Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

14 Parking Spots for 3 Condos: Is This Transit-Oriented Development?

This lot, at the corner of MLK and Hudson Streets in Columbia City, sits slightly more than two blocks away from the nearest light rail station.

As you might expect for a piece of property so close to rail, zoning on this lot allows residential buildings as high as four stories.

Tall residential zoning and proximity to transit are the ideal recipe for transit-oriented development—a type of mixed-use development whose defining characteristics include things like dense housing, emphasis on pedestrian and transit access over automobile mobility, and a diverse mix of land uses and activities.

Here’s an example, from Portland’s Pearl District:

Mithun-designed transit-oriented mixed-use development

Unfortunately, potential doesn’t always translate into results, especially when the path of least resistance leads to doing the same old thing you’ve always done. So, instead of a dense, mixed-use development, the developer has proposed a two-story building with three spacious condos, four retail spaces—and 14 brand-new parking spots. That’s about as far away from transit-oriented development as you can get without putting in an auto-repair shop (or, for that matter, a drive-thru Starbucks).

How was this allowed to happen? According to Bryan Stevens, spokesman for the city’s Department of Planning and Development, the lot is a few blocks outside the city’s official station-area overlay area, which “general[ly] extends about ¼ mile beyond the station.” Inside that area, new development must be dense, pedestrian-oriented, and include no big surface parking lots or other street-killing design elements. Outside it, everything more or less goes—including, apparently, a three-unit condo building with four-and-a-half cars’ worth of parking for every resident.

To reiterate: This building, with its ample parking and low density, will be two blocks from a light rail station.

Is it the worst thing in the world? No. But it is a major missed opportunity that speaks to our reluctance, as a city, to change our way of thinking about development. As long as the single-family house is sacrosanct (in city hearings about the development, single-family neighbors actually argued that it was too dense), developments like these will keep getting built in places, like MLK and Hudson, where they really don’t make any sense at all.

There is an alternative—or there was. Last year’s transit-oriented communities bill would have encouraged denser development within a half-mile of light rail stations—a radius that would have comfortably encompassed this development. That bill, however, died under pressure from neighborhood activists who complained that it would bring too many new residents too close to single-family neighborhoods.

Neighbors of the project (full disclosure: I’m one of them) could have gotten a new pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use building that actually fit in the context of this changing, densifying area. (The housing could have also been less expensive, given that each parking space adds around $25,000 to the cost of a unit.) Instead, it’ll be a low-density, car-oriented waste of space—a nice place to live, maybe, but hardly an asset to the neighborhood.


  • morning fizzy

    Erica your story says there will be 4 retail spaces AND 3 condos. So there are 2 spots for each unit. I don't believe that each parking spot adds $25,000 to the cost of this building unless they are excavated. Are you saying that if there were no spots that the project would cost $350,000 less. I don't believe it.

    If the project is 2 blocks away from the station, that is about 1/10 of mile depending on block size. Why wouldn't it be controlled for parking, etc.?

  • michaeljmaddux

    @Fizzy:

    I think by cost she means value. I'm not sure if it's really $25k out there, but parking spaces can be pricey, and if memory serves, many, if not most, of the condos on Capitol Hill actually sell the parking spots (technically) separate from the unit.

  • iviola

    There is a big difference between what planners would like to go there and what is marketable. The Link line, by itself does not provide enough of a value lift to make development make sense in many locations in proximity to the line. No first mover advantage to being the first one in now. Better to let smaller scale, but new investments set the table by way of providing some critical mass and momentum….Anecdotally, most gentrifying areas begin with some cheap, inexpensive live/work space, better, trendier retail and services follow, then the masses buy in. Tough to get 4-6 story buldings w/o mass buy-in

  • Grover

    A “nice place to live” is not an asset to the neighborhood?

    Would a lousy place to live be an asset to the neighborhood?

  • http://mahalie.com/ mahalie

    I have to thank Publicola for the recent outing of McGinn's under qualified staff but I am really disappointed that this particular author has chosen to steal images.

    Two of the images in this article are taken off sites (from who knows where) and hosted on Publicola with absolutely no credit/source information. The other is hotlinked. Really poor taste, unprofessional reporting. Stealing images as stock (out of context) does not constitute fair use – even CC-licensed images require attribution in almost all cases.

  • pl

    Check the zoning–what were they allowed to build? I'm glad you, as a neighbor, actually want tall urban dense development–but I would bet that 9 out of 10 of your neighbors would oppose it. The time/risk of rezoning is why this developer chose something that was inside the box.

  • ivan

    Three condos, one parking space per condo, makes three. Four retail units, one parking space for each retail operator, makes seven. Seven additional parking spaces for customers of and suppliers to those four retail outlets makes 14. That's hardly unreasonable, unless you think businesses shouldnt be allowed to provide parking spaces for their customers, or for delivery vehicles. Good luck with that.

  • davidsucher

    “Three spacious condos, four retail spaces” does not help the analysis.

    How many square feet of retail space does the project include?
    How many square feet and bedrooms in the residences?

    I applaud that you get into the details of urban planning and how that manifests at the level of the individual project — BUT nor you haven't discussed lot size, for example. Nor have you mentioned, I think, whether the parking is surface or underground, or a mix. Nor where the building comes up to the street, or what sort of street it is.

    Without basic numbers and concepts may I suggest that you might want to redo your article.

    Good start but please “do the numbers.”

  • Jason_Mitchell

    I love TOD as much as the next guy, but I can't seem to get my (muy macho) panties in a bunch over this. It's a definite improvement over what's there, mixed-use and multi-unit. In that location I'm just glad someone is interested in doing _something_, especially right now. And if I recall, there's no street parking on MLK, right? If you assume you're really looking at one spot per condo, 11 spots for 3 businesses whose customers (and owners/employees) can't park on the street doesn't strike me as the end of the world. Not ideal, but certainly not a “major missed opportunity.”

  • John

    Enough with the Portland envy already. Can we be Seattle, please?

  • StickToCityHall

    Let me clue you in since some hard data is somewhat lacking here.

    This property is about 200 feet south from the corner of Hudson and MLK,
    directly on MLK. This property is zone L4-RC which is multi-family,
    residential commercial, an old school version of mixed-use. So, this
    project is allowed by the laws of the city of Seattle, not what you think
    should be there.

    The project has about 5237 sqft of ground floor retail and 3 condos on
    the second floor. Parking is one per unit, so 3 parking spaces.
    First 1500 sqft of retail space is waived for parking, so 3737 sqft is
    calculated for parking. The use will be general sales, so it will be
    one parking per 500 sqft of retail space, so about 8 parking REQUIRED.
    So, 11 parking so far. 3 more for other things. Or, it could be mixture
    of eating/drink places which requires 1 parking per 250 sqft. So, most
    of this parking is required for retail, not the condos. If you are thinking
    that businesses can survive just on foot traffic without parking, you
    are wrong. This is not NYC.

    There are setbacks from the side and back of property
    and lot coverage is limited to 50%, so the footprint of the building is somewhat limited. This basically means that there must be breathing room between the building and limits how big the building can be.
    Keep in mind that this property's lot size is about 16,000 sqft, or 3 Seattle house lots of 5000 sqft or an average sized house lot in Bellevue.

    Many commercial properties along MLK are narrow and abuts SF homes, like Erica was pointing out. But if you map it and pan out, you will see that these properties are surround by many, many SF homes. I can see where the attitude of “we know what is good for you” can rub some folks the wrong way.

    This is the biggest rub: Honestly, are you going to front up the
    money to build this or whatever you “think” should be built?
    Put up your house, 401k, or whatever you have, and ask the
    bank for loan to build something that might fail and destroy everything
    you worked hard for? If not, why piss on someone's dream?
    This is person is following the rules and building what is allowed and
    best use for what HE believes will succeed, not some armchair
    quarterback yelling at the TV.

  • morning fizzy

    If she means what a spot is worth, then she should say that. These appear to be outside spots – at least what I can see. These spaces cost the price of paving.

    Since the improved MLK has little to no street parking where are people supposed to park? Oh I know, in front of the single family houses nearby.

    Having read the other comments, I think ECB should take back this story and give up on this bull. If people want no development they should support ECB and her policies. I don't think that the retail spaces have enough parking. Hard to make it with a max of three customers at a time.

  • http://www.citycomforts.com/ David Sucher

    Thx StickToCityHall

    But gut feel, Erica is largely correct.

    The project is regrettably “too small” for the scale of a 16,000 SF urban lot.

    That doesn't mean that the owner is “wrong” — zoning allows it (though I wonder about your parking calcs; I thought it was first 2500 SF.) And risk/reward by owner is owner's money. It just sounds unfortunate.

    Moreover there is still the issue about where the parking is located (i.e. is parking in front? That could be a truly horrible precedent and really hurt the neighborhood.

  • Michael M.

    I'm not necessarily saying I agree with Erica's position on this (and this is an editorial piece), I'm just saying that while her wording may have been off, I think it's safe to say we can all agree that we understand what she meant.

    I wholeheartedly agree that there should be parking spaces available for the retail, and we don't have enough information presented to us to determine if the spaces reserved for the condos are covered, underground, or outdoor. One artist rendering is hardly enough.

    I understand why the neighbors would be upset with larger development. At the same time, I don't know what these residents were saying when light rail was being built, or proposed, even, through their neighborhood. If people were excited and pushing for a line in their neighborhood, than increased density is what they should have expected. Light rail isn't cheap, and sure as shit isn't made to have stops that service a few blocks of single family houses.