The promise of an aerial gondola connecting the waterfront, Seattle Center, South Lake Union and Capitol Hill.
< click image to enlarge >
When we think of aerial gondolas and trams, ski resorts and carnival-like strings of pods hovering overhead at past world fairs usually come to mind. But what if a gondola took you to great urban destinations where people live, work, play and shop? What if these districts were served by other modes of transit? Could a gondola be a truly effective and self-sustaining transportation alternative that just happens to be energy-efficient and quiet?
The concept of an aerial gondola in Seattle was introduced by Matt Gangemi and featured here on Citytank last year, and like many I was initially skeptical. But the more I thought about it the more sense it made.
As a city we are making significant investments to generate new jobs and housing around the Capitol Hill light rail station, South Lake Union, the Seattle Center/Uptown area and the soon to be viaduct-free waterfront.
- South Lake Union is growing like crazy with Amazon and the biotech industry settled in and a 20-year growth target of 12,000 housing units and 22,000 jobs. And the City is considering increasing zoning to allow an additional 21,000 housing units and 32,000 jobs.
- Seattle Center has 12 million annual visitors and an exciting new master plan.
- The Gates Foundation and the street re-configuration around the new SR 99 tunnel will enliven the underutilized Uptown Triangle.
- A new waterfront will connect to SAM’s Olympic Sculpture Park, bringing even more people to the north end of the waterfront.
These districts are some of the hippest and most diverse, vibrant and fast-changing destinations in the region. As someone who frequently travels between them, I know firsthand how unpleasant it is to bike, walk, ride or drive between these places. I-5 is a huge barrier with limited access at Denny Way. Elevation changes make it difficult for those with mobility challenges, and Metro’s bus #8 comes by at 30-minute intervals. These districts are liveable and walkable places that ought to be better connected to each other.
Urban aerial cable lifts are quite common all over the world, and you can read more about existing and planned systems at http://gondolaproject.com/. London is building one for the 2012 Summer Olympics, and Chicago is considering one at Millennium Park. Other examples regionally include the Oregon Health and Science University tram in Portland and the Whistler Peak2Peak gondola. Another is being planned in Vancouver, B.C., to reach the top of Simon Frazier University.
< click image to enlarge >
Rise above it all, for real this time!
My proposal shown above connects Seattle Center to the new Capitol Hill light rail station, which are separated by 7,200 feet or 1.4 miles as the crow flies. Please keep in mind that no technical engineering has been done on this—it’s just a preliminary concept for discussion purposes.
Gondolas are most effective if they follow a straight line. Changing direction requires complicated engineering, more maintenance and more cost. Luckily there is a naturally straight alignment from the intersection of John and Broadway to the foot of the Space Needle along the John Street right of way.
Instead of intermediate towers to support the gondola’s cable, some supports could be incorporated into a mid-station stop on the upper floors of a new development. Restaurants and public viewing decks would be up to 20 stories high with public elevators to reach street level. There would be multiple stops along the way, where riders could commute to work at Amazon, catch a streetcar at Westlake or go to REI and the Cascade neighborhood. A string of destinations would enable the gondola to become a transit system that attracts commuters and tourists. Integrating the gondola into private development could also help fund the system.
A separate aerial gondola could be built, potentially as a second phase, near the Science Center to travel along Eagle Street to the Olympic Sculpture Park and new waterfront. This is only one-third of a mile, but for many the hill climb is not easy, and walking along Broad is unlikely to get less noisy and busy. This connection would capitalize on our investment in a world-class waterfront and enable a loop with the waterfront and downtown.
< click image to enlarge >
A detachable car system, much like Whistler’s Peak2Peak gondola, carries approximately 25 people in each car and arrives about every 45 seconds. Portland’s fixed tram carries 78 people in each car and takes 3 minutes to travel 3,300 feet. With intermediate stops in buildings, two separate fixed trams may be the better solution. Each type of aerial tram has pros and cons, and they both should be studied as options here.
This concept shows the spans between supports at 2,500 feet, and the bottom sag of the cables’ centenary curves would generally remain between 85 feet and 100 feet above the street (except at the Seattle Center and sculpture park terminals, where the gondola would drop to grade).
I’m guessing that  a 78-person tram could arrive every 10 minutes or a 25-person gondola could arrive every 3 minutes. So as many as 8,400 people in an 18-hour operational day. Of course, more work would need to be done to estimate demand, but one could reasonably assume 2,400 commuters and 1,600 tourists on a typical day. Weekends and bigger events would certainly increase ridership. According to SDOT, the South Lake Union Streetcar carries about 3,000 people each day (July 2011) in the north/south direction.
As illustrated in the map below, this proposal capitalizes on a multitude of mobility opportunities by connecting to north-south transit, bicycles and pedestrian routes. Beyond the existing streetcar, monorail, bike lanes and paths and multiple bus routes, Metro is adding high-capacity Rapid Ride bus routes on Aurora Avenue and 15th Avenue from Ballard with major stops in Uptown. The new light rail station at Capitol Hill will be connected to the First Hill Streetcar line and a new Broadway bicycle track. (Read more about South Lake Union’s recent mobility plan here.)
< click image to enlarge >
Of course, some may disagree.
There are a lot of reasons this idea may be difficult to pull off—though that is true for any investment in our transportation system. Privacy and view interruption would likely be key points of contention. However in South Lake Union, taller buildings are yet to be developed. Also cable lines would be above most existing buildings, they are light, and cars go by quickly. Air rights and easements may be difficult to obtain: the John Street grid on Capitol Hill is offset, so the first three blocks from the station area would be over private property. The good news is this area has been recently developed to 65 feet, which is below the gondola‘s path.
Technically there are a lot of issues to study. Getting up to the terminals in buildings will be inconvenient as it requires elevators (except at Seattle Center). Integration into buildings will require negotiation, collaboration and customization. This adds significantly to the development risk and costs, and could cause schedule delays.
Convincing elected officials this is the right priority and worth the investment will be a challenge, as will the impacts, mitigation and permitting. But it’s the same story for any major transportation project. And who will finance, own and operate it? Metro or the City of Seattle or a private party?
How much will it cost?
The costs are difficult to define at this point, but based on recent projects, the cost could easily be around $75 million. The cost to taxpayers will greatly depend on the participation of the private sector. Some recent projects and their costs are:
- Whistler’s Peak2Peak Gondola: $51 million (2008), 14,000 feet long, 10,000-foot span over land already owned by the resort, with only one stop at each end. Carries 4,100 passengers each hour
- OHSU Tram Portland: $57 million (2006), fixed two-car tram, 3,300 feet long, 1,500 passengers each day, 5,000 predicted in future
- London 2012 Olympics Gondola: $95 million (estimated), 3,280 feet long
- Koblenz Rheinseilbahn Gondola, Germany: $20 million (2011), 3,200 feet long
And where will we get the money?
I’m not an expert in estimating revenue but I’ll take a guess to stimulate conversation:
- Fare Revenue: One could assume tourists will pay $10.00 and Orca card holders would be given a 75 percent discount ($2.50). If just five percent of the 12 million annual visitors to Seattle Center ride the gondola (1,600 daily) combined with 2,400 Orca card holders, there would be 4,000 riders a day. This equates to $22,000 daily revenue or about $8 million annually. Operating expenses would need to be deducted.
- Local improvement districts assessment (LID) on property owners and retailers benefiting from the project
- Sponsorship/naming rights
- Advertising on the cars
- Metro funding: bus service could be eliminated or reduced
- Co-development with new towers, possibly as part of the incentive program to provide public benefits
- Tax levy on property or vehicle licenses, either as a specific benefit district or city-wide package
- Congestion pricing to help fund the gondola and other transit improvements
 < click image to enlarge >
The Cherry on Top
One last exciting element here is the cherry on top of the hill. Imagine an iconic tower in the Capitol Hill light rail station area redevelopment. I’m showing a gondola terminal located about 160 feet up a 400-foot-tall tower that would include a public viewing terrace, restaurant and bar with views in every direction.
The lower portion of the tower could be used as a destination hotel with conference and meeting facilities in the base, possibly combined with a joint-use community center for the local community. Businesses, services and organizations could symbiotically collaborate to occupy the second and/or third floors while the ground floor would be dedicated to street activation in the form of retail and restaurants.
Yes, this is controversial and certainly not allowed by current zoning. However, a tower at this location could be rationalized by the gondola, which is an exceptional public asset (and vice versa). The tower is essential to allow the gondola system to be strung well over the existing buildings on the west slope of Capitol Hill. The tower would also contain the receiving terminal, which needs to be mounted approximately 160 feet or higher above the street. It’s also a means to an end as the added development could better provide the desired neighborhood amenities and public benefits package as identified in the neighborhood’s urban design framework plan (UDF).
The current UDF plan suggests up-zoning this site by one or two stories, which may add 20-25% more capacity to the site. That will bring some value to the project, but it won’t buy much in terms of the long list of public amenities desired by the community. I’m suggesting a doubling or tripling of development capacity that is concentrated in the tower where it can take advantage of the great views.
Assuming a tower is possible, I’d propose it be a stand-alone beacon celebrating the station and the unique attributes of the neighborhood. It could be the next generation’s Space Needle, designed by a rigorous international competition and with no other towers allowed in the district. As the only tower, more sun, light, air and views would be maintained on the station area site. It could be slender and graceful, and set back slightly from the street. I’m showing a form in these illustrations for scale and to show how a gondola would be incorporated. Clearly more design work is needed, and that could be an opportunity for community engagement.
As many have observed, more people living and working in the station area is a public benefit, even if some of them occupy high-end condominiums at the top of the tower. Their carbon footprint will be significantly less living here than if they lived on 10 acres in Woodinville and commuted into town each day. They would potentially help pay for some 250 units of affordable housing, a district energy system, the Nagle Place Market and a community center.
This station tower concept is certainly worthy of another blog posting and much further discussion before Sound Transit issues an RFQ/RFP for the properties or the city entitles taller height limits. More on that later!
Meanwhile, consider rising above it all –- for real this time. I hope this sparks a lot of dialog. Let me know your thoughts.
>>>
Matt Roewe, AIA, works at VIA Architecture and has been actively engaged in civic dialog and planning in South Lake Union, Uptown/Queen Anne and Capitol Hill for the last 10 years. Please join Matt and others at the inaugural City Builder Happy Hour, tonight, Tues. Feb. 21, 5pm at the Pike Place Brewery in downtown Seattle.
To me, there is no greater calling than building cities. Cities foster proximity. Proximity promotes interaction. We know that the closer people are to each other, the healthier, more productive, more economically secure, innovative, creative and efficient they are because of the interaction.
Cities are more than a collection of buildings. People are the magic of cities, and City Builders create places for people.
Why are City Builders important? Quite simply, buildings are where people live, work and create.
City Builders make places where dreams come to life. Buildings and the public spaces around them are where inspiration, creativity and innovation happen.
In Portlandia, they sing that Portland is the place young people go to retire. I believe that Seattle is the place people come to change the world.
Seattle is a regional hub that attracts people from around the world, and Seattle has produced more than its share of global companies and NGOs. City Builders are an integral part of this dynamic.
City Builders seeks to raise awareness of what we do and our place in the community. You are a critical part of city building. Join us.
>>>
Photo credit: Laurie Ascanio, GLY Construction
We’ve got some city building to do.
Because better cities are what people want, and what the planet needs.
Yes, Seattle is already a pretty good city, but it still has a lot of growing up to do. Forging a Seattle equipped to thrive in the 21st century is going to take some doing.
Step number one is embracing the fact that building a better city means development. And this is a reality with which Seattle struggles. Wariness over development and distrust of developers seems to be the default among many. Perhaps this slant is an understandable liberal reaction to a city founded on extractive industry and permeated with powerful corporate interests. Or perhaps it is simply the long-standing anti-city bias of American culture.
Whatever the cause, given the massive social, economic and environmental challenges that cities face, an anti-development attitude is self-defeating. The enormous task at hand is going to take collaborative, collective effort, and the development community—city builders—should be leading it.
>>>
In this spirit, a handful of us city builder types thought it would be a good idea to fill a room with smart, passionate, like-minded folks, judiciously add alcoholic beverages, and stir.
Thus, the City Builder Happy Hour.
The City Builder Happy Hour is an informal gathering of people in the development arena including developers, architects, planners, designers, engineers, lawyers, community advocates, land use junkies, policy makers and the like. The City Builder Happy Hour is a chance for us to exchange ideas, network, seek work and gossip.
You are building Seattle. You are a City Builder.
Please join us at the inaugural City Builder Happy Hour on Tuesday, February 21, at 5:o0 PM at the Pike Brewing Company—1415 1st Avenue, downtown Seattle. No host bar.
Hosts: Jessie Clawson, Sierra Hansen, Mike Kent, Dan McGrady and Dan Bertolet
>>>
Check out the City Builders—Seattle group on Facebook.
 Photos by the author.
Coffee Shop Neighborhoods for the Next Seattle
I need to let you know about some super-wonky process moving through at the King County Council. But first I am going to tell you why I love my neighborhood.
Every morning I walk to the same coffee shop, order a doppio and cinnamon roll scone, read my RSS news feeds, and then ride either my Metro Bus #66 or bicycle seven miles to my downtown office. With the winter snows and rains, I’ve definitely been riding the bus more than the bicycle.
This routine gives me a sense of satisfaction. The baristas know my name and they know what I’m going to order. I don’t have to overthink how I’m going to start my day — the decision was already made by habit. And most importantly, as a relative newcomer to my neighborhood, I have an instant sense of place and belonging as if I’ve always lived here.
Better health and and a social safety net are also big benefits. I can’t claim that my morning food choices are healthy, but the walk to my coffee shop and the following ride to work are definitely good for me. A recently published study in the European Heart Journal found that people who own a car and television are 27% more likely to suffer a heart attack. (I may not be out of the woods on this one: I own a car and watch plenty of Hulu & Netflix.)
Like a growing number of Americans in their 20s and 30s, I have put off marriage and children and I live 3 hours from my nuclear family. As a result, my local social safety net is small. To make up for this deficit, it’s important to regularly meet neighbors and make new friends.
This one of the great things about my coffee shop. When I forget my wallet, I can pay next time. When I need to make change for bus fare, it’s no big deal. If I go on vacation for a week, when I come back my baristas ask why I wasn’t around. In a world where social networks are increasingly digital, I’m comforted to know I also have a social safety network founded in place and neighborhood.
What’s more, this is the financially sustainable lifestyle. By not driving and instead depending on the bus, I save piles of cash. The American Public Transportation Association regularly publishes what the average Seattle household can save by switching from car-dependency to the bus; the latest was $11,749 per year.
I doubt I’m saying anything that’s revolutionary to any Citytank reader. We share similar experiences and passions as city dwellers and New Urbanists. But I keep thinking about the 700,000 new people coming to King County by 2040. That’s more than the entire current population of Seattle. Will they be able to walk to their neighborhood coffee shop?
Right now, we can help shape that future. King County is updating its comprehensive plan. Love them or hate them, comprehensive plans are the foundational documents for planning and building our communities and protecting farms and forests in Washington State. We will only be as good as our best comprehensive plan.
King County does not have jurisdiction over the density (yes, the famed “d-wordâ€) in the incorporated areas. But the county can determine the location of urban area boundaries and the density of the urban area that remains unincorporated. Citytankers, you should pay attention now.
The county planning staff put out their draft recommendations back in October. Here’s a couple of thoughts.
First, the urban area must not expand. Low-density sprawl creates new unwalkable neighborhoods and diminishes our ability to add more housing and job opportunities within the current urban area. That’s why it’s so important to hold the line on our urban boundaries.
In order to create great, vibrant neighborhoods, more people need to live closer to their local coffee shops. Conversely, coffee shops need more people living nearby to stay in business. And this doesn’t just apply to coffee shops, it also applies to corner markets, restaurants and, really, any small business that can be decoupled from the petroleum economy.
The good news is that the staff recommendation keeps the urban growth area boundaries as is. Unfortunately, there’s a proposal floating to expand the Woodinville urban area into the Sammamish Valley farmlands and rural area. Given that the existing urban growth area has sufficient capacity for housing and employment for the next 20 or more years, this expansion proposal is simply unacceptable.
Second, the County needs to plan the unincorporated urban area for high performance:
- sufficient density to support transit,
- fine-grained street grids to promote walking,
- streets that are safe for pedestrians and cyclists of all abilities,
- minimal surface parking,
- public plazas to promote civic engagement,
- a balanced mix of businesses and housing,
- housing affordable to all ranges of incomes, and
- complementary phased public infrastructure investments.
These are minimal requirements for creating functioning urban places and should be applied to the several types of neighborhoods designated by the county, including: Unincorporated Activity Centers, Community Business Centers, Neighborhood Business Centers, Areas for Commercial Site Improvement and Public Service, and Fully Contained Communities. The current staff recommendation would simply continue the old requirements, which, frankly, are not good enough.
While the official public comment period closed in December, there’s still time. The King County Executive’s office is finalizing its recommendations that will go to the County Council on March 1.
Let’s make sure King County’s urban area is a great place for the next 700,000 people. Let’s make sure they can walk to their coffee shop, know their barista, and ride a bus or bike. With your help, we can make it happen.
>>>
For the rest of Futurewise’s comments to the King County planning staff, visit http://futurewise.org/king/king-cpp_html. For questions about how to get more involved, contact Brock Howell, King County Program Director for Futurewise, at brock@futurewise.org.
Note: This post is part of an ongoing series of dispatches from the Seattle Planning Commission.
>>>
A couple of years ago we were spending the holidays at the home of my brother Erik. My youngest son, Romeo, was and is a pear fiend, and was delighted to spy several perfect specimens arrayed on the counter in his uncle’s kitchen. Romeo ate his fill that first day. The next day, however, Romeo watched in horror as my brother collected the remaining fruit and removed it to the cutting board, knife in hand. The pears hadn’t really been purchased for the fruit bowl, you see; they were destined for use in a salad to accompany dinner. Little Romeo was dismayed. Unable to envision the collective bounty of the pear salad to come, all his four-year-old mind knew was that his uncle was swiping his fruit. “Please, Uncle Erik,†he crooned in true Dickensian fashion, “don’t take away my Christmas pear!†Romeo’s Christmas pear has become the stuff of legends in my family, but musing over the incident this Christmas got me thinking about something else a little Dickensian in nature: the d-word. Density.
You see, when SPC member and Public Health employee Kadie Bell Sata wrote a post here a few months back called Density is Good for Our Health!, the Planning Commission heard about it. Don’t use the word “density,†opined some knowledgeable people who actually agreed with Kadie’s point. It’s an unfriendly word. Why not call them “diverse communities†instead and avoid all the conflict? It was friendly, well-meaning advice and we understood the rationale behind it. Mention “density†and the conversation is over; let the ranting begin. It also acknowledges that not all dense communities are award-winners. And it is true that dense communities can be diverse—socioeconomically, racially, culturally—as well as architecturally, in terms of scope and scale.
Diversity is good, but in this context it’s still just a euphemism. We voluntarily and necessarily use the d-word when we want to describe more people living on less land (which may involve the m-word: multifamily). Instead of talking around the d-word, I’d like to put it out there, loud and proud. Instead of obfuscating our meaning, let’s be un-Seattle about this and talk it through. Let’s explore the term in all its permutations—good and bad. In plain terms, what does density mean, and maybe more importantly, what do we fear density brings?
I already brought up Dickens, so let’s start there. Think nineteenth-century London, full of belching smokestacks, yelling merchants, and crippled, begging children. Carts clog the streets while the draught horse droppings lend a sour odor to the already foul sewers lining the thoroughfares. Dark, shadowy corners hide would-be thieves and murderers. The city is dense, dirty, dangerous, and frightfully downtrodden. Hyperbolic? Of course. But in terms of fears, is this so far from the vision conjured by the d-word during land use hearings? Is it any wonder this bleak image can’t gain traction, especially when compared to a turn-of-the-century castle rimmed by bucolic, rolling fields, ahem, I mean single family?
It’s a new year, folks. Let’s close that book and modernize our vision of what density—and cities—can and should look like. If we do, we might get to envisioning the thoughtful, dense communities we’d like to see, including a little Italian place just around the corner, more families close to the school down the street and the park two blocks over, a shared garden, wide sidewalks and common spaces where you can eat your lunch on that special sunny afternoon. A place where houses with picket fences and an occasional cottage and Craftsman duplexes and sleek mixed-use projects with fro-yo shops on the first floor combine to support an eclectic tangle of people that keeps Seattle, Seattle, just all grown up. It’s time we stop stuffing fruit in our pockets. Maybe, just maybe we can learn to share our salad with everyone at the table, while still treasuring our lovely, traditional Christmas pears. If a four-year-old can do it…
>>>
Leslie Miller is the Chair of the Seattle Planning Commission. She has experience in community organizing and outreach, specifically related to growth, equitable development, and transportation. Community work has included three terms as president of the Southeast District Council and current SEDC Outreach and Membership Chair, plus involvement with the Rainier Othello Safety Association, Othello Park Now!, Othello Station Community Advisory Team, South Precinct Advisory Council, and the Othello Park Alliance.
Taking On Global Warming “Skeptics” (Alas, It’s Still Necessary)
< BEST land-only surface temperature data (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes 1973 to 1980, 1980 to 1988, 1988 to 1995, 1995 to 2001, 1998 to 2005, 2002 to 2010 (blue), and 1973 to 2010 (red). Source: skepticalscience.com, see footnote below >
Despite the overwhelming and ever-strengthening scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), many otherwise rational people still refuse to believe it. And if one is not well versed in climate change science, some of their “skeptical” arguments might seem reasonable. As an example, below is just such a specious argument put forth by a “skeptic” with whom I have been engaged in an exhausting email spar:
- The theory of man made global warming is just that- a theory. Theories must be proven through experimentation and data.
- The data and experimentation that have been done fall into two areas: computer models, and temperature measurements that go back a relatively short time
- The computer models are necessarily much simpler that the actual climate, and are totally dependent on the assumptions that have been fed in to them by scientists who are trying to establish that AGW is real. Â There are very competent scientists who have done serious peer reviewed work that raise serious questions about the validity of the models and the assumptions that drive them.
- The temperature measurements go back a very short time, and are of questionable use in demonstrating trends that span millennia.
- Techniques that are used to try to show longer term temperature trends by ice coring or tree ring measuring have produced mixed results, and there are many responsible and intellectually honest scientists who have raised serious questions about the methodology used by the believers.
- The believers try to discredit all of the scientists who have presented opposing explanations by demonstrating that their results are different than the results achieved by the believers, therefore their results are invalid. This echo chamber of criticism always comes back to the same small groups of scientists who created the models and produced the temperature data. And this small group of scientists have been discredited by their own words in thousands of emails that demonstrate that their motivations are not to do good science. Â The skeptics’ arguments do not “fall apart when scrutinized,” they fall apart when they are compared to the work of the believers. And if your view is that the work of the believers is the benchmark of truth and excellent science, then it becomes automatic to disagree with opposing views, because they HAVE to be wrong.
- Therefore, there is sufficient doubt in my mind about the effects of man’s activities on the climate that I do not want to see the US economy destroyed, and all the rest of our jobs moved to China, in order to solve a problem the very likely is not a problem. Â And if you don’t believe that the proposed taxes and carbon trading and other actions will severely damage the ability of the US to produce goods and attract business, then you are getting economic advice that is as bad as your climate advice.
At first glance it’s pretty convincing, is it not? So allow me to spell out how it falls apart when scrutinized, just like the skeptics’ arguments always do.
“Skeptic” said:
The data and experimentation that have been done fall into two areas: computer models, and temperature measurements that go back a relatively short time.
But that is a false statement. Climate models and past temperature data are but two of multiple, mutually reinforcing lines of evidence for AGW. You could throw out all the climate modeling results and the case for AGW would still be rock solid. Here is a partial list of the directly observable evidence, compiled from the awesome debunking site Skeptical Science:
- Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
- If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth’s surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.” (Evans 2006).
- If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).
- As greenhouse warming increases, winters are warming faster than summers. This has been observed (Braganza et al 2003, Braganza et al 2004)
- Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what’s happening (Jones 2003).
- With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).
- An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).
- The specific pattern of ocean warming, with heat penetrating from the surface, can only be explained by greenhouse warming (Barnett 2005).
And the (non-climate model-based) evidence just keeps piling up:
Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90–116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing…
As is common with armchair skeptics, a superficial understanding of the subject at hand has led to a false premise for the entire argument presented above. Apparently it’s a combination of irrational distrust in experts and plain old arrogance that enables these people believe that after reading a few blogs they know better than the deep body of scientific knowledge on climate change that has been built up over decades by thousands of scientists all over the world.
This flavor arrogance permeates the skeptical crowd, as exhibited by UC Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller who was an outspoken global warming skeptic until he recently conducted a review of the data himself (funded by the denialist Koch brothers, no less). What Muller found was that, oops! the leading climate scientists were right all along. Apparently feeling no need for humility about his past mistakes, Muller lectures his Wall Street Journal readers that “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.”
>>>
Back to the argument. Given that the main premise is wrong, what about the specific claims? Fail.
“Skeptic” said:
This echo chamber of criticism always comes back to the same small groups of scientists who created the models…
Well, not so much, according to Wikipedia:
Thousands of climate researchers around the world use climate models to understand the climate system. There are thousands of papers published about model-based studies in peer-reviewed journals.
The code for the models and the sources of temperature data are openly published. Nevertheless, skeptics would have us believe that a small group of scientists rigging their modeling results and suppressing dissent has gone undetected in such a huge and open community of scientific researchers. But that’s what makes unfounded conspiracy theories tick—everyone is in on it!
Yes, the climate models are not perfect, but no one understands that better than the scientists involved, who painstakingly calculate the uncertainty and openly discuss it. The simple fact is, CO2 is the only forcing variable in the global climate models that can reproduce observed temperature trends. “Skeptics” love to bloviate about other possible explanations, but the scientists have already been there, done that. At this point, if this was any other field of science that wasn’t so politicized, the real question would be: Prove that CO2 is NOT causing global warming.
“Skeptic” said:
…this small group of scientists have been discredited by their own words in thousands of emails that demonstrate that their motivations are not to do good science.
This refers to the so-called “Climategate” emails, about which many skeptics never stop howling, even though the scientists who wrote those emails were exonerated by nine official investigations. As can be learned with a five minute google search, the email quotes were taken out of context and wildly misinterpreted. It is either ignorance or willful deceit that allows “skeptics” to continue citing the emails to try to discredit the science.
“Skeptic” said:
Therefore, there is sufficient doubt in my mind about the effects of man’s activities on the climate that I do not want to see the US economy destroyed, and all the rest of our jobs moved to China, in order to solve a problem the very likely is not a problem.
“US economy destroyed.” Scary words! But the reality is if we set our minds to it, we could convert our economy to low carbon energy sources and have economic prosperity at the same time. Furthermore, there is a strong case to be made that doing nothing will have a negative net economic impact, as the International Energy Agency’s recently stated:
Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.
>>>
No doubt, the psychology that fuels global warming skepticism is rich. Throughout history, paradigm-shifting discoveries tend to be scorned at first. In the case of global warming, resistance is concentrated in the conservative end of the ideological spectrum, and part of that can be explained by the fact that addressing the problem will require action by governments (gasp!), though a few conservatives are starting to face reality.
Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change it’s way too late in the day, and there’s way too much at stake, to suffer fools gladly. These pseudo-skeptics are impeding progress on one of the most important global issues of our lifetimes, and jeopardizing the well being of literally billions of people in future generations because they can’t get past their own ideological and psychological hang ups and deal with reality. The appropriate response is to push back hard and not worry about being nice.
>>>
Footnote: If you believe that the graphic at the top of this post is exaggerated, take a look at the C3 website, where you will find countless examples of cherry picking intended to mislead. For example, compare this anti-science to this science. And if you are wondering who produces C3, the web site doesn’t provide even a single name—always a sign of a credible source, right?
Note: This post originally appeared on Publicola as part of their Thanksgiving series.
< 19th and Madison in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood >
Ever since the crash of Dutch tulip mania in 1637 it has been widely recognized that economic bubbles tend to end badly. But over the past year in Seattle there’s been a bubble growing that I believe is a positive exception to that rule: the apartment boom. From the perspective of urban sustainability, that’s something to be thankful for.
New apartment projects have been sprouting so fast recently it’s hard to keep up. Nearly 7000 units are projected to come on line in 2013 in Seattle and Bellevue. In Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood alone construction is well under way on four large mid-rise apartments that will provide close to 600 new units, and a dozen or more projects are in various stages of the pipeline.
Factors driving the apartment boom include the lull in construction caused by the real estate bust, a relatively strong local job market, and demand from Gen Y kids and others who can’t afford to buy in today’s economy. Multifamily housing is pretty much the only real estate development market that has a pulse currently, which has led to somewhat of a feeding frenzy.
Why shouldn’t we worry about this particular bubble? True, an overproduction of apartments can be expected to dish out some economic pain to building owners, financiers, and developers who get the timing wrong. But that won’t change the fact that we’ll end up with lots of new high-density urban housing that will be on the ground for decades. And that’s some powerful good mojo for a sustainable city and region.
Dense urban infill housing reduces development pressure on farms and forests, leverages existing infrastructure investments, spurs economic development, improves public health, reduces stormwater runoff pollution, energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions, and helps create the kind of livable, walkable communities that the market increasingly demands. Furthermore, any oversupply will put downward pressure on housing prices, helping to address affordability.
So no, I’m not wringing my hands over a potential apartment bubble. When I look up and see another construction crane on the skyline it gives me hope.
< Looking west from Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood >
Seven Rules For Sustainable Communities
Hello Citytank readers, and thank you for the chance to post this notice. It’s going to be my pleasure to do a reading from my new book…
Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities, Design Strategies for a Post-carbon World
November 28, 5:30 PM
Seattle Coffee Works, 107 Pike Street in downtown Seattle
I am gratified that the book has gotten very favorable reviews. Here are links to a couple of recent examples: this one from Landscape Architecture Magazine, and this one from Landscape Journal.
As some of you may know, I have been working on developing basic principles for sustainable community design for over 20 years now. This book is my attempt to boil down all that work into one easy to access but still useful volume. Over the years I became more and more convinced that having a workable and agreed-to set of sustainability principles was crucial. We have tried for many years to pare these principles down to their fundamental essence. It was quite a challenge to arrive at principles that are both very simple and, at the same time, supported by enough hard data to be credible. This is why I settled on the dual content strategy for the book, where each page has an easy to understand narrative, but also contains supporting data and a host of additional resources for those who appreciate more backup. Most of our reviewers have noted with approval this novel approach, and I hope attendees at the November 28 reading will also find this useful.
There will be books available for purchase at the event, and they are also available on line. For more info about the book please contact me at p.m.condon@gmail.com.
>>>
Patrick M. Condon is the James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments at the University of British Columbia. Professor Condon’s Seattle reading is presented by VIA Architecture.
S400: The Forgotten Utility for Complete Streets, Safety, and Good Stormwater Design
Much discussion is found on the Interwebs these days about improving communities with “Complete Streets” — streets designed for multiple transportation options and not just for cars. Non-motorized safety is a major focus of such street design, usually achieved by slowing automobile traffic and providing pedestrian safety measures. Vegetation is often used to separate sidewalks from the roadway as well as to increase aesthetics, but all too often the vegetation planting area is treated as an afterthought, and the plant material suffers as a result. Trees are utilities, in that they are excellent coolers, safety barriers, and stormwater mitigators. Unfortunately, their needs are frequently forgotten at design time.
Is there a way to provide for the needs of this forgotten utility and increase the benefits trees provide? Absolutely, and it is relatively easy to do. Simply put, too often woody plants are given inadequate rooting volume and the plant languishes or dies. Most non-desert plants did not evolve surrounded by heat-absorbing and -reflecting concrete, so they must have enough water available to overcome this condition. This is only possible by having enough room for roots to explore for water and nutrients.
First, trees need a minimum volume of soil medium according to their general size (diagram via the Boston Society of Architects):
< Bassuk structural soil; image source: Cornell University >
Next, they need some decent soil to live in, not the compacted, leftover soil found at street construction sites. Fortunately, there are several design and material options beginning to be used, along with numerous structural soil mixtures for use around trees and pavement, such as Bassuk structural soil shown in the adjacent photo.
Large soil volumes — either exposed or under permeable hardscape — not only provide soil for trees but also filter stormwater runoff from the built environment and from trees that have intercepted and collected air pollutants on their surfaces. That’s right: good soil in built environments is important both for plants along our streets and for our stream health.
Notice how I haven’t said anything specific about Complete Street design. That’s because all the products and solutions out there work well with traditional street design as well as modern, innovative design. Nothing about the design itself has to change. Only the specification and construction processes change. And the added value from the benefits from increased tree survivorship ensures the project cost is returned. The project’s triple bottom line is increased simply by paying attention to basic tree needs!
>>>
Dan Staley is an urban planner specializing in green infrastructure on Colorado’s Front Range.
< zHome zero-net energy project in Issaquah, WA >
Over the past few decades designers and policymakers have been working to increase the energy efficiency of buildings, and solid progress has been made. Still, today in the United States buildings account for 49 percent of energy use and 46 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Successfully tackling the dual challenges of rising energy costs and climate change is going to take massive reductions of building energy use.
A conceptual holy grail for energy-efficient building design is a building that generates as much energy as it consumes, a.k.a. a zero net energy building. And that’s the goal of a recently completed 10-unit townhome development in Issaquah, WA, known as zHome, touted as the “first multifamily, production, zero-energy, carbon-neutral community in the United States.â€
Spearheaded by the City of Issaquah, the zHome project was awarded to David Vandervort Architects in Fall 2007, but subsequently the real estate bust forced the original builder to back out. Howland Homes took over in Summer 2008, and the project broke ground that September. Faced with financing challenges and delays, Howland then partnered with Ichijo, a large Japanese builder known for energy-efficient production homes, and the project finished in September 2011.
< zHome zero-net energy project in Issaquah, WA >
zHome was designed to achieve zero net energy use through efficiency measures that reduce consumption by about two-thirds, and photovoltaics (PV) that generate enough electricity to cover the remaining third—approximately 5,000 kWh per year. That requires a hefty amount of PV, and indeed, the south-facing panels that cover the roofs are a prominent feature. During the sunny summer months the PV produce more energy than the buildings need, and the excess is fed back to the grid. If the building operates as expected, that “banked” energy will offset the energy consumed during the dark winter months when PV output is low, the result being zero net energy use on an annual basis.
Energy-efficiency measures incorporated in zHome include ground source heat pumps that provide space heating and domestic hot water, heat recovery ventilation, a tightly sealed and highly insulated envelope (R38 wall, R63 roof, U-0.33 double pane windows), efficient appliances, LED lighting, switched outlets to reduce phantom loads, and a real-time energy monitoring system. (The project is also designed to reduce water consumption by 70 percent.)
So how much did all that extra stuff increase the cost? Asking prices for the units are relatively high for Issaquah: $385k for 799 s.f. 1-bedroom; $530k for 1350 s.f. 2 bedroom; and $625k for 1694 s.f. 3-bedroom. Apparently the free land and significant logistical support provided by the City weren’t enough to negate the cost premium. Eventually the upfront investment in efficiency would be offset by savings in the energy (and water) bills, but given current energy prices payback periods are relatively long. Of course, if all the externalized costs of our energy were included it would be a different story, but unfortunately a carbon tax is not happening any time soon.
< zHome zero-net energy project in Issaquah, WA >
It remains to be seen if zHome will achieve zero net energy performance in the real world, and success will likely depend to some extent on the energy use habits of the occupants—one thing designers don’t have much control over. In any case, whether or not a building can produce enough energy on site to hit net-zero isn’t necessarily the be all and end all for sustainable design. Arguably, what’s more important is the practice of “efficiency first”—that is, first figure out how to fully minimize the building’s energy use, and then worry about how to supply the remaining energy demand.
For example, the Bullitt Foundation’s Living Building is targeting zero net energy and incorporates cutting-edge energy-efficient design. But analysis suggests that it could have been even more efficient if it had been built to the European Passive House standard, in which case it would have required less PV, potentially reducing both cost and physical design constraints.
Furthermore, when you look beyond the single building and consider larger systems of buildings and energy production, in some cases powering a building from an offsite energy source may make more sense than struggling to max out on-site generation. And for buildings taller than about six or seven stories, there simply won’t be enough solar energy impinging on the site to meet demand, even for a hyper-efficient building.
In conclusion, while the concept of zero net energy buildings may have its limitations, projects like zHome and the Bullitt Foundation building remain hugely important for making progress on energy-efficient design. That’s because they challenge designers to (1) work within a highly constrained energy budget, and (2) explore the limits of on-site energy production. And then there’s also the potential for the big win as the designs move into the mainstream. Indeed, Ichijo has ambitions to ramp up the zHome concept to high-volume production. It won’t be a moment too soon.
>>>
Dan Bertolet is an urban planner with VIA Architecture and the founder of Citytank. All photos by the author. All apologies for the the title reference.
Note: This post originally appeared on the Altantic.
Real neighborhood experiences can provide a meaningful gloss on current discussions about how to make cities better and increase shared places for all.
On Saturday night, in response to an email, I went to the movies by walking 100 feet from my home. Admission was free. And it was not in the comfort of an isolated home or downtown space, but among some 20 neighbors in an everyday place, hidden and in plain sight: Monica and Michael’s alley entry, against Anne and Jerry’s retaining wall.
Our last “alley movie night†of the summer was an important reminder that a city neighborhood can experience community without really trying—an “urbanism without effort†that needs no thought leadership nor sound bytes, and is as natural as European street life in places we sometimes wish we were.
We can try awfully hard—sometimes too hard, in my opinion—to extol the virtues of the city by proselytizing and debating ideas and opportunities. In particular, the potential for American urban alleys remains in the spotlight. This attention, often aspirational, is well deserved given the raw alley palette for remade narrow streets in the organic European tradition, pedestrian in scale, narrow, interesting and a natural focus for greening street life and new small businesses.
Recently, additional essays (e.g., Alyse Nelson writing in Sightline last week) have recalled alleys’ placemaking role within the urbanist toolbox. Specific, grant-funded work by Seattle’s Daniel Toole has emphasized the now iconic, reclaimed laneway precedent of Melbourne and beyond.
The challenges, of course, are how to pay for reclaiming and maintaining these alleys. And, as with many instances of infrastructure improvement, we must determine where and how the private sector can make a difference in implementing improvements and maintenance too costly for today’s municipal public transportation and utility agencies.
After all, it’s not just about clearing away the dumpsters. As I’ve related before in contributions to the urbanist dialogue (in myurbanist and on Seattle’s KUOW radio), public rights of way, stormwater system maintenance, pavement resurfacing and other forms of street improvement may be required in order to materially reinvent desired space.
Yet, in the meantime, there are ready and simple victories in residential alleys less known or described, where neighborhood is there for the taking.
Admittedly, not all of us have traditional alleys at our back doors (which we often treat as main entries), but those of us who do can readily avail ourselves of the once and future urbanism of alley reinvention. Those of us who don’t might find a driveway and garage to suffice for now.
Email, potluck food and drink, equipment setup, and a bedsheet-as-movie-screen yield public space for community, not because of doctrine or dogma, but because it is as natural as the place next door.
The best urbanism is that which is already there to be nurtured, a practice that I highly recommend.
>>>
Charles R. “Chuck” Wolfe, M.R.P., J.D., is an environmental and land use attorney in Seattle and an Affiliate Associate Professor of Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington. He writes for several publications, including The Huffington Post and Crosscut, and blogs at myurbanist. All images composed by the author. Click on each image for more detail.
Dispatch from the SPC: The Economics of Neighborhood Business Districts – Part 2
Note: This post is part of an ongoing series of dispatches from the Seattle Planning Commission.
Recently Commission Vice-Chair David Cutler wrote about the way the proximity of residents and workers factors into making neighborhood business districts more dynamic. He pointed out there are complex factors at play in neighborhood retail districts, not the least of which include demographics, disposable income levels, and other market determinants.  In this week’s Dispatch, we continue to explore the key ingredients to creating thriving, pleasant neighborhood business districts.
Seattle residents have a strong identification with their local neighborhood business district—each unique, giving a distinct flavor and ambiance to the community. Indeed, it’s one of the things that makes Seattle special. When speaking of Columbia City, the West Seattle Junction, Pike/Pine, Greenwood, or any of the other 30-plus neighborhoods in the city, one immediately grasps a picture of the types and mix of businesses, the community treasures (be it a park or art work or farmers market), and the accessibility of each.
Do our business districts have special needs that can be addressed as Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan is updated? Indeed, Seattle expects to welcome at least 120,000 new residents and 115,000 new jobs by 2031, and the expected growth in population and jobs will provide growth opportunities for existing neighborhood business districts by infusing them with new customers and creating neighborhood-area jobs.
But, other than a critical mass of people living and working within close proximity to the district, what else do our neighborhood business districts need to be successful?
< Seattle's Columbia City neighborhood; photo by Oran Viriyincy >
Business Organization
Leading and implementing neighborhood revitalization requires organizational capacity. It includes recruitment of volunteers and the development of community leadership from among property and business owners and area residents. Creating community ownership of public spaces is essential to creating a cared-for neighborhood business district. Additionally, this type of attention requires a sustained and ongoing commitment in the form of local business, community, and civic organizations that attend to the ongoing stewardship of the district. Business organization can also play an essential role in helping to recruit and attract new businesses through marketing and other efforts.
Business and Retail Development
Neighborhood plans lay the groundwork for new investment in the community, but the City often waits for some action to come along which may not happen for years, leading to community frustration. It sometimes feels like the City doesn’t have a coherent way of dealing with investment to implement the plans that are developed with the neighborhoods. Coming up with strategies that align resources as public/private partnerships can direct new growth and development in ways that contribute to the vibrancy of the neighborhood. The city’s office of Economic Development offers technical assistance to business districts including information about resources and partnerships.
< Image from the Design Guidelines for the Othello neighborhood >
Unique Community Identity
A unique image helps local residents identify with their neighborhood and attracts outside visitors. Identifying what is unique about a community can create an identity around existing assets. Fremont does this with its funky art, Ballard has Scandinavian flags and shops, and the University District emphasizes its connection to the University of Washington. In Othello the city is working with ethnic business to develop a retail district with an international focus understanding that the communities’ plethora of culturally specific businesses is a unique and valuable asset. The focus of this effort involves supporting the established multicultural business district at Othello light rail station by providing technical support and innovative approaches to stabilizing commercial leases and growing local businesses.
Keystone Community Spaces and Events
Many communities hold farmers markets, summer music festivals, parades, or holiday fairs. Well-organized events can help create or reinforce a community’s “brand.†Open spaces such as plazas and parks in a business district not only provide necessary places of respite within high density, but also act as the community’s formal and informal gathering places for neighbors to meet, share ideas and gossip, hold special events and festivals, and celebrate occasions. These spaces need access to water and electricity so festival vendors can operate. They also need to be programmed and activated so they are welcoming and lively spaces and not places for illicit activities that detract from the district’s quality.
< Seattle's Chinatown-International District >
Safety
Our city benefits from reduced crime levels; our citizens are safe from most serious crimes. But that fact does not translate to a perception of safety in all neighborhoods. Traffic whizzing by, trees and shrubs overhanging sidewalks and blocking views, poor street lighting and sidewalk maintenance, vacant lots, unattractive and poorly maintained store fronts and more contribute to an environment in which pedestrians feel concerned for their safety, thereby reducing time spent in the district. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and other design and planning efforts can play an important role in making sure there are “eyes on the street†and creating a safe and comfortable environment for all. In some areas of town, persistent drug dealing and a lack of positive public activity can contribute to a perceived loss of personal safety and to the demise of signature businesses. Hot-spot policing and ongoing beat patrols have had very positive impact to combating street disorder including reducing drug dealing and property crime. It also creates a stronger perception of community safety by having a public safety presence.
Cleanliness
A clean business district creates an inviting shopping environment, influences perceptions of safety, and demonstrates an investment in the district’s surroundings. Not all solutions require legislation or government regulation. How often do you see a small business owner pushing a broom to sweep the sidewalk in front of her store? Do dog owners pick up their pets’ deposits after their stroll through the neighborhood? In Pasadena alleys, dumpsters are centralized behind screens in “garages†so that the alleys are clean and fragrance free, and create inviting pedestrian walkways enhanced with public art. In 2009, Seattle adopted its Clear Alley Project in downtown neighborhoods to reduce waste containers in the public right-of–way. The goals of the program are to create cleaner, safer business districts; reduce uncivil behaviors and illegal activities in alleys; increase the attractiveness of alleys for pedestrian use; and allow better alley access for business services such as deliveries. Other Business Improvement Areas work with private companies to handle ongoing and daily streetscape maintenance like street cleaning, pressure washing, and graffiti removal. In many districts, a Business Improvement Area, funded by local businesses, is responsible for this important function.
>>>
| Kay Knapton has served on the Seattle Planning Commission for six years, bringing an economic development perspective to the deliberations, encouraging small business growth and neighborhood business district development. Kay was coordinator for Mayor Royer’s Small Business Task Force, a Seattle neighborhood business district specialist, director of the West Seattle Junction Association (Business Improvement Area). |   |
Â
S400: Can’t get used to something so right…
I was talking to a Seattle City Councilmember the other day about the politics of the South Lake Union rezone. Apparently, everyone on the Council has something they don’t particularly like about the new developments there, something that they wish was done differently, and this is making them cautious about moving forward.
I have to admit, I was aghast. This is one of the most vibrant neighborhoods in our city, nay, in our country for crying out loud! Other cities wonder how they could get some of our pixie dust and make a South Lake Union appear in a dilapidated industrial area at the fringe of their downtown. South Lake Union is full of the kind of goodies that city leaders covet like lots of mixed income housing, entrepreneurialism, job growth, economic diversity, and excellent places to eat and shop and walk around.
I was in the neighborhood for a meeting recently and took a couple of pictures of some things that I like on the big black 11-story building that has drawn its share of ire. How cool is that picture window (above) with the space needle in it? Very cool. Cooler, in fact, because you have to stand in just the right place to see it. I don’t need a view corridor to the space needle from everywhere, just in one perfect spot. And check out those excellent floating light fixtures in that coffee shop on the left.
And look at these nifty doodles in a window on a weird grade where you can’t really put a retail entrance. See the Oregon grapes in the foreground? Fun. Fun. I am delighted by this stuff compared to what used to be there.
Can I find some things I don’t like in South Lake Union? Sure.
Should they drive policy that effectively turns off the tap until 2013 on a thriving neighborhood that is bursting at the seams? Of course not.
>>>
A-P Hurd is a developer at Touchstone and a Fellow of the Runstad Center for Real Estate Studies at the University of Washington.
< Downtown Seattle - click to enlarge; photo by Dan Bertolet >
Our buildings are finally beginning to meet the challenge of sitting lightly on the planet. As new standards emerge, we tackle energy envelope, water use, sewer, and electricity production. We begin to limit the toxic materials we use and manage our waste streams. Standards allowing natural ventilation and aspiration are letting our buildings breathe.
It is time to synthesize all of these to create socially viable urban environments:Â buildings that perform at a high level on all fronts and that help us to create a beautiful city. Rather than generate spikes on the graph of sustainable solutions, let’s raise the line uniformly.
We create progressive zoning to promote urban living and to encourage social interaction. Today Seattle is creating a new urban design element for the Comprehensive Plan. Let us seek diversity and promote a sense of commonality to our urban intent. Incentives are a wonderful tool in the creation of diversity. A public plaza, working environments packaged with living, extreme sustainable strategies could all be rewarded by greater FAR, faster paced permitting and civic support. To some extent these rewards exist today, but they are applied to the spikes on the graph rather than the base line. How can we encourage the other side of the equation: a sense of community?
What if the base line was “sensible sustainabilityâ€? This phrase suggests a long term proforma with life cycle costs balancing initial investment. A sensible solution achieves sustainable, financial and social goals—a triple bottom line. This concept means a positive impact on neighborhood as an essential characteristic. It means buildings that are rich partners in the creation of the urban fabric. It means environments that encourage us to know one another and to participate socially.
We live in a culture that worships stardom and creates spikes in the graph rather than a steady rise across the spectrum. Sensible sustainability can help to even out the advance. Its precepts are simple, seeking a path that can be achieved by anyone—a path that makes sense financially, aesthetically and in terms of our urban fabric.
Great cities begin with amazing features including geography, water, trading paths and visionary pioneers. Their continued evolution depends on the re-invigoration of vision and the resulting continual upgrades. The large leaps are ones that happen across all measures—the uniform rise of the line on the chart rather than the unusual spikes. Seattle is ready.
>>>
Ray Johnston is a partner at Johnston Architects, pllc, and a board member of Futurewise.
The secret to successful cities is love.
Love is the glue that holds humans together, plain and simple. The person watering the thirsty street tree, the mother and her child walking to school and marveling at the turning leaves together, the motorist that slows down to let the cyclist clear an intersection, the reaching out and joining hands that happens thousands of times a day in a city … love.
And what is a city without love? It is disaffected youth spraying graffiti and breaking windows, it is motorists speeding past schools with hands clenched on the wheel, it is broken pavement and dirty parks, it is public meetings without the public, it is division and dissension, a primitive struggle to grab the most from everyone else and retreat behind physical or psychological gates.
And how does a city promote love? By caring for the well-being of its citizens. Not acting in their names but engaging and listening to their deepest desires—for safe streets, clean air, green parks, the sound of children’s laughter and places to meet friends and strangers.
Is this magic? Is it hokum? Not at all. Look at the vibrant street life of Portland, a decidedly minor city on the outskirts of our country regularly whipsawed by economic whirlwinds, but … the streets are lively with people cycling, sipping coffee, planting trees.
The thirty-year project of raising Portland from the ashes of economic depression and highway-induced abandonment has included significant investment in things, to be sure. But light rail, bike lanes, community centers, art museums, libraries were only the means to the end—an invitation for people to reclaim their City.
Every effort included the people, working through the city-sanctioned and supported neighborhood associations, through independent non-profits and on their own, engaging under Oregon’s #1 land-use planning goal: public involvement, which declared that people had the right, and government the responsibility, to engage authentically in every decision affecting their communities.
And engage they did. Breaking the monopoly of power—whether the highway lobby or the big banks—to resist redlining and freeway-ization and create a new born City. An expression of deep and abiding love. Love is the answer.
>>>
Rex Burkholder has been elected three times to serve as a Councilor for Metro, the regional government for the Portland metropolitan area.
Yesterday’s villagers and immigrants become today’s urban merchants and tomorrow’s professionals and political leaders. Without this metamorphosis, cities stagnate and die.
— Doug Sanders,  “Arrival Cityâ€
< Alki Beach Park, Seattle - click to enlarge; photo by Laura Wood >
To live in a real city is to live in a place where we are perpetually confronted with people who we do not understand. To value city life is to value these encounters, to tolerate or even desire the experience of having our own assumptions and habits thrown into question by unfamiliar codes, symbols and norms. Seen this way, the defining urban experience is that of meeting the stranger, the newcomer, or she who has come from afar. So it is no accident that anti-immigrant paranoia is strongly centered in the non-urban areas of our country. Immigrants and cities pose similar challenges to those who long for an imagined past.
We in Seattle like to think of ourselves as oriented toward the future. And I can think of nothing that will have a greater impact on what kind of city we become in the 21st century than how we treat and integrate our immigrant communities. As I have written here previously, I believe that Seattle needs to actively attract more immigrants. And the best way to attract more immigrants to Seattle is to make Seattle a great place for immigrants to live.
But I don’t think that this crucial aspect of our city’s current and future prospects should be left up entirely to the natural openness and cosmopolitan orientation of our citizens. I think we need a clear set of policies and practices with the goal of making Seattle the best city for immigrants to live in the country. I think most Seattleites recognize the contributions and advantages immigrants bring, and are appalled at the xenophobic anti-immigrant policies being enacted in places like Arizona and, more recently, Alabama. We see clearly that such policies are an outgrowth of misplaced fears. Well then, let us do the opposite, and do it bravely.
Therefore I am calling for the creation of an “Immigrant Attraction and Integration Department†for the City of Seattle. This department would provide a voice at city hall explicitly devoted to our city’s immigrant communities, and its primary mandate would be derived from the desires and demands of immigrant communities themselves. It would be charged with supporting and strengthening the networks and exchanges that Doug Sanders has shown are so vital to “Arrival Cities†around the world. It would coordinate and advocate resources for English language learning, linguistic access, and political participation. And it would promote Seattle around the world as the city in America that is most open to newcomers, for our openness would be not just warm feelings, but actually enshrined in city policy and practice.
This week, Seattle is hosting the National Immigrant Integration Conference, where hundreds of people from around the country will be meeting to discuss the current state of immigrant integration efforts at the federal level. Having this conference in Seattle is a reflection that we are already recognized as a leader when it comes to these issues. It’s time for us to take the next step.
>>>
David Moser works for Neighborhood House, a non-profit serving Seattle’s immigrant and refugee communities. He is also a graduate student in the Institute for Public Service at Seattle University, and is serving on the host committee for this week’s National Immigrant Integration Conference.
Dispatch From The SPC: Let’s Get Proximate: the Economics of Neighborhood Business District
Note: This post is part of an ongoing series of dispatches from the Seattle Planning Commission.
>>>
Business districts are the backbone of economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable neighborhoods. They diversify the City’s tax base, which helps build fiscal stability. They provide jobs for a range of skill sets and levels, which supports upward mobility. They offer convenient, neighborhood-specific shops and services, which make living without a car possible. And let’s not forget, neighborhood business districts generate a buzz of positive activity at the sidewalk, which make them places where people want to be. It’s no accident that at the top of nearly every neighborhood’s wishlist are “mainstreet†staples like a corner coffee shop, a wholesome grocer, a friendly bistro, a hopping pub, or a local movie house. These things help foster local identity and can build an authenticity that is elusive among today’s branded developments.
But, here in Seattle, as is the case nationally, not all neighborhood business districts hum with the constant din of stroller wheels and impromptu sidewalk conversations. The metal lounge chairs outside Victrola on Capitol Hill’s 15th Avenue East are full on any random Tuesday, you name the time, and nearby residents have the choice of supplying their pantries from QFC, Safeway, Madison Market, or Trader Joe’s. While many other neighborhoods in our City are not as fortunate. Why? Well, without delving into demographics, disposable income levels, and a smorgasbord of other important market determinants, one might say that it has to do with local density. Or, to put it a better way, with proximity.
< 15th Ave E in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood >
The mechanics are complex, but the concept is simple. Neighborhood business districts thrive when there are enough nearby residents and synergistic land uses to establish a stable base of patrons. That means that in a high-proximity neighborhood like Capitol Hill, the multitude of people that live within a five minute walk of 15th Avenue East, together with the jobs base at Group Health, help nearly five blocks of businesses flourish day in and day out. The street is safe, secure, and inviting, and the pace of business turnover has been moderate and typically in response to local needs.
So, you might ask, what would it take to make my business district function more dynamically? Where can I learn more about this proximity elixir? Well, you can start by looking at our City’s Comprehensive Plan: “Towards a Sustainable Seattle,†which establishes a land use framework that, at its best, enables people to live near where they want to work, learn, shop, and play. This framework informs zoning, with the goal of opening opportunities, balancing the local mix of housing and jobs, and fostering responsible growth.
The Comprehensive Plan is being updated this year. So, check it out. Get proximate. And start planning whether you’ll pick up a macchiato on the walk home from the grocery, or a Manny’s at the pub after the movies.
>>>
David Cutler, AIA, is the Vice Chair of the Seattle Planning Commission, which is the steward of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan—Seattle’s framework planning document—to be updated in the coming years. He is also Co-Chair of the Seattle Light Rail Review Panel, and serves on the board of the Seattle 2030 District. Â
Â
Do Vehicle License Fees Make Driving Unaffordable?
Note: This post originally appeared on Sightline.
>>>
Do vehicle license fees harm the poor?
Even if car fees actually are regressive—and I think the answer is far from clear—it’s wrong-headed to think that voting down a fee will somehow make driving affordable. Even a cursory look at history shows turning driving into a necessity is what really harms the poor.
In the early part of 2005, a driver in Seattle could fill up at less than $2 per gallon, but by 2011 that same driver was paying twice as much at the pump. Given typical driving habits, fuel prices alone added more than $1,000 to the annual cost of operating a car since 2005. In other words, world oil prices tacked on the equivalent of 18 of Seattle’s proposed vehicle license fees.
So let’s get this straight: driving in Seattle is not expensive because Mayor McGinn adjusted meter rates. It’s not expensive because the King County council floated a $20 car fee to preserve bus service. And it’s not expensive because a commercial parking tax raised the price of downtown garages by a buck or so. It’s expensive because oil companies get rich by selling expensive fuels that we’re addicted to.
That’s the bad news: driving is no longer an affordable option. It hasn’t been for years now, and there’s really not much we can do about it.
But there’s good news too: unlike rural areas, cities actually do have the power to make transportation affordable for those with low incomes. That’s because cities can provide real alternatives to driving and buying fuel. Cities can foster land use that puts housing in proximity to services and jobs, and cities can build low-cost transportation options that are safe and reliable.
There is a very uncomplicated reason why nearly 1 in 6 Seattle households goes without a car, including more than a quarter of all renters and 40 percent of the poor. Driving is just plain expensive.
It’s no accident that Seattle’s low income folks are already far more likely than others to get to work on a bus, on a bike, or on foot. It’s just basic economics. If we’re looking out for the interests of poorer households, the question is not whether we can somehow make driving affordable—plainly, we cannot—but whether we can provide alternatives.
Notes: I calculated fuel costs from the US Energy Information Administration’s retail price data for Seattle, comparing the average price of gasoline during February 2005 to the average price during September 2011. I assumed 11,000 miles of driving per year in a vehicle that gets 20 miles per gallon, which are typical figures. Obviously, driving less or driving a more efficient vehicle would reduce costs. Â
>>>
Eric de Place is a senior researcher at the Sighline Institute.
Light rail trains are running south from downtown to Sea-Tac, tunnel boring machines are making way for light rail north from downtown to the UW, and people can ride Metro and Community Transit bus rapid transit in the east, south and north corridors of the region — it feels good that things are happening to make high capacity transit a reality.
Just as important as building the transit infrastructure, the region needs to focus on planning for the areas around new stations – both for stations that will be ready in the next few years as well as for those that won’t open for another 20 years.
The region’s transportation plan includes more than $100 billion in transit investments, 68 new miles of light rail, and 80-100% increase in bus service by 2040.
Making the most of these investments by creating communities near transit with affordable housing, jobs and compact development – all of the things that support transit ridership – is the goal of Growing Transit Communities, a new effort with many regional partners being led by the Puget Sound Regional Council.
Growing Transit Communities is seeking to implement the VISION 2040 regional growth strategy by developing actions at the local level that are hugely important to achieving the region’s growth management plans.
< Partial map of PSRC's Corridor Action Strategies - click on image for full pdf >
In three different corridors, Growing Transit Communities will be working with more than 20 jurisdictions and 50 transit station areas to create action plans for development.
In some cases, like in older parts of Seattle and Tacoma, these places already are fairly pedestrian friendly with things close together. In other areas developed after the streetcar era and very car-focused (Northgate is a great example), cities will have a considerable challenge transforming the area into a place where people of all ages can easily walk to a train or grocery store.
Throughout all of this planning, Growing Transit Communities will be working on ways to bring new voices from previously underrepresented groups to the table, and to develop a regional affordable housing strategy aimed at ensuring people of all income levels can actually afford to live in these great new transit neighborhoods.
>>>
Ben Bakkenta is a bus rider who lives in Capitol Hill and is a program manager at the Puget Sound Regional Council.
Dispatch From The SPC: Density Is Good For Our Health!
Editor’s note: This is the first installment of an ongoing series of dispatches from the Seattle Planning Commission.
>>>
< Thornton Creek in Seattle's Northgate neighborhood >
The way Seattle is planned and ultimately shaped has an immense impact on the health of the population living, working and playing within its bounds. There are numerous reports and articles that cite residents of Seattle as being healthy overall compared to others across the nation. However, our area experiences vast health inequities. The disparities in rates of chronic disease in low-income and communities of color are the result of preventable, systemic, unjust social and economic policies and practices that create barriers to opportunity.
While many feel these health problems are the result of individual behavior, the issue must be considered in a larger context. Individuals make decisions based, at least in part, on their environments. If residents live in an area where it is uncomfortable to engage in daily physical activity because they feel unsafe due to traffic speeds, noise, a lack of appropriate infrastructure or perceptions of crime, they are less likely to participate in the physical activity needed to live a healthy life.
The update of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan and the work the city is doing in Transit Communities such as Othello, Mt. Baker, Beacon Hill, Capitol Hill, Roosevelt and West Seattle provide a primary vehicle to address barriers to opportunity. By creating healthy, sustainable and livable communities which provide housing opportunities not only for the privileged, but also for residents across the spectrum, we can ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to choose healthy behavior for themselves and their family.
< Vancouver, BC: the Dorothy Lam Children's Center, the Elsie Roy School, and the playground in David Lam Park, with Yaletown in the background - click to enlarge; photo by Catherine Benotto >
In order to accomplish this goal, the City of Seattle should increase development capacity within close proximity to high capacity transit, schools and parks, and discourage development in areas which lack the essential components of livability or are in areas that can lead to poor health outcomes, such as freeways or places that don’t have access to open space, playfields, community centers, etc. We must plan communities where people can comfortably and easily walk, bike and ride transit to their meet their daily needs, such as their job, school, park and grocery store. Ensuring these opportunities for current and future residents can help to address some preventable health problems such as asthma, diabetes, heart disease, stroke and certain types of cancer.
Planning was once closely allied to the profession of public health in addressing concerns of population well being, safety and welfare. Over the course of the last century, planning and public health have diverged into separate disciplines lacking institutional ties. Emerging threats to public health arising from community design decisions are revitalizing the ties between the two disciplines. Seattle has played a key role in use health and equity to inform planning and investments. However health indicators reveal that there is more work to do.
>>>
KADIE BELL SATA is a member of the Seattle Planning Commission. She currently works for Public Health – Seattle & King County on a federal chronic disease prevention initiative. She has experience in health policy, social and racial equity as well as environmental sustainability. Community activities includes youth mentorship, neighborhood advocacy and serving as an affiliate instructor at University of Washington’s School of Public Health.
S400: Let’s Make The Duwamish River The Center For A Sustainable City
< The Duwamish RIver beneath the West Seattle Bridge - click to enlarge; photo by Dan Bertolet >
Cities thrive when they integrate the vitality of urban life with their natural surroundings. That’s why so many of us live here in Seattle and wouldn’t trade our access to Puget Sound, the Olympics, and Mount Rainier for anything.
But at the heart of Seattle is a waterway that we turn our back on: the Duwamish River—a Superfund site that is traversed by more than a dozen thriving salmon runs on their way to spawn in the Green River Watershed. How do they get through Seattle? Perhaps by holding their breath.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Many big cities have taken neglected and polluted waterways and turned them into centerpieces. San Antonio’s Riverwalk is a classic example, developed over decades and envied around the country, but it is only one of dozens of cities that have taken once gritty waterways and restored them. Even the Cuyahoga River, famous for igniting the environmental movement by catching fire in 1969, is now, after 40 years of restoration work, becoming an environmental and community asset for Cleveland.
And we have an extraordinary opportunity to do something even more revolutionary with the Duwamish. The Duwamish, although it has contaminated sediments, has a relatively clean water column supporting the aforementioned salmon runs and areas of ecological health. It also has two historic residential communities, South Park and Georgetown, a thriving Port that has a strong commitment to environmental stewardship, and many acres of industrial land that could support many more jobs and sustainable industries.
We must stay the course on the Superfund cleanup, and at the same time use it as a way to provide jobs, training, and careers for the people of the adjacent communities, and to develop an environmental infrastructure for new industries. Industries that are part of the ‘climate economy’, providing green jobs building wind machines, processing local food, recycling wastes by turning them into resources, and creating sustainable products.
< Seattle skyline across the Duwamish River - click to enlarge; photo by Dan Bertolet >
I propose that we create an Industrial Development District in the Duwamish, that will provide stormwater and drainage infrastructure and sustainable energy and water systems that new businesses can buy into. Rather than each business inventing its own environmentally responsible practices, we can create an Eco-Industrial Park, where environmental responsibility is built into the fabric.
The Duwamish River is a sacred site to the Duwamish Nation, which recently completed a longhouse on its shores and is committed to its restoration. Wouldn’t it be fabulous if Seattle could create a new model of sustainability centered here?
>>>
Richard Conlin has been elected four times to the Seattle City Council, and currently serves as President.Â
< Federal Way, WA; photo by Dan Bertolet >
We have sacrificed both space and time for speed of movement. We have bestowed upon speed an unearned, inherent value. But the trade-off for speed has gone shockingly unnoticed. Climate change, obesity, disease, malnourishment, traffic fatalities, environmental destruction, international conflict, stress and mental disorder, resources depletion and water quality aside, the glaring misstep here is the absence of the factual, truer human form.
We have a world constructed to be read and experienced only at high speeds. A complete world where we, as honest beings in simple pure form, cannot interact. We cannot understand our space, read our signs, access our structures, visit our families, complete our duties, or eat our food without a vehicle of high speeds. We have businesses that will not serve us as beings. Drive-ups, drive-ins, drive-thrus. Any typical office or shopping center will require you to traverse yards of desolate, vacant space to reach a front door. And more than our businesses and social spaces: our homes. We have made our homes fronted by huge holds for vehicles. We must scamper around to the side or up a flight of stairs in hopes of addressing this space, let alone hoping to enter. We move as people on the margin. We occupy the space next to roads. We have signals to tell us, as humans, when we can occupy our pubic right-of-way, and when we need to stay on the side. We must ask permission of a machine hand to enter our space.
In our speed, we travel as if transported. We enter our cars, or even our trains, and leave the world behind for a bland, artificial environment. We pass through communities, landscapes, people, destinations, sights, sounds, smells, experiences, and take little or no notice. When we reach our destination, we emerge hopefully without having to encounter the world before entering the structure of our travel intention.
The mindlessness with which this behavior takes place, and even has become commonplace, is baffling, if not straight shameful. We have turned our backs to the world, to new experiences, to the simple, easy, obvious, essential education of life. How can we call a place home if we don’t experience it, engage it, interact with it? Why would we move through a space without interest in it?
Pedestrianism provides full and complete access to the world. It is how we experience, how we learn and grow, make decisions and consider situations. This is time gained, not lost, through slow movement through space.
Speed is a function time and space. But why sacrifice our space and our time to it? Why sacrifice your honest self? A sincere encounter with ourselves and our space and time. Slow down.
< Pioneer Square in Seattle; photo by Weston Brinkley >
>>>
Weston Brinkley is a pedestrian and resident of Pioneer Square.
< Bellevue from East Union Street in Seattle - click to enlarge; photo by Dan Bertolet >
Financially healthy cities will support a prosperous State of Washington. We need a Cities Bill that will help cities attract jobs, build infrastructure, finance affordable housing, and educate a trained work force. Cities are where most of the State’s tax revenue is raised, where 75 percent of the people live, where innovation and research take place, and where most of our poor, elderly, and disadvantaged are cared for. Cities provide the majority of the funding that supports prisons, highways, health care, and public education. Now is the time to recognize that cities are the key to a healthy statewide economy and pass a Cities Bill that will give cities the resources and tools they need, such as tax increment financing authority to attract new development, a street utility option that could support transportation solutions, and special funding options for intercity schools. We must rebuild our 250 cities, and when we do we will rebuild the economy of the State.
>>>
Cary Bozeman, currently CEO of the Port of Bremerton, has served as mayor of Bellevue and Bremerton.
The suburban binge of the last fifty years has left U.S. cities with too little neighborhood retail, too few locally-owned shops, an extreme dearth of sidewalk enterprise, and unemployment. Micro-retail, in all its many forms, is a solution.
< Pike Place Market >
Micro-retail is not a new solution, but a rediscovery of what has worked for centuries. The oldest parts of Seattle have remnants of traditional retail; the newer parts of the city have big-box centers and miles of retail-light neighborhoods. Retail has been clustered in ways that cater to the automobile, not the person, and cater to large retail chains, not neighborhood residents. Retail is taken out of the hands of local entrepreneurs, and into the hands of large corporations and their banks.
< 3rd Ave in downtown Seattle >
What is micro-retail? Retail at a smaller scale:
- Narrow storefront shops, 20 feet wide or less
- Food trucks
- Sidewalk carts and kiosks
- Newsstands
- Co-located businesses (operating in the same space at different hours)
- Live/work lofts
< 2nd Ave in downtown Seattle >
Narrow storefronts are essential to thriving pedestrian streets. The standard U.S. retail bay is 30 feet wide, and a great many stores around here take up way more street space (hello Safeway). With narrow shops the pedestrian is presented with a new visual experience every few seconds. Where there are dead spaces, such as parking lots or vacant land, food trucks and retail carts lined up against the sidewalk create value and enliven the space. With carts and kiosks and newsstands, even the sidewalks can be filled with business. In addition to enlivening the urban experience, each of these micro-retail concepts reduces the cost and risk of starting a new business. In an era when banks have curtailed capital for small businesses, retail startups need low costs.
Â
In South Lake Union there is a full-service sushi and teriyaki restaurant operating in a building about 12 feet wide. Why is more space needed? There is a lady in White Center who often sells grilled satay along the sidewalk. I’ve bought freshly fried banana in a parking lot in Little Saigon. You can now buy groceries from a remodeled trailer in an apartment complex parking lot in West Seattle. The Pike Place Market is the original and largest local example of micro-retail. Hundreds of farmer’s stalls and tiny shops are clustered in a few blocks: seafood, mini-doughnuts, Reuben sandwiches, fresh-squeezed juices. Much of the market’s attraction to tourists is simply the clustering of diverse local unique businesses into a dense, pedestrian-scaled place.
Micro-retail allows people to put themselves to work as entrepreneurs, keeps dollars circulating in the local economy, creates viable neighborhoods and reduces auto dependence. Micro-retail is a solution for the city and for the economy. Let’s have more!
>>>
Chad Newton is an Environmental Engineer and Seattle resident. All photos by the author.
< Recent infill development on 12th Ave in Capitol Hill - click to enlarge; photo by Dan Bertolet >
Seattle is blessed with smart, thoughtful citizens. These are people who care deeply about our environment, about justice, about our economy, and work to advance these causes every day. They fight for clean water for salmon, housing for the working poor, and for government policies that expand, not hinder, people’s potential. Some may get involved in transportation policy, especially when it’s painfully slow to drive three miles across the city. But far fewer (though probably you, dear reader) recognize the importance of land use and zoning and building height limits. It’s just not as compelling as salmon, the poor, or jobs. This needs to change.
These complex issues are interrelated and pushing one forward can pull another back, sabotaging the original goal. Put another bridge over I-5 and more people will drive in their cars, making traffic worse. Block new condos and the working poor are priced out of the city. Unintended consequences don’t discriminate. That’s why my solution is a movement of smart, thoughtful citizens educating ourselves and our neighbors about the relationships between the environment, social justice, the economy, transportation, and land use policy.
You’re reading this blog because you already get it. But has it ever been easy to sell these ideas to other people? Stop harpooning to save the whales: No problem. Build taller buildings so we can avoid creating more subdivisions in order to save the salmon: Huh? We’re talking about ecologies and economies, complex systems that cannot be understood through buzzwords and do not fit neatly into society’s Left-Right paradigm. It is neither conservative nor liberal to support developers when they build housing people can afford and reduce the demand to pave greenspace.
We cannot overcome these challenges alone or merely by educating ourselves. We need to move.
And this movement must do three things. First, it needs to educate, starting with believers who then can educate the non-hostile uninformed. Then, it needs to mobilize by partnering with the amazing organizations already working in this arena. And finally, it needs to show results with higher population densities, greater transit options, cleaner water, fewer homeless families, and a healthier economy.
Our cities have immense potential to serve more people in better ways. But to unleash that potential, first we have to figure out how to all pull in the same direction.
>>>
Joshua Newman is a father, engineer at Boeing, and President of the Maple Leaf Community Council. Follow him @NewmanWa.
< Downtown Edmonds, WA; image via Rockwell Realty >
Cities come in all sizes. While some in Seattle might call my city only a village, my community of Edmonds is facing many of the same kinds of challenges around urban planning that other communities are facing.
And, while I think Seattle has a leadership role to play for other major cities in the nation, I believe Edmonds should play a leadership role in the suburban crescent when it comes to smart redevelopment.
So, what does that look like in our 120-year-old community, nestled upon Puget Sound with 40,000 residents?
It means we passed a Complete Streets ordinance without any question. It means we’ve changed our development code to incentivize green building strategies in exchange for height. It means we adopted our $20 TBD license fee without any hesitation (and one of the first in the state).
We’re not a liberal community. We’re frugal and practical. If an investment gives a return, we will take it. That explains why we’ve updated our laws to foster platinum LEED (or equivalent) redevelopment in our neighborhoods that need an update. We have one such building now, and we’re recruiting a second. Two would make us the only community of our size with that honor.
Being practical is why we’ve developed a community solar co-op, with panels laid out on one of our public buildings (again, one of the first in the state). That is resulting in cheap power for the city, and a way to unleash citizen dollars to promote energy transformation that faces steep barriers to activism otherwise.
To direct and coordinate our efforts, we’ve developed a Sustainability Element of our Comprehensive Plan, so that everything we do when it comes to our city’s future is measured by its economic, environmental, social, and public health impacts – both on this generation and those to come.
That’s bureaucratic speak for doing something unsexy, but totally badass.
As a Council person in Edmonds, I learn a lot from the leadership of Seattle and other cities. It turns out that education can work both ways.
If the world – or just some of our neighboring cities – came to Edmonds, what they’d learn is that sustainable growth policies, from TODs to TDRs to TBDs, don’t need to be polarizing. If one can set ideology aside, these choices make sense from a practical standpoint.
They should be implemented because they work.
>>>
DJ Wilson sits on the Edmonds City Council and is President of Wilson Strategic Communications, a public affairs firm.
< Seattle 09-21-2011 by Thatcher Kelley; click image to enlarge >
S400: Ivar would approve; so would Sylvester the mummy
< Luna Park amusement pier in West Seattle, 1910; Seattle Municipal Archives >
The Alaskan Way Viaduct is going away.
In its place on and near Seattle’s central waterfront, some big ideas have been proposed. Ideas for wide expanses of concrete and sod, creating more of the same tasteful boredom that plagues many of our new or redesigned public spaces.
I prefer a human-scale vision for the waterfront’s future. The People’s Waterfront Coalition offered such a vision back in 2006.
But I’d add something to it.
Something that builds on the waterfront assets we’ve already got. Ye Olde Curiosity Shop, Ivar’s, the Miners Landing carousel.
In other words, the kitsch.
Lots of people who aren’t politicians or landscape architects like kitsch.
It’s fun. It adds life. It replenishes the spirit.
My idea of a “people’s waterfront” would include an active entertainment area. My inspirations are pre-Trump Atlantic City, England’s Blackpool, West Seattle’s old Luna Park, and, yes, Coney Island.
Pier 62-63 has to be rebuilt anyway. Let’s rebuild it as a great old-fashioned amusement pier. Call it the Puget Pleasure Pier, or “P Cubed.”
A big one, perhaps twice as large as the current 62/63. It would extend south to the Seattle Aquarium and north to the Bell Harbor marina.
At its end would be a big, brightly lit Ferris wheel, shining out toward the bay.
On its north side, as spectacular a roller coaster as can fit in the space.
On its south side, smaller rides and attractions including kid-sized ones.
In the center, under a colorful roof, carny and arcade games and concessions.
Everywhere, laughter and shrieks and enthralled folk of all ages. It would not just replace the mourned Fun Forest but outshine it.
It would all be publicly owned, but leased to private operators as a profit center for the Seattle parks system and/or the overall waterfront rebuild.
You ask, but what about the rainy season?
Outdoor amusement parks in New Jersey and Wisconsin operate profitably on a seasonal basis. And their winters are far more extreme than ours. Wild Waves is open weekends until Halloween. The Fun Forest’s rides opened for spring break; its indoor arcade operated year round. Our P Cubed could have a similar mix of warm-weather and all-weather activities.
The P Cubed would not be upscale. It would not be laid back. It would not be world class.
It would just be fun.
And it would make money, and generate foot traffic to the Aquarium and the rest of the area. But mostly it would be fun.
Don’t we all deserve some fun these days?
>>>
Clark Humphrey is the author of Walking Seattle (Wilderness Press), Then and Now Seattle (Arcadia Publishing), and several other things. His online home is http://miscmedia.com. He was part of the early Stranger crew but will answer no questions on what Dan Savage was really like.
< Rio de Janeiro; photo by SEASDH via Flickr >
What if I told you that I had a transportation system that can move the person equivalent of 40 buses in each direction. This system is elevated above traffic, and can hop over freeways with ease. It has a vehicle frequency of well under a minute. It requires very few operators. It can span over waterways with supports potentially set over a mile apart. It can climb hills almost without limitations of a maximum slope. It has a very small footprint with very few supports required between stations, and stations can be built right into buildings. It’s completely electric, but can continue operation in a power outage using integrated backup generators. It can load wheelchairs easily, and bike racks can be added. It has decades of use in thousands of locations around the world, with a high safety and low maintenance record. Enough systems are built that even the stations themselves are off-the-shelf components. Yet it’s so cheap that South American cities that are usually known for their Bus Rapid Transit systems can afford to set up vast networks. And Seattle already had this technology but gave it away. [picture: Seattle’s Skyride, now in Puyallup]
If you haven’t guessed yet, I’m talking about gondolas. There has been a recent trend around the world to install them not just at ski slopes and amusement parks, but as major urban transit systems. They are ideal in built-up cities with hills, waterways, or highways, but are cost effective in any city thanks to the low cost of construction. The only construction required is at stations and towers – there are no roads, ramps, tracks, or tunnels to build. They are relatively slow (~14mph for the inexpensive detachable monocable, ~17mph for a 2-cable gondola, and a bit faster for the 3-cable system) so they’re not appropriate for long-distance transit, but since this speed is in a straight line over traffic and terrain and because there is no wait time between vehicles it can dramatically decrease travel times. [picture: Station Zu of the Sentosa Island Gondola. Built in 1974 on the 15th floor of an office building.]
< Singapore; photo by ashkyd via Flickr >
Let’s take a sample Seattle route with 3 stops. Seattle Center to South Lake Union to Capitol Hill near light rail. Each of these neighborhoods is separated by highways and geography to such an extent that put the peak scheduled bus time at 40 minutes for this route – and add time for waiting, since traffic makes this route unreliable. But a gondola could make this entire trip in 7 minutes with no waiting.
The problem I’m trying to solve is connecting neighborhoods together, to make a city easy to get around in without a car. There are many solutions to this problem, but a gondola system is the cheapest solution and would be fast and easy to install.
>>>
Matt Gangemi, PE, is a mechanical engineer, and for the last decade has been designing and analyzing efficient mechanical systems for buildings.
S400: Why is the City giving away waterfront land for free parking?
Why is the City of Seattle, which is facing a severe budget shortfall and aims to promote alternatives to car use, giving away some of its most valuable waterfront land as free parking?
Along just a few blocks of Fairview Avenue to the north of the Fairview/Eastlake Avenue intersection, each weekday morning one can count over 200 cars parked for free on City owned property. There are no parking meters and no requirements that cars have a neighborhood zone parking permit. It’s simply free parking in a valuable and rapidly urbanizing part of the central city.
Not only is this foolish for a city with a budget problem, it’s also remarkable since much of the free parking is on the Lake Union waterfront and aligned in such that the ends of parked cars often protrude significantly into the recently established though still fledgling Cheshiahud Lake Union Loop, making it impassible.
This, it seems, is a fairly stark contradiction of the City’s plan for the trail as a, “multi-use loop around Lake Union…that connects people to open space,†as well as the sensible goal of encouraging people to commute to work and get around the city via means other than cars.
Ideally, I believe that the City should eliminate this free parking and use the land to turn the Cheshiahud Loop into a true trail and not just pretty street signs and colored lines on a Parks Department map. What could be a stronger way to encourage urban living, walking and biking than replacing parking with a wonderful amenity for city residents and visitors, a true multi-usepath along Lake Union? Those people who have been parking for free have undoubtedly gotten a sweet deal which they’ll be loathe to lose, but why can’t they pay to park (or carpool, take transit or ride a bike) like the vast majority of people with jobs in the central city? As many urbanites have recognized over the years, successful, prosperous and livable cities prioritize and orient themselves around people, not cars.
If the parking to trails conversion idea is simply too bold and contentious for our leaders, then how about a compromise in which the City creates more of a true multi-use trail by re-aligning the parking spaces so that they run parallel to the street, and charging market rate for its valuable real estate? Simple math indicates that if in this area there are 200 stalls for which the city could be charging $5 per weekday (comparable to lots in the area), that is $5,000 per week or $260,000 per year that the city is giving up to provide free parking. That amount could pay for the improved trail, save the jobs of at least two full time City employees, or pay for a lot of pothole repairs.
>>>
Gabriel Grant is a Vice President at HAL Real Estate Investments
