SEATTLE | Downtown Projects: Completed, U/C, Proposed/Approved

[PEORIA]

Originally Posted by alki

I guess I don't understand why we can't have views while building out for density. A skyline is nice to look at from a distance but it doesn't make a whole lot of difference on the street.........and on street life.

I'd rather see better designed bldgs of all sizes that contribute to a dynamic street life rather than a city that is all skyscrapers.

TRUE and well said! Too many forumers are obsessed with an insatiable lust for ' supertalls ' that might as well be mountains or hydroelectric dams in terms of their relation to street-level activity. It's gotten out-of-hand! How many people, really, care how tall a city's buildings or skyline is IF neither functions well for their usage?... Is the bank or coffee shop in a highrise structure, really, ANY better than one in a lowrise?

Seattle will be no less prestigious with shorter structures than it will taller ones. Besides, little concern seems to be taken into consideration by most global skyscraper enthusiasts for the increased scale of difficulty that such buildings often pose in emergency/rescue situations (ex: fire, partial collapse, etc.)..... New York City's, late, WTC towers are one of the most horrific examples of that nightmarish scenario.

[mhays]

I for one haven't expressed any interest in supertalls for Seattle that I recall. Nor do I want highrises in anything more than, wild guess, 5% of the city-of. Density is more important.

But we sure could use highrises in more neighborhoods than they're allowed in now.

[seaskyfan]

^ I would definitely support taller buildings near some of the new Link stations - particularly the U District and the Northgate Stations. I think a 240' height limit would work pretty well in both those areas. In the U District the old Safeco Tower is already 325'.

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by alki

I guess I don't understand why we can't have views while building out for density. A skyline is nice to look at from a distance but it doesn't make a whole lot of difference on the street.........and on street life.

I'd rather see better designed bldgs of all sizes that contribute to a dynamic street life rather than a city that is all skyscrapers.

We're in agreement I think. My point was in relation to the "Save Our Views" and other neighborhood complaints. There are small campaigns stirring on Capitol Hill because of taller lowrise buildings. In the end, everyone has to deal with the reactionaries and the real impacts they have had and can still have on the city. It just makes sense to take serious the threat of them stunting progress. Build more to the imagination, the public experience, and not strictly to the occupant function.

[alki]

Originally Posted by PEORIA

[B]
Seattle will be no less prestigious with shorter structures than it will taller ones. Besides, little concern seems to be taken into consideration by most global skyscraper enthusiasts for the increased scale of difficulty that such buildings often pose in emergency/rescue situations (ex: fire, partial collapse, etc.)..... New York City's, late, WTC towers are one of the most horrific examples of that nightmarish scenario.

Good point. I remember being stuck on the 39th floor of a bldg when the power line got cut and we had to walk down 39th flights. A number of people panicked and it wasn't even an emergency. And I don't think I will ever forget people jumping from the WTC........unfortunately.

[alki]

Originally Posted by mSeattle

We're in agreement I think. My point was in relation to the "Save Our Views" and other neighborhood complaints. There are small campaigns stirring on Capitol Hill because of taller lowrise buildings. In the end, everyone has to deal with the reactionaries and the real impacts they have had and can still have on the city. It just makes sense to take serious the threat of them stunting progress. Build more to the imagination, the public experience, and not strictly to the occupant function.

Yeah.......there needs to be balance.

What I keep falling back on.......sure Seattle has made mistakes in its history but overall it has a done a good job of creating a pretty dynamic city. That gives me confidence we will continue to do so going forward.

[joeg1985]

Originally Posted by alki

Good point. I remember being stuck on the 39th floor of a bldg when the power line got cut and we had to walk down 39th flights. A number of people panicked and it wasn't even an emergency. And I don't think I will ever forget people jumping from the WTC........unfortunately.

You can't honestly base opposition to tall structures on disasters. That is just ludicrous. If we were to given into that theory we would go back 150yrs and never build anything over three storeys. I mean of course it 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 to have to walk down 39 flights of stairs and no one ever wants to be in or witness attacks such at those on the WTC but that's not really a legitimate reason to say we mustn't build tall structures or even supertall structures.

[mhays]

Denser cities where there's less driving and more walking have those advantages from a safety and health standpoint. Something like cardio health is a macro issue where a large percentage of the population can do better in the right setting and affect millions of lifespans, vs. the micro issues of the extremely low number of highrise deaths, even including 9/11.

A sizeable portion of offices, hotels, residences, and retail benefit from very high downtown-type densities, so plenty of room should be left for growth of that type. This is based on companies that want proximity, people that want to walk rather than even use transit, etc.

[PEORIA]

Originally Posted by mhays

Denser cities where there's less driving and more walking have those advantages from a safety and health standpoint. Something like cardio health is a macro issue where a large percentage of the population can do better in the right setting and affect millions of lifespans, vs. the micro issues of the extremely low number of highrise deaths, even including 9/11.

A sizeable portion of offices, hotels, residences, and retail benefit from very high downtown-type densities, so plenty of room should be left for growth of that type. This is based on companies that want proximity, people that want to walk rather than even use transit, etc.

Perhaps! But, the private sector working in cooperation with municipalities will determine how and where THAT urban growth occurs.... not our desires for more development. If you don't believe it, just, wait and see!

[mhays]

Obviously. I don't get your point.

[PEORIA]

On THAT, we do agree! So, there's no sense in discussing the matter further.

[llamaorama]

Lots of great cities have 9-5 business districts. Urbanists don't like them, but don't they motivate people to live closer in so they don't have to commute, and justify huge transit networks?

[alki]

Originally Posted by joeg1985

You can't honestly base opposition to tall structures on disasters. That is just ludicrous. If we were to given into that theory we would go back 150yrs and never build anything over three storeys. I mean of course it 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 to have to walk down 39 flights of stairs and no one ever wants to be in or witness attacks such at those on the WTC but that's not really a legitimate reason to say we mustn't build tall structures or even supertall structures.

I never said that I didn't like tall bldgs. What I did say is I prefer well designed bldgs............whether they are one story, mid rise or hi rise. Good design and its contribution to street life is far more important to me than the height of a bldg.

[alki]

Financiers worry Seattle’s apartment boom is overdone

Apartment buildings are sprouting across Seattle at an unprecedented rate, but some experts say it’s too much, too fast.

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020775791_apartmentboomxml.html

[JiminyCricket II]

Originally Posted by alki

I never said that I didn't like tall bldgs. What I did say is I prefer well designed bldgs............whether they are one story, mid rise or hi rise. Good design and its contribution to street life is far more important to me than the height of a bldg.

the problem with height limits is that it limits what architects can do with designs, if the building is capped then they have to maximize the floorspace at the expense of design usually. All of Seattle's sharpest looking towers were products of little to no height limits like columbia, two union, Russell investment, US bank centre, even the municipal tower. Additionally, of the current taller proposals 5th and Columbia is the best designed and its in the most relaxed zone.

[shakman]

Originally Posted by JiminyCricket II

the problem with height limits is that it limits what architects can do with designs, if the building is capped then they have to maximize the floorspace at the expense of design usually. All of Seattle's sharpest looking towers were products of little to no height limits like columbia, two union, Russell investment, US bank centre, even the municipal tower. Additionally, of the current taller proposals 5th and Columbia is the best designed and its in the most relaxed zone.

It is just as important for a development to be well designed at street level. People should be attracted at street level.

If I designed a tower with an impressive facade from floor 5 and up; created a blank concrete wall from floors 1 through 4, do you think the development will be attractive?

What if we take the same tower and create an impressive facade from floors 1 through 4 which is well lit with a street cafe, for example, which one would you choose to visit?

[JiminyCricket II]

Originally Posted by shakman

It is just as important for a development to be well designed at street level. People should be attracted at street level.

If I designed a tower with an impressive facade from floor 5 and up; created a blank concrete wall from floors 1 through 4, do you think the development will be attractive?

What if we take the same tower and create an impressive facade from floors 1 through 4 which is well lit with a street cafe, for example, which one would you choose to visit?

I dont disagree, but I didn't say anything about height limits affecting the streetscape. that's certainly very important. But my point stands, height limits affect building design in a negative way. It might be purely aesthetic, but still negative to the overall cityscape.

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by alki

Financiers worry Seattle’s apartment boom is overdone

Apartment buildings are sprouting across Seattle at an unprecedented rate, but some experts say it’s too much, too fast.

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020775791_apartmentboomxml.html

"Financiers", that great amorphous thing that engineers homelessness, housing insecurity, housing scarcity (due to price-fixing and under-building)... Lovely to hear them chime in...


by mSeattle, on Flickr

[mhays]

Originally Posted by alki

Financiers worry Seattle’s apartment boom is overdone

Apartment buildings are sprouting across Seattle at an unprecedented rate, but some experts say it’s too much, too fast.

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020775791_apartmentboomxml.html

The article misses some things.

Their apartment inventory number is a subset, not the whole apartment inventory. They quote a brokerage, and probably used the brokerage's count from buildings above a certain size (often 20+ units is used) and who respond to surveys. Seattle has about 160,000 multifamily units.

Second, like most articles on our apartment boom, they neglect to mention that very few condos are going up, and the overall construction volume, while a record, isn't that far out of the ordinary.

Third, while Seattle's in-city housing boom is a record, the region's total housing construction is pretty middling. It's just that a larger percentage of it is within the city limits.

Fourth, they apparently omitted dorms. The UW is going beserk with dorms.

Fifth, a small point is that we have probably a couple dozen buildings of the "rooming house" type, where they get permits as a "five" unit project and therefore doing have to go through the tougher process of a larger building, but each unit has perhaps eight bedrooms rented separately. This is a fantastic way to provide affordable housing. These count as 5 units, not 40. I suppose we'll have a lot of 9-person households in the coming years. (The market found a way to provide low-income housing?! Shocking! Naturally the City Council has a hearing planned, and appears likely to close at least part of the loophole that makes these possible.)

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by mhays

Naturally the City Council has a hearing planned, and appears likely to close at least part of the loophole that makes these possible.)

They know who's hand is feeding their election campaign...