I can't see Bellevue ever allowing an at-grade light rail line through downtown. It's bad enough to have Link at grade in the Rainier Valley where there is little cross traffic. Downtown Bellevue is a traffic mess right now and would be a nightmare with light rail at grade (for both rail users and car drivers).

An aerial route through downtown Bellevue (not next to 405) would be my preference. If that wasn't possible I'd go for the aerial routing as proposed in the rendering. This is all assuming that tunneling is cost prohibitive.

The ST Board should establish a policy that all design be grade separated. Let's keep the length of line we have to redo to just the Rainier Valley.

The ST Board should establish a policy that all design be grade separated. Let's keep the length of line we have to redo to just the Rainier Valley.

Thank you!!!

That sounds good. Why not restrict low density zoning around stations, too?

No height limits under 200' with a two block radius of a station! :D

^^ Yes he is worried about "poor" people going in his malls. I know that not every shopper in his malls are rich or middle class. He will always come up with different excuses.

Bellevue Square is by no means an upscale mall... I really don't get his concerns if that's his real concern, you don't see Bravern people b*tch about it.

Some people says he is against it because he would have to pay a lot of local improvement tax if the rail goes near Lincoln Square. But doesn't that further improve his land value? I don't really get the guy in this case.

While I agree this isn't the most ideal alignment, and it will reduce ridership significantly, the guy does have a few good points:

-This won't suck as bad as a surface route through Bellevue
-It will be cheaper than a tunnel

Then we might as well don't build the thing or completely bypass downtown Bellevue.

I personally don't see what's the big deal about surface route - Seattle downtown bus tunnel arrangement is kinda messed up too. Bellevue downtown is so small anyway, just tune the lights to accomodate the train.

Also 106th Ave is perfect in my mind - little car traffic; close to Bellevue Square, transit center, all the office towers; still have large undeveloped lots (really high potential for commercial developments and improvement tax). In the future they can even have the option to block all vehicle traffic on 106th.

Detailed article about the master plan for the new waterfront park in DT Bellevue
http://www.djc.com/news/re/12012184.html

Not much talk on this lately, but something I'm eager to see done. Meydenbauer Bay connected to Old Bellevue would be such a nice link.

Downtown Portland has a surface route. Downtown Denver has a surface route. The biggest differences between them and Bellevue are that Bellevue has fewer but bigger streets, and Bellevue expects traffic to flow like a jammed up suburb rather than a downtown.

The route should have two stations within Downtown Bellevue, not on the edge.

Bellevue Square is by no means an upscale mall... I really don't get his concerns if that's his real concern, you don't see Bravern people b*tch about it.

Some people says he is against it because he would have to pay a lot of local improvement tax if the rail goes near Lincoln Square. But doesn't that further improve his land value? I don't really get the guy in this case.

Exactly why I didn't get this guy. I see a lot of great opportunities that will benefit Kemper Freeman with having light rail station near his properties. If I were him, I won't turn it down.

Downtown Portland has a surface route. Downtown Denver has a surface route. The biggest differences between them and Bellevue are that Bellevue has fewer but bigger streets, and Bellevue expects traffic to flow like a jammed up suburb rather than a downtown.

The route should have two stations within Downtown Bellevue, not on the edge.
Agreed with two downtown, but why on earth are there three stations in less than a mile (hospital, 124th, and 130th)? Eliminate 124th and use that money towards a better downtown alignment.

Agreed with two downtown, but why on earth are there three stations in less than a mile (hospital, 124th, and 130th)? Eliminate 124th and use that money towards a better downtown alignment.

I think 124th & 130th are for the future TOD in Bel-red area?

Since East Link is still several years away, the idea coming around the block right now is that developers will start building before the line opens. Ideally, it's when the real estate market is strong again. The contract rezone has already been approved by the City and King County, so we'll see some groundbreaking by the mid 2010s. I don't know the conditions of the deal, but all that's there right now is parking lots, backstreets, and warehouses.

I don't mean this unkindly, but isn't having blinders on re: retail a little like having blinders on re: transit?

I think 124th & 130th are for the future TOD in Bel-red area?
I hope it's an either or situation. The 124th is 8 blocks from The Hospital stop near 116th with the one on 130th on ly 6 blocks from 124th. It's just unnecessary and slows down the commute.

Recap of the East Link workshop on wednesday:
http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/11/18/vision-line-comments-and-dt-bellevue-workshop-recap/

I hope it's an either or situation. The 124th is 8 blocks from The Hospital stop near 116th with the one on 130th on ly 6 blocks from 124th. It's just unnecessary and slows down the commute.

I personally have no problems with it - having one more stop slows down commute maybe by 2 mins.

There are a lot of worse things in the world than that, for example having to walk 1 mile from the (garbage) "Vision Line" to Bellevue Square.

Housing bust halts growing suburbs

By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY
The recession and housing collapse have halted four decades of double-digit growth for nearly half of the nation's biggest rapidly expanding suburbs.

Twenty-four of the 53 cities of 100,000 or more that grew by at least 10% every decade since 1970 lost population in the last two years.

Fifteen are likely to end the decade with less than a 10% gain in population, largely because of recent losses. Among them: Bellevue, Wash., near Seattle; Coral Springs, Fla., near Fort Lauderdale; Fullerton, Calif., near Los Angeles; and Lakewood, Colo., near Denver.

"They will drop out of boomburb status," says Robert Lang, professor of sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. "Some boomburbs have gone bust; some are still thriving."

Lang coined the term "boomburb" to describe suburbs that grew from sleepy hamlets to major cities. Most are in the Sun Belt. Many of these suburbs now have more people than old, traditional cities in the Northeast and Midwest. Peoria, Ariz., population 168,341, is much larger than its namesake Peoria, Ill., population 113,811.

"This may signal a real shift in the American landscape where suburbs can no longer assume to be gaining on traditional cities," Lang says.

"Places that have done the worst are places where basically real estate was the economic engine," says Ed McMahon, senior research fellow at the Urban Land Institute, a non-profit group that promotes sustainable development.

DEVELOPMENT: Suburbs get urban makeover

Bedroom communities now must rethink their future and become "a little less sprawly, a little more village-like with clustered development, denser housing," Lang says. "The irony is that if they want to keep growing, they must grow as cities, which is diametrically opposite of how they got so big in the first place."

Population has declined since 2006 in Irving, Texas, but the city is prepared for healthy growth as soon as a light-rail line to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport is completed. "Eventually, you have to shift your focus to not just booming growth but redevelopment," Mayor Herbert Gears says. "That (rail) line is what's given us the opportunity to create an urban center."

Condominiums, apartments and retail are planned along the transit line. The city projects a 240,000 population by 2015, an 11% jump.

Growth in Henderson, Nev., near Las Vegas, has slowed but not stopped. "With the slowdown we've seen, it gives us an opportunity to take a breath," says city spokesman Bud Cranor. Henderson is focused on creating "green" jobs and a more sustainable urban environment, he says.

Moreno Valley, Calif., is growing despite the foreclosure crisis. The city created 971 jobs in the past year and six distribution and light-manufacturing businesses opened, says Barry Foster, economic development director. "We create jobs so they don't have to commute," he says.

The 2010 Census will reveal whether new bedroom communities are emerging at the far edges of metropolitan areas or if growth will occur in older boomburbs that transform into more urbanized centers. "This could signal a transition to a new more urban America," Lang says.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-19-suburbs_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Thats bad news for Bellevue. I guess it'll be a while longer before we get a 700 footer in Bellevue. :ohno:

Bellevue is built out and has little land left to annex (Eastgate is all that's left). The Eastside is also generally going that period where lots of kids are moving out from suburbs that were new ~18 years ago--it slows down population growth, even if vacancy rates don't change..

I don't consider it good or bad. It's how cities are responding to not only our markets, but our cultural habits as well. It means that people are moving back into the cities, and that we can get our head on straight before building empty towers.

Actually, this article is a bit misleading. Bellevue doesn't fit into the same category of suburbs that the others described are in. Bellevue is an actual major urban center-- many of the other sunbelt suburbs are large sprawl tract-housing communities with office parks and strip malls as their city centers.

I agree that article is somewhat misleading but I thought you guys like to know what is happening. That's all. Like I said before, I don't consider Bellevue "suburban community" anymore... It is urban center now.

Bellevue outside of downtown is still a suburb... And Downtown Bellevue itself is just an edge city. I think they should keep all three of those stations; Hospital and 124th are 2/3 of a mile away from each other and 124th and 130th are about 1/2 mile away from each other, but there's practically no way to walk between Hospital and the new Bel-Red development, and the 124th and 130th stations, while close together, will be really incredible for spurring the great development project there. I hope we can get more massive TOD projects like that... Interbay, anyone?

Ya to say it's busted is certainly an over-statement, probably more referring to the Sun Belt cities where real estate fell off the cliff.

I just got back from a night out and I still have to fight for seats in decent restaurants. Frankly it just feels like nothing really changed much.

Downtown Bellevue has became too expensive for its own good though - certainly hoping for more average-joe condos than more Braverns in the future.

Bellevue is built out and has little land left to annex (Eastgate is all that's left).

I was looking over the Google Map because we were discussing Light Rail. It surprised me that Bellevue downtown is not that smaller than Seattle downtown (if we only count the downtown + denny triangle + Belltown as Seattle downtown).

Bellevue skyline already looks pretty good, but there are still a lot of empty lots everywhere that can be infilled in the future. If they can achieve Seattle's density one day (maybe 20, 30 years), it will be truly impressive.

Even not including Belltown or much of the Denny Triangle, Downtown Seattle is about 425 acres while with a very liberal definition, Downtown Bellevue is 356. I don't think Downtown Bellevue will ever come close to equaling Downtown Seattle.

I hope you don't misunderstand. The past experience taught me that I will be slaughtered if I bring up the idea of Bellevue ever challenging Seattle. =)

And that's not what I am saying here - what I meant is Bellevue downtown "area" is not as small as I thought. I was under the impression that Seattle is at least 5, 6 times bigger.

For continual growth in the next 20, 30 years, I think Bellevue doesn't really need to expand out (e.g. across I405), it just needs to be a lot denser and builds out all the empty lots (with strip malls) now.

Does anyone know if the Elements Too buildings will be painted or are they just going to leave the concrete as is? I thought they'd paint over the concrete exterior by now but it looks like the midrise has started move-ins already and still no sign of a paint job. IMO it looks really ugly.

I walked by it this morning on the west side. Looked good to me.

This week Kemper Freeman reported his Bellevue Square sales appear to be making a recovery from their first down year. In the same conference he mentioned that the Expansions of Bellevue Square and Lincoln Square are on help indefinitely. Oh well.

This week Kemper Freeman reported his Bellevue Square sales appear to be making a recovery from their first down year. In the same conference he mentioned that the Expansions of Bellevue Square and Lincoln Square are on help indefinitely. Oh well.

dang, that's disappointing but not too surprising I guess. After Metro 112 and Avalon Towers wrap up early next year, there's going to be no projects under construction in downtown Bellevue at all. That's gonna be weird, there's been at least one major project going up at any given time for the last decade it seems.

Same with Seattle. Right now, the Virginia Mason expansion is the only high rise (and not really that high) under construction. Nothing at all on line (realistically) for 2010.

Also the last two buildings at Amazon at 160' (sometimes considered one building).

If Seattle manages to keep those buildings, and the ones built before them full of stores/offices/people then it's still fairing a lot better than many other places. I went to San Antonio recently and the downtown area was full of old buildings which were vandalized and empty. It's such an eyesore.

Wait some of the Amazon buildings are going to be 160'? I thought they were all like 4-6 stories.

Wait some of the Amazon buildings are going to be 160'? I thought they were all like 4-6 stories.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=31240564&postcount=50

Phase 5 is on hold for now but could break ground whenever the mood strikes.

dang, that's disappointing but not too surprising I guess. After Metro 112 and Avalon Towers wrap up early next year, there's going to be no projects under construction in downtown Bellevue at all. That's gonna be weird, there's been at least one major project going up at any given time for the last decade it seems.

I guess the Hanover Cadillac twin towers are on hold indefinitely as well?

I hope they replace the apartment with a twin condos. Too many rental towers in downtown now.

I don't see any 160-footers there...

I don't see any 160-footers there...

Look harder. Phase 4 and 5 are both 12 story office buildings. Office towers tend to do have higher ceiling heights. 160'/12 stories =~ 13ft/floor.

I lived in Bellevue in 86 for a few months. Were any of you guys in the 11th grade at Interlake in the fall of 86'? Anyway, the place was impressive back then. It's grown a lot and looks great. Love the Seattle area.

Touchstone eyes parcel in Bellevue

Seattle developer Touchstone may build a 9-story office, hotel and retail project on part of downtown Bellevue's "superblock.

Longtime Seattle developer Touchstone has a tentative deal to buy part of downtown Bellevue's "superblock," and has approached the city about building a hotel and office project on it.

Touchstone filed a preliminary application in late September for the site, at the northeast corner of Northeast Eighth Street and 106th Avenue Northeast, said Liz Stead, Bellevue's urban-design planning manager.

Development plans still are in flux, she said, but Touchstone has tentatively proposed a nine-story project with 200 to 300 hotel rooms, 220,000 to 310,000 square feet of office space, about 30,000 square feet of retail space, and underground parking for 600 to 700 cars.

City zoning allows much taller towers, up to 20 or 25 stories.

Douglas Howe, Touchstone's founder and principal owner, confirmed his company has the property under contract but said he was reluctant to say more because the project's feasibility still is under review.

"It's not a done deal yet," Howe said of the purchase. He wouldn't say when Touchstone must make a final decision.

The 10-acre "superblock" is one of the largest chunks of property in downtown Bellevue under one ownership, in this case Wasatch Development of Salt Lake City. It is bounded by Eighth, 106th, Northeast 10th Street and 108th Avenue Northeast, and now is covered mostly with older, low-rise office and retail buildings.

Wasatch unveiled plans earlier in the decade for a $1.6 billion mixed-use high-rise redevelopment of the block. The two-tower Washington Square condominium, which opened early last year in the superblock's northwest quadrant, was intended as the first phase.

But Wasatch began looking for buyers or development partners for the remainder of the block later in 2008.

A Wasatch spokesman said Tuesday that, under any deal, Wasatch would remain the "master developer" of the superblock. He would not provide details or comment on the tentative deal with Touchstone.

Touchstone has been developing property for 20 years. Its Seattle projects include the Ninth & Stewart Life Sciences Building, the Fifth & Bell office building and the 330,000-square-foot Northgate North retail complex.

Earlier this year it completed West 8th, a 28-story office tower in the Denny Triangle that remains unleased but was a finalist to become Russell Investments' new headquarters.

"Douglas Howe has never been a passive developer," said Kip Spencer, co-founder of the commercial real-estate database Officespace.com. "He's not letting those problems [with West 8th] get in the way of a great buying opportunity."

Developers with the resources to buy in today's depressed market may be laying the foundation for future profits, Spencer said.

Other Touchstone projects in the pipeline include a controversial redevelopment and expansion of Kirkland's Parkplace shopping center, and an 11-story luxury hotel and apartment project near Seattle's Pike Place Market at First Avenue and Stewart Street.

Howe said the company hopes to break ground on the First and Stewart project in late 2010 or early 2011.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010457533_touchstone09.html

9 stories... on NE 8th St, beside Lincoln Square, beside Washington Square (who is selling very well under current situation), beside the future Performing Arts Center.

Really???

Yeah, waste of space...

Maybe it's the kind of thing where they design it for future expansion into a taller building, which they can do when the credit market gets a lot better?

Maybe it's the kind of thing where they design it for future expansion into a taller building, which they can do when the credit market gets a lot better?

Seems like they would've mentioned that...

Folks, one thing to keep in mind is that many European cities have much greater densities than our west coast cities and suburbs, and they are able to accomodate this density with sub 10 story buildings.

Folks, one thing to keep in mind is that many European cities have much greater densities than our west coast cities and suburbs, and they are able to accomodate this density with sub 10 story buildings.

Yeah, I know. But I would prefer our downtowns follow the Manhattan model, while our inner suburbs follow the European model. :)

I think it's a mistake by the reporter, a few months ago they announced the same square footage but in a 250 foot tower.

I think it's a mistake by the reporter, a few months ago they announced the same square footage but in a 250 foot tower.

Agreed. I don't see how can they fit all of the hotel + office into a 9 story.

250 feet is the height of Washington Square right? I was hoping for something like 400+. :lol:

Yeah, I know. But I would prefer our downtowns follow the Manhattan model, while our inner suburbs follow the European model. :)

So basically like Frankfurt, Germany :)

The square footage is correct... but, it's going to have two mid-rise nine story towers, not one. The base of one of them is suppose to have a deli-grocery store as well. :cheers:

The square footage is correct... but, it's going to have two mid-rise nine story towers, not one. The base of one of them is suppose to have a deli-grocery store as well. :cheers:

Anywhere we can access the design plans?

Twin towers is definitely better than a 9-story brick. I guess that's the best we can get for now....

Completely irrelevant to "development".

I was reading Sherwin's blog and accidentally saw another article that's defending Bellevue's snobby reputation. (http://blog.seattlepi.com/bellevuecitynews/archives/187953.asp?page=1#comments)

Not the best of article by a mile, but I am shell-shocked by all the comments there. Why do some people in Seattle hate Bellevue so much? I can understand New Yorkers hate LA, etc, but I really don't get why Seattle hates its suburb.

Thoughts?

All the people I know in Seattle or Bellevue are all very friendly, maybe the comments are just from trolls...

The PI and Times blogs are populated mostly by shut-ins who hate everybody.

I know few Seattleites that hate Bellevue were raised in Bellevue. They don't like the way Bellevue changed. They reminds me a bit of some New Yorkers that look down at New Jersey or Brooklyn. Many Seattleites I know here do look down at Tacoma than anywhere in Seattle metro area.

I don't hate Bellevue, but honestly, it has a lot of room for improvement.

A crane just was erected at Overlake hospital area. So far, I see about 4 cranes in the area...2 in Overlake and 2 in downtown.

PACE is already on Google Maps. Talk about keeping up with the times :lol:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&source=hp&ie=UTF8&q=performing+arts+center+eastside&fb=1&gl=us&hq=performing+arts+center+eastside&hnear=Mercer+Island,+WA&cid=0,0,15654070883612524128&ei=QiU8S-u9NZDWsgOrzrm2AQ&ved=0CAgQnwIwAA&ll=47.619124,-122.199512&spn=0.010428,0.019205&t=h&z=16&iwloc=A

Doesn't google have some offices in Kirkland?

I bet someone there made the change.

PACE is already on Google Maps. Talk about keeping up with the times :lol:


Man I hope they can get the funding to build it... now it's a big question mark and ETA has been delayed to 2013 or so.

Looks like we have a new project starting at the SE corner of Main and 107th. According to the city's projects list, it's a 6 story residential building with 80 units and 1400 sq ft of retail. I drove by yesterday and the old building on the site has been razed and they are starting to dig.

It's the "Baker Main" project
http://www.cityofbellevue.org/pdf/Development%20Services/lu_majorprojectslist_3Q09.pdf

Looks like we have a new project starting at the SE corner of Main and 107th. According to the city's projects list, it's a 6 story residential building with 80 units and 1400 sq ft of retail. I drove by yesterday and the old building on the site has been razed and they are starting to dig.

It's the "Baker Main" project
http://www.cityofbellevue.org/pdf/Development%20Services/lu_majorprojectslist_3Q09.pdf

1400 sq ft of retail? That's enough for...two stores? I think we could use a bakery/café sort of store. Haven't been able to find convenient bakeries on Bellevue streets.

And no Safeway does not count, neither does Starbucks.

I'm still waiting for the day where Bellevue isn't so "empty" after work hours. Even with all these new buildings, there doesn't seem to be enough street-level retail to attract pedestrians.

Yeah it's creepy walking around in DT Bellevue outside of work hours except for a block or two of Bellevue Way. You're walking amid skyscrapers and yet you're the only pedestrian.

Bellevue will never be able to support retail on very much of its street frontage, let alone most of it. Even then, Main around 107th has less potential than some others...generally, pedestrian density is higher in the middle of a dense district than around its edges, and main is too wide east of Bellevue Way, even if they ever build better sidewalks where they're deficient now.

Bellevue will never be able to support retail on very much of its street frontage, let alone most of it. Even then, Main around 107th has less potential than some others...generally, pedestrian density is higher in the middle of a dense district than around its edges, and main is too wide east of Bellevue Way, even if they ever build better sidewalks where they're deficient now.

Hmmm two questions.

1. Would there be a possibility of more pedestrians once the residential units are filled up? I'm not sure how they're selling right now.

2. Other than being pedestrian-friendly, what factors of a wide street affect its abilities to support retail? I know it's not really a fair comparison, but Tokyo, especially the Shinjuku area has fairly wide streets and plenty of pedestrians (granted some of the minor streets have higher pedestrian traffic when they are converted to night markets in after hours).

I have high hopes around 10th Street. Hopefully in a few years all the condo and rental towers will be filled, then we can have some decent in-city shops that don't cater towards Bellevue Sq shoppers.

The combination of wide streets and huge blocks is very bad for pedestrian-oriented development. Bellevue should split up the superblocks that aren't yet developed on and put skinnier roads through them. If you want to know why you need small blocks, read Jane Jacobs.

The combination of wide streets and huge blocks is very bad for pedestrian-oriented development. Bellevue should split up the superblocks that aren't yet developed on and put skinnier roads through them. If you want to know why you need small blocks, read Jane Jacobs.

I heard this often in Seattle - what exactly is wrong with big blocks according to Jane Jacobs?

I lived in Toronto and Vancouver before, both have far better downtown than any US cities barring Manhattan, I am not sure block size has anything to do with their vibrancy.

The good thing about Canadian cities is they have a centralized retail street (imagine a more thronging Broadway). I don't like the fact that all condos around this area is required (?) to have some sort of retail at the base. It really makes the whole retail scene dispersed.

I heard this often in Seattle - what exactly is wrong with big blocks according to Jane Jacobs?

I lived in Toronto and Vancouver before, both have far better downtown than any US cities barring Manhattan, I am not sure block size has anything to do with their vibrancy.

The good thing about Canadian cities is they have a centralized retail street (imagine a more thronging Broadway). I don't like the fact that all condos around this area is required (?) to have some sort of retail at the base. It really makes the whole retail scene dispersed.

mhays has talked about this in the past as well, and I fully agree with both of you. You only need to look at some of the apartment/condo buildings which were built between the Alaska and Admiral Junctions on California Ave SW in W. Seattle. They have the requirements for the zoning, but it is hardly a thriving retail scene, and completely unnecessary. There isn't nearly the population needed to make a stretch of retail work that long in W. Seattle.

The streets aren't just wide, but the accompanying sidewalks are minuscule.

Guys, make sure to keep the thread on topic. :)

Hmmm two questions.

1. Would there be a possibility of more pedestrians once the residential units are filled up? I'm not sure how they're selling right now.

2. Other than being pedestrian-friendly, what factors of a wide street affect its abilities to support retail? I know it's not really a fair comparison, but Tokyo, especially the Shinjuku area has fairly wide streets and plenty of pedestrians (granted some of the minor streets have higher pedestrian traffic when they are converted to night markets in after hours).

Shinjuku has higher densities than DT Bellevue will ever achieve, and it's a regional destination for retail in a way that Main never will be. That's supported by gigantic numbers of pedestrians coming off trains. Their streets are also much narrower than Bellevue's in general, aside from a few wide ones. Shinjuku is a pedestrian heaven. Even so, they don't sustain the great retail over 450 acres, which is the size of Downtown Bellevue by some measures.

The density on Main east of BW will never be enough to support significant retail unless it becomes a regional destination. On its own, an urban retail street needs to draw from a significant geographic area, and this street will always have low density to the south, plus too many retail competitors elsewhere in DT Bellevue. It could become a regional destination, but that would require either a lot of transit or a lot of cars.

Only the main arterials in downtown are really wide (Bellevue Way, 10th, 8th, and 4th). All the other roads are simple one or two laners per direction. Even Main Street only has 2 lanes.

Main is 5 lanes total...two each way plus a median, from Bellevue Way past 112th. Barely existing sidewalks too. It's a DISASTER for pedestrians. Several other streets are equally wide or wider. Some side streets have no sidewalks at all.

Two lanes per direction is too wide for a great pedestrian street unless the sidewalks are extremely wide (think Michigan Ave) and ideally there's a median to make crossings more comfortable. Even then, retailers know that customers will often stick to one side only. This might not be intuitive, but it's true.

Main is 5 lanes total...two each way plus a median, from Bellevue Way past 112th. Barely existing sidewalks too. It's a DISASTER for pedestrians. Several other streets are equally wide or wider. Some side streets have no sidewalks at all.

Two lanes per direction is too wide for a great pedestrian street unless the sidewalks are extremely wide (think Michigan Ave) and ideally there's a median to make crossings more comfortable. Even then, retailers know that customers will often stick to one side only. This might not be intuitive, but it's true.

So could wider streets be compensated with a wider sidewalk (reasonably) and a median? And also do the wider streets include the width of street parking and a bike lane?

Street parking too. It helps as a buffer between fast traffic and pedestrians.

To make Main habitable for pedestrians while keeping 5 lanes, they'd need another 50 feet of ROW -- enough for parking lanes (good point), a small median, and maybe another 8' of sidewalk on each side. That would require teardowns similar to what's happening on Mercer right now. In lieu of parking, bollards or planters would be another option, including several feet of separation from speeding cars plus a physical barrier.

Has there been any discussion of raising height limits in DT Bellevue? Pretty much all the building there right now are shooting straight up to the maximum 450', so the skyline is seeming a little boring... And all the arguments that people make against skyscrapers apply just as much to a 450-footer as they do to a 600- or 800-footer, so there's no real reason not to in my opinion. It would give Bellevue a really dynamic skyline.

Has there been any discussion of raising height limits in DT Bellevue? Pretty much all the building there right now are shooting straight up to the maximum 450', so the skyline is seeming a little boring... And all the arguments that people make against skyscrapers apply just as much to a 450-footer as they do to a 600- or 800-footer, so there's no real reason not to in my opinion. It would give Bellevue a really dynamic skyline.

Yeah, once the economy picks up I could really see Bellevue using a less restrictive height limit. But for a while it won't make a difference because non of the very few skyscrapers being constructed would take advantage of any new height limit.

True, but a time when hardly anything is being built is a great time to formulate policy for the next boom. Are there any projects there that are realistically going to break ground soon?

Honolulu had a 350' limit for .. years, I don't know for how long. I lived in a couple of them. Some of the buildings are pretty, but most are just stacks of balconies. The skyline is so boring that the city isn't even on this site despite having 196 buildings 20 stories or taller. Bellevue could easily end up this way.

Why is everyone into raising the height limit? I wouldn't like anything more than 600 feet or so, and I think the skyline is pretty good right now considering how small the city is.

^^Why is everyone stuck on height limits. How bout just an interesting looking building for once. I dont care how tall it is...

^^Why is everyone stuck on height limits. How bout just an interesting looking building for once. I dont care how tall it is...
Because if in the near future Bellevue doesn't get at least a small change to the height limit it will look like a very boring flat line. Architecture counts too but in order for a skyline to look good it needs to have a good amount of height variance. Now we're not talking about doubling the height limit or anything but a 100-300 Ft height increase in some areas would make a good difference if buildings took advantage of it.

^^Why is everyone stuck on height limits. How bout just an interesting looking building for once. I dont care how tall it is...

Bellevue Towers tried to be unique with the shape and all they get for it is people complaining about the odd dimensions inside. Tough crowd eh?

Most of the new stuff in Bellevue I think is much better then past projects, Elements Too is strange in a good way IMHO, the Bravern reminds me of Gondor, Expedia stands out being a big black box, even the first Lincoln tower being such a rectangle does some interesting things for the skyline.

Sometimes designers get a little too creative, and we end up with things like the Rainier Tower (http://highriseconstruction.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/rainier-tower-seattle.jpg) in Seattle, I'm sure it would be fine in an earthquake but it still give me the creeps.

Why is everyone into raising the height limit? I wouldn't like anything more than 600 feet or so, and I think the skyline is pretty good right now considering how small the city is.

Can you imagine Bellevue skyline to become "flat" skyline with all buildings with around same height just like Honolulu or Vancouver BC? Bellevue deserve to have good balance skyline. Right now, Bellevue skyline is neat but it is becoming "flat" skyline. It is time to do something with height restriction.

Plus the buildings aren't even all that tall. Someone observed that they are all shorter than the Smith Tower.

Like I said, Bellevue is a small city. You can't expect projects as big or as tall as the ones in Seattle. I think it'd be a good idea to raise the height restriction by 100-200 feet, but not more than that, at least for a while.

Why are we even talking about this? It'll take a long, long time for the region to recover from this economy anyways.

^^ There are few developers are hoping that they can start their projects later this year or next year depending on the market. We will see about that. Economy will take some time to recover but I think we will have healthy economy again possibly within 2 years from now or so.

^^ There are few developers are hoping that they can start their projects later this year or next year depending on the market. We will see about that. Economy will take some time to recover but I think we will have healthy economy again possibly within 2 years from now or so.

I'v heard that the Seattle area will be one of the faster areas to recover once the economy starts to pick up. So lets hope it won't be too long until some projects start ground breaking.

Let's hope so. Just in time for the start of college. :)

Like I said, Bellevue is a small city. You can't expect projects as big or as tall as the ones in Seattle. I think it'd be a good idea to raise the height restriction by 100-200 feet, but not more than that, at least for a while.

Why are we even talking about this? It'll take a long, long time for the region to recover from this economy anyways.

Bellevue will never get as big or dense as Seattle, but nevertheless I think that given the opportunity to build higher, some developers would. So we should let them do that.
Like I said earlier, this is the perfect time to talk about this. Project won't really start being built again for another few years, so this is the time when Bellevue should analyze its land use policies.

If nobody will build a skyscraper that tall anyway, then what is the point of having height restrictions?

I'v heard that the Seattle area will be one of the faster areas to recover once the economy starts to pick up. So lets hope it won't be too long until some projects start ground breaking.

Yes I heard that also. I hope so too.

If nobody will build a skyscraper that tall anyway, than what is the point of having height restrictions?

Yeah I wondered about that a while ago. I asked about that long time ago here. It is seem like no one here knows what is the reason behind that.

If nobody will build a skyscraper that tall anyway, then what is the point of having height restrictions?

There's always a risk that Martin Selig could sneak into Bellevue, cannily use loopholes in the code and build something tall and scary.

Does anybody know what the feeling of the Bellevue residents are on height limits? I haven't heard much of a backlash in the past 5 years or so over the densification of their downtown, so maybe they'd be for it. Also, have there been any developers who stated that they wished they could have built 10 more floors on their project?

I'm curious, because this seems to be a real concern amongst many on this board, however I haven't seen the demand or concern from the people who would be most affected. Its like there is an edifice complex here on the board.

^^ I remember few years ago, someone here posted the article that discussed about how Bellevue residents felt about Bellevue skyline changing in the past five years... Some of them said they wanted to reduce height restriction to around 50 feet.

I only mentioned it because we've seen the effect of a great many buildings all built to the exact same mandated height. Bellevue isn't there yet, but the stunning cityscape seen now will disappear with another 50-75 more of the same. Some simple common sense would solve the problem, i.e., disapproval of proposals which are plainly out of scale with the existing environment.

Connor Homes office building sold. Possible future site of a new apartment complex:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010834735_conner20.html

^^ I remember few years ago, someone here posted the article that discussed about how Bellevue residents felt about Bellevue skyline changing in the past five years... Some of them said they wanted to reduce height restriction to around 50 feet.

The loudest people are normally the most stupid and get the most attention. That's how the stupid media works these days.

The loudest people are normally the most stupid and get the most attention. That's how the stupid media works these days.

Yep. That is true.

Posted on Vintage Seattle on Wednesday: http://www.vintageseattle.org/2010/01/20/the-old-vue/

70's Era Bellevue

http://www.vintageseattle.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/bellevue_birds_eye_01jpg.thumbnail.jpg

edit: Woops... Original photo a little large. Switched to smaller version. Hi-Res can be seen here: http://www.vintageseattle.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/bellevue_birds_eye_01jpg.jpg

Nice find. I barely recognize anything.

Neat picture! I am little surprised to see Bellevue already spread out in the 70s because I know few people who grew up in Bellevue mentioned that Bellevue area didn't become too sprawling suburban community until late 70s or early 80s. BounderGrad, You should post that in Historic Puget Sound thread too.

Bellevue urges new route for light rail

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010890636_bellevuelightrail26m.html

----

We are all screwed... again.

I have completely lost faith in any kind / form of governmenting in this region. Not only Seattle has BS. Bellevue has been lucky so far, so let's start all the BS and destroy it.

Bellevue urges new route for light rail

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010890636_bellevuelightrail26m.html

----

We are all screwed... again.

I have completely lost faith in any kind / form of governmenting in this region. Not only Seattle has BS. Bellevue has been lucky so far, so let's start all the BS and destroy it.

worse. route. ever.

Meh.

After reading this article I completely agree. Just get it over the bridge stop it at the S Bellevue park and ride and call it good. Bellevue isn't going to compromise at all. Putting it on the eastside of 405 gives it no destination attractiveness at all. I mean if it isn't going to the most densely populated part of Bellevue what is the point?

In the end, Bellevue has almost no say in where the route actually goes, so Sound Transit will just pick whichever route it thinks is best. There's no way they're going to go with Bellevue's route; not only would it disrupt a fragile wetland, but it would also cost more and have a higher risk because of the difficulty of putting down foundations in a slough. They'll almost definitely go for the Bellevue Way-112th option for South Bellevue. For Downtown Bellevue, unfortunately it looks like Bellevue didn't even try to get other sources of funding for a tunnel so unless something unexpected happens it'll probably end up being at-grade... this will lower ridership and capacity, increase travel times, and disrupt traffic. The area is quite congested so I don't doubt that it will fairly frequently get into accidents, or just be blocked by traffic blocking the intersection in front of it. No good.

That is disappointing. I don't like this new route at all. :ohno:

In the end, Bellevue has almost no say in where the route actually goes, so Sound Transit will just pick whichever route it thinks is best. There's no way they're going to go with Bellevue's route; not only would it disrupt a fragile wetland, but it would also cost more and have a higher risk because of the difficulty of putting down foundations in a slough. They'll almost definitely go for the Bellevue Way-112th option for South Bellevue. For Downtown Bellevue, unfortunately it looks like Bellevue didn't even try to get other sources of funding for a tunnel so unless something unexpected happens it'll probably end up being at-grade... this will lower ridership and capacity, increase travel times, and disrupt traffic. The area is quite congested so I don't doubt that it will fairly frequently get into accidents, or just be blocked by traffic blocking the intersection in front of it. No good.

My worst fear is that ST will strike a compromise with Bellevue council and choose this worst route.

ST: they don't want to spend money, they don't want to as you said go through the congested downtown to slow things down, and they don't want to piss off Bellevue city.

Bellevue: they don't have money for tunnel, they also don't want to go with the surface route.

So they end up letting the train to go nowhere... no one has the guts to just "do the right thing", instead they always do the easiest thing. :ohno: :ohno: :ohno:

Just curious - which one is the less of the two evils for you guys?

I personally prefer surface route than the route that goes no where....

I'd take surface that goes somewhere.

"We want to take a unified position so we can get Sound Transit to listen to us," Deputy Mayor Conrad Lee said during the discussion.

Sounds like a clumsy attempt at big boy politics by the new kids.

A draft master plan for the new waterfront park to be developed on Meydenbauer Bay was presented to the Bellevue City Council Monday.

Using waterfront properties acquired over the years, the city plans to create a new 10-acre park featuring almost a quarter mile of shoreline between Meydenbauer Beach Park and the Bellevue Marina at Meydenbauer Bay.

The Meydenbauer Bay Park and Land Use Plan also includes proposed zoning changes to encourage new and improved walkways and plazas connecting the new park with downtown.

A council-appointed steering committee guided the drafting of the plan, and its recommendations are going with the plan to the Parks & Community Services Board. After the Parks Board reviews the plan and adds its recommendations, the plan is expected to go to the City Council for review and adoption this spring.

An approved master plan will allow the city to pursue outside funding and complete detailed design of individual phases. No construction funding or construction schedule has been identified.

Feedback: Robin Cole, Parks & Recreation Department, 425- 452-6195 or Rcole@bellevuewa.gov, or Mike Bergstrom, Planning & Community Development Project Manager, 425- 452-6866 or Mbergstrom@bellevuewa.gov

New road projects approved
Council members created three new, high-priority transportation projects designed to accommodate future growth in the downtown, Wilburton and Bel-Red areas.

Together, the three projects are known as Wilburton Connections, named for the area east of Interstate 405 where they are located.

To provide information, answer questions and hear what the public thinks of the projects, an open house is planned from 4 to 7 p.m., Tuesday, March 2, on the first-floor concourse of City Hall.

The council allocated $13.2 million to help pay for the projects. The money comes through fund transfers and from acceptance of a $2.6 million federal grant. The three projects are:

120th Avenue Northeast Widening, from Northeast Fourth to Northeast Eighth Street ($8.6 million);
Northeast Fourth Street Extension, from 116th to 120th Avenue Northeast ($3.6 million); and
Northeast Sixth Street Extension, from I-405 to 120th Avenue Northeast ($1 million for pre-design work only).
The projects currently are in various stages of design, with construction of the first improvement, 120th Avenue Northeast, not scheduled to begin until 2011.

Feedback: Tresa Berg, Transportation Public Involvement Manager, 425-452-4638 or tberg@bellevuewa.gov

New park planned for Eastgate
Following a 20-month planning process, the Parks & Community Services Board has recommended approval of a master plan for a new, 27-acre park in the Eastgate business district, possibly to be called “Bellevue Airfield Park.”

The new park, at 2997 160th Ave. SE, would feature: lighted, synthetic-turf areas for two soccer/lacrosse fields and three Little League fields; accessible picnic facilities and parking; two children's play areas; and restrooms.

To respond to the community's desire for more and better off-leash areas, the Parks Board recommends some of the funding for the Eastgate Park be dedicated to the expansion of the off-leash area now at Robinswood Park to at least five acres.

When environmental review is completed, the council will consider the park master plan, along with a name for the park, for adoption.

Feedback: Glenn Kost, Parks Planning Manager, 425-452-5258, gkost@bellevuewa.gov

Review of Eastgate/I-90 corridor launched
Council members approved conducting a land use and transportation study of the Eastgate commercial area along Interstate 90, home to numerous office buildings and other businesses that account for about 18 percent of Bellevue's jobs.

The study will help guide the area's development, including improvements to the road system. Slated for completion in the first half of 2011, plans call for extensive public involvement over the coming months.

The main study area focuses on the commercial office and retail properties lining I-90, generally bounded by I-405 to the west, 161st Avenue Southeast to the east, Southeast 26h Street to the north and Southeast 38th Street to the south. Eastgate Corridor Study

Feedback: Mike Bergstrom, Planning and Community Development Project Manager, 425-452-6866 and mbergstrom@bellevuewa.gov; or Franz Loewenherz, Transportation Project Manager, 425-452-4077 or floewenherz@bellevuewa.gov

Two parcels acquired for open space
The council approved the acquisition of two parcels of land for preservation as open space.

One parcel – seven acres located between city-owned open spaces at Richards Valley and Kelsey Creek – provides excellent habitat and water quality benefits and features views of heavily forested hillsides.

The second parcel, in the Newport Hills area, is approximately 4.79 acres and features a natural area along Southeast 60th Street. The property is next to land owned by the Bellevue School District (the site of the former Eastside Catholic High School).

Together, the properties cost $3.3 million, with funding coming from the King County Conservation Futures Fund, the 2007 King County Parks Levy and the 2008 Bellevue Parks & Natural Areas Levy.

Feedback: Lorrie Peterson, Parks Property Manager, 425-456-4355 or lpeterson@bellevuewa.gov

Love the new park idea! :)

My worst fear is that ST will strike a compromise with Bellevue council and choose this worst route.

ST: they don't want to spend money, they don't want to as you said go through the congested downtown to slow things down, and they don't want to piss off Bellevue city.

Bellevue: they don't have money for tunnel, they also don't want to go with the surface route.
Sorry, but to say that Bellevue doesn't have money is BS. There are plenty of funding sources-- TBDs, LIDs, property taxes.

Sorry, but to say that Bellevue doesn't have money is BS. There are plenty of funding sources-- TBDs, LIDs, property taxes.

I'd be surprised if they can afford the tunnel (100 million is it?) all by themsevles... especially given where we are in the construction / economical cycle. You can squeeze no money from condo developers these days. :lol:

Lack of money isn't BS at all.

I don't recall that Washington ever enacted Tax Increment Financing, which would be a way of borrowing against the additional tax income from development rail would likely bring.

LIDs are expensive for businesses....they have to really want something to make the cost palatable. General tax increases are unpopular too. I'd vote for them if I lived there, but those aren't easy solutions, and the local pols probably didn't campaign on raising taxes.

I heard some survey results a while ago showing that Bellevue voters would be willing to increase taxes for a tunnel.

I heard some survey results a while ago showing that Bellevue voters would be willing to increase taxes for a tunnel.

I personally wouldn't be too happy about it, it's a Sound Transit project after all and we have all chimed in for the ST2. In fact dare I say it, given the income composition and commercial strength of this city, people probably have chimed in quite a fair share as well. (ST2 funding comes from 0.5% increase of sales tax.)

But if the city comes forward with a fair tax package, then I might support it because ST clearly doesn't have or wanna provide the money. (This is the problem we will always have to "fake" a ST2 budget while you have no final design for it yet.... :nuts:)

I personally wouldn't be too happy about it, it's a Sound Transit project after all and we have all chimed in for the ST2. In fact dare I say it, given the income composition and commercial strength of this city, people probably have chimed in quite a fair share as well. (ST2 funding comes from 0.5% increase of sales tax.)

But if the city comes forward with a fair tax package, then I might support it because ST clearly doesn't have or wanna provide the money. (This is the problem we will always have to "fake" a ST2 budget while you have no final design for it yet.... :nuts:)
You don't want at surface or elevated and don't want your taxes increased to pay for a tunnel. Hmmm. I'm curious as to your solution.

But if the city comes forward with a fair tax package, then I might support it because ST clearly doesn't have or wanna provide the money. (This is the problem we will always have to "fake" a ST2 budget while you have no final design for it yet.... :nuts:)
This is a common misconception that has been flaunted by councilmembers. Bellevue residents would be paying for a tunnel regardless, even if Sound Transit were to fund it. All the money for East Link comes out of the East King subarea, so Bellevue is paying in, no matter the funding source.

Mhays, generic tax increases are unpopular, but I am lead to believe that taxpayers are probably more inclined to pay in if special increases are specified to the degree that it's a significant infrastructure project being funded, like Link.

The whole argument of who pays is significant. For one we are all going to be paying for it for years before we get to use it. I am probably not going to be in the area in 2023... this leads to many just wanting the least expensive option. Two I believe the tunnel is quite necessary for Eastlink to run on time and more quickly. Think what will happen to ridership when Link is constantly getting jammed in DT Bellevue. I also don't like the couplet idea for 110th, 110th is just too far away from the core and having the line separated by a superblock is not a good idea. Since the tunnel is crucial for eastlink i think all of eastlink should pay for it. Seattle's tunnel's have had some serious Federal help, I would hope our tunnel would as well.

The only good think about surface running is that it's a very visible reminder that it is there. All in all I blame 1968 Seattle for passing up the feds to pay for 90% of a rail system.

Anything but a tunnel downtown is going to be unacceptable to Bellevueites who are understandably gratified with the worldclass status of their edge-city, and I don't blame them. They'll either do it the easy way by paying up front, or the hard way (like Seattle does) by digging it up and having a do-over in a few years.

Do we build things then close them down and rebuild them within the space of a few years here in Seattle?

Unless they fall down first, yes. (See: Kingdome, "bus-rail" tunnel)

Bellevue residents would be paying for a tunnel regardless, even if Sound Transit were to fund it. All the money for East Link comes out of the East King subarea, so Bellevue is paying in, no matter the funding source.


The difference is, now ST is asking the city to pay in addition to the 0.5% tax increase.

Curious qn about the EastLink funding: so money from the tax increase in East King Subarea will 100% be used in EastLink and nowhere else? That means... sales tax from Bellevue or Redmond will not be used in Seattle or Mercer Island? I found that to make a lot of sense, and since it's so sensible, it's probably unlikely (I could be wrong). :lol:

It would be sensible, but each area's own dollars have to accommodate users who live elsewhere too.

Imagine if every small town had to pay for the interstate that runs through.

In ST's case it's sort of ok because each subarea is urban, and thankfully the expensive parts inside Seattle are supported by Seattle's huge tax base as a prosperous city. But the principle is no different than the small town.

Bellevue Council Powerpoint. Good stuff right here.

http://www.bellevuewa.gov/pdf/Transportation/eastgate_study_council_presentati01-19-10.pdf

Good stuff! Does that mean the Eastgate area will finally see some changes? That would be great, even though I don't see anything wrong with it right now except for the fact that Newport Way does not have sidewalks between 150th all the way down to Allen Road.

Good stuff! Does that mean the Eastgate area will finally see some changes? That would be great, even though I don't see anything wrong with it right now except for the fact that Newport Way does not have sidewalks between 150th all the way down to Allen Road.

You don't see anything wrong with it? It's not a bad place or anything, but there's definitely room for improvement! It already has some major assets to work with--Factoria has a mall (even if it is struggling) and several large office buildings with a significant number of apartments. There are definitely some parking lots in the area that could be turned into transit oriented developments once light rail comes to the area. And of course there is also Bellevue College, which is trying to become a four year school... Maybe we'll see a college neighborhood develop on the Eastside? :D

And irregardless of what one may think of the LDS Church, nobody can deny that they have awfully purdy temples.

I am not sure LINK will have any effects on Factoria Mall regards to TOD... even with the B7 they are at two opposites sides of the highway, similar to the current arrangement of LINK vs. SouthCenter Mall.

You don't see anything wrong with it? It's not a bad place or anything, but there's definitely room for improvement! It already has some major assets to work with--Factoria has a mall (even if it is struggling) and several large office buildings with a significant number of apartments. There are definitely some parking lots in the area that could be turned into transit oriented developments once light rail comes to the area. And of course there is also Bellevue College, which is trying to become a four year school... Maybe we'll see a college neighborhood develop on the Eastside? :D

And irregardless of what one may think of the LDS Church, nobody can deny that they have awfully purdy temples.

Of course. There's always room for improvement! :cheers:

Is light rail going to have any effect on the area though? Like BellevueGuy said, it will be on the opposite side of the highway. It'd be nice if they extend it all the way to Issaquah (or maybe they are? I have no idea).

What they're talking about here is ST3, which will probably include extending Link along the I-90 corridor to Factoria, Eastgate, and Issaquah.

^^ I think Issaquah is part of Sound Transit's study lines.

Of course. There's always room for improvement! :cheers:

Is light rail going to have any effect on the area though? Like BellevueGuy said, it will be on the opposite side of the highway. It'd be nice if they extend it all the way to Issaquah (or maybe they are? I have no idea).

I don't see why they couldn't have it cross the highway to have a station in Factoria.

^^I highly doubt Factoria will be receiving Link in the near future, unless the "urban village concept" (I forgot the real name of it) really makes a push through. Work was halted due to the recession. Right now, I see at least 40%of the surface area used for parking. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=47.575382,-122.169814&spn=0.0109,0.019205&t=h&z=16

Although with Link, the urban village concept would likely be given a boost. I guess that's the great thing about transit. It's as much of a transportation tool as it is a catalyst for development.

The priority should still be Bel-Red though. We need to funnel development towards north Bellevue first to increase the viability of the infrastructure being built there.

^^I highly doubt Factoria will be receiving Link in the near future, unless the "urban village concept" (I forgot the real name of it) really makes a push through. Work was halted due to the recession. Right now, I see at least 40%of the surface area used for parking. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=47.575382,-122.169814&spn=0.0109,0.019205&t=h&z=16

Although with Link, the urban village concept would likely be given a boost. I guess that's the great thing about transit. It's as much of a transportation tool as it is a catalyst for development.

The priority should still be Bel-Red though. We need to funnel development towards north Bellevue first to increase the viability of the infrastructure being built there.

This is all very long-term of course... The Bel-Red stations will still be opening long before any Factoria station would.

The fact that the Factoria Mall is struggling makes it all the more appealing to me. They probably don't need all of that parking considering how many stores are empty. That's land that could be developed into apartments and/or a park-and-ride. And the mall would probably welcome the change in the hope that it would give it the boost it needs. The mall could transform into a TOD.

[Moved from the Link thread. Fits the discussion topic here better]

A long-term possibility? I made this in Powerpoint. It seems extremely difficult to incorporate Factoria into Link without creating a separate line.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h122/HAWC1506/RegionalLinkLightRail-2.png

I don't see why they couldn't have it cross the highway to have a station in Factoria.
Uggh. This sounds similar to the debate over bypassing SouthCenter.

The fact that the Factoria Mall is struggling makes it all the more appealing to me. They probably don't need all of that parking considering how many stores are empty. That's land that could be developed into apartments and/or a park-and-ride. And the mall would probably welcome the change in the hope that it would give it the boost it needs. The mall could transform into a TOD.

I am watching Northgate in Seattle and the Landing in Renton very curiously these days, they are first ones that encourage building condos beside a huge mall with added benefits like easy transit.

Anyone knows how the condo sales / apartment rentals are doing there?

For some reasons, they didn't become an overnight success... I guess bad traffic? Safety issues?

[Moved from the Link thread. Fits the discussion topic here better]

A long-term possibility? I made this in Powerpoint. It seems extremely difficult to incorporate Factoria into Link without creating a separate line.


Maybe something like this?

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=47.580492,-122.175865&spn=0.012361,0.042272&z=15&msid=112051577498141029225.00047efaf90d00ac0266d

The parts where it crosses are completely arbitrary so I don't want people to get all hung up on that aspect, but I don't see why we couldn't have the line loop around to allow for a Factoria station.

Uggh. This sounds similar to the debate over bypassing SouthCenter.

Eh, really? I thought that was more of a hill being in the way issue... And I think Factoria is a lot closer to the line anyway.

I am watching Northgate in Seattle and the Landing in Renton very curiously these days, they are first ones that encourage building condos beside a huge mall with added benefits like easy transit.

Anyone knows how the condo sales / apartment rentals are doing there?

For some reasons, they didn't become an overnight success... I guess bad traffic? Safety issues?

I don't think either of those locations are terribly desirable yet, but you have to start somewhere.

Maybe something like this?

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=47.580492,-122.175865&spn=0.012361,0.042272&z=15&msid=112051577498141029225.00047efaf90d00ac0266d

The parts where it crosses are completely arbitrary so I don't want people to get all hung up on that aspect, but I don't see why we couldn't have the line loop around to allow for a Factoria station.



Eh, really? I thought that was more of a hill being in the way issue... And I think Factoria is a lot closer to the line anyway.



I don't think either of those locations are terribly desirable yet, but you have to start somewhere.

But then that would branch off of Eastlink, which isn't exactly a problem, but would make line designation much harder (and headways a lot more complicated). I know it's been done elsewhere, but it would be nice to have a consistent line.

I think we might need two stations in Factoria area but need to be close to T-Mobile headquarter campus to boost more ridership. One right in Factoria and one should be built overhead I-90 between just to connect both Bellevue College and business parks.

Yeah, no one is suggesting that Factoria be served by East Link. It will almost definitely be served by an Issaquah Line, which as I said will probably be on the ST3 ballot.
Unfortunately last I heard (several months ago) the Northgate development wasn't selling very well, but I've walked around there and it's really cool. They integrate taller apartment buildings and the theater with shorter three/four-story apartment buildings/town houses that are only accessible from pedestrian mews. If I was looking for a home, that would be one of my first choices.

I think we might need two stations in Factoria area but need to be close to T-Mobile headquarter campus to boost more ridership. One right in Factoria and one should be built overhead I-90 between just to connect both Bellevue College and business parks.

Wouldn't the second station be the Eastgate P&R then?

Well yes, I was envisioning two stations in the area (one in Factoria and one at Bellevue College/Eastgate P&R).

Also, I'm not sure where we got the idea that it would be branching off of East Link...?

Once it gets past 35th street, would the line go between the lanes of I-90? I don't see any other alternative.

Well yes, I was envisioning two stations in the area (one in Factoria and one at Bellevue College/Eastgate P&R).

Also, I'm not sure where we got the idea that it would be branching off of East Link...?
How were you getting to Factoria? In your Google map you were cutting across a residential neighborhood, over 405 and then dropping (oh 50+ feet or so) down to the Mall. May I assume you planned it to be tunnel?

How were you getting to Factoria? In your Google map you were cutting across a residential neighborhood, over 405 and then dropping (oh 50+ feet or so) down to the Mall. May I assume you planned it to be tunnel?

"The parts where it crosses are completely arbitrary so I don't want people to get all hung up on that aspect"

There's no way for East Link to serve Factoria without adding a ton of time to the route. You have to have it as a branch.

There's no way for East Link to serve Factoria without adding a ton of time to the route. You have to have it as a branch.

So if there's an Issaquah line, it too might have to be a branch. Technically it could still be a line, but it would probably be a line with a mere five or six stops.

Well, is there some map of what the most likely route for an Issaquah line is?

Okay I think we have different definitions of what "branch" means. I was just saying it was a branch in that it would be another line that would branch off of the East Link line. There isn't any map because there hasn't been any detailed analysis yet, but part of ST2 was planning studies for light rail to lots of places including Issaquah. I envision it leaving East Link at I-90 (not serving South Bellevue), stopping at Factoria, Eastgate, West Lake Sammammish, and the Issaquah medical centers next to the freeway, then going off the freeway and stopping at Issaquah Transit Center and Downtown Issaquah. Future extensions could take it to Issaquah Highlands and maybe even Sammammish, although that would be a long way off.

hey guys lets move all the east link discussions to this new thread:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1063393

keep this thread focused on downtown Bellevue commercial development even though it's been awfully quiet as of late

Okay I think we have different definitions of what "branch" means. I was just saying it was a branch in that it would be another line that would branch off of the East Link line. There isn't any map because there hasn't been any detailed analysis yet, but part of ST2 was planning studies for light rail to lots of places including Issaquah. I envision it leaving East Link at I-90 (not serving South Bellevue), stopping at Factoria, Eastgate, West Lake Sammammish, and the Issaquah medical centers next to the freeway, then going off the freeway and stopping at Issaquah Transit Center and Downtown Issaquah.

I had something like that in mind, too. I don't think it would be so difficult to reach Factoria from I-90.

Future extensions could take it to Issaquah Highlands and maybe even Sammammish, although that would be a long way off.

Getting it up to the Highlands could be tricky, but it would be fun to get it up there and onto the Plateau. Ideally you could somehow get a station at Klahanie and Providence Point, but that sounds kind of impossible. It would probably go up Issaquah-Pine Lake Rd (and have a station on the edge of Klahanie) before getting on to 228th with obvious stations at the transit center, Sammamish Commons (and maybe the Safeway area too) and probably one up in the vicinity of NE 25th Way.

I'm not sure how Sammamishites would feel about tearing up their pretty median for light rail, so maybe it would have to share the lane with cars. But it would be neat to have an Issaquah-Redmond line going through Sammamish someday. Probably just dreaming though.

But an Issaquah line going to the South Sammamish transit center doesn't seem too insane... And that would avoid the pretty median issue...

I had something like that in mind, too. I don't think it would be so difficult to reach Factoria from I-90.



Getting it up to the Highlands could be tricky, but it would be fun to get it up there and onto the Plateau. Ideally you could somehow get a station at Klahanie and Providence Point, but that sounds kind of impossible. It would probably go up Issaquah-Pine Lake Rd (and have a station on the edge of Klahanie) before getting on to 228th with obvious stations at the transit center, Sammamish Commons (and maybe the Safeway area too) and probably one up in the vicinity of NE 25th Way.

I'm not sure how Sammamishites would feel about tearing up their pretty median for light rail, so maybe it would have to share the lane with cars. But it would be neat to have an Issaquah-Redmond line going through Sammamish someday. Probably just dreaming though.

But an Issaquah line going to the South Sammamish transit center doesn't seem too insane... And that would avoid the pretty median issue...

A tunnel under Skyline would be quite cool. If there was one right now, I'd be riding that to school :nuts:

Haha not sure if they'd go for a tunnel in such a low density area... But that would be cool.

Does anyone know what type of expansion is going on at Overlake? I just noticed a crane up there.

http://www.overlakehospital.org/about.aspx?id=194 first result on Google.

In a project I have been working on, I came across some old photos of Belleuve. Check this one out in the 1960-70's.

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/washingtonstate/images/2/2c/Ajmstudiosdowntownbellevuevintage.jpg

Then two pictures I took, WSDOT asked permission in using some of my images now as well. :)

Here is Bellevue, 2008.
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/washingtonstate/images/b/b0/Ajmstudioswikibellevue08.jpg

Now Bellevue 2010.
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/washingtonstate/images/d/d0/Ajmstudiosdowntownbellevueskyline2010.jpg

Its amazing how much growth has occurred in that time. Thank you for sharing the pictures with us! :)

Thanks so much!

It's amazing that those buildings are still here as well!

Except the right-most midrise behind the Key Bank, is it demolished for the City Center Plaza?

Unfortunately there are still plenty of parking lots down there... I guess it's good to not have everything built in the same boom because that way you get varied architectural styles. And maybe taller buildings? Bellevue should really raise the height limit, at least in the center of downtown!

A new high-rise is in the works for Bellevue's emerging medical district.

Healthcare Realty is developing a seven-story, 190,000 square-foot medical office building at the Overlake Hospital Medical Center campus on 116th Ave. NE.

The $90 million facility is scheduled to open in August 2011 as the Overlake Medical Pavilion.

Construction crews have already begun foundation work for a below-grade parking garage that will hold approximately 740 vehicles.

The building will house mostly independent practitioners, but is sized to provide space for staff from Overlake Hospital, according to Amy Poley, vice president of real estate investments at Healthcare Realty.

Poley said she is confident the complex will be full, despite a down real-estate market.

"We're very bullish on the Puget Sound in general, but definitely Bellevue and the Overlake campus," she said.

Healthcare Realty is leasing land for the medical building from Overlake Hospital.

The facility is expected to be the city's first LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) medical office building, with developers anticipating Silver certification.

Poley said the complex will include a green roof and multiple energy-efficient features, as well as storage, parking, and showers for cyclists.


http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/east_king/bel/news/85259437.html

Looks kind of like the T-Mobile buildings.

lol medical district, that's hilarious

lol high rise, that's hilarious!

It says "emerging medical district". :D

It's not really emerging. The hospital district is quite established. Aside from the major medical centers between 118th and 405, there are also quite a few OB/GY clinics east of 118th, next to Whole Foods and Lake Bellevue.

Well, its good if they concentrate medical service in one area, high income employment centers with generally good employers and employees who use transit. Ease for customers/patients.

However, you have 3 growing medical centers on the eastside -- Evergreen, Overlake, and the new Swedish in Issaquah. Even with the burgeoning populations of the Eastside cities, I don't see all three getting the critical mass that they are seeking. My prediction is within the next 20 years you will see one of the medical centers merged/bought out by one of the other east side centers.

However, this is not worth the paper it is printed on, so please don't search for this post when I'm terribly wrong ;-)

I think it's good to have all those medical centers, because it's important to have a hospital close to everyone. Places all around the Eastside are growing and they need these medical centers close by to support them.

This should spice up the Bellevue nightlife a bit:
http://www.downtownbellevue.com/2010/03/01/las-vegas-night-club-owners-to-open-bellevue-square-restaurant-lounge/

Bellevue has nightlife? That's news to me. :)

Bellevue has nightlife? That's news to me. :)

Touche. however, ever since Lincoln Square opened the nightlife has been slowly picking up. Head down to that area on a friday or saturday night and all the restaurants are packed til well pass midnight. Lucky Strike and Parlor both draw in pretty good crowds, lately there's been a line to get in lucky strike every weekend. The galleria and bravern also gets a decent amount of ppl to its restaurants and on the fringe of downtown, vertigo and the spot have a steady clientele.

It's very interesting that Pure Management is opening a club in Bellevue of all places. I guess the city does have the same artificial feel that Vegas does.

^^I'm too young to be let in to those places, and I don't care much about the nightlife in Bellevue right now. However, I still think that the majority of the nightlife should be in Seattle. Bellevue doesn't need to have its own major nightlife since I think that tends to lead to a lot more crime/violence.

Why bring that in?

^^I'm too young to be let in to those places, and I don't care much about the nightlife in Bellevue right now. However, I still think that the majority of the nightlife should be in Seattle. Bellevue doesn't need to have its own major nightlife since I think that tends to lead to a lot more crime/violence.

Why bring that in?

Nightlife is part of city life. It isn't all about getting wasted. I was at England a few years ago and I was able to see how civilized nightlife can be. People get off work dressed in their suits and go to the pub to grab some wine.

But then...that's England, and the drinking culture's different than the wild college binge that you see here.

I wouldn't know details though. I'm too young to go to those places too. Although I do have a feeling that nightlife in Bellevue will be more "tame" and European than nightlife in Seattle, at least from what I've seen around Rock Bottom and Lincoln Square. Just a feeling.

Oh trust me when I say, that European nightlife is not all civilized. England, France, Spain, Poland, Holland, Russia and pretty much any other country - there's normal nightlife and there's the same crazy nightlife where you just get wasted and cause trouble.

Having said that, it all depends what parts of the city and what joints you pick to hang out at. I'd say most of the bars on Capitol Hill (and the whole area in general) would be called very trendy and safe if we were to move it to any bigger city in Europe.

The drinking culture is a little bit different because we go through "American college drinking phase" in our high schools, so we have the worst crap out of our systems by the time we go to college. Oh and instead of guns people in Europe use knives, baseball bats and mob beating so it's not as flashy as a drunken shooting spree but there's just as much violence ( and many times it seems way more brutal too ).

It's all about the area and joints though. Bellevue will definitely have a tamer side, but I wouldn't call it European.

Nightlife is part of city life. It isn't all about getting wasted. I was at England a few years ago and I was able to see how civilized nightlife can be. People get off work dressed in their suits and go to the pub to grab some wine.

But then...that's England, and the drinking culture's different than the wild college binge that you see here.

I wouldn't know details though. I'm too young to go to those places too. Although I do have a feeling that nightlife in Bellevue will be more "tame" and European than nightlife in Seattle, at least from what I've seen around Rock Bottom and Lincoln Square. Just a feeling.

Nightlife in Rome is anything but tame. After hour clubs where you have to give a secret code to the door...

fun times.

I accidentally stumbled into bellevue nightlife after watching a late night movie at Lincoln Square. It was so weird (and nice) to see all these people bar hopping along bellevue way LOL.

Oh trust me when I say, that European nightlife is not all civilized. England, France, Spain, Poland, Holland, Russia and pretty much any other country - there's normal nightlife and there's the same crazy nightlife where you just get wasted and cause trouble.

Having said that, it all depends what parts of the city and what joints you pick to hang out at. I'd say most of the bars on Capitol Hill (and the whole area in general) would be called very trendy and safe if we were to move it to any bigger city in Europe.

The drinking culture is a little bit different because we go through "American college drinking phase" in our high schools, so we have the worst crap out of our systems by the time we go to college. Oh and instead of guns people in Europe use knives, baseball bats and mob beating so it's not as flashy as a drunken shooting spree but there's just as much violence ( and many times it seems way more brutal too ).

It's all about the area and joints though. Bellevue will definitely have a tamer side, but I wouldn't call it European.

Ahh I guess I was just lucky to be in the tame part of European cities then haha

I'm at the Washington State DECA conference right now in Bellevue. Our school took up probably a quarter of the Hyatt. After walking between the Hyatt and the Meydebauer, I have to say that the city is actually very walkable. The wide streets don't really bother me at all, at least for now.

It also takes about 10 minutes to walk between Hyatt and Meydenbauer, about 9 to the transit center. That is the maximum time I want to spend walking from the Hyatt to the future light rail station. C14E will not work.

I was at Bellevue yesterday. I was blown away by seeing downtown Bellevue is becoming packed with full of people on sidewalks, restaurants and stores. I think that is great!

I was at Bellevue yesterday. I was blown away by seeing downtown Bellevue is becoming packed with full of people on sidewalks, restaurants and stores. I think that is great!

I think every year, the biggest test for DT Bellevue is when Washington DECA hosts the Career Development Conference for high schoolers. The infrastructure is definitely there to handle large amounts of people, with only a few areas where the sidwalks need to be expanded.

People on the street in Downtown Bellevue? I have to see this!
But seriously, when I go there, the only streets on which I pass more than, say, two people per (super)block are Bellevue Way between 110th and Main and the 6th pedestrian corridor. It's creepy sometimes. Walkability isn't just about having wide sidewalks; it's about having a reason to go out on the sidewalk, and it seems like most buildings in Downtown Bellevue don't have retail down on the street, and so there are no people who feel any need to go out on the street. 108th also needs to have some kind of traffic-calming redesign, because it feels very intimidating to cross and to walk along. I think that DT Bellevue can get it together in terms of pedestrian-friendliness in the next couple decades, but it has a lot of work to do.

Ok, so I usually only post on SSP..but...

I'm kind of really tired of all of your SSC whining about Bellevue. Yes, I live on Cap Hill, and that's the environment I prefer. I work in dt Bellevue. You guys should be happy that Bellevue is working to create the urban environment that it is. Would you prefer another Lynnwood or Tukwila? Bellevue has an abundance of dt living options, grocery stores, restaurants, and a nice central city park. Many metros would be so lucky to have an edge city like B'vue. All you guys seem to do is B&M about it. It takes a lot from a city planning standpoint to develop what Bellevue has. Yes, it's more conservative than Seattle, and yes, it has different views about growth. It will continue to flourish anyway. It already has more upscale shopping options than the City (minus Barney's)....its headed in the right direction. Once light rail reaches Bellevue in whatever form it appears in, that town will be even more desirable.

^^ All of us? Not all of us hate Bellevue. I like Bellevue a lot and fond of it. I never say anything against City of Bellevue.

I also live on Cap Hill and I'm also glad the region has Bellevue , but there's nothing wrong in mentioning the city's shortcomings (every city has those).

The problem with Bellevue right now is the Council but consequently it was the affluent people living there that voted these idiots in. Speaking of light-rail coming to DT, one has to question their will to, as you said it, "create the urban environment". I just don't see enough good will from Bellevue's official to really create an urban center. And that's fine, stay car-centric, just don't lie about it.

I do agree with you that it will continue to flourish, but without some radical steps, it'll stay Bellevue - a car centric, sterile and boring city. And again, that's fine, not everyone wants the "real urban" experience and frankly, I'd rather have a Bellevue there than another Seattle.

Did I just hear someone say Bellevue is boring? I dont understand what many on this forum want from Bellevue sometimes. They go around saying it is "Conservative" as if it is a bad thing, yet it was the conservative government in Bellevue and prosperous runnings of business, that excelled Bellevue into a whole new league. I see Bellevue as an urban center, and there is nothing wrong with cars! Nothing! Not every city has to have this "no car" policy that everyone seems to be pushing. People do not want what a few people on a forum want. The public speaks for itself.

Bellevue is an amazing city, and it will flourish, it will grow, and it an amazing city with a skyline of that of a 400,000 to 500,000 plus sized city. It is amazing, exciting, a busy urban core, shopping for everyone, a busy business and corporate sector, and terrific upscale housing that is the envy of people all over the world. Bellevue is home to both some of the largest companies in the world, as well as some of the richest people on earth.

Bellevue has done amazing things, and I see nothing wrong with what Bellevue has become.

Did I just hear someone say Bellevue is boring? I dont understand what many on this forum want from Bellevue sometimes. They go around saying it is "Conservative" as if it is a bad thing, yet it was the conservative government in Bellevue and prosperous runnings of business, that excelled Bellevue into a whole new league. I see Bellevue as an urban center, and there is nothing wrong with cars! Nothing! Not every city has to have this "no car" policy that everyone seems to be pushing. People do not want what a few people on a forum want. The public speaks for itself.

Like when they voted to approve Proposition 1?

I also don't see what many people have against Bellevue. Having moved to the suburbs of Houston, I now appreciate Bellevue and the whole area much, much more than I did before. It really is one of the best places to live not just in America, but in the whole world.

I also don't see what many people have against Bellevue. Having moved to the suburbs of Houston, I now appreciate Bellevue and the whole area much, much more than I did before. It really is one of the best places to live not just in America, but in the whole world.

I've never felt like Bellevue is bashed that much here...

It's true that Bellevue has some problems that will prevent it from becoming as urban as parts of Seattle (some downtown streets are way too wide, for example), but it's definitely the most impressive suburban downtown and skyline in the country and I think most of us would agree on that. Clayton, MO is the only other one that really gives Bellevue a run for its money that I can think of off the top of my head.

Bellevue is generally going to offer a different type of lifestyle than Seattle and that's fine. I don't see any problem with people saying they prefer the lifestyle and culture that Seattle provides over that of Bellevue and vice versa.

To sum things up, I would say that Seattle is better than about 99% of the country while Bellevue is only better than 97%. Maybe we're just spoiled. ;)

^^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton,_Missouri

This Clayton? I think Bellevue definitely has it beat in every aspect. :)

They go around saying it is "Conservative" as if it is a bad thing, yet it was the conservative government in Bellevue and prosperous runnings of business, that excelled Bellevue into a whole new league.

Well, nothing wrong with a city being more conservative ( I don't see where someone used conservative in a bad context ) but with it, more than often, comes "boredom". Just the way conservatives are.


It is amazing, exciting, a busy urban core, shopping for everyone, a busy business and corporate sector, and terrific upscale housing that is the envy of people all over the world. Bellevue is home to both some of the largest companies in the world, as well as some of the richest people on earth.
.

And that's precisely why it's boring. It caters mostly to rich people ( and not even the entertaining rich like LA but the boring IT/business rich ;) ) who can afford upscale housing. Corporate environment, rich people and low crime doesn't make a great city (or even a desirable "urban center"). There's a lot of room for Bellevue to grow but also a lot of work.

Speaking of upscale housing, I wouldn't emphasize the "envy of people all over the world", as pretty much no one outside USA knows what the hell Bellevue is. Poeple know what Redmond is, because of MS, but usually can't even point out the region correctly.

Noone's bashing Bellevue for something that it's not, just saying how it is. I feel like more people are bashing Seattle on this forum, and there's hardly a whine when that happens.

I don't see anything wrong with Bellevue. It's just in its stages of development. It's like ecological succession. There will be grass before bushes, bushes before small trees, and small trees before old growth forests. Bellevue had to start somewhere, and I think it's chugging along just fine. There's definitely room for improvement, like walkability and the lack of street-side stores, but that will come in the near future.

Does anyone know if they have regulations in Bellevue requiring retail at street-level on mid- and high-rise buildings? They have that in Seattle and that really creates street life. Sometimes there's not much demand for retail and so it sits empty for a while, but after a couple years the spaces always get picked up and you end up with a vibrant street. If they don't already have that in Bellevue, they should do it.

If retail is on every street, it's diluted, and the result is no great retail streets, just a lot of half-assed ones.

London's approach is much better. They have "high streets" surrounded by quiet mostly non-retail streets. Except in a few districts that can support retail everywhere because they're destinations.

In an area like DT Bellevue where every street is an arterial and every building has 6 or more stories, with a lot having upwards of 40, every street can support retail. There will always end up being an area that is more intense, but every street down there can have retail on it.

Having the richest people in the state doesn't make a city great. Bellevue's problem is that it lacks available affordable housing. The development and infrastructure in the city as it is can't sustain its pace of growth. Call me crazy, but affordable housing is a must if Bellevue wants to continue its pattern.

In an area like DT Bellevue where every street is an arterial and every building has 6 or more stories, with a lot having upwards of 40, every street can support retail. There will always end up being an area that is more intense, but every street down there can have retail on it.

That's the overly diluted scenario I'm talking about.

It's incorrect that DT Bellevue's density supports good retail on every street. This is fact, not opinion. Except to the extent that people from the whole region come in for destination shopping.

Retail tends to be around 20 square feet per person in the US. Just guessing, but maybe Bellevue could increase that by 20% due to higher incomes offset by higher rents. Of those 24 square feet, a sizeable percentage go to indoor places like Bellevue Square, supermarkets (in Downtown or not), big boxes (generally elsewhere), etc. Streetside retail gets a fraction of that amount.

Downtown Bellevue residents might spend most of their money there, but office workers don't. Hotel guests spend a lot of money but it tends to be in destination retail, in hotels, etc. as well.

Based on its own density, Downtown Bellevue would support a small fraction of the retail it already has. Bellevue Square, Bravern, etc., can overcome this by being regional draws. Unless the rest of Downtown can do the same, which is extremely unlikely outside of very small areas like Old Bellevue, the area has, and will always have, too little density to support continuous dense retail.

House prices could matter less, although it wouldn't be a bad thing if they were lower. There are more than a few corporations in the area which bring in talented individuals that can afford these very expensive houses.

For example, the house I lived in was located in Eastgate, and that's the cheapest part of "Bellevue". It's estimated to be worth $420,000. Consider this: this house was built in 1954 and is 1700 square feet.

On the other hand, let's compare the prices of the houses in the Houston area. You can get a castle for that price.

http://search.har.com/engine/1939-Cornerstone-Place-Dr-Katy-TX-77450_HAR75218745.htm

It costs $419,000, and is 4000 square feet. It is also much, much newer.

With this house you literally live on old rice fields converted to subdivisions with cookie cutter houses.

Living in Houston vs. living in Bellevue:


no public transportation
few sidewalks
cookie cutter houses with horrible street names
the schools are nowhere near the quality of those in Bellevue
crime is higher than it is in Bellevue
everything is flat; there is no variation in anything, be it vegetation or topography
much of the buildings are older and not maintained
long travel times to your work are almost guaranteed
muggy, the air isn't as clear as it is in Bellevue
I guess this isn't much of a housing thing as a social trend, but people saying "y'all" and dressing up as cowboys and cowgirls


My point is, when you buy a house you don't only buy the house itself. You have to look at the city itself. By buying a house in Bellevue, you can take advantage of many more opportunities and services not available to other people that live elsewhere.

Having the richest people in the state doesn't make a city great. Bellevue's problem is that it lacks available affordable housing. The development and infrastructure in the city as it is can't sustain its pace of growth. Call me crazy, but affordable housing is a must if Bellevue wants to continue its pattern.

As Bellevue's buildings age, they'll move slowly downmarket....much as Seattle's buildings from the 1950s or 1980s are more affordable than they were originally.

Of course, the deals currently available mean a lot of middle-income people are moving into luxury housing.

There has been a bit of subsidized and/or small-unit housing construction in DT Bellevue. I'd like to see more though.

Having the richest people in the state doesn't make a city great. Bellevue's problem is that it lacks available affordable housing. The development and infrastructure in the city as it is can't sustain its pace of growth. Call me crazy, but affordable housing is a must if Bellevue wants to continue its pattern.

Let's take a reasoned approach. Why do areas that have "high income, rich people" exist? It's not because one day someone woke up and decided to put all the (you supply the insult) but because when they achieve the ability to live in that area, many people prefer not to live near crime and homeless people. Well the free market pricing goes up on housing as those who have means can pay more for limited properties. Businesses that want to sell merchandise would rather sell to a rich person than schoo away vagrants peeing on their doorsteps. Where would you open your business if your product was expensive?

Good grief folks this is basic economics.

Let's take a reasoned approach. Why do areas that have "high income, rich people" exist? It's not because one day someone woke up and decided to put all the (you supply the insult) but because when they achieve the ability to live in that area, many people prefer not to live near crime and homeless people. Well the free market pricing goes up on housing as those who have means can pay more for limited properties. Businesses that want to sell merchandise would rather sell to a rich person than schoo away vagrants peeing on their doorsteps. Where would you open your business if your poduct was expensive?

Good grief folks this is basic economics.
If that's the case, why don't all businesses aspire to pander to the rich? Also, the cost of a product does not dictate where a business sets up shop. You've got cupcakes at the Bravern and Masseratis in the 'tenderloin' of Capitol Hill.

NIf that's the case, why don't all businesses aspire to pander to the rich? Also, the cost of a product does not dictate where a business sets up shop. You've got cupcakes at the Bravern and Masseratis in the 'tenderloin' of Capitol Hill.

Not everyone has the exact same value system but generally speaking most people try to grow their financial situation daily. And while cupcakes seem like a odd item for the rich just pause for a second. The idea is margin sometimes not volumes--the ingredients cost mere pennies but since those cupcakes retail for $5 a piece it won't take long to cover the fixed costs. Besides when everything else retails at a higher price point those tasty sweet look like a bargain.

You are not correct in saying the cost of the product does not dictate where a business sets up. The cost dictates retail.

The first thing retailers do is a demographic analysis. I am confident that $5 cupcakes would have a tough sell in the poorer parts of Seattle such as the Promenade 23 shopping center at 23 and Jackson.

Cars are a major purchase so the geographical area is larger. Food and clothing tend to be relatively more spontaneous purchases so retailers need to grab their attention faster. Ambiance tends to weigh more heavily in spontaneous purchases.

Ever wonder why Neiman Marcus picked Bellevue over. Seattle? They used disposable income analysis. Also it hurts when Seattle has a pro-panhandler, anti-business image. Bellevue would have removed aggressive panhandlers before they became an issue. Seattle still wonders what it should do.

Seattle's lack of prime retail sites is our main problem. By "prime" I mean a few blocks of Pine Street. A few other areas might work but it would require a developer taking a leap and doing something with a critical mass of retailers, and either elongating our current destination retail center (more likely) or creating a new one (very risky, and would probably hurt Pine).

Bellevue has great retail demographics but Seattle does too. Our #1 demographic for a store like that (or for Nordstrom if I recall) is tourists. One hotel room is like many condos in terms of clothing or jewelry sales.

Seattle's lack of prime retail sites is our main problem. By "prime" I mean a few blocks of Pine Street. A few other areas might work but it would require a developer taking a leap and doing something with a critical mass of retailers, and either elongating our current destination retail center (more likely) or creating a new one (very risky, and would probably hurt Pine).

Bellevue has great retail demographics but Seattle does too. Our #1 demographic for a store like that (or for Nordstrom if I recall) is tourists. One hotel room is like many condos in terms of clothing or jewelry sales.

Mhays, I appreciate your reasoned approach even when i may disagree with some of the points. I sure hope that retail space is the issue because its sad there are several large spaces that need a retailer immediately!! The Adidas, Coldwater Creek and the Rite Aid (4th and Pike), not to mention Rainer Square concourse (I loved this place when I was in college).

According to a Seattle times article, Pottery Barn Kids is closing its Bellevue Square location.
http://www.nwsource.com/shopping/blog/pottery-barns-kids-close-bellevue-square-location-may-2?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

^^ I am little surprised to hear that.

BTW, welcome to SSC! :cheers:

Wow. Just saw a tv commercial for John Howie Steak at the Bravern. Right after that, a commercial for The Collection (B Square, B Place, and L Square). Both were surprisingly high quality and appealing without that 'local tinge'

A crane has been erected at 107th and Main for a midrise residential building. First new crane we've seen in quite some time!

Wow some actual construction! Cool. Why just a midrise though? Does the zoning only allow midrises around Main?

Main is the southern periphery of downtown. Directly south are single family homes.

I was just looking at some documents from a planning process a few years ago to allow mixed-use, mid-rise development around Crossroads. Does anyone know what happened to that? I know that anything that was proposed is obviously on hold for now because of the recession, but were any developers showing interest in this before the recession took hold?

I was just looking at some documents from a planning process a few years ago to allow mixed-use, mid-rise development around Crossroads. Does anyone know what happened to that? I know that anything that was proposed is obviously on hold for now because of the recession, but were any developers showing interest in this before the recession took hold?

I haven't read anything. What planning documents were you looking at?

The Lake Hills mall is undergoing a similar transformation right now, but the construction has been very slow and has fallen behind schedule.

http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/crossroads_plan.htm This website. Huh I haven't heard anything about Lake Hills Shopping Center (had to look it up, never heard of it before), but that's cool. An article about it on the Seattle Times had a link to development proposed for a Newport Hills strip mall too. Cool way to preserve commercial districts in neighborhoods in a much more sustainable fashion than a strip mall.

That reminds me of the plans for Factoria. Did they fall through?

I don't think they fell through, as it was a zoning change to allow more mixed-use rather than a concrete plan by a developer. But I'm guessing once the economy gets better it will go through. It's great that the Eastside cities are starting to become more cities of neighborhoods, with little pockets of density, just like the dozens and dozens of such neighborhoods in big cities like Seattle. For instance, a couple months ago I checked out the development at Juanita in Kirkland and I was very impressed.

I don't think they fell through, as it was a zoning change to allow more mixed-use rather than a concrete plan by a developer. But I'm guessing once the economy gets better it will go through. It's great that the Eastside cities are starting to become more cities of neighborhoods, with little pockets of density, just like the dozens and dozens of such neighborhoods in big cities like Seattle. For instance, a couple months ago I checked out the development at Juanita in Kirkland and I was very impressed.

Bellevue is much more diverse than people give it credit for. There are plenty of neighborhoods in the city that are distinct.

Bellevue is much more diverse than people give it credit for. There are plenty of neighborhoods in the city that are distinct.

I find sometimes if you want to experience cultural mingling, go to Crossroads mall on a Friday or Saturday evening. Always enchanting.

I find sometimes if you want to experience cultural mingling, go to Crossroads mall on a Friday or Saturday evening. Always enchanting.

As a teenager I always enjoyed grabbing a book or magazine from Half Price Books, eating some great food, then reading the book/magazine while glancing at the chess game.

Sadly, last time I went back the food and books were still there but no chess.

bid for hotel in the seattle area on priceline, got a hotel in downtown bellevue. have to say i am very impressed w/ this downtown. first time ive ever been to this city. wasn't expecting it to be so big.

It's not that big, but it has a lot to offer. :P

It's not that big, but it has a lot to offer. :P
for someone who wasn't expecting anything it's huge, trust me

I know this is in Redmond, not Bellevue, but I figure it could work here. There should be an Eastside Development thread instead of just Bellevue.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011860637_nintendo14.html Nintendo of America just opened its new headquarters building. It looks kind of cool but I really wish companies like this would get out of the mindset that a corporate campus has to be a low-rise building far away from any other uses out in the suburbs. Would've been way cool to have a new Nintendo skyscraper in Downtown Bellevue.

Hm, I kind of like it. AFAIK, their older buildings look like crap.

There should be an Eastside Development thread instead of just Bellevue.
Non-downtown Bellevue development thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=576471)

I have a link for it on the first page, first post of this thread.

Construction on the Corner of 106th & NE 8th?

http://www.downtownbellevue.com/2010/08/11/construction-on-the-corner-of-106th-ne-8th/

Construction on the Corner of 106th & NE 8th?

http://www.downtownbellevue.com/2010/08/11/construction-on-the-corner-of-106th-ne-8th/

Here's a very small and only rendering from Touchstone's website.

http://a.imageshack.us/img801/4887/13412.jpg

More info:
15 stories, 250 hotel rooms, 320.000 sq ft of office space, 20.000 sq ft of retail and 600 clunkers underground.

I always wondered if they were gonna build something there. That spot has been vacant for as long as I can remember.

Does anyone besides me remember when Tower Records used to be in that building where the piano store is now? Anyway that whole block is begging for redevelopment.

Here's a very small and only rendering from Touchstone's website.

http://a.imageshack.us/img801/4887/13412.jpg

More info:
15 stories, 250 hotel rooms, 320.000 sq ft of office space, 20.000 sq ft of retail and 600 clunkers underground.

Nice find! A little too boxy but I guess most buildings that height are.

Btw, that blog article is referring to the site across the street though which is currently a gravel parking lot. I haven't heard of any proposals for that site.

Looks alright, but will it have any street presence, or will it be yet another addition to the creepy landscape of Downtown Bellevue of tall glass and steel buildings but no pedestrians?

So is that angle looking at it west on 8th Street where the two white buildings on the right hand side of the picture are the current WASQ towers and the white tower behind being the Bellevue Place building?

CNN-Money ranked Bellevue as the fourth of best places to live 2010.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2010/snapshots/PL5305210.html

Something gonna happen?

Developer plans to start Bellevue apartment tower next spring
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2013051689_soma02.html

Do we have a rendering of this one?

http://www.olsonkundigarchitects.com/Projects/1685/SoMa-Towers-Design-Competition- Hmmm here's a rendering of an awesome design proposal for it, but it sounds from their wording like they did not win the design competition. Why is it called Soma? Cause it's not South of Main, and that's the only thing I can think of... This'll be a good location for new skyscrapers, this is currently a gap in Downtown Bellevue.

Olson Kundig is my favorite architecture firm in Seattle (not far behind is PB elemental) - the design reminds me a little bit of Elements Too.

Like you said, awesome design, something that Seattle is lacking - interesting, deconstructed tower apartments. It's been all boxy/pencil/rounded towers. Time for something bold.

I like this rendering! Obviously, this developer got a great taste! :)

It doesn't fit in very well with what's around it. Not a fan of the location either.

I really like the preliminary design. Both of the developers 'Elements' projects are innovative IMO, and more aesthetically pleasing than any apartment complex built in Seattle recently. I like the location too personally. It's a part of dt B'vue that could use more residential presence. It's a block to the grocery store, multiple restaurants, a large employment base, and close to the transit center (relatively). Bellevue is so compact that I don't know if there is any 'bad' place to build more residential really.

I love Seattle and Cap Hill, but with more appealing rentals going up in dt Bellevue, which is where I work, I'm almost tempted to move there just to ditch car and not have to worry about taking the bus. Then move back to the hill in a decade when I can take Link lol.....

The owner of Bellevue's Kelsey Creek Center has submitted plans to update and expand the aging shopping center, where a former Kmart has stood vacant since 2002.

Owner Franklin-West wants to renovate the 106,000-square-foot Kmart building and a 76,000-square-foot, two-story retail and office building, said Michael Chen of Group Mackenzie, the project's designer.

An 8,000-square-foot retail building and a 3,500-square-foot building designed for a fast-food tenant would be added to the 16-acre complex, he said. Landscaping and parking would be improved.

In addition, Key Bank has proposed a new branch on a neighboring lot that consumers will perceive as part of the same project, said Bellevue senior planner Mike Upston.

"The community has really been anxious to redevelop that property, as has the city," he said.

Kelsey Creek Center, at the prominent intersection of 148th Avenue Southeast and Main Street, was built in the 1960s. The Kmart closed as part of the chain's bankruptcy restructuring eight years ago.

Costco Wholesale twice has proposed new stores on the Kmart building site, but each time has backed off. Franklin-West is talking with prospective tenants about the building, Chen said, but no lease has been signed.

Kelsey Creek flows in a culvert under the shopping center's parking lot. For years city rules mandated that the creek be "daylighted" as part of any expansion project.

The city dropped that requirement earlier this year, instead requiring Franklin-West to pay for improvements of equal environmental value at nearby Larsen Lake.

That change helped pave the way for the redevelopment proposal, Upston said — Franklin-West considered the daylighting requirement a nonstarter.

A public meeting on the proposal is scheduled Nov. 2 at 6:30 p.m. at the Lake Hills Community Clubhouse, 15230 Lake Hills Blvd.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2013235342_kelsey23.html

I hope they do something with it. The old Kmart is a huge eyesore.

Any possibility of mixed-use multifamily development? That'd be nice to have a little urban village around there... But probably wouldn't ever happen... Bellevue needs to plan some urban villages around the city other than the Downtown Urban Center and the Bel-Red corridor. I have a feeling Bellevue could become pretty dense in the next few decades if it creates neighborhood centers around the city.

I doubt it. It's one of the "poorer" parts of the city and I doubt anyone would look to redevelop it into an urban village.

Any possibility of mixed-use multifamily development? That'd be nice to have a little urban village around there... But probably wouldn't ever happen... Bellevue needs to plan some urban villages around the city other than the Downtown Urban Center and the Bel-Red corridor. I have a feeling Bellevue could become pretty dense in the next few decades if it creates neighborhood centers around the city.

I agree. The part about the creek is particularly disappointing--it would be such a nice centerpiece to any new development. A development with a creek in the middle of it, next to Larsen Lake, sounds very appealing.

The Lake Hills shopping center has been undergoing such a transformation (to mixed-used with multifamily housing), but has been running into some troubles from what I've read.

Yeah sounds like a perfect opportunity for something a lot like Thornton Place. Daylighting a creek as part of a large residential redevelopment of a shopping center parking lot. just4ivaylo, what does that area of the city being less wealthy have to do with it? Right now that corner is just retail in the middle or on the edge of a large parking lot. A mixed use redevelopment would bring lots of completely new residents into the area.

The reason is the ratio between rents and development costs. Development costs (aside from land) are relatively similar regardless, but rents and sale prices vary dramatically by location.

The reason is the ratio between rents and development costs. Development costs (aside from land) are relatively similar regardless, but rents and sale prices vary dramatically by location.

I understand that, but I don't necessarily agree with just4ivaylo's assertion that it's poor in the first place. Yes, it is one of the less wealthy parts of Bellevue, but I think we all know that such a distinction deserves an asterisk by it.

It's close to downtown Bellevue, it's close to Microsoft, it's close to Bellevue College, and not too far from 520 and I-90. It's a good location in a nice area with great schools next to some beautiful parkland. I think it has potential, but I also realize I'm a hopeless dreamer when it comes to this sort of thing.

I understand that, but I don't necessarily agree with just4ivaylo's assertion that it's poor in the first place. Yes, it is one of the less wealthy parts of Bellevue, but I think we all know that such a distinction deserves an asterisk by it.

It's close to downtown Bellevue, it's close to Microsoft, it's close to Bellevue College, and not too far from 520 and I-90. It's a good location in a nice area with great schools next to some beautiful parkland. I think it has potential, but I also realize I'm a hopeless dreamer when it comes to this sort of thing.

I never said it was a poor area. I said it was a poorer area of Bellevue. There's a huge difference. :)

It does have potential, and is in a somewhat good location, but I doubt anything like that would happen. 148th is one of the main North/South arterial roads in Bellevue. Right now, in that area, it only has two lanes each way. Traffic is already bad enough as it is and it would only get worse if the area were to get more residents/new stores.

The thing is, a lot of people nowadays want to live in a mixed-use multifamily setting, so if you create a relatively large master-planned mixed use development (that site alone is 12 or 13 acres), you could get a lot of interest. But it would need to be as part of a coordinated effort by the City of Bellevue to make that whole intersection a new neighborhood center.
I think Bellevue has a kind of cool opportunity here. They have their street grid with major streets generally every 8 blocks, or half mile, and at each one of the intersections in this grid is a little area of strip malls. If Bellevue could encourage development on what are now strip malls, replacing the retail at the bottom but bringing in hundreds (or in some cases, thousands) of new residents. Also, Bellevue's grid makes it hypothetically very easy to serve with good transit, if the city becomes dense enough to warrant it.

I would love to see something like a streetcar along 148th, maybe starting from the future I-90 light rail line near the transit center and Bellevue College, connecting potential TODs such as the former K-Mart property, then moving over to 156th to connect with Crossroads, and eventually getting to East Link in the Overlake area.