Comments on: SLU is Jonesin to Get High http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/ Smart Growth defined: Making the car an option, not a necessity.* Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:03:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: An Open Letter To The Livable Seattle Movement | hugeasscity http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-2140 Mon, 19 May 2008 00:21:13 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-2140 [...] In my reality, upzoning in an urban area doesn’t scatter growth, but is rather a strategy to focus growth in desired areas. By your logic, if and when Seattle upzones South Lake Union, because the City will then be more overzoned, growth will become more unfocused. Do you really believe that the SLU upzone will not result in focussed growth in SLU? [...] […] In my reality, upzoning in an urban area doesn’t scatter growth, but is rather a strategy to focus growth in desired areas. By your logic, if and when Seattle upzones South Lake Union, because the City will then be more overzoned, growth will become more unfocused. Do you really believe that the SLU upzone will not result in focussed growth in SLU? […]

]]> by: Anonymous http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-1770 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:48:38 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-1770 <strong>High Gas Prices?...</strong> Make your money you spend on Gasoline go Farther Click Here! To see how.... High Gas Prices?…

Make your money you spend on Gasoline go Farther Click Here! To see how….

]]> by: First Peek at Amazon’s New SLU Headquarters | hugeasscity http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-1194 Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:43:13 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-1194 [...] Shown above is the initial concept(pdf) for Amazon&#8217;s new headquarters in South Lake Union, to be presented at the Early Design Guidance meeting on April 2. This project owes its existence to a two-block, rezone granted by the City Council last December that raised the building height to 160 feet. [...] […] Shown above is the initial concept(pdf) for Amazon’s new headquarters in South Lake Union, to be presented at the Early Design Guidance meeting on April 2. This project owes its existence to a two-block, rezone granted by the City Council last December that raised the building height to 160 feet. […]

]]> by: Ryan http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-606 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:28:49 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-606 My argument: If we put in a bunch of 400' buildings in SLU, are we not creating a new skyline? (EG: Vancouver BC) I understand that some do not want to lose the Space Needle in the mess, but is this worth an incredible lack of housing downtown? It is quite possible that if we had more upzoned land we would get more residential towers because the land cost component would not be as large. As for affordable housing, I basically agree with Andrew about 10%, but my thoughts are also go a step further: Lets say that developers build strictly luxury housing in SLU. Then, all of the people that can afford this housing move out of their current places, leaving those places for the semi-luxury folks, who move out of their places... and on down the line until eventually I get to move up one notch - or at least not move down one the next time rents spike. Alternatively, housing the more wealthy (which I am not) downtown is also better for the environment. This is because the wealthy are far more likely to drive from (anywhere they deem nice), no matter the cost of gas and parking. As for us farther down the food chain, the bus looks nicer and nicer as gas and parking climb. (Parking in my building is now $300/mo, and most of my co-workers pay it regardless of how much they make.) In fact, in order to encourage them to start with the towers, I would upzone the eastern portion of the area to unlimited height, and step it down going to the water. Yes, yes, I know that a few people on the hill would lose their view, but we are paying a hell of a price to keep it. My argument: If we put in a bunch of 400′ buildings in SLU, are we not creating a new skyline? (EG: Vancouver BC)

I understand that some do not want to lose the Space Needle in the mess, but is this worth an incredible lack of housing downtown? It is quite possible that if we had more upzoned land we would get more residential towers because the land cost component would not be as large.

As for affordable housing, I basically agree with Andrew about 10%, but my thoughts are also go a step further: Lets say that developers build strictly luxury housing in SLU. Then, all of the people that can afford this housing move out of their current places, leaving those places for the semi-luxury folks, who move out of their places… and on down the line until eventually I get to move up one notch - or at least not move down one the next time rents spike.

Alternatively, housing the more wealthy (which I am not) downtown is also better for the environment. This is because the wealthy are far more likely to drive from (anywhere they deem nice), no matter the cost of gas and parking. As for us farther down the food chain, the bus looks nicer and nicer as gas and parking climb. (Parking in my building is now $300/mo, and most of my co-workers pay it regardless of how much they make.)

In fact, in order to encourage them to start with the towers, I would upzone the eastern portion of the area to unlimited height, and step it down going to the water. Yes, yes, I know that a few people on the hill would lose their view, but we are paying a hell of a price to keep it.

]]> by: Andrew http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-605 Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:35:55 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-605 I always thought that the City should just force developers to put 10% into affordable housing, then they could just build it everywhere b/c they'd have enough money. I always thought that the City should just force developers to put 10% into affordable housing, then they could just build it everywhere b/c they’d have enough money.

]]> by: dan bertolet http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-603 Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:43:07 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-603 It's the Powers-That-Are-Not that don't see our wisdom. Some of these have legitimate concerns such as affordable housing. But most seem to be either paranoid about developers, or simply against any growth in Seattle. This is the same conservative attitude that killed the SLU Seattle Commons back in the early 90s, and generally leads to watered down, compromised development all through Seattle. It’s the Powers-That-Are-Not that don’t see our wisdom. Some of these have legitimate concerns such as affordable housing. But most seem to be either paranoid about developers, or simply against any growth in Seattle. This is the same conservative attitude that killed the SLU Seattle Commons back in the early 90s, and generally leads to watered down, compromised development all through Seattle.

]]> by: Josh Mahar http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-602 Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:32:38 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-602 "Why do the Powers that Be not See your Wisdom?" I will tell you exactly why the zoning has been so low. The damn Space Needle!! Has no one taken into account the fact that if you put 400ft buildings all through South Lake Union we will essentially lose the beautiful skyline that we have. From across Lake Union (ei U-district, Wallingford, Gasworks) you would probably just barely see the top and from West Seattle the beauty of the city next to the Needle will be entirely changed. The Needle will be much less prominent. I am all for SOME urban density but lets just be a little cautious before we through up a million more condos into downtown. “Why do the Powers that Be not See your Wisdom?”

I will tell you exactly why the zoning has been so low. The damn Space Needle!! Has no one taken into account the fact that if you put 400ft buildings all through South Lake Union we will essentially lose the beautiful skyline that we have. From across Lake Union (ei U-district, Wallingford, Gasworks) you would probably just barely see the top and from West Seattle the beauty of the city next to the Needle will be entirely changed. The Needle will be much less prominent.

I am all for SOME urban density but lets just be a little cautious before we through up a million more condos into downtown.

]]> by: neil gitkind http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-597 Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:13:22 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-597 So, you'all are in such violent agreement that everything should be taller - what's the hold up? Why do the Powers That Be not see your Wisdom? So, you’all are in such violent agreement that everything should be taller - what’s the hold up? Why do the Powers That Be not see your Wisdom?

]]> by: Andrew http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-592 Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:15:52 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-592 I think the whole city has this problem with too low heights. The max in downtown is only 500feet through most of it. San Francisco, on the other hand is building dozesn of 900+ tall buildings (the tallest there now is only 850). Then there's SLU with short maxes, and then the whole "urban village" zoning of 40~65 never made sense to me. Why 40? that's 3.5 stories. And why only 65? Why not 85 like in ballard or the UD? The whole city should be zoned 45, with urban villages at 120 and Downtown at 1000 feet. I think the whole city has this problem with too low heights. The max in downtown is only 500feet through most of it. San Francisco, on the other hand is building dozesn of 900+ tall buildings (the tallest there now is only 850).

Then there’s SLU with short maxes, and then the whole “urban village” zoning of 40~65 never made sense to me. Why 40? that’s 3.5 stories. And why only 65? Why not 85 like in ballard or the UD?

The whole city should be zoned 45, with urban villages at 120 and Downtown at 1000 feet.

]]> by: michael http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-591 Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:01:22 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/02/15/slu-is-jonesin-to-get-high/#comment-591 "Lack of affordable housing just creates more commuters" Actually, lack of housing creates more commuters. Stopping new urban housing on the grounds it is not affordable enough is a recipe for more commuters. And lack of housing is one of the reasons why housing is unaffordable. Seems to me we can both increase housing in South Lake Union, and increase the supply of affordable housing if we are smart about it. “Lack of affordable housing just creates more commuters”

Actually, lack of housing creates more commuters.
Stopping new urban housing on the grounds it is not affordable enough is a recipe for more commuters.

And lack of housing is one of the reasons why housing is unaffordable.

Seems to me we can both increase housing in South Lake Union, and increase the supply of affordable housing if we are smart about it.

]]>