Possible zoning changes for 400 foot buildings in South Lake Union

[RotoSequence]

Originally Posted by LCIII

http://m.theatlanticcities.com/polit...ht-limit/3986/

Thought this was an interesting article related to this universal debate.

Reducing the piece to a single question, is the value of a city's prescribed aesthetics worth the opportunity costs of new development?

[CityView Jim]

And to a single answer: Only if new development cannot be built aesthetically.

To be considered, demand for new development could partly be based on those very aesthetics that are protected. That is, "we want to operate in your beautiful city. Build it, but keep it beautiful"

[RMacherat]

When "aesthetics" are defined and controlled by city bureaucrats, you get cities that look like a cheap suit (no offense.)

[D Green]

Originally Posted by LCIII

http://m.theatlanticcities.com/polit...ht-limit/3986/

Fantastic article. Great questions.

[D Green]

Originally Posted by RMacherat

When "aesthetics" are defined and controlled by city bureaucrats, you get cities that look like a cheap suit (no offense.)

'Disintermediation' is the name of the game.

[RMacherat]

Excellent word. Obviously invented long after I took Econ. And without my even realizing it, this now describes my entire economic life, from groceries to 100% online shopping to investing.

[CityView Jim]

Ack!

Another study: http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...andeal01m.html

[alexjonlin]

Is this real or just posturing due to the upcoming election?

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by alexjonlin

Is this real or just posturing due to the upcoming election?

Does it matter? Burgess strikes me as the calculating politician, motivated less by ideology and more by what will get him elected and re-elected. And if being anti-growth is what it takes, he apparently has no problem with it. Unfortunately, this is the kind of politician that usually wins.

Anyway, if people must look at this from a populist perspective with they're "Towers are rich for people!" routine, why not look at the tax revenue? Just think of all the property taxes and other tax revenue SLU can generate for the city. Expensive condos populated by single techies and rich DINKs will pay a lot more in tax revenue than they use in city services. This is good for the people of Seattle. Not to mention the affordable housing and other concessions Vulcan & developers are willing to put up with.

[jessejb]

It's all a NIMBY distraction for the fact that they just don't want more people to live here. Which, by that logic, I would like them to give their property back to the indians.

[Doomgoggles]

Originally Posted by jessejb

It's all a NIMBY distraction for the fact that they just don't want more people to live here.

This is a good point, and while true, I think it's difficult to prove definitively.

[RMacherat]

"I just felt it would be prudent on our part to have some experts help us analyze the proposal," Burgess said," since none the thousands of people working in this 62-story building have any idea of how to fathom all the 'moving parts.'

And by thoughtfully questioning, rather than being for or against. he is positioned to go where the political wind blows. Humbug.

[jessejb]

It's all very quaint.

[Matt the Engineer]

Conlin, on KUOW.

It's just one little quote, in a live radio show. But it's a great sign that Conlin seems onboard (he's the head of the Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee).

[Ruffhauser]

From todays DJC.

http://www.djc.com/news/re/12049958.html

February 12, 2013

City may keep Cascade out of the SLU rezone
By NAT LEVY
Journal Staff Reporter

The Seattle City Council is still considering a rezone for South Lake Union to allow taller buildings, but the nearby Cascade neighborhood may mostly stay the same.

City staff recommends that the neighborhood, generally between Fairview and Eastlake, retain its 75-foot height limit for housing and 55-foot limit for commercial buildings. Cascade is bordered by Yale, Mercer and John streets, and the alley between Fairview and Minor.

City staff does recommend adding 10 feet to height limits on the eastern blocks, between Yale and Eastlake, and north of John. This is being done because a 75-foot height limit is rare in the city, said Jim Holmes, senior planner for the city.

An 85-foot limit would be similar to heights in other parts of the city, and would allow taller ceiling heights for the ground floors and encourage more commercial development, he said.

In its recommendation, the staff cited the area's track record of residential development since 1996. The zoning was intended to promote residential development around Cascade Park, with other uses on the edges.

“This has always been an interior neighborhood to encourage residential over commercial development,” Holmes said.

Not everyone is happy about this decision. Some property owners have suggested that the city move the boundary line half a block east to include both the full east and west sides of Fairview as part of the South Lake union rezone.

If passed, that rezone would allow taller buildings throughout much of the neighborhood. Commercial buildings around the lake could be up to 85 feet in some places and 125 feet in others. In the core area from Mercer to John, they could be up to 160 feet. In the area south of John to Denny Way, heights could be up to 240 feet.

Around the lake, residential buildings could be up to 160 feet in some places and up to 240 in others. In the core area, they could be up to 240 feet. South of John, they could be up to 400 feet.

On three blocks between Mercer and Valley streets, residential towers could be as high as 160 feet. But Vulcan Real Estate owns the land there and is contemplating building three 240-foot skinny towers that would take up half a block each. This would require Vulcan to contribute a “special benefit” that focuses on low-income housing.

The city and Vulcan are still negotiating the special benefit, but it is likely to include conveying ownership to the city of 37,600 square feet the company owns on Block 59, which is bounded by Mercer, Republican, Aurora and Dexter. Combining that space with land the city already owns could result in more than 400 low-income housing units.

According to the city, current zoning in South Lake Union provides capacity for 12,000 new housing units and 18,000 jobs, which meets the city's expectations through 2024. The rezone could lead to as many as 24,000 housing units and 30,000 jobs by 2031.

The next meeting on South Lake Union zoning is Feb. 25, and the council will discuss affordable housing. There will be additional meetings on March 4 and 18.

Councilmember Richard Conlin said the goal is to take a vote on the rezone at the March 18 meeting.

[RMacherat]

"Promoting development" and "contributing 'special benefits,' e.g., extortion, just rock my BP right off the scale every time. The fat-assed city jobs living off this tiny piece of land smaller than my great-grandmother's farm .. I just wish it would snow and stay on the ground forEVER so they'd never go to work again and some community spirited snowplow operator would come in and just sign everything once a week. That's my fantasy.

[CityView Jim]

http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...helvedxml.html

Probably a good thing in the near term to separate these two similar but different plans. Growth along Fairview now, pencil towers along Mercer/Valley later perhaps.

[Rogue Linguist]

Originally Posted by CityView Jim

http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...helvedxml.html

Probably a good thing in the near term to separate these two similar but different plans. Growth along Fairview now, pencil towers along Mercer/Valley later perhaps.

Do you really think so? I found it disappointingly and typically "Seattle", kind of like that stupid gap in Belltown where the skyline dips for no good reason.

[CityView Jim]

Baby steps - the Seattle Style!!

[SteveM]

Disappointing, but probably better than tying the whole SLU rezone to a minor part of it. As long as the council returns to it later (which they probably will if Vulcan still likes the deal).