The city’s Design Review Board will hold its second review meeting for the 5-story Living Building at 3400 Stone Way N. tomorrow (Monday), November 21 at 6:30pm at the University Heights Center (5031 University WA NE).
You can review the site’s design review proposal by clicking here.
Here are some links of previous articles regarding the project, including the Wallingford Community Council’s appeal:
- Community Council Files Appeal on Stone Way Project
- 3400 Stone Way
- Brooks Sports will move to Wallingford
We were able to attend for the first part of this. A couple of highlights:
Going by the perspective artist renderings, they have some way to make the building look just like the sky, from whatever angle you look at it. The artist had to draw outlines around the building so you’d even know it was there. Of course that changes everything – you’d think a 65 foot building would be a hulking obstacle that blocks light to its neighbors, but this looks like a kind of “anti-building” – maybe better than no building at all, know what I mean, it’s like a building eraser?
Secondly, the attention to the needs of smokers is touching. I mean, they have really done up this outdoor space, it’s practically a plaza with tables and other “furnishings”. Right next to a hard core arterial and truck route so you know you aren’t going to get the evil eye from anyone who’s out there just to chat and enjoy the out of doors. They said that’s why the buildling is 65 feet tall, in part at least because they have devoted all that space along the street to creating this paradisiacal spot.
And it was refreshing to see how many connoisseurs of urban design took the trouble to come out on a rainy Monday night to attend this meeting and shower appreciative comments on the developers. I don’t know if it makes much difference. In the end, while the DRB isn’t beholden to the planning department, I didn’t get the impression they’re in a position to make anything but minor design recommendations. It will take some kind of legal challenge to stop the building.
In their deliberation, the Board spent most of the time talking about the size of the project, and clearly indicated their disinclination to grant the proposed departures (increased height and FAR) as the building was currently configured. The “Living Building Challenge” ordnances (existing and proposed) only give the developer the right to ASK for these departures – the Design Review Board has to approve them, and at this point they are averse to doing so. The developer will bring a revised proposal to the next meeting, hopefully one that responds to the Boards objections and criticism in a significant way.
I am very glad to hear that the Design Review Board is carefully considering its position on the requested departures. The impacts have not been explored, but in fact, misrepresented. Skanska’s first presentation to WCC included a “shadow” study to illustrate the shadows that would be cast by a building at the increased height. However, the study represented the shadows at high noon! After having that pointed out, they simply omit any such studies from their presentations. The building with the “cloaking device” making it disappear as referred to in the above post is another example.
Unfortunately, while the Design Board’s recommendations are important, DPD has made it clear that because this comes under the Living Building Challenge, it doesn’t have to respect the Board’s decisions. DPD claims to be the “decider.” So, with regard to the departures, the agency that drafted the changes to the law to accommodate the developer is also the agency that will decide if the developer gets to use those departures.
The DPD doesn’t ever have to follow the Board’s recommendations. They are simply recommendations. This isn’t a unique case.
Living Buildings are a unique case. SMC 23.41.014 F.3. requires DPD to issue
a decision that makes compliance with the recommendation of the Design
Review Board a condition of permit approval if 4 members of the board agree unless certain conditions are met. Projects invoking the Living Building challenge are excepted from that requirement.
Is it possible to provide a living building that mitigates its bulk by stepping back so it doesn’t block views, includes the mechanical penthouse impacts in its analysis, and makes a commitment to actually follow through with the living features for which it receives “credits”? Sure!
The deceptive rendering of an invisible “anti-building” (it WILL block views), the vague reluctance to commit to implementing living standards (sorry, we tried… but thanks for the height gift), and the predilection for those “greenwashing” warm and fuzzies should all give one pause, however.
Why does the developer feel the need to be deceptive in the presentations?
The certain conditions are so broad (for example Director concludes that there is “inconsistent application of the design review guidelines”) that in practice, I’m sure that DPD can do whatever they want, Living Building or no.
The sad truth behind the powder puff clouds is that the building is not actually going to be a certified Living Building even though the developer is using the Living Building Pilot Program to get a 10- to 20-foot height variance.
The DPD’s Living Building Pilot Program document states:
– The Living Building Pilot Program is intended to provide flexibility in…Seattle Land Use code to facilitate the development of buildings attempting to meet the Living Building Challenge.
– The Living Building Challenge is a green building certification…
– Living Buildings are required to be self-sufficient for energy and water needs…
Skanska is not attempting to meet the Living Building Challenge. They are only trying to reach 70% of the requirements which means it won’t be self-sufficient and it therefore won’t be certified as a Living Building.
I hope the city recognizes the the injustice of allowing a height variance for a developer not aiming to meet the goals. And I hope that Skanska has the integrity to provide more realistic and honest drawings at the next meeting so the community can truly see what’s being considered for our neighborhood…
KTC – I don’t understand why you think this building won’t be a Living Building or that Skanska is not attempting to meet those goals? There’s nothing that I’ve seen in any of the info that the city or Skanska have presented that gives me that impression. In fact, it would seem very much the opposite.
I know, it’s pretty confusing. Here’s the scoop. Skanska is a participant of the Living Building Pilot Program. As a participant, they will likely be granted departures from the current zoning. Being a participant does not mean though that you will have a certified Living Building.
Skanska has said repeatedly in presentations that they are not going to be able to meet all the goals of the program. They said they are aiming for 70%. Becuase they are not going to be a “self-sufficient” or a “net zero” building, they will not be certified as a Living Building.
No need to believe me though – you can research it on the International Living Building Institute website: http://www.ilbi.org or you can call the Institue. They can give you all the details. Plus you could ask Skanska directly.
Hope that helps…
Skanska is not applying for the National Living Building Challenge. The document distributed by the City at the meeting said that they are applying for the City of Seattle’s Living Building Pilot Program..and it says that compliance for projects receiving departures under the pilot program is to meet 60% of the LBC imperatives and: 25% or less avg energy use, 25% or less avg water use, 50% stormwater capture.
60% is the bare minimum they need to reach to avoid a fine. In that same document, it says:
– The intent of tle Living Building Pilot Program is to meet all the goals of the Living Building Challenge…
– The Living Building Pilot Program is intended to provide flexibility in…Seattle Land Use code to facilitate the development of buildings attempting to meet the Living Building Challenge.
– The Living Building Challenge is a green building certification created by the International Living Future Institute [ilbi.org]…
– Living Buildings are required to be self-sufficient for energy and water needs…
Again, Skanska’s building as it’s is currently being proposed will not be a certified Living Building…
,
I think we’re arguing semantics. There is a difference between the national LBC program and the City of Seattle’s Living Building Pilot project. Regardless, this will be one of the deepest green buildings in the city and something we should all be very excited about. I know I am.
Yes, it will be a deep green building if Skanska is able to meet their goals. That is exciting and something that everyone seems to support whole heartedly. Many people though simply want Skanska to build within current zoning.
To get clarity regarding what it takes to be a certified Living Building, I would simply recommend contacting the city. Both they and the Institute are very helpful with the information they are willing to share. Best.
Also bear in mind, even 60% compliance can’t simply be built in, a major part of it will be an ongoing responsibility of the tenant. In a truly successful design, ideally that won’t be much of a burden, but all the developer and the city really need out of this is something they can walk away from without smelling too bad – it’s market rate, baby! Someone will probably do some post-occupancy evaluation on it and we might learn something from the failures, but none of that will stick to the developer or the city.
I am about to hop on the bus and drive by 20 new carbon sucking buildings, four of them in progress on Stone Way, and spend my day in another huge carbon sucking building. Someone is trying to bend this curve by spending millions of cash they have to spend in order to make money on this project and the people around it are finding every excuse in the book that they can think of to stop it. That is too bad. I have lived in other parts of the country where this would not surprise me at all. But not here, in Seattle. And certanily not in Wallingford.
Lets cut to the chase, many of the strongest opponents (not all, I know) are against this building because they have a small view of the bridge, or Queen Anne, or maybe even a sliver of water and this building might get in the way of part of that view – after all they live near me. That is why they are opposed to this, not because they dont think Skanska will comply with the challenge, etc. And there is nothing wrong with opposing the building for that reason. But be honest about it.
Won’t be able to see it from my house – I’m a few blocks north and couldn’t see it over my neighbor’s house if it were as tall as the Space Needle.
We’re not “finding every excuse in the book we can think of to stop it”, we’re trying to cut through the BS that this developer has been handing the community to excuse themselves from complying with zoning restrictions.
If I can speak for “us”, my impression is that everyone likes a green office building in principle, but this building is unsuitable for the site, so it should be a green office building somewhere else if it needs to be that big.
Speaking for myself only, I care about the site, in the commercial area nearest to where I live, because it supports the kind of small independent businesses I care most about. I feel that with time it may evolve into quite a little jewel of a place, as businesses like that are driven out of Fremont, frankly due to development and high rents that were brought about by the owner of the present site. When I turn the corner and walk down 34th into Fremont, I get a taste of what could happen to my neighborhood, and I don’t like it. I’m sure those stark plazas looked inviting and “gracious” in the artists’ renderings, and there was talk about how “vibrant” the ground level retail was going to be, but now we’re stuck with the reality for however many generations those buildings last. Be honest about it, is exactly what we’re looking for.
Hi Ryan. Yes, some people are opposing the building for this reason even though it’s personally not my motivation. Here’s some interesting information. About 105 letters were sent to the DPD. Eighty five of those folks wrote to voice their concern about the height, mass, scale of this building in relation to other buildings. The vast majority of the people voicing concerns won’t have their views impacted at all.
The concerns are larger than the loss of a private view. The common theme of the letters was that both development and green buildings are welcomed but they feel that it’s just too big, especially when you allow an exception for just one building because it means that it will be largely out of scale.
Getting clarity on issues like whether it’s a true Living Building, what the exact penalties would be if they fell short of the 60%, whether the drawings accurately portray the building, etc. allow for an honest conversation and for people to make informed decisions.
What I appreciate about the discussions for the most part is that people seem to be putting some heavy thought into being informed and being good to each other in the process so we can share genuine smile when we see each other on a Friday night at the bench. If that continues, the community will be stronger for it — we will all know that we may ultimately disagree about what we think is best for our community but we respected each other along the way.
Hope that continues as we engage in spirited conversations on this issue…and others…
I suspect that many people who say “it’s too big” really mean “it will impact my view” but know how that would be perceived.
The drawings can’t be more “accurate” until there is something to draw. I think it has been made very clear, many times over, that these are early renderings/placeholders. The design review board has said now that we are done with early design guidance and has said go design, so we should see something more tangible in next go round so you will have your honest conversation then. Until then, why accuse the developer of withholding?
I would be smiling more if people who were commenting were more informed about what they are commenting on.
wow, seems like the same ol’ folks continue to try and find fault in any development proposed in our neighborhood. I’ve seen so many projects in Seattle get compromised by what does fit the rules and what results from SO MUCH community resistance. I venture to say that if the project were to magically meet all of the living building requirements (and they are nearly impossible – just read about it) the people that supposedly represent us on the community council would find a way to reject it any way.
and so did the developers go to the save 26 meeting?