As an architect in practice and an advertiser I wish to comment on your column ("Only Modest Transit-Oriented Development Needed," by John V. Fox and Carolee Colter, March 2009). The parking issue was on the agenda when we were rewriting the commercial land-use code in the [Greater Seattle Community Council's] land-use committee. I was not in agreement with the reduction of on-site parking requirements for development and was told the parking quantity was going to be reduced - period.
The gist of it was that on-site parking was "expensive" for developers, and reduction could be made, thus giving developers an economic bonus. The decision did not really take into account real needs and the effect the parking overflow had on adjacent residential neighborhoods. The parking-zone program was created by [the] Seattle Department of Transportation to spread the impact around.
Additional transportation is not needed, as the double buses ride around and block traffic in a nearly empty state are very heavily subsidized.
This is a very brief comment [on a topic that] is the tip of the iceberg.
Norman B. Yelin, Madrona[[In-content Ad]]
