Comments On: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union by Dominic Holden http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/06/26/nimbys-shouldnt-lose-their-shit-over-24-to-40-story-towers-in-south-lake-union Comments On: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union by Dominic Holden en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 25 May 2013 03:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]> Posted by Gerald Fnord]]> Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:55:25 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]> Posted by Density sucks]]> Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:05:18 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]> of the high school (perfectly nice, hardly exceptional) or the view from the high school (a mountain hidden behind clouds 9/10 of the school year, which former students have told me they barely noticed).

Both are stupid reasons to spend $500,000,000 on a subway station and then make sure no one's around to use it.
Posted by d.p.]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:15:18 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]>
A view of Mt. Rainier from a public building ain't chickenfeed.
Posted by Mr. X]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:34:01 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]>
What such accusers routinely fail to understand is that the Bauhaus block is already an example of functional density -- in fact, it was likely that the wholesale replacement of the block would have yielded a density decrease, from 8 storefronts to 1 or 2, and perhaps with fewer units of housing thanks to increased per-unit size and much of the redeveloped space wasted on parking.

Dominic addresses your attempt to NIMBY-fy him @8. I myself cited the mixed-use, mixed-scale, mixed-age hodgepodge along Westlake Ave N as worth maintaining, and I expressed trepidation about this city's habit of confusing verticality with "density improvement" (the same mistake you seem to have made about Bauhaus).

But trying to conflate nuanced differentiation of circumstances with NIMBY-ism, no matter your rhetorical approach, just makes you seem reactionary.

(p.s. Speaking of lacking nuanced differentiation: None of those opposed to development at the Roosevelt subway station has ever been able to name one thing "special" about Roosevelt High School that would warrant "view protection" on the order of the U.S. Capitol building or the Acropolis.)
Posted by d.p.]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:59:15 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]>
There is a concept called Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In Vancouver, they've found out that to have a healthy, livable neighborhood, one must limit the FAR to between 5 and 6. That means that even where you might have a bunch of 40 story tall buildings, the average residential and office square footage to ground area averages out to having lower buildings built out with heights of 5 or 6 stories. The Nickels proposal seemed to violate that. If downtown Vancouver is successful with that density, there's no reason that Seattle officials should push for greater density -- especially in this special part of the city.
Posted by ddoo]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:30:06 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]> Posted by TVDinner]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:11:21 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]> My point was that there were several posts on the Slog decrying the demolishing of the building housing Bauhaus to create density. Admittedly, I don't recall who wrote the articles, and they may not have been written by Dom; nonetheless, they were on the Slog. And I love Bauhaus.

My point was that it would appear at times that Slog writers favor density and development, but only when it's not in their backyard.
Posted by TJ]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:59:10 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]> Posted by Orv]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:18:10 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]>
What part of altering a view does ≠ tearing down a building do you fucking assholes not understand?

Seattle: retards with money.
Posted by d.p.]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:12:29 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]> Posted by Jizzlobber]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:08:24 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]>
I get it. Drinking in a bar with your friends and buying a rusty fixie in a second hand shop is "culture" and that's privileged over things other people say they value. Like their aesthetic experience. Aesthetics is stupid and the Stranger would never defend public art. If you want to look at something pretty, get a TV, am I right?

And because people with views move in different social circles than you, and so their lives and their desires don't count.

You know people walking down the street have a view too? Or no view, as the case may be. Just saying.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:51:19 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]> Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:29:56 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]> functions. Show me a block in South Lake Union that plays such a vital role in the neighborhood's commerce and pedestrian activity that risks demolition for a bland, thoughtless building, and I'll be first in line to defend preserving the function of that block.

I talked about this in my April story about the so-called Bauhuas …:

The important thing in Pike/Pine is maintaining a mixture of uses from high end to low end (fancy new condos, affordable lofts, upscale restaurants, cheap cafes, etc.). But as developers home in on Pike/Pine, they threaten to displace the very things that make the neighborhood so attractive to renters in the first place.

@5) It's not, and never was, about one coffee shop. See above.
Posted by Dominic Holden]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:28:58 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]> actual uses.

SLU has benefited from the rehab of many of the older buildings along Westlake Ave N (which thankfully escaped the wrecking ball of the dumbass Seattle Commons plan) into thriving small businesses, shoehorned in between newer structures. These provide valuable stitching to the urban fabric.

Parking lots on 9th and abandoned auto showrooms on 8th provide nothing.

The best way to ensure that the smaller buildings and businesses of Westlake and Cascade remain is to amend the zoning not only to "limit development to two towers per block," but to limit single projects to less than whole blocks as well. We can't afford any more "setback towers on a useless podium" megablocks in this city.
Posted by d.p.]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:27:46 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]>
Cities grow. This is a good thing.
Posted by Matt the Engineer]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:25:44 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]> Posted by TJ]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:09:59 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]>
Just remember: who were the NIMBYs when they were going to tear down one of the Stranger's favorite bars within the golden two block radius? So take whatever these people tell you with a grain of salt.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:06:58 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]> Posted by gloomy gus]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:59:14 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]>
And a minor point about the unlimited heights allowed downtown: you probably can't build taller than the Columbia Tower. They tried to build the CT taller than it is, but the FAA put a cap on the height thanks to nearby SeaTac. It seems crazy that an airplane couldn't avoid a building that far away from the airport, but that was the decision. I guess you'd have to build the Burj Alki starting well over a thousand feet underground.
Posted by Matt the Engineer]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:57:27 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: NIMBYs Shouldn't Lose Their Shit Over 24 to 40 Story Towers in South Lake Union]]> the Burj Alki

I giggled.
Posted by Zebes]]> Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:53:31 -0700 The Stranger