Hey, this is really interesting work, thank you for featuring it! Is there somewhere I could see more of these students' work? :)

Yes to all of this!

Sounds great until you discover the bullshit-between-the-lines, specifically

have smaller parcel sales or land leases

Right, same old story, apodments.

If you really want to be "Afro-Centric" why not actually model it after Africa? A circle of independent buildings with sparse living arrangements surrounded by a lot of free space.

But that's not what's being discussed is it?

It sounds a lot like the new development that is west of the Egyptian Theatre on Capitol Hill.

Although I do have to take something of an exception to the whole "dominant Eurocentric culture" business. To me, "Dominant Eurocentric culture" in architecture means The Seattle Tower or the Olympic Hotel. What passes for development in Seattle these days is mostly just the cheapest way of using every cubic foot of space allowed in the zoning.

Defineing what are simple, sound, proven urban design principles as "Afro centric" just seems like silly pandering.

In fact all those principles are what is guiding livable city development in places like Amaterdam and Copenhagen. You know. Europe.

The crappy development we're doing now is a function of exploitative capitalism. Not "Eurocentric" urban planning.

What tkc said. All the good concrete steps listed have been called for by New Urbanists since the 1990s. Andres Duany has called for smaller increments of development, instead of one developer in control of an entire city block. They (the New Urbanists) have also called for more well thought-out public spaces. They have also pushed to tax land value, not the value of the building. Again, they've been saying this for about 20 years now.

Most of the built infrastructure in the US is decidedly American, not European. It would be much better if it were European!

Lastly, Dr Sutton's principles were a fine example of bullshit that only a PhD has the brains to come up with: Make sure your design "is instructive of life" and "connects earth and sky". That's a huge bucket of horseshit.

If I were a developer of means (or an architect with spare time) I'd take up a block-long NC-65 or NC-85 plot, completely ignore Seattle's zoning code, and set about doing real architecture, real urban design. Just about ANYTHING I (or anyone else) came up with would be more interesting than the ubiquitous Seattle/South Lake Union Shoebox. (Or the Ballard Breadloaf? 6 or 8 stories, maxed out envelop)

The list of variances on the design review application would be hilariously long. When the design got rejected, I'd come back with something code compliant to the letter-- not a single variance-- and get the approval.

Then I'd take both designs to the City Council, the media, and the public, and plead for some changes to the zoning code. But the resulting Seattle Process on the matter would probably drive me to give up, build the shoebox/breadloaf-style building out of spite, and move to Portland.

Colin dear, I think you should just go ahead and build the compliant building, blow it up, and then make a forty page speech in court.

I didn't know how the part about smaller parcels under the care of a master developer would play out, but I do like the idea of dividing large plots into smaller, individual developments.

I'm glad to hear that someone with real ties to the Central District is working on a vision for that site. My fear - and the fear of a great many people - is that 23rd and Union is going to be sold off to a developer based in some distant city who sees nothing but dollar signs where there used to be a community. Mr. King's vision combined with a few million dollars of real capital could turn that empty shell of a plaza into something great for the neighborhood and for the whole city. Kudos.

Yes, I know, like President Obama, you are not a president only to black men’s needs. But we’re dying out here and you won’t set us free in the Emerald City with our hearts, minds, and pride.

This letter is about racial and gender discriminations against dark-skinned “gaijin or 外人” applicants in senior housing. Urban myth dictates that the city’s ratio of senior African-American men does not fulfill their percentages as residents of Seattle Senior Housing Program. Black veterans like myself, are specifically not counted among the bureaucratic and demographic choices for living in pre-ordained senior housing units.

As shared frustrations find truth among senior black housing applicants, the belief that expurgates are guided to segregate mature blacks as “अछूतों or untouchables” for senior housing placement has become legion. This divisive rumor (supported by U.S. Department of Justice hearsay) also applies to tax-exempt status beneficiaries of non-profit senior-housing edifices. And to top it off, Seattle’s urban developers are renowned for having a finite selection process that does not favor African-American seniors. Black fixed-income-housing applicants are not easily welcomed in new dwellings comprised of monochromatic residents. Is this civil rights misinformation from malcontents or can you disavow this knowledge?

Not one to believe in “步行 or hakgwai” discrimination, I researched federal guidelines regarding the use of federal funds for public housing. It seems that client placement by cultural demonization should not play a role in homogenous selections. A further review by the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), along with the Northwest Fair Housing Alliance, shows a pattern of discrimination where fair housing complaints have increased. Can we agree that government sponsored segregation is worse then gentrification and economic transformations? There are multiple agendas at play that camouflages unorganized racist intentions. Harassment and intimidating selections of African-American residents in public housing is not uncommon according to the Fair Housing Act. Is this incomprehensible or inconceivable in “liberal” Seattle?

My optimistic wife and I are eager to believe that we have chosen a diversely occupied senior building in the pedestrian-friendly Capitol Hill community. Should we be confident that our eventually heterogeneous selection would be without cultural bias? A personal examination and review of public records determines a disproportionate little number of African-Americans lives in senior housing located in redlined neighborhoods.

Many black clients are under the false impression that city housing counselors are idiosyncratic and that excluding marrón oscuro “mayates” is a market driven policy akin to redlining. Do senior housing building managers advocate representing the unique diversity of the city through their responsibilities? Does a clients housing selection given based on individual choice or is the client selected by race, ethnicity, gender, or religion? Diversity gives residents a wonderful opportunity to define, witness and participate, in the rituals, meals, and virtues that unite Seattle. It does not give bureaucratic totalitarians an opportunity to extend their Neanderthal values and intolerable morals to this Vietnam Veteran. Democracy without guidance leads to greed, racism and deception. Democracy without guidance does not build village communities.

Are senior African-American applicants to senior housing urged to stay content with their second-class status until social progress naturally takes its course over next century? Diversity inspires the human spirit and invigorates civic goodness. Please consider using your authority to eliminate sexism apartheid against African-American men.

In conclusion to the aforementioned conversation, African-Americans already experience horrendous stereotyping from homegrown crackers, we do not need to import redneck attitudes from other cultures.

There hasn't been anything worth a god damn at that 23rd and Union corner in over 12 years (sorry Sam). ANYTHING to raise the heights and bring in some people would be an improvement over the crack sales and dice games that plague the place now.