225 Cedar St - 26 stories

[antonba]

Originally Posted by cameronrex

So you don't mind looking into a dark alley?

Indeed, where do you live LCIII? You can tell very well where I live by my webcam...

Addition:

Also, a couple months ago I went on a trip to Chicago and stayed first at the 3rd floor of a building mid-town with a ~10-floor office building across a street - at least 30 feet away. I felt locked in there and didn't like it. Then I stayed on ~10th floor in a tower next to the waterfront (looking towards other towers but still with a water view) and it was 10 times better - there was lots of space between the towers which made it so good. So having experienced both situations, I don't see how one can prefer to live in a dark alley - but anyhow - what is your opinion?

[D Green]

Originally Posted by antonba

I have seen 3x more vibrant cities, with 1/4 the crime which did not achieve this by squeezing towers next to each other.
...You just need to have minimum spacing requirements.

I assume you mean lots of pedestrians when you talk vibrancy. Vibrancy depends on two things: density and walking desirability of an area. Minimum spacing requirements between buildings are not necessary to create vibrancy. For example, in Paris, draconian zoning laws force a lack of spacing between buildings as a necessity to achieve maximum density.

Originally Posted by antonba

I was going to say it's [Seattle's] going the way of Eastern Block countries

Um, no?

[antonba]

Actually I didn't mean to say that spacing is necessary for vibrancy. I think I put too many thoughts in that message.

Vibrancy in my opinion is entirely a result of desirability. There are areas where nobody lives (low density) but everybody goes to and they are full of people (think: a beach, a park, or even a mall). Density around vibrant areas allows you to ditch the car and just walk to "Main Street" (or maybe you live on it), but density alone does not produce vibrancy. Density certainly impacts vibrancy significantly, but actually, you can have vibrancy without density. This is a very important point.

Anyhow, I am for density. I am arguing for minimum spacing because it makes an area more DESIREABLE - due to higher amount of available light, privacy, and open space and its psychological effect.

[Rogue Linguist]

I like the feeling of being crowded up inside a city. I find it exciting. Thrilling. That's just me though.

[antonba]

Originally Posted by Rogue Linguist

I like the feeling of being crowded up inside a city. I find it exciting. Thrilling. That's just me though.

Well you're still crowded if you increase density by increasing heights rather than decreasing spacing. Does that produce the same effect for you or not?

[LCIII]

Increased height is fake density. Team Decreased Space.


And since you asked, I live at 6th and Pine...

[D Green]

I'm going to have to disagree, antonba. You don't call a beach vibrant, you call it crowded. Density and desirability have to work together to create vibrancy. There's a reason why Bellevue's malls inside can be vibrant but the streets outside are not. That's an issue of street-accessible density in Bellevue, not because people don't like to walk the streets of b-town.

Also, because desirability is qualitative in nature, I don't think you can generalize the idea that more space between buildings will translate into more desirability.

[antonba]

1. There are 2 camps here (as LCCIII pointed out) - some people like open space, others prefer being crowded in the literal meaning of the word. Ok, it's clarified.

So since I appreciate open space and Seattle does not want to have a dense high-rise neighborhood with open space provisions, Seattle is not for me. Or I'd have to fight for the few high-floor, waterfront, etc. units that have a view of open space. Well, if I want it all, such is life...

2. So you agree that Bellevue's malls are vibrant but then go on to bash its streets... What's wrong with vibrancy being indoors as opposed outdoors? Malls are public space after all (privately owned, but it doesn't matter).

You are forgetting that most of the people you see in a typical downtown that make it vibrant don't live there. How do I know that? Just look at the number of people boarding long-distance Sound Transit buses...

So we'll have to agree to disagree. Density significantly impacts, but is not necessary for vibrancy.

[antonba]

Also, another thing to mention about Europe - in the places where you have no spacing between buildings they are typical low to mid-rise. Where you have high-rises I have never seen 16 feet of spacing (like we have between Cosmopolitan and the office tower next to it). It just seems unnecessary for towers - you don't need unlimited density, so if you have a specific target it's easier to meet with spaced-out towers.

Take a second to think about Capitol Hill - much more vibrant than Belltown, yet less dense at 6 floors maximum... If you fixed all the problems besides density you'd see that density isn't nearly the biggest factor.

Addition: another great example - I used to live in Silicon Valley - Mountain View, CA. There the density was comparable to Burnaby, BC (I lived in that area too)

- Burnaby (2463 ppl/km2) almost always had pedestrians on the street, had street-side retail, had light rail and lots of transit overall.
- Mountain View (2300 ppl/km2) had very few pedestrians. I always felt very strange walking there, in fact sometimes I'd walk for 10 minutes and only see cars, but no pedestrians... no transit, very little retail.... but the same density!

One more anecdote - Sunny Beach, Bulgaria - although apparently the same thing happened in Spain - during the tourism boom they built so many hotels so close to each other that when the economy crashed the more successful ones would buy the ones around them and demoslish them - and we're talking 4-5 star hotels here! And Sunny Beach is the vibrant kind of tourist resort.

Ok, so here's my conclusion and how I think about it all:

What leads to vibrancy is mostly "things to do", not density. Things to do are mostly retail nowadays (coffee shops, restaurants, pubs, clubs, parks, etc.). Now, density is a secondary factor, because if people live further out they will come to the retail area less often. There is also a saturation level for retail (the max number of people it can handle). So there is some magic population:proximity:retail ternary ratio. Out of this ratio you can calculate a density. And then this density can be implemented taking into account spacing. You can always build up and your streets will still be just as crowded due to the retail. What do you guys think?

[Rogue Linguist]

Originally Posted by antonba

Well you're still crowded if you increase density by increasing heights rather than decreasing spacing. Does that produce the same effect for you or not?

I don't mind that either. That works for me, too. I much prefer tallies to stubbies.

[Rogue Linguist]

Originally Posted by antonba

Take a second to think about Capitol Hill - much more vibrant than Belltown, yet less dense at 6 floors maximum... If you fixed all the problems besides density you'd see that density isn't nearly the biggest factor.

Uuuuh, I don't consider Capitol Hill more vibrant than Belltown. They're very much comparable in my book. And yet Belltown has an edge because it allows greater density (which does count for something). If vibrancy is defined as "things to do," there are just as many things to do in Belltown as in Capitol Hill. But that's just me. Guess it's subjective.

[antonba]

Originally Posted by Rogue Linguist

Uuuuh, I don't consider Capitol Hill more vibrant than Belltown. They're very much comparable in my book. And yet Belltown has an edge because it allows greater density (which does count for something).

Well, I used to live on Broadway - during the week Broadway, Pike, Pine and Olive have far more people out at night than 1st - often until 1am or later. Belltown is dead by then. During the weekends they are more comparable, although I still think Capitol Hill beats it out especially during the day and late night. It's just your typical Saturday night (6pm-midnight) when they seem similar to me.

[Rogue Linguist]

Originally Posted by antonba

Well, I used to live on Broadway - during the week Broadway, Pike, Pine and Olive have far more people out at night than 1st - often until 1am or later. Belltown is dead by then. During the weekends they are more comparable, although I still think Capitol Hill beats it out especially during the day and late night. It's just your typical Saturday night (6pm-midnight) when they seem similar to me.

Oh see I would say the opposite--Belltown is always busy weekday nights in my experience. Way more cafes open, crowds on the sidewalk, etc., especially on First between Virginia and Cedar. First is overall more hoppin' than Broadway or Pine. And late-night, too. More late-night clubs and restaurants in Belltown. I can't name a single 24-hour restaurant in Capitol Hill, and I can name three or four in Belltown.

Now, if you were to compare Capitol Hill to Pioneer Square, I could begin to see what you're saying.

[LCIII]

Having lived at 3rd and Blanchard for the last year and dealing with the late night noise I can say that Belltown is definitely not dead on weekday nights. There is always a crowd headed he from the bars at 2:30-3:00 am.

[testdrive]

I think it is great to even have a discussion that compares the vibrancy levels of 2 different parts of the city for late night activity. There are many large metro areas that don't have any or are considered too sketchy to be out at night. (That said that doesn't mean there is not too much sketchy activity here)

[D Green]

Originally Posted by antonba

So since I appreciate open space and Seattle does not want to have a dense high-rise neighborhood with open space provisions, Seattle is not for me.

Ok...? I became the voice of Seattle? I think I'm far from it unfortunately, as any other regularly-attending member of this forum can clearly attest to.

Originally Posted by antonba

So you agree that Bellevue's malls are vibrant but then go on to bash its streets...

Have you been to the Bellevue outside of the 500 yard radius outside of BelSq Mall and some parts of Main? I know I haven't been in Bellevue a few years, but I definitely remember that there was (and probably still is) a strong voiture-culture. Last time I checked with other forum members here, cars don't really count for vibrancy.

But anyway, it seems to have gotten out of hand. I don't really see how preserved views and spacing between buildings changed into vibrancy of walking pedestrians. The original context was about building spacing, not how many people walk on the streets in what neighborhood.

You want a view, it's not guaranteed in a city always. If you want a view, just pay more for it, no sweat. If you want "breathing" space, there are plenty of buildings on the downtown fringe that'll give it to you.

[D Green]

Originally Posted by antonba

What leads to vibrancy is mostly "things to do", not density.

Sorry, one last bone to pick and then I'm full on this one.
1) I never said anything about which was more important, desirability vs. density. I do recall stating that both were essential, not that one is more important than the other. I think originally argument was over whether density was applicable or not.

Originally Posted by antonba

Now, density is a secondary factor

But this is when I got confused. First you said density doesn't count, then it suddenly became the second cog of the wheel. I'm sorry, the argument is not consistent here.

</argument>

[antonba]

Originally Posted by D Green

Sorry, one last bone to pick and then I'm full on this one.
1) I never said anything about which was more important, desirability vs. density. I do recall stating that both were essential, not that one is more important than the other. I think originally argument was over whether density was applicable or not.



But this is when I got confused. First you said density doesn't count, then it suddenly became the second cog of the wheel. I'm sorry, the argument is not consistent here.

</argument>

Well, I am figuring it out too. I am not an urban planner... Also note, I am not necessarily trying to refute your argument, but rather trying to figure out how to think about it.

So what I am saying is that density is a secondary factor to city vibrancy. "Things to do" is primary, while density is secondary as it changes how accessible the "things to do" are.

And how did this change from a discussion on spacing to one on vibrancy?

First I redefine the problem - I assume that what people like about a city is vibrancy, not density in and of itself.
Then I am looking for a solution for having both vibrancy and open space.

Also, this is relevant:
http://www.urbnlivn.com/2007/11/09/c...-to-the-mayor/

[cameronrex]

Originally Posted by Rogue Linguist

Oh see I would say the opposite--Belltown is always busy weekday nights in my experience. Way more cafes open, crowds on the sidewalk, etc., especially on First between Virginia and Cedar. First is overall more hoppin' than Broadway or Pine. And late-night, too. More late-night clubs and restaurants in Belltown. I can't name a single 24-hour restaurant in Capitol Hill, and I can name three or four in Belltown.

Now, if you were to compare Capitol Hill to Pioneer Square, I could begin to see what you're saying.

What are the 24hr places you know of? My partner and I occasionally get hungry at odd hours and can never think of where to go outside of ID.

[antonba]

And by the way speaking of views - the only way to have it guaranteed is to buy in a building that is as close to the water as possible. Buying top floor is not a guarantee at all, because tomorrow the city might rezone the land and allow a taller building right in front of you. If the city wouldn't upzone, then you could just try to live at a zoning boundary, but it's not so simple.

Edit: same goes about spacing - today you are on the "downtown fringe", tomorrow that "fringe" has two 50-floor towers per block...

It's good that Seattle is a dynamic city and grows in areas where it previously didn't. But there are some things that I personally desire that go against some of those dynamics (or I'd have to pay a lot of money to get them).