How many people in the community agree with this group? And, what are they doing to ensure that the alternatives that they propose are economically feasible and would actually be implemented?

Have you walked down Rainier lately? This proposed mall won't be taking business away from the boarded up buildings that are on every other corner of Rainier. Right now there are some 20 cozy little doorways you can camp in for free.

Kudos to this group for doing what it took to get these issues before the City Council. We do not need another auto based mall right off the freeway at Dearborn.

Just because someone has figured out how to build what they know how to build, does not mean we should fly in the face of the South Downtown planning, transit station planning, and the encouragement of urban 'main' streets.

This developer should be looking for opportunities near Othello if he can do it in a less auto based manner.

Lowes isn't going anywhere from it's location near the Mount Baker station, by the way.

The alternative presentation described above is really really neat, too. It's a mixed use neighborhood idea that gives over more space to Goodwill for operations, as well as, building more housing. I bet a Fred Meyers like the one that used to be in Broadway Market would fit into it. CARD needs to get it out to the public IMO.

This project is has large ramifications for the Asain-immigrant community that has revitalized the area-primarily the business owners in the upland business district-Little Saigon. There is a lot of resentment in the community concerning the disenfranchisement involved in the process of putting this project together. The business and landowners that seek to gain from this project have intimidated many local business owners and residents. There is some real fear in the neighborhood about speaking out against the project.
Dominic, please investigate the ethnic, racist, and intimidation elements of this story, there is a huge story here if you can get some of the scared folks to talk to you. Big money, threats of violence.
Pulitzer, baby.

I'm a big fan of being able to walk/bike to your retail needs, and although I believe in supporting local business over giant big box stores, folks here in the South End (and Central District, for that matter) have nothing close since the Fred Meyer on Broadway closed. I would welcome a Target, honestly, because it would mean I could hit up a store like that AND the Goodwill, and not have to drive to Renton or Northgate or West Seattle to do it.

Preserve Rainier Valley? LOL whats to preserve? Face the facts in 30 years Seattle is gonna look like New York anyway, he's just planning ahead. No wait let's preserve the codemmed empty businesses for the homeless to sleep in their doorways. If you want to live in a small town move to one.

Southender, The deed restrictions that Safeway holds on other sites in the Southend need to be broken(see the other story). Then there could be better locations for a Target/Fred Meyer, near the light rail stations. Better than breaking an established, thriving business neighborhood and creating a major traffic jam at that junction without light rail service.

And there could be better stores than a Target or Fred Meyer.

Oh yes, the wonderful vibrant neighborhood that is Little Saigon will be decimated by this development.

Bullshit.

Two entirely different market segments, selling entirely different products. That's just a feeble attempt to use the same bullshit faux PC tactics the "Save Our Valley" idiots used to fight light rail.

And I hope they are just as successful as those morons were.

Real people who live in the neighborhood need a place to buy everyday stuff without having to go to Factoria, Renton, Southcenter or Northgate.

BTW, the city never had any growth plans for the light rail line, what you all talking about? Look at the entrances to the stations along MLK, ...they are small, there is no grade separation between passenger traffic and the vehicular traffic. This was already designed for low density, and the zoning around the stations is the same as in Maple Valley. Why would developer build a 4 story building on such expensive land?! That's why there is no development near stations except subsidized housing that resembles refugee camps. Don't get confused now just because the rail line is build by Sound Transit, the mayor Nickels was and is the chair of ST Board.
The city may talk that they want walkable communities, but the bottom line is the revenue for them. They were pleasing developers from the start by raising hight limits in SLU, Belltown, and other very congested areas where regional transit was never even planned, yet a lot if rich work and drive.
This Goodwill site is close to freeways and downtown. A lot of rich people drive downtown for work, plus a lot of people who are stuck in traffic will get off the freeway to shop here during rush hours as well. Developers love this formula, so are the businesses, and so is the city that collects a lot of taxes and fees from developers and businesses, and parking fees too.

I just don't understand why people want this to be a walkable area though? It is next to freeways and other regional roads, homeless camps, etc. Lowe's would be perfect there instead of a Light rail station as it is right now. Who walks to Lowes?

I totally agree with "Bring it On" above. I am so sick of new people moving into the neighborhood and immediately starting up with the PC crap. It's insulting and patronizing to those of us who've lived here since you were coming up in Bellevue, dreaming of being an uber-cool, vegan, fixed-gear-riding hipster in the ghetto. Whatever. I want to be able to shop at someplace like Fred Meyer or Target without driving to friggin' Northgate or Factoria. I will still go to little Saigon, like I always have -- it's up the hill from where this development is supposed to go anyway, and there aren't any big box stores selling excellent Vietnamese food so competition shouldn't be too much of an issue. Goodwill will get an awesome new store too. Who can be against that?

Nice OP-ED peice pretending to be news. I live in and work in the area and would gladly welcome a "dying" establishment as a mall with major chains with a varity of everyday items that I need and use. (I drove 4 miles in 45 minutes to pick up some printer ink the other day-and that was in light traffic) Walkable neighborhoods are great, but do not fit the makeup of every area.

As far as Little Saigon, i.e. two or three small strip malls(the kind of mall newsweek was really referenceing) that clog up cars and buses with thier forklifts-They could be included in the new complex. (It would have been intresting to hear what they thought of the plan rather than what Mr. Holden assumes they think).

To me, the mall in this area seems like a good idea. Scale is a shocker, tho, and all those cars clogging up an already conjested city. Go to the trift store now and then and its an interesting site with lots of opportunities.Maybe including some parkland?

I'm no fan of malls, but I found myself at Northgate the other day (AT&T store). If malls are dying, why was that mall packed on a Tuesday during the work day?

"Real people who live in the neighborhood need a place to buy everyday stuff without having to go to Factoria, Renton, Southcenter or Northgate."

I'm a real person, I live in the neighborhood, and I have been to the aforementioned places exactly once each in the 10 years I've been here.

If you want to go to the mall everyday, move next door to one.

I thought we were trying to create Urban Villages in this City - walkable, dense communities - not car oriented projects. Mayor 'green' Nickels has his head up his ass, considering he probably greased the wheels to get this one through. What we don't need is another excuse to buy all the crap that we do.

No comments have been based on solid information about the Vange Mall project or one alternative sketch mentioned in the article that CARD has elicited from a UW architecture class. I suppose that is assumed in these shoot-from-the-hip comments. If you want to know what you are talking about before you say something (as Obama said) it is a good thing to get some information first-- about the present Vange proposal and what CARD is suggesting, which inlcudes a much better deal for Goodwill, probably one big box but a lot more housing (mostly below median income) and open space for residents and neighbors and those shopping in the smaller stores.

This is just giving up streets that connect to nothing. The only thing they provide access to is Goodwill, their parking lots and their shipping yard. Those streets might have made sense before I-90, I-5 and the 12th ave bridge were built, but now they're pointless. Every direction these roads could be expanded in is blocked by existing construction or a very steep hill. Look at the site from satellite. It's not like some new tiny urban community is going to spring up in this parking lot, and there's no sense having the city maintaining what is essentially Goodwill's driveway.

Maybe the city can get the developer to add a public staircase up the hill to 12th or Weller, that would definitely make up for it.

I really would like to see a cheaper retailer closer to downtown; getting a Target on Dearborn would be nice. Especially because 4 buses stop directly in front of it.

I can't definitely can't afford to shop at the downtown department stores, and the second-hand stores are hit-and-miss on selection. Having to go to Renton or Northgate just to buy a pair of cheap slacks is stupid.

And by the way, 550 apartments that close to downtown and sodo? Fuck yeah.

CARD does not look very diverse. Where did they come from, Boston? Get some color in your rep photo, then I'll listen.

Yes, because if there is not a quota that represents every racial group, they have absolutely nothing to offer. That's why we have Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.

You tell 'em valleyrat.

This is a terribly researched article. It overlooks the following:

1) After years of negotiations, the developer reached an agreement with labor and neighborhood groups that now support the project. It would have been nice had the reporter talked to them.

2) This project will make a non-walkable neighboorhood walkable. Streets that now lead nowhere will connect surrounding neighborhoods. At least one street will be closed to auto traffic. Lots will be spent improving the streetscape.

3) The developer would have to pay big bucks for the street vacations. The city isn't giving them away. Plus, the developer would have to maintain the streets.

4) To compare this project to suburban style malls is ludicrous. This is not U Village or Northgate with their fields of parking. Parking in this project will be undergrounded and out of sight. If this were built out in the burbs, the number of parking spaces would be signigicantly higher. Also, much of the parking is for the 500 or 600 residences in the project.

5) As another poster commented, this site is well served by transit.

6) I love Little Saigon. This project will bring more customers to that community. They can choose to take advantage. The developer has agreed to work with the Little Saigon community, which is why LS's rep signed the accord with the developer.

Holden, usually a more thoughtful reporter, must have been high when he wrote this. A pity.

One more thing:

This project keeps Goodwill -- with its job training and other services -- in the community.

As "build it already" says above, Dominic's quality/integrity is slipping from what it has been. The past several weeks he's posted a number of poorly researched, very biased articles. I hope he can shake that off or I'll start scrolling past his posts the way I already do with several other slog writers.

I have a couple of friends that are managers in the retail sector and they say that pedestrian foot traffic in various malls is decent, if not good. But they also point out that their business sales are dramatically down. Many malls will survive, of course, but do we need to glut the market even more -especially in the light that the US probably has 2x more retail square footage then our capacity??? A new mall will just usurp business away from another mall or retail in adjacent communities.

In regards to those who think malls are flourishing -recently from the NYT: "The acceleration of retail bankruptcies brings into vivid relief the degree to which the U.S. is over-retailed. With more than six times as much retail square footage per capita than in Europe and the collapse of two of the leading contributors to retail abundance — the sprawl development boom and consumer’s access to easy credit — the retail landscape in the U.S. is likely to contract and refocus.
The dominance of the fashion, food-court and family-focused mall is ending. No new enclosed malls have opened in the U.S. since 2006.

In the meantime, vacant malls, shopping centers and big box stores have already been redeveloped into more sustainable, less auto-dependent places more in sync with today’s demographics. Depending on the specifics of each site, we can expect to see future failed malls re-inhabited, re-greened, or retrofitted." http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2…

People should also read their comments - a disparate view from the Stranger's readers. The Dearborn developer and his allies are probably writing half these comments in the Stranger.

I would love to live at Thorton place. It is right accross from Northgate, adjacent to the Northgate Transit center, and right across from the Northgate Business complex. The only problem is that it is much too expensive to rent let alone buy and it is no where near a grocery store. The problem with Seattle is not that it builds complexes like this is that it does not build the infrastructure, like grocery stores, to support them. If this city wants to get people out of their cars (I do not own one never I have) then it needs to start building businesses and homes close together. Rents also need to be more affordable.

There are hundreds of housing units in this project. One would think that business owners in "Little Saigon" would embrace the opportunities to cater to these new residents. If they did so, their business would actually increase. But I guess it is easier to just whine.

The project the the best iea in 40 years - that area is decrepit and run down and badly need some re development.

Little Saigon is blocks away - ans will suffer not.

Housing, keeping the Goodwill and at finally a large scale retail outlet that C. Hill folks can access and Beacon Hill and Valley people, Jackson Street - etc. The BEST buss nexus in the city, BIG factor.

Can't imaging why the typical whining opposition? Did someone not get the payoff they wanted?

I have shopped the Goodwill for many years, there are NO real city streets, give me a break. It is like vacating an alley that is never used.

And JOBS and JOBS and JOBS - now and in the future. What about that concept.

I would love to live in and apt. in the middle of shopping as long as there is low end stuff and a grocery chain.

And the best bus nexus in the city - WOW.

Dom, you are slipping, these people are motivated whiners ... this is a great project.

The Little Saigon takeover of upper Jackson is great, means nothing to this, this is Dearborn, not Jackson.

AND THE GIANT GOODWILL STAYS - and makes some money off their under used property ... HURRAH.

Living here in the south end of West Seattle, I love being able to walk to Target, Safeway, QFC, etc. Honestly, if the design is done well enough and the parking is mainly underground, you don't really notice that you have a big box store in the neighborhood.

Message to the Slightly Confused Activists: Offer an alternative plan, don't hate on cars until you guarantee sunny weather, good east-west bus service, frequent service cross town, and please stop attempting to stop changes that ultimately, if coordinated constructively, will benefit consumers (which is what we are). Just work with Vange to decrease the density of retail space (the economy will help him on that), partcipate in some low-income/affordable housing development away from his site, and work this hard next time to fix the light industrial and reatil blight in Little Saigon and Jackson/Rainier Corridors.
Oh, and ye'll at CADA and other Jackson Street developers for designing and building really ugly buildings!

PLANT!!! I call PLANT

The 25,000 extra car trips should be the real headline of this article. Dearborn, with few/none north-south intersections in that old artificial valley sluiced out so long ago, located yards away from the intersection of TWO, nation-long interstates, is classic bad-city-planning bottleneck. Unless there's going to be freeway exits leading into the garage in this plan, I won't be for it.
Build something of mixed use in the spot where goodwill rusts? I'm on board. Develop residential that includes 'lower-ish' income apartments; sure, why not. Use public assests to raise a little cash for the city - yup, I can agree there. Add 25,000 S.O.V. drivers to DEARBORN?? WOW, why not built this mall just off the viaduct, or on the Madison exit of I-5, and be done shooting ourselves in the proverbial traffic foot.?!?!
Do we need it? I lived next to the nation's oldest mall for 3 years and then moved to capitol hill. Don't miss the box stores for a second; didn't NEED any of that cheap plastic, nor the cheap, lownutrition foods that pack on pounds. Now, I get food from locals (walk to pike place, use the broadway farmers market, buy from little bakeries, and so on), I get other 'needs' from small city stores too. The reason Target/big box stores aren't welcome in the center of the city isn't because they don't have stuff to sell (they're sure to do good business, there's no doubt there), but because urban city dwellers have a different kind of american CULTURE that doesn't require what they are offering. Their prime customers would be people driving to them, not walking. I think 25000 is conservative.
'Needing' an anchor store in order to 'justify' building this mall hardly "breaks Stereotypes" about malls. Case in point: DEARBORN already has a "a very progressive commercial, mixed-use project that is trying to break the stereotype of suburban shopping centers." It's a little bit west, starts with the letter U; and also had detractors. The Moriguchis won, and managed to close Lane street also, because their development had character fitting this city AND an actual plan and site choice to keep foot traffic encouraged .
Goodwill and the area around should be zoned light industrial or commercial office. I'd rather have this built on the block recently demolished near the new light rail stop at John/Denny than see this dearborn mistake.

For those who are looking for a store in which to buy everything will be pleased to know that Ross is moving into the old spot where Longs used to be on Rainier next to the Safeway.