here's how it went down:
seattle city council spends several years developing "downtown
livability" standards for residential towers, which includes environmental measures for air, light, and privacy.
in their study, faced with the challenge of balancing a variety of competing interests, the city gov came up tower spacing requirements--minimum spacing between towers.
over the years, there were numerous public comment meetings held by seattle's now defunct committee for Urban Planning and Development.
the public (residents, community groups, local businesses, developers, etc.) commented on tower spacing defined as: "In Belltown, towers over 160 feet in height are required to be spaced at least 80 feet apart above a height of 125 feet, which recognizes the residential character of this area. The spacing requirement is 60 feet in the Denny Triangle Urban Center."
a couple of weeks before city council voted on and approved the new legislation but after public vetting, the code was changed. reviewing city council (video taped) meeting archives reveals the following timeline:
march 7/8, 2006 -- after numerous public meetings and public comment, the final public comment meetings are held
march 20, 2006 -- Steinbrueck presents revisions to council members. these revisions include deleting tower spacing regulations proposed in their "Downtown Livability" study
march 22, 2006 -- the city council meets and votes to eliminate tower pacing in the Denny Triangle (ref 1:56:00 in the video)
april 12, 2006 -- mayor Nickels signs the legislation
the point is that, in spite of the appearance of public participation, this change occurred behind closed doors. and although the DPD is currently approving design permits based on the deleted tower spacing, these revisions are still NOT reflected in the Land Use Code, Title 23.
the result is, instead of 60 feet separation from 1918 8th Ave, we get 18 feet of separation.
.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
city council kills golden-egg-laying goose
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Wow, that's crazy. Good work putting this timeline together - it's amazing how quickly this came together.
The question I'd like to answer is 'why', why change the spacing rules in the Denny Triangle only? It'd really be interesting to learn about the discussions that led to this recommendation.
hi greg- steinbrueck is quoted in the PI article saying that "developers strongly opposed tower spacing and the final rules were a compromise." in watching the 22 march 2006 council meeting video, mciver, council chair at the time, is shockingly cavalier about the needs of downtown residents. at one point he suggested eliminating tower spacing in ALL downtown zones.
denny triangle was zoned as DOC-2, (downtown office core - 2), which is promoted as a "mixed use" commercial and residential zone. as i understand it, the city council wanted to encourage developers to increase office tower density in DOC-2. of course the change contradicts their arguments about “urban livability” and downtown quality of life. in the meeting the council members wondered out loud if anyone even lived in denny triangle. they recollected that 2200 was under construction but failed to "remember" that the cosmo was also under construction at the time.
interesting that neither steinbrueck nor mciver lives downtown.
Does the entire development plan for the block of the Cosmo look ugly to anyone? Who was the developer? We should blame him. They had a real chance to make a great block, instead we get two grey steal 70's type buildings. No green space? No Trees? Couldn't they been more creative? (like 2200 Westlake?) Even a retail/public space would have worked, and not pissed off the Cosmo owners. Nice job Department of Planing!
not very tall and skinny either. all that hot air about Vancouver-esque tall skinnies, and the first one out of the (DPD) box is anything but. might be a good post for HUGEASS blog.
Except that at the time of the Cosmo pre-sale, there were already plans for an office building immediately across the alley that was going to block the views of several floors.
The subsequent plan change only impacted its height, not its proximity to Cosmo.
If tower spacing was important to you, why did you ignore this at the time of the pre-sale?
mark w- [this is mostly a repeat to my reply to you in another post]
i'm not sure what part of "elimination of tower spacing" you don't get. in all of the intricate critiques that you levy on your fellow citizens, you consistently ignore the heart of this injustice, the elimination of tower spacing by city official behind closed doors, and in doing so you implicitly defend the city's actions.
frankly, i'm suspicious of your motives. who are you and why do you so ardently support the shitty behavior of developers and the city government?!
your behavior is much like that of a sockpuppet, someone who uses an online identity for purposes of deception within an Internet community.
you criticize people, regular people like you and i, for trying to hold the city accountable for their actions, for their method of governance, the thing we pay them to do.
you criticize us for trying to collectively voice our complaints in hope that the city will correct their failing, not just for us but for all urban dwellers.
i think you are wrong and i have expressed why you are wrong in significant detail--many times in this blog and at urbnlivn.
Post a Comment