Sizing Up South Downtown

Pass the South Downtown plan as is. The plan makes good sense. It balances the need for affordable housing and historic preservation against incentives for new development. Pass it.

Yes! Yes! Add residents and commercial businesses to the area of the city that has the most Port freight traffic. Good idea.

By all means bring on more SLU style development in order to eliminate as much affordable housing as possible from Seattle’s core. Future residents of the four massive towers slated to be erected in the north Qwest Field parking lot will love listening to the ravers and screamers that come out at night when the “normal” people (office workers, etc.) go home at night. They will love the abundance of schools, parks, grocery stores and cute little shops that make Pioneer Square so “vibrant.”

I love people who don’t understand real estate. The point of “incentive zoning” is that zoning is supposed to give developers an incentive to develop property when it otherwise is not economically feasible. The City has taken a one size fits all approach to incentive zoning, not taking into account neighborhood characteristics such as the cost to renovate historic buildings, underlying land costs, and other challenges in South Downtown. It’s a simple fact: if it’s not economically feasible for a developer to build something, he/she will not do so. Who else will build housing? Developers don’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts–they only develop when a lender determines that it can make enough money off of the investment.

This is flawed legislation that will result in South Downtown, the ID, and Pioneer Square remaining the slums that they are, while passing on the opportunity to allow more residential and other development in the MOST TRANSIT RICH neighborhood in the state of Washington! Look at the cool development that’s occurred in historic districts in other cool cities like Denver and San Diego–this will not happen in Seattle as a direct result of this rezone. The City needs to take a very close look at what’s going on here–if we don’t get it right now, we’ll have to wait to realize this opportunity until the next rezone in 25 years.

Sounds like another High Density “Reurbification” Scamfest.

Prices in South King County have been falling precipitously for the last 3 years. If anything, the same should be spreading up to South Seattle.

Probably best thing is to plow down a lot of the aging housing stock, sparsify the area and turn it into natural parks.

@4 The purpose of incentive zoning programs is NOT to give developers an incentive to develop property when it otherwise is not economically feasible. It is to give an incentive for developers to provide designated public benefits as part of the project — which could include affordable housing, purchase/transfer of development rights on open space, increased public space, etc. — that would otherwise not be included in the project because they would not be economically feasible. The assumption is that development at the base density is, in fact, economically feasible. The density bonus is not then to make the project economically feasible, but rather to provide a trade-off: government action (upzone through density bonus) allows developer to make more money at the higher density and/or building height, and the community gets certain public benefits in return.

@4 presents a common but inaccurate criticism of incentive zoning programs. If the purpose was simply to incentivize development itself, then an upzone with no strings attached would be the proper tool. But the whole point is to incentivize the provision of public benefits as part of the project – hence the linkage of the bonus to the benefits.

Of course, @4′s point that development wont happen if it is not economically feasible is still true…and that is one of Dan’s main points here. Incentive zoning is tricky…ultimately, the higher density and housing (affordable and market-rate) is in the long-term interest of the city. If done right, finding that sweet spot, then incentive zoning is a win-win, getting both the density and the public benefits. But get the formula wrong, and it is a lose-lose.

The colored zoning maps are very misleading. Most of the land included is either historic structures or has already been redeveloped in the last 25 years. There’s a very limited number of sites where new tall, concrete and steel buildings could even be built.

Is conventional Euclidean zoning the best tool in such an environment? I think not. Why not just designate some desired FARs for each block, and maybe some absolute height limits. Set the FARs at a level that enables a tall building (concrete and/or steel) to be built economically. And then a list of the desired elements of the social agenda.

And then sit back and see what the development community comes up with. DPD should work with developers to achieve attractive buildings that move the neighborhood towards the desired social goals. Developers who can’t or won’t meet enough of the criteria don’t get their permit.

Yes, there may be flaws with this approach, but somewhere, somehow, we need to get beyond the limitations of conventional zoning.

Because there’s so much port freight traffic going through pioneer square and the international district. This plan won’t change anything with the port.

Hm, could developers, per chance, be lobbying for “more” height and density and “less” public benefits right now? This sounds like every other area of the city where downtown development interests whine about incentive zoning, and then build and make their millions after the thing is passed.

I think the development pendulum could stand to swing towards market rate housing, seeing as it only comprises roughly 20% of the housing options today.

I think the development pendulum could stand to swing towards market rate housing, seeing as it only comprises roughly 20% of the housing options today.

I think the development pendulum could stand to swing towards market rate housing, seeing as it only comprises roughly 20% of the housing options today.

“Flawed legislation” is a ridiculous simplification of the south downtown rezone. Developers will build in South Downtown when the economy is right. It doesn’t have anything to do with how much the city up-zones. This is also home to historic neighborhoods and people who live here. Yes this is a transit-rich area, but it is also home to a lot of people. We can get a lot of density with heights of 100′ and 150′ (and 240′). We don’t have to sell-out the soul of South Downtown for big give-aways to developers.

Confucius says “He who chants the mantra ‘Density’, densifies his underpants.”

Dan started with “South Downtown lacks the full spectrum of uses that make up a complete neighborhood”, but immediately lost that train of thought with “The study for most people comes down to building height.” Why start with “spectrum of uses” and “complete neighborhood” but devote the article to “building height?”

Okay, I made up the Confucius thing, but ‘density’ is bs. ‘Diversity’ is a better term for ‘complete neighborhoods’ and ‘a spectrum of uses.’ I’m still laughing at Dan’s bonehead museum parking garage idea.

Yeah, every time I go out for dim sum I have to dodge all of these semis passing through from the port! [sarcasm]

You see, if they start building, er…, erecting massive towers or even ones of more modest endowment, you have more “normal” people who will demand amenities like grocery stores, schools and parks. That’s the point! These types of businesses that make a neighborhood more well-rounded cannot exist if the only residents are extremely low income and/or substance abusers. The extreme imbalance of incomes in South Downtown is why it lacks these amenities. Pioneer Square is an architectural gem, and it could be polished a lot more with significant market rate housing to balance things out. It already has fantastic transit options.

As Nick Licata sort of pointed out recently, there has actually been an increase in the number of affordable units in South Lake Union over the past decade. It’s just that the percentage of affordable units has fallen because of the huge increase in middle-income units:
http://thesouthlake.com/2010/09/29/slu-low-income-housing

Like SLU, the International District already has private schools, grocery stores, restaurants, shops, and parks (including the only public playground in the center city). These serve commuters and tourists and could easily serve more residents in the future. To me the only tricky thing about bringing in more residents is to replace parking lots instead of older buildings. Of course I’d like to see strong public schools in the center city, but right now at least that’s extremely unlikely. Seattle Public Schools sold off the land that once housed Central School, Denny School, Cascade School, etc. and is in no position to invest in more right now.

By the way Dan thanks for naming the download “SouthDowntown-dpdp018356.pdf”. I have a ton of files lying around with names like dpdp018356.pdf and regularly need to rename them something slightly useful.

As Nick Licata sort of pointed out recently, there has actually been an increase in the number of affordable units in South Lake Union over the past decade. It’s just that the percentage of affordable units has fallen because of the huge increase in middle-income units:
http://thesouthlake.com/2010/09/29/slu-low-income-housing

Like SLU, the International District already has private schools, grocery stores, restaurants, shops, and parks (including the only public playground in the center city). These serve commuters and tourists and could easily serve more residents in the future. To me the only tricky thing about bringing in more residents is to replace parking lots instead of older buildings. Of course I’d like to see strong public schools in the center city, but right now at least that’s extremely unlikely. Seattle Public Schools sold off the land that once housed Central School, Denny School, Cascade School, etc. and is in no position to invest in more right now.

By the way Dan thanks for naming the download “SouthDowntown-dpdp018356.pdf”. I have a ton of files lying around with names like dpdp018356.pdf and regularly need to rename them something slightly useful.

There are a ton of parking lots throughout South Downtown that are ripe for development, plus the area over the tracks along 4th, and some newer low-quality buildings.

There are a ton of parking lots throughout South Downtown that are ripe for development, plus the area over the tracks along 4th, and some newer low-quality buildings.

Exactly. Downtown desperately needs more economic diversity of residents. It’s now mostly the super-poor and a smaller group of the childless affluent.

The worst that can happen is that nothing is developed because the market agrees with John Bailo.

Have you every considered that prices have fallen precipitously in South King County and much less precipitously in the core of Seattle because there is more demand for dense, walkable, transit-oriented urban places?

The worst that can happen is that nothing is developed because the market agrees with John Bailo.

Have you every considered that prices have fallen precipitously in South King County and much less precipitously in the core of Seattle because there is more demand for dense, walkable, transit-oriented urban places?

True enough about hte schools, but the great thing about more market rate housing is more tax revenue for things like… schools!

It’s hard to know how seriously to take this. Seattle’s population (like that of many US cities) went into decline from it’s 1960′s peak of 557,087 people, bottoming out at 493846 in 1980 and has showed steady growth since then. The 2009 American Community Survey shows Seattle has having 616,669 people, which means that for the first time in decades Seattle has significantly more people than its housing stock accommodated in 1960. Why we should reduce the housing stock is beyond me.

More people in a given area allow a greater spectrum of uses to exist. This is why the number of shopping, eating, and activity options are generally more diverse in large, densely populated cities than in sparsely populated suburbs and the countryside. Building height is just one determinant of density, but given the current zoning codes an important one.

No one takes John’s constant anti-city screeds seriously.

South Downtown’s biggest challenge is that – unless we start a large, expensive seawall construction program along the Duwamish and Bay now – much of it is likely to be under water in 50 years.

1-2 meters of sea level rise by the end of the century, which now seems a conservative projection (NASA’s James Hansen sums up the recent studies as including 5 meters completely plausibly) could mean 1-2 feet by mid-century. That would put Harbor Island and much of SoDo underwater at high tides, and large parts of the Duwamish at risk from storm surges.

That a waterfront city has no plan at all to deal with accelerating sea level rise seems a much bigger problem than having lame development incentives.

All housing development is not market-driven development. Non-profits and quasi-public entities can and do develop high quality and affordable housing for a full continuum of residents from the lowest income to the middle class.

The SC/ID neighborhood has two competent and community-based organizations; InterIm Community Development and the Seattle Chinatown International District Public Development Authority (SCIDpda) that can and already do create housing appropriate for the neighborhood.

Incentive zoning or even inclusionary zoning are important tools that depend on market activity, other housing development entities working from the intent of public good rather than profit can create the range of housing necessary for a vibrant community: reaching the scale of transformative impact is related directly to the available public funding and resources – debt and equity -available from sources such as the Community Reinvestment Act as well as having amenable zoning and planning requirements in place.

How does this effect commercial and industrial zoning? I wasn’t able to figure that out from the map.

South downtown, and the greater Duwamish industrial river valley could greatly benefit from increased commercial and industrial building heights.

The “loft” building model could work great for many companies. Transportation of employees is a big benefit for companies looking to locate. To give an example, I was talking with some engineers from a small startup currently located in Redmond, in one of the many business parks that speckle the landscape there. These guys wanted to move the operation to Seattle, as they all live in the city and hate the commute. Let me describe there operation. The have some front office space, which consists of a reception area and a conference room for investors/clients. Then some back end offices, where the engineers sit in front of computers, surrounded by empty donut boxes. In the back they have a shop. This shop has some “lignt” machine tools (a CNC machine) for making small parts and a bunch of servers they are working on. The shop has a roll down door for truck access. They aren’t doing “heavy” machining, which would require overhead cranes and flatbed trucks. Most of there stuff can come in van’s or box trucks (UPS trucks). This “light” industry, is where much of the job growth in our region is. These companies are often either development/engineering sites, or if they are manufacturing sites, they often are building high end products. These industries are not only light, they tend to be “clean” and “green”, as compared to the old heavy industry in the Duwamish valley (e.g. our two cement plants).

Business like this don’t need a ground floor operation. They can work just as well from a loft space which is serviced by a stout elevator. Basically, I’m describing the sort of building which served as Manhattans core industrial architecture when it was a manufacturing hub.

The bottom line is, the transit choices in this area of our city have made it a great place to run a business out of, and it would make sense to allow increased density in the commercial/industrial sector of our economy there.

If anyone knows the status of this I’m wondering what it is. Is the council even addressing this topic?

How does this effect commercial and industrial zoning? I wasn’t able to figure that out from the map.

South downtown, and the greater Duwamish industrial river valley could greatly benefit from increased commercial and industrial building heights.

The “loft” building model could work great for many companies. Transportation of employees is a big benefit for companies looking to locate. To give an example, I was talking with some engineers from a small startup currently located in Redmond, in one of the many business parks that speckle the landscape there. These guys wanted to move the operation to Seattle, as they all live in the city and hate the commute. Let me describe there operation. The have some front office space, which consists of a reception area and a conference room for investors/clients. Then some back end offices, where the engineers sit in front of computers, surrounded by empty donut boxes. In the back they have a shop. This shop has some “lignt” machine tools (a CNC machine) for making small parts and a bunch of servers they are working on. The shop has a roll down door for truck access. They aren’t doing “heavy” machining, which would require overhead cranes and flatbed trucks. Most of there stuff can come in van’s or box trucks (UPS trucks). This “light” industry, is where much of the job growth in our region is. These companies are often either development/engineering sites, or if they are manufacturing sites, they often are building high end products. These industries are not only light, they tend to be “clean” and “green”, as compared to the old heavy industry in the Duwamish valley (e.g. our two cement plants).

Business like this don’t need a ground floor operation. They can work just as well from a loft space which is serviced by a stout elevator. Basically, I’m describing the sort of building which served as Manhattans core industrial architecture when it was a manufacturing hub.

The bottom line is, the transit choices in this area of our city have made it a great place to run a business out of, and it would make sense to allow increased density in the commercial/industrial sector of our economy there.

If anyone knows the status of this I’m wondering what it is. Is the council even addressing this topic?

Given the recent problems with the economy – which are not likely to disappear very soon – it seems very likely that developers will not necessarily be able to rely on the financial structures – large loans, for instance – to which they have been accustomed; so how easy is it going to be for them to develop downtown.. with any sensitivity? To state the obvious perhaps, and as many urban designers know, good urban design and creating a neighborhood that someone really wants to live in is a very delicate balancing act. The incentives are great, but how do you really make sure that people will want to live in downtown? How do you insure, for instance, that the actual architecture is any good, that the buildings, although tall, are actually inviting. We think that we know how to do this, but, if you compare an area like Pike/Pine to say South Lake Union, Pike/Pine, with older low scale and historic buildings has much more character. While developers are obviously essential to this new scheme for downtown, I am concerned that in Seattle the sensitivity to the many factors that make an agreeable, attractive and vibrant urban experience are not necessarily there.

Density without diversity, backfires. Diversity with any level of density achieves a balanced mix of uses. Sparsely populated suburbs don’t lack density as much as they lack diversity. Densifying central city while leaving suburbs with their lack of diversity, increases the demand for travel from suburbs to central city. Diversity and Density must be considered at ‘regional’ as well as ‘district’ levels.

Yes, PS is a transit-rich area, but is also THE most grid-locked part of town on game nights. Good luck with your hopes of attracting more “normal” people to the neighborhood. The other little problem with cramming more growth into PS–including the wretched new mega-towers–is that this area will be inundated by rising sea levels early in the next century. It is unconscionable for Seattle, which pretends to be so green, to be a booster for enormous new buildings that people will only be able to access from boats. Of course we’re not alone in succumbing to the mass social delusion that global heating isn’t really happening. Billions of people in coastal areas all over the world will forced to move away from the shoreline. The financial disruptions caused by climate change will make the current recession look like cherry pie.

Can’t imagine what PS and the Duwamish industrial corridor would look like after 3 (or 5) meters of sea level rise? Check this out:

http://architecture2030.org/slr/seattle_wa

I want to pose the same question here as I did on Morning Fizz: Doesn’t this fail to address the underlying issue of lacking demand in the neighborhood?

Increasing height limits simply lowers the supply costs but does nothing to actually change the demand curve. So really we should expect to just get more of the current times of housing, not anything different.

And the incentive part seems inefficient: Let’s assume the city gets $1 million each from 10 new projects, so $10 million. However, the opportunity cost is that those 10 sites are now filled with cheaper buildings, which bring in fewer tax dollars.

It seems that if the city just forked over $10 million in the beginning to actually increase demand in the neighborhood (through neighborhood improvements) it would pay off better. We demand increases, then they could increase heights and make up the money through the higher taxes received from higher end development.

That’s what I don’t get, either. If construction created demand, why are the ones by 8th & Stewart, by the Greyhound station, and all around there not filled up? Ditto for that mostly empty one by Bed Bath & Beyond on 4th Avenue. Where is the demand for all these insanely priced condos and apartments?

We could build all the overpriced condos that no one wants to buy on stilts.

“Density without diversity, backfires.” Indeed. That was the fault of the post-war high-rise housing projects of rust-belt cities, Pruitt-Igoe and the like, which turned into Hell-holes for both residents and the rest of the city.

Are you really asserting that this housing will be both unaffordable and undesirable?

Are you really asserting that this housing will be both unaffordable and undesirable?

There’s just one problem with trying to build out SODO, Dan: Ever actually spent any extended time there? I worked there for the better part of two years. The entire area is a giant dump. A few businesses have nicely converted old warehouses, but mostly it’s ramshackle-quality industrial buildings, soggy and decrepit corridors, and random bums and drug addicts doing anything from (and these are real-life examples I have witnessed first-hand) pissing on the sidewalks and people’s tires to freebasing coke off glass to puking up the special sauce of the burger they just ate at the crappiest, most crime-ridden Jack in the Box in Seattle (which is saying something) all over the nearest surface.

You seriously think people will want to live around that? When there’s little to no amenities or culture nearby to speak of?

If you want to make SODO a residential district, you’ve got to thoroughly clean the neighborhood up, and I don’t think anyone has the resources to do it.

Gomez, he’s talking about South Downtown, not South OF Downtown, i.e. SODO. Think of it this way = north of I-90 is South Downtown, south of I-90 is SODO.

And I don’t think anybody is seriously talking about redeveloping SODO for residential, save for the odd live-work loft conversion. There are much better, more appropriate places to do that.

You’re point that walkable and transit oriented neighborhoods makes sense, but it also is true that it is a terrible waste of resources to tear down sound existing housing to build them. Look up “embodied energy.” Taking down existing housing in core neighborhoods also removes the most affordable housing, and makes it harder for the people who serve the higher income residents who replace them to live nearby. They get to commute in!

We just overbuilt, that’s all. It happened all over the country. In our case, we will recover fairly quickly (the overall trend for Seattle is growth). Even South Lake Union (which has a lot of recent development) is filling up fairly quickly, and doesn’t look as abandoned as you might expect given the rate of development and the economy.

Yes, and South Lake Union is a dump, too. It is filled with old industrial buildings and warehouses.

Oops, I guess I posted that about 10 years too late — my bad.

I wonder how parking requirements fit into all of this? Actually, if the city is taking another look at zoning, parking requirements should be at the top of the list. Our attitude towards parking is ridiculous. We tax the hell out of parking lots (because they terrible, of course) unless they are mall lots (which are fine and dandy). Meanwhile, we require parking for new development, even if most of the residents don’t own a car and it is an area well served by transit. We should give the developers a break, and get rid of the requirement. Why not just let the market decide the parking needs (which should diminish over time)? For this area, especially, it would be a nice carrot that would speed development of any kind, but especially larger development (since the zoning laws require more parking for a bigger building).