(Wallyhood welcomes Lee Raaen as an occasional contributor. Lee, a lawyer and 27-year Wallingford resident, has been active in Wallingford community organizations for some time, most recently succeeding Eric Fisk as President of the Wallingford Community Council. We’ve asked him to let us know what the Community Council is up to, and he has graciously agreed.)
The Wallingford Community Council will consider its position on a large office building proposed 
for Stone Way between 34th and 35th Streets at its regular meeting on Wednesday, October 5th, 7:00 PM at the Good Shepherd Center. The development, which seems to become more controversial every day, is proposed to be a “Living Building”, but also includes significant departures and changes to zoning requirements that appear to particularly target the Wallingford neighborhood.
Representatives of the developer Skanska met with members of the WCC Land Use Committee last Wednesday. Members of the Land Use Committee were supportive of the goals of the Living Building Pilot Program on which Skanska bases its proposal, and would welcome such a building to Wallingford. However, the committee expressed some serious reservations, questions, and concerns about this specific development including the following:
- The development is based not only on the significant land use departures of the Living Building Pilot Program, but also seeks an additonal amendment to the program which appears to only benefit one developer and land owner, and only impact Wallingford. In addition, the amendment was moving toward adoption with little or no community notice or outreach – which Skanska admits was a failure it is now trying to remedy.
- The proposed amendment would allow an additional 20 feet to the current height limit of 45 feet. With additional roof top additions, the building could reach 80 feet. Changes are also sought to required floor area ratios. All of these may make the height and bulk of the building incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood.
- The City issued a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance which appears to have been inappropriate for this code amendment and did not adequately consider the impacts of the project on the community.
- Even if the developer is given the special land use exceptions it seeks, those concessions may not in fact result in a “Living Building” on the site. The Pilot Program only requires an attempt to comply with approximately 60% of the Living Building program’s pre-requisites. A failure to meet even those minimum requirements might only result in a financial penalty to the developer instead of a “living building.”
The Wallingford Community Council and Skanska representatives will discuss these and other issues, and hear from the community regarding the proposed development at the WCC meeting on Wednesday. All are welcome.
I could not be more excited about this project. This is our chance to bring some sort of cohesive neighborhood feel to south Wallingford. Not to mention jobs.
I did find odd and somewhat unsettling the misleading and unsigned flyer someone put on my door in the middle of the night that opposes the project. Sounds like another case of NIMBY -which is odd given that this will be one of the greenest buildings in Seattle. I live just up the street from this and can’t wait, why would you not want this in your backyard.
Welcome to Wallyhood, Lee. And thank you!
Sure would be nice to see some of the POSITIVES of a building like this in the neighborhood. Guess we’ll have to attend the meeting to get an accurate representation of the project.
I’m with you, Ryan. I’ve lived in Wallingford for the past 7 years and have always seen huge opportunity in the Stone Way corridor — a short stretch of untidy commercial that connects two of the most popular recreation zones, two of the best walking/cyclying trails in the city, and two of the most vibrant neighborhoods in the Northwest.
To me, it is only a matter of time before the run-down Subways, abandoned lots, and the like are replaced with a bustling, vibrant, and colorful urban corridor, and this project is a huge opportunity to kick it off right. Perfectly situated at the busy intersection at the foot of Stone, it is exactly the type of anchor we should want for that transition — a green, responsible building that will not be replacing anything sacred, that will bring jobs, notoriety, and new momentum to the business community along Stone Way.
I also did not appreciate the flyer that’s been put on my door, the light poles near my house, etc. To me, it seemed to be more inflammatory and polarizing than inviting of a productive dialog.
I said this before in the forum thread on this building, but I still haven’t seen any convincing reasons to oppose this building. It seems like a vast improvement over what is there now (a parking lot and a compost center).
The way the flyers end with “what do you think?” irritates me, because I doubt the creators of such inflammatory fliers would care what I thought unless it agreed with them. The flyers goaded me into sending a letter of support to the city ([email protected]).
While I love the idea of a vibrant, usable green building at the intersection of 34th & Stone, I don’t love the idea of it towering 25 feet above everything around it. For many years, the neighborhood has worked with SPU to restrict the height of the transfer station in order to preserve the view corridors and the connection between Fremont and Wallingford. This property is adjacent to the transfer station and the speed at which this project is moving along seems to throw all of that work away. There are numerous buildings that are empty in the area – wouldn’t a truly green project involve renovating and retrofitting those? It’s unfortunate that the term NIMBY gets thrown around so quickly without looking at the entire situation. I look forward to delving into the topic more thoroughly at the WCC meeting on Wednesday and encourage everyone to attend before attaching labels.
I think most of us would be all right with having this building in our back yards. It would just have to meet the existing height restrictions. They’re really fairly generous, a 45 foot building would already tower over anything nearby.
It’s good to see the Community Council is taking a little more hard-headed look at this.
Erika,
I certainly did not mean to cast aspersions with the term NIMBY – I was just reacting to the very strange and angry flyer that someone posted on my door in the middle of the night-can you say creepy?
Re-use is certainly a very green option. But I think it is also important to understand that there is no building currently in the area that would accomodate the need that this building will serve without rebuilding it from the ground up. Which is no different than what is going on here.
Also, I think that realistic environmentalists (as I picture myself) need to understand the economic reality that businesses need buildings. Most developers are going to default to the lowest common denominator, the hermetically sealed concrete box like the one I work in now. When we have a developer like we do here who must be risking a significant amount of capital to break out of this paradigm we should encourage them.
My last point is one that has been made on this blog before: responsible urbanizaiton requires vertical growth, that is how we maximize use of existing city space and minimize encroachment on pristine wild areas.
I agreed with Erika.
Wallingford/ Stone Way is a very special place and keeping its assets(Boutiques, coffeshops,restaurants all in a balance proportion) will make Wallingford area a more touristic place than ever before. It’s a thrill to live in a such colorful neighborhood.
Why let developers wanting more than what is require in the Wallingford Community.I it’s strange way to plan and not give time to the community to decide first. Is a such project will enhance the surroundings. Often time the developers are mostly happy to deceive the Neighborhood inhabitants.
Why ? The gain of profits is much more valuable to them than anything else. It’s the game ! Let’s not be enthusiastic about it. Just see the whole picture. The density of population and the number of cars(looking where to park) may not be what in a few years in the benefit of the community at all and turn into big nuisances.
Can this building be the same height and size as what is around ??
I was also excited to see something revitalize that spot. I’m up the hill and didn’t think about how the height would effect neighbors close by and the recent battle they had over the next door transfer station. When I first read the description of the “Living Building” project, I was very excited, but when I saw the proposed building, I was very disappointed! It just looked like a huge office building, such as you would find in South Lake Union. It is a shame what has happened to our views of the lake and the sound. There are very few spaces left where you can actually see the water without a building standing in the way. I personally would give up some of the “living building” goals to get something that contributed to the neighborhood such as those in the middle of Fremont.
It also seemed hypocritical that their lofty goals were all about the building, but didn’t consider the how it would “live’ in the neighborhood.
Thanks to everyone for your interest and comments regarding the proposed development on Stone Way. Wallingford has a reputation of being proactive in determining the course our community is to take. Very few people are aware that our neighborhood would be a very different – and less hospitable – place if it wasn’t for the efforts of interested neighbors over the years.
Land use issues are often very controversial because they literally “hit us where we live.” In looking at these issues, it is important to keep focused on what the issues are – and are not.
No one on the WCC Land Use Committee objected to a Living Building in our neighborhood. In fact, it would be welcomed and appreciated. No one objected to improving or developing the Stone Way area. No one is objecting to an office building on the site. No one disputes the right of land owners to develop their property within the law. However, some knowledgeable and concerned people on land use issues have donated their time to go beyond the labels and generalities of the proposal to look at the specifics of proposed amendments to the land use code and details of the project as they impact our neighborhood. There are important issues to review and questions to answer – and without a doubt, not everyone will agree with the results.
The Wallingford Community Council has often taken the lead in providing a forum for both learning about and formulating land use policy and opinion. It has been the vehicle for positive change, sometimes through supporting “near neighbor” groups, often by negotiation with government and private parties, and sometimes by action. We hope to continue that process, and look forward to seeing you on Wednesday night.
Lee Raaen, WCC President
what an opportunity we have to see a building in our neighborhood. I’m interested in how the scale of the building relates to the public places (view down stone) and the view at the trail. I’m not interested in how this building looks from someone’s driveway or living room. from what I know these kinds of buildings are enormously difficult to balance the energy loads on the building.
traffic?
are we serious? I’d love to see a real employment use in our neighborhood that makes it more difficult for garbage truck traffic that doesn’t belong in my neighborhood. further aren’t we suppose to get jobs closer to our neighborhood so that we reduce carbon and trips elsewhere. I’m excited about the potential bus service increase that such a use will bring to the hood.
I live just a few blocks to the east, and think this building would be fantastic. Seattle needs more density and needs taller buildings. Stone Way is a perfect place to put them – it’s already a commercial and industrial corridor, with some tall buildings and without any real views to speak of. Besides, if it’s views people want, Gas Works is just a couple blocks away.
This has the opportunity to be a real benefit to the neighborhood. Don’t think I can make the meeting on Wednesday, but I am heartened to see that instead of some of the regressive attitudes seen in some other neighborhoods when it comes to proposed projects (like in Roosevelt), we in Wallingford are taking a more sensible and enlightened approach. And it’s also good to see that people realize that “the community” is not the same thing as “people who oppose new buildings.”
Let’s continue to foster the efforts of the Neighbors to keep the area hospitable and safe for our children and seniors. Always looking at the big picture.
What are the real advantages that this project has for the community ?
Do the owner and the developers are sincerely in love with our community and they are proposing a building that will enhance our area because they primary interest is to serve the community and make a difference locally and be an example to other neighborhood in Seattle and in the World?
You say :”No one objected to a living Building” is not the point. Seeing a building in our neighborhood that is not again the interest of our community is the important matter. Now we can even decide again why a such building. This is the power of the Our Community !!!
Now a lot of people know about this project and object to allow unnecessary changes just to please some owner and developers who as you perfectly know will not live in this building or even around it . Because if they do the story will be different.
What are the realistic and positive advantages that a such building will bring to our area ?
Will families and their children will enjoy being near this building(surrounded by trees and a garden)?
Will tourists be interested to visit the area because of its artistic value?
Will the architectural design bring more friendly pedestrian walks?
Theses are the answers we want and see the real motives and interests of the owner and developers.
“It also seemed hypocritical that their lofty goals were all about the building, but didn’t consider the how it would “live’ in the neighborhood.” Naybor
So Mr. Lee Raaen you too need to make sure How the building would “live” in our neighhood !!! Love is the answer:it means the sincere caring of neighbors for the
their families and community .
Ryan is right – that area is going to be developed. It’s zoned for a big square box – nothing “touristic” or “colorful” about that. The way this building is envisioned to engage the community at many levels (office levels, retail, restaurants, coffee shops, outdoor tables, terraces) will, in my opinion, net S. Wallingford and Fremont together and create a great hub where the community will come together to begin or end a walk/run/ride on the trail, meet with others, shop, etc. (oh, and hide the DUMP behind it). It’s coming folks, let’s kick it off with something great!
That sounds like the Quadrant development down 34th towards Fremont – terraces, outdoor tables … well, there’s room for outdoor tables, and room for all kinds of stuff that isn’t happening, as those street level spots are vacant or occupied by banks etc..
Not that this is a real problem for the developers – the street level shops are needed to sell the development to the community, but they are never going to make much money for the developer whether vacant or occupied. Office buildings are the answer, if what you want is offices.
The little business district at the south end of Stone has already kicked off, it’s really developing by leaps and bounds if you take the current economy into account. It looks like the main thing holding it back is the current owner of that plot at 34th & Stone.
My family and I have our own real estate investments, so I hold no biases against development, nor jobs, or revitalization, etc….but up to 80ft? That’s pretty tall.
This was the only CG mockup I could find: http://fremont.komonews.com/news/development/662063-help-shape-design-large-stone-way-office-building-tonight
So, I decided to mock one up myself:
http://imgur.com/a/tbIQ2
This block I pasted in is 65 feet tall and not adjusted to fit the landscape, which leaves, as near as I can tell, 8 feet of it underground at the northern end, effectively 57′ tall. Presumably the structure would be 65′ relative to the ground at all points, plus the additional rooftop structures which could bring it close to 80′, so you **must keep that in mind.** I am not a professional CG designer, I’ve just used Sketchup for some art installation and fountain mockups.
My opinion: it doesn’t look quite as much like a tacky, unregulated 3rd world coastal hotel as I thought it would, but it’s still out of scale with anything else around. Especially given that my mockup underestimates its true height, I think it’s too big. Until height restrictions change for everyone, I say right around forty-five feet is plenty.
Donn, good point. The Quadrant development has been there for years and there is only one successful restaurant there. From 34th, it also feels a bit sterile and disconnected, compared to the surroundings. Part of that I think is because of the large setbacks and big plazas compared to the surrounding area. These plazas sound good but they can actually make an urban development feel dead. I wonder what kind of rent they are charging if they can’t fill those spaces when other new restaurants have been opening in the area.
On the plus side though, I feel like the Quadrant development is a positive for the neighborhood. There’s been a further spurt of new businesses in the area since it opened, and the food service establishments in the area are mobbed at lunchtime. Now that it’s here, I imagine most of the business owners surrounding find it a positive. I also like sitting on their big shelf seating area overlooking the Fremont Cut.
I’d like to see a focus on how this development can be better rather than how it can be shorter (or nonexistent). This way it can avoid some of the deficiencies of the Quadrant development, which isn’t even that tall.
It’s pretty simple. A bigger building means more potential rental income and a higher value for the project. If the developer thinks it will make more money with a bigger building and has the resources to do it, why wouldn’t they give it a shot? If you stick to what the building code allows you, there is little opprotunity for the community to weigh in. In this case, the developer wants a departure from what is currently permitted. The community has an opprotunity to voice concerns, and the powers that be will ultimately have to balance competing interests if the parties can’t reconcile them on their own. The more urgent issue here is whether someone will leave a jar of fig jam by the front door when the building opens.
The proposal they submitted to the city are here:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/AppDocs/GroupMeetings/DRProposal3012601AgendaID3322.pdf
Pretty interesting stuff. They’ve included info on the Living Building program, neighborhood analysis, massing studies and rationales for code compliance departure.
living building AKA just a way to get this by the want to be progressive locals.
@Tom M – Thank you very much for your mock-up of the height and scale. It really is an eye-opener. I’m reposting your link here: http://imgur.com/a/tbIQ2
There is a pretty significant difference between Tom’s “rendering” of a big black box, and the Skanska docs and vision. Pretty hard to say what the building is going to look like at this point, perfect opp for community feedback and input.
If the people who have been depositing those inflammatory flyers on doorsteps are reading this thread: Please stop doing that. It’s obnoxious and unwelcome.
Cool renderings Tom. It’s neat to see the neighborhood this way. I think in your rendering that 34th is missing some pretty tall buildings though on the north side – there are apartments there that I would bet are 80 feet tall if not more. It seems to me like Skanska’s building would fit in with those. Really it would be the strip mall across the street that would look out of place. I also think the color of the building in your rendering is a bit unfair in that I doubt this building will be a cube colored bluish green. But still, cool rendering.
I’m a big fan of this project. Height and good human scale design can be compatible with each other – it just takes good thoughtful design. It’s on a bus route, on a bike trail, it’s close to a growing residential zone in Lower Wallingford, etc. I would like it even better if apartments were included in the design but you can’t have it all I suppose.
Chuck, that link to their application materials is very helpful.
I would like to note that my street level view of the building seems inaccurate. That image seems to only represent about a 35-foot tall building if you compare to the surroundings. The others I believe are more accurate.
@Tom M Thank you! Great mock up. We’re hoping to see it at the WCC meeting tonight!
As for the flyers…. would you not like to be informed? Granted, the verbiage was a little inflammatory but I didn’t even know anything was going on. At least someone notified me.
Nimby? Well, I’m not opposed to building but 65+ feet! Think about it, a wall at the end of Stoneway, is this progress?
Hi Chris, I can’t make it tonight, so if you want to see the mockup there someone else will have to print them out. Kinko’s used to $0.50/sf printouts up to 3ft wide if you want to email it to them for something bigger than 8.5×11.
no kidding
we need higher buildings and mor econcrete
thanks Donn, that Quadrant thing in Fremont killed water views and covered green grass.
We need a continuation of that up and down Stone Way and should extend it across to gasworks and concrete it over.
Good plan.
I can’t attend the meeting tonight but want to say that I appreciate the civil exchange of views that has been happening in this forum. Thanks to everyone willing to share their thoughts that way!
Yeah, a few entries are mean or sarcastic, but overall, it seems respectful and neighborly. I hope this means that Wallingford “community” discussion, whether in person or on the Internet, is changing for the better. I’m glad, and I also hope the discussion tonight is just as thoughtful and open-minded..
{As a side note, I did not find the flyers to be informative, but rather, too biased to be of use. I would rather get my information about neighborhood development in that manner. We care about what’s happening, we can find out on our own.}
As to the proposal, I’ve looked both at the mock-ups offered here, and at the drawings available at the City. I think this is a good-looking structure, and I believe it would enhance this intersection, and our community, tremendously.
Thanks again for a diverse set of views, and I’ll look forward to further discussion.
*Proofread Fail*.
Oops. I meant to say I would rather NOT get my information from flyers. Sorry about the error.
Good meeting and discussion last night – thanks to all who attended and shared their opinions, pro and con; and to the WCC for putting this on the agenda.