Afternoon Jolt: Density in Roosevelt

“without going through a negotiation process with neighborhood residents.:

F*ck them.  You don’t get a subway station in your urban village without some give.  I don’t care about today’s residents, I care about the residents in 2020 who are going to flock to a new DENSE cluster so that we don’t have to pave and log all the way to Snoqualmie Pass.

Your cute bungalow means another five clapboard houses in former wilderness

yes, because if 800 people can’t move into TOD boxes downtown, they’ll move to snoqualmie pass. hyperbole much?

at least mcginn’s pushing for tougher design standards in the overlay – lord knows seattle need them…

What a great attitude. This is not a matter of pro or anti-density.  It is really about a development group pushing their own re-zone for siting in a block that is actiually more appropriate for some bit of step-down transition to the surrounding neighborhoods.  Residents of this area want to add the asked for density, but not like this developer is calling for.  DPD agreed with the neighborhood until the process was interrupted by paid consultants masquerading as community activists.  You are applauding a group that has hijacked the planning process.  If you should say “F Them” to anyone, it should be these self-interested people.

good for conlin.  listen to the residents.  i think there should be density around the station, for sure, but you need to listen to the folks who have been planning the station for the last twenty years.  of course, mcginn only listens to his own echo chamber, so it remains to be seen which voices he deems the democratic ones this time around.

I’m just wondering, are we using the Rainier Valley as an example of all the density that will magically happen around light rail stations ? I was under the impression that in order for very tall buildings to make sense financially you had to be able to offer something like a view of Puget Sound as a carrot. Will a view of I-5 hold the same appeal ? There is alot of angst over what is the appropriate height here but in the end I think it will come down to the price of commodities – wood, steel and concrete.

This is a disappointing decision that will please no-one.

The 85′ zoning immediately around the station area is great, but the RNA and the Ravenna-Bryant Association have asked throughout the process (and the neighborhood plan also states) that taller buildings should be buffered from SF zoning by blocks of LR zoning so as to step down and maintain a nice sense of scale throughout the neighborhood; and also that the historic High School building be surrounded by buildings of similar scale. These are not a unreasonable things to ask for, and I say that as someone who’s pro-transit, pro-density and pro-TOD. This proposal ignores all of that prior work by suggesting unbuffered 65′ in the one place where the neighborhood doesn’t want it.

Moreover, it didn’t have to be this way. I can’t speak for the RNA, but I personally know for a fact that they were willing to go to 85′ in the area west of the station, and perhaps also to upzone all or part the current NC-40 corridor that runs north-south on Roosevelt to buffered 65′ in exchange for the things I’ve mentioned above. I’m sure they communicated this to the Mayor. This would be a very significant increase in density, probably more than this proposal. Instead McGinn has chosen to ask for more height in the one place they asked not to. Why? It just doesn’t make sense to me. This a very unfortunate decision. The path to higher density in Roosevelt just became much more rocky than it needed to be.

Conlin is a champion of the will of the voters – except when it comes to the downtown tunnel. 

Fuck you for not respecting the residents point of view.

oh snap…except…i think you meant mcginn…remember, the guy who lied just weeks before being elected, to get elected?  and who thinks “the people” agree with him except that they don’t?  i sure as hell don’t…most of the time.  dude is an embarrassment.

conlin is just doing his job…he was elected to follow through on city agreements.  he wasnt elected to hold a vote for every issue that crossed his desk. and, you cant blame him for filling in when there was a leadership vacuum in the mayors office.  when the mayor was absconding from his duty and couldnt be found.

The Roosevelt residents developed a plan and now McGinn goes ahead with something else? Classic. I thought he was supposed to be a man that listened to the people? Cost overruns anyone? I cannot wait for McGinn to be sent packing.

The Roosevelt residents developed a plan and now McGinn goes ahead with something else? Classic. I thought he was supposed to be a man that listened to the people? Cost overruns anyone? I cannot wait for McGinn to be sent packing.

The Roosevelt residents developed a plan and now McGinn goes ahead with something else? Classic. I thought he was supposed to be a man that listened to the people? Cost overruns anyone? I cannot wait for McGinn to be sent packing.

The developer in question has been pushing for 125 foot towers, so I hardly think this proposal to make it 65 instead of 45 constitutes a major win for the developer. It’s called compromise.

You make great points, but the problem is the Sisley properties are likely to remain a festering eyesore without something more than low-rise. You have to give developers some incentive to go through the expensive process of demolition, remediation, and construction. I’m sure that concern is what it driving this decision.

Hey, pikers…ever wonder what a Real City looks like?

I was in one last night:

http://jabailo.tumblr.com/post/7332059490/yesterday-night-at-times-square-all-the-screens

Honestly, this seems like a ridiculously poor expenditure of political capital.

 Even if the added 20 feet doubles the amount of new housing units with another 350 people (which is being incredibly generous) and half of those people take the train daily (which again is quite generous) were talking about less than a 1% increase in ridership. Is that really worth the loss in trust and collaboration from not just the RNA, but from plenty of neighborhood groups who will now look skeptically at City Hall?

I can almost guarantee that same increase could be reached with some added neighborhood amenities or increased biking and walking access.

Good enough for now.   And once LR opens and the NIMBYs have had 10 years to see that the sky hasn’t fallen (and new, younger, more protransit people have moved in) push for another rezone.

You have to dig deeper for details in the “chorus of calls” to understand the polical calculus at work here.  This chorus was well orchestrated.

It is not really a compromise.  The frontage along 15th Ave. NE should be decreased in height not raised.  A compromise would allow 65′ near 12th Ave and step down to no more than 40′ near 15th.  The original compromise worked out by DPD between the residents and the developer raised the heights to 40′ throughout when the step down near 15th was originally planned to be lower than that.  The 125′ proposal was unrealistic and merely used as a threat.

Sad.  Area population about 2 million.  Spending 4 6 billion or something on light rail.  Roosevelt from this view is essentially “downtown”…it’s in city, close in…it’s count ‘em 45th stadium cap hill FOUR STOPS to downtown, about a 13 minute ride….and we’re sitting here debating little teeny circles of 8 versus 6 story density?

Look.  80% of the “neighbors” there will be gone in 15 years.  Any upzone takes 50 years ofr a build out. 

Next topic.  Why do people dislike density?  Cuz much of what we build in Seattle is ugly crap.  This is because the buildings not being tall must crowd the building envelope; you can’t require setbacks of say an extera 8 feet to build those nice wider sidewalks most cities have…that open up the street space….no, with our tiny parcels and narrow streets and minisidewalks everything we build almost is just a breadloaf crowding the street and not leaving enough well shaped public and semi public space.  Bigger sidewalks, a shallow entrance driveway….none of our buildings really look grand or nice they’re all just freaking rectangular blocks.  The solution is both higher height limits and more controls such as requiring bigger setbacks to make the buildings nice.  I refer you to the DC area say connecticut and porter, the kennedy warren, the numerous apts. buildings on connecticut many with no parking but wider sidewalks, a tiny bit of grteenery or verge in a shallow portico……there are beautiful buildings all over the owrld, we’re just not building them here and it has to do with the basic land use structures we have and do not address.  Take the vita ilk site.  why not allow 25 stories?  OMG you’d see a tower from Greenlake?  Yes, it’s  city folks.  If you allowed that heigth then you have the economics to require additional ten foot sidewalks on all 4 sides, maybe even a chopped off corner or two to open up the intersections.  Simply talking about 6 stories v. 8 stories just doens’t do anything to make the buildings or development nice and in fact basically requires ugly breadloafs filling up the building envelope.  The other aspect is with such a small zone of a few blocks, you don’t draw the vibrancy meaning an additional 50 bars and restuarants and 50 employers and 50 shops like delis, cleaners, etc. that you would draw if you let more density in in a 20x 20 block area.  Agaion from the 30,0000 foot high view, not a huge increase in the density zones compared to SFH which would still be 75% of all Seattle land, amazingly suburbanish.  But then the Roosevelt Greenlake minidowntownplex area would be a draw to the surrounding SFH foks within 5 miles much like downtown Ballard is today; a way to do the city in a livable way from your home on 125th without going all the way downtown.  The entire debate is too captured by the small bore thinking fostered by the local nimby’s who btw are going to reap a huge financial bonus in selling their SFH’s in 2, 5 9r 15 years ….due to the train station being so cloase…and due to their probably successful efforts to limit the nubmer of dwelling units thereabouts very sharply, jacking up the value of the transit proximity.  We’re  all neighbors in this, from Lakewood to Everrett and the greatest good for  the greatest number and the health of the planet say “bulid more density AND make it nice” both of which are blocked with the small bore tiny island of low rise 6 story stuff.  Nobody thinks of DC is “overwhlemingly dense” it’s verdant and livable and it has 12 story zoning in a much greater percent of its area including many zones that appear ”not dense.”  The Kennedy Warren.  We should be allowing about 6,000 or 10,000 more dwelling units in the Roosevelt area but make the development more attractive through a firmer and smaerter set of guiding principles.  

I hope this goes through, but I suspect that faux-environmentalist, NIMBY superhero Richard Conlin will kill it just to spite the mayor.

Is this reporting? Calling one side “sensible” and the other side not?

Did you look over the map?

It’s really a very short, thin ribbon along the 2 arterials that are getting any kind of height, and it’s pretty well buffered.

The 65′ sections are only properties that face either Roosevelt or 65th street, and only extend 2 blocks from the station.  The 65′ midrise is buffered by either 40′ or low-rise everywhere.  

The 85′ is practically only on top of the station, and steps down to 65′ on 3 sides, 40′ on the other side.

>we’re sitting here debating little teeny circles of 8 versus 6 story density?

Oh, no.  We’re not even debating that level of density, or even upzoning a significant fraction of the 1/4 mile circle.

We’re debating a 5 block long X of 6 story density (vs 4 story), with a dash of 8 story in the center.  Most of the actual 1/4 mile circle stays single family, with a minor sprinkling of 35′ lowrise.

Conlin was certainly not elected to follow through on city agreements. He was elected to represent the people of Seattle and protect their interests. Bad agreement already in place? Toss it out. That’s why we elect leaders, not just bureaucrats.

perhaps he didnt feel it was a bad agreement.

The festering eyesore has been there long enough that rather than accept any “fix” the neighborhood will tolerate the eyesore until it turns to dust if need be. The wrong development will always be wrong.

Move there if that’s your idea of a real city.

Move there if that’s your idea of a real city.

Move there if that’s your idea of a real city.

I actually think McGinn did a really good job here. The neighborhood came up with a proposal, for 65-foot buildings in the very center of the neighborhood and some 40-foot buildings around it. A developer asked for 165-feet, then stepped down to 125. McGinn came up with a great compromise, with slightly higher zoning than the neighborhood wanted to allow more people to live in the quarter mile surrounding a regional rapid transit station, but not high enough to take away the neighborhood’s character, and safeguards to ensure that development is neighborhood-oriented.

The view to the west will include Green Lake and the Olympics. To the south it seems likely that Lake Union and downtown could be seen. These seem like good enticements to me. That said, I don’t agree with the idea of unbuffered 65′ all the way to 15th.

I’m so fucking sick of Conlin’s bullshit. God I hope Seattle does the right thing in the upcoming elections.

Too bad the majority of bus service in Roosevelt is likely “terminated” and “reduced”… so much for simple maintenance of current transit features of neighborhood.  Where is the light rail station density discussion for the Montlake neighborhood immediately south of bridge?  Nice views of the Cut, Arboretum and Lake Washington and density that can easily walk to Campus, jump to Eastside, etc….  

Trust is large issue.  Research agreements that were made with respect to returning 12th Ave and Roosevelt Avenue to bi-directional after “temporary” one way status for I-5 construction.