Possible zoning changes for 400 foot buildings in South Lake Union

[blackc5]

I agree on option #1. Something along those lines, less uniform of course, could be quite impressive someday

That said, it does surprise me for a pair of such liberal newspapers in the city, how often they do seem anti-density. Despite the bias of this article, in my limited history of reading their products I would agree the P-I generally seems less anti-density then the Times, although their Soundoff commenters have to be about the NIMBYist/anti-development group of Seattelites out there...

[jessejb]

I wonder if there was a NIMBY outrage when the Space Needle was built...

Could you imagine the outrage if it was proposed today?!?!?!?

[Sounder]

Originally Posted by jessejb

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

Or build them on roof tops.

[jessejb]

Originally Posted by Sounder

Or build them on roof tops.

Thatd be a cool idea!

[Seattlelife]

Originally Posted by mokocoko

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).

Thank you for your perspective. I think I am basing my opinion on the "Sound Off" section. I guess I assumed the sound off perspectives were a good sampling of the paper's perspectives. Of course we all know about assuming. I will try harder to read more of the articles from each paper to develop a more educated opinion.

[Seattlelife]

Originally Posted by Sounder

Or build them on roof tops.

It blows my mind that this doesn't happen more often. Whether it's a garden, a patio or even a restaurant or pool, I really wish people utilized rooftops more often. I love going on the roofs to look around and/or just to chill.

Why isn't this done more often?

[Sounder]

There are some costs involved in the extra support needed for them, but they also are energy efficient and help lower rain water runoff. Since they are pleasant and add to a building's environment, I expect them to become a trend.

[Seattlelife]

Originally Posted by Sounder

There are some costs involved in the extra support needed for them, but they also are energy efficient and help lower rain water runoff. Since they are pleasant and add to a building's environment, I expect them to become a trend.

I hope so. Wouldn't they also help cities in warm climates prevent the heat islands or whatever they're called? You know, when cities like Dallas that have huge swaths of paved, non organic, areas of the city that get even hotter than the weather?

[mhays]

Seattlelife, The PI Soundoff section is 50% nutjobs with very specific agendas. It's the farthest thing from representative.

[PDXPaul]

I don't have any particular logic for it, but I don't like Frank Blethen. Something about the way he acted towards the PI during the JOA talks, talking all the time about his family business. Nepotism! I'll take the PI anyday because of that.

[Rogue Linguist]

Oh, bother. NIMBYs. That's all I have to say. NIMBYs. Taller buildings a threat to a walkable, livable neighbourhood?? That is exactly what taller buildings are supposed to ensure--walkable, livable neighbourhoods.

[Rogue Linguist]

And there's just as much surface area in a city as in the country, so hypothetically, public gardens should not have to be eliminated or shaded by taller buildings--they should be on building roofs. Why aren't there more rooftop gardens?

[Rogue Linguist]

Originally Posted by jessejb

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

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[Rogue Linguist]

Originally Posted by taiwanesedrummer36

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

The highest possible upzone in SLU would be 400'. The Space Needle is 605' tall. No matter where you are, at least 205' of the Space Needle would be visible above the 400'-tall buildings. What do people want? A totally unobstructed view of the whole structure from every single vantage point in the city, including from their bathroom window? Totally stymies healthy growth, in my humblest opinion.

[jessejb]

Start calling them "elite south lake union residents." Then everyone will be against them! Done.

Hmm..the Space Needle is illegally zoned..we should lop off the top. Its an outrage!

[mokocoko]

Originally Posted by Rogue Linguist

The highest possible upzone in SLU would be 400'. The Space Needle is 605' tall. No matter where you are, at least 205' of the Space Needle would be visible above the 400'-tall buildings. What do people want? A totally unobstructed view of the whole structure from every single vantage point in the city, including from their bathroom window? Totally stymies healthy growth, in my humblest opinion.

Even more if they would only upzone higher in the low-lying areas around westlake and denny park and not the higher areas closer to capitol hill.

[CrazyAboutCities]

I think its great idea to increase the height limition to 400' in South Lake Union neighborhood! I think City of Seattle should consider to raise Denny Triangle neighborhood height limition again to 700' to help balance Seattle skyline better.

[rj2uman]

I actually don't like this idea. (let the hate mail begin) I say this from my memories and looking back. It was my first time driving thru Seattle as a tourist long before living here. I remember driving on 1-5 and seeing the Space needle totally unobstructed from the freeway and thinking, "WOW, I am so going to have to check that out!!" And on the way back down I did. I think that the growth should be funneled down South not North and East up Capitol and First Hills. This is already happening and should be encouraged further.

[CrazyAboutCities]

I hear ya. That's why City of Seattle officials won't raise the height limition surrounding Space Needle more than 400'.

[Sounder]

Originally Posted by rj2uman

. I think that the growth should be funneled down South not North and East up Capitol and First Hills. This is already happening and should be encouraged further.

It can't get too high because of SeaTac airport. That's why we need the increased height limits in South Lake Union. Who cares about the freeway views? Hopefully in a few decades the sucker is capped and the space utilized.