Council Should Adopt Height Increases to Strengthen Pioneer Square

You do realize that in a city which is this far north of the equator (as far north as Nova Scotia on the east coast), the Sun is at a very steep angle for much of the year.

High buildings let in the least amount of sunlight possible.

“The Pioneer Square Historic District boundary is much broader—stretching from Fourth Avenue to Alaskan Way and Columbia Street to Safeco Field—and includes a significant number of non-contributing buildings as well as vacant lots and low-slung parking garages that neither contribute to the character nor to the integrity of the district.”

That’s a thing.
Pioneer square as a neighborhood is much smaller, and there’s no reason not to build higher in the outer areas of “Pioneer Square”.

But does it have to be as ugly as the Casey? Jesus.

“The Pioneer Square Historic District boundary is much broader—stretching from Fourth Avenue to Alaskan Way and Columbia Street to Safeco Field—and includes a significant number of non-contributing buildings as well as vacant lots and low-slung parking garages that neither contribute to the character nor to the integrity of the district.”

That’s a thing.
Pioneer square as a neighborhood is much smaller, and there’s no reason not to build higher in the outer areas of “Pioneer Square”.

But does it have to be as ugly as the Casey? Jesus.

How many parking spots does the Casey have? How many would a similar project in Pioneer Square have?

That’s the thing about the Pearl. They’ve been doing a lot of development and revitalization, but it’s much less like Pioneer Square and much more like Belltown. There are similarities like the Amtrak station, open squares, and streetcar tracks, but because Pioneer Square is a National Historic District, this means that we might be fortunate enough to not have buildings that look like the Casey (or the McGuire. Remember, anyone?) in our city’s oldest and most historically significant neighborhood.

Why do you think the Casey is ugly? I think it’s pretty interesting for a tall, chunky building. I like the contrasting glass and wood-looking surfaces.

To those who oppose an upzone, what ideas do you have for encouraging more economic diversity there, so that small businesses can thrive, and the place doesn’t turn into a ghost town at 6 pm on weekdays?

Agreed–the Pearl is much more like Belltown than Pioneer Square. The DPD proposal adds plenty of height in Seattle’s most historic neighborhood. There is plenty of room for growth there and elsewhere downtown.

meh, not sure small is so great. the palladium in nyc is a fairly large business, it rocks. they have bars with live music holding 400 people that’s a big business right? the house of blues in nola isn’t small. the successful small businesses you may be thikning of often are two blocks away from huge apartments. greenwhich village chumley’s is quite charming, would it exist without 30 and 20 story towers on 14th and 8th aves? not likely.
would the peds on bleecker be there if there weren’t lots of high rises all over manhattan ? not likely.

mainly you just need tons of people walking about….so (a) build lots of train lines (b) allow build big buildings stop barring them! some blocks will get them but the population they bring supports the big spots and the little shops, too on the blocks that don’t get redeveloped yet…..and (c) don’t fucking require parking.

This recipe is follwoed in basically all successful cities we like about 300 cities all over the world yet seattle sits around having focus groups on “gee how do we make it urban?”

Unless you’re in the building.

The claim that the Pearl District is a success is false. It now is a sterile desert of vacant condos and failing restaurants. Certainly development can be accomplished in Pioneer Sq to increase residential and related commercial activity, but holding up the Pearl District as a goal is a mistake.

The claim that the Pearl District is a success is false. It now is a sterile desert of vacant condos and failing restaurants. Certainly development can be accomplished in Pioneer Sq to increase residential and related commercial activity, but holding up the Pearl District as a goal is a mistake.

It’ll look quite worldly, once they get some laundry hanging from it.

It just wouldn’t fit, even two blocks from the square. I don’t care if it is LEED certified.
Can we not built something over three stories that doesn’t look like the projects?

I like the new Uwajimaya building. That’s a plus.

But when the sun’s at that angle you can make the same argument about a 6 story building. Plus that time of the year it’s most likely overcast and only dimly lit for 7 hours a day to begin with. If you want light buy one of those seasonal affective lamps, don’t block useful development when it won’t even solve the problem.

Titty bars.

I’m all for an upzone, on the outskirts.
But if there is a problem weekdays after six, let’s do six and a half. All night. M-F.

Every time I walk through Occidental Park I see the lively urban square we could have, if only people had a reason to be in Pioneer Square. If we had the densities of a European city we’d have dueling quartets in the evening at sidewalk cafes. If we had the densities of an Asian city we’d have communal activities and exercise in the early mornings. Instead, unless it’s lunch time, close to game time, or a sunny weekend when the cruise ships are in we have a few homeless people and that’s it.

As long as Bridgeport is OK, I’m OK.

We’re a city of neighborhoods. We love neighborhoods that already have or are in the process of developing a vibrant public life. There was a time when Pioneer Square had this – when it was new, and when it was first established as a historic district – but that is past. History is not stagnant. We draw meaning from it (and therefore it becomes meaningful) in reference to current thoughts and realities. Pioneer Square should not be a museum filled with dusty artifacts and a gift shop. Let it stand cheek to jowl with the progress of Seattle. Allowing new development that reflects today’s ideals and technology will impart greater meaning and relevance to this historic neighborhood. If this new development can create a neighborhood of residents who lead an active public lives, then Pioneer Square will truly become on of Seattle’s cherished neighborhoods. 120, 150, 180 – is not the issue. Let ‘er rip I say, as long as new develop supports the basics elements that we cherish in Seattle’s neighborhoods; people waiting in lines for breakfast, cosy cafes, quirky shops and left winger voters. Otherwise we should put a dome over it, add some water and fake snow flakes, and continue selling it as a trinket to tourists.

It doesn’t matter; there’s no sunlight in Seattle anymore.

John, you do realize that people don’t move to Seattle to experience the sun, right?

We don’t even have to lose the beautiful old buildings. Make sure we’re happy with our list of historic buildings, then upzone. The parking lots and run-down non-historic buildings will go first, and when we’re out of those (decades later) developers will look at finding ways of building on top of the old buildings. That works for me.

It’s important that most historic buildings stay, but it’s also important to add density, for the health of Pioneer Square, and to put jobs and housing near transit and near each other. More height it a great idea.

Or build the tunnel, create a giant sink hole that eats the entire district, and build Disneyland Northwest!

Or build the tunnel, create a giant sink hole that eats the entire district, and build Disneyland Northwest!

According to John , everyone is depopulating Seattle to move to kent

According to John , everyone is depopulating Seattle to move to kent

According to John , everyone is depopulating Seattle to move to kent

They key is bigger setbacks. Height of buildings is not that important, but when we just have these tiny little sidewalks the density creates canyons of doom and gloom. Require bigger setbacks, we need lots of ten foot wide sidewalks, check out that avenue in downtown waikiki…..huge freaking sidewalks…so the towers are not oppressive. check out nyc, huge sidewalks, doesn’t matter if apt. building on 8th ave in the village is 20 stories. also streets are much broader. carrie bradshaw on a side st. in nyc has more open space public realm in the right of way facade to facade on a side street! then we have facade to facade on first ave in pioneer square. So, yes, to upzoning, but also require the buildings to be more setback to expand the sidewalks and the public realm. It’s ridiculous that in Seattle we are building all kinds of 90 unit buildings cheek by jowl to each other with the same three foot wide sidewalk we’ve have the last 100 years when it was all one stroy flat low density crap. It’d also be a good investment to take about one block out of 20 and simply buy it and create a square or vest pocket park. gotta do it now while land still cheap, and also would need that t.i.f. to pay for it. There needs to be a MUCH stronger hand guiding all this development not just the council unleashing new set of rules and siting back and seeing what happens over the next 25 years under those rules. We’ve tried that time and time again, and it’s produced a lot of crap like the 1980′s ballard apartments with gaping parking lots underneath, the 1990′s faux “town homes” showing a cedar fence to the street, no front door! and the mixed use buildings that kill retail by requiring all 5 tenants locating in them to have the same floor design, smoky windows, no big doors and no big signs so no business can be seen, as a result they all turn into appointment only businesses that close at 5 pm like sun tanning and chiro. there’s alot more to it than just height.

They key is bigger setbacks. Height of buildings is not that important, but when we just have these tiny little sidewalks the density creates canyons of doom and gloom. Require bigger setbacks, we need lots of ten foot wide sidewalks, check out that avenue in downtown waikiki…..huge freaking sidewalks…so the towers are not oppressive. check out nyc, huge sidewalks, doesn’t matter if apt. building on 8th ave in the village is 20 stories. also streets are much broader. carrie bradshaw on a side st. in nyc has more open space public realm in the right of way facade to facade on a side street! then we have facade to facade on first ave in pioneer square. So, yes, to upzoning, but also require the buildings to be more setback to expand the sidewalks and the public realm. It’s ridiculous that in Seattle we are building all kinds of 90 unit buildings cheek by jowl to each other with the same three foot wide sidewalk we’ve have the last 100 years when it was all one stroy flat low density crap. It’d also be a good investment to take about one block out of 20 and simply buy it and create a square or vest pocket park. gotta do it now while land still cheap, and also would need that t.i.f. to pay for it. There needs to be a MUCH stronger hand guiding all this development not just the council unleashing new set of rules and siting back and seeing what happens over the next 25 years under those rules. We’ve tried that time and time again, and it’s produced a lot of crap like the 1980′s ballard apartments with gaping parking lots underneath, the 1990′s faux “town homes” showing a cedar fence to the street, no front door! and the mixed use buildings that kill retail by requiring all 5 tenants locating in them to have the same floor design, smoky windows, no big doors and no big signs so no business can be seen, as a result they all turn into appointment only businesses that close at 5 pm like sun tanning and chiro. there’s alot more to it than just height.

They key is bigger setbacks. Height of buildings is not that important, but when we just have these tiny little sidewalks the density creates canyons of doom and gloom. Require bigger setbacks, we need lots of ten foot wide sidewalks, check out that avenue in downtown waikiki…..huge freaking sidewalks…so the towers are not oppressive. check out nyc, huge sidewalks, doesn’t matter if apt. building on 8th ave in the village is 20 stories. also streets are much broader. carrie bradshaw on a side st. in nyc has more open space public realm in the right of way facade to facade on a side street! then we have facade to facade on first ave in pioneer square. So, yes, to upzoning, but also require the buildings to be more setback to expand the sidewalks and the public realm. It’s ridiculous that in Seattle we are building all kinds of 90 unit buildings cheek by jowl to each other with the same three foot wide sidewalk we’ve have the last 100 years when it was all one stroy flat low density crap. It’d also be a good investment to take about one block out of 20 and simply buy it and create a square or vest pocket park. gotta do it now while land still cheap, and also would need that t.i.f. to pay for it. There needs to be a MUCH stronger hand guiding all this development not just the council unleashing new set of rules and siting back and seeing what happens over the next 25 years under those rules. We’ve tried that time and time again, and it’s produced a lot of crap like the 1980′s ballard apartments with gaping parking lots underneath, the 1990′s faux “town homes” showing a cedar fence to the street, no front door! and the mixed use buildings that kill retail by requiring all 5 tenants locating in them to have the same floor design, smoky windows, no big doors and no big signs so no business can be seen, as a result they all turn into appointment only businesses that close at 5 pm like sun tanning and chiro. there’s alot more to it than just height.

They key is bigger setbacks. Height of buildings is not that important, but when we just have these tiny little sidewalks the density creates canyons of doom and gloom. Require bigger setbacks, we need lots of ten foot wide sidewalks, check out that avenue in downtown waikiki…..huge freaking sidewalks…so the towers are not oppressive. check out nyc, huge sidewalks, doesn’t matter if apt. building on 8th ave in the village is 20 stories. also streets are much broader. carrie bradshaw on a side st. in nyc has more open space public realm in the right of way facade to facade on a side street! then we have facade to facade on first ave in pioneer square. So, yes, to upzoning, but also require the buildings to be more setback to expand the sidewalks and the public realm. It’s ridiculous that in Seattle we are building all kinds of 90 unit buildings cheek by jowl to each other with the same three foot wide sidewalk we’ve have the last 100 years when it was all one stroy flat low density crap. It’d also be a good investment to take about one block out of 20 and simply buy it and create a square or vest pocket park. gotta do it now while land still cheap, and also would need that t.i.f. to pay for it. There needs to be a MUCH stronger hand guiding all this development not just the council unleashing new set of rules and siting back and seeing what happens over the next 25 years under those rules. We’ve tried that time and time again, and it’s produced a lot of crap like the 1980′s ballard apartments with gaping parking lots underneath, the 1990′s faux “town homes” showing a cedar fence to the street, no front door! and the mixed use buildings that kill retail by requiring all 5 tenants locating in them to have the same floor design, smoky windows, no big doors and no big signs so no business can be seen, as a result they all turn into appointment only businesses that close at 5 pm like sun tanning and chiro. there’s alot more to it than just height.

I like the big streetwall. More urban and comfortable, and important to provide actual density.

But we need to keep our sidewalks walkable. Tree wells and sandwich boards are taking over this city.

One of his more interesting works of fiction ; )

Blah Blah. Upzoning is a government subsidized real estate speculation windfall. Just ask Liebman & Co. Oh, and upzoning will not bring on development. The ending of the RE correction has not arrived; the writers are advocating just pushing on a string. Oh, and one more thing: the Pearl District sucks, has no vitality, and no soul.

Pretty soon Kent will be so dense and Seattle so sparsely populated that Bailo will have to move to Seattle for some elbow room!

That’s why you have glass on the buildings, it reflects the sun and makes convection zones. Works pretty well in Tokyo.

What you got against trees and businesses drawing in customers?

What you got against trees and businesses drawing in customers?

Is there any street level activity?

Is there any street level activity?