Ten months ago, the Wallingford Community Council appealed a City environmental review decision for a proposal to rewrite the Living Building Pilot Program (LBPP) to grant Skanska, a multinational billion dollar developer, special privileges allowing it to build a large office building at Stone Way and 34th. The building would rise to over 82 feet (including substantial roof top features) in a 45 foot zone within feet of the Lake Union Shoreline area. WCC decided on very short notice (Skanska made its presentation the night before the appeal deadline) to appeal the decision when the proposal didn’t look and smell right. After a few months of legal wrangling, the Hearing Examiner essentially agreed with the WCC position and ordered further environmental disclosures.
In the meantime, a number of other parties have had an opportunity to evaluate the controversial proposal and found it seriously lacking. (See last week’s story in the Seattle Times.) After reviewing hundreds of DPD documents, it is clear that the Skanska-proposed and -drafted amendments to the LBPP were not created to improve the program, but to allow a single developer, a single tenant and a single property owner to build an oversized building on a specific site for reasons unrelated to Living Building objectives. (The building could have been built elsewhere without changing the code.) LEED-certified architects, urban planners, green building experts, environmental activists and neighbors have studied and oppose the rewrite of the law. Most importantly, the International Living Futures Institute, which created, administers and owns the trademark to the Living Building program, has determined that the code provisions which would allow the Skanska project are so deficient that they will not allow such projects to even use the term “Living Building.”
We have now learned that there are movements in the City Council to “scrap the Living Building approach altogether” and amend the law as Skanska demands – only calling it something else. The one thing that all parties seemed to agree on at the recent council hearing was that the city should be commended for encouraging builders to try and meet the Living Building Challenge. Now the Living Building program may be jettisoned in order to allow Skanska/Brooks/Burke their special privileges. A City Council committee is set to vote on the proposal Wednesday morning (July 25th). Therefore, if you feel that amendments to the LBPP or similar laws should involve more parties than just the developer, and that laws should not be written by and for special interests, now is the time to email or call Council members. Their contact information is at http://www.seattle.gov/council/councilcontact.htm .
If you would like some further information concerning recent Council actions, this week’s statement by the Living Futures Institute, or statements by Chris Rogers (Developer of the Bullitt Foundation’s Living Building on Capitol Hill) and Denis Hayes (Bullitt Foundation President and first Earth Day Coordinator who founded the Earth Day Network and expanded Earth Day to more than 180 nations) they can be found at www.lraaen.com/WCCdocs
I hope the council passes this and this whole thing is over soon. We should be welcoming with open arms anyone that wants to invest in bringing jobs to our city. Especially if they are willing to build a new multi-million dollar building next to a trash dump and over an eyesore combo or parking lot and subway.
Thank you for an incredible amount of hard work and research, Lee, the Wallingford Community Council (and the WCC Land Use Committee I presume). Now people can make informed decisions instead of reading greenwashed press releases. Very much appreciated.
Wallyblog, come on! Can’t you at least try to provide a fair and balanced look at this, for the sake of the neighborhood? There are lots of ways to “present” info, guess this one. Seems like you’re just trying to drum up controversy and divide. This is such blatant hyperbole and, to be polite, “exaggeration” and we’ve all argued it on this blog time and time again. So, neighbors in SUPPORT, here we go again, speak up to city council and counter this propaganda. Can we talk about the great retail and community space on that corner?
The Living Building Pilot Program was developed with lots of voices at the table, including ILFI. Those same voices, and many others, are involved now attempting to modify the pilot to allow for more of these ambitious, deep green buildings to be built. No jettisoning. We need this legislation, we need these buildings to be built – times, they are a changin.
Great piece here on the nomenclature issue: http://citytank.org/2012/07/19/seattles-living-building-pilot-program-a-case-study-in-progressive-divisiveness/
The crux appears to be that the developer is using the Living Building label to strong arm a change in zoning standards. There is no reason why the building cannot be stepped back from Stone Way and built in a manner that conforms with existing standards and does not create a WALL between Wallingford and Lake Union. The developer’s intention appears to be to create sole access to lake and city views from premier rent office space, while denying access from public and private locations. This is bullying by the developer to insert its project in an aggressive and damaging manner. It is completely possible to design the project in a tasteful manner that is suited to its surrounding environment.
Remember, it is the developer who has CHOSEN to design their building in an incompatible manner. It is the developer who stated they were creating a Living Building, when they are not. It is the developer who will adversely impact public and private views and shade adjacent properties ENTIRELY WITHOUT REASON.
It is entirely feasible for this project to be developed in a compassionate manner by the developer. The site is zoned as it is. The project is not as has been stated by the developer. Sure, they can make more money if it is built 40 feet taller. They can also make good money building to meet existing zoning. Don’t buy into the threats and greenwashing claims. This is not a living building. Sustainable design can payback without the need for special favors to the monied interests.
@Mickey, Jordan and I (the editors of Wallyhood) always welcome pieces from the community that are either pro- or against the development. Please consider that as an invitation. In the past, we have posted pieces written by Lee (who heads the WCC) as well as Brooks employee and Wallingford resident, Heather Snavely, who wrote the post, “How pasta translates into a ‘run happy’ future” http://www.wallyhood.org/2012/03/pasta-translates-run-happy-future/
This controversy is a facinating study in values: some members of a self-described progressive and enviromentally friendly neighborhood values their view of the Aurora bridge and the backside of Queen Anne over promoting change in commercial construction practices. The values of others in the same neighborhood are 180 degrees opposite. The term “green” becomes “greenwashing.” For better or worse, things like this that flesh out what we really care about.
Lee heads the WCC, but has the WCC taken an official position on this? Heather’s piece was not posted as fact, clearly her light-hearted opinion as a Brooks employee.
Hear that, Skanska? There’s an open invite here!
@Marley – one man’s WALL is another’s community asset! Guess it depends on where your front porch is.
Not a Living Building, a City of Seattle Living Building Pilot Project.
40′ higher? Please, can we stick to the facts and quit scaring people? 10′ is currently allowed, this change would allow for 20′ and an elevator box in the middle of the roof that NO ONE will be able to see.
I’m fairly agnostic on this issue, but Lee’s post (while informative) is definitely an opinion piece, and probably should have been labeled as such.
I doubt that the concern is about views of a backside, more about preserving access to public and private views of Lake Union and the downtown skyline.
Self-described, or not, many care about REAL sustainable practice and compassionate design practices, both of which are completely possible in this and many other projects that strive to be a good neighbor and fit with the surrounding environment.
The term “greenwashing” did not enter the public lexicon until empty green promises were used only as a buzzword to sway public process without intention to fulfill the promise. This project is not, and never has been, a Living Building, despite what the Skansa website continues to imply. Why the need to be deceptive?
@Mickey – You CAN have the asset without the wall. The building is not transparent and will impact views of the lake and downtown for everyone approaching down the hill via Stone Way, not just a few front porches.
I also don’t appreciate the 45′ to 82′!!! scare tactics (as claimed here, and in the leaflets dropped on my door). It is +20ft. A building built to code would also have the 10-15 feet required additional for elevator equipment structures, etc.
The 82′ foot figure is Skanska’s . According to drawings submitted to the Design Review Board the screened roof top features run down the center of the building for more than half of its length. Skanska’s proposed amendments include a change to the code which eliminates any height limit on departures for roof top features.
I’m with @1 – I am a resident of the neighborhood (on Wallingford Ave below 40th) and I strongly support this building. Those residents who oppose this project do not speak for the neighborhood, they only speak for themselves, and they need to be clearer about that fact.
We live in an era of increasingly severe impacts from global warming. Living buildings should be encouraged anywhere we can build them. The tenant for this particular building, Brooks Sports, is moving to our neighborhood from a suburb (Bothell). That will reduce their carbon footprint and support more environmentally responsible development. It boggles my mind that some people prioritize building heights over the future of our planet, our climate, and our civilization.
Of course, I’ve walked around our neighborhood a lot since the proposal was first made, and I cannot see any house that would have their view significantly impacted by this project. Even if there were, that’s no reason to reject a green building like this.
Most importantly, the International Living Futures Institute, which created, administers and owns the trademark to the Living Building program, has determined that the code provisions which would allow the Skanska project are so deficient that they will not allow such projects to even use the term “Living Building.”
Ouch.
How about that block of concrete that is going up right now on 36th and Stone? Is that a better alternative to Skanska’s sustaniable plan?
How about parking? How many employees will come into an area where Metro wanted to try (again) to remove the #26 and #28 bus routes entirely? As a pedestrian living nearby, these are important issues to me.
@Junipero – Those residents who SUPPORT this project do not speak for the neighborhood, they speak only for themselves, and they need to be clearer about that fact.
Face it, these posts are all opinions! The difference appears to be that some are opposed to awarding variances based on squishy, questionable “facts” (notice I did not say opposed to the project!). Those in support like having the business in the neighborhood (and who doesn’t?), but are willing to accept possibly unnecessary adverse impacts in order to do so.
The WCC took a position questioning the need for the additional height. As a design professional, I agree with that view.
The height of the building is not connected to the level of “green”. In fact, a larger building will use MORE energy. It is completely feasible to build a green building that is only 45 feet tall (plus 15 feet for a mechanical penthouse that WILL, by the way, cover a large portion of the roof). Skansa wants 20 feet additional height plus 17 feet for the penthouse (22 feet taller).
Skansa lost me as a supporter when they persisted in reporting that 1) they were building a Living Building (they are NOT), and 2) that they needed additional height in order to make it green (they do not). This was a deception and throws into question EVERYTHING else that Skansa has reported. It is greenwashing intended to sway public opinion for those that hear the word “green” and assume that it is all good. Skansa lost my trust. The “fake” transparent building renderings that cast no shadows and block no views did not help. More deception.
Read the testimonials posted at the Skansa website and you will see that every author believes that this is going to be a Living Building. How did these people arrive at this belief? Why does Skansa perpetuate the belief by posting these documents if they know them to be inaccurate? Would the writers of the testimonials still support the variances if they knew that the building was not going to be anything particularly different from many other energy-efficient buildings currently being constructed? Look at the details. Question the developer.
Sustainable building practices are cost-effective for new construction. Such practices pay over the life of a building, even more so over the extended life of the building proposed by Skansa. Yes, the developer can realize an even faster payback if allowed to construct additional square feet, especially space with pristine, protected views of the lake and downtown that will be a windfall.
However, is it really the obligation of the City to generate more money for the developer when construction within current zoning is already cost effective? I think not.
Where are these pristine views of the lake that will be blocked by the extra 20 feet? I dont know of anywhere in our neighborhood that has a pristine view of lake, much less one that would not be blocked were a builder to put in a 45 foot cement square that is constructed out to the sidewalk – like the other three that are currently under construction on Stone Way.
I have heard Skanska say, and have researched this myself because it’s confusing, that they are applying to be part of the city’s Living Building Pilot Project. That people would be confused about the difference between that, and the Living Building Challenge, does not surprise me. But it’s semantics. This building will be more “alive” than any other, and that’s what is important to me.
Are you being conned? It certainly seems that Skanska thinks they can con the City Council into relaxing its zoning code so they can build an out-of-scale building at 3400 Stone Way without giving much in return.
The original Living Building Pilot Program from the City set a standard of meeting 60% of the goals and a 75% reduction in power and water use with a penalty of “up to” 5% of the building cost if the building failed to meet that standard. For their effort the City gave the building a bonus of 10 ft above the existing zoning. Some of us thought the original offer by the City was long on sweets and short on stick and it should have been 75% of the goals and the reductions in electicity use and water mandatory and not subject to any forgiveness with a penalty (since how to meet those are so well-established), but we have what we have. Now Skanska says they need a 20 ft bonus with no change in the goals or the penalty.
Skanska has said that they need the extra 10 feet because they need a higher floor-to-ceiling span to allow light into the center of the building and reduce the use of electric lighting. Reasonable argument. But they propose to build five floors in 65 feet rather than four floors in 55 feet. Do the math. They will actually get less floor-to-ceiling height with their proposal.
They say they need five floors to meet the office needs of Brooks Shoes and a floor of retail. But in their own literature they say the building will be 120,000 sq ft while Brooks’ needs are 80,000 sq ft. They can meet Brooks’ needs in four floors and build it greener with 55 ft. They say they are setting back the fifth floor so it has less square feet. Why not just eliminate the fifth floor?
They are proposing over 200 parking spaces. Why not limit the number of parking spaces to far fewer cars in order to encourage transit and alternatives use? Has not the City been discussing significantly reducing the parking requirements in commercial buildings elsewhere in the city for just that reason? The recovered space in the basement could be used to meet some of the building’s program needs and make up for the lost space on the fifth floor.
They say they are designing a building that is rising to the challenge and will be very, very green. Looking at their sketches of the building and reading what they have said they will do does not reveal any elements that have not already been done by dozens of other buildings. Nor does it reveal any creative, new approaches to other issues with the building. And it illuminates quite a few things they are not doing that have become routine for green buildings.
First, this is a difficult site on which to build a building that will require a minimum of energy to operate. An energy efficient building is easiest to do with a wide southern exposure and a narrow western exposure. This building is exactly the opposite. There are well known and established ways to rise to this challenge. They do not appear to have incorporated them into the designs they have published so far. In fact, their published drawings show a building that will have a very difficult time achieving a desirable indoor temperature without air conditioning, which is the energy consumption we most want to avoid. They are proposing to install ground source heat pumps to reduce energy consumption. Nothing new or challenging there; that has been done by the Seattle School District years ago. They are proposing to recycle rain water. What is cutting edge about that? In short, what are they doing that rises to anything more than greenwash?
Rising to the challenge of the Living Building Challenge would be something worth supporting. I would propose that you should add a bonus of 20 feet to the existing ordinance only if you condition it with a requirement to meet 90% of the goals with a scaled penalty of 3% of the building cost for each 5% of goals missed below that (and I’d still like to see you raise the level of the challenge for the first 10 ft. and make the electricity and water reductions mandatory).
It has been said that because the bonus is so small there have been no other attempts at the Living Building Pilot Program in Seattle. That probably has more to do with the long lead time on projects and the miserable economic climate for new construction over the past few years. A more reasonable approach to this problem would be to extend the time frame of the trial period.
Finally, we need to look at this individual proposal, since that is really the reason this proposed modification to the City’s bonus has come about. Note that this building would be right across the street from the Shoreline Zone. There is a 30 ft height limit in the Shoreline Zone for this type of structure. A transition from a 45 ft height limit to a 30 ft height limit is quite sensible. But allowing a 65 ft building in an otherwise 45 ft area next to a 30 ft height limit area is quite out-of-scale and no amount of gloss can mask that.
The Wallingford community and the Seattle Solid Waste Utility worked for over a year to find a way to build a new transfer station and stay below the height of the existing station. It is a real slap in the face to the community and SPU to now so casually allow a building next door that does what SPU worked so hard to avoid.
@Marley, @Lee – “The WCC took a position questioning the need for the additional height. As a design professional, I agree with that view.” So the WCC has taken an official position on this project?
I fully support this project and couldn’t care less whether or not it gets built as “Living Building”. 82’ at 34th & Stone is just fine. Having Brooks HQ in the hood is just icing on the cake.
@Ryan – The upper two floors of office space (plus the roof) will offer pristine views of the lake and downtown skyline that cannot be blocked by a building across the street under current zoning for the Shoreline, which limits building height to 35 feet.
Views west toward Fremont and the canal will also be pretty darn nice, and protected from being blocked unless another developer also sweet talks the City Council into giving them special treatment for extra height as well.
Don’t kid yourself, Skansa is not doing this to be altruistic nor to save the planet. The driver is dollars, dollars, dollars in their pocketses.
Hear those crickets? That is the sound of the opposition to the 60ft* building that is going to be built 1.5 blocks north of this project on the same side of Stone.
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/AppDocs/GroupMeetings/DRProposal3012718AgendaID3422.pdf
The whole of the lower Stone corridor WILL be built to 45-65ft (in fact, the city wants to zone all of lower Stone to 65ft).
So..we need to at least support the projects that are trying to do something positive. The Brooks building will bring jobs, will support small businesses with those people, and at least tries to be green…as opposed to the concrete block building being built behind the Bank of America (to code!)
I live just three blocks away and I’m so tired of a few (loud) neighbors creating excuses for thwarting development. Someone made room for you!
Wake up progressives. The thinking is so far left its actually on the right side of the political spectrum. Folks, we don’t live on a farm and we can’t make Seattle exclusive to our little dream world.
Saying the building is not green enough is just like saying I’ve got my nice little 1920’s bungalow and forget anyone else who wants to come in as I want to keep free and easy access to my driveway so I can scoot to costco on the weekends. That notion is just plain selfish, or self profiting.
Give it up WCC. You don’t represent our neighborhood.
Well, the rhetoric is sure flowing this evening. As pointed out above, large residential structures are sprouting up all over this area, without significant opposition. We’re not exclusive. We’re not fighting against greater density in our neighborhood. What we’re fighting has been described clearly enough above. I urge the frantic Burke/Skanska/Brooks boosters to give the personal attacks a rest.
Is Brooks still in on the project?
I heard that MASSIVE DYNAMIC was going to build their 600″ corporate obelisk on the site,and the top floor would be a Baal BBQ franchise.
Thank you dear Mr. lee for your work .
The info is extremely important to our community and the area where we live. If a group of developers is interested in our neighborhood , they must prove that they are conscious of all the values of our community believes in : TRUST is on of them . If they are” smartly” lying about their intentions then the community has to step up and reject them. We can choose as a community to have other developers who are in line with our values and this will bring jobs and a real win-win situation. Why bother will people only interested in greed and political games, Times are for change now.
Strategies of these kind of developers are spreading these days . See below a letter from Michele who lives in capitol Hill facing problems with unthoughtful developers playing monopolies.
It’s always important to be aware of the consequences in a long run for our families , neighbors , friends and the quality of our lives . How all this will affect us as a community ?
————————————————————————————————-
Hello,
On July 19 between 6-8pm I will be running for an At-Large position for the Capitol Hill Community Council (CHCC) and I am asking for your support. Please see below for location and other pertinent info regarding this event.
Why am I running?
It is important that renters, small business owners and pedestrians voices be represented on the council. It is also my deep appreciation for our culture and the canopy over our neighborhood that motivates me to run and send this request. This was not something I sought out, but have been politely asked to represent.
Why is it important to get involved now?
Capitol Hill is in the midst of a development boom. I was shocked to learn that for many months developers have been trying to take advantage of these economic times by sending letters to private home owners asking if they’d like to sell their property. Week after week these letters are being sent. This is not like what we’ve seen on Broadway, these are developers going into residential neighborhoods and building big monster buildings to increase our urban density and their profits.
What is at stake?
After pressure had been put on the city by both developers and some environmental groups they are currently considering an initiative that raises current zoning heights for buildings in residential areas. They seem very willing to overlook some of the impacts it will have on the culture & character of our community and its people. They were also very willing to have as little community input as possible. Why? Because when the community gets together, and learns about the types of issues will we be facing if we don’t take a firm stance on enforcing sustainable human scale development, it challenges the powers that be.
Here are some issues we’ll be facing:
1. Destabilization of our community & its character
2. Over Population
3. More pollution (i.e. Noise pollution)
4. More accidents (pedestrian & car & cyclists)
5. More crime
6. Less sunlight & views for those living around the new buildings
7. Removal of some of Capitol Hill’s canopy.
8. More stress on our environment and our people
Please join me on Thursday, July 19 at the Cal Anderson Shelter House at 6pm to vote for myself and the following other candidates that are running to help protect Capitol Hill’s character & charm. This is a contested election. Your support will make a difference.
John Akamatsu (VP); Ruben Krishnanthan (Treasurer); Erie Jones (Secretary); Jeffrey Cook, Lisa Kothari (Officers at-large)
July 19, 6-8pm
Capitol Hill Community Council
http:// capitolhillcommunitycouncil. org/
Location: Cal Anderson Shelter House
Agenda: Elect new officers (and perhaps a look at some of the “Champion” proposals for developing the land above the new lightrail station on Broadway, though this is not confirmed)
Link to bios for people running
http:// capitolhillcommunitycouncil. org/blog/
If you’d like to learn how developers our viewing Seattle I encourage you to click on the following link:
http://www.djc.com/news/re/12042416.html
Thank you very much for your support!
Have a great day!
Michele
@29. I realize that the bulk of this post is the inclusion of “Michele’s” letter, not your own text. However, both are examples of the kind of exaggeration and rhetoric that I, for one, do not find helpful when I am trying to learn the specifics of an issue so as to form my own opinion.
Yes, we’ve seen a lot of strong opinions expressed here….because people have strong–and differing!—opinions about the Living Building Pilot and about the proposed development.
There isn’t just one point of view in the Wallingford “community” and in the Wallyhood blog, sometimes it’s hard to distinguish opinion from fact, or individual opinion from a formal stance by an organization. I would expect “Lee” to write against the Brooks/Skanska project, because that’s his pattern…so my job as a reader is recognize that while also reading, and considering, the content of his posts carefully.
Also: I have come to respect those writers, on varying sides of this issue, who present material accurately (and without sneering at those that think differently), so I’d like to say thanks to you folks, for sure.
I remain supportive of the Brooks/Skanska project itself. I feel it’s a move in the right direction for the south Wallingford neighborhood, and I hope it will be approved and move forward.
thank you marley and Mr. Ruby
Those who want businesses here seem ot be deaf to the crude and irresponsible ways Skanksa is tryign to change city codes.
If you truly want Skanska to have a building again I say tell them to build within variance- it can be done.. or to use the abandoned building across from Essential Bakery.
I am for more business but in a respectful way, not cheating, manipulators.
@29 Thank you very much for your extremely informative post.
Thanks for this reminder, I just sent a message supporting this building and changes to the pilot project to the City Council.
@25TRW – I looked at the document you cited – the building at 3636 Stone is proposed to be built within the current zoning code at 44 feet with a “rooftop feature” allowed by the code. It is no where near 60 ft. It is not asking for additional height. No concern about this project has been raised at the WCC.
On the other hand, the document does cite a proposal by someone – it does not say who – to rezone all the properties south of 36th on both sides of Stone to 65 ft. It says this is being done to provide a transition from residential to the industrial areas, but this does not make any sense given the other zoning and development in the vicinity. Does anyone know where this proposal is coming from?
When the WCC reviewed the 3636 Stone project months ago, we saw the reference to the rezone. We checked with the city, and there is no pending proposal to rezone the properties to 65 feet. Evidently there was a proposal years ago, but it didn’t go anywhere.
@34 – The zoning for the 3636 Stone project has an allowable 44′ with stair and elevator penthouses extending to a maximum 16 additional feet.
Re: The 65′ rezone – here is specific information on the proposal (it is in fact dated 2009)
http://www.cityofseattle.gov/DPD/Planning/FremontUrbanVillageRezone/RezoneRecommendations/default.asp
“few (loud) neighbors creating excuses for thwarting development”
There are clearly varying opinions about this issue in the neighborhood. As of February(ish), about 180 neighbors wrote letters to the DPD about this building.
150 of those neighbors wrote letters against the height departure. No one stated in those letters that didn’t want development at that site. They welcomed the building but they simply wanted the building to stay within current zoning.
Plus 65 people showed up for a rally on a rainy evening to voice their support for fair zoning. There are more than just a few loud neighbors.
So WCC does represent a good portion of the neighborhood and I appreciatee all that they have done to keep the public updated on this issue and to make sure the city does their due dilligence on environmental review and public process.
I believe TRW’s point is that the 3636 Stone project DOES meet the zoning, but is a big box. Height is not the issue, it’s about good design. Anyhoo.. still haven’t heard from @LEE, president of the WCC, if his organization has taken a position on this issue. I think they have not, and I wonder why?
Thanks for sharing the story. I called all of the councilmembers’ offices and spoke with each one except for those with voicemails: Godden, O’Brien, and Conlin. On a plus note: Bruce A. Harrell’s office stated, in so many words, that they recognize that it’s uncool to have a structure this tall in an area zoned for less and they are diving way deep into this project and getting the facts on Skanska to make sure that the many voices, not just the loudest, are heard as a part of the the city’s covenant with its people.
It looks like it just got harder to have public comment as I believe the Council approved no design review or SEPA needed for residential structures less than 200 units. Look to likely see more basic concrete boxes and half-baked traffic plans.
@ Miss Ruby. I don’t know the answer to your question but I did hear that the Wallingford Chamber of Commerce chose to withdraw their position of support of the Skanska project once they learned more about it.
@ Miss Ruby. I haven’t responded to your query for a couple of reasons. First, being new to the blog world, I didn’t realize the significance of the “@ name” symbol as calling for a reply. Second, I haven’t had time to read the posts as they appear. In any event, your question is a non-issue.
As a paid representative of Skanska you have attended many WCC meeting and should be well aware of WCC’s position. The WCC months ago authorized and directed an appeal of the code amendments which are the subject of this post. You also must know that Skanska has hired an attorney to come to our meetings to watch what we do. He has received a friendly welcome. I make sure that every notice of a WCC meeting I have posted to Wallyhood and other places includes an open invitation for anyone to attend. That will continue to be the case. We would love more community involvement.
That having been said, I am not sure what or why you are asking. My posts only identified myself as Lee. You have applied my title as President of the WCC. The opinions I have presented here are my own, although I believe they are consistent with the position of the WCC. The facts I have related speak for themselves – and I don’t believe any have been disputed.
While I have not in these posts claimed to be speaking in any official capacity, at least I am not hiding behind a pseudonym. In earlier posts you were asked to identify your position with Skanska. How about it?
Of much greater importance than this side show is the fact that late this afternoon the proposed amendments to the code were significantly changed once again (to protect the special interests of Skanska/Brooks/Burke – my opinion) and have been tentatively set for a vote tomorrow morning with less than a day’s notice. A quick reading of these new changes makes it appear that some elements of City government are doing everything they can to make sure that Skanska gets special privileges that will be denied to others, even if the changes will at the same time undermine the goals and objectives of the Living Building Challenge. (Also my opinion in case you are interested.)
As for the new amendments, in a nut shell, because the Skanska project falls far short of the Living Building Challenge criteria, it has been determined that its project cannot be part of the Living Building Pilot Program. As a result, DPD and some council members at the eleventh hour are creating a special code designation so that Skanska can get the special land use departures it demands with lower compliance standards. Only Skanska will likely be able to benefit. This is special interest legislation at its worst. (My opinion again.)
This should be the current subject of this debate. These issues are very important. We should be discussing their merits not engaging in personal attacks. (Also my opinion.)
Many thanks to Lee, Donn, Mike Ruby, Marley’s Ghost,and all the other people who have kept such composure and focus while providing the neighborhood with information and facts about this project.
@KTC i actually don’t trust much that is coming from those creating erroneous stories about this project – or giving balanced points. I observed the flyer on all the posts surrounding my jogging trail to see height quotes that are totally false to try and engage the public around falsehoods. If you actually look at the application and attended the DRB meetings, you would have known that the building is 65′ and like every building in the city, it has roof top features (albeit the project pushed them out of public view). Current zoning permits a building to be built up to the line of the sidewalk, to 45+10+15 feet for all the roof top features. Current zoning allows a building to be 75 feet and NOT provide any great seating, community spaces for us to enjoy the connection to the trail (current zoning would create a MONSTER – so I’m happy that Skanska actually gave a thoughtful approach to make a project better when the rules didn’t meet the community intent (at least for those of us that worked with them in 10 different meetings). I will say there are some of us neighbors that have spent time to understand this project. Those of you that haven’t spent time understanding the project, should probably do so.
Lee @42, it’s understandable if you didn’t previously realize that people were directly addressing you. Here’s another friendly internet tip – there are only two posts from a “Miss Ruby” on here & yes, they’re both anonymous (take a look at how many people post here with a pseudonym; are they all out to get you?). It’s possible that Wallyhood has backend IP tracking but I’m guessing even if so, you don’t have access to it.
To wit, if you’re going to accuse someone of being a paid shill just because they asked a couple of direct questions, you’d better be able to back that up with some evidence. As far as I know, she’s an interested neighbor, just like the rest of us. Right now, you look really bad, both for the ridiculous hyperbole in your initial post & now dodging legitimate questions with wild accusations. I’m still not sure whether or not Skanksa is doing things the right way, but you’ve done more harm than good trying convince me that it will be bad for the neighborhood.
The gift Skanska made to get special legislative considerations:
http://seattle.gov/parks/maintenance/magnuson_picnic_shelter.htm
That shelter was paid for with your tax dollars. Not sure how that qualifies as a gift. I volunteered for the city’s Burke Gilman clean up crew, does that mean I am looking for special consideration too?
Nobody has mentioned Suzie Burke so far… I think all the REAL players here should be named. Suzie is the “land baroness” of Fremont (dubbed thus by the Seattle Times) who owns the property that the SUBWAY shop is in, and the parking lot immediately adjacent to the Subway shop. It is safe to assume she owns the entire property that Skanska is looking to develop. The reason Skanska isn’t looking at the abandoned property across from The Essential Baking Company might be because Suzie does not own that property.
I think some of the negativity toward this project is primarily directed at Suzie, who saw the value in lower WallingFremont when few others did.
One explanation I would enjoy reading is where I can find the grand sweeping vistas that this building will supposedly block. Whose chimney do I have to stand on to see such an inspiring view? I hope Joseph Scaylea captured some of these views on film!
If anyone has been following this issue on Wallyhood, you’ll remember from past blogs that Miss Ruby was indeed making intense accusations and outing someone else without be willing to share whether she was on the Skanska payroll.
Given how harsh people can be in these blogs it’s understandable that many bloggers often choose to use a pseudomyn. But it really seemed unfair when Miss Ruby was so freely outing someone else without being willing to do the same. It’s something that I had never really seen on Wallyhood.
The “abandoned property” is an expensive biotech lab facility. It would be really stupid for the owner to demolish it to build ordinary office space.
Agreed. While it would be great to see the biotech facility occupied, I don’t see that as viable for basic office space.
The information posted here about the proposed Brooks/Skanska building is mostly informative. That, along with my own research, means I continue to see this building in an extremely positive light. So I continue to support the proposal and am encouraging our elected officials to do the same.
@Ozymandias: Suzie Burke is mentioned in Lee’s original post. Ironically, Burke single-handedly attempted to blockade the rechannelization of Stone Way, which improved traffic flow and made the street more attractive for ground-level retail and developers like Skanska. As one of the cyclists who fought for the rechannelization, I’m still waiting for my “thank you” from Susie.
I would really like someone who is opposed to this project to let us know where these sweeping views of the water that the extra 20 feet on the building will supposedly block. No jab intended, just a question. From what I have seen, there are none (which is probably why I can afford to live in the neighborhood).
As one person who posted that the Skansa building will enjoy sweeping views of the lake and downtown skyline and of the canal and bridge to the west, I am responding again (see 24) to the misrepresentation persisted in by some supporters of the project.
Skansa WILL enjoy views by having a 22 foot taller building than zoning allows (10ft +10ft + 2ft). This is not hyperbole. Total of 82 feet (currently) Remember, Skansa does NOT meet the requirements of the Living Building Pilot and so does NOT even qualify for the first 10 feet of height increase.
These views will likely be unassailable in the future because the property to the south is zoned for 35 feet. THIS is the prime value sought by Skansa (opinion) and the gift from the city TO Skansa, NOT sustainable design, which could have been achieved without the additional height.
Also, it is my understanding that the legislation considered removed restrictions on the height of “mechanical equipment” on the roof, so the 2 feet additional height might grow. I do not know if this clause was included in the package for Skansa that passed Council, however.
Thank you Nick Licata for your effort.
As for public views, Stone Way is a view corridor looking south. The Skansa building is built to the property line, rather than being stepped back from Stone (much) to allow the public views to remain. The building is NOT transparent as the renderings imply and, yes, public views will be blocked. Other buildings are stepped back or set back, but the “shoulders” of the Skansa building will constrict, rather than augment, the view from the Stone Way corridor. This could have been an opportunity to frame and enhance by tapering the building toward Stone, rather than block and make the building feel even taller and more noticeable.
The pristine, sweeping views will be for the private use of Skansa only and will likely be preserved long into the future because other development will not be allowed to bully their way to the front and stand directly in front of Skansa, even though turn about would be fair play.
This is one more sad day for Seattle because special treatment is afforded to those who have connections to achieve such favorable treatment. Now we have two levels of green legislated the same benefits from land use code. Why would anyone in their right mind build to a Living Building standard when they can get the same gifts of zoning relaxation as someone who only builds to a level of 60% (at best) of the standard? Remember, there is no teeth in the legislation to collect on any penalties if Skansa does not even meet 60% of the requirement.
Thank you for the information about Suzie. It now makes perfect sense how and why this project has received special treatment, much as the Fremont center was walled off from the canal many moons ago. Suzie does some good things, but the squeezing of DPD to allow the building of walls in front of public waters is not one. These things could have been done so much more tastefully so that many more would benefit.
I see your point about the Skanska building getting a unique view in the area.
I’d be in favor of rezoning the whole area so that other people can build extra height even without the Living Building Pilot Project. We should start working on this now.
Uhh, #55, don’t think Fremont Dock owns or wants to rezone the whole area. If you be a property owner, feel free to apply for a contract rezone with the council. Take you six months to get on the docket. You not be owner, head to South Lake Union, which used to be called the Cascade neighborhood – before all you could see was buildings.
Some thought went into stepping height from Lake Union north, which is why this law should not be written by and for special interests. Plenty of sites zoned appropriately, plenty of ways to upzone if you want, plenty of legal ways already exist. Don’t need special living building legislation spot-zoning. Let’s remove institutional barriers instead.
Monday, July 30, 2pm – City Council of the Whole Meeting – Vote
Doug, thanks for pointing out that Suzie was named at the beginning of this discussion. Like others, I failed to note it at the time. I still feel her identity needs to be closely linked to this discussion. Suzie is viewed differently by different groups of people, just as people differ in their opinions of the character Dagny Taggart from ATLAS SHRUGGED.
I thank Marley’s Ghost for clarifying that the breath-taking vistas will only be available AFTER the Skanksa project is complete and that right now they exist only in the mind’s eye of those discussing this project. Personally I think it is nice that the building will create a new southern and western perspective. Or does only graffiti qualify as art?
As for all the “green speak” about the building and how it is going to make Baby Gaia cry, my position is this: I DON’T CARE. Move to a yurt in the woods and commune with nature there. I like technology, I like progress; that’s my Neandertal DNA for you, building a world out of a wilderness.
I am confident that there were Seattleites who felt it was a “sad day” when the Aurora Bridge was built, thereby “ruining” the natural splendor of North Queen Anne, and there were surely people who felt that the ship canal was the Abomination of Biblical proportions.
As for easing height requirements south of the Suzie-Skanska project, go ahead. That old shoreline is probably going to take a lot of pilings to make it earthquake resistant.
Godspeed, Suzie Burke! I for one do not begrudge you your property or your success. What you DO need, though, is a good P.R. advisor to brighten your image,.. maybe.
My question to those opposed to the project is: would you rather see a generic concrete block building built at current code in this location? 45ft+15ft of rooftop whatever as a storage unit could be built there now under code and block just as many cherished views.
Why is it always `a “concrete block” building? I find that funny.
@ Ralph, because that is exactly what is going up two blocks (no pun intended) away.
@Marley’s Ghost, I think you missed all of the changes to Skanska’s design that came out of neighbor involvement in the DRB process. The building is stepped back from the sidewalk and includes the biggest common area on Stone Way by far.
Well, sure, it’s about Suzie Burke to a major extent. This was irritating to the Skanska project manager, I felt, but as far as I know, this will continue to be a Fremont Dock property including the building, and Skanska is just working for her.
But it isn’t about whether she’s a heroic figure out of Atlas Shrugged. It’s about what she does, and whether we look forward to an extension of the office park she has built out by the canal along Fremont. Office parks have their place. I didn’t think Fremont was really that place, and neither is this, as we can see by referring to the zoning restrictions. Nor is this a place for a five story green office building, because of site orientation etc. The attraction about this place is Suzie Burke’s grasping need to cash in on her property with a big office building.
Suzie Burke. Creative visionary? Neighborhood wrecker? Time will tell.
@Ryan, I looked at the Skansa project before posting initially and did not notice much change. Respect for the surrounding environment is welcome. It is a site with a lot of potential in close proximity to the lake and could be something great.
My issues stem from the abuse of “green” speak to obtain a pass from the city and special treatment for those well-connected few. Zoning was established. Policies were designated to reward projects that elected to invest in new technologies. This project DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA, yet we have the City Council and DPD intervening to generate a windfall for a private property owner and ignoring the rules.
Yes, there will breath-taking vistas associated with this project, but they will only be available to the select few who occupy the building. Good for them.
Land use code is established to allow development to proceed with a cohesive vision. A single project should not be allowed to waive away requirements just because they have friends in high places. Stepping building heights gradually back from the water would have allowed many projects to benefit from views as development proceeds and avoid building a wall that cuts off access to others. It is part of a common good but requires a less selfish, more cooperative attitude. As it is, we will now have the 6′-6″, 320 lb dude standing front and center in row 7 dancing a happy dance, not giving a crap that the kids behind him cannot see. Hey! Down in front! We all paid for tickets.
Marley said. “Land use code is established to allow development to proceed with a cohesive vision.” I believe you are mistaken, sir. Land use codes were not brought down from the top of Queen Anne hill engraved in stone. Do you really think that POLITICIANS are so prescient as to predict future needs? No, the “vision” of politicians is re-election. It is up to we, the people, to instruct our public servants.
“Land use codes” are not inviolate: they can be changed.
Your comment, “Yes, there will breath-taking vistas associated with this project, but they will only be available to the select few who occupy the building. Good for them.” Reveals your envious attitude. Don’t envy your betters, strive to surpass them.
I think the development along the canal was a good thing, providing employment and commerce and recreation that was not previously available. I think the people who will be working in the Suzie-Skanska building will appreciate their jobs, and they will spend money here in Wallyhood. Many of them will live here. Many of those will improve the 80 year old properties they purchase. Win-win-win-win-win is all I see, with the exception of those who despise their neighbor’s happiness.
..and as far as I can tell, you did NOT “buy a ticket.” The property does not belong to you, and it does not belong to your commune of envious busybody anti-business occupiers.
Typical…people getting tro11ed and flamed on blogs just because they don’t want to have to switch their neighborhood to the latest and greatest just to get the newest version of LVNG BLDNG etc.
Get a life people. Some of us don’t live to switch to the latest and greatest for that sake alone. At the company I work for we ask what does the market want and what do we think it wants. We save jobs instead of wasting money on unnecessary building…and amenities don’t suffer either, as our projects keep even our older neighborhoods pleasant…because that’s what good developers do.
My neighbors don’t care for the latest and greatest anyway. They just want something that works so that they can go about their lives. Anything more is just waste.
It’s a matter of good public policy not to surprise people. Granting exemption and exception is just another thing with which the council is out of step. The exemption and exception amount to a subsidy not spent for public purpose not generating a public return.
Where are the BINDING amenities offered in return for these relaxed standards and loopholes – more truly public space, parks, pleasant interaction? Be nice to know before we got all upset.
Recently, council has
* Reduced parking requirements;
* Eased environmental review for larger projects;
* Lowered the requirement for retail space on ground floor;
Council raised the bar so larger projects won’t trigger review, which is when neighbors learn what’s going on.
With the relaxed zoning/density changes, developers make all the money from apartments, and made better money than if they put in ground floor retail. Can’t say that’s better for small business jobs.
Existing loopholes – such as those allowing big homes built out to property lines – create additional neighborhood impacts. Wallingford has seen several fires spread to closely adjoining structures.
Ozzie, I look upon your words (Win-win-win-win-win is all I see) and I weep.
Yes, zoning can change, and in fact farther up above you’ll see a reference to proposals to change the zoning in this area. It was abandoned, for whatever reason. Maybe in the future, they’ll be back, and it will change if appropriate.
Maybe it will change, for everyone, every property owner in this area, little guys and office park magnates alike, the way urban planning should happen. Not public policy for sale if you have the wherewithal, as in the present case.
It’s not that we little people envy our betters, it’s that we hate to see that wealth buying special legislation, rushed through the process to benefit one well heeled party, as if the small businesses and the large play by different rules that always favor the large. I’m not talking about corruption, exactly, but what small business is going to be able to put together one of these Living Building Pilot Program projects? The point of this legislation is to target areas that are practically zoned for small businesses, light industry, warehouse space and generally low revenue space, and as if the businesses in these areas didn’t already have enough problems, also invite big money to take advantage of the low real estate value and build their big office buildings, if they can promise a green building. (Note that the promise is enough – penalties are paltry, and no one’s checking long term post-occupancy performance at all.)
I have attempted to stay informed on this issue, but have found it difficult to filter through what often confusing (and conflicting) information on whether the Brooks Building. I had hoped that I could arrive at the answer to one question, “Does the building legally qualify for the height exemptions based on its current design, the current zoning laws and the allowances allowed for through the Living Building Pilot Program.
Since I was unable to answer these questions with certainty, I wrote the city council members indicating that “I support the construction of the Skanska building AS LONG AS IT FULLY COMPLIES with existing zoning laws, and meets all of the requirements of the Living Building Pilot Program that would permit for allowances to those zoning laws.
So far, the only city councilman who responded is Mike O’Brian. (Thank you, Mike, I greatly appreciate your responsiveness.) I found Mike’s email to be informative, and am sharing it with the larger community. What I found to be of most interest was the paragraph where he differentiates “Living Buildings” from “Deep Green” buildings. This is a new concept for me and I now feel like I have to go back square one to understand this new designation (what qualifies as Deep Green, what allowances are available for Deep Green buildings, etc.).
MIKE O’BRIAN’S TEXT FOLLOWS:
The Living Building Challenge Pilot Program was created to incentivize the production of buildings in our city that go to extraordinary lengths to conserve energy and water and to use sustainable building materials. So far only one building in participating in the Pilot, in part because the program’s requirements are so rigorous and its outcomes expensive to achieve.
This summer the Mayor proposed several changes to those incentivizes in the hopes of increasing participation in the pilot and our understanding of what it takes to build Living Buildings here in Seattle. The most controversial amendment was to allow an additional 10 feet of height to the buildings developed under the Pilot in specific industrial commercial zones. As a committee member, I supported this amendment because I believe that meeting our long-term climate goals require us to start building the most sustainable, efficient buildings that are technologically and economically feasible. This is a difficult balance for policymakers to achieve, but I think these allowances are important to helping finance construction of deep green buildings.
In addition, the program allows for participation of buildings that meet all of the requirements of a “Living Building” and those that are striving for those qualities, but don’t qualify on quite every standard. To address concerns that the “Living Building” name could be diluted by such actions, we voted to amend the name of the program to acknowledge these as “Deep Green” buildings.
I appreciate the thought an energy you have put into your comments on this proposal. My goal is to encourage more sustainable buildings and fully engage community members and neighborhoods in their development. Full Council will consider this package of amendments on Monday, July 30 in our regular meeting at 2:00pm and public comment will be taken at the meeting (or via email at any time). If you cannot make it to City Hall for the meeting, you can view it online at http://www.seattle.gov/councillive.
Thank you and have a great weekend,
Mike O’Brian
Friday afternoon, the following email was addressed, I assume, to everyone who’s contacted the city council / committee (I removed only the to: identification).
Monday’s vote on the Deep Green/Living Building Amendments
Friday, July 27, 2012 PM
From: “Mike O’Brien, Seattle City Council”
Hello ,
Thank you for contacting me regarding amendments to the city’s Living Building Challenge Pilot Program.
The Living Building Challenge Pilot Program was created to incentivize the production of buildings in our city that go to extraordinary lengths to conserve energy and water and to use sustainable building materials. So far only one building in participating in the Pilot, in part because the program’s requirements are so rigorous and its outcomes expensive to achieve.
This summer the Mayor proposed several changes to those incentivizes in the hopes of increasing participation in the pilot and our understanding of what it takes to build Living Buildings here in Seattle. The most controversial amendment was to allow an additional 10 feet of height to the buildings developed under the Pilot in specific industrial commercial zones. As a committee member, I supported this amendment because I believe that meeting our long-term climate goals require us to start building the most sustainable, efficient buildings that are technologically and economically feasible. This is a difficult balance for policymakers to achieve, but I think these allowances are important to helping finance construction of deep green buildings.
In addition, the program allows for participation of buildings that meet all of the requirements of a “Living Building” and those that are striving for those qualities, but don’t qualify on quite every standard. To address concerns that the “Living Building” name could be diluted by such actions, we voted to amend the name of the program to acknowledge these as “Deep Green” buildings.
I appreciate the thought an energy you have put into your comments on this proposal. My goal is to encourage more sustainable buildings and fully engage community members and neighborhoods in their development. Full Council will consider this package of amendments on Monday, July 30 in our regular meeting at 2:00pm and public comment will be taken at the meeting (or via email at any time). If you cannot make it to City Hall for the meeting, you can view it online at http://www.seattle.gov/councillive.
Thank you and have a great weekend,
Mike
Ozzy, I beg to differ. Land use codes were intended to avoid a mish-mash of building and conflicts between adjacent uses. Why else would they place restrictions on what is built?
I do not view developers, some who are bullies, as being my “betters”. That would imply that we have similar values and goals, which I do not believe to be the case. I am not in favor of taking advantage of others because I am wealthy or because I know “the right people”. Compassion is a positive and demonstrates that someone can picture how their actions impact others. Many developers simply do not give a crap about how their actions impact others. Hence the need for land use codes.
I also find it frustrating Ozzy’s statement echoed by many supporters that development is an all or nothing proposition; that somehow if we do not allow this building to sidestep current zoning that nothing will happen… ever. My opinion is that there is a middle ground of tasteful development, where you can have the building and not have the adverse impacts. It takes some effort, but is entirely feasible. This is also what land use code attempts to do.
To Learn more about the LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE, visit https://ilbi.org/lbc/certified.
Under the banner link ABOUT and then STAFF, you will learn about some of the people behind this movement.
They include:
STAFF:
Jason F. McLennan – CEO / Seattle, WA – a nationally recognized leader in the sustainable building industry. He is the founder of the Living Building Challenge…
Richard Graves – Executive Director / Minneapolis, MN – has extensive experience establishing and supporting green building programs in national and international settings.
Amanda Sturgeon – Vice President + Living Building Challenge Program Director / SSeattle, WA – a licensed architect with fifteen years experience designing and managing some of the most sustainable buildings in the Pacific Northwest.
Sarah Costello – Vice President, Development + Communications / Portland, OR – Sarah joined Cascadia in September 2008 and is focused on expanding our Friends of Cascadia program, deepening our relationships with members, and exploring a wide range of funding opportunities.
Mona Lemoine – Vice President + Executive Director of Cascadia / Vancouver, BC – Originally from Winnipeg, Mona has lived in Vancouver since 2007 when she joined the organization as British Columbia Director.
Briana Meier, AICP – Community Manager / Portland, OR – Prior to joining the International Living Future Institute, Briana served as the Sidney Lezak Fellow with the Portland State University College of Urban and Public Affairs’ Initiative on Triple Bottom Line Development.
Jay Kosa – Community Coordinator / Portland, OR – a communications specialist with a BA in English Literature from Bucknell University.
Board of Directors:
Johanna Brickman, Manager, Sustainable Built Environment Program/Oregon BEST, Oregon – leads development of the Oregon BEST Sustainable Built Environment Program, including prioritization of research and investment agendas to achieve economic strength in Oregon.
Clark Brockman – Director of Sustainability Resource Team, SERA Architects / Portland, Oregon – has over 25 years of architectural experience.
Ralph DiNola – Principal, Green Building Services / Portland, Oregon – serves as a green building consultant and project manager on numerous LEED™ registered projects.
Mark Frankel – Technical Director, New Buildings Institute / White Salmon, Washington – has been consulting on sustainable design and energy efficiency for 15 years.
Denis Hayes – President and CEO, Bullitt Foundation / Seattle, Washington – In addition to his role at the Bullitt Foundation, Denis is board chair of the International Earth Day Network as well as the immediate past chair of the Energy Foundation. During the Carter administration, Hayes headed the federal Solar Energy Research Institute (now the National Renewable Energy Laboratory).
Dale Mikkelsen – Secretary, SFU Community Trust: UniverCity / Vancouver, British Columbia – is the Manager of Planning and Sustainability for the UniverCity Project at Simon Fraser University – a community being developed around “Four Cornerstones of Sustainability”, including Environment, Equity, Education and Economy.
Jason S. Twill – Senior Project Manager, Sustainability, Vulcan Inc – Currently managing sustainability initiatives at Vulcan Inc., Jason has over a decade of experience in the areas of construction management, architecture, and urban planning.
Dennis J. Wilde – Principal, Gerding Edlen Development / Portland, Oregon – Dennis has been active in construction and real estate development since 1980.
Additional information about philosophy, advocacy and certification can be found on the site.
snippets below have been lifted from http://www.independent.com/news/2011/may/07/how-make-deep-green-building/
So I guess that makes this a “green post.” 🙂
“How to Make a Deep Green Building
What does it take to create a building that will use net-zero energy, will consume a fraction of normal water use, and that is filled with reclaimed, recycled, and healthy materials? As the principal architect of the building, I know that it takes at least three things: commitment, research, and money.
Every member of the project team, including owners, donors, users, architects, engineers, landscape architects, contractors, and subcontractors has to be enthusiastic and knowledgeable about the environmental goals of the project. In the case of the Tipton House, a daylong pre-design meeting of all participants lead to a unanimous goal of “Platinum” and to a felicitous discovery: Only at the end of the day did the ranch manager mention the existence of two 30,000 gallon cisterns, which led the mechanical engineer to a cost-effective way to create geo-thermal heating and cooling, a key to the building’s low energy use.
Systems that use less energy and water than most, and materials that are more local, recycled, and healthy than normal take extra effort in the design phase. Instead of just specifying the well-known options, our team spent extra time in designing a geothermal heating and cooling system and a rain-collection system for flushing toilets. We sought out local sources of recycled ceramic tile and petroleum-free paving; we searched for doors and windows that were made with sustainably-harvested wood. Volunteers and the builders collected stones from the property and salvaged and renewed redwood planks from the demolished buildings on site. This upfront investment saved money in construction and will save energy and water for years to come.
Some parts of green building cost nothing extra (locating the building properly, putting windows in the right place for sun and ventilation, leaving structural materials exposed). Some cost less (reducing cooling system sizes by keeping out the heat of the sun and reducing heat from lights). However, in a deep green building, some things will cost more. The design and engineering phases take more time. Many of the products that have low environmental impact and are made to last cost more than the typical. Some of these extra costs will result in operational and maintenance savings over many years; some have no local payback but will help to lower environmental damage where the materials came from and where they will end up.
The Tipton Meeting House is considered a deep green building today. But if we are to slow climate change and environmental damage and move to a more sustainable future, over the next ten to 20 years we must see more and more buildings like it and beyond it. The pioneering buildings of today must become commonplace.”
The last line reveals the motivation behind this effort: the idea that human beings can control climate change.
I do not believe they can.
Indeed, the Living Building program is legit.
The present legislation will allow Burke / Skanska to reap the benefits of the height departures while meeting a lesser standard, that had to be renamed to something like “Seattle Deep Green” after the Living Building people wouldn’t stand for it. While the amendment preserves a Living Building Challenge option for potential developers, it offers the same 20 foot bonus regardless of which standard you meet, the Living Building or the lesser only-for-Skanska option. Only for Skanska, because of a sunset clause that will make 3400 Stone the first and last project to qualify under that standard.
Note that a green building isn’t exactly a thing that, once created, will naturally serve its intended purpose. It really represents a commitment that goes on for the lifetime of the building. It provides features that help the occupants reduce their resource consumption, but they have to play their role in the process, and it isn’t necessarily a trivial sacrifice. Usage patterns that affect work shifts, stuff like that. Councilman Licata asked whether anyone would be checking on that, Wednesday, and the DPD guy was just nonplussed, like this was a wholly new thought to him.
The building documents. Well before initial submittal, remember they start with 216 parking stalls. The first (so far only) living building piloted has six. At roughly $10K/stall, the neighbors, both businesses and residents, will find more cars on the street. It will be lucrative to minimize the excavation and underground parking stall levels.