"Construction would last for 13 years"

I'm thinking that might be why they're upset ...

13 years of construction or not, it takes a special group of people to oppose increasing hospital space for sick kids.

Hmmm.... So we should put hospitals in the middle of no place? Is that what I am hearing? If they need the additional space for the hospital then I am guessing they need the space. And for the kids in the hospital it probably is nicer to be in an area that looks like "home" as opposed to being near the Emerald Queen Casino or some god-awful place.

The neighbors who are bitching though are seriously well off financially and frankly spoiled shits. I see them at QFC at U-Village with their nightmarish children that are never punished. (One little tike told his mom to fuck off in the produce department and she only said that was not nice to say. I would have been killed for saying that to my mother)

Given the source of the bitching, I say I hope construction goes on for 23 years. 24 hours a day.

Yeah, that sounds a lot like their (the neighbors) problem, not mine. Besides, if their kids are going to get hit by increase traffic isn't more convenient to have a children's hospital next door?

I miss the Novella Carpenter era of the Stranger. Has anybody gotten in touch with her since moving onto smaller and better things? Gosh, she may have even upgraded her Van/Home to be legally parked in the Laurelhurst neighborhood by now. Who knows when I'll be homeless next; I'll try better this time to make it more than a one-nighter.

Yes, Children's does great work, and deserve the expansion. With UW's reputation seemingly tarnished, it would be a good boost for attracting top-notch members of the medical community.

I'm sick of all the NIMBYs out there. I understand opposing a hospital expansion if they did plastic surgery...but how can you be against treating more kids with cancer?

The key part of the release is that the woman lives a block and a half away...I wonder if she would oppose a larger hospital in Green Lake (can't see that from her house)?

Also, if these lame asses - who pull a media stunt on a Saturday night - stop a hospital expansion, do they have to pay for the $1.5 Billion in relocation costs?

Our city is growing, to keep the same level of quality of life here, we have to invest, grow and change with the population.

I don't get it.

Why not build a new, second facility in an area of town like South Lake Union or Northgate that's begging for more medical infrastructure to move in?

Seems like that would be a better, more commonsense option than building up in Lawyerhurst and pissing off their Desperate Housewives.

@6:

"With UW's reputation seemingly tarnished..."

What are you referring to?

I love how the neighborhood who currently has a BAN ON HELICOPTERS LANDING AT THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, because of the noise, rented a helicopter to show how tall a new building would be. Those protesters, and that woman deserve to be beaten with the crutches of broken children till they bleed.

Second facility only works for research, and children's has one downtown, and further down the street near sandpoint. if you need heart surgery and a guy to put your lungs back in, do you think a transfer to northgate is a good idea?

I agree--let's move Children's Hospital and use that land for the world's biggest methadone clinic.

I'm awaiting word back from the downtown research center concerning a job. I highly doubt it though; I know some deep dirt on those guys.

Best to go with my pathology hook up, if I really want to discuss rational and progressive expansion.

If they want the neighborhood they had years ago those nimbys need to move to east of the mountains. More people need that hospital than need them.

Ha. NIMBYs suck.

But before we can worry about this we have to save the bars The Stranger likes from the condo developers.

the rich are another breed of human beings. laurelhurst is full of tools.

So the complaint is that the building would be tall? And that to build something requires construction? Which might possibly lead to more accidents involving kids? This is a huge stretch. I'ts just more Seattle NIMBYism from spoiled rich Laurelhurst folks.

240' height limits are inappropriate in a single-family zone, period.

I'm with Cato and the anti-NIMBY's. You can increase density, you can sprawl, or you can do without more (hospital beds, housing, businesses). Take your pick. When it comes to hospital beds, I suspect most of us would not choose "do without more."

ps- Children's rocks. When I moved here from MN, I was a snooty MN dick about health care (as all Minnesotans secretly or not-so-secretly are.) How could any place possibly compare to the UofMN Hospital and Mayo Clinic? Then my two year old contracted a bad case of pneumonia. Children's was great- we couldn't imagine a better handling of a bad situation. Now I feel totally great about health care in the Pacific Northwest (of course, I'm lucky enough to have good health insurance- I recognize not everyone has the same options...)

Until recently I lived in the condo neighborhood which sits between Sandpoint and the hospital. I enjoyed having Children's as a neighbor, and the only disruptions were from helicopters, which didn't fly over very often.

@ 14

hahaha!

Laurelhurst: no overhead wires because we're rich. No busing because we're rich. No choppers with sick children because we're rich. No expansion of a children's hospital because we're rich. Will the mayor and council give in? Well of course. The complainant's are rich.

@9 : Sorry, I was muddled with old outdated information...talking totally out of my ass there. However, point still stands that Children's does great work.

So, obviously the people who live near Children's suck and I sincerely hope they lose this fight -- though I'm virtually certain they won't.

But here's something I often wonder about: why don't all the taggers and class warriors who wander around scribbling their names on every available surface in Capitol Hill, the University District and downtown go do their thing in places like Laurelhurst? I mean, if their goal is actually striking out at some kind of Hateful Rich Bastard archetype, they couldn't ask for a better target than the residents of "fuck those sick kids" Laurelhurst.

Clearly, to afford a home in the region, you have to sell your soul.

This is all more of the same. For those of you new to Seattle, welcome to Seattle civics 101. The residents of our most affluent neighborhoods strong-arming the local government.

I'm sure it's been said, but this should appear in a top-ten list of "Rich NIMBY Stunts".

If they can get press from this cheap sh*t, I bet the "uber powerful" Laurelhurst/Montlake residents will have no problem jettisoning any regionally beneficial improvements to 520. Really, all for the sake of rich property values. It's beyond shameful.

And instead of being intelligent, informed people, they're poster children (pun intended) for the dysfunctional civic decision-making that plagues our fine state. Memo to the state - what has to happen to 520 and/or the Viaduct for something to get done? 99% of Seattle and KC residents want (A) a new bridge and (B) a viaduct replacement. What ever happened to doing the right thing?

Instead it's the 1% that are bogging down the system.

I could just scream

At what level of net worth does a person officially become evil?

As much as I love Children's, it's ridiculous to build a 24 story building there. Do we know nothing about zoning a city? I'd give them 8 or 9 stories, but that's about it.

@ 24

Okay, I'll bite: why's it ridiculous? What zoning principle, exactly, is violated by constructing a 24 story building there?

Judah,

Pretty much all of them, actually.

They are asking for the current zoned height limit in their Major Instituion Overlay to be nearly tripled - from 90' to 240' - and that MIO overlay is in an area where the underlying zoning is single family - which allows for building heights of about 25 to 35 feet.

Do you even understand what zoning is?

Mr. X:

Yes, I do. It's a relatively recent approach to urban planning that has, frankly, probably caused more problems than it's solved over the years. The question I'm asking is, what principle is violated by constructing a 24 story building in Laurelhurst. What, exactly , is the bad thing that's going to happen if that building goes in there? That people will be able to see it? That it'll block someone's light? What's the underlying principle for blocking construction of the building?

Compatability, consistency, and predictability, for a start.

Frankly, though, if you are comfortable asserting that it's good planning and/or public policy to stick a 24 story building in a single-family neighborhood, you really aren't worth arguing with.

Tell ya what - if you think zoning is so bad - visit Houston and check out what an American city without it looks like and get back to me.

I'd like to clarify one item from the article. I've posted here:

http://childrensaction.blogspot.com/2007/09/clarification-on-stranger-article.html

Dominic's article cites me as suggesting that we move the hospital. This option is certainly not one I would advocate-- I just included it in my materials for Dominic as one possibility that Children's might have to think through. *Not* as one I would favor!

We love having Children's in our backyard (who wouldn't?) and we definitely don't want to see it leave.

The moving alternative has only been raised in the context of the projected, linear increase in hospital needs. This increase extends far beyond the construction planned through 2022. If the hospital is genuinely outgrowing its site and feels it absolutely must keep all in-patient services in one place, it may eventually have to consider this possibility. It makes no sense to grow now in one place only to have to move later. That's the point I should have made. It doesn't condense to a soundbite well, unfortunately.

I firmly believe that my neighbors would fight just as hard for the hospital to stay as they're fighting the construction of 240 foot towers over a span of 13 years.

I went to school for 9 years in this neighborhood, and have not forgotten the feeling of alienation from the other kids and, as I grew older, the other parents (evil Laurelhurst and Windermere mothers) as they became aware that I lived in a neighborhood "across town", "dangerously close to downtown and destitute people". I have nothing but contempt for these elitist people who should not have the privilege of living in Seattle. This is only further exacerbated by the fact that they are taking so much time and energy to protest an expansion to one of the country's best CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL. Ugh. I cannot even put into words how disgusting this is to me. Not to mention the fact that they were so happy whenever any of their children needed immediate care that Children's was right there. There is truly a special place in hell, or whatever you believe in, for these selfish assholes.

Mr. X,

Pretty much every city in Europe was built without zoning. Many European cities still don't have zoning, as such, and they work just fine. As far as American cities, big chunks of New York, Boston, Chicago and other major US cities were built before zoning.

I daresay Houston's problems have as much to do with being located in Texas as anything else, but that's another discussion entirely and, obviously, I'm not worth arguing with.

What if the article had instead been titled "Children's to increase its medical services for children, but only in North Seattle."

This is the real issue, why isn't Children's spreading excellent and accessible health care for children around the entire region.

It’s good to see that the Stranger (strangest?) readership has finally come around to understand that all zoning laws are bad and that anyone should be allowed to build whatever they want on their own property. I’m sure that the farmers out in the valley will be relived to hear that the urbanites have finally come to their senses, as will the condo builders downtown who would love to go bigger and taller. As for me, I can’t wait to get to work on that hog rendering plant I’ve been wanting to build on my lot on Capitol Hill. (The low rent slum that stands there now will make an excellent swine barn with a little fixing up!)

What I am trying to wrap my mind around is the proximity of the Laurelhurst neighborhood in relation to the hospital. To the south lies NE 45th St, a busy arterial roadway (and monster sleding hill); to the east a church (if I correctly recall) and Laurelhurst Elementary School; to the west and southwest, Sandpoint Way and lastly to the east-southeast, Laurelhurst Park. The hospital property
sits on a west facing slope.

I am trying to understand the impacts to the neighborhood. I believe the bulk of the Laurelhurst neighborhood rests on a peninsula whose most southernly tip is Webster Point on Lake Washington, and the neighborhood's most western and northern borders are Sand Point Way.

Can someone contribute more here.

Thanks.

-- Jensen

Elizabeth - stop sugarcoating this, what with your talk about loving the hospital, etc.

This is about property values, plain and simple, and you should admit as such.

Your PR tactics are lame and are hurting your cause with the rest of Seattle.

I just wanna know if they still have the cast-off Bubbleator from the old Food Circus at the Seattle Center... Rumor has it at one time after it was removed from the Center it became a kids' playroom at the hospital... is it still there?

1st not all of this neighborhood is wealthy. Before you make nonsense comments why don't you drive around the neighborhood esp those homes around the hospital, homes are not more than 1000 sq. I know - I live in one! 2nd our 'hood has NEVER been opposed to helicopter landings WITH Children in them, not biz men from the hospital going to lunch. Get educated before responding you NIMBYs! 3rd - we have overhead wires on our street. You might want to do some research before stereotyping an entire community. This has NOTHING to do with the children whether they expand or not it has NO impact on the kids, they will still get the care they need period. This has to do with an egotistical CEO who wants to leave his legacy then go back home to Ohio. Read up before you comment!

Jensen - the hospital sits in Laurelhurst proper. I live a block behind the hospital, just near Laurelhurt school. Laurelhurst is not just the peninsula you see from 520. It encompasses a wide area - homes to the north and south of NE 45th. Take a drive around see homes MUCH smaller than those in Green Lake, or any neighborhood in Seattle. We are a one income family living in a tiny house driving an old car. We are not wealthy, all our neigbhors for many blocks around us have houses about the size of ours. We all look direclty at the hospital. Many people just think wealthy - when they think of the neighborhood. If you saw our financials - you would rethink your comments. We live here for the family environment. We are not snooty, we are not socialites, we don't have high tea. We support and love the hospital. We think they have outgrown their space. And what happens in 10 more years - they keep going up? One kid is not going to die because they can't expand. There are other hospitals in the area, they are not the only one, though they think they are.

@ 40

Laurelhurst is a hood? ha, ha, ha, ha ha... WEST SIDE!!!

Dear, sweet, kind, generous Laurelhurst please don't judge those people so harshly. They lack the altruistic love of man that your healthy family environment has instilled in you. They can't see past the helicopters hovering at 240 feet. They lack the goodness of heart to imagine that so many people who are driven to fight for access to children's care in far flung places (far, far from Laruelhurst) just happen to live next door to the hospital.

Living in less wholesome places, their cynical hearts will never believe that the kind people of Laurelhurst want only to share their beloved Children's Hospital. The jaded soul can never understand that it is humility that has left Laurelhusrt embarrassed to keep the many boons of their dear, dear Children's Hospital to themselves.

But I can see how selfless Laurelhurst really is. I say none deserve the glorious Children's more than you. Please Seattle, recognize their giving nature, and give back. Let them keep the entire Children's Hospital, for none are more worthy.

Hey, Elizabeth @ 32. I changed a few words to reflect that you considered those options for the hospital.

And for Meanie @10 and I Love Children's @38, stop being such turds. I think Elizabeth and others genuinely care for the well-being of Children's Hospital and simply want neighborhood interests considered. If I had more room, I would have posted this:

"It’s tempting to conclude that neighbors need to suck it up and accept that they live in a city, with hospitals and traffic—conditions where ambulances scream and children must walk on sidewalks without straying in front of cars. But growing an institution in a neighborhood requires Children’s to be a good neighbor by addressing points like Nelson’s—and the neighbors clearly don’t think it has."

That said, I think the coalition needs to put forth some concrete proposals if they want to be taken seriously--more buildings at a lower height or a specific alternative location, perhaps. However, I don't think the claim that increased traffic could harm neighborhood kids is a compelling argument.

Um, Judah, those cities in Europe were originally founded by feudal monarchies and subsequently built out with a level of central planning that no American developer would accept - the comparison is simply absurd (and, frankly, points up just how pig ignorant you are about the most basic points of urban planning and policy).

While Austin does sprawl more than most of us would probably appreciate, they actually have zoning, and have managed to build a reasonably liveable city (even if it is in Texas).

That said, I do think rendering hogs in the Stranger's backyard is a capital idea - and we ought to raise them next door to Paul Allen's new condos in SLU while we're at it....

My initial reaction was that 1) Holden's entry is very sympathetic to the Children’s Action Coalition and 2) the CAC is a bunch of whiny NIMBY's. However, I'm I don't think a 24 story building belongs in most areas of the city, especially one that's not slated to have the amount of growth necessary to support increased transit and other transportation improvements.

While it would cost a lot to move Children's, in a well-planned world it sure wouldn't be in Laurelhurst. It should in the UW Urban Growth Area near UW hospital and medical school, or S. Lake Union, or Lower Queen Anne ("Uptown" to a few) where it could be close to its original location on top of the Hill. Or on Pill Hill. In any of these places, there'd be much better transit, road and airport access, and it'd be closer to partners in medical research. The current location just promotes driving - if you're flying into Seattle, you sure aren't going to take the bus (or light rail) from SeaTac to Laurelhurst.

We are all tools for the man and merely puppets to the plan hatched by the new CEO of Children's (who lives on MI) and the board from the East Side of the Lake. They have the city on strings and will place three towers the size of Amazon.com in North Seattle. So what? Capitol Hill is next, then whatever special interest group can develop Rainier Valley. Seattle city neighborhoods, gone to the way of the low rise condo and mass density? Want to live in a neighborhood, that's for the rich in Medina or the Issaquah Plateau for those that can't afford Medina.
You're missing the issue, what about preserving a little of old Seattle, or is nothing sacred from development?
Scoff the "tighty whiteys" in Laurelhurst for speaking out,don't worry, they'll get rolled by "the man" with the team of lawyers and PR agents. Screw your hood, manifest destiny to the institution working with a billion dollar fund! You rich? Get your name on a wing! The cheapest way to get there? Build out your space with as much square footage as possible! Everybody does it, heck they should SELL half the lot and build 500 foot towers, because UP is FREE!
We are all tools for the man and should be looking at how big business shapes the future of Seattle. Not just in my neighborhood, but your neighborhood, and the guy across town.
I can see it now: Yahoo headquartered on Green Lake, Google in residential Capitol Hill, We could really use a big building in the middle of West Seattle. WTF? IT's not about NIMBY it's about the future of all of our back yards.
We (YOU) have a voice on what you want Seattle to be for you and the generations that follow. Don't be the generation that build's another "Viaduct". So build Seattle out! Highrises everywhere! Let the man get rich at the expense of our neighborhoods, because yours is probably next.
... what a bunch of tools, all of us.

If you figure this out, you might be able to save some of those cool bars listed in the Stranger from Condo developers... Or we could just plant a tower there with a Starbucks and a McFizzy's drink parlor pumping 80's tunes same as it does in all of it's 10,000 franchised locations.

The "think about the children" argument is not strong. Children don't go running up and down NE 45th St or Sand Point Way. Yes, a school is a couple of blocks away, but there are plenty of schools in much more heavily-trafficked areas around the city than Laurelhurst will ever be. I don't think there are any safety problems at those schools due to nearby traffic. There are nearby schools and churches on very high traffic arteries -- Sand Point Way, 25th Ave NE, NE 65th St, etc.

Wasn't there a very similar hubbub about the UW Golf Range planning to build a double-decker range? Is this all about the views? I'm no real estate expert, but it seems to me that property values would INCREASE with a larger world-class employer next door in a nice, new facility. Isn't that why houses here are in higher demand than houses in Issaquah?

Also, it's important to note the support infrastructure surrounding Children's Laurelhurst location. The Ronald McDonald house has three new/renovated buildings across the street, there are several new administrative buildings for Children's down Sand Point Way, there are many current research partnerships with UW, etc.

If it's about the views, let's get Children's to build two 10-story buildings instead of one 20-story building, for example. If you use disingenuous arguments about saving the children, you won't find a lot of support.

Hi Dominic,

Traffic near the elementary school is not the "make-it-or-brake-it" part of the hospital proposal. It was never my intention to imply that it was.

The impacts of this proposal are bigger than the impacts of the new entrances. 240 foot towers in a residential neighborhood? Constructed continuously over 13 years? As others have said, what precedents do we want to set for future city growth?

But back to the traffic impacts. I actually highlighted traffic impacts because of their broad reach, not their closeness to schools. Adding 240 foot towers and 2,000 parking stalls in an already-congested area will not have a good impact.

Unless we build out our infrastructure (wishful thinking, alas), we’ll all wind up stuck in the same traffic jam at Montlake. Hospital staff, patients, neighbors, buses, carpools. Everyone. We’re in this together.

Also, you asked for detailed alternatives, so I'm sending a link to those. A professional land-use planner wrote up a range of alternatives beyond the two proposed by the hospital: http://www.laurelhurstcc.com/issues/CHMC/LCC3472ChildrensEychanerScopingComments.pdf. Note that these alternatives only address the existing location.

I regret that my words have offended many folks commenting here. I am speaking out about this issue because I care about it. I have all the grace and tact and savy of an amateur. I wish I'd managed to get across how this project affects all of us. Clearly I did a lousy job. That's my fault.

--Elizabeth

Um, Judah, those cities in Europe were originally founded by feudal monarchies and subsequently built out with a level of central planning that no American developer would accept - the comparison is simply absurd (and, frankly, points up just how pig ignorant you are about the most basic points of urban planning and policy).

Um, Mr. X, the "feudal monarchies" had very little to do with the planning of most of the cities in Europe -- with the notable exception of Paris, though of course most of that planning was carried out under an Emperor. And of course certain rules were handed down from on high regarding street width, and other matters relating to national security and troop transportation. Otherwise the comparison stands just fine as regards the efficacy of zoning, broadly. The question of what an American developer would stand for was outside the point, but I daresay since there would be money to be made in any case, American developers could be persuaded to accept a different model.

Anyway, your argument model -- "Here's an semi-relevant half-truth! You're too stupid to argue with!" -- is boring the shit out of me, so I think I'm done with you now. Thanks.

I also live in Laurelhurst in a 900 sq home a stone's throw from the hospital. Laurelhurst is a big neighborhood - it's not just the large homes on the water. If you drive along Sandpoint - it starts from the UW soccer fields and UW horticultural center to the street just on the other side of the hospital (NE 50th).

Before you stereotype an entire (!) neighborhood - come and see for yourselves. Blocks and blocks of tiny homes with no views all around the hospital, old cars. In fact the area right around the hospital is what people call the "low rent section." So you guys obviously no nothing about our neighborhood and just throw out ridiculous comments. We are like any other neighborhood, cheaper section and wealthy section.

We are not above anyone else, worthy of punishment with 3 skycrapers because of our location! Gimme a break! Come see for yourselves. We personally have no view, have 6 people in a very small home. I'm sure people on Capitol Hill live in bigger homes, much much bigger. I've driven around there.

The CAC are not NIMBY's - several are from Bryant, Montlake, Viewridge and other parts. They are not affected by the proposed skyscapers and they show it - they talk to CH every day and get directive from them! The Chair refuses to allow any other proposals to be on the table except for Children's. Her agenda is to push through anything the hospital wants. Is that being fair and balanced as a CAC member? Only a handful of CAC members are from Laurelhurst. The rest are in cahoots with the hospital....as CAC members! That is really ethical.

Before you all start throwing out facts and judgements that are totally incorrect and can be countered with the true facts I urge you to read up on the issue, go to a CAC mtg, drive around the neighborhood. See that this neighborhood is not the mansions and wealthy you are incorrectly describing.

I am sure any neighborhood in Seattle would not invite 3 skyscrpaers smack dab in the middle, not Magnolia, not QA, not Capitol Hill, no one. This has nothing to do with who lives in Laurelhurst, it has to do with setting a precedent for the city - no skyscrapers in residential areas no matter what kind of business you are.

There is plenty of land in Seattle to continue to grow. It doesn't have to be all in Laurelhurst. All other hospitals in our area - Swedish, UW, etc are all spread out. They certainly are able to spread out - their Research is at Lake Union!! Children's refuses to continue to spread out, the CEO refuses to. Before this CEO they parterned with Laurelhurst and were good neighbors fitting in with the neighborhood, etc. New CEO has thrown all that out the window. His mission is to eradicate pediatric disease - what cloud is he on? And become and international hospital! Look at their stats - they are no where near a top hospital to even think about this. They turn children away at the Emergency Room. Yes they do A LOT of good, but this is a MUCH bigger issue and needs a lot more in depth analysis than just saying punish Larelhurst!

We love the hospital, support it financially, but it's growth can be elsewhere and still support the children. How about 3 skyscrapers in Capitol Hill? How does that sound? How does 19 years of construction sound right outside your window? How about light shining in your window 24/7 or no sun ever again? Because I live in Laurelhurst in a 900 sq home with no view I deserve that?

Regarding the infrastructure around the hospital - Ronald Mc Donald house is NOT large enough to house families of an additional 240 more beds. Hospital has even said this. Think about your comment before you post! Administration does not need to be near the inpatient services. Duh - that is why they are a few miles away. Research - duh - most of it is at South Lake Union. Bad argument! Facutly they want to hire - 100s of them cannot all live around the hospital - so buy up the houses in the neighborhood - that is what they are doing! Employees - where do they park? Can they park in your driveway? In no way with an additional 240 more beds can all the support services that that will entail be in Laurelhurst. Think about it! Read up before you comment!

I love how the NIMBYs are acting like a CH tower would just fall out of the sky and land in their poor belabored neighborhood. As if CH hasn't been there since 1953. Elizabeth, you seem like an articulate and polite person, and I understand why you don't want this expansion. But this is a *classic* case of community needs trumping community conerns. If this were a new hospital or if the expansion were going to seriously change the neighborhood, people might see this as unreasonable.

By the way, Abbott Northwestern in South Minneapolis is a larger hospital in a much more "working class" residential neighborhood, at least a mile from traffic arterials, and there haven't been traffic or safety nightmares.

Thank you Dominic for this article!! I live in LH but would never have moved here if I had know ahead of time how entitled these people act.

LH neighbors, step back and look around. You live in a city!! There's going to be growth, so learn to put your inconvenienced selves aside for the better of the larger community such as 520 expansion, growth at Childrens' etc.

Oh, wait, ya'll are the same ones who don't like the helicopters landing at Children's and have required that Children's REDIRECT the approach of the helicopters so they don't fly over your precious selves as you sleep!

No, this is not about the kids who need the help.

This is about you not being inconvenienced and thinking you have the right to say something about Children's business.

Are you the ones that also let your dogs run around off leash every where?

oh, but they are well behaved and the leash law doesn't apply to you and your "well behaved" dog, right?

When I moved to Laurelon Terrace Condominiums, I was pleased to have Children's next door. I have been a volunteer, fund raiser, and donor ever since. I fully support their mission to be a first class children's hospital for the Pacific NW.

But as a citizen of Seattle, I am deeply concerned about the precident set if the proposed towers are approved. Several viable alternatives (go to site posted in #50) exist that make more sense and could actually better serve Children's future patients' needs.

Also, as a next door neighbor, I feel the need to clarify the inaccurate picture many apparently have of the diverse neighborhoods surrounding Children's. Laurelon Terrace Condominiums, for example, is nineteen buildings one and two stories high bordering Children's west side. Families here are a mix of older people, some here since the 50s living on fixed incomes; professionals; tradespeople; students; young families just getting started. We are people of limited means. Many invested life savings and plan to live out their lives here.

Traditionally, we have worked with Children's and considered them pretty good neighbors. But, yes, now we are concerned about property values and even the viability of our complex if Children's buys up our condo units as they become available as they have stated they'd like to do.

Please before jumping all over all of us as NIMBYs, put yourselves in our shoes. Think about how you'd react if these towers were going to be built in the lots next to you. Think about the fact that there are logical, possibly better expansion alternatives that should be examined. And think about the precident being set for the whole of Seattle.

Oops! Lest we hospital neighbors also be labelled illiterate, I realize I misspelled the word precedent.

Do know why rich people have moved into Laurelhurst? Because most of us think it's a great community to live in. I grew up here.
BAck then one could afford a house here. Only very wealthy people now. You want to know why it's a great community to live in? Because people care about it and care about what happens to it.
Do you know the majority of people who have lived in Laurelhurst have contributed to the hospital by volunteering their time working there? (Myself included.) Do you know the majority of Laurelhurst residents care greatly about children and hospital care?
Two of my children have had emergency hospital care and surgery? Do YOU really know what it's like to have a child in the ICU?
The Laurelhurst community has no where else to go. The Hospital has many alternative plans.
Until YOU live in Laurelhurst, until YOU have children hospitalized or have worked at Childrens. Can you really throw stones?

@58 Yes, I live in A neighborhood that has growing hospitals, and yes I can throw stones.

Keep in mind, you are the community that RESTRICTS immediate care if it doesn't meet YOUR criteria:

"Landings at the helipad at Childrens’ campus must meet agreed upon medical criteria, and only occur for the most critical medical conditions.

Any one of the following conditions authorizes landing at Children’s campus helipad: unstable airway, inability to ventilate or maintain oxygenation, inability to maintain adequate cardiac output, inability to maintain adequate cerebral blood flow, persistence of unstable vital signs."

Kids that don't have a "most critical medical condition", will just have to take a long drive while you sip your coffee and enjoy your view in silent bliss.

Judah,

Um, pretty much every European city I've been to basically started as a monarch's fortress and expanded outward (London, Milan, Edinburgh, etc).

As it happens, the last time I was in London they had land use signs and notifications rather like we do, so - dare I say it - they have probably moved to a zoning-based model, too.

Are you a big fan of Vancouver BC? They have zoning there, too - along with the ability of a strong central government to dictate land use policies in a way that NO state in the US could now (let alone Washington, with its particularly strong protections for private property rights)

And yes, if you think 240' towers really belong in a single-family neighborhood, I have little choice but to come to the conclusion that your apparent lack of understanding of the context and history of local zoning and land use precedent marks you as an idiot who's not worth debating (though some of the posts on your own blog regarding the issues around industrial zoning in Seattle aren't at all bad for an English major).

Mr X @ 45.

Um, Judah, those cities in Europe were originally founded by feudal monarchies and subsequently built out with a level of central planning that no American developer would accept - the comparison is simply absurd (and, frankly, points up just how pig ignorant you are about the most basic points of urban planning and policy).

What are zoning laws like in Germany? The reason I ask is because your "the cities were laid out by feudal lords" argument pretty much falls flat in Germany given that every major city went through an vigorous urban renewal program sponsored by the RAF and the US Eighth Air Force. This plan was so successful in Berlin that now the highest point in the city is Der Teufelberg, which was built out of the rubble of pre WWII Berlin. The plan was also quite successful in Dresden, Hannover, Cologne, Munich and most of the other mid to large German cities, which were rebuilt after World War II, long after Germany had gotten rid of it's feudal monarchy.

American zoning laws are more about protecting the property values of property owners in specific areas than they are about anything else. In recent years American zoning laws have also become a sort of "I've got mine, fuck you!" policy that allows urban homeowners to make sure that no one will develop houses in rural areas, this makes the urban homeowners feel good about themselves, because they're preventing sprawl and they're probably quite self-congratulatory as they drive off to meetings where they're opposing multi-family developments in their neighborhoods.

Wile-E -

Actually, the German cities you cite were pretty much rebuilt as they had historically developed before they were bombed flat (with the exception of East Berlin, of course, which was rebuilt in good centrally-planned Stalinist style because the locals didn't have the option to choose another pattern of development). However, the citizens of Stuttgart and a few other cities did choose to rebuild with a newer, more modern look, but there was still a European level of central planning in how that occurred that rendered zoning irrelevent. Do you really think that this model would work in the US - let alone Washington - where the ability of government to centrally plan development and require substantial mitigation is nonexistent by comparison?

My larger point is that zoning is an attempt to create uniform rules for development in a free-market (such as that is) environment that ensures a level playing field for individual developers and ensures that uses are compatible and fit into the larger vision of what a city is supposed to look like. In Europe - cities were centrally planned, so this isn't the model they chose (though more and more of them seem to be using land use models like that - requiring permits, inspections, etc etc etc much as we do here).

With regard to your latter point, zoning has lots of positive benefits that you discount at your/our peril (including not allowing rural property owners to install big box retail in rurally zoned areas, just to pick one of many) that Judah chose to gloss over in his ridiculous assertion that zoning has "caused more problems than it has solved over the years."

I suspect most of the "New Urbanists" who post at Slog and revile the automobile would suddenly realize they just love zoning when it prevents surface parking from facing the sidewalk in new development, requires the planting of street trees in pedestrian overlay zones, and disallows tract homes in rurally zoned areas. I guess it just depends on whose ox is being gored.

It used to be that would-be developers bought parcels with the existing zoning with open eyes, and it wasn't the responsibility of government to give them special favors (ie - spot rezones, which are supposed to be illegal) to ensure that their investment was profitable. And yes, people who buy in single-family zones (or who choose to develop a 65' apartment building in an NC65 zone - only to see a more influential developer get an exception that allows them to build 85' or 105' - imparting an unfair economic advantage) have a right to expect that their decisions regarding the investments they make in purchasing and/or upgrading their property will remain predictable over time.

That being said, if zoning goes away (which it won't), I'm still investing in that SLU pig farm and Capitol Hill rendering plant....

Um, pretty much every European city I've been to basically started as a monarch's fortress and expanded outward (London, Milan, Edinburgh, etc).

Yeah Mr X, I've been to those cities too, and dozens more. I lived in the UK for a year and a half and traveled extensively in Britain and Europe, specifically to look at various planning and infrastructure models in practice while my wife earned her degree in sustainability and food policy. In any case, your comment about how many of those cities "started out as a monarch's fortress and expanded outward" doesn't suggest anything about zoning one way or the other.

As it happens, the last time I was in London they had land use signs and notifications rather like we do, so - dare I say it - they have probably moved to a zoning-based model, too.

Look, it's only just now occurring to me that you don't seem to be making this distinction, but not all planning is "zoning." Cities planning can be heavily supervised without using zoning, as such.

The most common model throughout the UK is one in which new development and commercial permitting is examined on a case-by-case basis by the local council. Various considerations are addressed in the process but zoning is not usually one of them.

Of course it follows that the council will provide an opportunity for public comment on new development, so naturally they post land use notifications to solicit comments on certain issues. But, again, there's nothing about that to indicate that they're using a zoning model.

And yes, if you think 240' towers really belong in a single-family neighborhood, I have little choice but to come to the conclusion that your apparent lack of understanding of the context and history of local zoning and land use precedent marks you as an idiot who's not worth debating

I actually have a pretty comprehensive knowledge of the history of local zoning and land use precedents -- I just don't agree with the direction they've taken.

As someone who used to work at Children's, it is my recollection that there was NEVER a proposal to expand or build on their campus that the neighbors didn't protest. And yes, they opposed helicopters flying in emergency cases too, because the noise would disrupt their dinner parties or something.

I know Children's isn't the same place I worked at, hasn't been in 20 years, but sadly, it seems the neighbors haven't changed a bit.

This massive expansion could happen anywhere in Seattle and ruin the very fabric of our neighborhoods.

Children’s has the money to build space within existing land use codes, they just want to do it on the cheap and at the expense of the community.

So what special interest will exploit your neighborhood? A big developer? A big company? This expansion will set precedence on how we grow our city for our Children. If Laurelhurst is not sacred, then no where is sacred because we are up against a team of lawyers, Land use experts, PR agents, and the richest of rich in the Northwest. Our influence does not sit in the board room, our influence does not carry the influence of an 8, 9, or 10 figure net worth. We don’t lunch with political leaders.

We want Seattle to know that big business can change Seattle building codes to fit it’s fiscal needs like it is here, and that every neighborhood should be aware that a unified front will protect all of us. Building codes are set for a reason and that reason is our future as a neighborhood and a community.

We are fighting the DCLU on how they shape our future and what kind of Seattle we leave our kids.

We love Children’s and their mission but they have not presented anything but skyscrapers, mind-bending density, and suspiciously wrong elevations to the DCLU on the Master Plan Overlay.

Big money wins every time and it looks to do it this time. They are plotting, scheming, and planning as a cohesive team to make this happen and it could be replicated by big money somewhere else in Seattle. Seattle as a community needs to be aware of this and protect themselves, not just this North Seattle enclave.

YES on Children’s, YES on growth within existing boundaries…

Malcolm, most of the population of Seattle lives in conditions much less pastoral than those that will prevail in Laurelhurst if Children's Hospital builds their expansion there. We live and raise our families in the shadow of skyscrapers, under the approach path for jet planes, next to freeways and major arterials, with helicopters flying overhead. And yet the fabric of our neighborhoods remains essentially intact.

Your assumption that what's happening in Laurelhurst represents a meaningful departure from tradition in Seattle -- some terrifying precedent that the rest of us need to be concerned about -- just demonstrates how out of touch you are. Large scale commercial development is an ever-present reality in the neighborhoods where most of the rest of us live. There are checks in place to keep development at reasonable levels. Those checks don't protect the people of Laurelhurst because what's happening there is so much less extreme than things that happen in the rest of the city all the time that they simply don't apply.

Your ignorance about this point is, frankly, insulting.

"...this makes the urban homeowners feel
good about themselves, because they're
preventing sprawl and they're probably
quite self-congratulatory as they drive
off to meetings where they're opposing
multi-family developments in their
neighborhoods."

Wile, you nailed it. 10.0 on artistic, 10.0 on technical.

Laurelhurst: Giving Wallingford a run for the money for the title of "Most Dickish Neighborhood."

Judah,
You pontificate that there is a system of checks that keep development in place. Laurelhurst, Queen Anne, Wedgewood, Maple Leaf, Madrona, and many more communities are pastoral because of community involvement.
Not by chance.
Big money is at control here and the millions they will spend to reach manifest destiny will happen. North Seattle will get rolled with 2.5 million square feet of skyscraper and ten thousand extra cars square in zoned single family residence.
Judah, you don't live in the shadow of skyscrapers this big unless you live downtown. So I question your reality and involvement in community. It's YOU who is out of touch with reality for lack of knowledge on what suburban Seattle wants. Instead of narrowly focusing opinions on something you know nothing about, why don't you surf the community pages on Seattle Neighborhoods? http://www.scn.org/neighbors/seattle/index.html#laurelhurst
There is a common theme and it is about development and zoning because we CARE about the future of our neighborhoods. A billion dollar capital campaign can pay for lots of land and create an environment for children that is not imposing or institutional, but family oriented.
You are either a developer, an urban dweller, Hospital lackey, or a guy that loves to stick to to anyone he percieves as doing better than himself.
How about this; Children's misrepresentated heights on existing structures on the Master Plan Overlay, making existing building read twice their height so the offsetting differential was not as great. This was submitted to the DCLU for public comment with incorrect information. The changes made only days before the end of the comment period. Fast one by the man? Probably.
Your opinion about reasonable development is so skewed that you think placing the equivalent of a block of downtown Seattle in the middle of a single family residential neighborhood is OK.
You down play this like it happens every day, but it doesn't this is the LARGEST VARIANCE TO BUILDING CODES EVER PROPOSED TO THE CITY OF SEATTLE. Yes, the precidence is terrifying and the whole of Seattle should be alarmed and very weary of what big business can and will do. The fact that this is happening in one of the more affluent communities in Seattle should be even more alarming because if they can roll Laurelhurst, they can roll Rainier Valley, Madrona, West Seattle, anywhere! Glad to see you are a big fan of the man pulling his strings from Mercer Island and Medina. Sacrificing our community for their glory.
.. Step away from the bong and read up on what the communities in Seattle really want.

Judah,
You pontificate that there is a system of checks that keep development in place. Laurelhurst, Queen Anne, Wedgewood, Maple Leaf, Madrona, and many more communities are pastoral because of community involvement.
Not by chance.
Big money is at control here and the millions they will spend to reach manifest destiny will happen. North Seattle will get rolled with 2.5 million square feet of skyscraper and ten thousand extra cars square in zoned single family residence.
Judah, you don't live in the shadow of skyscrapers this big unless you live downtown. So I question your reality and involvement in community. It's YOU who is out of touch with reality for lack of knowledge on what suburban Seattle wants. Instead of narrowly focusing opinions on something you know nothing about, why don't you surf the community pages on Seattle Neighborhoods? http://www.scn.org/neighbors/seattle/index.html#laurelhurst
There is a common theme and it is about development and zoning because we CARE about the future of our neighborhoods. A billion dollar capital campaign can pay for lots of land and create an environment for children that is not imposing or institutional, but family oriented.
You are either a developer, an urban dweller, Hospital lackey, or a guy that loves to stick to to anyone he percieves as doing better than himself.
How about this; Children's misrepresentated heights on existing structures on the Master Plan Overlay, making existing building read twice their height so the offsetting differential was not as great. This was submitted to the DCLU for public comment with incorrect information. The changes made only days before the end of the comment period. Fast one by the man? Probably.
Your opinion about reasonable development is so skewed that you think placing the equivalent of a block of downtown Seattle in the middle of a single family residential neighborhood is OK.
You down play this like it happens every day, but it doesn't this is the LARGEST VARIANCE TO BUILDING CODES EVER PROPOSED TO THE CITY OF SEATTLE. Yes, the precidence is terrifying and the whole of Seattle should be alarmed and very weary of what big business can and will do. The fact that this is happening in one of the more affluent communities in Seattle should be even more alarming because if they can roll Laurelhurst, they can roll Rainier Valley, Madrona, West Seattle, anywhere! Glad to see you are a big fan of the man pulling his strings from Mercer Island and Medina. Sacrificing our community for their glory.
.. Step away from the bong and read up on what the communities in Seattle really want.

Heh.

"Large scale commercial development is an ever-present reality in the neighborhoods where most of the rest of us live."

Not if you're in a single-family zoned neighborhood, they aren't. That's why we have zoning. And if Children's can nearly triple their building heights, your assertion that there are "checks in place to ensure that development is kept at reasonable levels" is simply farcical.

I'm no fan of the snob set in Laurelhurst but I'm also no fan of the reverse-snobbery tossed out by many below. Do any of us living in single family neighborhoods really want friggin' 20-story buildings plunked down next door? Hell no! It makes no sense and would piss me off too. Plain and simple: Children's can and should expand in a commercial area like SLkUnion (a bonus of that location - kids leaving the hospital could get Tshirts that read: "My mom took me to the hospital, but I really only wanted to ride the S.L.U.T!").