-
Website
http://www.urbnlivn.com -
Original page
http://www.urbnlivn.com/2007/08/01/wedgwood-the-citys-poor-land-use-planning-results-in-a-proposed-property-that-aims-to-take-all-it-can-get/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I agree that city planning guidelines need to be beefed up. Currently, the city's design "standards" seem merely precatory. Developers in Seattle have too much leeway to construct crappy speculative projects that really undermine neighborhoods. In spite of major community opposition, take a look at the gawd awful 700 Broadway East project that Weber Thompson plopped down on Capitol Hill's main commercial thoroughfare a couple of years ago. We're seeing more and more of these Tukwila-style suburban developments going up in prime urban locales.
The Murray Franklyn projects do a disservice to our need to create stimulating urban neighborhoods with buildings that are appropriately scaled, architecture that is vibrant, condos and rental apartments that have character, and commercial storefronts that house businesses other than Subway sandwich franchises and tanning salons.
If anyone wants to organize a picket of Murray Franklyn's Capitol Hill or Wedgwood developments, I'd be happy to join you!
Two stories would no doubt render the project financially infeasible - not enough units to spread the land basis that the current property owner is seeking to recieve. You can't down zone them so the land value is what it is. You're in a tough spot and I understand your interests, but, city-wide, we need more units to meet demand and keep prices in this stratosphere. I don't know if you have kids, but this project is one where young families and singles - among others- could potentially find a reasonably priced place to live. I'd ask you to weigh the value of relatively affordable housing for 85 potential households against the light and view corridors of existing residents.
...And I agree with your sentiment about the need for corresponding city investment to mitigate the density. The city is in the process of reviewing all neighborhood plans (will take years) - this is being headed by Sally Clark's committee at council
I enjoy your blog. For the record, The Bagley lofts project in Wallingford [which has recieved many favorable reviews] is but one of several projects that have been developed by Murray Franklyn and designed by Weber + Thompson. Other projects include Water's Edge; Madison Tower/Hotel 1000; and Cristalla. Murray Franklyn is a quality developer that has completed mahy other projects that have received kudos - including the Austin A. Bell Building and The Pomeroy - those were designed by Snell Partners. All of these projects evolved out of the city's collaborative design review process which is a good venue for hearing from all parties: the community, the city and the developer. Each design review board is made up of five members, an architect, a developer, a business owner, a local resident, and a local member at large -- this ensures that all perspectives are represented on the board itself. Thank you for advocating and wanting to see better design - something that we all have in common.
Chris, were you being sarcastic about needing more units citywide and keeping prices in the stratosphere? We are close to a record number of units EVER listed on the MLS...I think we are doing just fine on supply. We have enough condo projects in the pipeline to double our in-city populations! (Not trying to be snippy, just practical)
"We have enough condo projects in the pipeline to double our in-city populations!" - most won't be built because they are higher-end, high-rise construction. If the PSRCs projectsion are accurate, we'll need to house 70k+ new households in seattle over 20 years, and neighrbohoods like Wedgewood need to recieve some - there's not much going on currently.
I am all for Wedgwood absorbing some more city density; however, as Greg has pointed out this region has not been zoned for an Urban Village and thus will not have any added benefits (for example, the closest public park to this unit is about a mile).
The current plan denigrates the neighborhood. Really, do we "need" another bulky, ugly building in Seattle? Wedgwood was a neighborhood that was predominately established in the 40s and 50s-- why not capitalize on that design aesthetic?
Most homes in the neighborhood are less than 1000 sq ft. This building will be grossly out of scale, proportion, and design. And, no, I don't think it is fair that a few people will suffer for the "good" of many-- those people did not purchase their homes, and invest in the community as a sacrificial exercise.
I would really, wholeheartedly welcome some city planning! Or picketing ;-)
In response to Chris, I belive you are trying to position this development as playing a key role in reducing price pressures and providing affordable housing for young families and singles in Seattle.
I wish that were the case, really. I'd love nothing more than to have more affordable housing in Wedgwood for more teachers, retirees, young families, and others with lower-than-average salaries. That would truly be a magnanimous effort we could all get behind.
However, the reality is that this building does nothing to relieve the problem of insufficent supplies of affordable young family/single person housing in NE Seattle. How do I know? Because the developer has said in public that these units will be priced at an average $475 a square foot, and that rate is much higher than most all other comparable properties in our area.
Let's first compare this $475 sq/ft rate to a 575 sq. foot unit across the street from this proposed property that is priced at $259 a square foot. The unit currently for sale ($149,000) seems like a nice affordable starter unit for someone.
(http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-lis...)
Or how about this 2-bed, 1 bath house selling for $339,950. This is another pretty good deal when you compare it to this building's proposed Unit 118 (which is located on the first floor, will get barely no sunlight, is a 641 sq. foot studio, and at $475 a sq ft will sell for $304,475).
(http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-lis...)
Unfortunately, the reality is that there is nothing nearly as socially beneficial about this building as Chris states. And it's really pretty incredible that he even uses this reasoning to say, "Id ask you to weigh the value of relatively affordable housing for 85 potential households against the light and view corridors of existing residents."
If this developer needs help making this project pencil out, why not share that info with the neighborhood? I bet they would help them make it work with fewer units.
And for anyone else who has read this far, this is the kind of publicity campaign we've been working against since this property was proposed and why we're organized and determined to keep pushing ahead with our efforts.
And to CG, sounds good! I guess I'll need to give a shout out to J. Power at POWHAT.
Single family zones take up 65% of the land in city! I can't standing hearing landowners griping about views and loss of "character" when we have a major affordability crisis (I believe this is the case while I simultaneously think the housing recession of the next several years will ease the degree some). I think Wedgewood should step up to the plate and encourage any small amount of rezoning of single family land in conjunction with effectively "downzoning" this parcel. Again, legally, I don't know what your recourse is given the inability to downzone....It would send a messge that we can retain appropriate scale and bulk while find places for new lowrise zoned to accomodate families.
The discussion around this condo development both online and at the Design Review meetings has been very thoughtful and well researched and argued on the part of Wedgwood neighbors. What we are up against is compatible zoning and resources. I think it is to be expected that any developer would like to maximize the profit yield of a site and capitalize on a great neighborhood. My question is that aside from the specious claim of providing affordable housing opportunities, what else are they contributing to the quality and vibrancy of Wedgwood? Are they merely taking and giving nothing in return? This does not bode well for my neighborhood, because this does not sound like a good neighbor.
You call us NIMBY, but I'd say we're pretty responsible and progressive. Again (for the third time) we're not against development, we're against out of scale development like this that doesn't come along with additional planning and investment. If the city's going to build up 35th, why not also throw a streetcar or better Metro routes our way?
Also, I don't think your NIMBY argument holds- Phinney Ridge, Capitol Hill and Wedgwood are each having similiar issues with the same developer. I think the real question to ask is, why are they having these issues? The concerns these neighborhoods express shouldn't be waived off anonymously as NIMBY belly-aching.
As it happens, this would be a great site for a brownstone-type three-story townhouses that face the three streets - and the demand for that product in that neighborhood would be strong. If we aggressively assume 1 unit per 1000 sf thats 20 townhomes which can afford to pay 120k each (again aggressively) for the land. An agrument could be made that townhouses could reap a competitive return for the landowner, but again, you're still looking at 35' heights to do so. I could be off with my guestimates, but that's one possible thought process. Another alternative would be for a contract rezone to allow 5 stories at 35th and step down to 3 stories adjacent to SF homes.
I think you can fight this project and maybe drive off the developer if you really want, but the problem is with the zoning, not the developer, and more importantly, what the current owner's expectations are for land values.
The developer owns the land and as long as he is within his legal rights, what business is it of you guys to have a say in what goes there?
If you want to dictate what gets developed there, you should have bought it yourself.
However, I think there remains a strong strain of NIMBYism in the group's aims and writings. Look at the Wedgwood group's website, from July 27th:
"If this project goes through it sets a precendent for other properties. Imagine knocking down the Rite Aid, All that Dance, the Windermere Building, the QFC, Wedgwood Broiler, etc.. and replacing their entire footprints with 4 story multi-use properties. No offense, but this would look a lot more like Lake City Way than Wedgwood."
Dear God, no!!! 4 story buildings on the main commercial strip?!!! Within the city limits of a large, growing city!!! Say it ain't so!!!
This is what cities have--multi-story buildings on commercial streets. Is a one-story Rite Aid or QFC (with its wasted open space on parking (minimizing density and causing run-off issues) really better than a four-story building that allows more people to live near goods and services? If you want increased transit, you need the density to sustain it. Such developments would help your cause.
I don't begrudge any neighborhood trying to get something out of its developers, but I find a lot of the pro-density rhetoric from groups like Wedgwood action disngenuous when they consider multistory development on main streets to be some sort of apocalyptic vision.
The problem, again, is the incompatible zoning, not four story building. The houses directly behind all areas zoned NC2-40, which again are small (less than 1000 sq ft, single story homes) would be directly abutting massive, disproportionately scaled buildings, as we are seeing per this current project.
Are you suggesting that this is reasonable urban planning, and this is what we should expect if we live in the city? I would disagree.
The calculus I see is that the city needs to start maximizing residency and services on its main streets more than the owner of a small, single family home needs not to live next to a taller building. That's the essence of NIMBYism--a tragedy of the commons.
As for the question of disproportionate scale--there is always goign to be some disproportionate scale, and there particularly always will be in times of heavy growth. It won't be disproportionate for long if the neighborhood and city get their shit together and allow 4 story buildings on 35th, 2-3 story apartment complexes in the block or two to either side, and townhouses in the actual neighborhoods.
Ha, ha! I would become a nudist myself if I thought it would help (although with this weather, I may not be outside much)!
I don't see myself renting or moving anytime soon, and I just hope the owners of the property behind me don't get greedy and think they can maximize profit by selling to a developer with no scruples about the impact of the eight houses behind this property.
Wedgwood is predominantly a single-family residential community and lacks a large commercial district where there would be a good transition area between 4 story mixed use buildings and single family homes. I think any new development needs to also consider the traffic congestion that already exists along 35th... the street just happens to be an arterial; that doesn't mean it's an appropriate place to have this 40' commercial zoning.
In response to the person who thought I should have considered zoning laws when I bought my house... I was concerned with the normal things people consider when purchasing their first home: safety, schools, location of amenities, neighborhood "feel," etc. I was concerned that the restaurant behind us wouldn't leave their dumpster open us to smell. I never imagined that 10 years down the road there would be a development boom with condos popping up all over. No one could have anticipated that. Be reasonable and consider what you thought of when you bought a home (assuming you have). I suspect that if you bought a home and you later found out that the city was going to put in a dump next door, or a low-security jail, or a home for convicted sex offenders, you might be concerned about how it impacted you! If your neighbor said they were going to tear down their house and build a mc mansion that blocked your prime view of the Olympics, but it was in their zoning rights to do it, you would call them bad neighbors. Am I wrong? All I am saying is that you can't blame someone for not anticipating everything.
The jail and the sex offender thing are poor analogies - the odds of them occuring are infitesmally small relative to a development being built in a zone where it is currently allowed as of right.