Travesty in Madrona

click

It seems to me that the travesty is not the building illustrated above but is the objection to this perfectly-reasonable urban neighborhood proposal. Unfortunately Seattle is  filled with many well-meaning but poorly-informed people.

More about this example see No Density In My Backyard.

The rendering above shows the mixed-use building proposed for 1126 34th Ave in the Madrona neighborhood. As reported here and here, there has been significant opposition to the project from the neighbors....Apparently the overarching complaint is that the building is too big — “enormous compared to its neighbors” according to the Madrona News. True, it is taller than the one and two story buildings on that side of the block.

It's a three story building (commercial at grade with two residential/commercial floors above ) and the top of the parapet is about 35.5' above the sidewalk, hardly a large building but this is Seattle, and Madrona is particularly Seattle. So some neighbors are against this project because it is too big. And people think we are going to be able to deal with the challenges of making our city sustainable. Sheesh.

•••

A particularly noteworthy element in the design, so far as I can tell from the plans, is the use of some sort of  "green wall" steel grid set off from the building structure to which plants will be attached and grow. Terrific idea! (and very expensive.)  I think that the Henry Branch Library on Capitol Hill has such a growing green wall if anyone is curious to see how it looks.

•••

Update:

In response to a comment from Fnarf concerning the City granting the permit: I suspect that the City _will_ simply issue the permit; in fact it would shock me if they don't. This project appears to comply with the letter of the Land Use Code as well as its spirit and many broader City Goals; and there are some level heads down at DPD.

But the idea that such a worthy building would be even remotely contentious is disturbing. This sort of project is exactly the sort of thing we should be building all over Seattle. The Mayor and other politicos should be calling up the developer and architect and urging them on. The neighbors should be saying "Fabulous!"

Good grief, haven't folks in Madrona ever heard of climate change? And the need for us to lower our carbon footprints? etc etc (I assume that I don't have to draw out the connection for readers of this blog.) Plus, the even more important point, urban walkable neighborhoods are more fun.

I don't mind the City and the neighbors (i.e. individuals with a legitimate interest in a well-designed project)  demanding that the plans be thought-through carefully. That adds value for everyone in the long run. But there should be no doubt whatsoever from the outset that the developer should be allowed to build per the code. Design Review shouldn't be a back-door way to try to stop a project, which it too often is in the minds of some neighbors.

Update 2:

Btw,  that seems to me to be the fair quid pro quo: the developer is assured of being able to build per code (with "if, and & buts" only in extremis) BUT the neighbors (under the organized aegis opf the City) get serious input on the details the building's design. That's the larger political context and trade-off. The developer is assured of getting a permit (and rather quickly — far quicker than now) AND neighbors (not neighborhood) get a meaningful chance to influence the proposal's details and finishes etc etc

Update 3:

As Dominic Holden aptly puts it in The Stranger:

Jeez, persnickety neighbors, that block is an arterial zoned for mid-rise, mixed-use development—because 34th and Union is the neighborhood center. That parking lot’s destiny was to become a multi-story, multi-use development. The proposal could have sucked. But, instead, it’s beautiful, using natural materials and an environmentally sustainable design. Count your blessings.

 

Comments

[Randall Spaan]

I live in the neighborhood. This proposed building, 75 feet wide by 3 stories high, is neither enormous nor out of scale with its 2-story neighbors. The ignorance and "nimbyism" displayed by the opponents is further proof that this city needs to raise its SEPA thresholds. The bigger travesty is that we have a mayor and a City Council lacking the political will to do so.

[Gomez]

It's not just the suburbanites but the Mossbacks of the world that will prove Seattle's biggest obstacle to efficient, sustainable urbanization.

[Fnarf]

A couple of things are disturbing about this: first of all, there is nothing even remotely objectionable about this building, which isn't very big and which displays eminently sensible street use planning; but also the increasing sense that one malcontent in a neighborhood can set himself up as an authority, and suddenly become not just "a resident" but "neighbors", and ultimately gain the status of official representative. And unfortunately this type of person often is one of the LEAST representative types in the neighborhood, because ordinary people don't have time to go down to City Hall and scream during the middle of the day.

That building looks positively retrograde to me, like a slice of 1920s streetscape, and if you know my preferences you know there is no higher compliment I can pay. A bold city would ignore the NIMBYs and the BANANAs and just build the damn thing. Build a hundred of them.

[Brian]

I agree with everyone above. While I believe in democracy and people having a say in their neighborhoods, too often we have vehement NIMBYism.

At least you guys have nothing like CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review, do you? People use CEQA to require massively expensive environmental review for projects that they as NIMBYs want to kill. Heck, a regional law firm has now been hired by a union to challenge projects under CEQA proposed by companies that are non-union.

[karen]

Wait a second here. There's only one floor of the building that is "residential" now and it's comprised of a 6000 square foot "artist's loft" on the top floor. The artists in Seattle must be making a killing if they can afford a crib like that. Did Chihuly sign the lease already? (Perhaps I should change my line of work...) Meanwhile the business spaces proposed for the first and second floors are far too large for any new small business to establish in. Why not write Starbucks a love letter inviting them in? How does this proposed structure hold with the spirit of increasing density within the city? I'm anti-parking lot and pro-development, but come on! To give you an idea of how low-density this building is planned to be, consider this: they are only providing _six_ parking spots for the entire building. Six! Hmmmmm. Does that tell you anything?

This building is neither functional as proposed, nor does it fit with the other structures on the block. Come walk down our street and take a look.

Frankly, I want to see something built on that lot. I want it to be high density and to favor small business people. When you point across the street to the building that houses Verite citing it's box shape and lack of historical character, take a look at the plethora of small units available for retail space and the number of housing units above--features that nearly make up for it's appearance. Please don't mistake Tobias' proposed structure for anything so functional as the building across the street.

[karen]

Yikes! Did I type 6000? Clearly I meant 2500... Apologies.

[David Sucher]

Karen,
I had a beer earlier this evening in the restaurant across from the site. I walked on the site and looked carefully at it and the surrounding houses. I have also looked at the plans. I have re-read your statement several times, each time more appalled.

You made this statement: "Meanwhile the business spaces proposed for the first and second floors are far too large for any new small business to establish in." I ask you to go back and reconsider your statement in light of what is actually drawn on the plans. The commercial spaces on the first, second and third floors are all amenable to division into spaces as small as 650 SF. Such a size is very suitable for small business.

You also claim that the building will have only six parking spaces. Such a statement suggests that you may not have looked at the plans at all. Even a person unfamiliar with architectural drawings should be able to see that the building offers NINE parking spaces.

You don't need to apologize to me but to the building developer and architect for spreading mis-information. I hope that you will stop doing so. If you don't like the building, that is certainly your right. But to the extent possible we should all aim for reality-based conversation.

[karen]

Thanks for your calm and reasonable response, David. I misspoke on two counts, one I corrected in my second post and the second you pointed out in yours.

Regardless of my admitted errors, David, my position hasn't changed. Do 9 parking spaces indicate a high level of density to you? I would be pleased to find that the proposed upper level business spaces were going to be reduced in size to harbor cottage industry, but I have received no indication from the architect or the developer that this is in the plans. Is Tobias going to subdivide the spaces from the start or wait until they sit vacant? Can you give me an example of the businesses you envision filling these rental spaces? Our economy isn't doing so well, you know.

In speaking with the restaurant owners already established in Madrona, none of them said that they would want to try to establish in the large store front on the first floor. I don't blame them. The space that Coupage currently occupies has housed several different restaurants during my tenure in the neighborhood while others clearly struggle at times. I'm not sure what other small business could reasonably attempt to fill that space. Another coffee shop?

There are three fronts on which I oppose this development.
1. Lack of density
2. Architectural style
3. Disregard for the neighbors

Granted, 2 and 3 are intertwined, as are 1 and 2. ...and 2 and 3.

I am self-admittedly sensitive on these three topics. I find Seattle's new architecture and development to be nearly universally distasteful. Unfortunately, the character of our neighborhoods seems to be at the mercy of developers who seemt to care little for the current or future residents. Please don't start on the "green factor" of the proposed building or the "natural materials". I think the Capitol Hill branch of the Seattle Library after which the plant-covered-metal-cage is modeled is hideous and I don't find concrete box structures with fake brick on the front to be particularly "natural".

I am in full support of development that increases density while keeping in step with the character of the neighborhoods where it is taking place. One of the problems with pointing across the street to the Bowling Green building is that it is across the street. The block where Tobias' building is proposed is almost entirely comprised of residences in older homes, the exception being the building where the Madrona Alehouse is located. Furthermore, the proposed building will bring it's traffic in through the alley, which is currently principally used for foot traffic. Increasing traffic in the alley is an unnecessary affront to the single family homes behind and next to the structure.

David, I realize that I am likely on the losing end of this argument and I also concede that development is necessary if we are going to create high density, functional communities. I am voicing my opinion because I am an advocate of local flavor, small business, and high density. I'm sorry. I don't see those values reflected in this design. A three story box building with a gargantuan artist's loft at the top is simply not going to meet the criteria. With that in mind, I will continue to resist and pleasantly as I can.

Thanks again for your gentle response.

[karen]

By the way, it occurs to me that the reason Tobias and Smith aren't subdividing the retail spaces up front is that they would have to increase the amount of parking provided to the neighborhood. If it is in their plans to subdivide after the structure is built, it would represent just one more way of disrespecting the current residents of Madrona.

[David Sucher]

Karen,
Where do you get the idea that " the reason Tobias and Smith aren't subdividing the retail spaces up front is that they would have to increase the amount of parking provided to the neighborhood."
Parking is based on square footage not number of bays.

As to the small commercial spaces: there are a myriad of users from small coffee shop to tailor to take-out deli to architect, lawyer, psychiatrist. Believe me, there are plenty of people looking for small commercial space.

And you can't have it both ways: first you say that the spaces are not set up for small users and then you tell me that there are no small users!

[karen]

Hi David,

You're right about the parking:

"SMC 23.54.015 Required parking.

A. Minimum parking requirements. The minimum number of off-street motor vehicle parking spaces required for specific uses is set forth in Chart A for nonresidential uses other than institutional uses, Chart B for residential uses, and Chart C for institutional uses, except as otherwise provided in this Section and Section 23.54.020.
The minimum parking requirements are based upon gross floor area of a use within a structure and the square footage of a use when located outside of an enclosed structure, or as otherwise specified. Exceptions to the parking requirements set forth in this section are provided in subsection B and in Section 23.54.020"

I'm not an architect, can you tell? But thanks to you I am learning to navigate the Seattle Municipal Code.

As for subdividing the commercial units in the structure, I do think I can both desire development that fosters spaces affordable for small commercial ventures and also wonder if our economy is in a position for new small businesses to succeed. We're teetering on the edge of recession and with rapidly rising inflation, things are looking a bit grim in months ahead. I see no contradiction here. Perhaps you can point one out to me? (it seems to be your forte)

I'm also wondering how this building will pencil out. I have a rough idea of what Tobias paid for the lot, and since his recent asking price for both the lot and the development plans was 1.7 million, add to that the cost of construction and I have to wonder what will the cost per square foot for commercial space be? Affordable to small business? Do you have some metric by which to calculate this? I honestly don't know and would appreciate any insight you have into coming up with a reasonable estimate.

David, I've been reading your blog and we appear to have some similar values, so I would love to find some common ground here. Am I missing something critical? Is the adoration of box shaped buildings the trend that I'm going to kick myself for not catching on to earlier? Is it too much to ask that new structures reflect some of the character of the existing neighborhood (and I'm not referring to the existing new buildings, but the historical character of the structures nearby) and the core values of a sustainable city? (high density, favoring small business, affordable rents) Do tell.

[David Sucher]

Karen,
I have just written about "fitting-in" as to commercial and mixed-use areas (such as Madrona) here:
http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/cities/2008/04/jean-nouvel-com.html
The short version:
If the structure adheres to the Three Rules at the sidewalk grade then let them do pretty much anything they want above the first floor. I just can't see why -- beyond building code life/safety issues -- the public should have much to say. (There will be exceptions for that approach in historic districts. Also when the zoning is only 30' it might be desirable to extend the Three Rules so that it creates a uniform street-wall i.e. no setbacks above first floor.) Colors, materials, trim etc etc should be totally advisory on the part of the public, at most, UNLESS you want to require some specific things.

[Mike Leavitt]

I hope the parking lot will not stay as-is. My first impression of the site plans was also positive. The more I studied the actual circumstances, things became more complicated than this discussion. If you attend the meetings, you know no one is protesting development, as simplified by the NIMBY argument. With support for intelligent development, 50 letters and 25+ attendees at three public meetings have made specific suggestions on how to adjust the site plans. The opinion heavily sided here has been underrepresented by attendees at the site’s public meetings. If there’s resources and interest to blog about it, there’s time to talk about it.

If you speak directly with this site's architects, property owner, and other Madrona developers, you know that the bottom line is "it doesn't pencil out". If M.Tobias had spent less than $1,000,000 for an empty lot, the building envelope wouldn't need to be maximized in order to flip the property. Johnston architects are global thinkers. Yet until they buy the property themselves, simply filling the footprint of a high priced empty lot will not turn Madrona into an urban village. If this site were a model for urban density, there would be reduced car traffic, with no parking stalls provided alongside fully affordable units. If urban planners and DPD officials genuinely prioritized a reduced carbon footprint, we’d be riding on a functional mass transit system today. As is fully laudable, individual rights are driving this site plan process much more than urban density.

This site's units, no matter the size or quantity, will have to foot the construction bill. Any long-time Madrona resident knows how many low-income families are gone. Enrollment at Madrona Elementary has dropped drastically in recent years. Long-time residents have also seen the high turn-over rate of large retail spaces such as the current "Coupage". The owner of St. Cloud's testified to this site's similar retail quandary, arguing against the current plans at the most recent DPD meeting. If affordability is unrealistic, then so is a walkable urban village.

Roy McMakin's development (1422 34th Ave) is an innovative precedent. McMakin walked the razor-thin line between multi-functional high density and a non-maxed building envelope. Unlike his neighbor to the North, McMakin minimally impacted his neighbors’ property rights. The owner of The Bowling Green, the most commonly referenced site as the biggest building in the 'hood, has spoken against the parking lot site at every meeting. Bowling Green also left open ground-level outdoor space, while providing dense residential and retail units. With a few minor adjustments to its current site plan, the Madrona parking lot can be developed intelligently as well.

[Mike Leavitt]

reduce the footprint by 4% to the North