There’s a public meeting this Monday for the nascent development project at 1601 N 45th (corner of 45th St and Woodlawn, where Sutra is and Sugar on Top used to be, across from the library and Molly Moon’s, as well as the area occupied by three houses on Woodlawn) for Early Design Guidance.
The project proposal (available here) describes 38 apartment units with 3 townhouse units behind it, 4,500 sq ft of commercial space and two parking stalls. To make up for the lack of parking, it includes 30 bike stalls and a proposed bike maintenance room.
The meeting will be held Monday, September 8th at 8:00 pm University Heights Community Center (5031 University Way NE, Room 209). More infrormation on the meeting on the DPD Land Use Information Bulletin.
(Thanks to Sharon Scherer and Julio Galarza for the info)
Between the two elementary schools currently being housed on the Lincoln High School building site, there are 800+ students who need to move through this area every day. Kitty corner is a huge middle school. One block to the west of this proposed project, a huge block-long construction project is currently underway, eating up desperately needed parking and impeding traffic flow for student drop off and pick up to really concerning degrees. We enter from this area, and would exit by this potential new project. I am concerned; this seems disastrous to the safety of our students – and we are already reeling from a student pedestrian being hit on his way to school. Let’s think about the timing of these developments on 45th, please.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I really appreciate your efforts and I will be waiting for your next post thank you once again.
I am also very concerned about the safety with all the extra cars. The streets are already congested with cars and people. There are two schools a retirement home , a library right across the street. It is the responsibility of this company to put in more than just two stalls!! Get real there is already an issue with parking in area. How can this company get away with not supply underground parking? I live just down the street . I am also interested in the design of the building. I expect it to fit in with the “old ” charm and echo friendly neighborhood in which these buildings are trying to fit into. I will attend this meeting. No excited about this development at all 🙁
This sounds great, especially if you’re worried about pedestrian safety. No parking == fewer cars, which have caused nearly all the traffic-related fatalities in Seattle (and the country). Fewer cars also means less congestion on 45th, which translates to better biking and transit experience as well.
I only wish there were more, and bigger, developments like this one.
It is naive to think this project will help with the parking/traffic situation by not having parking. Common sense tells me that at least half of the 38 units will need parking. Plus what about the additional businesses on the first floor?
I find it interesting that in the design packet, it highlight areas of “parking” around the neighborhood, which includes the parking lots of the Lincoln School and the 45th street clinic. These are not for public use and misleading.
If you do the math, 38 units on 3 floors at 4500 sqft – sounds like another micro housing project to me. I guess the architect and developer are not in tune with the issues neighborhoods are having with these types of projects. Has anyone been to Ballard lately and seen how it has been transformed with giant dorm-style buildings? There is also Eastlake, Capitol Hill and it is starting in West Seattle too.
A huge bottle neck is in the works at this intersection –
Let us not forget about the parklet coming to Molly Moons
The metro bus island in front of the bus stop
The traffic from the library
The traffic from the food bank
The traffic from the school. Old Lincoln High School coming back in 2019
The traffic from the clinic
The already congest traffic for businesses and those going to Ballard
The cyclist and cars from those living in this new complex plus those who want to go to the businesses
The traffic from the other giant apartment/business complex that is in construction now one block away – well at least they are providing parking
In theory, Woodlawn is one-way leading up to 45th. This will bring even more wrong-way traffic from those who want to take shortcuts and drive around 45th street traffic.
It is apparent, this design is taking all city codes to the limit. Actually, they are not shy about it and say it! They are even asking for exceptions to build beyond code!
Changes are coming!
I question whether this will improve or restrict the overall quality of life and safety for Wallingford residents.
JG, great summary of the real issues, and how it will impact a lovely neighborhood. TWO PARKING PLACES??? That is absurd. I’ll be at the meeting.
I am unable to attend this meeting, but I have attended other design review meetings in the past. I urge neighbors to attend, but while you are preparing your comments, make sure to review information from the DPD link above:
“*Please note that public comment at the EDG meeting is limited to design considerations. If environmental review is triggered, comments related to environmental impacts (such as traffic, parking, noise, etc.) may be sent to DPD following notice of that review.”
At the meeting, the developer will give a presentation about their plans, the public will have time to comment, the review board will ask questions, and then the board will give a recommendation.
Go ahead and mention your concern about lack of parking, but also use your time to comment on the design of the building and how the design and structure will affect the community. The buildings being torn down for this project are (for lack of a better word) quirky and adds character to the community. Losing Sutra will be a loss to the community. Right now, this building appears very Bland. Hopefully the DPD process will improve things. It would be great if Sutra could transition to the new space.
Thank you to all that will attend the meeting. It’s important.
I think increased density is great. It will allow more people to live closer to the city, avoiding the suburbs. One of the costs of density is less accessibility by car, but I am fine with that. The benefits of density are better mass transit and closer destinations to walk or bike to. I can bus or bike to work in Fremont, so my wife and I can share a car. I would be surprised if all of the people in this building wanted to own cars.
Complaining that you can’t drive your kids to school seems silly to me. They can bus, bike or walk like the rest of us. Able bodied children are done a disservice being taxied around.
And it has to be said, I expected some NIMBY in the comments but I didn’t expect this much. Wallingford residents need to grow up and accept that change comes to every neighborhood.
Not only will not including parking improve both the car driver’s, transit rider’s, bicyclist’s, and pedestrian’s experience, it will also improve affordability. Why should I, as a non-car owner, need to pay (either directly or by having it included for me in rent) for parking spaces that I will never use? The cost of a parking space in an underground structure can approach $30,000, or something like $80/month if amortized over 30 years.
The ballet studio looks great. I’m dusting off my leotard.
That dance studio in the rendering is cute, but it looks like another mixed-use building with giant retail spaces, not conducive to interesting independent shops.
I am curious to know about what seems to be the 3 houses behind 45th (behind the corner brick bldg that used to be the beauty salon) that will be destroyed in order to make this project happen. What’s the deal for those people? Did the developer offer them too-good-to-pass-up prices for their houses? Did they have a choice in the matter?
@Shell, the county parcel viewer and Zillow both show they sold recently, and for a lot more than their assessed value. The Washington state constitution doesn’t allow for private benefit from eminent domain except in case of blight, so I’d imagine this was voluntary. In any event, the previous owners came out pretty well.
Bummer. They will build it and people with cars will buy or rent and park on very crowded street believing they can ‘just fit one more in”.
Another ugly building! Perhaps even uglier that CVS.
And not including parking (or charging for it as is now the norm) just means that most people will just park in the neighborhood, further shifting the development impact to the rest of us. Those who ride their bike, walk or take the bus on nice days will still have a car and need some place to park it. And don’t think it will make the bus service any better – fares cover about 18-20% of operating cost on a good day.
And the developer will get to do exactly (and whatever) they want.
If there were some way to effectively prohibit car ownership for residents of this development, then it would be a whole different deal. A building truly full of bicyclists etc., cool! If only. The problem is that it isn’t real, it’s a fraud in which the city is complicit.
If parking is too scarce in the neighborhood (or at least by 45th), we should petition the city to turn it into a paid parking zone like Fremont. The right way to ration a scarce resource is to charge for it.
As for transit, we absolutely should be working on improving its performance. SDOT looked at putting in BAT lanes (similar to what the E line has on Aurora) back in 2007 but the idea was shot down since it would involve removing parking on both sides of 45th. Maybe a paid parking structure somewhere near 45th is in order for the people who absolutely must drive.
Get to Fremont? We’ve received an e-mail saying the #26 is being canceled in February 2015.
The idea of a 38-unit building with only two parking stalls in a busy neighborhood like this is preposterous. Behind all the utopian hogwash about bicycles, this developer is engaged in economic rent-seeking here, passing the burden of parking for his building to the neighborhood at large. Making the whole neighborhood a paid parking zone would just abet this parasitic behavior.
In addition, based on the illustration provided, the building will be more than just bland; it’s aggressively ugly.
I think we need to propose a car tunnel from Ballard to I-5. Traffic problem solved!
A few things to keep in mind:
1. Putting a big parking lot on 45th will mean that the drivers parking their cars in it will need to use 45th to get in and out. 45th is already at capacity at peak times during the week, and basically all day on the weekends. Do we want to expand 45th too? I propose a spur freeway connecting SR99 and I5!*
2. A parking stall requires about 300sf of space. About half of that is for the vehicle itself, while the other half is for access. This means that a 38-stall parking garage would would absorb something like 10-13 living units. In a city that needs more, not less, housing, is this really a great idea?
I really recommend that folks read Donald Shoup’s book High Cost of Free Parking. It’s long, but he exposes all the hidden costs of providing parking at no cost to drivers. He also explains the benefits of paid parking to neighborhoods interested in maintaining or even increasing quality of life for everyone (drivers included).
* This is sarcasm.
While most if the comments here are what I would expect, I’m delighted to also see well reasoned and informed comments from the likes of Skylar and others.
We need more projects like this one – smaller scale, mixed-use, infill development that looks forward, not back, with respect to transportation priorities. One among many reasons that enormously scaled developments such as those that blight neighborhoods like Ballard is the provision of below grade parking. Including parking for each unit (or even half for that matter) in a building with a footprint as small as this one is prohibitively expensive. While it is likely that some residents of the building will own cars, the assumption that all will is flawed unless, of course, one provides parking, which will be subsidized by non-parking rent as the ‘market’ value of a below grade parking space in Wallingford does not come close to covering the $40,000 it costs to build it.
We are at a time where it is not only feasible but practical to not own a car in neighborhoods such as Wallingford due the transit, bike, car share combo. This project is ideally sited to leverage bus transit, bicycle infrastructure and car share as all three are available within a block of the site. With the combination of routes 16 and 44 one has both excellent N/S and E/W service. Yes, cuts are coming but they will be temporary.
We cannot build the fastest growing city in the US within the existing city boundaries (as mandated by the State Growth Management Act) with the assumption that everyone will own a car. We have neither the parking or lane capacity to accommodate it and, even if we did, we’d end up with a place where no one would want to live anyway.
I hope the generally thoughtful and progressive community of Wallingford will come to embrace this project and others like it as it’s the larger projects that ARE including a parking stall per unit that we should be opposing.
2 parking spots is ludicrous. What about disabled tenants? No parking would exclude them. Or electric car plug ins? Or dedicated car to go spots? There are ways of making this development better suited to current reality and still be green. Want to kill local businesses? Make neighborhood parking expensive or impossible. Excluding parking is a money grab – plain and simple and will have a negative impact on the neighborhood.
Seattle’s “fastest growing city” situation is a disaster that’s being crammed down our throats. A good city is not built on vast condo encampments hastily erected in a year or two and vague promises of better transportation services someday. It’s a developer gold rush, and we’ll all pay the price in for decades to come.
Elections coming up we have voted for these people that are giving developers a free rein along with a city council replete with a communist. If we do not like the way our Liberal Politicians are taking our good city then maybe we should consider voting a different agenda. We are getting what we deserve because of the way we vote
I like the idea of another billion dollar car tunnel except it should be for bikes only with a a $10 per trip fee and $300 per year plates if they want to share the city streets with cars. Car owners are paying for city streets and their maintaince yet our goofy politicans are jamming projects like this down our neighborhoods throats. We are getting what we deserve because of who we vote for.
The “communist” replaced Conlin. I haven’t heard anything one way or the other yet, but my bet is she’s going to be more representative of Seattle residents than he was.
Washington drivers pay for about 1/3 the cost of roads; 2/3 comes from general taxes, according to taxfoundation.org.
And where do you think general taxes come from? Could it be that many of them are paid by people who get up and go to work every day. Anyone who would think that we need a communist on the city council is a idiot. It represents the imported mentality of people who moved to Seattle from other states because they did not like it there but at the same time want to impose pro commie mentality that has ruined other places like California.
True, it is NOT feasible for many to own cars… BUT building a 41 unit structure .. likely 60 or more tenants pretending olny 2 will have cars is ludicrous and plain old stupid.
Another concern for that block… the old Kitaros which burned down over a year ago and has been apparently abandonded has now been covered with different graffitti and trash lies beside it. Some smart developer can snatch it up and begin another concrete buildup.
Ideology based voting is what brought us Conlin and the rest. Elected office in Seattle means “progressive”, and talking the right talk about green this and humane that. That’s all fine as far as it goes – the ideology is more or less sound – but elected office really happens here just like anywhere, with money. Not much of that money is coming from your Wallingford neighbors, or Seattle residents in general. The only thing we have to protect our interests is our votes, and it works only if we take the time to think about what our interests really are, and find out who’s really representing us, rather than just checking their ideological IDs.
When I think of free street parking (which many commentors bellieve is an entitlement for those currently living in Wallingford), I wonder why I have to pay handsomely for where my body sleeps but not for where my car rests.
Agreed. Also perplexing are the car drivers who race up behind me when I’m on my bike, and get all huffy at me when they can’t pass because of the two lanes of parked cars on either side of me.
Skylar, you sound like a young mobile person. What about people who are not so mobile? What about people who cannot bike or even walk two blocks to go to the store for groceries because they are not mobile enough? What about families with tiny kids who are not old enough to take themselves to school? Or families who have a car for all the obligations they have beyond a 9-5? What about those who use a car as part of their work? It’s unrealistic. Even those I know who routinely use Car2Go to avoid parking nightmares have a car that resides at home parked on the street.
And while you’re talking about what’s good for our community, that thought will hopefully keep us warm at heart when we are priced out of the homes we have spent years in, and love very much.
$40,000 in a developer’s budget for a long term solution is a drop in the bucket.
In my view, the way to control parking in tight neighborhoods is to not allow residents in buildings such as this to apply for RPZ passes. Currently, only condition is that person is a resident and then pay a fee. But if you are resident in a new building that is designed for bikers why should you be allied to get a parking pass to park outside that building?
The entire city of Seattle should be RPZ permitted. Allow free 2 hour parking around some neighborhood commercial corridors, but if you park longer than that, you pay. The days of free car storage on public property need to end.
Yani, I’ve never claimed we should have no parking in Wallingford. I’ve only claimed that if it is valuable as people claim, we should charge for it. If there are low-income or disabled residents who need it, we can have specific programs to help them. Both water and electricity are valuable resources, and we meter both of them, so why not parking?
I do think we should push the Seattle city council to dedicate at least some parking revenues to transportation-related improvements (currently they all go into the general fund). These might include vouchers for cabs or more paratransit service for Metro to help people get around. It might also include the cost to build and operate a central parking structure for Wallingford, so that those who don’t need to park directly in front of their house or business can keep the streets clear for the people who do, or even for transit and biking improvements.
Putting a price on parking also has the effect of making it *more* available for those who really do need it. If the people who have the ability to walk their kids to school or to the grocery store but choose to drive anyway are made to realize the cost of that decision, then they’ll be more likely to choose a lower-impact alternative like walking, busing, or biking, leaving parking more available for those who cannot make that choice.
As for the cost of parking at this specific development, $40k is the cost of building a single parking stall. Multiple that by 38 stalls (one for each unit, less than the two per unit some developments have), and you get $1.5 million dollars. That’s $1.5 million dollars that isn’t going towards living space, amenities, or shops for the neighborhood to enjoy.
Good point, Nick! One more generally effective modification to the RPZ system would be to simply limit the number of permits to not much more than the number currently issued, and give existing permit holders priority at renewal time. It isn’t an ideal solution, and the typical daytime RPZ isn’t a perfectly effective solution anyway, but the permit cap is fairly straightforward to implement, and it would mean new developments couldn’t entirely rely on street parking.
Anyone know who is the developer? I could only find a DBA (doing business as) address next to a Pizza Hut in Lynwood. I hope they come tonight to explain their vision of their development.
It seems the rules Mack Urban followed in the development a block away are different. Anyone know the details and the difference to this project?
Peter Steinbruck ran on the platform of putting neighborhoods first and controlling growth so it wasn’t completely overrunning neighborhoods. Anyone who didn’t vote for Steinbruck has no basis to complain about developments like this.
I think a sensible fix here would be to require the developer to pay for new RPZs if residents in a 3 block radius request it, and have the new RPZs give every existing resident a slot before residents of their new development get a slot. In other words, don’t take parking away from existing residents and hand it over to the development, require the new development to pay for its impacts.
I don’t expect anyone on council to listen to an idea like that though. Idealistic progressives are used as the tools of developers to justify no consideration of impacts, and developers then turn around and fund the council elections. It’s an unstoppable alliance, and it prevents any consideration of development mitigation or impact fees. We had our chance with Steinbruck and we blew it.
Do you really believe ANY input from the locals will mean anything!! They should put mannequins in place of the developers at the meeting with speakers in their mouth with a recording of “Yes we will listen to you”
Skylar–I like the idea of a central parking structure, but while there are very few people who NEED to park in front of their own house, the neighborhood motto of Wallingford seems to be “I must park in front of my own house.”
Why shouldn’t people be able to park in front of the homes they own or rent in Wallingford or any other non congested Seattle neighborhood. As a 4th generation Seattle guy it is considered curtsy or consideration of ones neighbors. Perhaps the out of Seattle mentality of newcomers from other places this is strange, I know we don’t Own the parking ion the street but we certainly pay plenty in rent or taxes to expect people to simply respect common consideration
Hey fruit bat obviously you are from the southern zone. We do not have fruit bats here! Renting or owning a home here in Wallyhood now people pay a lot so don’t take my parking place in front of of the legally allowed time period by the city of Seattle or I will have it towed. And if you are a bicycle person I respect that but you should be taxed, insured, and Legally licensed since you now have apiece of our Seattle streets. I am fine with that but you need to pay too.
DESIGN – Modern design is anti-timeless. Unless it’s sooper high-end modern (like say the downtown library), which it never is, it just reads as ugly. Instead of looking better with age its more and more of an eyesore.
RETAIL – Totally agree that large retail space sux – nobody wants to go to a 4,000 sqft restaurant (or fishbowl ballet studio for that matter). I say 2k sqft max.
DENSITY – I’m all for that. I like that it’s encouraging bikes too. But the reality is (as has been shown in Portland, OR which has big swaths of zoning that allows low rise apts w/ no parking) that everyone wants a car to drive to the Mt or wherever on weekends. So even if they commute w/o a car, most still own one and the nearby streets are heavily affected. Pdx neighborhood associations have been in uproars about it.
45TH – Developer should be required to have a generous setback for peds and add a crosswalk and/or another traffic light. I’m fine w/ heavy vehicular traffic on 45th (it’s a reality that won’t change so get on board), it just needs to be slow and ped friendly which is easily controlled with the timing of multiple signals.
As I bike (sorry, Pat Hester, not going to bite on your totally original baiting about licensing it) down the street, I see plenty of cars parked in front of houses while there aren’t many parked in driveways. This is in completely single family parts of Wallingford, so I’m assuming people who have the ability to park in their driveways are just not doing it because it’s more convenient not to block a spouse or partner’s access to the garage. I’ve lived her a long time, too; that’s not exactly common courtesy (and as a cyclist who gets to bike in the door zone of those parked cars on our narrow streets, it’s dangerous to me). But I’m sure you have an excuse for why those people are just hunky-dory and no one in Wallingford can ever have people over if they don’t have enough on-street parking in front of their own homes.
How did the meeting go? I am shocked that they do not have to provide more parking spaces.
Seattle City zoning/code does not require buildings that meet specific requirements to have parking spaces for residents.
One of the requirements is a specific number of feet from a major bus line. A 17 unit building that is soon to be built near me on Interlake will have only 4 spaces, and those are probably mandated by the ADA, not the city.
So – blame the City, not the developer.
Also, design review meetings are just that. Design reviews. You won’t get anywhere bringing up parking issues in the neighborhood.
It is places like Sutra (restaurant and yoga studio) that make this neighborhood special. Another ugly modern condo building with inadequate parking is a bad idea. The developers have too much control in this city and need to be reigned in. Not only projects like this but the unending destruction of old craftsman homes that are replaced by ugly modern boxes is ruining the character of the neighborhood. The preservation of unique local businesses like Sutra should be a priority.
The meeting went as expected. A lot of residents commented on the lack of parking, but were asked to move on as it was beyond the board’s ability to impact city zoning/code. If you think this zoning in residential areas that eliminates parking requirements needs to be changed, contact the city council members and let them know.
A lot of residents had some good comments about design: The architect should also present another option which keeps the setback within code while still providing for the internal open space that they prefer; Sidewalks should be wider; Large continuous canopies would be useful with our PNW weather; Use timeless materials that works with the rest of the neighborhood, not some of the trendy design material; Look into more sun/shadow studies; Consider impact that roof decks would have overlooking near neighbors backyards; The board should use its power to push for “amenities” that were promised long ago as part of zoning changes; The chamber is open to meeting with the architects to facilitate a friendlier process instead of an adversarial one. Lots of other comments I can’t remember……
There seemed to be mixed feelings on the overall building, a few liked some of the designs that were presented, and some hated them. The elephant in the room though was the parking issue. The building will have an impact on parking and the current zoning lets the developer get away with not mitigating the impact they cause. I sensed a lot of anger/frustration surrounding it.
Yeah, elephant in the room, in that it isn’t officially recognized due to the scope of the meeting. I wouldn’t be sure though that parking issues are driving the neighborhood sentiment – it’s sure a tangible annoyance that we focus on, but it’s in the context of what seems to be a developer free-for-all that adds acres of condos and apartments, often with apartments on the ground level street front in the form of “live/work” units. The city “brown bag” session tomorrow is going to touch on developer impact fees, which would be a great idea if it can be adopted in time to be applied to these projects.
Pat Hester–it’s a city. Many other people use the road in their cars and may need to park that car somewhere–which might end up being in front of your house. Even in the suburbs, there is not a guarantee of parking in front of your own house. In the city, the higher number of drivers and parkers, and the smaller lot frontage, increase the chances that someone else might be in that spot in front of your house.
You paid for your house, and no one parks in your driveway or sits in your living room uninvited. However, we all pay for the public street, and are entitled to park in any legal space.
Have you never parked in front of a house not your own?
Does anyone know which current city council members live in the future city council district 4? and district 6. Candidates will be filing for office in May 2015.
Thanks for finally writing about >1601 N. 45th Development Project Design Review |
Wallyhood <Liked it!
Parking is a SEPA issue, as are traffic impacts. Remember that the corner where the project is located sees/will see significant bus and student traffic, especially once Lincoln opens as a high school. SEPA comments start once the white project boards go up. The Hearing Examiner and courts are possible resources for appeal.
City Council has allowed parking to be “market driven”, with no minimum if located on a major transit line and service frequency more often than every 15 minutes. The developer is certainly free to include off street parking if he wishes to be a good neighbor. Street parking already qualifies for an RPZ without 42 more residents. Businesses can be severely impacted. I have no sympathy for the developer if they know they will need parking, but are choosing to dump the impacts on the neighborhood to save a few bucks.
These meetings are a show – they can’t and won’t do anything – have no authority. Much like the Wallingford Community Council (which actually represents less than 1% of the neighborhood (about 100 members out of 30,000 something households.)
If you’re serious about making riding the bus part of the ‘solution’, it should be free.
The fares collected cover about 18% of the cost of operation (the rest come from sales and property tax) and Metro spends at least that much collecting fares, counting money, issuing passes, etc.
Please register to vote if you are not already registered at your current address, ask city council members to restore the parking requirements for new developments in urban villages and walking distance from bus stops, and don’t vote for the city council candiates in 2015 who accept campaign donations from the developers and their attorneys who have built objectional structures in your city council district.
I’m not sure if I read or just assumed that this project would be micro housing.
Here is a good read on what the are voting on Tuesday, September 16:
http://seattle.gov/dpd/codesrules/changestocode/micros/whatwhy/default.htm
Mike O’Brien ([email protected]) is the lead council member. His proposal:
http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2014/plus20140905_1b.pdf
If you have any input, you can Contact Mike Obrien and the two below.
•Mike Podowski
Land Use Policy Manager
(206) 386-1988
[email protected]
•Geoffrey Wentlandt
Senior Planner
(206) 684-3586
[email protected]
liters pounds calculator
Let’s examine some differences, after which find
out where did they differ and what similarities hold true to both.
Dreifus, Erika, ‘Learning short-story writing by example, ‘ The Writer, September 2005.
mr (https://switcheasy.zendesk.com) 100 grams
sugar to cups A service of writing the article covers various topics
depending on the needs from the applicant thereof. Read extensively and make certain you cover a range of subjects, topics and writing styles so
which you can utilize this information later to put the canvas for any sort of writing.
netgear universal wifi range extender apple
It is recommended to turn into a member on this
online marketing platform at. Terence Reed is surely an Academic
Writing Specialist, working with a2z – Essays ( serve a diverse body
of students using their term papers. Wifi extender apple store netgear wn3000rp-100uks universal wifi range extender reviews A spell checker on your own computer will also be of invaluable help.
Brothers Jerry and David Zucker would be best known for slapstick comedies through the
1980s, including ‘Airplane’ and ‘The Naked Gun.