The folllowing letter was written by Capitol Hill resident Ellen Taft and sent to City Hall.
As an advocate of taller buildings on Broadway and of good city planning in general, I am extremely disappointed with not only the city's proposal to re-zone Broadway, but also by the undiplomatic Unilateral Declaration of Re-zoning perpetrated by city council.
In terms of getting the public to accept the proposed zoning changes on Broadway, the mayor and city council have forgotten three important facts about the population of Seattle, First, Seattle folks still think they are living in the small town of the 1940s and are extremely reactionary when it come to city planning.
Secondly, the public has developed, based on long experience of civic mismanagement, a basic distrust of any proposal emanating from City Hall.
Thirdly, in the case of any proposal concerning Broadway's improvement, the public does not have a short enough memory to overlook the mayor's attempt to save a measly $400,000 by cutting our bike cops on Broadway. As a result, we are not likely to embrace the proposed changes.
Perhaps if the mayor and city council had considered these things they might have come up with a plan which was more palatable to the public. Here are some recommended changes.
Clean up Broadway
Since the No. 1 obstacle to investment on Broadway is not the current height restriction, but the high crime and general unpleasantness of Broadway, I believe that the city's first priority should be to clean up Broadway. Then, if development does not happen, maybe rescinding height restrictions could be appropriate. Frankly, I cannot imagine any developer who would pour money into Broadway until such time as the street crime issue has been addressed.
Increase parking
If the height limitations are changed, then there should not be a reduction of parking, but an increase in the number of parking spaces. If we want Broadway to regain its "destination" status we need parking for more than just residents and QFC shoppers. If the public were given a quid-pro-quo - higher buildings in exchange for more parking and more open space - city government might begin to gain credibility with the public, rather than give more ammunition to the perception that city government is not beholden to the electorate but to the developers.
Not just height
Another thing that would help the public accept higher density is to define what style of architecture will replace the current low-density buildings. At this point no one knows what kinds of buildings will go up. I personally find Broadway one of the least architecturally appealing streets this side of Phoenix.
If we are going to get more ugly "early strip mall" type structures my answer would be no to higher buildings. I believe that Broadway could become a destination neighborhood (if not a tourist attraction) if the street adopted a unified style of architecture designed to attract people to the neighborhood.
This neighborhood is famous for it's Anholt buildings, perhaps part of the redevelopment plan for Broadway could be to put up six-story Anholt buildings. Another style Broadway may wish to adopt is the Canadian Railroad Hotel style, like Vancouver, B.C. I believe the best way to get the neighborhood behind the current proposal is to offer them beauty instead of just height.
More space
An increase in open space makes any neighborhood more reconciled to high density. The Capitol Hill/First Hill neighborhood has the least amount of park land and open space in the city, yet the current proposal calls for less open air space. To ask the public to accept higher density with less open space is very foolish and does not take into consideration the people who have to live here, but it sure helps out the developers.
Public market
Our neighborhood desperately needs a publicly-owned old-fashioned European style open air market (with perhaps a roof) so that we could have a daily farmers market with decent produce and to avoid chain-store uniformity. A proper market would give small merchants a foothold in the neighborhood, and it would also attract tourists. A publicly owned market would mean that neighborhood-sustaining establishments would not have to compete with businesses which do not sustain the neighborhood but can afford high rents.
Check out the demographics
I also wonder whether the developers are not pie-in-the-sky folks who think they are still functioning during the dot.com boom. Those days are over and there is a very high vacancy rate. Are there really enough renters to rent the condos and apartments scheduled to be built?
Will these apartment be appropriately priced three- and four-bedroom apartments, where a family can live; will they be cheap studios which are affordable to the traditional rental population, young people and those working in retail on Broadway itself; or will they be overpriced one- and two-bedroom condos, too expensive for the rental population and unsuitable for families. Too often on Broadway developers think that they can rent studios for $1,500 per month in spite of the huge vacancy rate in rental properties.
Mayor Nickles and Honorable (as well as Dishonorable) Members of City Council, please reconsider your proposal and consider the principles of good city planning. Do remember that no matter how much developers put into your war chest, it is the voters who elect you. The population of Capitol Hill is around 100,000. You do the math.[[In-content Ad]]
