8th & Seneca (SEA)

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by SteveM

Yeah, you'd sort of expect Madison to have the retail, but it's pretty pedestrian-unfriendly. The sidewalks are too narrow and the traffic can be intense.

First Hill is weird. It has more high-rises than some downtowns (compare First Hill to, say, Colorado Springs downtown), yet maintains leafiness and relatively little retail.

I think it's nice that we have a quieter high-density neighborhood available.

[mhays]

I agree. In much of the US we have this bizarre notion that density has to mean noise. But go to any great city in the world and it has neighborhoods of high or even huge density on quiet backstreets.

Ideally, Madison will continue to develop as a retail stretch, focused on nearby residents and hospital workers. Regardless, it'll never be a destination retail area. 1200 and the Polyclinic will both help.

[SteveM]

Originally Posted by bgwah

I think it's nice that we have a quieter high-density neighborhood available.

Agreed. The more kinds of high-density neighborhoods we have, the more people we can attract to high-density neighborhoods.

The way I see it, I don't think I'd like First Hill at this point in my life (mid-30s), but I'd like it more now than I would have in my mid-20s, and it might be the only kind of dense neighborhood I'd want by the time I'm in my mid-70s.

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by mhays

I agree. In much of the US we have this bizarre notion that density has to mean noise. But go to any great city in the world and it has neighborhoods of high or even huge density on quiet backstreets.

Ideally, Madison will continue to develop as a retail stretch, focused on nearby residents and hospital workers. Regardless, it'll never be a destination retail area. 1200 and the Polyclinic will both help.

mhays for City Council!!

[LCIII]

The thought of Mhays on City Council makes my skin crawl...

[mhays]

Originally Posted by bgwah

mhays for City Council!!

Yeah right! I piss WAY too many people off for that. Mostly the stupid ones. Also I'm lazy and lazy minded.

[CrazyAboutCities]

[Seattlelife]

I'd be all about Mhays for city council, except for the streets are too wide comment

[Rogue Linguist]

*Sigh* More NIMBY nonsense. Astonishing how ignorantly anti-urban some city-dwellers can be. Funny--to me the building fits perfectly into its neighbourhood context. It couldn't look more appropriate.

Proposed 300-foot Seattle tower bugs neighbors

Donna James moved to First Hill six years ago and loves how the neighborhood is close to downtown, but still feels "neighborhoody." The high-rises aren't too high, the density isn't too dense and a five-acre park provides nice breathing room.

But James and other residents are worried things may change with a 300-foot apartment tower in the works. If approved, it would be the tallest building in First Hill, changing the area's skyline, and the first to hit the city's maximum height limit for the neighborhood.

"It will be enormous," said James, who lives in a 12th-floor condo unit nearby. "The scale of it I think is just too big for our neighborhood."

Calif.-based developer Lanconia Development had originally planned two buildings for the large site at 802 Seneca St. It had envisioned a 25-story highrise and a shorter 9-story building. That was in 2007.

Recession and pile of rubble

Then the recession hit and the site remained a pile of rubble for years. During that time, the city revised its codes and allowed buildings in First Hill to rise to 300 feet, up from a previous limit of 240 feet.

That prompted Lanconia to propose a taller tower of 31 residential floors and drop plans for the second building. The highrise would have up to 330 apartment units and parking for 285 cars.

A 32nd level is planned for rooftop amenities and mechanical use, making the building a total of 315 feet. Those features would be exempt from the city's height limit.

Many residents understand they live in a dense, walkable neighborhood that's expected to grow with people over the years. They also know taller buildings encourage needed development and create incentives for affordable housing and open space.

But many worry that 300 feet is just too tall. They're concerned about shadows and impact on adjacent Freeway Park. And they say the large number of parking spaces - via six levels of parking - is unnecessary and will bring more cars and traffic.

But James is quick to say the project does have some positives. There will be space for much-needed retail in First Hill. And anything is better than the the site's current vacant, rubbled lot. The project (pdf) is scheduled for a design review Wednesday.

Click on the photos for more details about the project.

Visit seattlepi.com's home page for more Seattle news. Contact Vanessa Ho at 206-448-8003 or vanessaho@seattlepi.com, and follow her on Twitter as @vanessaho.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/artic...#ixzz1oCtzT4ys

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by mhays

Yeah right! I piss WAY too many people off for that. Mostly the stupid ones. Also I'm lazy and lazy minded.

We'll deal with that during your re-election bid.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Seattlelife

I'd be all about Mhays for city council, except for the streets are too wide comment

Damn, I was close on that one.

bgwah, no way, I'm keeping it real!

As for the article, I just skimmed it but two errors are obvious. 1. We don't say "in" First Hill; rather it's "on" Firt Hill. 2. It wouldn't be the tallest tower on First Hill.

[Rogue Linguist]

Originally Posted by mhays

Damn, I was close on that one.

bgwah, no way, I'm keeping it real!

As for the article, I just skimmed it but two errors are obvious. 1. We don't say "in" First Hill; rather it's "on" Firt Hill. 2. It wouldn't be the tallest tower on First Hill.

Yeah. In the comment section people were complaining about how it's for rich people, how it creates density (oh, nooo!), takes up open space, there need to be more parking spaces, bla bla bla. The irony.

If I had a Seattle-PI account, I would have explained: 1) large, single-family detached houses in sparse neighbourhoods hardly constitute affordability to the poor in comparison with a high density of small studio apartments, so who's the elitist?; 2) a higher number of parking spaces actually increases construction costs (I think? right?), hence increases rents; 3) it's in the middle of the frigging city. It's being designed for people who use public transport, not people who drive everywhere; 4) tall buildings save open space; they don't gobble it up. That's exactly why skyscrapers go up and not out, like the suburban developments you're so fixated on.

But whatever. Sigh I just hope it gets built.

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by Rogue Linguist

Yeah. In the comment section people were complaining about how it's for rich people, how it creates density (oh, nooo!), takes up open space, there need to be more parking spaces, bla bla bla. The irony.

If I had a Seattle-PI account, I would have explained: 1) large, single-family detached houses in sparse neighbourhoods hardly constitute affordability to the poor in comparison with a high density of small studio apartments, so who's the elitist?; 2) a higher number of parking spaces actually increases construction costs (I think? right?), hence increases rents; 3) it's in the middle of the frigging city. It's being designed for people who use public transport, not people who drive everywhere; 4) tall buildings save open space; they don't gobble it up. That's exactly why skyscrapers go up and not out, like the suburban developments you're so fixated on.

But whatever. Sigh I just hope it gets built.

NEOLIBERAL!11111

[mhays]

This project will be great for Freeway Park...new entrance, plus a lot of people next door to use it. And the parking ratio simply avoids paying tens of thousands each for unused spaces...the developer will always want to have enough to get high rents.

[Doomgoggles]

Originally Posted by LCIII

Love it, but I'd honestly support almost anything that comes in at 300' on that side of I-5!

Definitely. But I think the street grid needs an upgrade there too -- better connectivity to downtown, widen some streets to accommodate buses and bike lanes, convert some to one-way, etc.

[NW Mike]

Here is before and after Render..


Courtesy of the SLOG

[bgwah]

I still think it's a shame we tear down so many old brick buildings. This isn't New York.

Oh well. I still like the new rendering. I just wish it could have been built on a parking lot.

[CrazyAboutCities]

Thanks for post that, NW Mike. I haven't seen what it looked like before they demolished it. It is pretty sad that they torn it down.

[Ruffhauser]

Originally Posted by bgwah

I still think it's a shame we tear down so many old brick buildings. This isn't New York.

Oh well. I still like the new rendering. I just wish it could have been built on a parking lot.

My thoughts exactly.
To hell with the "War of Cars"; I like the "War on Parking Lots"

[bgwah]

Wasn't there actually a second brick building out of view, too?