Mary F. writes:
Greetings – At the recent Good Shepherd meeting with AMLI (developers) and our community, it was very clear that AMLI has no intention of listening to our neighborhood concerns and actually showed much disregard to those suggestions prepared by the Department of Planning and Development. Unless we want to have an ugly 5 story apartment building at 34th and Wallingford (blocking many city and lake views) and HUGE impact on safety, parking, and traffic in south wallingford, we MUST take action and send an email to DPD no later than this Wednesday, June 26. Below are some talking points, formulated by our ad hoc committee, to assist in the letter writing campaign. PLEASE HELP.
Many thanks, Mary
Hello,
Please write a comment letter – due to Seattle DPD NOT LATER than WED. 6.26!! Address to:Subject: Avtech Project 4014232/33
It’s important to make our voice heard collectively – please don’t think your comment does not count… it does!! Please pass this on.
IF you want ideas – the overarching 5 main points that the local community has identified as most fully supported call for revision by the developers follow:
Commercial real space use:
- 34th ave at min requesting a true commercial retail avenue – venue – village approach that promotes, protects and advances community activation. Commercial/Retail space on 34th frontage imperative for community integration rather than current planned use of leasing office space and apt fitness units.
- 34th is a PRIME retail commercial opportunity adding to the vibrancy and livablity of the neighborhood.
- as a fix: developer should be required to provide true commercial space and current ‘live work’ option is unsatisfactory and request for exception should not be granted.
Parking:
- must exceed expectation of current 1 per unit model which does not adequately address visitors to the site; whether commercial or guests; does not fit reality of more than one car per units in over 1/2 of residential apts.
- On street parking is currently maxed out –
- Additional charges for renters for parking not acceptable option to neighbhorhood.
- case study of recent Prescott apts real life use confirms neighborhood concerns.
- as a fix, developer should cover annual neighborhood parking cost for immediate neighborhood property owners
Access/Egress; completely inadequate current design of apt traffic via Burke Ave.
- This is not an acceptable option for the neighbhorhood.
- traffic safety of surrounding single family living on along Burke.
- traffic access from Burke Ave during peak hours currently untenable to 34th. Project will crush that.
- Wallingford Ave is appropriate remedy especially on North complex. Must be required by city DPD as developer maintains they have no option for Wallingford.
Scale Mass and Size
developer has initiated a plan to achieve thru every available code means greater height and increase unit capacity thru avenues provided by code for improving use of any such project, but only for their sole means of increasing profits. NOT for improving the quality of the project.The limits include a 40′ height restriction ; AMLI proposal requires at 58′ height
- the L2 site requires by code no more than 11 units. AMLI has mis-utilized LEED green code to increase load on property to 17+ units
- Wallingford guidelines require attention to view light and space considerations thru step backs and set backs. AMLI has interpreted code to decrease rather than increase the availability and sensitivity to these crucial community future value.
- AMLI is using Live work space integration as a means for meeting code which clearly assumes a true mixed residential complex of retail/commercial and living. thru the inclusion of proposal for live work space – AMLI needs an exception to ground level access at the same time using height limits of first floor to gain greater mass of units in overall project.
- AMLI is utilizing one building size layout to take advantage of code related to height restrictions in order to maximize height exceeding 40′ and increasing unit capacity; again only for the purpose of maximizing revenue. Clearly dis regarding negative impacts on community, neighborhood and values.
- AMLI is using facade materials uncharacteristic of character of Wallingford. Rather than reflecting common themes of surrounds this project is relying upon outdated and past practices of using color to improve asthetics rather than improving quality of materials. Recent Regata redo should be a clear indicator of the failure of this type of approach to good design.
Neighborhood Community integration and quality of life:
- AMLI has clearly disregarded Wallingford guidelines for open street space- particularly corner plaza guidelines that should be incorporated at both the Wallingford and Burke intersections along 34th.
- The developer has chosen rather to propose as a solution and response to clear mandate for open community space to utilize ‘bulbs’ to enhance their position that they are indeed addressing the ‘plaza’ call for the project.
- AMLI has also circumvented the guidelines calling for open land space reflecting approximately 25% of total land use by creating an enclosed private green space between buildings as well as roof top ‘gardens’ which are not available to the general community and add nothing to the intent of the guidelines to integrate and add to the vibrancy and fabric of the established family neighborhood.
I believe the project number is 3014232/33
It starts with “3” not “4”
so sorry to hear this.. it seems to be an unstoppable trend.
My comment letter in opposition is sent (separate copies with each project number).
I had some dealings with AMLI back in Chicago and can confirm they have the most unpleasant corporate culture I have ever seen. Really, pity their tenants!
How is this, by any standard, a piece of news? Mary F. complains about parking and retail use, yet, does she have any real understanding of market dynamics here? 1:1 parking is actually a substantial amount of parking for mixed use projects these days. And using live/work is generally a way of making a project work that requires ground floor retail in an area that may not be best suited for that. Yes, all of us neighbors would prefer wonderful little shops and restaurants, and I’m sure the developer would too. But they are hedging the fact that realistically the retail could sit empty for years. All the final points are clearly opinion. Of course AMLI is doing what it can to make a profit, is a business! Hence the city code, which is designed to guide development in a certain direction. And from what it sounds like, AMLI is not doing anything illegal. In fact, AMLI is absolutely not “circumvented the guidelines” by having an enclosed garden area. That’s a completely legal way to satisfy the 25% open space rule. Personally I like it better because I like a consistent street wall. That’s just my opinion.
Not all of us believe everyone’s entitled to two parking spaces and that height is evil. I’m ashamed that this blog has posted this letter. Perhaps next time it would behoove you to do some real reporting and actually do a summary of the meeting itself.
Josh, I never said it was news. This is a neighborhood blog, which means sometimes we post what people write in as a way to let them have their say. I’d be happy to post your comment as is or edited as a rebuttal, if you like.
I would like to have an explanation for this position: “as a fix, developer should cover annual neighborhood parking cost for immediate neighborhood property owners”. If I understand this correctly, the current residents, who claim to be “the neighborhood” (I live on Burke and they don’t speak for me), are currently using all the on-street parking that is available before this project is built. This is in an indication that the there are more cars than parking spaces in the current development. Why this is AMLI’s problem, though, is something I don’t understand. No one owns the spaces on that or any other block, not the adjacent property owners or anyone else.
Good points, Mr. Mahar, but I disagree with you on the question of commercial space.
Yes, developers prefer not to build ‘real’ commercial space on the ground floor, because (unless you are on Queen Anne Ave or Broadway) it is a real pain-in-the-ass to lease. It’s hard to find tenants, and when you do it can be messy: they go out of business, need more space, etc. So it’s way easier to use that space for the fitness room, leasing office and live/work. Live/work, oy…, it’s a great idea, but in Seattle, it’s really just a beard for apartments-on-the-street. And there are two big reasons (I think) that this faux-commercial space is bad:
1. If the ground floor/street edge is used for leasing, fitness, and apartments, the building you end up does not have the vitality and engagement with the street that makes a great ‘city’ building; it’s not ‘mixed use’ and its not urban – its sub-urban, and it belongs in Bellevue, surrounded by an ocean of surface parking.
2. Yes, right now it will a pain for AMLI to find tenants for this commercial space. But the economy is cyclical and neighborhoods grow and change. There is tremendous potential for 34th and Wallingford to be a vital urban hub. For that to happen, there needs to be real commercial space on the ground floor.
This is a huge project in a well-established, close-in Seattle neighborhood, and the developer will make a lot of money. No problem – that’s the way it works. But we should demand that they adhere (in letter and spirit) to the zoning code and Design Review guidelines, and build the vibrant, urban building that this site and this neighborhood deserve.
Joe Hurley, would you agree that apartments on the street are more desirable than a fitness center? At least the apartment has some interaction with the street. Ground floor retail is expensive to build. Also nearly impossible to make it pencil out at least in the near term. Seems to me that the kind of street retail you see in NYC work because of the enormous residential density. Not sure we’ve got the density in Wallingford to support the retail that is popping up along Stone Way. Not sure we want that level of density either.
Seems like there might be some reasonably satisfactory outcome that’s somewhere in between NYC, and suburban auto-oriented residential development transplanted to Wallingford.
I added up some numbers in my head a ways back and reckoned the new units, from new and upcoming developments down here, to be around 2000 very roughly. Realistically, they will be half full at best for a long time. Realistically, their street front retail will be a mix of the unoccupied, the pointless boutiques, the bank offices, hair salons and so forth for a long time, and it won’t pencil out. But that’s the penalty they pay for catching whatever this wave is. These buildings will be around a long time, and their design will play a major role for generations. I personally think it’s an incredibly crummy way to make a great city, but as far as I know no one in city government cares about that.
Donn, you make a fair point about the long term outlook for the street retail. May not pencil out today, but could work out well in the long term. If in the future, street retail becomes more profitable than live/work, you will probably see building owners convert over to retail. In the meantime, the neighborhood would be better off with occupied live/work rather than vacant or pointless retail, stark fitness/conference centers (like the ghastly street presence of University House on Stone Way)?
Thanks Wallyhood for the clarification. I think it would be nice if these op-ed pieces were more clearly identified as individual opinions with the larger context of the issue summarized more objectively.
Joe Hurley:
Personally I think Live/work are a great transition use. On Capitol Hill, once more live-centric units have turned into all retail, and I think this will be the case further down the line for a lot of places.
I even think that a large fitness area could easily change to retail when the time is right. In fact, its large area and odd placement provide a kind of unique retail opportunity.
I think in a perfect world, yes, we’d see great retail. Unfortunately if you force them to do retail I think the reality is that we probably wouldn’t get this project at all because it would be too risky to have a quarter of the project empty for years. If it really is a big enough neighborhood priority you could potentially mitigate this liability by allowing the developer more residential units above. Of course, in Mary F.’s original email she wanted full retail and LESS residential units. Not sure you can have your cake and eat it too in this situation.
I live next door to this building. It will take away my view. I’m fine with that. We live in a great location two blocks from Gas Works Park. My mother taught me not to be greedy.
Many of these concerns strain credibility. The developer should not have to add any more parking than their market analysis suggests. There are still plenty of parking spaces on the block surrounding the building. The idea that a developer should subsidize parking for neighbors is completely absurd. In my building, again located right next door, most residents have just one vehicle even when more than one person occupies the unit.
The building height is in scale with the two buildings to the west of the 34th and Wallingford intersection. Lower building heights are a classist attack on affordable housing. Besides, most residents of the neighborhood will not notice any difference, since existing buildings already block views of the lake. Except for me. And I’m happy to give up my view for the greater good.
The complaint about “facade materials uncharacteristic of character” is strange, given that there is no single characteristic facade in the neighborhood. Wallingford is not Leavenworth.
Finally, the demands for open space and “bulbs” are not worth considering. From this location, Gas Works Park is just one block away. It is some of the best open space in the city. We are lucky and spoiled to be so close to it. If no open space or “bulbs” on this project site mean more housing units can be built, then that is a very good thing for our environment and for housing affordability.
Amen, Junipero. Thanks to you and your mother for being such a great example of how to live in a community.
Frankly we can have our cake and eat too if the priorities are kept to: the purpose of business in not business but to serve our interests. We can have a Wallingford Village in South Wallingford and elsewhere if we are not beholden to billionaire’s pockets but hold fast to promoting the public’s interests. If the developer can’t make the profit it desires then do we need that business/developer? There are plenty of developments that are pleasurable, e.g. The Wallingford Steps, Wallingford Center, etc. A Wallingford Village of an outdoor parisian nature, expanding on the Wallingford Steps, cascading to GWP and maintaining the skyline views. We have the resources within our neighborhood to succeed.
Join us at your local lemonade stand, “making lemonade out of lemons”, collecting signatures for your voice to be heard at city hall, “Barking for Community Development”.