The tower isn't bad, but why are all of these shorter developments all so catastrophically boring?

As I understand it, the money to build 815 Pine is there, but like every other project out there, there's no real tenant interest and so they really aren't compelled to build anything any time soon.

Unless they show up in the comments and prove me wrong, I'm going to say this one will be "on hold until the market improves", meaning no real word on a likely start date until sometime late in 2010.

Craigslist has 1-bedroom apartments renting for $695 on Capitol Hill. Will "Black Knight" developers ever stop fighting the inevitable...a low density Seattle, just like Detroit?

I almost jumped for joy until I read aforementioned ads and realized they were almost as full of crap as @3.

i've been waiting 20 years for 'choad' to show up in architecture.

congrats.

CRE is going down and hard. With it, local banks that were muscled out of Residential Development Loans by the big boys.

I agree, Baconcat for the win.

Get used to density.

It really is just about lot sizes. A lot of this crap would be bearable without any changes at all if it was confined to a single development on a normal-sized lot, sandwiched between two other developments with their own distinct generic forms.

I keep going back to Jane Jacobs and her four recommendations for great cities: density, pedestrian-friendly streets on short blocks, mixed primary uses, and a mix of building ages. The current round of Seattle development only meets the first of these criteria, only accidentally sometimes meets the second, delivers a caricature of the third by using the "mixed use" formula, and utterly fails at the last.

Given transit in this city , the idea that people who live in the city are going to want to live an entirely car-free existence is pretty unrealistic. If you build something like that without a parking space per unit you're going to have trouble selling them.

I commute by bus and am all for encouraging transit and minimizing the need to drive, but you're not going to get most people to give up cars completely. People around here want to get out of the city and go skiing, hiking, boating, etc. This ain't Manhattan, or anything close.

Dominic: rjh brings up the point I hoped you would address in the Northgate post the other day. I commented that if I were to have a car, living as I do in a parking-free Ballard Avenue building, I would almost have to drive it to work simply because I have nowhere nearby to leave it. Once again, I'm not sure that, say, one parking space per unit is unreasonable, given that it allows people to still own a car but also to use that nearby transit station without worrying about the car.

I think we need more traffic islands.

That will make avoiding transit even harder.

@8 I agree, dividing the property up and having different zoning would have made sense. But when we radically upzone whole areas, salivate over lots of new development and believe what will 'pencil out' (I suppose for those Chinese investors?) you are not going to get variety or actual different historical eras.

We just don't do infill very well. What if we planned for overall mix of heights of buildings and mixes of size mass and scale that would work, and then up zone specific lots when a builder -- maybe even a smaller builder -- comes along with a nice idea? Some are higher, some are lower, first come first served. Slow it down and see what evolves.

Hey, I know!

Let's project current demand based on demand during a recession that almost was a depression!

That could work ...

Oh no! Parking spaces! Eek!

I should add that my inability to park at my current location doesn't really mean that I'll just continue on for the next ten years without a car. It just means it's more likely that I'll move from my current highly dense neighborhood to one slightly less dense, once I get tired enough of never being able to take an independent road trip.

I agree with rjh and leek. I didn't think I would, since I hate driving, support transit and don't own a car myself. Getting around in the city is completely doable and even convenient with a bus pass and mybus.org on my phone's internet browser. Bikes help, too.

But there are good reasons for having an underground spot for every unit:
1. Sometimes you need a car to move heavy/large things, or to escape the city once in a while. City transit doesn't go to the mountains.
2. Getting your car out of the underground garage is a pain. Your motivation for doing so would have to be pretty high (i.e. reasons listed in #1)
3. Even if you don't own a car, you probably know people who do. These people might live in another town, and they probably aren't able to exist in the utopian car-free realm that you do. If these people come to visit you, it might be nice to offer them an underground spot. If they always have to battle the stress and low security of street parking, they'll probably never come visit you.

I am, however, interested whether one can opt out of paying for a spot in the parking garage, and if it would significantly reduce costs to someone who doesn't own a car.

Isn't it still illegal to build residential units in Seattle without parking?

I don't see how increasing the number of parking spaces in the city could have any effect other than to add cars to the road and increase congestion.

@ rjh, leek and harpie. Nobody's suggesting that we should eliminate parking spaces everywhere forever. But providing one parking spot per unit is excessive, nay, ludicrous in a building 40 feet from a light-rail station. City dwellers--especially those living next to a train station and minutes from downtown--have to stop relying on cars. They are a luxury. A building next to this sort of transit should be allowed only a handful of parking spots. If a tenant wants the convenience having a spot under his or her apartment, he or she should pay a steep premium for the space or deal with the inconvenience of parking--ZOMGNO--on the street. Lots of people in dense neighborhoods own cars but live in buildings with zero or few parking spaces; they park on the street just fine. Don't want to pay the premium or deal with the hassle of looking for a curbside spot? The alternative is worse: Pay the premium of living in the burbs, shelling out for gas on each trip to the city, where you pay a ton of money to park your car, and waste even more time dealing with the hassle of traffic. It's still a better deal for most folks to reside in the city, living carless or using their car less.

Another quick point: Underground parking raises the price of a building, and thusly its rents or condo costs, considerably. Digging deep, deep holes for parking garages takes a ton of of dough and time, which adds risk and cost to the developer's investment. Fewer underground parking spots = cheaper rents.

@Dominic.

Rental prices aren't simply costs plus margin for developers. Some buildings would be hard pressed to sell units if there was a lack of parking. It's all about ROI and underground parking can provide a goon one depending on circumstance.

And it sounds like you don't have any friends or family in the area who would come visit you, by car.

Agree with rjh, Leek, and Harpie. Unless there is a substantial improvement in the neighborhood, car-less in Othello means:
-Never leaving your residence after dark. Almost weekly drivebys in the past year within 6 blocks of that intersection. Prostitution. Drug dealing. Some YOUNG knucklehead is going to post that HE walks around all the time at night. But no women, men over 40, people with children, disabled or less than perfectly fit ever do.
-Buying food from the worst grocery store in the city, a Safeway with little produce, rotten meat, moldy bread, mouse droppings, general filthiness. And hold your purse/wallet close at all times. Also Safeway purchased deed restrictions on all nearby properties to prevent competition. There is however a great selection of high alcohol beers, banned from downtown, that most respectable major chain grocery wouldn't stock.

That glass and steel tower would look really cool at Broadway and John.

And if it was on fire.

Dominic: If I had a car, I could park it on the street... but I couldn't LEAVE it on the street all day unless I went pretty far from my dense neighborhood. That's my point about parking spaces. Having one gives someone the freedom to leave their car and take transit to work.

I've lived in Seattle for 10 years now and never had a car. So it's not like I'm trying to invent excuses for my current lifestyle. I just would like the option of staying in my dense neighborhood, continuing to bus to and from work, but yeah, having the luxury of owning a seldom-used car.

And maybe fewer parking spaces and some on-street permit parking is a better solution. Unfortunately there's no such thing in downtown Ballard.

At least it's not another Alexanderplatz...

Just what Seattle needs more new apartments. They can't even fill what we have already.

@leek

I know it's not ownership but would carsharing meet your need for an occassional car? I joined Zipcar last night and think it will fill my need for an occassional trip to the suburbs or to pick up large retail items.

B: I've thought about it but it's been so long since I've driven that I think I need regular practice in a familiar car to get used to it again and overcome some driving anxiety. But I suppose this is getting off the parking space topic and most monolith-dwellers won't have such concerns.

Can't any of you read architectural drawings? The green space in the center of the building is a PARKING LOT. Problem solved.

that naked chick who lives in Tower 801 is gonna be pissed.

quote:

A building next to this sort of transit should be ALLOWED only a handful of parking spots.

sheeh, what a control freak techocrat. Anyone paying the high rents that the building will command, is going be someone who will likely own a car and probably seldom use it anyway. So the problem is...?

Could we have someone with some Urban planning background blogging on these issues.

gawd these are all awful.

Hrmph. Dominic, I still want to know your response to the notion that responsible car owners can't take nearby transit without somewhere to leave their cars.