SkyscraperCity Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
They may be on to something here. Shorter buildings are faster to construct, multiple buildings give them the ability to phase development to meet demand. Sure, it's not sexy like building 500 foot tall office towers, but it seems like a sound business strategy.

In addition, from the planning side, is it truly wise to develop this area into another super-dense downtown like area? Is Bellevue as a city prepared or capable to administer itself to two urban cores? You can make the same argument for Factoria and some of the arguments for building taller down there as well.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Maybe a better way for me to say it is that if City of Bellevue wanted to keep a cohesive downtown, AND develop the land within its limits to the greatest density possible, perhaps they should have shifted zoning in such a way as to encourage downtown-type development to spread across the freeway--redevelop auto row and let it cascade toward the "Spring District." Allow the infrastructure to take shape as it creeps out to the old warehouses.

Won't do a heck of a lot of good now, and even still there is viable property for densification within downtown Bellevue even now. The spread of highly dense high rise type development--either naturally spreading in one direction or trying to fill in between downtown and satelite density would take way too long to suit a developer who has set their own plan into motion. What they've introduced here, no matter how distasteful to us high rise enthusiasts seems to be appropriate for its surroundings, and represents what seems to me as the best business choice. (At least to my reasoning).

[Now that I've defended the city planning department and the developer, would you please be nice to my bosses company and give us all of your work?]
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top