Possible zoning changes for 400 foot buildings in South Lake Union

[SeattleRedhawk86]

When South Lake Union was imagined as an urban center, few expected it might someday be home to 400-foot-tall buildings.

But a South Lake Union group is considering new proposals that would do just that -- seek zoning changes to allow 300- or 400-foot buildings in response to business interest in the growing area.
Map

That has some residents, business owners and concerned citizens crying foul. They fear that if the new heights are ultimately approved, views from every neighborhood around Lake Union would be blocked, beloved parks and P-patches would lose sunlight to shade, and any vision for a walkable, "livable" South Lake Union would be destroyed.



http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/361929_slu06.html

[Seattlelife]

Interesting article. I'm usually disappointed with people who knock height and density increases but I can certainly see where they are coming from on this. I think 400' for SLU is a little high. I think 150' to 200' would be a solid cap. I'm not usually concerned with blocked views, that's just part of living in a growing city, but I think Queen Anne Hill should be considered before towers are built at its base. I am concerned with the potential for decreased "livability" that was mentioned too.

[citruspastels]

I agree with Sally Clark. Not appropriate. Maybe some spots of tall towers close to I-5 or near streetcar, but certainly not everywhere.

[jessejb]

Theyre in a city. They need to stop whining. Accept it or move to Skykomish and take your p-patch with you.

[PDXPaul]

It said a range from 85 to 400 right? So I'm assuming it would step down towards the water. And isn't the zoning on the other side of Denny 500ft?

[mokocoko]

Originally Posted by PDXPaul

It said a range from 85 to 400 right? So I'm assuming it would step down towards the water. And isn't the zoning on the other side of Denny 500ft?

Right on Denny is mostly 400 feet, though 500 feet is not far away.

At very least Amazon's zoning of 160 feet could be put through most of the low-lying areas, and near Denny. That would provide a nice "stepping down" effect from Downtown to SLU.

400 feet might be a lot right next to Lake Union, but it's extremely difficult to make the argument that it doesn't fit on Denny if 400' towers are already being built there across the street.

[mokocoko]

Here's the last alternatives from SLUFAN:
http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/static/Ur...PDP_021178.pdf

If you look a couple of them have 400 foot towers.

[jessejb]

Originally Posted by mokocoko

Here's the last alternatives from SLUFAN:
http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/static/Ur...PDP_021178.pdf

If you look a couple of them have 400 foot towers.

The first option isnt too bad..the rest are shortsighted.

I can just see the need to tear half those down by 2060 when we need the room to put new residents in taller towers.

[citruspastels]

Those don't look like what the PI article lead you to believe...

[mokocoko]

Originally Posted by citruspastels

Those don't look like what the PI article lead you to believe...

That was classic scare tactics to scare Nimbys -- and sell newspapers.

[citruspastels]

Too bad. I've seen these before and love all of these options! I'm leaning towards the "transit" option personally.

[bgwah]

I like it.

[jessejb]

Oh haha I thought those were the alternatives drawn up by the NIMBYS.

[WESTSEATTLEGUY]

Damn! This is what I have been waiting for! Please upzone to 400'! This our chance to create a modern district from scratch. I hope to fill SLU with glossy, glassy high-rise condos. I think that would create a beautiful effect on our skyline.

[JiminyCricket]

The first option is the best. Time for SLU to quit pretending they are not part of downtown... if they aren't already then they will be very soon.

[taiwanesedrummer36]

Wonder how that will affect views of the Space Needle (and from the Space Needle)?

[Seattlelife]

After seeing those renderings I think I am more fond of the height increase.

mokocoko, you're right. That article seems pretty biased against the increase. I wish I would have investigated further before agreeing with it. Man, I'm really not a fan of the PI.

[Black Box]

I'm for it. The towers should be considerate of the surrounding area, like, more skinny towers please and not a complete build out of squatness.

[mokocoko]

Originally Posted by Seattlelife

After seeing those renderings I think I am more fond of the height increase.

mokocoko, you're right. That article seems pretty biased against the increase. I wish I would have investigated further before agreeing with it. Man, I'm really not a fan of the PI.

Generally the P-I is more pro-city development than the Times. The Times loves the suburbs, especially the eastside, and hates transit (I run the Seattle Transit Blog, so anti-transit is an automatic negative for me), infill development outside of a very narrow definition of "downtowns" (capitol hill, and SLU don't qualify) and endorsed both Bushes.

For me, having grown up on Capitol Hill, the P-I is infinitely preferable to the times. a couple of reasons why are laid out here:
http://seatrans.blogspot.com/2007/06...mes-vs-pi.html

I also love that the P-I (1863) is older than the LA times (1891), the Wall Street Journal (1889) and the SF chronicle (1865).

[jiggawhat?]

i like the most densest one.