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.

Housing Belongs Next to the Sculpture Park

When I saw this:

I couldn’t help thinking of this:

The top rendering is Martin Selig’s proposed seven-story office building at the highly prominent site at the north end of Olympic Sculpture Park. The lower rendering is Foster + Partners’ design for a 43-story office/residential tower in the old Public Safety Building site at Third and Cherry, in front of City Hall.

A uncanny resemblance, no doubt. But the bigger story here is why Selig’s project ended up in that form at all.

The original proposal was for the 14-story apartment building shown in the rendering below. But homeowners associations at nearby condo buildings successfully appealed the project, arguing that the building was too big and would block views from the park. The park’s owner—the Seattle Art Museum—was not involved in the appeal.

In short, the original project was killed by NIMBYism. And the likely outcome—office space instead of housing—goes against Seattle’s strategy to bring more residents to downtown. There is no better place for high-density housing in a city than adjacent to open spaces like the Sculpture Park and Myrtle Edwards Park.

I find it both surprising and disappointing that the Design Review Hearings Examiner ruled against a downtown housing project that was previously approved by the Design Review Board, and have to wonder if Martin Selig’s controversial history as a Seattle developer was a factor. Selig’s legacy project is Columbia Center, the big black skyscraper that people love to hate.

Equally curious is Selig’s decision to switch from housing to office, given that the project will need a departure to go to the proposed 91-foot building height, not to mention the current office glut in Seattle.

T0 me, this story is another demonstration of how Seattle has yet to come to grips with the fact that we can’t have it all. If we believe that a dense urban core is a critical ingredient of a sustainable city, then we also have to accept that tall buildings are a necessary part of the equation.

The Early Design Guidance meeting for the project is scheduled for tomorrow night, July 27, 5:30 PM, City Hall Room L280, 600 Fifth Ave.




  • giffy

    How can we put a stop to this crap? From the whiny idiots who fought against sick children to these fine citizens it seems it is far too easy to delay or stop projects based on selfish and silly concerns.

    If we ever want real density we need to figure out how to strip power from these people. All they do is drive up costs and push development to less restrictive locales.

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    Even city dwellers are rejecting the horror of high density.

    We're fighting it here in Kent right now.

    High density is criminal plague, concocted by the most horrible rogues.

  • Nurse Ratchett

    Christ, Bailo. Save it for group session.

  • Trevor

    It makes absolutely no sense for the density-uber-alles crowd to argue that housing is a form of density but office space is not. The non-sensical inference from this post is that “only housing should be next to parks– and never jobs.”

  • oscarfrye

    sh*t like this makes me laugh at Seattle.
    world class my arse

  • Anc

    Well first you are talking about a 7 story building replacing a 14 story one. That shouldn't be hard to figure out.

    Secondly, most everyone that wants density wants mixed use density. Not all office towers in x district, residential towers in y district, and retail towers in z district. What do you think the ratio of office to residential is in that area?

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    It's actually fairly well skewed towards residential. I think a more relevant point is that the general downtown area is skewed toward offices, and building more residential will reduce driving.

  • David Robinson

    So…Columbia Tower By The Bay is what New Urbanist dogma dictates for this waterfront spot next to a park? The NIMBYs are right in this case.

  • Barleywine

    I kind of like Columbia Center.
    But it looks like the current residents don't like the rectagular type of building with decks that, in the mind's eye, could soon be draped with drying laundry.
    They want something to contain whatever is in there, and I'll bet they wouldn't have objected to a residential building with curves & without decks.
    Even at 14 stories.

  • holz

    i don't understand the NIMBY-ism on this one.

    you bought a fugly condo with a view, knowing full well it wasn't waterfront and that view could legally be impinged upon.

    asinine.

    frankly, i kinda wish selig would put up the ugliest abortion matt driscoll could dream up, just to shut those selfish prats up.

  • Trevor

    You're changing the subject. Why is housing so important on this particular site? That's aesthetics, and maybe broken windows theory, but it's not about density. As Matt points out there are LOTS of high rise residential buildings in Belltown, and even downtown, especially when you include all the new construction in the Denny Triangle and SL Union.

  • Trevor

    Not if they work somewhere other than downtown.

  • dude

    LOL!

  • westside

    This type of over-entitled Seattle crap is out of control. Housing is far better than office for this sight from a design standpoint and in terms of municipal tax return on the property.

    This reminds me of the folks on QA that fought a great proposal with housing and a grocery on the Thriftway site and ended up with an even worse project. Or the Wallingford folks who have successfully turned the former Stone Way Safeway into the Stone Way vacant lot.

  • Tony the Economist

    Why is housing so important on this particular site? Because downtown has a surplus of office space and shortage of housing. Density in and of itself is not sustainable. Density is a means to an end. The end is proximity, putting housing close to jobs and retail so that people don't have to travel long distances.

    Yes, it is possible that someone might live in Belltown and not work downtown. It is possible that their commute would be just as long as a suburbanite commuting into downtown, but it is not very likely. The primary attraction of living in Belltown is its proximity to downtown and the local retail and recreational opportunities within walking distance. Housing in Belltown creates a high likelihood that those residents will be walking to work (though not a guarantee). Building an office tower in Belltown does not create a high likelihood that those employees will walk or take transit to work. There is nothing sustainable about having a dense office core without dense housing in close proximity.

    “…there are LOTS of high rise residential buildings in Belltown…”

    No, there aren't. There are about 9,000 housing units in Belltown and about 20,000 jobs. There is not even enough housing units in Belltown to house all the people who work in Belltown, let alone act as a residential base for the downtown.

    Taking greater downtown as whole (including Belltown, Denny Triangle, Pioneer Square, the ID and the Commercial Core, but excluding Uptown, South Lake Union, Capitol Hill and First Hill) and you have an area that is about 1,000 acres, which is about the same area as Vancouver's downtown peninsula. In our “downtown” we have a total of about 15,000 housing units (9,000 of which are in Belltown). For comparison, Vancouver's downtown peninsula has nearly 100,000 (same land area). THAT is a lot of housing units. THAT is the kind of housing density that advocates of sustainability are pushing for.

  • Tony the Economist

    Dan, I agree with you that housing would be much better than office space here. (see my response to Trevor above) However, this is not the fault of NIMBYs. It's a failure of public policy. Why on earth does our zoning code allow a 7-story office building here? If we want Belltown to be a dense urban residential neighborhood in order to provide some balance to office core, then we should zone it residential. Mixed-use is fine, but full-on office on this site is ridiculous.

    NIMBYs are always going to exist. You can't blame a NIMBY for being a NIMBY, but you can blame the planners and politicians that were asleep at the wheel and established a zoning code that allows for this kind of mistake in the first place.

  • Tony the Economist

    Dan said:

    “To me, this story is another demonstration of how Seattle has yet to come to grips with the fact that we can’t have it all. If we believe that a dense urban core is a critical ingredient of a sustainable city, then we also have to accept that tall buildings are a necessary part of the equation.”

    This statement is patently untrue. We can achieve incredible densities with 8-story residential buildings. MR-85 can achieve an FAR close to 5, NC3-85 can achieve an FAR of 6 fairly easily. That allows a potential residential density of over 100,000 people per square mile, 50% denser than Manhattan and twice as dense as downtown Vancouver.

    We do NOT need tall buildings to accommodate extremely high population densities. Vancouver, by the way, while allowing “tall” buildings, aggressively limits overall density. That's the essence of Vancouverism: thin towers spaced so far apart that the average density is actually lower than Seattle allows in midrise zones. The West End has an FAR limit of 2.75; Yaletown has a limit of 5.0. Vancouver's highrises are a design choice. Thier downtown densities could easily have been achieved with midrise buildings.

    If seattle want dense housing in the downtown core it needs to do two things:

    1.) Restrict the construction of office space so that it is more profitable to build housing in places like Belltown, Denny Triangle and First Hill.

    2.) Spend a small fortune on public amenities that make the downtown neighborhoods livable.

    Tall buildings may have certain aesthetic advantages, but they are not, in any way, necessary.

  • Sigh

    OMG! A curved building? In Seattle? Wait, two of them?! But how will all that graceful curved glass impact Seattle's love affair with unadorned, craptastic, and completely inorganic squares and rectangles?

    I demand a new hearing!

  • Ira

    It's fine to add density to cities, and it's fine to add housing next to the sculpture park, but if you also want people to utilize public transit, remember that when the sculpture park went in, the waterfront streetcar disappeared because the maintenance facility wasn't ” aesthetic ” enough, even though 400,000+ people rode it annually, it could carry twice as many people as a bus, and had it's own right of way.
    Progress? Phooey.

  • Trevor

    OK good luck mowing down Pioneer Square and the ID for your utopian attempt to create density. I think that might have been tried in the 1960s, but those damn NIMBY's objected…

    In the meantime, this is a ridiculous argument given the reverse commute effect that Microsoft alone has produced. “It is possible that their commute would be just as long as a suburbanite commuting into downtown, but it is not very likely.”

    As for there being 20k jobs in Belltown, I'd love to see the citation for that, along with the boundaries of Belltown it depends upon.

  • Barleywine

    Let's not forget that “progress” means getting rid of all the “un-aesthetic” people in Belltown, Downtown and the Market.

    They have curves, but also laundry. No good. No good.

  • Donolectic

    Except that he wasn't saying that he wanted to mow down Pioneer Square and the ID and he still managed to explain how housing on that site is more imporant than an office tower, natch.

    “Good luck” indeed.

  • Donolectic

    Please explain how 14 stories equals Columbia Tower. It's entirely appropriate.