http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/08/burgess-calls-for-more-density-in-roosevelt-roosevelt-residents-push-back Comments On: Burgess Calls for More Density in Roosevelt; Roosevelt Residents Push Back by Cienna Madrid 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) Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Glenn]]> Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:29:37 -0700 The Stranger
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]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 23:29:33 -0700 The Stranger Posted by neo-realist]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 19:10:41 -0700 The Stranger Posted by archie]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 18:00:42 -0700 The Stranger Posted by sheschemes]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:35:51 -0700 The Stranger Posted by dangwyne]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:13:33 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Fnarf]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:54:53 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Cascadian]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:25:33 -0700 The Stranger
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]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:14:45 -0700 The Stranger
McGinn and Burgess both took towers off the table. The maximum that would be built is 85 feet and in real life that translates to 65 feet (due to building materials costs).

So, there will not be towers in Roosevelt.
Posted by Roosevelt Neighbor]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:03:15 -0700 The Stranger Posted by SoSea Resident]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:51:42 -0700 The Stranger
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]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:36:52 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:20:46 -0700 The Stranger
How can Madrona get a sweet deal like that?
Posted by justinf]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:19:39 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:18:36 -0700 The Stranger
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]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:16:25 -0700 The Stranger
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]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:08:34 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Matt the Engineer]]> Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:07:12 -0700 The Stranger