Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, April 14, 2010
News The Morning News
Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:57 AM
China Quake: Authorities estimate 400 are dead and 10,000 are injured.
Alaska: Palin family reality show reportedly bombs at insider preview.
Seattle: Man tells police that someone doused him with gasoline and set him on fire.
Belltown: Landlords hike rents by hundreds of dollars for vacant apartments near the soon-to-be-condemned McGuire apartments, which hundreds of tenants must leave to find new housing.
The USA's War in Mexico: Bloody and fruitless:
More than 22,700 people have been killed in Mexico's drug war since a U.S.-backed military crackdown on cartels began more than three years ago, according to a government report.The report said 2009 was the deadliest year in the drug war, with 9,635 people killed in violence tied to organized crime. That compares to 2,837 in 2007, the first year of President Felipe Calderon's military-led offensive.
Retail Sales: Consumer spending jumped in March due to pent up demand, car sales, and a slight thawing of credit.
Shorter Opinion at The Hill: The recovering economy is good for Republicans as long as Americans don't believe the economy is recovering. (PS — Why are The Hill's opinion pages so out of touch with The Hill's news section? Also, same question for the Seattle Times.)
Our Prudish Losers: In freak accident, Mariners win home game.
Supreme Justice: Senate Dems tell Obama to ignore Republicans when appointing new judge.
That's So Gay: Italy's high court rejects same-sex marriage.
Sweet Jesus, Muslims Are Nuts: Islamic insurgents ban all songs on Somali radio.
Give and Take: Builder wants five more feet for development on Broadway, citing the value of the future street car. The city should give the extra height—but cut the proposed parking in half. They can get by with half the parking if, like, the reason to build there is proximity to excellent transit.
The Wonder Years: Seattle police investigating crime at elementary school where student allegedly tried choking another kid with a plastic bag and said, "I hate Mexicans."
Are You a Baby Who Doesn't Like Delicious Cilantro? Don't worry, there are lots of other babies out there (including Julia Child).
2
Plus one for cilantro pesto. The NYT endorses my recipe suggestion from a few days ago. "They actually have deeper roots in the Mediterranean than the basil version".
3
YEAH! Cut permanent parking in HALF!!! Leave people with no place to put their car when they're not working. FUCK THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING OUTSIDE THE CITY. FUCK THEM RIGHT IN THE EAR!!!
8
@ 2, "Sure enough, I’ve found cilantro pestos to be lotion-free and surprisingly mild."
Okay, then, I'll give it a try when my cilantro is ready to be harvested. (Ever try growing this stuff? You have, like, a one day window before it bolts. Grr....)
Okay, then, I'll give it a try when my cilantro is ready to be harvested. (Ever try growing this stuff? You have, like, a one day window before it bolts. Grr....)
10
Five feet seems like a weird amount to request in extra height. Not enough to add another floor unless the original plan had high ceilings which will be lowered - or else it's just adding higher ceilings to make the units more tony. It's a BS request - but I agree with the reduced parking tradeoff.
13
The McGuire apartments are a prime example of our City's disfunctional building department. This is the sort of thing one expects in Mexico. We have a third world system of code enforcement. Fire the lot of them and start from scratch.
14
@ 11, that was a dog-bites-man headline if I ever saw one, so don't go patting yourself on the back too hard. Wow, the home of the Roman Catholic Church (and don't give me any guff about the Vatican City being a sovereign nation) rejects same-sex marriage? That's no more unexpected than Saudi Arabia doing the same.
16
@6 What? I'm being enthusiastic for Mr. Holden's constant attempt to make life miserable for commuters. As the building stands there isn't even 1 parking spot per living unit. Mr. Holden wants that to be reduced to 43% of the living units get parking spots without regard to logistical benefits, such as the benefit of being able to leave one's car at home whenever they are in the city, and not having a place to park their vehicle if they go on vacation for weeks at a time.
I commend Mr. Holden and his thoughts on eliminating permanent vehicular parking spots in order to encourage more constant car shuffling on streets and increasing gasoline usage.
I commend Mr. Holden and his thoughts on eliminating permanent vehicular parking spots in order to encourage more constant car shuffling on streets and increasing gasoline usage.
17
12
"...2009 was the deadliest year in the drug war, with 9,635 people Killed....."
- remind us - Who was President in 2009?
"That compares to 2,837 in 2007..."
"...2009 was the deadliest year in the drug war, with 9,635 people Killed....."
- remind us - Who was President in 2009?
"That compares to 2,837 in 2007..."
18
All political, economic, and judicial decisions in Italy are made on the basis of Berlusconi's personal interest in the matter, usually but not always a question of payments made or hookers provided. The gay-rights lobby didn't pay enough.
19
"Palin family reality show reportedly bombs at insider preview."
were these the same insiders who previewed Dan's show/noshow with HBO?
were these the same insiders who previewed Dan's show/noshow with HBO?
20
why not let the developer and the market figure out how many parking spaces to provide?
a better public benefit would be to require a bigger setback esp. if there is a nice corner that can be scooped out radially, opening up the public space and making the streetscape nicer.
what's wrong with having an electric car you use to go skiing on weekends or the odd trip to your aunt Jane in Chehalis, and using transit walking or biking for most trips everyday?
People who are 90% green aren't green enough? Are we going to have a "one drop rule" if you associate yourself with one drop of fossil fuel you're verboten?
Hey why not tell people they can't fly on airplanes.
Me, I'd go with banning dogs, the carbon footprint of any Fido is as big as a car. Or maybe we could do carbon evaluations and have the building permit people come out and find out if you have a dog, you can't have a car, but if you don't have a dog you can have at least an electric car.
a better public benefit would be to require a bigger setback esp. if there is a nice corner that can be scooped out radially, opening up the public space and making the streetscape nicer.
what's wrong with having an electric car you use to go skiing on weekends or the odd trip to your aunt Jane in Chehalis, and using transit walking or biking for most trips everyday?
People who are 90% green aren't green enough? Are we going to have a "one drop rule" if you associate yourself with one drop of fossil fuel you're verboten?
Hey why not tell people they can't fly on airplanes.
Me, I'd go with banning dogs, the carbon footprint of any Fido is as big as a car. Or maybe we could do carbon evaluations and have the building permit people come out and find out if you have a dog, you can't have a car, but if you don't have a dog you can have at least an electric car.
21
oh, and if you have a pit bull, you can have two cars as it will likely reduce the overall carbon emissions affecting the planet thru eating a few children.
22
@3 Bus/walk/bike/carpool. Otherwise, yes, fuck half of you--your lifestyle is fucking over the rest of us. Work where you live.
23
@20, please keep your "bigger setbacks" out in the exurbs where they belong. Nicer streetscape my ass; bigger setbacks destroy streets.
24
I'm one of those people who finds the taste of cilantro to be "soapy." I also pick it out of foods I find it in, although I don't throw it on the floor.
25
@22 See, you agree. FUCK EVERYBODY ELSE!!! LET'S FORCE THEM INTO SUBMISSION, DESTROYING THE PLANET IN THE PROCESS!
@23 How do bigger setbacks destroy streets? This one I'm curious about...
@23 How do bigger setbacks destroy streets? This one I'm curious about...
27
@16:
Sounds like this isn't geared toward commuters.
BUT I MEAN GOD WHAT IS IT ABOUT THESE "CITIES" AND THE NEED TO WALK EVERYWHERE OR TAKE TRANSIT, SERIOUSLY.
Interestingly, the developer has cited the forthcoming First Hill Streetcar as a major motivation for the project, highlighting the potential for fixed transit to spur new economic development in neighborhoods.
The 6-story building would add 100 units of market-rate apartments within easy walking distance of the many medical jobs on First Hill, with below-ground parking for 83 vehicles. The apartments would be a roughly even mix of studios, 1, and 2-bedroom units. It would also add 5-8 new retail spaces on Broadway and Jefferson.
Sounds like this isn't geared toward commuters.
BUT I MEAN GOD WHAT IS IT ABOUT THESE "CITIES" AND THE NEED TO WALK EVERYWHERE OR TAKE TRANSIT, SERIOUSLY.
29
@20 Fuck bigger setbacks, and banning dogs is just absurd, but I do agree with the rest of your comment.
Hey, I would be overjoyed if my entire life could be contained in a small radius well-served by public transportation, but That. Is. Not. Reality. I'm going to keep my little compact, fuel-efficient car, because I have friends, family and activities I enjoy that I simply cannot reach using the public transporation available in this region. I look at all of the anti-parking crusaders, and I see a bunch of people who think I should be punished or disadvantaged for having family and interests outside of the city proper. That's bullshit.
I keep my driving to the absolute bare minimum, which means once a week or once every two weeks for large stretches of the year. But I still need a place to store my car. The only thing that eliminating or drastically reducing parking availability does for me and people like me is to give us strong incentives to move out of the city, and that's a bad thing.
Hey, I would be overjoyed if my entire life could be contained in a small radius well-served by public transportation, but That. Is. Not. Reality. I'm going to keep my little compact, fuel-efficient car, because I have friends, family and activities I enjoy that I simply cannot reach using the public transporation available in this region. I look at all of the anti-parking crusaders, and I see a bunch of people who think I should be punished or disadvantaged for having family and interests outside of the city proper. That's bullshit.
I keep my driving to the absolute bare minimum, which means once a week or once every two weeks for large stretches of the year. But I still need a place to store my car. The only thing that eliminating or drastically reducing parking availability does for me and people like me is to give us strong incentives to move out of the city, and that's a bad thing.
30
@27 Actually, having a permanent parking space makes it easier to walk everywhere and take transit regularly if you don't have to worry about moving your car every 3 days or about parking zones. The only time I've driven to get anywhere IN the city after work is if I am going to be somewhere over 2 miles away and not come back until after the buses stop running.
32
@23 - Huh? Fnarf, I think your brain just farted.
Bigger setbacks means more sidewalk room for pedestrians, kiosks, hot dog carts, buskers, and outdoor dining. Like you'd find in "exurbs" like Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Bigger setbacks means more sidewalk room for pedestrians, kiosks, hot dog carts, buskers, and outdoor dining. Like you'd find in "exurbs" like Manhattan and Brooklyn.
33
@32 You do have a point, but when I think "bigger setbacks", I think of Lynnwood, which is an urban designer's nightmare. Bigger setbacks can be good, but only if properly utilized.
34
@29/@30: Do you know how much it costs per space to develop parking? Do you know how much it costs per space per year to maintain a parking space? Do you know how much it costs in local street maintenance per year for the variety of LOS classifications?
35
@34 ...So, you're saying that there should be LESS privately maintained parking because it costs a lot to maintain the ones on the street?
36
Buildings to the sidewalk make for the most vibrant streetscapes. Deadest block in DT - City Hall on Fourth.
37
@35: That's not what I'm saying at all.
Adding more cars to a neighborhood and making permitting contingent upon availability of parking means more developments will need to maintain a level of parking that eventually becomes cost prohibitive. If you want to build 150 apartments and you're told that you need a 1:1 ratio, the cost is $3,000,000 in sunk costs and, assuming a best case, $75,000 in annual maintenance costs.
Assuming no inflation (LOL!), that's $3,750,000 over a 50 year building lifespan for maintenance on top of the $3,000,000 in construction costs. To recover costs in parking alone, you need to charge $90 monthly per parking space. Guess where that goes? That is to say nothing of additional interest charged off on financing.
Also, a road with a rush hour LOS of E or F (like First Hill) will have lane mile maintenance costs toppling several thousand dollars, whereas LOS A or B (like suburbs) will be in the neighborhood of less than half that. Having a 4+1 road configuration means you achieve one lane mile of maintained road by going around the block about 1 and a half times which means having more cars in a neighborhood costs way more. Reducing parking and SOV/low occupancy vehicle throughput reduces maintenance costs and increases
It's completely feasible to have everyone driving in the suburbs and to make accommodations accordingly, but that's not why people live in a city. Demanding consistent parking norms in a densifying neighborhood that are on par with less dense areas goes against the grain of what a city seeks to accomplish by implementing parking controls.
Adding more cars to a neighborhood and making permitting contingent upon availability of parking means more developments will need to maintain a level of parking that eventually becomes cost prohibitive. If you want to build 150 apartments and you're told that you need a 1:1 ratio, the cost is $3,000,000 in sunk costs and, assuming a best case, $75,000 in annual maintenance costs.
Assuming no inflation (LOL!), that's $3,750,000 over a 50 year building lifespan for maintenance on top of the $3,000,000 in construction costs. To recover costs in parking alone, you need to charge $90 monthly per parking space. Guess where that goes? That is to say nothing of additional interest charged off on financing.
Also, a road with a rush hour LOS of E or F (like First Hill) will have lane mile maintenance costs toppling several thousand dollars, whereas LOS A or B (like suburbs) will be in the neighborhood of less than half that. Having a 4+1 road configuration means you achieve one lane mile of maintained road by going around the block about 1 and a half times which means having more cars in a neighborhood costs way more. Reducing parking and SOV/low occupancy vehicle throughput reduces maintenance costs and increases
It's completely feasible to have everyone driving in the suburbs and to make accommodations accordingly, but that's not why people live in a city. Demanding consistent parking norms in a densifying neighborhood that are on par with less dense areas goes against the grain of what a city seeks to accomplish by implementing parking controls.
39
@8, I agree with the continuous planting suggestion, and also, if you pinch off the budding flowers immediately, you'll get a little more grow-time out of the plants. Not much, but a few days. :)
40
Really? No angry comment about the generalization that all Muslims are nuts. No one found that offensive? I guess everyone is just used to mean comments about Muslims-lovely.
41
Parking norms in suburban residential areas or even somewhere like Wedgwood are 2, maybe 3 cars per household (one in driveway, 1-2 in the street in front of your house).
What is being proposed here isn't even close to that, in fact it is already less than 1 per household.
"To recover costs in parking alone, you need to charge $90 monthly per parking space."
My parking in the Broadway Market building is, um, about $100 a month. Which is perfectly reasonable. Is your point that parking spots R expenzive and R therefore bad?
I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with public street parking, either.
What is being proposed here isn't even close to that, in fact it is already less than 1 per household.
"To recover costs in parking alone, you need to charge $90 monthly per parking space."
My parking in the Broadway Market building is, um, about $100 a month. Which is perfectly reasonable. Is your point that parking spots R expenzive and R therefore bad?
I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with public street parking, either.
42
@32, are you referring to the Manhattan that's almost entirely built out to the sidewalk? The one where research consistently shows that the streets with the narrowest sidewalks have the highest level of pedestrian interaction? Manhattan is a terrible place to go looking for buildings set way back from the sidewalk, because there aren't any. Manhattan's built out closer to the curb than any city in America.
Same with every other city with a vibrant street life. San Francisco doesn't have hardly any set-back buildings, and the streets that do are dead. Melbourne. London.
Bellevue and Redmond, on the other hand, are loaded with 'em. Paved-over wastelands or grassed-over wastelands, you pick.
Same with every other city with a vibrant street life. San Francisco doesn't have hardly any set-back buildings, and the streets that do are dead. Melbourne. London.
Bellevue and Redmond, on the other hand, are loaded with 'em. Paved-over wastelands or grassed-over wastelands, you pick.
43
Does bigger setbacks necessarily mean bigger sidewalks? Or just more underutilized space on the lot?
Gas stations, for instance. I can only think of two on the hill. One, inexplicably, is at Broadway and Pine. The other, more appropriately, is at the top of Broadway at Roy St.
The lot at Broadway and Pine is ultimately better utilized as residential/retail going right to the sidewalk, rather than a tiny C-store on a huge parking lot.
Similarly, houses with yards have been almost completely phased out west of Broadway. When you see one it looks out of place.
Gas stations, for instance. I can only think of two on the hill. One, inexplicably, is at Broadway and Pine. The other, more appropriately, is at the top of Broadway at Roy St.
The lot at Broadway and Pine is ultimately better utilized as residential/retail going right to the sidewalk, rather than a tiny C-store on a huge parking lot.
Similarly, houses with yards have been almost completely phased out west of Broadway. When you see one it looks out of place.
44
@37 Your logic is strange. So, you're saying that its OK to demand that developers restrict their underground parking because the renters will have to pay for them?
I can completely understand making household parking convenient but street parking inconvenient. Encourage people to travel in their cars only when necessary, and to leave their cars at home. But, to encourage people to completely abandon their car with no feasible/reasonable alternative transportation - i.e. a) getting to work in a different city; b) longer trips to exterior destinations; c) suburban family and friends; d) larger shopping excursions (I would not want to travel by bus with a dinner table, or chairs) - is ridiculous, and punishing people for the good of the planet.
I can completely understand making household parking convenient but street parking inconvenient. Encourage people to travel in their cars only when necessary, and to leave their cars at home. But, to encourage people to completely abandon their car with no feasible/reasonable alternative transportation - i.e. a) getting to work in a different city; b) longer trips to exterior destinations; c) suburban family and friends; d) larger shopping excursions (I would not want to travel by bus with a dinner table, or chairs) - is ridiculous, and punishing people for the good of the planet.
45
@41: I meant actual street usage (LOS is what that refers to).
@44: No, your logic is strange. Stamping your feet because someone proposes limiting unbuilt supply is confusing, especially when there's more than enough demand for housing from those without cars.
To both of you, you're missing the purpose of densifying and limiting parking inventory in a dense neighborhood. Wedging more and more cars in a neighborhood >20,000ppsqmi is difficult to contemplate. Car owners are generally car users and folks use their cars far more often than they really think they do and as such the saw of "I need my car for trips to the mountains every so often" becomes a totally dishonest defense of ownership.
There's also financing, which is important to development. When you have an upfront sunk cost with no occupancy commitment, you've created several million dollars of unjustified spending. Now that many banks are incorporating mass transit into their funding considerations, it becomes less and less responsible to devote such a large portion of one's development cost to parking in an area that is more than adequately served by transit.
The rest is about entitlement. You can own your car but nobody has to accommodate or coddle you. There are more than a few folks who would gladly move into a development that has no parking as such places are typically cheaper upfront to build and go for a bit less than market rate when they're open for occupancy. They don't really care if you're sad you can't go to the mountains to see your aunt suzie buy groceries.
You can say you want, but nobody cares. I want a fucking pony, but I'm not getting one. It's increasingly impractical, even if I could find a lot of use in pimping it out for ironic photos with hipsters at $20 a pop.
If it's that important to me, I can move somewhere that would allow it and just truck my scarf and dayglo sunglasses wearing pony in during the day.
More...
@44: No, your logic is strange. Stamping your feet because someone proposes limiting unbuilt supply is confusing, especially when there's more than enough demand for housing from those without cars.
To both of you, you're missing the purpose of densifying and limiting parking inventory in a dense neighborhood. Wedging more and more cars in a neighborhood >20,000ppsqmi is difficult to contemplate. Car owners are generally car users and folks use their cars far more often than they really think they do and as such the saw of "I need my car for trips to the mountains every so often" becomes a totally dishonest defense of ownership.
There's also financing, which is important to development. When you have an upfront sunk cost with no occupancy commitment, you've created several million dollars of unjustified spending. Now that many banks are incorporating mass transit into their funding considerations, it becomes less and less responsible to devote such a large portion of one's development cost to parking in an area that is more than adequately served by transit.
The rest is about entitlement. You can own your car but nobody has to accommodate or coddle you. There are more than a few folks who would gladly move into a development that has no parking as such places are typically cheaper upfront to build and go for a bit less than market rate when they're open for occupancy. They don't really care if you're sad you can't go to the mountains to see your aunt suzie buy groceries.
You can say you want, but nobody cares. I want a fucking pony, but I'm not getting one. It's increasingly impractical, even if I could find a lot of use in pimping it out for ironic photos with hipsters at $20 a pop.
If it's that important to me, I can move somewhere that would allow it and just truck my scarf and dayglo sunglasses wearing pony in during the day.
46
And, as such, shouldn't it be the developer and the market to limit parking limits and not the city council nor idealistic environuts who only have their own myopic lifestyle as their primary standard?
Speaking of dishonesty, your first argument is that of "I want to control people's lifestyles." But, your backup is "I'm protecting the interests of the developers." While, I'm sure the developers are quite happy to be thought of, I'm also sure that their financing may be taken care of.
And, let's get to your third argument of hilarity. Entitlement. What makes you so special that you are entitled to dictate how other's live their life? I'm not saying that people have to coddle me, but if somebody is obviously trying to entice me, what gives you the right to slap their hand? Your whole argument comes from the sense of entitlement to a world without parking. And no alternative to cars.
Speaking of dishonesty, your first argument is that of "I want to control people's lifestyles." But, your backup is "I'm protecting the interests of the developers." While, I'm sure the developers are quite happy to be thought of, I'm also sure that their financing may be taken care of.
And, let's get to your third argument of hilarity. Entitlement. What makes you so special that you are entitled to dictate how other's live their life? I'm not saying that people have to coddle me, but if somebody is obviously trying to entice me, what gives you the right to slap their hand? Your whole argument comes from the sense of entitlement to a world without parking. And no alternative to cars.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (46) RSS