Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on From the Ashes

1

Cue anti-density comment defending burned out building's right to exist in:
3
2
1

Posted by StrangerDanger | February 4, 2008 4:42 PM
2

Low Rotterdam.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | February 4, 2008 4:47 PM
3

In 40 or 50 years hipsters will be into "turn of the century architecture." They'll be like, "Dude, you live in Indigo @ 66! Get out! That is so ERASER.* I love how those old places were like designed with all straight lines and right angles, like they drew it with an Etch-A-Sketch! And that at sign in the name is so 2008!"

See, my aesthetic theory is that all building styles were nothing more than the bank's way of trying to save a buck, and then after their cost-cutting compromise has sat around for a while, people start to either like it, or hate it but love it because they hate it.

* In 2068 the kids will say "eraser" a lot. The NYT will call The Stranger to ask if means cool or uncool or both. The Stranger will totally shine them on and then smoke a bowl and laugh.

Posted by elenchos | February 4, 2008 4:52 PM
4

The Scarlett Tree?! Oh man, I'd almost forgotten about that place and how much I enjoyed it.

Indigo @66 is the stupidest name I've ever heard, although I'm sure something lamer will come out soon to challenge it.

Posted by Hernandez | February 4, 2008 4:56 PM
5

you think the stranger will still be cool in 60 years? dan will be like 100

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 4, 2008 4:57 PM
6

More like 110. But he'll tell people he's only 98.

:)

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 4, 2008 5:01 PM
7

Yeah, the "old days". They were the best. Whatever.

Posted by Mike in Pioneer Square | February 4, 2008 5:03 PM
8

Thanks for posting this, Dominic! I live barely a block from there and want to see Roosevelt grow--just in a un-fugly way. Would've been nice if they'd put the meeting in our neighborhood, though. There's plenty of meeting spaces--a church, a high school, the kitchen in Whole Foods--hell, we could've had it in Bus Stop Espresso.

Posted by Sarah | February 4, 2008 5:19 PM
9

Walk it.

Posted by Walker | February 4, 2008 5:30 PM
10

Thanks for posting this, Dominic. This is in my neighborhood and I've been wondering what was going on with the property.

Posted by Nic | February 4, 2008 8:07 PM
11

the food at the scarlet tree was GROSS. and i might be wrong, but didn't it have a big fire, re-open, and then burn down again? clean those hoods, dudes!

Posted by sam | February 4, 2008 10:55 PM
12

Thanks, Walker, but I bussed and walked. There's a lot of really dark streets between my place and University Heights, and if there were more people around, and lights, or I had a friend to go with, I would walk it.

To recap the meeting for those who weren't able to go...

The design team seems earnest in building a mixed use building which incorporates some green space and possibly LEED standards. The ground level is designed to hold several small businesses (looks like 3 to 4, including a restaurant), floors 2 and 3 contain small studio-type apartments, with larger corner units. Floors 5 and 6 are more luxury-type apartments, larger floor plans, some with access to the roof decks/green roof.

I think there were 32 or 33 parking spaces designated, however, in the meeting it was discovered that since the building is in the Roosevelt neighborhood, there must be at least one parking space per unit. ---The builders would need to double their parking spaces to meet requirements.

There were public comments about the facade needing to be quality, of asking the planners to integrate the community's look and feel (brick, the exterior-style of Roosevelt High School, etc.) In general, neighbors welcomed the project and the mixed-use it integrated, but were concerned about the monolithic design and overall scale of the project. Requests were made to break up the roof-line of the building, to consider parking in the neighborhood, to consider how the scale of the project--which is 65 feet tall and dwarfs much of the neighborhood.

The general feeling amongst the neighbors: We want you to build, we just want it within the context of the neighborhood.

Posted by Sarah | February 4, 2008 11:02 PM
13

"consider parking in the neighborhood" - how very Seattle. We *say* we want density, but we punish developers who want to build less than one parking space per unit, and then we go further and worry about where all these new people are going to park.

I love design review meetings as a concept. But having to listen to people whine about parking makes them get real old real quick.

Posted by John | February 5, 2008 4:08 AM
14

Actually, lack of parking is one of the biggest barriers to density. If we could get cars off the streets and into off-street parking, then it would be easy (physically, and most importantly politically) to create bus-only rapid transit lanes throughout much of the city. The cost would be dramatically smaller than rail, requiring only paint striping.

The dedicated right-of-ways for buses would dramatically speed transit service, addressing a primary concern for potential bus commuters. Address the speed issue, and ridership would increase. That would create more funds available to add more bus service, solving the second major objection for potential bus commuters -- lack of frequency.

Reduced on-street parking also frees up space for bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks, and more area to plant the foliage necessary to comepensate for lot-line-to-lot-line densification in these projects.

Politicians who live the the hip pockets of developers have created this "let's legislate away the car by removing the parking requirement" fiction to pull the wool over the eyes of well-intentioned proponents of densification. Reductions in the parking requirement are simply one more givewaway to developer interests, who already don't pay anything close to the costs necessary to cover the impacts they have. By pushing cars on to the streets, they exacerbate the problem.

A decade worth of trying it the other way has proven unsuccessful. People won't get out of their cars until they have an alternative they perceive to be reasonably attractive. Current policies are actually making the goal of better bus service less and less likely every time we decrease the parking requirements in our land use code.

It may seem contradictory to require more parking as a way to get people to reduce their reliance on the automobile. But if you want to increase transit use you have to improve service. The fastest route to doing that is to move parking *off* the streets to make way for dedicated bus lanes.

Posted by David Miller | February 5, 2008 8:56 AM
15

Thanks, Walker, but I bussed and walked. There's a lot of really dark streets between my place and University Heights, and if there were more people around, and lights, or I had a friend to go with, I would walk it.

To recap the meeting for those who weren't able to go...

The design team seems earnest in building a mixed use building which incorporates some green space and possibly LEED standards. The ground level is designed to hold several small businesses (looks like 3 to 4, including a restaurant), floors 2 and 3 contain small studio-type apartments, with larger corner units. Floors 5 and 6 are more luxury-type apartments, larger floor plans, some with access to the roof decks/green roof.

I think there were 32 or 33 parking spaces designated, however, in the meeting it was discovered that since the building is in the Roosevelt neighborhood, there must be at least one parking space per unit. ---The builders would need to double their parking spaces to meet requirements.

There were public comments about the facade needing to be quality, of asking the planners to integrate the community's look and feel (brick, the exterior-style of Roosevelt High School, etc.) In general, neighbors welcomed the project and the mixed-use it integrated, but were concerned about the monolithic design and overall scale of the project. Requests were made to break up the roof-line of the building, to consider parking in the neighborhood, to consider how the scale of the project--which is 65 feet tall and dwarfs much of the neighborhood.

The general feeling amongst the neighbors: We want you to build, we just want it within the context of the neighborhood.

Posted by Sarah | February 5, 2008 8:59 AM
16

oops. Not sure why, but when I opened my laptop this morning, it reposted my comment. Sorry about that, folks.

Posted by Sarah | February 5, 2008 9:16 AM
17

@14: That's a nice idea, but it's also Utopian. Underground parking is seriously expensive to build, so requiring parking tends to lead to less dense, more expensive development. Better buses are going to require more dense development.

Also, it's much, much easier to convince people to ride transit when there's no parking. Compare Downtown Seattle's busing rate to Bellevue's busing rate. Or look at Amsterdam, where they intentionally got rid of parking.

It's a better bet to make having a car cost more without degrading the neighborhood. Let the developers build less parking but also start charging more for street parking and plow the excess revenue from the street parking into more local improvements.

Once there are enough people sitting in traffic on the bus, then push for removing street parking for bus-only lanes.

Posted by Steve | February 5, 2008 11:59 AM
18

@17 I freely admit it's tough to get one's head around this chicken-and-the-egg concept of more off-street parking creating more transit ridership.

I believe it is less Utopian than assuming Americans will give up their cars without a reasonable alternative. American politicians won't legislate away the automobile by enforcing their true costs. Citizens won't give up their cars without FIRST having an alternative.

Which statement seems the most logical:

1. Better transit service creates less need for cars.
2. Fewer cars creates better transit service.

I submit #1 does, which means our emphasis shouldn't be on making car ownership more annoying, but making transit less annoying.

Posted by David Miller | February 5, 2008 11:20 PM

Comments Closed

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