South Lake Union and the boom-town blame game
Look out, preservationists. The developers are here to transform the city for density, and they have their attorneys ready to make you just get out of their way.
Chris Moore
You knew it would happen. The Great Recession brought an unlikely truce in the development wars. As the real estate bubble popped, the cranes disappeared and holes in the ground stayed holes.
That was then. Now is now and the city and development are getting back into the swing of things. Towers are rising, bridges, highway and rail projects are moving ahead. And here's a sure sign of growth's new spring: pointing fingers. The "ramps to nowhere" are coming down but the blame game is ramping up.
For example, the issue about Washington State Department of Transportation boondoggles (cracked pontoons, low bridges, the listing Chetzemoka) has been heated up in part because of a Democratic House proposal in Olympia to raise taxes and fees on gas, cars and even bikes to build more stuff. The public is having none of it.
An Elway poll revealed that large majorities oppose new gas taxes (72%) and license tab fees (62%). And in light of questions of competence, a Washington State Wire story last week asked the pertinent question: "$100 Million Boo-Boo at 520 Bridge Has Critics Raising a Bigger Question — How Come State Road Projects Cost So Much?"
Turns out, it looks like Washington does generally pay more for its highway infrastructure. But WSDOT was quick to point a finger at forces outside the agency. According to the story, "There are communities that have to be satisfied, [WSDOT Chief of Staff Jeff] Reinmuth says, and they all want some form of 'mitigation' — traffic improvements, noise reduction, bike paths, pedestrian walkways. Environmental permits must be obtained, meaning designs must accommodate environmental concerns."
In other words, it's the fault of all those folks who want WSDOT to follow state and federal laws, the greens, the people concerned about cultural impacts like, oh, buildings collapsing while a tunnel is bored underneath them. You know, the complainers with their hands out.
Blaming the NIMBYs is one way to get attention off of cracking pontoons, flawed ferry boats, and a Columbia River bridge that was designed to be too low for major boat traffic.
Reinmuth says he understands that such annoyances as public input are all part of the system. He goes on to say, "We take that stewardship and responsibility very seriously, and it is not inexpensive. When you look at the amount of engineering, the amount of construction, the amount of environmental work and the amount of community mitigation that needs to happen, it all adds up. And with all of the hundreds of public hearings that have happened on the 520, and with all of the concerns that have been addressed and built into the design, all those things add to the cost of the bridge."
Note the emphasis on "hundreds of public meetings," which suggests that WSDOT is being a good sport as it is dragged through the process of working with citizens. Anyone familiar with the public process knows that it is flawed; for one thing, it's too often weighted in favor of a project, not its critics, who must be satisfied with a few mitigation crumbs. During the economic slowdown of the few years, one growing line of attack has been to "streamline" development rules, like the state's push to loosen elements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in order to speed-up project approvals and cut down on public notifications. If you can't build in a bust, you can at least change the rules so that the next boom will be boomier. Upzones and other development incentives have been pushed too — an example is Seattle's South Lake Union.
Which is the site of another attack on public process. A thwarted developer has filed a lawsuit against the city of Seattle and the Landmarks Preservation Board, arguing that the Board's decision to designate a SLU property as a city landmark is "unlawful," "clearly erroneous," "not supported by substantial evidence," and violates the state constitution and the City Charter.
The story has a familiar ring. A developer buys a property in hopes of building a high-rise development. The modest structure is vetted by the city's Landmarks Board and turns out to qualify under one or more of the city's landmark criteria. This time, it's an old garage at 777 Thomas Street, and its exterior happens to be an example of Art Deco architecture by a prominent architect. The Landmarks board votes to designate it a landmark, and the owner goes ballistic.
On Feb. 26, the property owners, 8th and Thomas LLC filed suit not only asking the the decision be thrown out, but arguing that the entire Landmarks Board is illegitimate and unconstitutional. One of the main lawyers in the case is local land use attorney John McCullough, who — and here comes the "sounds familiar" part — has filed similar suits including one in 2008 when the Landmarks Board designated a Googie diner in Ballard that was a Denny's restaurant.
The Denny's suit was used by McCullough as a cudgel against the Landmarks Board to force what was, in effect, a reversal of their decision. In the Denny's case, though the building was by a notable California modern architect and had been voted a landmark, the Board chose to put no restrictions on what the owner could do with it. It was argued that limitations on the building would create an economic hardship for the owner who had paid dearly for the property. This let the owner off the hook for having to save the building, which they promptly bulldozed. A legally demolished landmark, who knew?
8th and Thomas LLC might consider a similar decision to be a win. The development group, officed in San Francisco, intends to put up a 7-story, 183-unit residential and retail building on the 777 Thomas site. Another older building on their property was considered for landmark status, but turned down.
Among the arguments McCullough and his partner G. Richard Hill make in the suit filed in King County Superior Court is that that the decision to designate 777 Thomas was simply wrong and that the building is not a distinctive Art Deco structure and that the criteria for designation are too loose and too open to interpretation and aesthetic judgments. Since there is no appeal process for designation, they chose to go to court.
Beyond that, they raise arguments aimed at questioning the very existence of the Board, which was also done in the Denny's complaint. One is that the Landmarks Board decision should be void because it is biased — members of the Board are selected in part because they are sympathetic toward preservation — and therefore fair hearings are impossible. McCullough and Hill argue that the decision in their case is in violation of Seattle's Comp Plan; that the delegation of what is essentially zoning authority to the Board is illegal; that the Board's decisions are not a reasonable exercise of the city's "police powers" in that a designation does not "promote the health, safety, or welfare of the public"; and that the whole set up is unconstitutional.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Mar 11, 8:16 a.m. Inappropriate
According to WSDOT Chief of Staff Jeff Reinmuth: "There are communities that have to be satisfied, and they all want some form of 'mitigation' — traffic improvements, noise reduction, bike paths, pedestrian walkways. Environmental permits must be obtained, meaning designs must accommodate environmental concerns."
So what 'mitigation' resulted in over-priced defective ferries and cracked pontoons?
WSDOT would have a lot more credibility if they pointed fingers in the right direction (the Chetzemoka was a result of rushed decision-making in the Legislature by then Senate Transportation Chair Mary Margaret Haugen) and accepting blame when it's your fault (those cracked pontoons were a result of WDSOT ineffective micromanagement when they should have listened to qualified outside engineers).
Posted Mon, Mar 11, 8:44 a.m. Inappropriate
The three 64-car ferries came in UNDER budget and were patterned to a significant degree after the Island Home ferries, which also list slightly when empty or not full to capacity. That list carries no safety or seaworthy concerns. WSDOT has problems for sure, but to say the ferries are "flawed" is wrong -- they are performing very well. Contrast them to the Alaska ferry Kennicott, built on the Gulf Coast, which needed major upgrades in Bellingham after a Coast Guard inspection before it was even allowed to sail, and has been in for repairs numerous times since finally going into service.
The decision to retire the 82-year-old Steel Electric ferries was made by Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond (not Sen. Haugen) because they were considered too potentially dangerous to passengers to keep sailing, as was the decision to get the first replacement vessel built in 18 months instead of the normal 2 years because the Port Townsend-Keystone run needed a vessel -- a decision ratified by the Legislature and Governor.
These vessels will carry millions of passengers and vehicles over their 60-year or more lifespan. Amortize the costs out over that time and I'd say they are a bargain.
Posted Mon, Mar 11, 11:36 p.m. Inappropriate
The decision to retire the Steel Electric ferries was made the day before the 4-day Thanksgiving holiday, with zero notice to the public or the business community. Zero notice to the public, and the added insult of a too-small whale watching tour boat substituted instead of a car ferry.
That ferry run served many thousands of families and commuters, as well as suppliers who trucked goods back and forth. Stopping commerce and life in action is a criminal act, for which the WSF and State have yet to reimburse Port Townsend or Whidbey Island for.
The baby ferries were rapidly built all right. But the chaos from the far too steep $$$$$$$$$$$ cost of building those boats is the best news I've heard all year. And seeing Paula Hammond leave her job is also fantastic news. Perhaps she was simply appointed because she was not going to be "in the way" of those preferring to run the DOT.
Posted Mon, Mar 11, 9:08 a.m. Inappropriate
DPD and the city Attorney have been gutless on land use for so long, all a developer has to do is whisper "lawsuit" and they cave.
It would be nice if City Attorney Peter Holmes would be so aggressive defending our city's land use protections as he was wasting $750,000 to defend an obviously unconstitutional opt-out phone book law that duplicated a service publishers already offered.
Posted Sun, Mar 17, 9:51 a.m. Inappropriate
It would be nice if these politicians could have as much common sense as we do. I won't keep my hopes up.
Posted Mon, Mar 11, 9:10 a.m. Inappropriate
Still, a stuffed dodo is better than none at all.
Posted Mon, Mar 11, 10:18 a.m. Inappropriate
In a city obsessed with walkability and exposing the evils of cars, doesn't seem ironic that folks are holding up dense development that would encourage more non-motorized transportation for a "historic" auto repair garage built in the 1930 when the push against mass transit to promote the automobile was gaining momentum?
Also, have you looked at the number of other sites throughout the region that Stoddard designed? Is this one-story auto repair garage really the one worth saving or is this really about something else?
Posted Tue, Mar 12, 10:46 a.m. Inappropriate
Anyone who has walked through South Lake Union of late would be hard-pressed to argue that the city's landmark process is "holding up" development in any way, shape or form. Yes, density can be a good thing where it can be accommodated. And yes, SLU can accommodate increased density. But leveling all of SLU in the name of density, without considering other environmental factors (like it or not, historic/cultural resources are elements of our environment), makes for poor urbanism.
The same meeting where the art deco 777 Thomas building was designated saw the denial of another building - a small-scale international style office building constructed post WWII. This structure will be demolished as part of the new development. With the right incentives in place, the owner could get increased height for the new building on this parcel in exchange for preserving the art deco garage. Density and preservation - it can happen!
Posted Mon, Mar 11, 10:23 a.m. Inappropriate
I have zero hope for anything even approaching fairness for the citizens of Seattle when it comes to South Lake Union. Allentown and Bezosville are here to stay and they will get their way.
What's interesting to me - as a public education activist - is how they want the school district to provide them with a school despite the fact that there is room in area elementaries about a mile from downtown.
The district saw fit to put aside $5M in the recent BEX levy for "planning" for a downtown school even as no one has come forward with the space (the district owns nothing that they could turn into a school) to have a school. All those new shiny buildings? Couldn't a couple of floors be given over for this school they so desire?
Look for pressure to come for a downtown school with the investment coming from the public and not those with the real money.
Posted Mon, Mar 11, 11:05 a.m. Inappropriate
What’s missing from this story are the “other” influences, out of sight of the public, that also result in marginal solutions for growth and the subsequent squandering of billions on our list of sub-standard projects.
A fascinating Crosscut article in 2009 touched on these influences and provides an interesting back story on how several of our “most” expensive, “least” efficient mega-projects came to be. It’s called: When Chopp speaks parse it closely. You can read it here:
http://crosscut.com/2009/03/26/crosscut-blog/18899/When-Chopp-speaks-parse-closely/
Posted Mon, Mar 11, 11:30 p.m. Inappropriate
I totally, 100% agree "One is that the Landmarks Board decision should be void because it is biased — members of the Board are selected in part because they are sympathetic toward preservation — and therefore fair hearings are impossible."
Instead, have the city buy the building itself, and pay to pick up and move the building to a park, and make the use refreshed into something else. What could be more green than that?
Posted Sun, Mar 17, 6:47 p.m. Inappropriate
Baloney; it's a public process designed to protect the public's interest. And if you think Landmarks Board is effectively acting to conserve historic properties in the face of pressure like McCullough and Hill apply on behalf of the 1%ers, you clearly don't know what's going on. // You want to talk about "the Landmarks Board decision should be void because it is biased — members of the Board are selected in part because they are sympathetic toward preservation — and therefore fair hearings are impossible"? Take a look at the Planning Commission (http://www.seattle.gov/planningcommission/) and tell us how well "The membership as a whole shall reflect a broad range of opinion, experience, an expertise with the objective of providing sound advice representative of the citizenry." Looks like a developers' club to me. Must be unconstitutional.
Posted Tue, Mar 12, 6:01 p.m. Inappropriate
John Mccullough is the lawyer for the San Francisco hedge fund manager Chris Hansen, the individual who wishes public financing of an NBA arena. 8th and Thomas LLC is based in San Francisco and is owned by Macfarlane Properties. It is registered as a Foreign in California. So, Mccullough sure does seem to work for San Francisco financial dudes.
Posted Tue, Mar 12, 6:35 p.m. Inappropriate
I'd be happy with facadism were it to preserve my experience walking down Cherry from 23rd toward MLK, for example. Many buildings on the historic inventory there, beautiful brick construction, have no chance of anything but being torn down at the rate the preservation board seems to be able to move.
I also would hate to see the relatively newer string of commercial buildings on Madison east of MLK cavalierly torn down. Sense of place is visual, can evolve, but can also be too easily destroyed.
Maybe we also need to refactor for 'character' based design guidelines and throw in facadism for all buildings over a certain age on certain blocks for those of us who experience our sense of place at street level.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.