Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
You are an idiot.
Sincerely,
All the people who love the unique culture and flavor of the "underutilized" properties on the hill, and couldn't give a flying shit about aligning with corridor retailer's target customers.
Anyway, seriously, downtown is already a boring, sterile mall. Why do we need another one next door?
I mean, is this Wells is a real guy?
Are you sure he's not a Terminator?
But I agree with Dominic on the don't turn Cap Hill into a shopping mall part.
This was a commission study done by a third party in order to evaluate the retail climate on Broadway, especially before the construction of the new light rail station. The Chamber of Commerce commissioned the study and will use the study as a base for discussion but the recommendations themselves come from the firm hired to complete the study, Kidder Matthews.
I've been a critic of Dom's reporting for a while now and it seems taking potshots at me and the Capitol Hill Chamber is a way to retaliate. I'm surprised at this sliminess but I really shouldn't be. This piece is bombastic, hyperbolic, lacking in depth, misrepresentative and juvenile.
Justin Carder at the CHS blog has done the actual reporting of fact about this study and the hard work of sifting through the information and statistics. CHS blog has outperformed the Stranger on all topics Capitol Hill for years now. If you want to read about this study and what it actually says here's where to go;
http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2013/0…
Note that the Capitol Hill Blog seems to have read the study as explaining *why* "high-end and big box department stores will likely never be part of Capitol Hill’s commercial core", rather than whatever you think it is.
Dang. Our loss.
You should get out more if you think downtown is a sterile mall. Now Westfield Shoppingtown at Southcenter, that's a sterile mall done right.
Mr. Wells, your pet blogger did put in an admirable amount of work on that write-up, but it doesn't change the fact that the report is essentially an analysis of how the area could be sterilized and sown with a crop of samey national retailers just like downtown.
And as regards downtown, @17, I was just there last night, trying to catch the last bus home. I was there to catch a bus because that is the only thing there is to do in downtown after 9 pm. I'd been on the Hill, where there are actually things to do after 9 pm, precisely because there are still institutions other than sterile samey retailers.
A black person cant walk down the street or into a pub or restaurant without a dirty look and a racist comment under the breath from 90% of the 'chic hipsters' that live in that area.
Oh, and "this report makes a wonderful case for doing none of those things"? Really? Don't "Facilitate better communication between the agencies and developers responsible for the projects and Corridor businesses"? Don't "Advocate for additional police"? Don't "direct additional resources toward street/sidewalk cleaning, and tree trimming"?
Like two days ago you guys bleated for a return of the Q Patrol. Today you don't want more cops. And you don't want the trash picked up.
Clearly another Stranger hit piece. If you can't beat 'em demonize 'em.
So what did this guy do to you, Dominic?
Cap Hill is one of the most diverse, integrated neighborhoods in the city. Cap Hill is the most urbane area of this big small town we like to call Seattle.
I dunno who you've been talking to, but... I can assure you, "90%" of Cap Hill residents most certainly do NOT mutter racist epithets when a black person walks by.. maybe because a large proportion of Cap Hill residents are, in fact, persons of color themselves.... sheesh......
/end of 'splaining the obvious to the clueless
we all love a little dust up for excitement but this exchange seems a bit steeped in some historical begrudge-apalooza.
c'mon gents... let's all get along.
You wrote very political statements bordering on hate speech about "street people", and your only recommendations were to pass laws so that it's easier for police to fine or jail them, and to adopt a "no tolerance policy". Are you really surprised Dominic (or anyone with a social conscience) would react with vitriol?
Along with your top recommendation about *wink* street people, your second major recommendation is for MORE parking subsidized by the city (not a word about more transit, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian infrastructure, accessibility for the disabled, etc).
That's clearly not just a report of the facts - it's a political tool to pressure the government into changing laws to turn Capitol Hill into something completely out of step with the people who live in the neighborhood. Your entire report envisions turning Broadway into University Village - it's extremely tone-deaf at best and racist/classist at worst.
Confidential to Dominic: Please tell your fellow Stranger writers to stop writing free ad after free ad on Slog/The Stranger for every shitty business that #10 opens, pretending his new pizza shacks or bars are "news". You're financially supporting a Conlin fundraiser who has pushed the regressive recommendations in this report for years. I would not be surprised at all if he had a hand in writing the worst of these recommendations.
But please...keep bitching..it's really cute.
#33. Yes, the report was commissioned by the Chamber and the recommendations came from the third party that wrote the report. This story misrepresents that fact and so do you. The piece cherry picks high octane issues like parking and homelessness and does indeed misrepresent the recommendations as coming from the Chamber. That is simply untrue. Many of those recommendations that Kidder Matthews presents are based on interviews with retailers, yes. Those interviews show a need for some complex conversations about how to keep the Hill healthy. That's why we commissioned it. There are real issue to think about for the future of this neighborhood; how it gets developed or not, what transit means to us, public safety, maintaining diversity in retail and housing, finding tools and strategies to keep small business thriving. Unfortunately playing whack-a-mole with my character is the lede.
If you really want to talk about these things, read the report, not Dominic's screed. To misquote Lindy West -please try to read it before you attack, cuz you're not really getting the real story here.
This turned into Mean Girls so quickly...
And now, I'm going to take a nap. Because I'm so old.
I read your report - can you elaborate what you think I'm misrepresenting? I realize now I missed one sentence about more "bike racks". If you go to pages 28-29, your only public policy recommendations are about strengthening laws against "crazy street people", and about increasing subsidized parking.
Can you imagine if you replaced your 17 mentions about "street people" with another marginalized group? Mentally ill people, disabled people, black people, Jewish people, women, queer people? Most of us in Seattle see homeless people as a marginalized group like these other groups, which is why we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to help homeless people, instead of fining or jailing them. You clearly don't see them that way, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt in that you might just be "extremely tone-deaf" instead of flat-out racist and classist.
If this was truly just prepared by Kidder Matthews and released without your input, you should demand your money back and warn other people about doing business with them.
No, it is not. You might feel diverse and integrated while dining out on the Hill, but that feeling is nothing but delusion.
The claim that Capitol Hill was especially diverse may have been true 25 years ago, but today it is so untrue as to render anyone making this claim disingenuous. The black percentage of population of Capitol Hill has been in decline for a long time, and now stands at about 7.75%, compared to 8.29% for Seattle as a whole.
Capitol hill today is almost 80% white, compared to 70% for Seattle as a whole. Though it may not have been the case in the past, today Capitol hill is one of the less diverse, less integrated neighborhoods in the city.
Businesses are, at the end of the day, no more than collections of people. What sort of political ideology is it, that tells us residents ought to be compelled to continually increase density, but businesses ought to be compelled to reduce it?
I mean, this place had to be as bloated with new development then as it is now. I'm not sure Broadway was burdened by light rail construction AND street trolley construction AND unrealistic parking rates / enforcement...
If business owners want to try to shape the neighborhood, they ought to agree to a rough outline of a vision before the light rail station opens. I fear more a transformation into the University District than Beltown or Pioneer Square.
Your posts are better when you're not coming across like an asshole's screed.
To me, good retail is Hawthorne Blvd in Portland or Indian Canyon Drive in Palm Springs.
When I moved to Capital Hill 25 years ago Pine street was Auto parts stores and glory holes, it had the highest density in the city then as it does now, retail business faces the same issues; transportation, parking, poor people, bla, bla welcome to life in the city. BTW, is was mostly white people then as well, diversity only exists in the 'burbs now, look at a map of Census data. http://crosscut.com/2010/11/10/seattle/2… Adapt or die, capitol hill businesses, consolidation of distribution to Walmart style business model is completely dependent on subsidies from municipal utilities and cheap oil, in other words, not gonna happen in high density areas like the 'hill. If you don't already live in Kennydale or Marysville, please consider it, you might be a lot happier there.
@53 It's still hypocritical to dismiss things because of brand or scale, especially coming from an avid supporter of crappy non-livable aPodments/bedrooms. Don't you think? Why is it OK to support cramped living spaces but not at least consider the rapid tide of gentrification that's already happened--is the majority of aPodment ownership local/organic/caring about the neighborhood? That's a rhetorical question.
You could have an integrated vision that lets everyone have what they want, acknowledging the reality of current capitalist whoredom while incubating a more balanced future. Knowing how things happen in Seattle with respect to urban planning, I don't have much faith in that happening though.
Should it happen that behind all this is a beef worthy of a legitimate post, I'm sure we'll get it. In the meantime, silver linings-wise, this sure has given the report a bigger spotlight than even Justin's excellent CHS post could have managed. Ah, the internet, where anger lights a quicker fire than love ever could.
Increasing urban density means increasing industrialization of agriculture and food processing, you simply can't feed everyone without it. Just because the increased business density isn't in your residential-density neighborhood doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or isn't a necessary consequence of that residential scheme.
By all means, have a go at collectivizing the food industry, but don't kid yourself-- dense cities absolutely do need chemical fertilizers, factory farms, processing plants, and heavy transport.
Capitol Hill diverse? Are you kidding me? Its 80% White. You are thinking of Central, which thanks to the 1%er faux liberal racist Mayor, will be all white soon enough.
http://www.areavibes.com/seattle-wa/capi…
Fine, but that's your hobby-horse; I haven't used the word "corporation" at all in my questioning of those who support residential density while opposing business density. I certainly don't restrict any of what I've been saying to privately owned businesses.
This report sucks. Michael Wells represents a demographic that is easy to hate: business owners. Granted, he represents small business owners, but...well, anarchy means I litter, right?
I've just skimmed the report, but I think one thing that should be a focus is getting a street car line from the hotels downtown up to Capitol Hill. Free parking and cracking down on aggressive panhandlers won't bring in more business for store owners - must-visit stores will.
There should be ample concern, however, that the results of this god awful report will skew development in their favor. Perhaps Holden could have been more eloquent in pointing this out, but ultimately, it will come down to policy makers. With no real City Council challengers (except that Albert Shen character, who would be more aligned with this report than Mike O'Brien), it means that more pressure on the council and mayor's office is needed.
And perhaps passing Seattle Districts, giving all of the council 2 years to not fuck it up, especially if any of them are planning on running in District 3.
And please don't litter.
There are literally hundreds of people in Seattle who have dedicated their jobs and lives to bettering the situation for the poor and homeless - go read what they have written or listen to them speak. I guarantee none of them recommend jailing and fining homeless people and many have written at length why this is a cruel and awful idea, if you still don't get it. You can emulate more respectful language than "crazy street people" as well.
@14: Of course it is. That's Dominic's stock in trade. Anyone who disagrees with him is just a stupid poopyhead. That's what passes for intellectual discourse for Mr. Holden.
or can we just dispense with the fairy tale that business gives one shit about doing something without expecting an consequential ring up on their register.