Many thanks to Kristen, et al, who attended the Tully’s/Moon Temple Lot Design Review meeting on Monday night. Here’s a recap from Kristen:
I just returned to the meeting and it went amazingly well. I would guess there were 60-70 people there from the community, in a hot and stuffy room. The architects presented their designs (starting with an irrelevant presentation on the firm’s background and previous projects: malls, giant hotels, stadiums), the board asked a few questions and then the community commented (everyone who wanted to talk had a chance). I was impressed with how respectful and constructive the comments were. While there were a few different opinions on exactly what a new building should look like, there was solid agreement that the proposed ones were very far from anything we would like to see in Wallingford and would be more appropriate in a strip mall. It seemed like option B was the only one people would consider as a starting point.
The review board had many of the same concerns as we did during their deliberations (one person called option B “workable”). They were clearly disappointed that the three options were virtually identical and wanted to see three totally different schemes (two desired options I heard them discuss: adding residential units above and/or having small storefronts along 45th with CVS at the corner and in back). They felt that the designers did not do enough work to get to know the character and community of Wallingford before presenting their packet.
I am a little unclear about what the next steps are. Everyone who signed in at the meeting will receive information about the recommendations of the board and progress from here on out.
Here’s a little more info from DOUG.:
The meeting was segmented into four portions. First, representatives from the developer (NORR) spoke, then the design review board asked them questions, then members of the public were invited to speak, and finally the review board met amongst themselves to decide whether or not to give this project their thumbs-up.
The three representative from NORR seemed to be a bit tone deaf as to why 100 people chose to spend two hours in a hot room on a beautiful summer evening. We were not there to hear about NORR’s global projects, awards won, or public outreach, but that is how they kicked off their speech.
They then spoke about this specific project, basically going through the information on the PDF that was linked to from Wallyhood. NORR tried their best to spin the reasons why this project fits in well with existing buildings along 45th, talking about things like existing horizontal lines, high quality materials, and a “human scale” (whatever that means).
The review board seemed dubious. They asked several pointed questions, most typically about what makes this generic-looking CVS building any different from the 7400 other CVS buildings in the U.S., and how does it possibly fit in with the surrounding neighborhood.
It was then the public’s chance to speak. This was not a Q&A. Comments and concerns were to be addressed to the review board. Approximately 25 people spoke, most very eloquently. The public’s opinion was unanimous: this building has no place in Wallingford.
Concerns included the pedestrian experience this monolithic building would create; how trucks would be able to unload goods for CVS when there’s no place for them to park; the precedent this could set for further developments along 45th; the lack of adaptability of a structure such as this when (not if) CVS vacates it someday; and what this means for the future of small local businesses in Wallingford’s urban center.
The design board then met amongst themselves, but in a manner where the public was allowed to listen in. After 20 or 30 minutes of deliberation, they decided to not give this project the go-ahead, for it is simply too out of character with the neighborhood. I don’t know what the board’s decision will lead to, but it’s a good start.
I have attended a lot of public meetings on various issues in Seattle, and oftentimes they can be dominated by kooky folks with pet peeves or special interests who just want to hear themselves speak. This meeting was not at all that way. I’m proud of my neighbors, many of whom were obviously not comfortable speaking in public, but did so anyway, speaking with passion. So to the people who grumble that, “This is the way it is, you can’t stop Big Money or Big Government or Big Whatever,” you should’ve been there, it might’ve given you a little bit of hope.
The City made this design packet available online for prior review, which includes sketches of the options discussed.
Reminder, there is a Wallingford Community Council meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) night, beginning at 7:00pm at the Good Shepherd Center (4649 Sunnyside Avenue North), and this development will be on the agenda.
I wish I had attended this meeting, but I was unable to make it. Thank you so much for the thorough recap. Kudos to our wonderful neighbors for speaking out!
Nice summary. The drugstore-in-back, storefronts-in-front design option sounds like the best bet for now. I think it’s up to the design team to make the next step and present revised design plans.
Thanks for the recap. I wasn’t able to attend the meeting, but I did submit a comment to the [email protected] email. Based on what I wrote and what I read here, it sounds like Wallingford is indeed much in alignment about the lack of need for this building and the horrific design. I’m somewhat intrigued by the drugstore in back, small retail on the street–especially if they combine it with some upper story residences.
I will say, though, I am still having a hard time believing that CVS thinks this is a good neighborhood for them. Am also wondering why, if they want a space with parking, that they don’t move into the Prescott building, which still needs an anchor tenant.
Why in the world would CVS think is a good decision? We already have QFC, Bartell’s, AND the new Walgreens on 45th. How much toilet paper and shampoo can one buy in an afternoon?
I still fail to see why we need yet another drug store in the area. It’s ridiculous.
We really don’t need a CVS type business on 45th. I agree that QFC, Bartell’s and Walgreens is quite enough. All they’ll do is dilute sales for the whole bunch of them. I wish it was a single story building, too. I really don’t want to have 45th turn into Market St – the Ballard Canyon. I’m glad to hear that the designers were open to input!
It’s not about what the neighborhood needs, it’s about what CVS wants to do. They want to own this market, that market and every other market. CVS is the 13th largest company in the world (Wal-Mart is #1, Walgreen’s is #37). They’re huge and they want to get bigger. Their goal is to set up shop in Wallingford and put every other drugstore out of business.
I think our immediate goal should be to fight back against NORR’s current design plans, but our primary goal should be to keep this corporate behemoth out of the neighborhood altogether. Perhaps those two goals are not mutually exclusive.
Sadly, this has absolutely nothing to do with Wallingford’s character or how many drug stores are in the area. It has everything to do with CVS flexing its might to shove itself into Seattle. The small and diverse store fronts along 45th are something that should be protected. CVS not only wants to become an outstanding behemoth in presence, they also want to kill off the other pharmacies and businesses that compete with it.
In every way, shape, and form, this is not the “design” the Wallingford community wants or needs.
Thank you for the recap.
The picture looks horrible- complete strip mall- no character.
1. Very important! The project guy WILL be at the wallingford community council tonight. It is a packed agenda.
2. There is NO WAY a large truck can park on the street and unload. This is definitely a talking point, and perhaps Metro should know. THAT IS A BUS STOP, and so it shall remain, I imagine Metro would say. bet they know nothing about this.
3.This meeting is important tonight (I’m i the Denver airport, can’t be there) for the CVS guy to know how we feel about a fourth pharmacy.
4. Agree c Doug to focus on the design. It is humbling to know how big CVS is. Had no idea. I imagine that IS their plan. To make Pharmaca, Bartell Drug and Walgren’s go out of business. It is VERy hard for me to believe this could happen.
Shirley
Wow. It almost seems like it would take more effort to be that unimaginitive in design than it would to come up with something interesting. Pretty disappointing.
Thanks to those who attended the meeting and spoke up.
The neighborhood NEEDS a dirty gross dive bar with bad food that overserves customers in a kind of clandestine fugue.
(I am serious)
Yes, thanks for going to the meeting and giving such a great report. CVS can take a hike!
What a shame. Tear down existing structures to replace with a generic, could plop down in any old auto-oriented suburban strip mall, 1-story retail box? No mixed use? They want to maximize the drive-in customers… especially since neighbors may not be too happy about the CVS intrusion. Have the architects WALKED through Wallingford ever? Doesn’t show.
I agree with every comment in one way or the other even Frankie, —almost. It is very hard for me to see a lot of the changes in the Wallingford community after living here most of 40 years, but I realize the young folk want progress and Wallingford needs progress but why do we have to become a Boston suburb. Three drug stores? Be real and in that space? Be realer. I will be there Wed, Thanks to all that were at the last meeting.
It was a great meeting for us. To all of you whom I heard speak, bravo; you were eloquent, honest, and representative of most of our collective opinions. What a great ‘hood to be a part of. Let’s keep the momentum going on this.
Not to beat the predatory siting sub-topic into the ground, but … imagine how this looks over in Fremont, where the nearest drugstores are a mile and a half away – ours, or Fred Meyer to the west. Plenty of other under served neighborhoods. What is it about us that’s such a magnet for drugstores?
Bad design and not a good addition to the neighborhood. Thank you to those who took the time to attend and voice thoughtful objections.
Way to go Wallyhooders! I am so proud to be a part of this neighborhood. I just hope we can all say that in the future…
I really don’t think CVS chose the location to serve Wallingford. They chose the location to serve everyone who travels the 45th/50th corridor which includes a lot of other neighborhoods. The proximity to I-5 will probably also draw in some ‘drive-bys’. This is why they need parking. They’re not looking for walk up customers.
I doubt anyone will be able to prevent CVS from locating here but it does seem we may be able to have some impact on the final design of the building.
No one has mentioned the HUGE profit available to the BIGGEST Drug peddler on the block. They will laugh all the way to the bank with our insurance premiums) once they have driven out the smaller competitors. History has proven many times over!
Only 74 signatures short of 500! Shows a bit of how many people do not want this.
http://www.change.org/petitions/cvs-pharmacy-do-not-build-in-wallingford-seattle-wa
Fingers crossed on the future plans, glad that the community meeting went so well. Glad to live in Wallingford, hope that we can keep it as unique as it is!
Here are some photos from the building’s history, from Paul Dorpat’s site: http://pauldorpat.com/seattle-now-and-then/seattle-now-then-section-lines-on-wallingford-hill/
Thanks for that link, Barb. There was a lot of conversation at Monday’s meeting regarding the negative pedestrian experience that the CVS design would create, especially because there would not be a single doorway along 45th. Contrast that with the old photo of the current building at Paul Dorpat’s site and you can see how far neighborhood design standards have fallen.
Hey, did anyone attend the WCC meeting last night? If so, how did it go?
Wow, looking at the history and pictures on the link provided by Barb… It makes me so sad to look at the proposed design or even a revised “better” design and think that a building that’s been on 45th since 1929 will be torn down to have it’s place taken by that. What a shame. Irreplaceable.
of course its a bad idea and looks like crap…
BUT any of you that think CVS won’t get their way is delusional in my opinion.
Agree with FlimFlam –
The design review process is advisory – they have no authority to make anyone do anything. The WCC (which 90% of Wallingfordians have never heard of, though it claims to represent the community) also has no authority or influence.
And yes, CVS will do whatever they want. The City nor any of our politicians will do nothing to stop it. The politicians will, of course, run around claiming to be the ‘neighborhood’ candidate.
But then last week when I mentioned to several people that Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post, their universal response was ‘who’s Jeff Bezos’.
@John – I’m active in a couple of Wallingford neighborhood groups (not the WCC) which are constantly trying to figure out how to get in touch with more neighborhood folks. If it’s true that “90% of Wallingfordians have never heard of” the WCC, where do they get their information about local issues and organizations? Apparently not Wallyhood, as WCC (as one example) posts information here on a regular basis. I would love to hear where neighborhood groups should promote themselves in order to reach a larger percentage of Wallingford residents.
Excellent question Barb –
I’m guessing that Wallyhood ‘circulation’ is a couple of hundred at most, out of 18,000 people. And WCC membership is less than that – a lot less; attendance at a typical meeting is less than 20 (1%).
People are generally uninformed about most things, local, national and international and also uninterested/uninvolved. That means the others can pretty much do what they want – and they do.
Yes it’s a big problem and no, I don’t have a solution.
@John, I would be remiss if I didn’t address your “circulation” comment. We have 11,859 unique visitors every month and 30,120 visits per month total, according to Google Analytics. We also have 1,174 subscribers to our daily digest and over 900 readers subscribed to our RSS Feed. The day this post initially ran (August 6) we had 1,488 unique visitors and 1,929 total visits, which doesn’t account for the daily digest subscribers or the RSS subscribers.
That’s terrific Margaret –
Thanks for the update
You’re very welcome! And thanks for reading!
“imagine how this looks over in Fremont, where the nearest drugstores are a mile and a half away” — You all have my sympathy, and from this side of Wallingmont, it’s a relief not be directly involved in a land use fight for once. Yes, we are under served in terms of close in drugstore, but Bartells in W’ford and Freddie in Frelard serve the purpose. We had a Rite-Aid for a while downtown but they bailed (and longer ago in the 70s in Upper Fremont).
As for the larger questions of public engagement and neighborhood empowerment: Keep being active and posting info–it sinks in via word of mouth, leaflets, flyers on phone poles, etc. For neighborhood empowement please check out seattledistrictsnow.org–if we had a city council with district representation we could actually start contemplating fixes to the design review process, neighborhood planning, etc. Vote YES in November on Charter Amendment No. 19
Hmm, I don’t see how a district-based City Council would be an improvement. (Isn’t that what King County has, and has that been beneficial to the area north of Lake Union?)
I much prefer the idea that our elected officials are responsible for, and accountable to, the City as a whole. Sure, they may make decisions I don’t like (and how!) but the idea of them engaging district-to-district doesn’t sound like a move in the right direction. And how would something like design review (a process I wonder about overall) be better just because the north of Lake Union “district” had one Council member associated with it?
I totally agree with comments #35 made by Neighbor2You on the district-based Council issue. Would be a step backward. Why shouldn’t elected officials work to better Seattle as a whole? District-based seats would give certain councilmembers reason to turn a blind eye to the concerns of certain neighborhoods, Wallingford included.
@35/36: City Councilmembers elected at-large in a city of over 600,000 are not “accountable to the City as a whole.” At-large councilmembers are accountable to the “district of money” because that is the only way they can get elected. It costs AT LEAST $250,000 to run a city wide campaign; candidates can NOT run campaigns based on door knocking, meeting with local chambers of commerce and other community organizations, or meetings in peoples’ homes (I’m not counting fundraising parties for the regulars).
It has been shown repeatedly that district elections are less costly than at-large. The latest study says $76,000 less…
In a city of over 600,000, it is not reasonable to expect each city council person to represent everyone on all issues. Your position leaves neighborhood specific interests in issues such as neighborhood planning and project specific design review completely unrepresented at the legislative body that makes the rules. The mayor doesn’t do it; he/she represents the city as a whole, which basically means the development community. It is up to the council to represent interests in various parts of the city, and when they are elected at-large they have little incentive to do so. Why do you think we have such a poor project impact and design review process that doesn’t really require mitigation or quality development in our communities?
A council with seven of nine elected by district will change the political dynamic so that neighborhood and community interests will have a much better chance of influencing legislation guiding the comprehensive plan, neighborhood planning, and site specific land use review (zoning and design review). Wallingford’s interests are simply not on the table and are barely in the room with an all at-large council–and just being in the room takes tremendous organizing and usually revolves around specific offensive projects. Just look at the history of land use fights in Wallingford.
Seattle is one of three of the fifty largest U.S. cities that still elects its council all at-large. If Seattle wants to pretend to be a “world class” city, it’s time it grew up and did so with a world class governance structure. We need districts in order to be more democratic.
[BTW, the King County Council district representative has little to do with what happens in “the area north of Lake Union”–the county council has no authority over land use planning inside the City of Seattle. On issues where the county does have some say, like what is to happen to county owned property like the old tank farm NW of Gasworks, it makes a big difference in how the decision was made. That particular fight actually came down to a very close vote to prevent that property from being privatized and developed. What’s the last time you saw a close vote on land use issues at the Seattle City Council? Not on South Lake Union rezone to benefit Vulcan. Not on the giveaway of Yesler Terrace to developers. The last time I can recall is when Steinbrueck pushed through zoning amendments to protect industrial zoning on a 6-3 vote just before he left the council.]
This still seems like a solution in search of a problem to me. The fact that one person (Faye Garneau) paid most of the money for it to go on the ballot makes me even less likely to support it. You really can’t get any less grassroots than that.
@38–That’s pure ad hominem (attacking the credibility of the argument based on the person) and speaks not a word to the merits of the proposal. I wrote Charter Amendment No. 19 (along with Cleve Stockmeyer and three other peer reviewing lawyers, including long time neighborhood advocate Knoll Lowney). Look at the list of endorsers at seattledistrictsnow.org. The effort is driven by grassroots Democrats, democrats, & neighborhood businesses.
And if you don’t think there’s a problem with how power is distributed in this town, I’m certainly not going to convince you. You like that CVS can proposal an inappropriate development and you have no recourse short of yet another tedious organizing effort? You like that there is no councilmember who has to deal with Wallingford because the project impacts neighbors in his/her district? How many of the nine mini-mayors have you met with about the project and what results have you obtained?
With any proposed ballot measure I think it’s important to look at who’s paying for it. In this case Faye Garneau is the big donor with Suzie Burke also throwing in a chunk of change. You essentially lost any grassroots credibility when you took the money from Faye.
When I have had challenges with City Hall in the past I found it more helpful to be able to reach out to a range of council members than to have a majority of them be able to say “not it” because I’m not in their district. I’ve consistently found the council members to be helpful and I don’t have any sense that things would improve if we went to districts.
I agree with the basic principle of “follow the money.” Fair enough. In this case, we have been funded as you indicate (which speaks to the problem with a statutory six month limit on signature gathering), but I think the money in elections is far more concerning than the money to get a measure on the ballot. The ballot campaign will be long forgotten while campaigns will continue to indicate who is “buying” positions on the council consistently over time. How much time do you spend at SEEC site to see which councilmembers are regularly supported largely by developers? Does that info ever inform who you vote for?
IMO, it’s the difference between an ad hominem argument (this proposal is flawed because it was funded by Faye) and the corruption of city elections (most councilmembers and mayor cannot get elected without contributions and support from large development interests).
When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible. Districts will make at least one councilmember accountable to our hood. Even Suzie Burke gets it right every now and then. Voting yes on CA19.
I think this measure is flawed without Faye’s involvement – her paying for it to get on the ballot highlights those flaws to me and makes it a mockery of it being a grassroots effort.
I think that the allegation that elections are being purchased is unfair to a lot of our sitting council members and the mix of campaign funding is unlikely to change in any event should we go to the new system. It also seems disingenuous to talk about the problem of business interests buying elections then turning to Faye and Suzie to finance your paid signature gatherers.
The actual text of CA19 is pretty tame:
http://www.seattledistrictsnow.org/files/view-only_petition.pdf
Is it the concept of council districts that you find objectionable, or is it just the sponsors? No love lost on either of them, but I still think districts are a good idea.
Since you’re into personalities so much, how about sharing your identity?
If you can’t tell the difference between the Fremont Chamber, the North Aurora Business Association, and the DSA, Vulcan, Amazon, etc., you are politically naive. And if you don’t think there is a power imbalance in Seattle with most major city land use and capital investment decisions made without much democratic input from affected neighborhoods, minority groups, the poor, etc., then you are really naive (or perhaps part of the “establishment” yourself?).
For those who are interested in the subject of “who rules Seattle” and most U.S. cities, I recommend:
http://crosscut.com/2013/04/30/politics-government/114196/seattles-next-mayor-will-be-mcginn-like/
and
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/local/
No, it’s better to keep these things to ourselves. We are a rumor, recognizable as Deja Vu and dismissed just as quickly. Anonymity is our name. Silence our native tongue. We’re them, we’re they.
@46 — I’m sorry I wasn’t clear; my complaint about anonymity was to Dennis, not you. He is the one delving into personalities instead of politics. He calls me disingenuous and lacking in credibility because I went along with Faye’s (and Suzie’s) funding in order to get Charter 19 on the ballot.
I have been active in city politics out of Fremont for 40 years, so I know who I’m dealing with. You’re lol line (“Even Suzie Burke gets it right every now and then.”) is spot on. In addition, while Suzie (and Faye) represent some pretty regressive policies IMO (some would use the word “Republican” or “libertarian”), the fact is they are both very much advocates for the health and quality of their neighborhood and community as they perceive it. I have fought tooth and nail against some of Suzie’s actions, but the next day I can work hard with her to get something positive done in Fremont.
I could never say that about Security Properties (which built the Solstice Bdlg), or Quadrant (in my professional life, I battled owner Weyerhaeuser endlessly), or most other developers who have come to do their thing in Fremont. (Ever hear of Jim Potter? He’s still around, doing apodments; he was building ugly cr@p in Fremont at least as early as the 80s.)
And Dennis @ 43, I’ll worry this bone a bit: “the allegation that elections are being purchased is unfair to a lot of our sitting council members and the mix of campaign funding is unlikely to change in any event should we go to the new system.”
I did not use the word “purchase”, you did. I wrote “the corruption of city elections (most councilmembers and mayor cannot get elected without contributions and support from large development interests).” It is a provable fact that the politics of those elected to office often reflects the desires of the major source(s) of their campaign financing. That is why Citizen’s United is so corrupting of our democracy–it removes limits on the influence of money on campaigns for elected offices. Even Seattle has independent expenditures.
The mix of campaign funding will definitely change. For one thing, it’s highly likely that the total amounts in the seven district positions will drop. Yes, the corporate interests will want to try to “purchase” those seats, but with an inherently more grassroots structure (you need to reach 1/7 the number of voters), it is highly likely that the dominant influences on the positions will shift toward if not into the districts. That is the clear, documented experience in other cities. A 2006 Ph.D. dissertation by Eric Lindgren is a good example. (See http://books.google.com/books/about/Understanding_the_Effects_of_Progressive.html?id=if4ZoOJCmIQC and I’ve got the text to email to anyone who emails me.)
Toby-
Your “grassroots” campaign was funded by two very smart business people who clearly feel they have something to gain from it. You are taking money from developers and business interests to keep money from developers and business interests out of City elections. If that makes sense to you more power to you.
The last guy who paid to get district elections on the ballot was Tom Stewart – the guy who got mad when the City Council wouldn’t let him land his helicopter in the middle of the Delridge neighborhood. Do you really think he was doing it for more democracy and progressive causes?
I didn’t vote for it then and I’m not voting for it now.
Dennis–You’re ignoring my arguments. You keep putting Faye and Suzie into the same basket with all “developers and business interests.” You think Suzie is going to “buy” District 6? She has also contributed substantial amounts over the years to Nick Licata, Mike McGinn, and Bobby Forch. So what? Anyway, you already said it didn’t matter to you who paid for CA19 (@43), you’re against it, but now you’re back to arguing that who pays does matter. Which is it?
And by the way, regarding Stewart’s stupidity, that was in the 1995 campaign. The Stranger got it right during the 2002-3 campaign (totally volunteer and very little money and therefore got crushed: Boeing, $5,000; Safeco, $5,000; Vulcan, $5,000; Wright Rundstad, $2,500; etc):
“Opponents are quick to trot out the Stewart fiasco as proof that district elections would make the city more prone to corruption, but they’ve got it backwards. The Stewart fiasco proved that when you’re running an expensive, citywide campaign, money is everything. The campaign for district elections in 1995 was corrupted by money for the same reasons every campaign for city council is corrupted by money: running citywide is expensive.” http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/can-you-name-your-city–council-member/Content?oid=9979
I reject your claim that CA19 is “corrupted” by Faye and Suzie’s involvement.
Who do you work for? What’s your interest?
Toby-
It’s not my intention to argue with you. I understand that you support this ballot measure and I’m not going to change your mind.
You will not convince me to change my mind. I disagree with the idea that district elections will make things better in the City. I think the belief that they will result in greater democracy or progressive outcomes is naive at best. The fact that two folks with specific business interests financed the paid signature gathering (not to mention the paid signature gathering itself) supports this contention in my mind, as did the actions of Tom Stewart years ago. So, in summary, I think it’s a bad idea and I think the funding of your paid signature gathering provides data as to why.
I don’t have an organization or candidate that I’m writing on behalf of. I’m a Wallingford resident who considers myself a citizen of the entire City of Seattle who wants council members who pay attention to the needs of the entire City. I think the best way to do that is to stay with the at large elections.
District representation makes a lot of sense to me. Our neighborhoods are getting slammed by development, and I just don’t see much council respect for neighborhood sensitivities. Many residents have worked hard to articulate meaningful neighborhood and community priorities through planning processes over the years. When big developers come knocking, especially those who cloak themselves in density or green building arguments, our city council seems to roll over rather than truly consider the needs of and consequences to the neighborhood.
Of the people supporting district council seats Knoll Lowney, for one, is a terrific advocate for grassroots and environmental action. Look at his record. If some of our local behemoths (like Burke) see an advantage in district council seats, that is no great surprise, but should not be a litmus test for taking an opposite position – this concept is more nuanced than that.
What does any of this naval gazing have to do with the CVS issue?
Yes. I certainly agree with John, last commenter. All of this should be a new topic. This thread is about CVS.
I don’t think this has anything to do with CVS – I don’t think moving to district elections would change what’s going on with that proposal one iota.
Dennis.
That is the point of the comment by John. This forum was ABOUT CVS, the design review associated with it by the land use folks, and the meeting of WWCC where the developer presented. After #28, a comment by Joyn, the topic should have been a new forum. The rest of the comments highjacked the CVS conversation
@51: No, it’s not your intention to argue, just to throw out absurd arguments and then not respond to my direct counter arguments or my direct questions. The point of these exchanges is not to convince the speakers but to educate the audience. For that I thank you.
@52: Thank you. Nuance is a concept hard to come by in these dialogues.
@53 and @54: If you go to my first post (@ 34) you will see the connection; regular fights over cr@ppy developments is a result of disempowered neighborhoods. District elections will help shift some power back to constituencies other than the “district of money.” That’s called democracy. But enough has been said here, that’s for sure.
@55: Of course not, because this project is way too far down the tracks for the City to change the rules. See the article in today’s Stranger. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/wait-they-want-more-density/Content?oid=17500202 But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work to change the rules for the next project and the ones after that…
Good evening all.
The Stranger has a good account of what happened at the Design Review meeting – seems like a solid “win” for the neighborhood (at least for now) :
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/08/16/is-bad-publicity-enough-to-change-crappy-developments-in-wallingford-queen-anne-and-west-seattle