The maps and datapoints in the reports and proposals are pretty cool but after last night's presentation, I agree that the studies didn't have enough input from the people who live in the area -- renters. There were also some good questions about green space and how existing businesses can survive without money being set aside to help them through the changes. Bottom line is the report and proposed solutions are all about development and not really about non-development. Needs more conserve.
Gee, I for one hope that Pike/Pine continues to be a filthy shit-hole. No new development!
Not saying no new development. Just not 100%, no holds barred, balls to the wall development. I can tell you really love it, Chris. Thanks for your input.
Quick:
could somebody check city records to see if anyone on the Stranger staff or its publisher has ever invested in property or filed a building permit to "threaten" our economy with investment?
Please walk or bicycle your thoughts to the nearest officer of Seattle Weekly.
The problem with landmark status, is that threatening a developer with landmarking a building can lead to it being torn down in the interim.
Don't cry wolf with landmark designation.
Politicos like Rasmussen have awakened to the fact that the moribund building scene means developers have ratcheted back their campaign contributions. They will continue to find new ways like this to reposition themselves as having always held paramount the interests of individual campaign donors.
Nothing preventing it but the gradual departure of almost everyone who gives a shit.
The Stranger should use this issue to rethink its density-uber-alles, pro-developer biases.
The answer to your question is no. The city is being run and ruined by developers.
So where exactly do you want to steer development? This is all near the future light rail station, isn't it?
In the good book I believe it says that Savage will part the sea of condos and lead the homos and hipsters out of yuppie slavery and into the new promised land.
So when can we expect that?
So...new development around light rail stations is a good thing, unless it's on Capitol Hill, in which case it's a bad thing. WTF? Way to be consistent, Stranger.
@ 12) Nobody is saying no new devlopment in Pike Pine. That would be absurd.
The questions are a) how does the city protect the multi story, 100-year-old masonry buildings in Pike-Pine, and b) how does the city make sure new development compliments the character of the stuff that's already there.
Take the Agnes Lofts on 12th and Pike, for example. That's an excellent use for the corner, and a modern building to boot. But it would be a fucking tragedy to tear down the Portofino building. So how does the city protect it?
Dominic: Part of the reason the Pike / Pine corridor on Capitol Hill was historically so cheap was that most of the old buildings have serious deficiencies with plumbing, wiring, seismic reinforcement, etc. In other words, a lot of those buildings are piles of shit just waiting for the next earthquake to knock them down. 'Protecting' the buildings means fuck-all if it doesn't include renovations to protect them from their own age and vulnerability.
The answer is obvious. Commercial community land trusts. (A regular old community land trust that specializes in commercial property.)
The most beautiful thing about CLTs is permanent affordability (covenants are placed on the land-- there's no wishy-washy zoning, or zoning with bad consequences, or City money with restrictions that only last 50 years, etc)
And there's lots more to like.
The only problem is that they take a little more money to fund than other techniques. But it's a MUCH higher quality tool for preservation of affordability, which is usually also tied right into historic preservation.
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.