Six buildings on Broadway will be demolished for a six-story, mixed-use development:

The city's Department of Planning and Development will hold a design oversight meeting with the developer on November 18—for a much larger building than previously planned. As of August last year, SRM Development proposed a 113-unit apartment building. But there were rumors that the project would expand; now the proposed building has doubled in size, and the developer is planning a 235-unit building with retail and office space on the ground floor. It will devour most of the block.

*We'll see if it actually gets built. Murray Franklyn bought all the property on Pine Street and Belmont Avenue a couple years ago, razed the buildings, and then did nothing—unless you consider a gravel parking lot something.

What will happen to all those empty condos?

Earlier this year, I wrote about the ambitious development firm Schnitzer West, which started constructing several massive residential buildings and office towers at the worst time in the real-estate market:

At Gallery in Belltown, which began presale in October 2006, deposits have been put down on fewer than half of the 233 condos, and King County tax records online show that buyers have closed on only 22 of those condos—less than 10 percent. Brix Condos on Capitol Hill, which has 141 units, also started preselling in fall 2006; so far, according to a sales representative, fewer than half have sold. And at the Equinox on Eastlake Avenue, a sales representative says people have signed contracts for fewer than 30 percent of the 204 condos in the building, which is still under construction. Meanwhile, Schnitzer's Bravern, which is under the crane in Bellevue, has contracts on fewer than one-third of its 450 condos.

Schnitzer West basically had three options: They could sit on the empty condos and wait for the market to bounce back (all the while hemorrhaging money), they could convert the condos into apartments (renting them at prices far lower than a monthly mortgage), or they could just auction them at a price so low they fly out the door (while losing profit potential in large chunks).

As Slog tipper Claire notes and others have reported, Schnitzer is in auctioning off its condos at Brix in Capitol Hill and Gallery in Belltown, starting bids on some units at 62 percent of listed price. For instance, a $485,000 unit is starting at $185,000 on Sunday, Sept. 27 at 1:00 p.m in the Grand Hyatt.

Liquidating condo stock through auctions is still fairly new 'round these parts. But since last winter, condo developers have been auctioning their units, usually selling for about 80 percent of their listed price, left and right. But it's interesting that Schnitzer—which is owned by the extremely wealthy Schnitzer family in Oregon, which also owns Schnitzer Steel—can't hang on until the market improves.

Dearly beloved, forgive me if you've already seen this. I can't stop laughing.

The public authority that runs Qwest Field fought like the dickens last year to oppose tall buildings on an adjacent 3.8-acre parking lot. Board chair Lorraine Hine fired off a letter to the city, opposing towers up to 24 stories high—even though the location next to King Street Station, a prime transit hub for light rail and buses, is ideal for maximum density. Hine's number one issue: Tall buildings would block views from the stadium.

“Qwest Field and Event Center was designed and constructed to capture the City and Puget Sound views offered by the public facility’s setting," Hine wrote. "Had these panoramic views not been available, or if they could not have been shared so publicly, then the facility would certainly have been designed differently.” She concluded that "240’ is simply too tall for this site.”

Indeed, Seattle’s finest example of economic justice is probably in the stands at Qwest Field: The cheaper your tickets, the higher the seats—and the closer to one of the city’s best views of the skyline. But really, you’re not paying for the view. And the city council thankfully didn’t cave. Reports Emily Heffter:

The Seattle City Council on Monday approved changes to the city's land-use code to allow a massive retail and residential development on a three-block swath of asphalt just north of Qwest Field. In addition to changing the view, the development may revive the Pioneer Square neighborhood by bringing in 600 more homes. […]

The new development would take up about half of the large parking lot between Qwest Field and King Street, adjacent to King Street Station. The land belongs to King County, and the county is selling it to the developer with many strings attached. Among other things, Daniels' development must replace the parking and provide "open space" — an extension of Second Avenue South, most likely — to allow access to the rest of the parking lot.

The buildings will range from 40 to 240 feet tall, with 60 percent residential use and 40 percent retail.

Oddly, spokesman for the stadium authority Kenan Block, reached this afternoon, insisted, “We did not support or take a position on the height.” He said the stadium authority was simply concerned about a "wall of buildings" (which isn't represented in the city's graphic). When I pointed out that one section of Hine’s letter was titled “240’ on the North Lot is too tall”—they certainly did take a position on the height--he said that the Stadium Authority did not support the city council’s vote. “We think it’s okay," he said.

Seattle really ought to neuter the authorities that run Safeco Field and Qwest Field. Over the last year, they’ve carved out a role pushing the city to restrict what other people can build on private property. The Mariners and Safeco Field have filed several appeals to block a strip club from opening in SoDo, and lost all of them. And Qwest Field pushed to block housing—including lots of affordable housing—on a freakin' parking lot. We should pass an ordinance, by city council vote or voter initiative, that muzzles both entities from lobbying on land-use decisions off their property.

Is it time for Seattle to finally exorcise the ghost of Emmett Watson? Some architects think so. The late, beloved Seattle newspaper columnist was not an architectural critic. His spirit would no doubt be bemused at being dragged into arcane zoning-code debates about design review and the "ugly townhouse" problem.

But Watson was a champion of "Lesser Seattle." He was a spokesman and symbol for a smaller, quieter, working-class city when families could, on a union wage, afford a bungalow home on a single lot with a union wage.

The piece goes on to detail the horrors of bad town houses, like those with dominant driveways and standoffish fences—the result of bad zoning regulations that city council's land-use committee is currently revising—but those problems can be remedied. New rules could promote approachable row houses, little apartment buildings, and backyard cottages. But that still won't assuage the droves of persnickety denizens those who feel menaced by density—no matter how well planned it is. The article asks:

More people, more households, high prices — and the same amount of land. What's a Lesser Seattleite to do?

Um, can we exorcise those people, too?

Remember Edith Macefield's house?

Macefield bequeathed her property to the construction manager who built the thing around her house, Barry Martin. He sold it to a company called Reach Returns, which plans to keep it "identical"—only not. From a company statement:

Reach Returns plans to remodel the home, keeping the outward appearance identical. Once remodeled, plans are to elevate the home to the height of the surrounding commercial building, and underneath the home create a two level open space that will be available to the public during business hours.

Macefield will be that much closer to home, if you believe in all that heaven stuff (because, if you do, you certainly believe that an old lady who refuses to sell her house to developers, thereby forcing crews to build on all three sides while she waits to meet her maker and then gives her house to the construction chief totally goes to heaven).

Photo via Great Beyond on Flickr.

Seattle's bar for shockingly strong drinks and extremely large, jovial bears—a bar which has been around since shortly before the Big Bang—has numbered days. Developers plan to demolish the old C.C. Slaughters (currently called CC Attle's or the Men's Room or something) at 15th Avenue and East Madison Street. Reports the DJC:

[Developer Denis] Hayes said he envisions the building as being five stories with retail, commercial and residential space. He said Bullitt would probably occupy half of a floor, and would likely own the ground level retail and a few housing units. “We have to sell big chunks of this building to make it work,” he said. “(We) are absolutely confident that we will be able to do that.”

C.C.'s will be missed, especially its patio and oversized plasticine lumberjack statue. Developers expect to produce initial drawings for the new project by the end of the summer (but it's unclear when they plan to build). The new building won't be your typical box; they plan to create a "living building" that will stand for 250 years.

The team was looking for experience in meeting cutting edge green design, a strong local presence and an understanding of the Pacific Northwest. The architect also needed to understand that Bullitt was looking “not just for a piece of sculpture” but for a building that performed a series of technically rigorous functions in geology, hydrology and solar applications.

This sort of demolition and rebuilding tugs the urban devlopment enthusiast in at least two different ways. On one hand, popular and affordable bars like CC's make a dense neighborhood hospitable. The mixed-use building that replaces it won't be suitable as a disco-blasting, late-night hollering, ass-grabbing dive. Where is C.C.'s to go, and what happens when development pushes bars like this out of the neighborhood? On the other hand, it's a low-density lot—a one-story building with a parking lot—in the middle of an area that is begging to include dozens of homes, small businesses, and quieter bars. So does high-density always deserve to displace low-density high-use? Discuss.

From Slog tipper Sara, via the CD News.

3 critical, 3 missing after Slim Jim plant explosion

Folks are squabbling in comments about a story in this week's paper. Why, exactly, do neighbors oppose an extremely affordable housing development?

Quick background: Local developer Dirk Mulhair found that, under city permitting rules, he could squeeze eight single-occupancy apartments into one "town house." Over at 23rd Avenue East and East John Street, he is building six "town houses" that contain a total of 48 units—averaging only $550 a month, including all utilities, cable and internet—and city rules didn't require him to issue a public notice. Neighbors hit the roof. They had a few concerns, as described in the article: the lack of warning, the unprecedented density, and the impact on parking. However, the primary concern seemed that lower-class people will invade the neighborhood.

But a man claiming to be a neighbor quoted in the article, Alan Gossett, writes in comments, "The problem with this article is that it grossly misrepresents the legitimate concerns that the neighbors of this development project have ... I, and my fellow neighbors to which I’ve spoken, are neither 'anti-densification' nor 'anti-low income.'"

Sorry, Alan (or person claiming to be Alan), but I wrote about the "legitimate concerns" that neighbors shared with me—and City Council Member Sally Clark's sentiment that public notice should be required—but neighbors seemed especially opposed to the density and low-income residents.

These were some of the "legitimate concerns" Gossett raised... "I think this is going to be a magnet for very sketchy people," he said. He also rang off these zingers: “We are concerned about who moves in, worried about loss of security, and illegal activity" and "I am concerned about the negative impact on property values" and "Anyone who can scrape up enough money for month-to-month rent can live there."

Gossett added that he and other neighbors successfully blocked a proposal to convert vacant lots a half-block north of his house into 11 to 14 cottages. “We fought it and they are now empty lots. I’d like to see houses, but empty lots are better than 11 to 14 houses on them," he said.

Another neighbor, who asked not to be named, raised issues with people living in congregate housing without oversight. She also lamented that low-cost apartments would undercut the economy of the city as neighbors wish to develop it.

The article is over here.

Not literally a vehicle, but the figurative Hummer of consumerism: the shopping mall. An NYT writer reflects on her trip to the international mall convention in Las Vegas, where developers previewed grandiose plans to expand the primitive auto-oriented, chain-store-driven model for shopping centers:

Surely, I thought, the entries will reflect the extent to which business as usual — i.e., massive anchor retail tenants surrounded by thousands (even millions) of square feet of specialized yet mass retail, in settings only accessible by car — cannot possibly continue. Having just witnessed the Sony-backed Metreon mall in San Francisco shift from its failed existence as a “state of the art technology and entertainment marketplace” to a modest farmer’s market, I’d seen the writing on the wall. Hadn’t the shopping center folks?

Some have, but surprisingly, many haven’t. Despite near-non-existent consumer spending, the declining popularity of shopping as America’s favorite pastime and the chilling effect foreclosed homes in housing developments are surely having on nearby malls, most entries in the [International Council on Shopping Centers] competition responded less to the future of the shopping mall than to the glory days to which we’ve recently bid adieu. I was struck by how little attention entrants paid to things like sustainable architecture, alternative transit or changing consumer attitudes about consumption....

I've been ranting about the Dearborn Street mall, which developer Darrell Vange canceled in April, saying it was economically unfeasible. Some neighbors decried the loss of a planned Target in the central city (which was the best thing the mall had going for it). Other neighbors, however, opposed the project (the size of seven Westlake Centers, filled with chain retailers) that would have used up two acres of street and included 2,300 parking spaces. (It wasn't accessible exclusively by car, but it was desiged for automobiles and over a mile from the light-rail station.) The neighborhood opposition insisted that the choice "mall and a Target or nothing at all" was a false dilemma. Indeed, one of the developers in Las Vegas bucked the trend of malls that insulate themselves from street activity and rely on cars. Instead, they plan to build to the sidewalk, using a Target as the anchor tenant:

Fitzgerald Associates Architects’ Wilson Yard is not futuristic in the traditional sense — no biomorphic forms, moving sidewalks or shimmering touch screens. Instead, FAA recognizes that the future is already here and we’d better start building for it. The project dispenses with the notion of a freestanding mall and conceives instead of a walkable, mixed-use community. Key to their design is LEED silver certification, open space and multi-modal access (not just cars but rail, transit and pedestrian).

If we want to continue build massive shopping centers in Seattle (and in the suburbs), we need to abandon the model of University Village and Northgate and South Center and start building malls like this one—built to the sidewalk, integrated into the neighborhood, and linked to mass transit.

Tip from the Cornichon (who is also my father).

Condos:

Nineteen unsold condos in the Lumen complex at Fifth Avenue and Mercer Street will be offered at an auction July 11, with minimum selling prices nearly 50 percent below the prices set when the 93 condo units were first offered for sale in 2006.

Of course, many of these condos will close sales above the minimum bid, but they'll still sell far below listed rates. Several developers recently have turned to auction companies to unload their stagnant stock, such as this one and this one.

Via the DJC.

Somebody bombed a New York Starbucks:

The small bomb explosion at about 3:30 a.m. EDT shattered windows and damaged a wooden sidewalk bench at a Starbucks on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, police said. The store was closed at the time, and no injuries were reported.

Police were investigating whether the blast was related to an explosion at the British consulate in 2005, a blast at the Mexican consulate in 2007 and an explosion at a U.S. military recruiting station in Times Square in 2008.

Each of the explosions occurred at about the same time of day, police said. In each one, damage was limited and no injuries occurred.

The FBI is talking about "an anarchist uptick" and looking into five people—two French, two Canadian, and one Italian—who had raised some suspicion at the Canadian border. (International anarchist plot to bomb New York!)

Meanwhile, the two men with Molotov cocktails at the Republican National Convention, assembled to blow up a Jumbo-tron screen and were never used, have been sentenced to two years and four years—because one was more contrite than the other.

That block of unfinished apartments at 14th Avenue and East Union Street is... an adorable puppy.

Don't you want to live in a puppy?

The website is replete with images of kibble, dog biscuits, and other accessories to quell a growing dog trapped in a one-bedroom apartment. Anything to get an edge in a tough market, I guess. But it's going to be a great building, not that I would know. It's not like one night after several glasses of wine I hopped the construction fence, climbed the saw-dust-covered stairs, and gave myself a tour, taking in the skyline from the sixth-floor corner unit. Nope, wouldn't do that.

Last night, the Roosevelt Development Group presented four sets of plans to neighborhood residents that, if developed, would transform several blocks of run-down houses along Northeast 65th Street into dense clusters of apartment buildings. The most ambitious would allow the tallest buildings to reach 160 feet—a height that one neighborhood leader calls “laughable.”

Buildings in the teal areas would be up to 160 feet tall; the seafoam would be up to 125 feet; the blue would be up to 85 feet.

A mid-range proposal caps out with buildings at 85 feet:

In this diagram, buildings in the blue areas would be up to 85 feet and those in orange would be up to 65 feet.

Although eight-story buildings are taller than what neighbors would like (they want 40 foot tall building limits, even though it’s near a light-rail station), it’s more realistic for the area. For instance, in the comparable urban village of Ballard, there are a few 85-foot buildings.

But landlord Hugh Sisley, who dreams of converting his quarter-million square feet of blight into towers, is essentially compelling the Roosevelt Development Group (RDG) to pursue the tallest buildings the city will allow. RDG's Ed Hewson says Sisley "needs to make sure that there isn’t any potential in the land that that he hasn’t taken advantage of.” In other words, to fulfill their contract with Sisley, they have to push the city’s impact review study (of traffic, parking, shadows, etc.) and the neighborhood leaders to their threshold of the tallest buildings they will accept. This is a game of chicken between Sisley, who wants height, and the neighborhood, which hates blight. In theory, Sisley could walk away from the project if the city—lacking a neighborhood endorsement—doesn’t give him the height he wants. How much height does Sisley need before he agrees to build? “I cant really expand on that under our agreement,” Hewson says.

However, 85-foot buildings could present some problems, even though the proximity to light rail is ideal for high density. Under state building rules, buildings over seven stories must be constructed from steel or concrete (not the wood-frame stuff in most of the mixed use projects around town). This adds considerably to the cost. In Ballard, the newly completed Leva apartments (eight stories of concrete and steel), one-bedroom apartments of 900 square feet rent for a whopping $1,987. As of a month ago, the project was offering up to six weeks of free rent and six months of free parking to get tenants in the door. Steel apartments are expensive and hard to fill. Sisley and the RDG may be wise to limit their ambitions to more 65-foot buildings, which garners greater chances of neighborhood support and still allows tremendous density. Moreover, it guarantees the units will remain less exorbitant and will actually, you know, rent. Density potential is meaningless unless you can fill a building with tenants. “We really do want to develop buildings that are attractive and popular, because, for us, that means economic success,” Hewson says.

If a controversial landlord gets his way, sixteen-story residential towers would replace run-down houses in the Roosevelt neighborhood. Developers working with Hugh Sisley, who owns 50 properties hugging Northeast 65th Street, submitted plans in late April to redevelop the dilapidated rentals and boarded-up houses. Today, the city announced it would study the proposal and issue a report on the impacts of increasing the area’s height limit from 40 feet to up to 160 feet.

The area, in many respects, seems ideal for more density: The properties sit from one to three blocks from the future Roosevelt light-rail station, which voters approved last November. But neighbors—conflicted between finally getting rid of blight and the specter of upsetting a quiet neighborhood—say that 16 stories is too tall.

“The largest zoning proposals are truly laughable from our perspective,” says Jim O’Halloran, land-use chair of the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association. “160-foot and 125-foot tall buildings are not even worth talking about.” The group, in the past, has proposed buildings that are only about 40 feet tall, and he expects the group to reassert that 40 feet is the maximum height it will tolerate.

But the neighborhood is in a weak position to play hardball; Sisley may not accept an offer under 85 feet. “He wants the highest and best use,” Jon Breiner, a principal of Roosevelt Development Group, which signed a contract with Sisley to try and develop the properties, said last year. If Sisley, known for being stubborn and aloof to neighborhood concerns, rejects the offer, he could leave the abandoned properties as magnets for vermin and vagrants. Nonetheless, the city’s impact study will likely find unmanageable impacts from the tallest proposed buildings, favoring heights capping out around 85 feet. Here is the area we're talking about:

O’Halloran says residents may be “willing to contemplate 65 to 85 foot building heights” in exchange for amenities such as building a new park and preserving views of the historic brick face of Roosevelt High School (the white box in the photo next to the football field).

“No one is happy, not Sisley or neighbors, with the current situation, but we aren’t willing to take anything just to change it,” O’Halloran says. “I don’t think a man in his 80s wants to die surveying the squalor.”

The city will hold a meeting to take public comment on what factors it should study (e.g., traffic, parking, shadows, etc.) when considering Sisley's proposal on June 9. Comments may also be submitted in a letter. Details are here.

The brick building with huge windows at Broadway and East Union Street embodies the architectural style of the Pike/Pine neighborhood, Seattle’s original auto row. “This is the collection of buildings that made the neighborhood successful,” developer Liz Dunn told five city council members at a hearing on Wednesday about a proposal to preserve the area’s older structures. “This is the sort of building the legislation is intended to protect.”

But Dunn was outnumbered.

Arriving in two busloads, staff and patients of the Polyclinic, a collective of physicians and specialist working under one roof, argued that they should be allowed to demolish the 89-year-old building for a new six-story medical facility. They asked the council for an exemption to the proposed rules (more info here), claiming that is their only option to meet the growing demand of ill patients.

“I request that you remove this parcel from the Pike/Pine overlay to allow us to expand the Polyclinic,” Lloyd David, CEO of the Polyclinic, said. A woman added, “If you change those rules, we will not be able to go forward.”

But their argument is disingenuous; the Polyclinic doesn’t need this parcel to expand.

They failed to mention that the Polyclinic owns another plot of land across the street, next to the Seattle First Baptist Church, which is currently used as an asphalt parking lot. After the meeting, Polyclinic president Rex Ochi acknowledged they own the parking lot but said constructing an expansion there would be virtually impossible due to existing city rules, which don’t allow medical office buildings on the site.

However, reached by phone today, Council Member Sally Clark, which chairs the city’s land-use committee, says the city council could modify rules for the parking lot site to allow a medical clinic.

What if the council changed the rules? Ochi still resists. Even if the council did change the rules, he says, the Polyclinic still won’t build behind the church. “I don’t think we are interested in an exchange,” he said.

Dunn pointed out to the council that the legislation to protect old buildings “has been in the works longer before they purchased the building.” The Polyclinic bought the 20,000 square foot building last June for $6.25 million dollars (far more than the county’s appraised value of $2.2 million).

Under the leadership of a man named Dan Ivanoff, development firm Schnitzer West invested heavily in Seattle at the worst possible time, building hundreds of condos that are now sitting empty. Schnitzer, the namesake venture of a wealthy steel-industry family, is also finishing a 36-story office tower that, when I wrote this piece about the company's tribulations last month, had no tenants. Nobody ate more shit in Seattle's devlopment bust than Schnitzer West. At the time of that photo on the right taken by Kello O—when Ivanoff wouldn't return calls—people in the industry speculated "there is going to be a shake-up high up in the company." It now appears the Schnitzer family no longer trusts Ivanoff to make the big decisions on his own. From the DJC:

Ken Novack is returning to Schnitzer West to work with company founder Dan Ivanoff to devise a game plan for the next development cycle. Novack was formerly chairman and CEO of Schnitzer Investment Corp. ... Ivanoff said Novack has come back to Schnitzer West to co-develop a strategy for the Seattle-based firm for the next wave of development and investment, including what it will build, buy or sell and in what markets.

It will be interesting to see how Novack excavates Schnitzer out of this litter box. Will the company turn condos into rentals like Vulcan is doing, reduce prices on condos to sell them and stop the hemorrhaging, fire all marketing contractors, or just sit on the property (losing money with every passing month of vacancy) and hope the market rebounds soon enough to make up the losses? Lot's of developers are looking to Schnitzer to see how it handles this colossal fail.