not everyone wants to live in a box,in downtown seattle..am sure once they build the tunnels and take out the viaduct it might revive..there are only so many tech jobs there must be diversity,,the persons working in the resteraunts,stores,blue collar are "outpriced"trying to live downtown..and the ones that have the tech jobs,strive to live out of the box,because they work in a box all day.....

do not know about paris,or boston,but i do know New Orleans,and the only reason dowtown survives there is because of the party...not many working class folks live dowtown new orleans

Mark, good thoughts. The second recommendation noted in the following regulatory reform summary authored here in july (concentrate street level commercial uses in "P" zones) speaks in a different way to some of the issues you raise:

http://crosscut.com/2011/07/18/seattle-city-hall/21103/Writing-code-for-more-sustainable-neighborhoods/

Has this author ever been out of downtown? One hardly has to go to Vancouver or the UK to see these ideas in action. How about N45th Street in Wallingford, NW Market Street in Ballard, Queen Anne Avenue N, California Ave SW & SW Alaska St in West Seattle, or Rainier Avenue S.

Having lived downtown for 40+ years I've noticed that the storefronts and districts that have problems have a common denominator besides beggars and drugs; leafy trees and double pane windows. The trees because they grow just high enough to block the signage that tells you the name of the shop or its products; the double pane windows because they turn the glass into a mirror making it impossible to see into the shop until its pitch dark outside meaning long after the store has closed and the customer base has gone home.

Possibly Seattle's code requirement for trees could be better served in retail areas by using leafy shrubs or a different type of tree. At least give some greater thought to the impact of obscuring signage. Unoccupied storefronts percolate urban crime. The window problem could potentially be solved by creating a slight inward angle to window installation, say 5 degrees inward. This will take away the mirror effect and allow the pedestrian and driver to see into the shop. Shops that fail can give a district or a building a bad reputation among retailers and customers. Believe me I've seen to many mom and pop shops go bust because no one knew what kind of product they had for sale! This is especially true of new construction. File these problems under unexpected consequences of good intentions.

Mark, it seems you start out saying there should be more residential and less retail on ground floors. Then you seem to morph into saying that more commercial could also occupy ground floors. Also, comparing to NYC is hard - most of the old brownstones do not have ground floors - there are half basements and tall stoops up to the residential floors; very different from what we have here.

There are several approaches to building out density. I think most people would rather not have flats at grade. So, one option is what the city did - require retail space at grade with residential above it. Another option would be to encourage more townhouses - ok where height limits are around 35' to 40'. With townhoues, though, you end up with the wall-of-garages problem, so that has to be addressed. The thrid is along the lines of what you said later - let more commercial occupy the ground floors.

I think the third option is pretty good. Whether intentional or not, the city, by requiring retail spaces at grade, has also given the possibility of commercial. The two can mix very well. Less retail means more demand for what's there; more commerical means more retail customers; nonresidential ground floors means more pleasant living spaces. And, whether we want it or not, I think that is what will happen.

So, please do a pice about how to make this work and where it should be allowed.

Most retailers say the ground-floor retail spaces in most cookie-cutter condo boxes are too small to be useful for any meaningful retail. So we get Quizno's, Edward Jones Investments and nail salons everywhere. And a city can only support so many of those.

Seattle once again shows how it really doesn't get the idea, no matter what it tries to copy from other places...

Very good piece. Thank you Mr. Hinshaw. There is little reason that ground floor street level spaces can't be used as residences. Many people routinely keep blinds closed or are sufficiently unconcerned about privacy to make this work; there are certainly enough of these human types to occupy a lot of (what was intended to be) ground floor retail. Close Instruments used to occupy a ground floor space on 3rd Avenue (I think) and the family lived in the rear. The first laundry I ever patronized in Seattle also served as a dwelling.

I certainly agree that the present stipulations in the development code ignore market reality and probably result, as you say, from a mindless adherence to Jane Jacobs alluring description of Greenwich Village street life. By the way, Low E glass is (virtually) a requirement in new residential construction. It has many faults, among them the "mirror effect" noted above by Chapala21 (it also reduced solar gain in winter months). Angling this material will not provide better transparency. I believe its use is not required for commercial store fronts.

Ground floor retail is really the heart and soul of our neighborhoods here in Seattle. Imagine West Seattle without the West 5 or Easy Street--or Capitol Hill without Bauhaus or Liberty. I would hate to see the city abandon our neighborhood souls in a down economy because some property owners are too greedy to adapt to the new economy. We can look at how this played out in NYC--the village was decimated by the economic fallout--Bleecker and W. 4th became ghost towns because retailers and landlords were drinking the same koolaid, and neither were willing to call out the bubble for what it was.

There is room for creative adaptation in this economy that doesn't require rezoning the city. Look at Storefronts Seattle, for example. This is a program that partners artists with vacant retail spaces. In some cases these spaces pay a stair-stepped rent that helps them off the ground and into the neighborhood. This is more of a common sense solution than converting would-be third-places into shuttered apartments and cubicles.

Quiet side streets can be a great sanctuary for a neighborhood--but to say that Seattle has over-extended it's retail footprint is a bit extreme. Let's look at some of the major problems that Pioneer Square has (beyond the trees) and address the Grade A public safety issues that deter people from shopping in Seattle's business districts.

Excellent piece.

The issue isn't Pioneer Square as much as Ballard outside of Market and Ballard Ave, or Lower Queen Anne outside of a couple blocks ach of First, Queen Anne Avenue, and Mercer. It's also the majority of Belltown aside from chunks here and there, mostly on First and Second...retail is so diffused in Belltown that it's hard to say where the good parts are except a couple good restaurant/bar stretches.

This is about HELPING retail, not reducing retail. We lack great retail streets, and it's entirely our fault.

Mark,
Accolades on getting past all the numerical abstractions and on to why designs work and don't work, something upon which as far as I can tell you are unusually equipped to provide insight.

The comment about extending your vision beyond downtown, but not as far as other cities, is well taken

As to the comment about no split-level entries (per Brownstones) around here, supposedly the new lowrise multifamily code encourages them, but beyond that I extensively photographed a large, unusually lively—and livable— modernist rendition of same in the general vicinity of Madison-Miller on a N-S avenue. I now find it is going to take more time that I have at present to cough up its exact location. Surely, someone else is aware of it and will share its address so that you might, if so inclined, enlighten readers with photos that compare thoughtful design with thoughtless rush jobs such as the "sinking ship" on Greenwood Ave north of the business district and the infamous reconfiguration that disfigures Pioneer Square.

Pictures are always worth a hell of a lot of words!

We have the concept aalready in the Land Use Code- Principal commercial streets in Pedestrian designated commercial zones. But that does not apply downtown, and there is good reason to rethink the model for places like Pioneer Square and Belltown. It is somewhat evident in the ID- perhaps more as an historic pattern than one of policy, but there are defintely quieter streets. Quiet multifamily streets are rare in Seattle, and since most of the recent development has been in the more permissive NC zones along arterials, we have not gained ground in that department in recent years.

It doesn't seem like it is just the City that missed the boat on this. As someone who does not live in either place, it seems like both Belltown and Fremont embraced the idea of their commerical areas becoming "nightlife hotspots", creating broad zones where quiet is not the operating concept.

Kudos for pointing out the need. Would it be enough to simply lift the reqquirement for street level retail on some streets?

It seems like a sensible solution would be to encourage designs that are easily repurposable from commercial to residential and back again.

Architects could easily design facades that could be cheaply and easily swapped out or changed to add store windows (without the reflection problem, which I agree is a huge retail obstacle in Seattle) or to add porches and and more-private residential-style windows, or to add features that would appeal to galleries or bistros as needed. That way a ground-level property owner could sell a space for residential use or commercial use and allow the owners or lessees to reconfigure the space inside and out to better suit their needs. Sort of a modular/Bauhaus-like approach. There could be lots of benefits to an approach like this, mainly of course letting economic conditions at a given time dictate what ground floors are filling up with instead of having the zoning and use permits limit use, as is the case now.

Some difficulties with that. Retail wants to be highly visible, but residents want privacy, hence the typical elevated first floor. Retail wants high ceilings; residents often like high ceilings but don't like the cost premium. Retail wants large column-free spaces but again residents don't want the premiums for concrete construction. Retail requires restrooms and often has some sort of alley access.

Retail can do well in former residences but it's usually about a "cool factor."

I live in Pioneer Square, before that, I lived in Belltown, and befor that, Capitol Hill.

I have watched, since moving here to PioSquare, sadly, as storefront after storefront has gone empty. Although I think there are many problems, and of course the economy is a big factor, it isn't the only one, and there are solutions to be had. We get a lot of tourists, and sports fans down here, and there is no reason we can't find a solution.

Work/Live spaces allow for small businesses to open a store front, and maintain living quarters either above or behind the retail space. As it stands now, this isn't possible in PioSquare. I know many artisans who would love to do this, but cannot.

Many building owners here in PioSquare also maintain their rents as though the economic climate hasn't changed... forcing retailers who have had a sharp drop in their sales to close up, or move to a location where rents aren't so high.

By requiring the ground floor to be retail only, the city is limiting who else might be willing to rent these spaces, and preventing a more eclectic group of people - who perhaps don't have the resources to pay for both a retail and a living space - away from the neighborhood.

I think relaxing the city codes to allow for more flexibility in what can be done with ground floor space would help fill all those "for Lease" storefronts, and get a great mix in our neighborhood.

If you want to see a retail economic success story...visit 108th Avenue on Kent East Hill.

The key to its success? Strip malls. These provide low cost commercial rentals for new shop owners to set up business, and hire people at moderate wages. Affordable housing is nearby in the apartment complexes.

This street is heavily trafficked by foot, bike, bus and of course, car.

It's not been made overly dense by the usual "transit schemers" although they were trying a while back and I think we tarred and feathered them and sent them on a rail to Portland.

I don't necessarily disagree that developers should not be required to put retail uses in new buildings. However, in the neighborhood commercial and transition zones where that requirement exists, the option to convert buildings to retail in the future should not be foreclosed. "The key factor here is making buildings that are adaptable to inevitable change. An easy solution is to require 12'+ ceiling heights on the ground floor, with enough clear floor space to enable conversion to office, retail, or some other use we don't even know about that will come along in 50 years." [copied from blog on same subject at http://publicola.com/2011/07/08/dont-kill-retail-permanently-over-a-temporary-recession/

The other problem with Pioneer Square is that game day traffic makes regular retail almost impossible. If you cater to fans, you might live but otherwise you're toast. The late night problem with Pioneer Sq is the alcohol and gangs who come downtown for a fight. I can't tell you the number of street fights which end up in Harborview Hospital for fractured jaws and noses with head injuries as they hit the pavement. Better police enforcement is essential before I'll ever come down there again after office hours.

I read no articulation in this article or consensus in the comments naming the goals of current policy--job creation, residential density, livable density. Disagreements about policy are most often embedded in different assumptions about purpose and goal.

Places like NYC have morphed over many cycles of reconstruction. Since I think we're trying to avoid wastefully reconstructing our cityscape, adaptability & flexibility seem the most important.

It also seems that allowing the build environment to seeks its own course entirely with follow-policy that seeks only to maximize occupancy and rents would allow it to be driven too much by cheap energy. Even if energy costs are increasing, they are still greatly underpriced in the market and creating impacts elsewhere.

climate, how about editing your last paragraph for clarity, otherwise the attempt to begin assembling the puzzle pieces is commendable!