"Old buildings can support lower rents"

Oh yeah, that Smith Tower is so cheap.

good for them- development should be pushed north and south, creating a larger vibrant urban core. Of course, said development should actually reflect the urban landscape, unlike the horrid suburban Thorton Creek monstrosity next to Northgate.

it is utterly amazing how little development has really taken place on the hill

many of the new bldgs. are on former vacant lots

amazing how people resist any change - amazing

some of these people need to go back to the small towns they came from, they will change very little, no money and no incentives.

The lady developer has a motive, her many projects. Her profits, her big bank account growing. She knows how to make it pay and wants no competition it seems.

Amazing, utterly amazing. Rat trap and non code wooden building go down and people piss their pants. And they think the are truly urban. Amazing.

Another council telling the city what to do. I live and work in this so called Pike Pine area, will not make a dollar either way, and no body has asked me any thing.

How strange.

I think lot sizes are the answer. Replacing 6-8 storefronts with one giant complex seems to be at the heart of Seattle's uglification. Don't allow developers to cull more than "x" (2?) number of lots into one structure.

One way around the free rider problem is my previous suggestion to offer the developer a swap with an equal sized parcel of land outside of Seattle, in the exurbs or perhaps even a hundred from any city or town at all. They would keep their freedom to use their property as they see fit, without cashing in on the intangible value built up over decades by the surrounding community.

A more awkward alternative would be to make property owners pay a fee whenever an artist or shop or nightclub does anything of cultural value which translates into increased property value. As property values rise, the ones who created that value would be paid for their work. Idle property ownership would not increase your wealth at all, as there would be no more free riders.

The economic argument, though creative, does not pass my test. The "neighborhood character" that is being cashed in on by developers must be accounted for in the price that an owner is willing to sell his/her property for. If this character has economic value, it is no secret and is indicated by a location's ability to make a profit by existing businesses.

But lets share that character and let more people live around there! Yay density.

Ballard Ave is a GREAT example of what simple regulations like this provide. Yes, it limits property rights, but what if a community freely enacted them- like Ballard Ave- in order to discourage opportunistic absentee developers which Liz is not.

As a builder I know they are putting up crap these days.

#5

huh - you rent - you pay the rent

you own, and the future is a gamble - maybe up - maybe down - try investment

and what are you talking about - increased value - what if the business goes out of business - can they get their rent back?

you are on a cloud of dis information and conjecture

How about a demoltion fee based on the destruction of the tax base. This fee could be waived if contsruction of a equal or better use begins within a year. Proceeds from the fee should go to public improvements in the neighbborhood/zipcode.

Hard to imagine that a "developer who specializes in renovating old buildings" wants to preserve, and presumably renovate, old buildings.

I agree completely. It is a crime that the old Cha-Cha, man-Ray, Kincora were torn down to make a parking lot.

@8

Yeah, blows your mind don't it?

Pike-Pine is probably the one area in the entire city with interesting mid-rise developments. The building that houses Boom-noodles, the other one down the block from it, and that building across the street from the six arms are some of the best recently-built, mid-rise, mixed use buildings in the entire city.

If you're against that, you're in the skip burger "lesser seattle" mindset, and you're against all development, period.

Sure that old row of business on pine where the cha-cha and the kingcora used to be is now just a parking lot, but you "lesser seattle" people made it that way, so fuck you.

13 wtf- that parking lot is the epitome of absentee developers, no profit to build this year- kincoras was lesser seattle

and Troy @ 10?- you've followed the money right up your own prejudice.

What would be good for the community after all. For the long term. For the longest term?

I was shocked to see the building area tonight on my way along Broadway to Moe Bar.

Pleasantly shocked.

It has the smell and sight of growth.

Some fear it.

But the end result is GOOD.

Thank God, it's about time. Can they do a moratorium on ALL demolition, at least mandating that in order to demolish, developers MUST have funds ready and set to rebuild immediately? We already have enough holes in this city...

Will, I don't think many people could point to the buildings being razed on Broadway for the new light rail station as having had a great deal in the way of "character", with the possible exception of the Vivace/Godfather's space on Olive. Many of the older buildings in the Pike/Pine corridor OTOH, do have characteristics worth preserving, not the least of which is their simple adaptability.

Which is one of the things seems to be overlooked in the current density equation, so far as I'm concerned. The older buildings have, over the course of their functional lifetimes been used for a variety of purposes, which have changed as the overall character of the neighborhood itself has changed, and the needs of its residents, whether residential or retail, have changed concurrently. It's difficult for me to imagine such adaptability in much of the new development. A condo can be converted into an apartment, sure, but it's going to be a lot harder to convert much of the newly-built ground level retail into anything other than small boutique style shops 30, 40, or 50 years from now, because no provision has been given to being able to build out, combine, or reconfigure the relatively small footprint spaces that have been created. They're simply not as adaptable, in most instances, as the former warehouse, garage, and showroom spaces they've replaced.

And a neighborhood simply can't grow and thrive with such limiting development, which is why preserving some of the existing space, which still has some measure of adaptability over the long run, while at the same time encouraging development of new space that will serve a similar function as it displaces these older buildings (because nothing lasts forever) seems not only sensible, but necessary to maintaining the type of diverse infrastructure a dense urban neighborhood requires.

@14 please remember that the reason that the old man ray lot is like that because a cap hill resident fought hard to stop the demolition of those buildings and the new project proposed there. he lost, but in the interim, developers lost their financing and now it just sits empty. which is better, a crappy looking huge-ass building or a huge empty parking lot in an urban village?

@18 Id take the crappy building over a parking lot anyday. That crappy building will be low rent apartments in 60 years.

And yes, this is all about stopping all change/development. Seattle is very conservative.

@ 18

One person does not have the power to stop development, no matter what you think. It was pretty clear he was going to lose his appeal so your argument that one person caused that parking lot is a wash.

Do you think maybe they lost the financing because the economy and the housing market was, um . . . tanking? Maybe, like, is that even possible?

Frankly if that one Capitol Hill resident is in any way responsible (which he isn't but since Seattleites like to blame red herrings than ever face the truth . . .) then the developer should buy that resident an all expense weekend and caviar at the Sorrento hotel or somewhere because that resident stopped him from bringing 100 units online in the middle of the worst housing market in 80 years (or however many units it was supposed to be).

The parking fees from that lot are probably paying for property taxes so the developer can just sit on that lot for the next 5 years or whatever until the economy turns, and then build whatever ugly building the (newly revised) city codes incentivize then and make out like a bandit.

Oh, hilarious. Guess who's found religion?

The Stranger, champion of the "it's a city, get used to it" density anthem, the ones who accuse neighborhood activist's of being "nimby's" for defending their quality of life through opposing developer profit driven density under a phony green mantra, are now suddenly upset over relatively minor gentrification development in P/P.

Hey, this is exactly the kind of city you've advocated for the last five years! The policies you advocate produce exactly the results you're now complaining about - the loss of n'hood businesses, trendy watering holes and clubs, and what's left of affordable housing.

Hey, but density is "green", so it must be ok, right?

Oh, the horror, the horror.

You're all just a bunch of "Nimby's". "It's a city", right? Get over it, "whiners" !

Gee, you're not so geneorous with other nab's are you, Dominic, et.al.

Gotta love the hypocrisy.

@21
I know, and the "economic" explanation of "free riding developers" is one of the unintentionally funny things I've ever read. I'm sure the developers on Pike-Pine want to cash in on the "character of the neighborhood", and of course not the fact that it's walking distance to the largest employment center within 800 miles. Couldn't be the jobs or the convenience that make people want to live there, no no no! it has to be the maharaja and the other piece-of-shit businesses there.

Can't we make the developers fill in or build on the damn open pits they've created around town first. They shouldn't be allowed to tear anything else down until then.

@17 - I'm not saying I don't miss the Perogie shop, but change is good.

When I first lived on Capitol Hill 20 years ago, Broadway was almost entirely a strip of small businesses. Almost all those businesses were independent stores, with very few chain retail stores. It had a very funky, very individual unique feel. Over the last 20 years, it has been developed, of course. Every time a new building goes up, the retail space is larger, and much more expensive than the old buildings. This drives out most of the small businesses, which are replaced by large chain retailers (the only kind that can afford the higher lease rates on a new building).

This is what will happen to the Pike/Pine corridor over time if you put no controls on it. Fine, if that's what you want.

I am self employed and run a very small business. I lease a small space in an old ratty building in that corridor. The only reason I can afford to locate my business there is because of the relatively low rent. If my building was torn down and replaced by a new building. I would have to close or relocate to another part of town. My business is not large enough (or profitable enough) to support a lease in a newer building.

I'm not saying I am entitled to cheap rents. I'm just saying if you tear down ALL the old buildings and replace them with new large buildings, you will drive out all the small independent businesses and artists that make the area unique. To have a vibrant community with interesting character, you need a mix of new larger buildings (to house a denser population) and retain a smattering of older buildings to house smaller businesses and poorer apartment renters.

and if we don't have growth, then prices will go up anyway and only rich people will live there ...

@25.

Yeah and when I grew up on Capitol Hill in the 70s it was an irish catholic neighborhood with tons of kids and nary a gay to be seen. And now even the gay population is leaving to some extent.

Shit changes, get over it. I never cried when my neighborhood changed, I've lived on capitol hill my entire life, my grandpa lived next door for 90 years until he went into a home, and trust me, even he never cried about the changes. My sister bought a house in Wallingford when it was a working class neighborhood (1980s) and she hasn't been crying either.

Your friends are going to die, things are going to be different, don't fight it, and get over yourself it's embarassing.

@21, exactly.

@22 and 27,

Pretty much every "world class" US city has demolition controls (fe - New York, San Francisco). Funny thing, both of those cities also have rent control so old people who have spent their entire lives in their rentals can die in their homes. While you might call that socialism, I think it's solid community building.

The kind of change you apparently crave is vastly overrated, and is only inevitable to the extent that the local polity accepts it as such.

Well, tearing down and building CREATES JOBS you fucking stupid hipsters! Shit, you know those things most people on here don't actually think are important for things like food, clothing, rent etc.?

Shit, they should demo everything from The Cuff, and the building the Stranger is located all the way down to I-5!!!

@28 are you fucking joking?

rent control drove folks to demolish huge swaths of the Bronx that now have burned out buildings.

rent control means there are 65 year old women living in 5 bedroom apts. on Amsterdam avenue paying $800 a month with four empty bedrooms because her four kids moved out 25 years ago -- while people moving to NYC pay $1500 to share a crappy little 1 br with two roomates.

rent control means they don't build new buildings.

decreasing the supply.

forcing up rents.

pls. stop with the economic illiteracy ok?

btw my rent control was an illegal sublet so that the jamaican chick on the lease could go live in jamaica relying on my rent for her total income, while i paid her $1500 and she only had to pay the landlord $500. this was illegal sublet.

wow very just right?

this kind of ilegality is rife under rent control. but i did it because there were NO OTHER APARTMENTS TO BE FOUND for graduate students with no good income.

pretty soon a snitch in the building ratted us out to the landlord and i was in housing court and they booted me out, ended her lease. then the landlord got the "vacancy increase" he hoped for so he could rent it out at a market rate of $1500. most units in the building were under rent control and folks paid $500. this was in the 1980s.

There was another tenant in the building that was the son of a rich guy living in Scarsdale -- that guy had held onto his pied a tierre in the city from the late 1940s .... even after moving to suburbs......landlord couldn't prove he no longer lived there, you see.....

so his well off yupster kids could use that $500 a month pad for their forays into the city.
it was like a second home for rich guy!!

not very socially just as there is no check on your income to qualify.

if you want to help the poor, give them money via higher taxes. give them rent vouchers. don't use rent control.

Seattle isn't willing to do the hard work of setting up a local improvement district or a community land trust and actually fully funding it to protect its neighborhoods because the truth is that it costs a lot of money to preserve and maintain those older buildings.

Instead of paying for anything, the idea is to use the power of the law to create a bullshit moratorium that stifles the entire neighborhood when all we really need to do is buck up a put some money into saving a handful of the buildings that house our neighborhood cultural institutions.

This city is getting more retarded by the day. If I come back after grad school, I promise to set up a land trust to show you how it would work without inane, San francisco- type land use laws and zoning.

Mr X obviously has never tried to find an apartment in NYC.

I need to climb into a time machine and go back 20 years and tell my younger self that people in the future want to preserve the "character" of the Pike/Pine corridor. Hopefully, young me won't stick himself with a used needle while rolling on the ground laughing.

I need to go back 20 years and tell myself to buy up property near the Capitol Hill light rail station after the housing bubble pops for massive profits by 2020.

I've written some posts on this subject, two of which focus on the 12th and Pike block, and the Packard Building redevelopment. Plus others regarding big-box architecture in Capitol Hill. We have some great projects, and some bad ones. You certainly can't fault developers for doing business, but we should and can control what gets developed.

The following post talks about the 12th and Pike block, which is one of my favorites in the city, and the benefits of multiple inter-block developments: http://www.abollendesign.com/blog/2008/0…

This next post talks about the Packard Building, and the merits of preserving historically what you can, even if it's not much: http://www.abollendesign.com/blog/2009/0…

Dominic: The reason that a lot of old buildings are being torn down is that those buildings are unsafe, smelly pieces of shit.

@36:

That may be true in some instances, but not every, perhaps not even in a majority of cases. I suspect it's more likely developers have preferred to tear down existing buildings and replace them with inexpensive MDF board boxes, because there's a higher profit margin to be made with a new building than with an old refurbished one, even if the initial investment may turn out to be less when doing the latter.

Hey wait @ 31 - we have a growing land trust operating here in Seattle. Homestead Community Land Trust (HCLT). HCLT owns about 20 houses and condo units.

http://www.homesteadclt.org/

#30 - In almost any city with rent control, it isn't applicable to new construction (in SF, any building constructed since 1979 is exempt, which is mandated by California law).

#32 - I hear you, but rent control doesn't cause insanely low vacancy rates, the fact that everyone wants to live in the same city does.

Don't get me wrong, there's a downside to some of the renter protections we have in this city, but I think they've done far more good than harm.

@37: Old buildings tend to be unreinforced masonry construction. Of the 200 most seismically unsafe buildings in the city, about 50-60 are clustered around Broadway and Madison. Because building codes have changed so much in the last 100 years, renovating old buildings is very expensive.

Also, have you SEEN the basement of Moe Bar?