Slog Comments


Comments (16) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Matt the Engineer 1
That is great news, and shows a great attitude from the neighborhood. I don't care how Roosevelt fits more people in, just that they do it. Whether that's a one mile circle of 4-story buildings or one massive tower surrounded by single family homes doesn't matter much - they both meet the goal of providing more people access to the station. I'm absolutely fine with Roosevelt choosing the exact urban form.
Posted by Matt the Engineer on June 8, 2011 at 3:07 PM · Report this
He's right, they shouldn't just draw a half mile circle around the station and upzone everything in it.

It should be AT LEAST 3/4 of a mile and probably a full mile circle. That would make the most sense.

Sell your stupid house and go buy one somewhere else where density isn't needed... I hear Bellevue is nice.
Posted by SeattleSeven on June 8, 2011 at 3:08 PM · Report this
Hernandez 3
"You can't just draw a half-mile circle around Roosevelt's light rail station and upzone everything in it"

Uh, why the fuck not? You can agree to higher maximum density in a smaller radius now, or you can watch as your entire neighborhood eventually gets swallowed up in low-rise development. Which one do you want?
Posted by Hernandez on June 8, 2011 at 3:16 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 4
Too bad the City is broke due to the Tolled Tunnel of Terror and can't leverage needed TDO improvements near ST stations ...
Posted by Will in Seattle on June 8, 2011 at 3:18 PM · Report this
It must be really nice to get a shiny new light rail station in your neighborhood (and the increase in home value that comes with it) and also get to dictate the zoning that comes with that station.

How can Madrona get a sweet deal like that?
Posted by justinf on June 8, 2011 at 3:19 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 6
@3 for most insightful Post Of The Day
Posted by Will in Seattle on June 8, 2011 at 3:20 PM · Report this
Kinison 7
Sounds like Mayor McGinn isnt LISTENING to the people.

You know the horrible thing about allowing taller buildings nearby, loss of reception. AM/FM/Digital TV. Most were gone in my studio apartment behind Dicks Drive-In (Broadway) when they re-zoned the area for taller buildings. I was forced to subscribe to limited basic TV just to get local channels.
Posted by Kinison on June 8, 2011 at 3:36 PM · Report this
Eminent domain every property owned by a Sisely and zone them maximum density. Then be selective, block by block.
Posted by SoSea Resident on June 8, 2011 at 3:51 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 10

Because the Siselys want to build towers encompassing entire blocks to replace their slums. Their plan is the very antithesis of good urban planning and what makes density livable. Anyone living the Roosevelt area has a vested interest in smothering that plan in its crib.
Posted by keshmeshi on June 8, 2011 at 4:14 PM · Report this
Cascadian 11
I don't see what the problem would be with one or two towers surrounded by mid-rise development. And I don't see a better place than across from (and on much of the border of) the high school. Those Sisley properties are abandoned. So long as the new high-rises are good at street level, go ahead and put in a 12-18 story tower, in a block of buildings 65-85 feet tall. There's a subway station going in after all. It will suck if that results in Sisley making money because of his irresponsibility, but if the alternative is that he keeps sitting on his properties then of course the neighborhood should add taller buildings.
Posted by Cascadian on June 8, 2011 at 4:25 PM · Report this
Fnarf 12
85 feet isn't a problem if the buildings are designed correctly -- with small footprints, built to the curb, with usable retail frontage where appropriate. But you can achieve fantastic densities with lower-rise (four stories) buildings. The key is SMALL FOOTPRINTS -- no megablocks. All they have to do is restrict any development to the existing lot lines, with no combining of any kind allowed.
Posted by Fnarf on June 8, 2011 at 4:54 PM · Report this
sheschemes 14
I don't think they need the taller buildings, just less vacant lots.
Posted by sheschemes on June 8, 2011 at 5:35 PM · Report this
People are our most valuable resource. Taller buildings = more people = better community.
Posted by archie on June 8, 2011 at 6:00 PM · Report this
Roosevelt needs more economic diversity--more apartments for section 8 poor people.
Posted by neo-realist on June 8, 2011 at 7:10 PM · Report this
Kudos to the City and RNA for having this dialogue. Sounds like a process that is on a good track.

While more density (and good urban design) is needed at Roosevelt, and towers appear to be off the table at Roosevelt, there are two great options for towers in either direction on the light rail line: The U District and Northgate. I predict developers will be lining up to build high-rise apartments in both of those districts close to the rail station by the time those stations open, in 2020. The U District is 8 minutes from Westlake on this line and there are already towers there. Any up-zoning needs to be done with great attention to the details about preserving all that is worth preserving, but it would be a shame if there ends up being no place for true high density development until the line gets up to Lynnwood. A lot of other great cities around the world have solved this problem well already.
Posted by J-Dub on June 8, 2011 at 11:29 PM · Report this
Glenn 18
Lot's of great ideas, I imagine Roosevelt went through them all during the 10 year planning process...but thanks for all of the quality input.
Posted by Glenn on June 9, 2011 at 11:29 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.