Comments on: Hunting for Goodwill on Dearborn Street http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/ Smart Growth defined: Making the car an option, not a necessity.* Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:20:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Dearborn Street Development Conditionally Approved | hugeasscity http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-1971 Fri, 09 May 2008 06:53:10 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-1971 [...] This proposal has been controversial, as noted here. Personally, I have been decidedly ambivalent. I like it because it is much better use of the land, and it will be great to have new housing and retail on that site. But I also dislike it for several reasons: [...] […] This proposal has been controversial, as noted here. Personally, I have been decidedly ambivalent. I like it because it is much better use of the land, and it will be great to have new housing and retail on that site. But I also dislike it for several reasons: […]

]]> by: More Affordable Housing at Jackson Place | hugeasscity http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-1097 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:13:00 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-1097 [...] A side note: Considering the unusual nature of the housing noted above, and the time and care it took to make it happen, I find it easier to appreciate the neighborhood’s criticisms of the proposed development at the Goodwill site just across Rainier Ave. As of February, both the Jackson Place and Squire Park community councils continue to oppose the development because the “size and character are unacceptable.” According to the Jackson Place newsletter, “the project is currently being held up by the City because it is seeking written assurances that the housing will be completed as part of the project.” [...] […] A side note: Considering the unusual nature of the housing noted above, and the time and care it took to make it happen, I find it easier to appreciate the neighborhood’s criticisms of the proposed development at the Goodwill site just across Rainier Ave. As of February, both the Jackson Place and Squire Park community councils continue to oppose the development because the “size and character are unacceptable.” According to the Jackson Place newsletter, “the project is currently being held up by the City because it is seeking written assurances that the housing will be completed as part of the project.” […]

]]> by: bill bradburd http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-765 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:49:44 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-765 I'm sorry to think that people believe there is nothing here or that a super regional shopping mall is appropriate for these neighborhoods. The site is bounded by Jackson Place to the east - a small neighborhood of almost 800 residences (and because of multi-family zoning changes will be well over 1000 in a few years). Little Saigon, immediately to the north and east, is being rezoned as part of Livable South Downtown and the community and ID are hoping to have the area become a healthy high density neighborhood. A project that requires 25,000 automobile trips per day to keep 1/2 million square feet of formula retail big box stores in business is not smart urban design and infill and does not not fit into these growing neighborhoods. Wrapping "mom&pop" stores around the exterior is lipstick on a pig. And let's be clear - the developer will be charging rents that very few mom&pops can afford - $40/foot or more. There is NO commitment to any locally owned stores in the project. This area of the CD and ID have not been infested with national chain stores. And the majority of the community don't want them in. NIMBY - maybe, neighborhood character - yes, local economy - yes. For the folks that crave a Target store and cars, there are already three within 9 miles of the site. Regarding timeline - the project MUP is held up with the City - they are looking for assurances from the developer that the housing will be built (the developer, TRF Pacific, doesn't do housing and has been trying to sub it out for quite a while). After the MUP recommendation from DPD it will go to the hearing examiner for the rezone and an EIS appeal, then to Council for consideration of the street vacations. It could go well into summer or longer before a decision. I’m sorry to think that people believe there is nothing here or that a super regional shopping mall is appropriate for these neighborhoods.

The site is bounded by Jackson Place to the east - a small neighborhood of almost 800 residences (and because of multi-family zoning changes will be well over 1000 in a few years). Little Saigon, immediately to the north and east, is being rezoned as part of Livable South Downtown and the community and ID are hoping to have the area become a healthy high density neighborhood.

A project that requires 25,000 automobile trips per day to keep 1/2 million square feet of formula retail big box stores in business is not smart urban design and infill and does not not fit into these growing neighborhoods.

Wrapping “mom&pop” stores around the exterior is lipstick on a pig. And let’s be clear - the developer will be charging rents that very few mom&pops can afford - $40/foot or more. There is NO commitment to any locally owned stores in the project.

This area of the CD and ID have not been infested with national chain stores. And the majority of the community don’t want them in. NIMBY - maybe, neighborhood character - yes, local economy - yes.

For the folks that crave a Target store and cars, there are already three within 9 miles of the site.

Regarding timeline - the project MUP is held up with the City - they are looking for assurances from the developer that the housing will be built (the developer, TRF Pacific, doesn’t do housing and has been trying to sub it out for quite a while). After the MUP recommendation from DPD it will go to the hearing examiner for the rezone and an EIS appeal, then to Council for consideration of the street vacations. It could go well into summer or longer before a decision.

]]> by: Carrie http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-482 Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:34:11 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-482 Supporters of this project: Please join our listserve! www.godearbornstreet.com This is not your typical "sprawling mall" project as opponents have said. Its compact, applies to the city's green-build program, and emphasizes the visibility of the mom & pop stores along the street level. Yes, traffic will increase – but this is growing city and the project lot is on the cusp of downtown. The developer has already agreed to pay for traffic improvements to mitigate the increase… Supporters of this project: Please join our listserve!

www.godearbornstreet.com

This is not your typical “sprawling mall” project as opponents have said. Its compact, applies to the city’s green-build program, and emphasizes the visibility of the mom & pop stores along the street level. Yes, traffic will increase – but this is growing city and the project lot is on the cusp of downtown. The developer has already agreed to pay for traffic improvements to mitigate the increase…

]]> by: Ryan http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-431 Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:44:45 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-431 What is the current timeline for the project? What is the current timeline for the project?

]]> by: jon http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-323 Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:15:03 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-323 As a nearby resident I am all for this project as well. It's a shame that those who are against are heard the most. What exactly is the 'scale and character of the area'? To me, the immediate vicinity is a pass through to Rainier V, Beacon Hill, Mt. Baker. Ideal location for retail. 'is a threat to our local shopping districts (such as Little Saigon and 23rd & Jackson)' I fail to see how a potential Target could effect these areas, and indeed would make them more attractive as speciality item destinations. You're worried about automobile traffic? Guess what, this is central Seattle. It's one of the more affordable areas left here and here is traffic now, and there will be increasing traffic regardless if this site is developed, or remains a vacant eyesore. People will adjust(bus, bike, ped, rail...) More affordable housing in downtown core? (first of all how is this downtown...?) Nickels et all are requiring all new development downtown that exceeds certain height restrictions provide for affordable housing. And this project, as I understand it, has some baked in. 'Above all, we seek a signed agreement with the developer that ensures a more appropriate project that provides real benefit to the community. ' This is a real doozy. Read: Cater to our NIMBYism cloaked in 'social values' or we will make life very difficult for you Mr. Deep Pockets Developer. This kind of thinking is what keeps this area from progressing. As a nearby resident I am all for this project as well. It’s a shame that those who are against are heard the most.
What exactly is the ’scale and character of the area’? To me, the immediate vicinity is a pass through to Rainier V, Beacon Hill, Mt. Baker. Ideal location for retail.
‘is a threat to our local shopping districts (such as Little Saigon and 23rd & Jackson)’ I fail to see how a potential Target could effect these areas, and indeed would make them more attractive as speciality item destinations.
You’re worried about automobile traffic? Guess what, this is central Seattle. It’s one of the more affordable areas left here and here is traffic now, and there will be increasing traffic regardless if this site is developed, or remains a vacant eyesore. People will adjust(bus, bike, ped, rail…)
More affordable housing in downtown core? (first of all how is this downtown…?) Nickels et all are requiring all new development downtown that exceeds certain height restrictions provide for affordable housing. And this project, as I understand it, has some baked in.

‘Above all, we seek a signed agreement with the developer that ensures a more appropriate
project that provides real benefit to the community. ‘
This is a real doozy. Read: Cater to our NIMBYism cloaked in ’social values’ or we will make life very difficult for you Mr. Deep Pockets Developer. This kind of thinking is what keeps this area from progressing.

]]> by: chris http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-275 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:41:40 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-275 And where are all these pedestrians going to come from? Have you been through the area? And where are all these pedestrians going to come from? Have you been through the area?

]]> by: bill bradburd http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-264 Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:10:59 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-264 the DSCLN website is http://dearbornstreetcoalition.org adding 17,000 auto trips per day won't make the area any more pedestrian friendly... the DSCLN website is
http://dearbornstreetcoalition.org

adding 17,000 auto trips per day won’t make the area any more pedestrian friendly…

]]> by: Chris Caron http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-125 Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:38:19 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-125 I can speak as one resident who would benefit from eliminating longer car trips to Northgate, West Seattle, or even Bellevue by going forward with this development. As it stands now, the area in question is one to drive quickly through to get from point A to point B. Its dirty and ugly. Getting people from nearby Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley, Mount Baker, Leschi, First Hill, the Central District and maybe even Capitol Hill to do their business and entertainment here would be quite an accomplisment. Having all this nearby encourages shorter, more frequent, leisurely visits, rather than a mega-shopping spree to someplace out of the area. Thats what I have to do now. Think of the opportunities to build a community that is attractive for everyone. I can speak as one resident who would benefit from eliminating longer car trips to Northgate, West Seattle, or even Bellevue by going forward with this development. As it stands now, the area in question is one to drive quickly through to get from point A to point B. Its dirty and ugly. Getting people from nearby Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley, Mount Baker, Leschi, First Hill, the Central District and maybe even Capitol Hill to do their business and entertainment here would be quite an accomplisment. Having all this nearby encourages shorter, more frequent, leisurely visits, rather than a mega-shopping spree to someplace out of the area. Thats what I have to do now. Think of the opportunities to build a community that is attractive for everyone.

]]> by: michael http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-51 Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:11:07 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2007/12/10/hunting-for-goodwill-on-dearborn-street/#comment-51 When I say "city center" I mean to say center city as in the "Center City Strategy" which does encompass this property. The proposed development is not in step with the vision and goals of the Center City Strategy or the City's Comprehensive Plan for that matter. Incindentally, the Comp Plan is entitled "Toward a Sustainable Seattle" - something this project is most definitely not. Lowe's, Target, etc may have a place within the city - I was not implying that they don't. I was referring more to the development type, which I would argue is more suburban than urban, meant to draw people from a large area, including luring them off of I-90 with tall, cheesy signs more fitting for a suburban context (if the city allows it). This project is not much more than a glorified strip mall, something the developer (TRF Pacific) does well. See Factoria Square Mall, Oaktree Village Shopping Center, Willows Pond Shopping Center (Puyallup), stop me before I puke. When it comes to community benefits I don't see it as an either/or situation, but a both/and situation. The developer wouldn't even be thinking affordable housing if it wasn't for community pressure. Why not ask for more if the City is giving up right of way and allowing a height variance? At some point the City needs to demand development that is more consistent with our vision of a sustainable and livable city even if it doesn't fit with the developer's current thinking or meet their profit expectations. If this developer is unwilling to go along, then there are others who will see the opportunity. When I say “city center” I mean to say center city as in the “Center City Strategy” which does encompass this property. The proposed development is not in step with the vision and goals of the Center City Strategy or the City’s Comprehensive Plan for that matter. Incindentally, the Comp Plan is entitled “Toward a Sustainable Seattle” - something this project is most definitely not.

Lowe’s, Target, etc may have a place within the city - I was not implying that they don’t. I was referring more to the development type, which I would argue is more suburban than urban, meant to draw people from a large area, including luring them off of I-90 with tall, cheesy signs more fitting for a suburban context (if the city allows it). This project is not much more than a glorified strip mall, something the developer (TRF Pacific) does well. See Factoria Square Mall, Oaktree Village Shopping Center, Willows Pond Shopping Center (Puyallup), stop me before I puke.

When it comes to community benefits I don’t see it as an either/or situation, but a both/and situation. The developer wouldn’t even be thinking affordable housing if it wasn’t for community pressure. Why not ask for more if the City is giving up right of way and allowing a height variance? At some point the City needs to demand development that is more consistent with our vision of a sustainable and livable city even if it doesn’t fit with the developer’s current thinking or meet their profit expectations. If this developer is unwilling to go along, then there are others who will see the opportunity.

]]>