Doesn't matter. The budget will be slashed.
I vote for option three.
That model is hideous. No wonder people don't understand what architects actually do.
Another vote for 3.

Or option 3a (submitted as a Slog comment ammendment with the proper authorities): remove all height and density restrictions as long as the neighborhood services and other #3 criteria are met. Seattle needs serious density to keep up with the region, let alone our state. I can't think of a better location for this density than being adjacent to downtown.
I think people are quiet about it because anything is better than what is there now. People only seem to raise a stink if they actually like what is there now.
As it stands now, the place is a shithole and the new project will ultimately have more low income housing.

The key is ensuring that those who will be uprooted during the construction will be guaranteed housing as it becomes available. Fair is fair.
displaced = all relocation costs paid for, and 1st dibs on new units. assuming you still qualify for subsidized housing at that date.

option 3. it's what Vancouver would do.
Considering that most of Seattle's current Class A "skyscrapers" are 2/3rds empty...
Just sent them an email

The best thing that Seattle downtown could do is to raze a lot of the current old buildings including Yesler terrace.

New uses would include greenspaces, parks, walkways and also free parking garages.

Poor people should not live in the most expensive real estate in the world.

In Tumwater right now, they are selling 3-bedroom homes for $170,000. Brand new. That's $650 a month. Even a dual minimum wage family can make that. That's where the residents should move.

This location is within walking distance to light rail, a brand new streetcar, literally dozens of Metro and Sound Transit bus lines, Amtrak, Sounder trains... and every redevelopment option includes more new spaces for cars than people? Especially with the deep bore tunnel spilling thousands of cars onto Seattle streets every day, you think 5,000 more cars near downtown is a good idea?

Sorry... I love density, but the only option that does less harm than good is option number 5 (do nothing). SHA - go back to the drawing board once you realize this is the least car-dependent plot of land in literally this quarter of the country.
try to get the City of Seattle to waive the parking requirements, @10.
At least @10 is being honest... the word that best describes whatever finally happens is "gentrification."
What, no one remembers Holly ParK?
Density is good. People should live in the city, and leave wildlife and nature alone. Yesler is one of the most desirable locations to live in Seattle. It needs to be built out to maximum capacity.
Fox et al. jerk their knees whenever Seattle Housing Authority proposes anything, anything at all, and the Displacement Coalition routinely rails against prospective developments that will likely improve the lot of the low-income population it claims, improbably, to stand up for. Didn't like the redevelopment of Holly Park into New Holly, the reinvigoration of the Othello/Rainier Vista neighborhood, the impressive and successful redevelopment of West Seattle's High Point. Surely the Housing Authority's proposals deserve study, discussion, possible amendment - and ought not to be dismissed out of hand. I have attended planning meetings, read the EIS, heard Fox's rants, and talked with more thoughtful people with whom I discuss (and sometimes disagree about) the future of Yesler Terrace, people who do not demonize the very organization that is trying to improve the lives of people who do and who will live there.

I myself, a low-income renter, prefer Option 3, although I too think the number of parking spaces ought to be reduced by a considerable measure.
A point of clarification - the streetcar is coming no matter what - that's a Sound Transit/SDOT project (with funding through Link Light Rail) - SHA may play a part in exchanging some land for a streetcar barn, but really Yesler Terrace just happened to be at the right spot to take advantage of the new streetcar line (which connects Capitol Hill to the International District.)
Please go visit the Highpoint development and contrast it with what was previously at the site. This is an award winning community with many different ethnic, economic and age levels living together and really creating a sense of community. Crime rates are lower, living standards are improved for all and it is an ecologically improved area. It is too easy to take the side of "displacing the poor" when you really haven't researched how they are currently living, whether they would like better housing even if it means a temporary move, and what their needs are in the future. Again, I would ask you to go and look at the Highpoint area of Seattle, contrast it with the previous housing and talk to the low income persons who are living there now. I would be willing to wager that none of them would like to return to the tenement like crime ridden housing they were in previously.
I vote for option 3.
I'm glad they're looking at the more-housing option. Great to put housing near transit.

Not worried about the overdose of parking. It's just a maximum potential number for the EIS. These days even fairly expensive housing tends to have lower parking ratios to match how much will actually be used.
People are tired of the lack of affordable housing. More housing can improve affordability.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.