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.
Amen to all this. Why is it that we don't have a tougher minimum height retirement for new construction right on top of a rail station?
Your voice will go a long way imo. Hope to see you there!
A better solution? Stop thinking of buildings as static and unchanging. Push design standards for structured parking that can be repurposed into other uses once we transition into a less car-dependent society.
Well, that's mainly due both to the construction along Denny between Fairview & Stewart, and all the cars avoiding Mercer and using Denny instead to get to I-5.
Also, the same thing seems to be happening at the Yesler Terrace redevelopment, where the 20 story towers proposed by SHA in promotional materials a decade ago are being built as 7 story apartment buildings instead. Another missed opportunity.
"This year, a study from J.D. Power's Power Information Network reported that the share of millennials in the new car market jumped to 28%. In California, the country's No. 1 car market, millennials outpaced baby boomers for the first time."
"Also known as Generation Y, they did not rush out to get driver's licenses like preceding generations, they eschew car ownership with car- and ride-sharing sites like ZipCar and Uber, they don't like the commitment of a car and all its trappings, it has been said.
Yet they account for nearly 30 percent of all new car sales."
Which isn't to say you shouldn't dump the parking requirements for a building on top of the Capitol Hill station. Just that personal car ownership is more nuanced than what you think you're seeing in this specific urban area.
As for the article, would people really dig a Cal Anderson park shrouded by a giant skyscraper apartment? Wouldn't it literally be shadows for the majority of the day with a giant building there? And assuming we're fine with covering it with shadows, why have it at all? Just build over it and say, "Go to Volunteer Park."
And here's a story on NPR: https://www.npr.org/2014/04/23/305643904…
Regardless, if the building is north of the park, who cares; I was thinking it's west of the park. But I was sort of curious if a building due west of the park would cover it and found a shadow casting map thingy.
If I'm reading it correctly, a building due west of the park at 15-20 stories would pretty much blanket the park in shadows from 3PM - 5PM, at least at this time of the year.
The infill around Capitol Hill station should be much, much bigger. As in every other big city with transit.
@14: I just renewed my lease in a modern 25-story building in downtown Seattle, and I'm paying about the same rent I was for a roach-infested hellhole in a dilapidated walk-up building in far northern Manhattan three years ago. Rents in those towers lining Central Park are orders of magnitude higher than anything in Seattle.
Two nearby buildings currently offer monthly parking for rent. The large building at Thomas/Broadway owned by Equity currently charges $305/month. Broadway Market, two block further north, charges $150.
We should encourage the development of paid commercial parking underground, both long term and short term, and the best way to do so is to eliminate free parking aboveground. Keep the aboveground parking only as paid and metered short term parking, for customers of local businesses (but not the bars, please, unless there is a designated driver).
~ A permanent home for the Capitol Hill Farmers Market, which will now be open seven days a week. The contract has been inked.
~ Affordable housing will make up about 30% of the mix of new residences.
~ The covered indoor market is not a done deal but is in the works. It was the result of public feedback. I know because it was my idea. I was interviewed by Dominic Holden in The Stranger in 2008 about this concept. I took it up with the Capitol Hill Champion, Sound Transit, the City of Seattle, Gerding Edlin, Schemata workshop and anyone else who would listen. I hope it becomes a reality.
~ Also from the public feedback was that we did NOT want big box chain stores such as QFC, Safeway, Office Depot as the anchor tenant. That HMart might be that tenant is promising.
~ A day care center is to be included.
~ A LGBTQ community center has always been discussed but that part is not firm to the best of my knowledge.
~ The public plaza was also a public request and besides that, Sound Transit will not allow construction directly on top of the station box.
I too was disappointed at the parking involved but guess what? I lost that one and have moved on with my life. However, at no time during this whole process do I recall anybody at these events requesting high rises. If anything the community demanded TOD blend in with Capitol Hill and was steadfastly against upward growth. Anyone who was here at the time knows getting the height limits raised for this project was tantamount to giving birth to a kidney stone.
Regarding the discussions for greater density for The HIll. Where have you been? The number of new apartments on Broadway and the Pike/Pine corridor has been stunning over the past 10 years. Where once were BMW and Mercedes dealerships, where once was a Safeway and an old QFC, where once were public storage facilities and warehouses (12th Ave. area) are now hundreds if not thousands of new apartments. And the list goes on and on.
Simply stated, we do not need high rises for increased density nor did the community want them. Only the Johnny-come-latelies who did not participate in the process are demanding this change so late in the game.
My biggest disappointment in this discussion though is that someone of Dan Savage's stature has completely overlooked the facts and history of this entire journey over the past 14 years, when the location for the station was first selected in 2004. I don't ever recall Mr. Savage attending any of the public events though I could be wrong - I have seen him at HUMP! more than at TOD hearings. Sorry Dan, love you and always have but you are wrong on this one and should have gotten your facts straight before diving in. I would like to meet for coffee though and continue this discussion.
As for this architect who claims to be an expert on all things Seattle in just two years, where was he during this entire process? How many public feedback events did he attend? I know architects actively working on this project and from my interactions with them and from what I have seen they are doing a fantastic job.
All you naysayers had your chance but the train has left the station. Get over it and move on.
To the developer, that $6.5 million is part of a larger stream of cash outlays over time to complete the entire project. When the project reaches completion, the building’s owners begin to collect revenues. Although capital expenditures are complete, they continue to have operating expenses and taxes. So there is a stream of net revenues and costs that are discounted to the present using an interest rate that represents the cost of capital. A sophisticated investor understands that different interest rates may be appropriate for different parts of the project, with different risks and time horizons.
The first thing to understand about the $6.5 million for parking (your estimate) is that current market rates for parking are not high enough for this to pencil out as an investment in commercial parking. Any accounting or finance student could create estimates for what daily or monthly parking rates would suffice. My back-of-envelope thoughts ... $25-30 per day or $500-600 per month.
If the project is worth investing in on a financial basis, the investors will finance it. Remember that the investors are justifying it on a marginal cost basis, not an average cost basis. Since they are already paying for the land, the land is free in these calculations. But time to completion is not free. A huge underground excavation will delay completion, and hence collection of revenues, from the aboveground structure.
But much more to the point: When we allow developers to build buildings with no parking, or very little parking, we are saving them considerable amounts of money, with no expectation of reciprocation. It's a gift by the city so that the city - and certain naive citizens - can pat themselves on the back and congratulate each other on how forward-looking they are.
You don't want to provide parking? Fine. But don't be a sucker. Insist that if they don't put in parking, the owners of the building (and all subsequent owners) provide a percentage of below market rate housing for thirty years. Stop giving away stuff to developers.
There will always be people that want to live in a microhousing arrangement, whether temporarily or permanently. Bring back the congregate microhousing (of which the aPodMent Brand was but one example) by making it once again legal in Seattle. Capital Hill Station is the ideal place in Seattle to support it.
If the developers want to build parking underneath to rent out daily, weekly, or monthly then fine, but let’s make sure the people who live in apartments above aren’t being forced to subsidize that parking.
I know, I know, people will scream "That's not fair!" But tell me, why should all the burden and sacrifice be put upon people who've lived here for a long time and been paying ever higher taxes for "affordable" for a long time? If you're going to assert we don't need a car, then lead by example.
Agrippa dear, it's a used F-150, a used Leaf, and a used Land Rover. Hardly anything glamorous (and I am truly mystified as to why we have the Land Rover)
This article and the arguments could be lifted from any number of projects here.
The cluster-fuck of progressives, no-growth advocates, professional "housing" organizations, neighborhood groups trying to expand their power and people who want to control every aspect of the blocks around them have helped create a housing nightmare here. They all have to piss on any project so everyone knows they've marked it.
The no-car crowd wets themselves at any off-site parking.
People moving into condos in what was a bustling entertainment district SOMA are outraged that there are BARS!!! With NOISE!!!
Two different projects in the Mission are being delayed--on plots of land with no current housing-- because it'll bring in the wrong kind of people.
And they all seem to insist on a one-size-fits-all solution which makes no sense.
Thank God for rent control here.
Please write an article to remind yourselves of the bad condo siding scandal that caused the law and ask Sen. Jamie Pedersen what he is doing to solve the standoff with risk-averse developers. If seniors had middle-class condos to downsize into, we'd see more inventory and less price pressure in single-family homes.