Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union

Posted by on Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Mayor Mike McGinn's office announced a new "zoning proposal for South Lake Union" yesterday in a press release that, strangely, didn't explain what that zoning proposal would be (or acknowledge that it will cause some neighbors to shit cinder blocks—which I'll explain in a bit). However, his office did boast that the plan would provide capacity for as many as 12,000 new housing units and office space for 22,000 new jobs. So I got a copy of the proposed zoning map, which would raise heights up to 400 feet high along Denny Way and 240 feet throughout most of the remaining neighborhood.

Here's an autumnal-hued diagram:

South Lake Union: Current height limits in the area range from from 40 feet to 125 feet--as you can see in these maps here and here.
  • South Lake Union: Current height limits in the area range from 40 feet to 125 feet—as you can see in these maps here and here.

Brace yourself for renewed howls from residents on the western slope of Capitol Hill and other neighborhoods who could lose their views of the Space Needle. (I've written about this view controversy, the earlier proposals, the community board stacked with real-estate interests, and assorted outcry when the planning began more than four years ago under former mayor Greg Nickels.)

The inevitable howls can and should be ignored. There are three reasons why:

First: This proposal won't create a wall of buildings. It would limit development to two towers per block, and it would, in buildings over 160 feet, limit their floor size to 10,500 square feet. Furthermore, residential towers could not cover more than half the property. This is to say, taller buildings will be set back from the street with many bright, view-friendly gaps between them.

Second: Simply adding development capacity doesn't result in tall buildings being developed on every lot. Take downtown, where real estate is more valuable, transportation is better, and the location is just—well—more desirable: Lots of squat buildings still remain among the skyscrapers. Even though taller buildings are allowed downtown (even infinite heights!), no one has built the Burj Alki. In the Denny Triangle due north of downtown, many lots are still undeveloped even though the zoning capacity reaches 400 feet. So when the development financing market picks up again—pray!!—it won't concentrate new construction solely in one part of town. It will be dispersed, with a few (hopefully nice) tall new buildings in South Lake Union.

Third: Views of skyscrapers are awesome, as I've said before. In fact, that’s what you should see when you look out the window in the middle of the city. If you want to see the water or mountains, Seattle will always have plenty of those views—just not from the middle of downtown.

But the test for McGinn is in finishing what Nickels started by getting this legislation passed. Seattle City Council member Richard Conlin, who chairs the council's land-use committee, hasn't seen the mayor's proposal yet because the mayor hasn't yet transmitted it. (McGinn spokesman Aaron Pickus says it's coming soon.) That said, Conlin say that rezoning is "essential" to making South Lake Union an urban center. "Briefings have presented an attractive set of ideas," says Conlin, "but I need to see which of those actually wound up in the legislation."

When the council does consider it, may the Force be with them overcoming the Dark Side of the NIMBYs. May they have the fortitude to withstand superficial complaints from those who don't want their city to look and function, you know, like a city.

 

Comments (21) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Zebes 1
the Burj Alki


I giggled.
Posted by Zebes http://www.badrap.org/rescue/index.html on June 26, 2012 at 2:53 PM
Matt the Engineer 2
This is great news.

And a minor point about the unlimited heights allowed downtown: you probably can't build taller than the Columbia Tower. They tried to build the CT taller than it is, but the FAA put a cap on the height thanks to nearby SeaTac. It seems crazy that an airplane couldn't avoid a building that far away from the airport, but that was the decision. I guess you'd have to build the Burj Alki starting well over a thousand feet underground.
Posted by Matt the Engineer on June 26, 2012 at 2:57 PM
gloomy gus 3
It looks like Vulcan did a pretty careful job writing this one. If I were them I woulda picked this as the one to make the mayor put his name on too.
Posted by gloomy gus on June 26, 2012 at 2:59 PM
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 4
It's easy to say that when it's not your property that's affected.

Just remember: who were the NIMBYs when they were going to tear down one of the Stranger's favorite bars within the golden two block radius? So take whatever these people tell you with a grain of salt.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on June 26, 2012 at 3:06 PM
5
But, what if there's a small, old, one-storey building that would be demolished to make a high-rise? What if that small, old, one-storey building houses a coffee hangout? What if Bauhaus were in SLU? Would it be ok to bulldoze that?
Posted by TJ on June 26, 2012 at 3:09 PM
Matt the Engineer 6
Where were the NIMBYs when these condo owners with the soon-to-be-blocked views were building their condos? Everyone blocks someone else's view.

Cities grow. This is a good thing.
Posted by Matt the Engineer on June 26, 2012 at 3:25 PM
7
Like the Roosevelters, @4 and @5 continue to seem unable to distinguish between "protecting views" and valuing actual uses.

SLU has benefited from the rehab of many of the older buildings along Westlake Ave N (which thankfully escaped the wrecking ball of the dumbass Seattle Commons plan) into thriving small businesses, shoehorned in between newer structures. These provide valuable stitching to the urban fabric.

Parking lots on 9th and abandoned auto showrooms on 8th provide nothing.

The best way to ensure that the smaller buildings and businesses of Westlake and Cascade remain is to amend the zoning not only to "limit development to two towers per block," but to limit single projects to less than whole blocks as well. We can't afford any more "setback towers on a useless podium" megablocks in this city.
Posted by d.p. on June 26, 2012 at 3:27 PM
Dominic Holden 8
@4) You miss the point entirely. Opposition to taller buildings is primarily aesthetic. Opposition to razing the most densely packed, commercially active, culturally vibrant blocks in the city's most active neighborhoods are about how the city functions. Show me a block in South Lake Union that plays such a vital role in the neighborhood's commerce and pedestrian activity that risks demolition for a bland, thoughtless building, and I'll be first in line to defend preserving the function of that block.

I talked about this in my April story about the so-called Bauhuas …:

The important thing in Pike/Pine is maintaining a mixture of uses from high end to low end (fancy new condos, affordable lofts, upscale restaurants, cheap cafes, etc.). But as developers home in on Pike/Pine, they threaten to displace the very things that make the neighborhood so attractive to renters in the first place.

@5) It's not, and never was, about one coffee shop. See above.
Posted by Dominic Holden on June 26, 2012 at 3:28 PM
bleedingheartlibertarian 9
Owning a property does not entitle you to maintain surrounding properties in stasis in perpetuity for the sake of your own property value. Appreciation is not a human right. Buyer beware. Etc.
Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian on June 26, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 10
@8

I get it. Drinking in a bar with your friends and buying a rusty fixie in a second hand shop is "culture" and that's privileged over things other people say they value. Like their aesthetic experience. Aesthetics is stupid and the Stranger would never defend public art. If you want to look at something pretty, get a TV, am I right?

And because people with views move in different social circles than you, and so their lives and their desires don't count.

You know people walking down the street have a view too? Or no view, as the case may be. Just saying.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on June 26, 2012 at 3:51 PM
11
11: Yup, and they'll fight to the death to defend their double standards.
Posted by Jizzlobber on June 26, 2012 at 4:08 PM
12
Oh, my god.

What part of altering a view does ≠ tearing down a building do you fucking assholes not understand?

Seattle: retards with money.
Posted by d.p. on June 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM
13
Note that if the views were so important to those developers, they *could* have bought the air rights over the neighboring properties to protect them.
Posted by Orv on June 26, 2012 at 4:18 PM
14
@7 - you're missing my point. I realize sarcasm, when in written form, can be difficult to discern.
My point was that there were several posts on the Slog decrying the demolishing of the building housing Bauhaus to create density. Admittedly, I don't recall who wrote the articles, and they may not have been written by Dom; nonetheless, they were on the Slog. And I love Bauhaus.

My point was that it would appear at times that Slog writers favor density and development, but only when it's not in their backyard.
Posted by TJ on June 26, 2012 at 4:59 PM
TVDinner 15
Because I am far too lazy to read through the links, are there any provisions in the code changes to create healthy street life? 1st level retail, cornices that frame the street and are consistent with the height and context of nearby buildings, that sort of thing?
Posted by TVDinner http:// on June 26, 2012 at 5:11 PM
16
The main problem with the Nickels zoning changes were that there was a 14-story pedestal, above which the building needed to be slender. In Vancouver BC, the pedestals are only about 3 stories. So can you clarify whether this has changed to require that buildings over 160' must start out at ground level with only 10,500 square feet per floor?

There is a concept called Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In Vancouver, they've found out that to have a healthy, livable neighborhood, one must limit the FAR to between 5 and 6. That means that even where you might have a bunch of 40 story tall buildings, the average residential and office square footage to ground area averages out to having lower buildings built out with heights of 5 or 6 stories. The Nickels proposal seemed to violate that. If downtown Vancouver is successful with that density, there's no reason that Seattle officials should push for greater density -- especially in this special part of the city.
Posted by ddoo on June 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM
17
@14: I got the sarcasm, and I also got your underlying accusation that defenders of the Bauhaus block were hypocrites.

What such accusers routinely fail to understand is that the Bauhaus block is already an example of functional density -- in fact, it was likely that the wholesale replacement of the block would have yielded a density decrease, from 8 storefronts to 1 or 2, and perhaps with fewer units of housing thanks to increased per-unit size and much of the redeveloped space wasted on parking.

Dominic addresses your attempt to NIMBY-fy him @8. I myself cited the mixed-use, mixed-scale, mixed-age hodgepodge along Westlake Ave N as worth maintaining, and I expressed trepidation about this city's habit of confusing verticality with "density improvement" (the same mistake you seem to have made about Bauhaus).

But trying to conflate nuanced differentiation of circumstances with NIMBY-ism, no matter your rhetorical approach, just makes you seem reactionary.

(p.s. Speaking of lacking nuanced differentiation: None of those opposed to development at the Roosevelt subway station has ever been able to name one thing "special" about Roosevelt High School that would warrant "view protection" on the order of the U.S. Capitol building or the Acropolis.)
Posted by d.p. on June 26, 2012 at 5:59 PM
18
@ 17,

A view of Mt. Rainier from a public building ain't chickenfeed.
Posted by Mr. X on June 26, 2012 at 6:34 PM
19
@18: You people need to get your story straight on whether your obsession was about the view of the high school (perfectly nice, hardly exceptional) or the view from the high school (a mountain hidden behind clouds 9/10 of the school year, which former students have told me they barely noticed).

Both are stupid reasons to spend $500,000,000 on a subway station and then make sure no one's around to use it.
Posted by d.p. on June 26, 2012 at 7:15 PM
20
NIMBY is the new N-word for density cum-swallowers like Matt the Engineer and the execrable prat Holden.
Posted by Density sucks on June 27, 2012 at 7:05 AM
21
NIMBYs are o.k. by me as long as they all stay out of my back-yard.
Posted by Gerald Fnord on June 27, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy