City Two Meetings
posted by on April 10 at 22:49 PM
…Two projects with lots of neighborhood opposition.
The first, a proposed four-story garage on the west side of the Woodland Park Zoo, was the subject of a meeting of city council member David Della’s parks committee earlier this evening, where dozens (and dozens, and dozens) of speakers lined up to express one of two points of view. According to one group, the zoo garage is an absolutely necessary amenity that will benefit the neighborhood by providing necessary parking for visitors to the regional facility, many of whom now park on residential streets. According to the other, the zoo garage is a blight that will sap the neighborhood of its character and cater to cars at the expense of innovative solutions—like a shuttle—for moving people in and out of the zoo.
Slightly more speakers seemed to oppose the garage than supported it, although those who spoke in favor of the new garage uniformly described the zoo as a regional facility that serves families, the disabled, and out-of-towners who simply can’t or aren’t willing to park on city streets and walk several blocks to the zoo. (Never mind that visiting the zoo itself requires walking, or at least exposure to the elements.) Steve Leahy, president of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, said that the garage would be both less “intrusive than some people may fear” and necessary for those who drive to Seattle from other cities. Others, such as erstwhile council candidate and former parks commissioner Bruce Bentley, cited the “need to serve all the families in our city.” And still others, such as former zoo board member Maggie Walker, argued (somewhat incredibly) that the parking garage would allow people to more easily drive to the zoo to experience plants and animals, thus promoting environmental awareness and conservation.
It won’t surprise frequent Slog readers to learn that the arguments against the garage, although frequently shrill, struck me as far more compelling than the arguments in favor. Neighborhood residents argued that the garage was unnecessary, because of the ample amount of street parking in the area; typical was Phinney Ridge resident Irene Wall, who told the council that “the residents of Phinney Ridge have made it clear that we are willing to manage more cars in our neighborhood.” (Her lengthy tirade was cut off repeatedly by Della, a garage supporter.) Another Phinney Ridge resident, Esther Barfteld, said “free parking [on neighborhood streets] is just too tempting” to make a four-story paid garage pencil out. Several others argued against building a monument to cars and global warming in the middle of a park in the self-proclaimed greenest city in America. Seattle “has made a strong commitment to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions,” said Rob Johnson, policy director for the Transportation Choices Coalition. “I think that requires a lot of really tough choices.”
I could have listened to lots more along those lines, but I had to run out the door to make it to the POWHAT (Pine-Olive Way-Howell-Area Triangle neighborhood association) meeting on Capitol Hill, where residents and couple of business owners gathered in the chilly basement of the Capitol Hill Presbyterian Church to discuss strategies that could improve the block-long development on East Pine Street between Summit and Belmont, where seven small bars and retail businesses currently stand.
The meeting, led by the indefatigable Jennifer Powers, was by turns depressing, combative, and hopeful—although, ultimately, mostly the former. The problem with strategizing against a massive development is that the law is always in the developer’s favor—developers have the money, the permits, and the ability to more easily prevail in court if challenged, making it hard for a little neighborhood group (at its strongest, the meeting numbered 30 folks) to wield much leverage against even the most egregiously out-of-character development (and this one, if ever one did, fits the bill). Powers began the meeting by tacitly acknowledging all that, saying, “If we just go, ‘Oh, [the development] makes us cranky and we hate it,’ no one’s going to listen.”
A few things emerged during the meeting.
1) The design for the block is getting worse, not better.
The latest renderings show a six-story, block-long structure with tiny balconies, several different colors of siding (how original!)and almost no green or open space. “It doesn’t fit into the neighborhood so well,” Powers said. The developer’s plans would require four variances from city regulations. First, the developers want out of the city’s Green Factor standards, which require the building to meet certain green-building standards. Second, they want to take up more of the lot than the maximum allowable depth. Third, they want to provide only half the open space required by city regulations. And fourth, they want to reduce the sight lines around the large entrance to the underground garage to less than the city minimum.
2) The city’s design review process offers very few opportunities for meaningful opposition, a fact that frustrated some residents and led them to lash out at developers and developers’ lawyers in attendance.
“The whole thing has to pencil out,” said Liz Dunn, a member of the Pike-Pine Neighborhood and developer of several buildings that feature local business on 12th Avenue. “They’ve paid a fortune for the land. That deal is done.” Dunn’s comments prompted a tirade from hill resident Dennis Saxman, who accused Dunn of “saying this deal is done and so there’s no point complaining.” After Powers had restored order (which took a while), Dunn suggested that Capitol Hill activists consider pushing for a conservation district, which would allow the neighborhood to restrict certain types of signage but would be less restrictive (and easier to obtain) than historic-district designation. “It turns out that when you eliminate a lot of signage criteria you eliminate a lot of chain stores, because [bright plastic underlit signs are] their corporate signage,” Dunn said.
3) Variance requests by developers give neighborhood residents leverage. The developer’s requests to be exempted from local land-use laws aren’t automatic, and neighborhood residents could (and should) use them to their advantage. Whatever the neighborhood ultimately decides is most important—green space, or neighborhood-friendly retail, or soundproofing in new condos—the best leverage they have is the variances from city rules the developers are requesting.
Irene Walls comments may have been typical but, she is a long time and well known activist in Phinney.
Who are the Irene Walls of Powhat. Are there any?
I understand the controversy over the Pine Street development.
But the parking garage - is this really such a big deal one way or the other? This just confirms my impression of Phinney Ridge as a neighborhood where mediocre people go to lead undistinguished and uneventful lives.
rock on, ecb. keep up the good work. we need to hold folks' feet to the fire on these things.
I think that it was actually someone else (Ms. Rebecca?) that suggested the conservation district for the block. I agree that the meeting was mostly depressing -- a lot of good intentions, but I had to leave an hour and a half into it and things were still pretty nebulous at that point.
Geez - can you tell from the tone of ECB's coverage of the two sets of citizen activists which of their respective neighborhoods she lives in?
Irene Wall knows the ins and outs of the Land Use Code and related policies just about as well as anyone in this town. Among other things, she forced the Port and the City to knock a story off the Marriott Hotel because it was going to block significant designated public views in a way that was, well, illegal (not that anyone at DCLU was gonna do anything about it).
Her testimony may not be on-message for your current editorial bent, but I'll bet in was well within her given time limit, thoroughly well-researched, and cuttingly factual.
Sean - the proposed garage IS a monstrosity, and will cost tens of millions of your City tax dollars. I'm not opposed to parking facilities per se, but putting a very large 3 or 4 story above ground parking-only structure on the meadow that faces the Zoo's western boundary at Phinney Avenue seems, well, idiotic.
As I recall the Zoo used to do a summer concert series with shows that drew 2000-3000 people or so. Sounds to me like they are thinking more about non-Zoo event parking than keeping the joint family-friendly...
That said, and despite my own sense of Schaudenfreude (sic?), I wouldn't wish another huge generic P.O.S project on Capitol Hill either - even if the Stranger does think they're a GREAT!!!! idea everywhere else.
"This just confirms my impression of Phinney Ridge as a neighborhood where mediocre people go..."
Have you priced houses in Phinney Ridge lately? If the people you're talking about have moved there recently, they're certainly not medicore in at least one aspect of their lives.
One thing I will say about the people in that neighborhood: they're at least reasonable NIMBYs. In just about every other part of Seattle, the reaction of local activists would not just be "Hell no" to the garage, but "Hell no" to outsiders parking on their residental streets too. They would block everything except a transit-only solution (more bike racks and a shuttle bus, but only once an hour from the Seattle Center, or something).
Mr. X:
Huh??? "It won’t surprise frequent Slog readers to learn that the arguments against the garage, although frequently shrill, struck me as far more compelling than the arguments in favor."
Translation: I AGREE with you on the garage. Geez.
#5: "Sean - the proposed garage IS a monstrosity, and will cost tens of millions of your City tax dollars."
No, Mr. X, your precious viaduct is a monstrosity. This is just a 3 story garage. And 10's of millions of dollars? Chump change. From all the bitching you'd think these NIMBYs were personally footing the bill.
Look, I don't care if they build the thing or not. My point is that this is a trivial controversy for trivial people.
P.S. The summer concert series IS a family event.
From ECB's post: And still others, such as former zoo board member Maggie Walker, argued (somewhat incredibly) that the parking garage would allow people to more easily drive to the zoo to experience plants and animals, thus promoting environmental awareness and conservation.
This smacks of a classic Orwellian argument that has been used repeatedly by pro-freeway lobbies like the Reason Foundation. The faster and more convenient we make it for people to drive, the less pollution there'll be from driving. It's the same logic that Nick Licata used to advocate for a new, larger viaduct.
Now, when the likes of the Reason Foundation use this argument, they know they're engaging in some bald-faced sophistry. When Maggie Walker or Nick Licata makes it, they're probably unwittingly assuming that humans (or humans of the American variety, or the Seattle variety) will always drive, and there's nothing short of a cataclysm worse than another Depression that will get them to change that behavior. But what really offends me about this kind of thinking is just how wrong it is. It just flies in the face of all the hard lessons we should have learned about economics, urban planning, transportation systems, etc.
What's really sad and ironic here is, isn't this the same Maggie Walker who's the wife of WRQ founder Doug Walker, who has donated thousands upon thousands of dollars over the years to pro-transit, anti-sprawl causes?
P.S. Good to see Rob Johnson from Transportation Choices out there. I didn't think they engaged in issues at such a local level. Kinda makes me wonder, wouldn't this be a perfect issue for Friends of Seattle?
How about setting up a non profit on Capitol Hill modeled after the Nature Conservancy - the objective would be keep a Wild Night Beer belt to connect DT to 15th along Pine or Pike - Stranger readers could donate land and money to buy up the buildings that house these old growth establishments and preserve them for future generations.
As for balconies, why not mandate that 1/4 of the square footage of every apartment be devoted to balcony space? Would those balconies be big enough for all the bicycle and BBQ storage needed? Will the higher prices for apartments with ECB approved balconies be the next issue?
I never understand the tiny balconies. What function do they serve (ventilation?) that a big window could do just as well? Without a door taking up more space inside a ridiculously small apartment/condo.
Also most of these apts/condos with tiny balconies have full size appliances, kitchen cabinets, and bathtubs, leaving 10 sq ft for sleeping and eating.
This precious garage is going to be 90% empty except for a handful of summer Wednesdays. If it costs more than a dollar to park there, people will continue to park in the neighborhood for free. If they impose zone parking to prevent that, my friends will unable to come visit us.
What you have to understand about the zoo is that it is in the hands of a corporation, not Seattle Parks, which is attempting to steer the zoo away from its tradional role as a, ahem, ZOO, and turn it into a "multimedia experience". The new Zoomazium is just the first step: a building that's ABOUT animals but doesn't have any animals in it. In the future, LCD screens will be far more important to their operations than the ridiculously neglected animal exibits, at least until the equipment gets old and boring, like EMP did.
The difference is EMP isn't paid for by the city. The zoo is.
All of their projections about visitors are based on data collected during the baby-elephant frenzy. Half the year they don't even open the north entrance because of lack of demand. A couple of summer weekends, and the concert series, are the only time the parking lots are full and so are the neighborhoods, but even then parking is no big deal. The garage is totally unnecessary.
But what if the garage had really big balconies
I'm all for more big ugly buildings, parking garages, and viaducts!
Oops! I meant to say I'm *against* them.
I'm all against more big ugly buildings, parking garages, and viaducts!
...except under certain circumstances, naturally.
Fnarf, 90% of the time the garages around Safeco and Qwest fields are empty, but does that make them overkill?
It costs $4 to park in the lot today, yet beleagered parents eagerly pay up to avoid the schlep.
The Zoomnasium is a welcome option for getting kids out of the house during our 9 month rainy season.
Lastly, the zoo isn't just an evil corporation, it's an evil nonprofit corporation. They're nefarious agenda? Attracting more people (gasp) to the zoo!
If you peel away the BS arguments, fear of more people is almost always at the heart of the NIMBY's cause.
Sean, your comments @17 might have carried more weight if you hadn't shot your credibility with remarks like this (@2): "This just confirms my impression of Phinney Ridge as a neighborhood where mediocre people go to lead undistinguished and uneventful lives."
I realize you're trying to stick the NIMBY label, but it sounds like the anti arguments have nothing to do with NIMBYism and everything to do with the realities of parking supply/pricing and a strange, little thing called urban planning.
Build the garage. 3 or 4 stories is not that big. Would be nice if they put one story at least partially below ground to reduce the overall height (I haven't seen any drawups). Plus, fewer cars in the streets = more room for neighborhood kids to play, and safer, too.
Urban Density - Hipster Bars + Woman Developer = ECB Head Explosion.
Cresona -
And yet the NYT had an article just the other week indicating that something like 25% of the traffic in NYC is due to who have already arrived at their destination driving around looking for street parking (the point of the article was that street parking was too cheap relative to parking garages).
Bob, I read that story too. And do note the writer of that NYT piece is also the author of a book titled "The High Cost of Free Parking." His point was to charge more for on-street parking to make it more in line with the price of off-street parking. His point was certainly not to build more garages.
But hey, Bob, each of us interprets things in different ways. I imagine when you saw "An Inconvenient Truth," you took that as a plea for our nation to ramp up our fossil fuels consumption.
Although I live near the zoo, I'm not a NIMBY, because the garage is not near my house and I would typically drive or walk past it maybe three times a year.
Sean, your arguments are easily demolished. Is the Zoomazium great for kids? Yes, of course it is; it cost a zillion dollars. What if they had spent that zillion dollars on, oh, I don't know, animal exhibits? There are LOTS of things that kids like to do, but it's unclear why the taxpayers should pay for them all, or why they should be in the zoo. Kids love arcades, too, and those big habitrail things. Should they be in the zoo? Do kids like to look at animals? Hmm.
I said nothing about "evil" corporations; you added that word. I don't care if they're non-profit or not. But they have taken a Seattle PARK away from the PARK DEPARTMENT and started spending huge amounts of money on stuff that has NOTHING TO DO with being a zoo. The fact that you can't tell the difference between a zoo and an amusement park doesn't mean that there is no difference.
Ask any zoo employee (when they're free to speak): the people running the zoo have no interest in zoological gardens or zoological programs. They care only about profitable amusements. Many zoo employees are as unhappy with the direction of the zoo in the past decade as I am.
The stadium argument is similarly bunk. No, the city should not be building garages for the stadiums, either.
There is NO parking problem at the zoo. There is PLENTY of free parking in the neighborhoods, and plenty of lot parking -- too much, in fact. If this new garage was going to simply displace a surface lot, I'd be a lot happier, but it's not, and I'm not.
In one way, the zoo management is quite different from a real corporation: they're incompetent. This garage is planned for an expansion that isn't going to happen. Unless they build that huge new concert arena they've been talking about. IN THE FUCKING ZOO.
And in the meantime, the animal keepers are all looking over their shoulder wondering how much longer their non-superstar critters, and thus their own jobs, will last.
ditto Fnarf.
I live two blocks from a Zoo entrance and for 98% of the year parking is just not an issue. With the exception of a few events in the summer there is more than enough available neighborhood parking to absorb the overflow from the existing lots.
And for those few events where the streets do get crowded, I get the benefit of great people watching...if fleece was an endangered species these folks would be responsible for it. And they're just so damn friendly and happy. Ya practically need some insulin just to cope with it.
Being against the garage is barely a NIMBY argument here -- most of those in the neighborhood who are against it are saying: feel free to park on my street, not a big deal.
Is it too much to ask that whichever idiot at the Stranger is their land use editorialist learn the difference between a variance and a departure? It's fucking elementary material. Jeezis.
qwexhvbr ljwtosxq nfpzmr razgjfqnl nxegwu vyrjp rifvtyk
qwexhvbr ljwtosxq nfpzmr razgjfqnl nxegwu vyrjp rifvtyk
zytanlu cjagitpbr vlfhaxctb ehvxdzym acxubq ynbmegox urwb http://www.nxmvyulgj.wiogmhakt.com
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).