/or planning school.

Phil78-

The main problem the neighborhood had with the proposed project at the former N.40th Safeway was that the City wanted to the developer to put the driveway half-way up the hill in the name of pedestrian friendliness. This would have created a massive traffic problem (accidents - not merely congestion), and people were right to question it.

I don't want Seattle to grow and change! I don't want to live in a real city that's constantly evolving. Waaah! Waah! Stop them from building new buildings.

Why wouldn't people want the QFC? Safeway at the top is a dump, and every time I went to the Metropolitan Market, they had moldy fruit.

While it may be sad to see block-long projects develop, it's simply a necessity of urban growth. There's a finite amount of land, and QA shoppers will definitely use the new QFC (like the huge Larry's and Safeway at the bottom of the hill). The design looks similar to the Safeway at the bottom of the hill, and while there's not much for pedestrians on one side of the street, the opposite side has plenty of small buildings and businesses.

People want (and need?) a big, diverse grocery store on top of QA. Concern for your neighborhood only goes so far before it becomes annoying NIMBYism.

Paul E,

If you are who I think you are, you might want to reconsider telling people to leave Seattle while working at a job funded by city taxpayers.

Native,
Not surprisingly you missed the point entirely (which also explains why you think that there are so many good points made at DRB meetings).

You offered no constructive reason as to what was wrong with the QFC project other than it's a "full-block development". My example of Pioneer Square (or any other commercial neighborhood in Seattle) is that it does not matter if it is a single building that stretches from corner to corner or a series of buildings that covers the same ground. Everyone generally agrees that Pioneer Square is a wonderful place architecturally (and I don't know how your fevered mind ever twisted my posts into a suggestion that it be torn down). What needs to be looked at is NOT whether it is a full-block project, but HOW it addresses the street.

The fact that you can't comprehend a single building that looks and acts like a series of individual buildings or blends into the urban fabric in a respectful way suggests that you really don't get out much.

You seem unwilling or unable to comprehend the characteristics of design that WILL make this a good or bad building. Instead, you bury your head in the sand and say it's big and bad and I don't want to see my city change.

Density, density, density. Growth and change is always healthy and good. I can't wait to check out the new store when it opens.

Mr. X,
If we can get rid of a few bad apples to save the barrel (not to mention attracting bushels and bushels of new, good apples) the taxpayers would owe me a whole lot more than I'm getting from them now.

Nice rhetoric, Paul. I'm sure your boss City Councilmember Richard McIver would approve.

I'm confident that McIver would agree. He's consistantly been one of the more thoughtful and progressive council members.

However, I don't know for certain as my last name is not Elliott - in fact I don't even work on the 2nd floor.

Thanks for the clarification.

...and for proving that the City government is indeed in bed with developers. I'll keep that in mind the next time I waste my time at a Design Review meeting facilitated (or is that manipulated?) by a DPD employee who regards the developer - rather than the public - as their "client".

Paul E - You don't work for the City Council. You apparently DO work for one of the city departments.

The opinion of the department director you work for may very well be consistent with yours. Nevertheless, I have a very hard time believing that ANY city department director would approve of you telling people on city time that if they don't agree with you that they should move out of the city.

I answer phones/emails from citizens for the City of Seattle. My ass would be canned if I said/wrote that someone who disagreed with me should move out of Seattle.

If you don't mind, can you please tell me which city department you work for? If you are sending these posts on city time, I believe it is public information. There are only 4 Paul E.'s in the City directory.

Oh no, the nanny-police are after me...

Once you've caught me and stopped me from posting I'm sure you'll find that the efficiency of the clusterf*ck that we call city government will go through the roof.

Maybe if more City employees had the courage (or maybe if they just simply cared enough) to stand up to the jokers that try pull our city backwards we might find ourselves moving in the right direction (for a change).

Oops, gotta go time for my union-mandated 15 minute break...

WOW Paul-E's post reads like it was written by someone who has completely forgotten who he works for and who pays his salary. You need a break (or a new job).

City Employee,

Thank you for illustrating that not everyone who works in government is a rude, condescending, arrogrant, dismissive asshole - because Paul E certainly gives ammunition to the right-wing jerks of the world who say public employees are all of that and more.

Seattle Native - My pleasure. I work for YOU.

Dwight Shrute, is that you?

We need more developement not less. A denser Queen Anne will be better for everyone. Old Seattle is dead, let it go and embrace the growth and change that come when a city is evolving into a better and better place for urban living.

It's pretty clear that a lot of the people bashing "elitest" Queen Anne residents over this issue really don't know anything about it other than what they read in the papers. Here are the facts:

Metropolitan Market has operated on QA for 40 years. They support the Queen Anne Little League, and started the Queen Anne Helpline (food and crisis services for low income folks). They carry a broad range of products that can't be found at either QFC or Safeway (which is right next door). Most of their employees have worked there for years; even decades. The neighbors know them, and the store provides a very high level of service.

QFC is owned by Kroger Corporation of Cincinatti, Ohio. QFC has turned down nearly every request for community support. They carry essentially the same national-brand products as every other national chain. Kroger is not known for it's friendly labor relations (remember the months long Ralphs Grocery strike in California two years ago?). They just don't offer the same products and services that a small independent grocer can offer.


Almost no one on QA wants to see this small neighborhood grocery replaced by a national chain; not just out of loyalty and sentimental reasons, but because it starts QA on the slippery slope of becoming just like many other communities in the country, where national chains are your ONLY choice. Many communities in the country have lost their unique character and their small mom-and-pop businesses due to predatory Wal-Mart style practices. Small businesses are the glue that hold communities together and help them thrive.

Go to QA and ask around. No one wants this development to happen. Everyone would like to see the Met Market stay; even in an expanded form. The rumor about the neighbors fighting every attempt to redevelop the property are just plain bull; there were a few people opposed to anything, but financial considerations ALWAYS killed the deal.


So far, I haven't seen a "pro-QFC" movement up here. The only people who want this development to happen are the property owners and Kroger/QFC. The property owners stand to make a financial killing with almost no investment on their part. QFC/Kroger gets one step closer to fulfilling their long-term goal of total market share domination.


Who loses? Met Market and a community of 32,000 voting-age residents! While it's hard to argue that a community should get to dictate what a property owner does with their property, does that mean that they can do anything they want with it? Do the interests of three property owners and a Cincinatti-based corporation outweigh the interests of an entire community? Should any community be forced to lose a beloved local grocer to a national chain that is neither needed nor wanted, for the benefit of a few people?


No. While the community can't dictate to owners and developers, nor can they dictate to the community. There has to be input from both sides, and both sides have to benefit, if that's reasonably possible. Few if any people on QA are against development. Everyone realizes that it is necessary, and that property owners have a right to make a buck. But again, that doesn't mean that the owners and developers get to dictate what OUR community will look like. Every project should benefit BOTH the property owners/developers AND the community.


EVERY community should be fighting these battles. Many are, and are winning. Wal-Mart has been kept out of over 100 communities due to community opposition, and have preserved their character and thriving small businesses as a result.


Call it "elitest" if you want, but it's really just an effort to maintain the character and uniqueness of the neighborhood, rather than open the floodgates to a sea of conformity.


Go to the web site at www.qanrg.org

Do some research from both angles, and THEN draw your conclusions.

Why are people so against growth in Seattle? What could possibly be bad about a new grocery store with some apartments on top? I moved here from Cincinatti in 1995 so I can consider myself a Seattle "native". Let me know when one of those new apartments is availiable in the "elite" Queen Anne neighborhood. I know plenty of people who would love to live in that kind of development. Queen Anne sounds like a bunch of anti-growth NIMBY's, change will do them all good.

You know what "friendly co-worker", I don't give a shit what my boss may or may not believe about an issue that they may or may know diddly-squat about.

If you want to blindly follow the lead of the most shrill voices in our community - and think that you are serving your bosses well by doing so - fine. That's your call. I'm sure that you go home everynight to the days Tivoed episodes of Oprah, Dr Phil and Days of Our Lives secure in the knowledge that your pathetic $4k/mo is safe because you play by the rules. And if the rules never change that's great for you.

You want to be that way - fine. Just stay the fuck out of the way of the people that DO have passion for this city and want to make it into a better place than it is today. If two fewer backward thinking, staus quo protecting control-freaks like you and Seattle Naive (sic) are taken off the tax rolls - there's a long line of people WANTING to live in a CITY, who will take your place the second you're out the door. In fact, my point is that there are 20 people who'd LOVE to come to Seattle. As soon as you're gone, we can let them in. 20-1=19. I'm sure that ANY civic leader would like those numbers. I hear Portland is fantastic this time of year - do you need help finding a realtor? Or if you insist on staying closer to home might I suggest Issaquah, Everett or Tacoma - all nice and managable for you.

By the way Native, you state that I'm arrogant?! Is there anything more arrogant than pointing out the fact that you're a native. It's not arrogance if you're right, dipshit.

So, what the "Interested Party" from QANRG has established:


1. "Go to QA and ask around. No one wants this development to happen." Well, duh. If more development came that night mean that they wouldn't get that nice free on-street parking spot right in front of their home. They also might have to wait in an even longer line (over 5 people) at the national chain coffee house that they support unflinchingly. They might have to wait for up to 4 cars at the 4 way stop along the main drag - or horrors of all horrors, they may need to intall an additional traffic light on QA Ave.

2. If this project happens, QA Hill is going to lose all of it's mom & pop shops (since more people living in and traveling through the neighborhoods will naturally mean that the existing stores will get fewer customers???) and will be the victim of WAL-MARTization. Yep, that's how it works, first the developer tears down a functionally-obsolete, infrasture-inefficient building, combines it with that icon progressive land use - the surface parking lot - and builds the SERVICES that will serve higher densities. Next thing you know he'll be knocking down QA High to build a Home Depot / Walmart with 7 acres of parking. And then an earthquake creates a fissure in the Earths crust and the entire region is swallowed hole. Damn developers - we see your crafty plan!

3. "There were a FEW people opposed to anything". So it IS possible to be completely willing to consider the other side of an argument. Gee, obstructionists in QA, I can't imagine...

4. This project gets QFC and Kroger one step closer to their goal of "Total Market Domination". Is this fucking Star Wars?! It's a goddamn grocery store not an influenza epidemic. Oh again, I forgot, you work for a company that doesn't care about being their best in the industry. Damn capitalists - they seem to think that we have some kind of free market or something...

5. "Who losses - 32,000 voting age residents". Message: Don't fuck with us politicians, we won't be shy about trying to inflict our special interest. So, who gains? How about the 5 million new Puget Sound residents that will need to find a place to live (and find groceries) when they move here over the next 25 years. Oh yeah, that's right - we don't want them because they might spoil our small town feel.

6. "Do the interests of a Cincinnati-based corporation outweigh the interests of an entire community?" Exactly what interests would those be? the weather in Cincinnati? I sincerely doubt that the community in QA really cares. Oh, your talking about QFC's interests specifically in QA. You have point - I'm sure that QFC wants to completely destroy the neighborhood. Nothing is more profitable than a grocery store in a bad part of town...

7. "It's hard to argue that a community should get to dicate what a property owner with their property..." The reason it's hard is because a community SHOULDN'T dicate what an owner does with their property! Do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor and give it a rest.

8. The property owners stand to make a financial killing on the sale with ALMOST no ivestment. Bastards! I'm sure your house in QA hasn't appreciated a single red cent since you bought it. That's right, when you make money on your investments you donate it all to charity...

Forget it - I'm not going to bother with the rest of Party's snivelly diatribe. It's not worth trying to educate those who insist on not learning.

Like Newbie originally established as the mantra for QANRNG: I've got mine, everyone else can stay the fuck out!

Mr. E,

So sorry to disappoint you - but I'm staying. And those neighborhood residents who regard the quality of life in their part of Seattle as something worth preserving will continue to fight you and your ilk every step of the way to preserve it. Just the thought of your red blotchy face with veins popping out with rage makes it all worth it.

And what's so arrogant about an actual Seattle native calling themselves that? Got a complex, or something?


Oh, and Mr. E, someone who hates the public as much as you evidently do really ought to get out of government work.

Paul-E,

People living in a city must learn to live in close proximity to those with different values. A good democratic government strives to serve a broad spectrum of these interests. An effective public servant knows that striking a balance between the apparently conflicting values of growing and preserving serves a higher goal. Don’t we all want a vibrant city that is economically and racially diverse, home to families with children and singles alike, open space and parks, good roads, and availability of goods and services?

You seem to have complete contempt for the concept of an involved populace. The people who participate in the involvement structures created by government to facilitate engagement should not be summarily characterized as NIMBYs. It’s ludicrous to suggest that the citizens who participate by commenting on things like traffic impacts and design elements are all shrill obstructionists. Government has created structures like SEPA, EIS, Shoreline Review, Design Review, Historical Review, Planning Commissions, right down to zoning, land use definitions, and construction permitting. These public regulatory structures are created because of the need to facilitate public involvement as a tool in balancing the competing interests associated with development.

In my time at the City, I’ve seen many more projects fail because of opposition created by lack of process than because citizens made a few demands of developers. If you really want to get things done, you’ll remember that engagement is a good thing. Otherwise it’s a certainty that you WILL turn many more people into NIMBY knee jerk opponents. This is the kind of polarization that you seem to be a catalyst for here on SLOG. You have weird values for a public servant.

Anonymous City Employee,
I agree with you 100%. Participatory government is the only way to build a better city. You are also correct that it is ludicrous to offhandedly dismiss as shrill objectionists anyone who comments on things like traffic impacts or design elements. I do not believe that I've done so.

I've asked and asked and asked again for Native to to list any specific issue that it has with the project (I even gave him some hints as to areas that he might want to address). If it wants to provide suggestions to improve the project, mitigate impacts or even outline reasons for halting the development - that would be wonderful. Instead, it wants to make personal attacks (you'll find that it was the first to tell someone that they should leave Seattle - my suggestion was that maybe it should move was only after posting a particularly classy post - see 7/21 9:29am) and blatter on about everything else but the topic at hand.

I do appreciate you forcing upon me the realization that Native is nothing more than a troll and I was stupid to have engaged with it in the first place. I won't make the same mistake again.

Oh, and as to Catfancy's 7/22 6:28am post - if you happen to find your stapler encased in Jello, it wasn't me.

City Employee: We have a mechanism for resolving these conflicting visions: it's called property ownership. Anyone who wants to decide what business will operate on that parcel is welcome to buy it.

The city is not helping by telling these complainers that it wants to listen to their concerns. It should be making clear to them that they've got absolutely no right to decide whether the sign says "Metropolitan Market" or "QFC".

Mr. Wright,

Agreed. I agree that the market needs to be the determinating factor for the who. (QFC vs. Met Market) But how it works and looks is squarely within the purvue of regular folks with opinions and go to meetings.

Paul-E - Native ("it") asked whether you acknowledged the difference between 1)lot-to-lot development that has happened with many individual lots, owners, and uses over a century and 2) a full-block, single development done w/in a couple years.

I'm trying to keep track, and I happen to think that the ball is in your court. (and start being nicer! you may not agree with Native, but it obviously cares about Seattle!)

Having lived on the north slope of Queen Anne for nearly two years (Oct. 2003 - Aug. 2005) I can say a few things....

If QFC needs a megastore in Queen Anne, they can build it at their current site down by the Seattle Center.

Metropolitan Market rocks, although their bigger location in Admiral was 10x better. (I live in Denver again, so I can only assume that's still true.)

I support density for Seattle (though admittedly I'm not a resident anymore - but I supported the idea before personal issues made leaving Seattle mandatory for me) BUT the top of Queen Anne isn't the right place, at least not now. Let Seattle's less picturesque neighborhoods get the fugly condo developments first. (I used to live in West Seattle - June 97 thru Feb 99 - and I cheer the development there.)

Will anyone read this? I don't know. I wish I posted the other day...

Density is good, just not in my high end neighborhood. Building higher is good, just not if is blocks my views. Density, density, density, but just do it in other neighborhoods.

NEWBIE2, WHAT'S WITH THE SARCASM AND ANGER? Let me address your points one-by-one:

1. Are you saying that we SHOULD allow the community to become so dense that we can no longer park in front of our house. Why?
I avoid Starbucks, because I don't like their coffee. I DO wait in a much longer line at Caffe Ladro because it's a local business with a much better product. Caffe Ladro, Appassionatto, Tully's and El Diablo are every bit as busy.
If you live up here, you know there are frequently a LOT more than four cars waiting at the stop lights, and it can take 10-15 minutes to make the eight block trip from Galer to Garfield. This sends a lot of vehicle traffic to the narrow side streets; home to pre-schools, churches, a home for Alzheimers patients, etc. How is that good?

2. Ask any business owner who lives in a Wal-Mart town, and they'll tell you that that is EXACTLY how it works. When larger national chains move in, less of the money spent there remains in the community. Smaller businesses can't compete, and slowly close up. One developer suggested Barnes & Noble as one of their tenants, which would have immediately driven Queen Anne Books out of business.
Where do you get the information that Met Market is functionally obsolete and infrastructure-inefficient, because that sounds like it's right out of the Cox family/QFC talking points playbook. There is nothing wrong with the building...go look at it! They have more parking spots than the zoning requires, because the owner - a sharp business man - knows that the zoning minimums are inadequate. The rest of your points are irrational sarcasm, and not useful.

3. In ANY project, you will ALWAYS find a handful of people opposed to everything. "Obstructionists" are everywhere; not just Queen Anne. I mean, that's a ridiculous statement for you to make.

4. Go to Krogers web site and carefully read their Prospectus and 10-K filings; it's all there in black and white. Krogers long-term goal is to displace or acquire independent stores and local chains in order to increase their market share. No, it's not Star Wars or the flu. It's a corporation with the goal of grabbing as much market share as possible so that you'll have no choice but to shop at a Kroger store. That benefits them and their shareholders greatly. Does it benefit you or the community you live in?

5. Yes, we are afraid that uncontrolled growth will negatively impact our neighborhood. Ever lived in LA, or tried to find a parking spot in San Francisco on Friday night? Why should ANY community be forced to accept growth to the point where the quality of life suffers? Is it OK if those people all move to YOUR neighborhood?

6. What interests? Refer to #4 (Weather in Cincinatti???). Obviously, QFC doesn't want to "destroy" the neighborhood, they just want us to shop at QFC instead of Met Market. But we like Met Market, Met Market wants to stay, and the community doesn't need or want a QFC. Why should QFC be allowed to destroy an extremely popular store and replace it with one that no one wants or needs?

7. So does that mean that the developer/property owner gets to dictate what the community is going to look like, based on their own financial needs?
Assuming it was legal, what if your neighbor suddenly announced that he was opening a porn shop next door to your house? Would you remain silent? Obviously that isn't the case here, but the point is that you would draw the line SOMEWHERE. Yet you advocate that your neighbor must be allowed to draw the line no matter what.

8. Yes, my house has appreciated a great deal since I bought it. It was built in 1928, and no one tore down a community institution to build it for their own benefit. When I sell it, I'll invest the money in a another house, and not at the expense of the community either.

Tell us, what are we supposed to be "learning" from you? That we should embrace a world consisting only of Kroger, Wal-Mart, Gap, Blockbuster, Petco, Exxon, Barnes & Noble, Starbucks, Olive Garden, Burger King, etc. as our future? That we should all allow Puget Sound to become an LA-esque megalopolis of 14 million people? Join the Matrix?

It may happen anyway, but I'll fight it every step of the way.

Comments Closed

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