Seattle 2008.10.11
Top of the News
Danny Westneat: In Eastern Washington, the Great Depression is not forgotten
U.S. Congress »About that Oregon arrow-manufacturer's tax break: It's not what it seems
Business / Technology »Bill Virgin on the 'perps' at WaMu: 'It is not a crime in this country to be bad at business'
Health / Medicine »The King County budget crisis threatens the public health agency with 'death by thousand cuts'
Law / Justice »Changes are urged for the state's involuntary commitment and other laws regarding mental illness
2008 Election »Once a necessity for women, a businesslike demeanor could be hurting the governor
- Seattle Times
- 'They're banging the hell out of her on TV'
- Gregoire and Rossi debate in Spokane
- New attack ads invoke sex offenders
- Earlier: Dino's always smiling
'He's always smiling': Dino Rossi tries to close the deal
2008 Election »How Sound Transit critics transformed an $18 billion system into $107 billion
Advertisement
Most Popular
Amid a swirl of national affairs, two rock-steady debaters
How accurate is Battle in Seattle?
How light rail drives Seattle neighborhood planning
The screws of Buildergate tighten on Dino Rossi
Advertisement
Most Commented
Congestion conjecture: Eyman's I-985
(17 comments)
Amid a swirl of national affairs, two rock-steady debaters
(15 comments)
The screws of Buildergate tighten on Dino Rossi
(15 comments)
The prospect of a POTUS with PTSD
(14 comments)
B- for McCain; B+ for Obama
(10 comments)
Dear Sen. Murray: Please don't feed the rats
(9 comments)
The high cost of an empty taxicab
(9 comments)
Belt-tightening time for the Mercer Mess?
(7 comments)
Seattle: Coming back to earth
(7 comments)
How accurate is Battle in Seattle?
(5 comments)
Mudville »
Sep 17, 2007 5:00 AM | last updated Sep 17, 2007 1:22 PM
The protest against a taller Children's Hospital by Laurelhurst residents. (O. Casey Corr)
Related Links
Advertisement
37 Comments
Print
Email
Mudville RSS
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Digg
NewsvineAdvertisement
A P.R. war that could be seen as the neighbors vs. sick kids
Last Saturday, Sept. 15, near 5 p.m., a helicopter flew over Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle and hovered at a height of 240 feet. A crowd of men, women and children cheered. Chanting began.
It was not a re-creation of the 1968 "Piano Drop" in Duvall, which led to the Sky River Rock Festival, but a demonstration of the height of expansion planned for the hospital and a lure to TV news crews.
You won't be surprised to learn that the Laurelhurst Community Club, which represents 2,800 homes in northeast Seattle, including my own, has raised a fuss about the expansion. More about that in a moment. My interest is in how these controversies play out, and how daunting it is to tussle with an institution like Children's.
The hospital hardly needs the platoons of lawyers and publicists at its disposal — everybody knows the value of saving babies from pain, suffering, and death. If Children's says it needs to grow, and it does — "We have little little choice but to undertake it together. Our children deserve nothing less," declared Chief Executive Dr. Thomas Hansen — it's hard not to go wobbly. Who are we to argue? Let's not risk the care of children.
But the community club years ago fought Children's over plans to land helicopters on its campus. Doing so, it acquired an image in some circles as a fussy, perhaps spoiled community — never mind that Laurelhurst is actually a nice place to live and home over the years to various notables of civic spirit such as cartoonist Gary Larson, both Bill Gateses, Steve Ballmer, former Gov. Dan Evans, playwright Robert Schenkkan, parking czar Joe Diamond, Starbucks CEO Jim Donald, King Broadcasting CEO Ancil Payne, KING-TV anchor Jean Enersen, former KIRO-TV anchor Susan Hutchison, Nordstom CEO Blake Nordstrom, rockers Duff McKagan and Scott McCready, author Gary Kinder, and painter Jacob Lawrence.
Battling Children's cost Laurelhurst any measure of cool, and it became the city's least politically correct neighborhood. You can own a $1 million bungalow in Madrona or Queen Anne, but if you live in a house worth half that in Laurelhurst, you get grief. In 2005, when I ran for the Seattle City Council, I used a euphemism. I lived "near Husky Stadium." The cock crowed three times.
Children's says it needs to grow, and it will in some fashion. That's the nature of big hospitals and the medical-industrial complex, especially ones led by powerful boards with connections. In case details matter, Children's wants to essentially double in size, from 250 beds to 500 to 600 beds, and increase square footage from 900,000 to 2.2 million. Presently, no building on the Children's campus can go higher than 90 feet, but Children's is seeking city permission to reach 240 feet. By way of comparison, Safeco Tower in the University District is 325 feet tall. By a Seattle Post-Intelligencer estimate, that's about $1 billion worth of growth spread over the next 10 to 15 years.
You might expect that a big tower and $1 billion on the edge of a single-family neighborhood in any part of Seattle might attract some controversy, or at least scrutiny. One of my neighbors said it's time for Children's to disperse some growth because the hospital's plans are just too big for the neighborhood. But this is a very appealing proponent, which puts a warp in the conventional dynamics of neighborhood politics. Quick to the fray, the P-I editorial page not only supported the development but, getting history backward, cautioned about letting the neighborhood have too much influence.
When the helicopter flew over Children's on Saturday, TV crews taped the kids chanting a variant of a 60s protest, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, oversized buildings have got to go." Cute kids may make good footage, but that's playing on the hospital's turf. This isn't really a contest.
- O. Casey Corr writes the Mudville blog for Crosscut. He is a Seattle-based writer and consultant who previously worked for The Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer. He also worked as a senior advisor to Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and ran for Seattle City Council in 2005. You can e-mail him at casey.corr@crosscut.com.
Comments
The proposed expansion of Children's Hospital ignores several self-evident facts:
Traffic along Sand Point Way, N.E. 45th street and Montlake is already problematic. This expansion will only make matters worse. If Seattle is indeed a "city of neighborhoods," it is good to recall that this is the Laurelhurst neighborhood, not the Children's Hospital neighborhood. The hospital is very near an elementary school, a park, small shops and many residences.
What it is not near is a like-community of compatible services and institutions. Look at the latest U.S. News and World Report listing of the top 10 pediatric hospitals in the country:
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/
best-hospitals/search.php?spec=ihqpeds&
(Readers will have to put that link back together because Crosscut considers "words" longer than 60 characters too long)
Of that list only one hospital is in a residential neighborhood. Yes, it's Children's in Seattle. The others are located on or adjacent to other medical and teaching campuses and/or are located in densely populated urban settings.
Put it another way: If Laurelhurst did not have a hospital in its current location and an institution wanted to purchase property and build a facility of any size, would the City approve it? I doubt it. It is there because of historic accident and because a previous generation did not have the planning and zoning goals that our present modern city lives by.
Children's should plan for a future that looks to relocating all or part of their facilities to other areas that have existing medical facilities, be that First Hill, South Lake Union, 9th and Stewart, etc.
This is a monstrously large project that, if approved, will be a blight on a residential neighborhood and will ultimately be regarded as a zoning/city planning mistake of historic proportions. I haven't been sympathetic with the neighborhood's previous battles with Children's. It now looks like those critics had Children's number all along.
Peter Newman
Traffic along Sand Point Way, N.E. 45th street and Montlake is already problematic. This expansion will only make matters worse. If Seattle is indeed a "city of neighborhoods," it is good to recall that this is the Laurelhurst neighborhood, not the Children's Hospital neighborhood. The hospital is very near an elementary school, a park, small shops and many residences.
What it is not near is a like-community of compatible services and institutions. Look at the latest U.S. News and World Report listing of the top 10 pediatric hospitals in the country:
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/
best-hospitals/search.php?spec=ihqpeds&
(Readers will have to put that link back together because Crosscut considers "words" longer than 60 characters too long)
Of that list only one hospital is in a residential neighborhood. Yes, it's Children's in Seattle. The others are located on or adjacent to other medical and teaching campuses and/or are located in densely populated urban settings.
Put it another way: If Laurelhurst did not have a hospital in its current location and an institution wanted to purchase property and build a facility of any size, would the City approve it? I doubt it. It is there because of historic accident and because a previous generation did not have the planning and zoning goals that our present modern city lives by.
Children's should plan for a future that looks to relocating all or part of their facilities to other areas that have existing medical facilities, be that First Hill, South Lake Union, 9th and Stewart, etc.
This is a monstrously large project that, if approved, will be a blight on a residential neighborhood and will ultimately be regarded as a zoning/city planning mistake of historic proportions. I haven't been sympathetic with the neighborhood's previous battles with Children's. It now looks like those critics had Children's number all along.
Peter Newman
RTFM
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Sep 17, 2007 11:50 AM
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Sep 17, 2007 11:50 AM
Long links can be acceptably formatted by reading the directions immediately preceding the comment box.
FWIW I am sympathetic to your concerns about the rapid growth of Children's. Although Children's has always been there and some growth should be expected and allowed this particular proposal does exceed reasonable expectations and is therefore worthy of rational discussion.
At the boundaries of an already developed urban area these questions are definitely difficult. This area is really the NE most extension of the University District - though as things are now progressing that development band may well extend all the way to Magnuson Park and the existing, underused, buildings on that campus.
I have never lived in that area, but I do have close associations with the immediate area to the North - good friends who rented houses in the area and relatives of my father's second wife. I did live in Ravenna and if anything my recollections of absurd concerns about students living in that UW neighborhood do not reflect well upon you, though I guess they really aren't related.
I hope Crosscut follows this issue. I will be interested in comparing the negotiated result emerging from the City Council with my knoweldge of other medical and university related issues.
One major issue worth watching is how much 'impact' Seattle will accept while still proclaiming its status as first among equals in Puget Sound Cities. Certainly there are many other areas that would welcome all of the impacts of a Children's facility. And certainly the Laurelhurst neighborhood has a say in how well Seattle plays with its municipal neighbors....
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln District, Tacoma
BTW - how about some coverage of that other neighborhood 'near Husky Stadium' - Montlake - and their opinions of the 520 bridge proposals.
FWIW I am sympathetic to your concerns about the rapid growth of Children's. Although Children's has always been there and some growth should be expected and allowed this particular proposal does exceed reasonable expectations and is therefore worthy of rational discussion.
At the boundaries of an already developed urban area these questions are definitely difficult. This area is really the NE most extension of the University District - though as things are now progressing that development band may well extend all the way to Magnuson Park and the existing, underused, buildings on that campus.
I have never lived in that area, but I do have close associations with the immediate area to the North - good friends who rented houses in the area and relatives of my father's second wife. I did live in Ravenna and if anything my recollections of absurd concerns about students living in that UW neighborhood do not reflect well upon you, though I guess they really aren't related.
I hope Crosscut follows this issue. I will be interested in comparing the negotiated result emerging from the City Council with my knoweldge of other medical and university related issues.
One major issue worth watching is how much 'impact' Seattle will accept while still proclaiming its status as first among equals in Puget Sound Cities. Certainly there are many other areas that would welcome all of the impacts of a Children's facility. And certainly the Laurelhurst neighborhood has a say in how well Seattle plays with its municipal neighbors....
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln District, Tacoma
BTW - how about some coverage of that other neighborhood 'near Husky Stadium' - Montlake - and their opinions of the 520 bridge proposals.
Laurelhurst...Community ain't just about you!
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Sep 17, 2007 9:09 AM
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Sep 17, 2007 9:09 AM
Fair notice: In 1977, I became the father of twin sons, one of whom died at Children's while the other, now an army staff sergeant in Germany, had his life saved at Children's. I'm not a neutral in this.And my story isn't unique; there are hundreds, if not thousands of kids, some now adults well into their years, who owe their very lives to that place.
That it's in a residential neighborhood is irrelevent; 100 years ago, or whenever it was founded, that's where it was planted, and that's where it is today. Laurelhurst, get over it!
Health care availability, cost, and access are discussed and argued about all the time. Yet Children's, to my knowledge, has never turned anyone away because of a lack of resources. The Children's network of Guilds works tirelessly to raise funds to pay the expenses of those who are uninsured or otherwise unable to pay on their own. The place is a COMMUNITY (which is larger than MERE Laurelhurst) treasure, and its expansion to meet the needs of that COMMUNITY need to be supported, not hindered.
As someone who's been involved in more than his fair share of demonstrations and PR stunts, let me just say that using kids to demonstrate against Children's is both cynical and serves only to draw attention not to how it despoils the surrounding neighborhood, but to how uber-affluent adults care not to put their faces and names out there when they can shove some kids in front of a camera. Do the words "back fire" come to mind?
All neighborhoods are subject to change over time; it's in the nature of life. Instead of fighting Children's with a gated-community, fortress mentality, the brains and bucks abundantly in residence in the Laurelhurst neighborhood, which is part a much greater COMMUNITY, ought to spend their time working with the hospital, not against it.
The memory of Luke Aaron, my son, demands no less...
The Piper
RE: Laurelhurst...Community ain't just about you!
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 17, 2007 12:05 PM
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 17, 2007 12:05 PM
I agree. The demonstration was ineffective and probably counterproductive. Nevertheless, it isn't just about Laurelhurst (not a gated community, just a middle class one that has been both helped and hurt by rising real estate values).
This is about looking at the needs of the community and managing growth. Neighborhoods do change but that doesn't mean they should do so poorly. This proposal is not in the best interests of, not only Laurelhurst, but the larger community, city and region.
Again, there is a reason why the nine other top-10 pediatric hospitals are not stand-alone facilities in residential communities. Look at the Texas Medical Center in Houston, Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, and other on the US News list. Look at this map of Cincinnati Children's:
http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/
visit/location/maps/area.htm
It's right next to University of Cincinnati Hospital and Shriners. It has major entries from all four sides and is near an Interstate, as opposed to being on a kind of peninsula with only cramped entry from the west and north as Children's has. Children's Boston has four other campuses. Their main one is adjacent to Brigham and Women's Hospital, the Farber Cancer Institute, near an Interstate and a rail center.
Read the growth plan for the number one hospital, Children's Philadelphia:
http://www.chop.edu/about_chop/
facilities/index.shtml
I could go on and on through the list but you get the idea. This kind of long-range planning is what is needed at Children's, not a reflexive, "Let's just build it out until we can't build further" mentality.
Thank you for your son's service.
Peter
This is about looking at the needs of the community and managing growth. Neighborhoods do change but that doesn't mean they should do so poorly. This proposal is not in the best interests of, not only Laurelhurst, but the larger community, city and region.
Again, there is a reason why the nine other top-10 pediatric hospitals are not stand-alone facilities in residential communities. Look at the Texas Medical Center in Houston, Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, and other on the US News list. Look at this map of Cincinnati Children's:
http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/
visit/location/maps/area.htm
It's right next to University of Cincinnati Hospital and Shriners. It has major entries from all four sides and is near an Interstate, as opposed to being on a kind of peninsula with only cramped entry from the west and north as Children's has. Children's Boston has four other campuses. Their main one is adjacent to Brigham and Women's Hospital, the Farber Cancer Institute, near an Interstate and a rail center.
Read the growth plan for the number one hospital, Children's Philadelphia:
http://www.chop.edu/about_chop/
facilities/index.shtml
I could go on and on through the list but you get the idea. This kind of long-range planning is what is needed at Children's, not a reflexive, "Let's just build it out until we can't build further" mentality.
Thank you for your son's service.
Peter
Corrected reference to the "Piano Drop"
Report a violationPosted by: CaseyCorr on Sep 17, 2007 10:36 AM
Report a violationPosted by: CaseyCorr on Sep 17, 2007 10:36 AM
This story has been updated to correct the reference to the "Piano Drop."HistoryLink has details.
--Casey
RE: Corrected reference to the "Piano Drop"
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Sep 17, 2007 11:09 AM
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Sep 17, 2007 11:09 AM
Casey...Could you clarify whose helicopter it was that flew 240' in the air???
The Piper
RE: Corrected reference to the "Piano Drop"
Report a violationPosted by: CaseyCorr on Sep 17, 2007 12:05 PM
Report a violationPosted by: CaseyCorr on Sep 17, 2007 12:05 PM
The helicopter was arranged by a Laurelhurst resident, but I don't know who.
RE: Corrected reference to the "Piano Drop"
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Sep 18, 2007 7:39 AM
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Sep 18, 2007 7:39 AM
It would have been nice to have more names, in general, in the story.
Specifically - who is on the Children's Board - who is their legal representation? Do the Laurelhurst neighbors have a designated spokesperson? How was the opposition fomented - via the CC or another group making the case?
One thing for sure - though there may be large cost advantages to Children's in developing their neighborhood land the legal fees from this 'controversy' will eat up a large portion of them. Perhaps even 10% ???? of the total project cost.
BTW, the helicopter was a nice touch.
Specifically - who is on the Children's Board - who is their legal representation? Do the Laurelhurst neighbors have a designated spokesperson? How was the opposition fomented - via the CC or another group making the case?
One thing for sure - though there may be large cost advantages to Children's in developing their neighborhood land the legal fees from this 'controversy' will eat up a large portion of them. Perhaps even 10% ???? of the total project cost.
BTW, the helicopter was a nice touch.
OK... Let us put it another way...
Report a violationPosted by: hacknflack on Sep 17, 2007 12:42 PM
Report a violationPosted by: hacknflack on Sep 17, 2007 12:42 PM
Peter asks if the City would have approved such a place today, pointing out, "...I doubt it. It is there because of historic accident and because a previous generation did not have the planning and zoning goals that our present modern city lives by."
Precisely the point! Children's is there, and not moving, and can serve even more if allowed to... Ditto the UW... Who was there first?
My great-grandfather had a house in Laurelhurst back when you had to drive on a wood boardwalk to get there... the neighborhood back then was also not the most aspired to place to live... back then Laurelhurst was sandwiched between a Garbage Dump (now the Mountlake Parking lot for the UW) and a Navel Air Station (Now Magnuson Park)... Most well to do residents came later... as did the property values.
I have little sympathy for the NIMBYs who have managed to have far more rule over the viable, useful and worthy institutions such as the U of W and Children’s than any other neighborhood or city resident.
Thanks to Laurelhurst Residents, Airlift Northwest chopper medical staff have to prove a child's level of urgent care, and often have to spend extra time to land at the U of W Mountlake Lot, then transfer to a ground ambulance for the final half mile ride in. Extra time and expense because that chopper bringing in a child clinging to life disturbs their home's solitude. Before you point to safety issues, is it better to crash your chopper in a residential area or a crowded downtown or freeway?
Bottom Line: The UW and the Hospital were there first. You knew it when you bought in... and back then, there was the odor of the dump, and the noise of Sand Point. Earlier there was the Pan Am Clipper base, (Now Mathews Beach) along with rail traffic (now the Burke Gillman Trail).
As a resident just a few blocks further up the road (20 plus years in Wedgwood), I am far more upset with the influx of Beemer’s and SUV's that are always flying thought my neighborhood at 40 MPH with radio's blaring to their new homes and condos in Inverness, and along Sand Point... THEY have added a lot more dangerous road traffic (and noise!) to my daily life... at least the Ambulances flying by to Children's have Sirens, lights and the legal right to speed along.
Lastly, I would guess that the proximity to the UW and Children’s has not severely dented Laurelhurst home values -- If living in Laurelhurst, I bet one can afford to sell and buy elsewhere. Perhaps Kirkland... I doubt the Pacific Whaling Fleet, rendering yards and shipyards are returning anytime soon to Carillon Point.
Precisely the point! Children's is there, and not moving, and can serve even more if allowed to... Ditto the UW... Who was there first?
My great-grandfather had a house in Laurelhurst back when you had to drive on a wood boardwalk to get there... the neighborhood back then was also not the most aspired to place to live... back then Laurelhurst was sandwiched between a Garbage Dump (now the Mountlake Parking lot for the UW) and a Navel Air Station (Now Magnuson Park)... Most well to do residents came later... as did the property values.
I have little sympathy for the NIMBYs who have managed to have far more rule over the viable, useful and worthy institutions such as the U of W and Children’s than any other neighborhood or city resident.
Thanks to Laurelhurst Residents, Airlift Northwest chopper medical staff have to prove a child's level of urgent care, and often have to spend extra time to land at the U of W Mountlake Lot, then transfer to a ground ambulance for the final half mile ride in. Extra time and expense because that chopper bringing in a child clinging to life disturbs their home's solitude. Before you point to safety issues, is it better to crash your chopper in a residential area or a crowded downtown or freeway?
Bottom Line: The UW and the Hospital were there first. You knew it when you bought in... and back then, there was the odor of the dump, and the noise of Sand Point. Earlier there was the Pan Am Clipper base, (Now Mathews Beach) along with rail traffic (now the Burke Gillman Trail).
As a resident just a few blocks further up the road (20 plus years in Wedgwood), I am far more upset with the influx of Beemer’s and SUV's that are always flying thought my neighborhood at 40 MPH with radio's blaring to their new homes and condos in Inverness, and along Sand Point... THEY have added a lot more dangerous road traffic (and noise!) to my daily life... at least the Ambulances flying by to Children's have Sirens, lights and the legal right to speed along.
Lastly, I would guess that the proximity to the UW and Children’s has not severely dented Laurelhurst home values -- If living in Laurelhurst, I bet one can afford to sell and buy elsewhere. Perhaps Kirkland... I doubt the Pacific Whaling Fleet, rendering yards and shipyards are returning anytime soon to Carillon Point.
RE: OK... Let us put it another way...
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Sep 17, 2007 12:50 PM
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Sep 17, 2007 12:50 PM
Great points and excellent historic context. One of the real irksome tendencies of NIMBY'ism is, "I've got mine, now you can't get yours." Too bad there weren't NIMBY's yesterday to keep today's NIMBY's out.
The Piper
We Love Children's Hospital, we don't love Skyscrapers..
Report a violationPosted by: mwayte on Sep 17, 2007 12:55 PM
Report a violationPosted by: mwayte on Sep 17, 2007 12:55 PM
As a resident of Laurelhurst I've dontated thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars and volunteer hours raising money for Children's Hospital. We love their work. We're also not against expansion, we just ask that it be kept within existing building code.
The zoning issue for the expansion is a big issue for all of Seattle. The height differential between 40th Ave NE, west of the hospital and the proposed towers is about the same as Safeco Tower in the University District. As a stand alone structure it's close to Amazon.com's headquarters (Children's will be slightly taller I believe, and there are three of them).
Laurelhurst? How about Bryant, Maple Leaf, View Ridge, Windermere, UW, and the rest of the surrounding communities?
I became involved when it was discovered that Children's misrepresented itself on Seattle City's Department of Land Use and Construction documents giving false elevations on existing structures offsetting the differential between existing and proposed structures. This was during the public comment period.
In some cases elevations were represented as being twice what they really were.
So you bring in 2.5 million square feet of hospital and average 4,000 square feet per hospital bed and you build the towers. Will this effect the community? You bet! From property values to community.
Children's was recently named a top 10 hospital in the Country, it is also the only one in a residental neighborhood.
There is a compromise. I don't mind the added traffic on Montlake Blvd. or added helicopters bringing children from all over the country. What I mind is skyscrapers in the neighborhood and coming up with a solution that has a lower visual impact. We can still save the kids, we can still complete the mission, but we need to work together.
The zoning issue for the expansion is a big issue for all of Seattle. The height differential between 40th Ave NE, west of the hospital and the proposed towers is about the same as Safeco Tower in the University District. As a stand alone structure it's close to Amazon.com's headquarters (Children's will be slightly taller I believe, and there are three of them).
Laurelhurst? How about Bryant, Maple Leaf, View Ridge, Windermere, UW, and the rest of the surrounding communities?
I became involved when it was discovered that Children's misrepresented itself on Seattle City's Department of Land Use and Construction documents giving false elevations on existing structures offsetting the differential between existing and proposed structures. This was during the public comment period.
In some cases elevations were represented as being twice what they really were.
So you bring in 2.5 million square feet of hospital and average 4,000 square feet per hospital bed and you build the towers. Will this effect the community? You bet! From property values to community.
Children's was recently named a top 10 hospital in the Country, it is also the only one in a residental neighborhood.
There is a compromise. I don't mind the added traffic on Montlake Blvd. or added helicopters bringing children from all over the country. What I mind is skyscrapers in the neighborhood and coming up with a solution that has a lower visual impact. We can still save the kids, we can still complete the mission, but we need to work together.
Spread the wealth
Report a violationPosted by: animalal on Sep 17, 2007 1:11 PM
Report a violationPosted by: animalal on Sep 17, 2007 1:11 PM
My hunch is to upgrade the current hospital campus without the massive expansion and bolster any and all surrounding hospitals that do similar work. Are there facilities in Spokane, Portland, Boise, Anchorage, etc. or is Seattle the magnet facility?
RE: Spread the wealth
Report a violationPosted by: DC in Seattle on Sep 17, 2007 2:17 PM
Report a violationPosted by: DC in Seattle on Sep 17, 2007 2:17 PM
I believe that Seattle Childrens is supposed to serve as The Place for Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska.
While Tacoma does have Mary Bridge Childrens, it syas it serves southwest Washingtonand tries not to market against Seattle Childrens.
I am not sure Mary Bridge can provide all the services and facilities as Seattle Childrens, but it is close.
DC in Seattle
While Tacoma does have Mary Bridge Childrens, it syas it serves southwest Washingtonand tries not to market against Seattle Childrens.
I am not sure Mary Bridge can provide all the services and facilities as Seattle Childrens, but it is close.
DC in Seattle
RE: Spread the wealth
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Sep 18, 2007 8:07 AM
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Sep 18, 2007 8:07 AM
It would have been nice to have hear the rationale behind the decision to stay central from the Children's Board. Certainly many medical, and education institutions, have chosen to decentralize. Then again, Children's may play a role in the regional medical industry similiar to Harborview's Trauma unit or the specialized facilities of other organizations.
The crucial question is what is the benefit of staying at their current location? There are undeniable costs to the neighborhood, though no one better ever assert they are life threatening.
Although much of Children's operations might well need to be centralized I'd guess that at least some could be cost effectively decentralized.
One idea - how about co-locating with other public and private institutions on their decentralized campuses. Working out such a deal might be tough, but surely within the capacity of Laurelhurst. (though definitely not in the best interests of their legal representation).
Another idea, how about designating Sand Point Way a State Highway up until Magnuson Park - perhaps developing much like a Conneticutt style 'Parkway', including bus facilities?
Lastly, and I'm a bit out of touch on the current thinking on this one, how about creating a feeder distributor during the 520 rebuild that links Northbound I-5 with 520 before it even gets to the Mountlake Neighborhood via a tunnel running under 45th or 50th through the University District, with an exit at the Stadium Parking lot?
FWIW, I live in Tacoma, but I've kept my Seattle based physician. I've tried to supplement that care with Multi-Care's walk-in clinics, but my one experience, perhaps too serious for them, wasn't good. (for poetic license, let's call it a skin eating infection caught in the medically polluted waters of Lake Union).
-Doug
The crucial question is what is the benefit of staying at their current location? There are undeniable costs to the neighborhood, though no one better ever assert they are life threatening.
Although much of Children's operations might well need to be centralized I'd guess that at least some could be cost effectively decentralized.
One idea - how about co-locating with other public and private institutions on their decentralized campuses. Working out such a deal might be tough, but surely within the capacity of Laurelhurst. (though definitely not in the best interests of their legal representation).
Another idea, how about designating Sand Point Way a State Highway up until Magnuson Park - perhaps developing much like a Conneticutt style 'Parkway', including bus facilities?
Lastly, and I'm a bit out of touch on the current thinking on this one, how about creating a feeder distributor during the 520 rebuild that links Northbound I-5 with 520 before it even gets to the Mountlake Neighborhood via a tunnel running under 45th or 50th through the University District, with an exit at the Stadium Parking lot?
FWIW, I live in Tacoma, but I've kept my Seattle based physician. I've tried to supplement that care with Multi-Care's walk-in clinics, but my one experience, perhaps too serious for them, wasn't good. (for poetic license, let's call it a skin eating infection caught in the medically polluted waters of Lake Union).
-Doug
Casey, methinks you protest too much...
Report a violationPosted by: tiptoe tommy on Sep 17, 2007 1:22 PM
Report a violationPosted by: tiptoe tommy on Sep 17, 2007 1:22 PM
Children's plans do deserve a full review, but Casey paints a vision of a poor, besieged Laurelhurst that doesn't match reality. This powerful neighborhood has a long history of opposing almost any development that threatens its shores. They protested development at the large former Battelle campus nearby, they opposed sports facilities at Magnuson Park. Go to the community club website and click on a few links and you will see some of the many issues this powerful neighborhood has fought over the years.
Where was Casey's outrage over the plans to put a huge garbage dump in Georgetown. Or a major airport at Boeing Field?
For a neighborhood powerful and rich enough to charter its own chopper for a press release to whine that it is misunderstood is a little too much. Neighborhoods like Laurelhurst and its doppleganger Montlake are a prime reason why we need to look at a district city council.
Where was Casey's outrage over the plans to put a huge garbage dump in Georgetown. Or a major airport at Boeing Field?
For a neighborhood powerful and rich enough to charter its own chopper for a press release to whine that it is misunderstood is a little too much. Neighborhoods like Laurelhurst and its doppleganger Montlake are a prime reason why we need to look at a district city council.
RE: Casey, methinks you protest too much...
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Sep 17, 2007 1:47 PM
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Sep 17, 2007 1:47 PM
Your last sentence is a genuine stroke of genius! The Seattle City Council is a gaggle of Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Stupid's led by their kindred spirit, Hizzoner. That's what you get when they're all elected at-large.But cut Casey Corr some slack; he's shining an unflattering light upon his own backyard, not cheering on its excesses.
The Piper
Children's can respect laws and neighborhoods (if they feel like it). Part 1
Report a violationPosted by: rickbarrett on Sep 17, 2007 2:12 PM
Report a violationPosted by: rickbarrett on Sep 17, 2007 2:12 PM
Pasted below is the first page of the Scoping Comments letter from the Seattle Community Council Federation, outlining why we feel that the alternatives developed by the neighboring community and a highly respected land use consultant should be studied, rather than rejected without consideration or official review; that the Scoping process be conducted in a fair and impartial manner and that the proposed expansion be accomplished in accordance with SEPA environmental regulations, Seattle Municipal Code, Seattle Building code, Seattle Comprehensive Plan, and the Major Institutions Code.
We believe that Children's expansion can be accomplished in an economically and neighborhood-friendly manner without skirting, stretching, ignoring or violating applicable codes, ordinances and regulations.
Scott Ringgold, Land Use Planner
Department of Planning and Development
700 5th Avenue, Suite 2000, P.O. Box 34019
Seattle, Washington 98124-4019
RE: Children’s Hospital Scoping Comments, MUP #3007521 and #3007696
Dear Mr. Ringgold:
The Seattle Community Council Federation, a coalition of community groups throughout the city of Seattle, has reviewed and discussed Children’s Hospital Concept Plan and the hospital’s proposed alternatives for expansion. Children’s alternatives should be rejected outright and should not be included for further study in the environmental impact statement (EIS). The Federation supports the detailed alternatives submitted by the Laurelhurst Community Club and urges you to study these alternatives in the EIS. We further endorse the excellent comments submitted by Carol Eychaner on behalf of the Laurelhurst Community Club.
The Federation sees no conceivable way to mitigate the impact of the addition of 1.5 million square feet of development and the increase of building heights from 37, 50, 70 and 90 feet to 240 feet as proposed by Children’s Hospital in this quiet low density residential neighborhood. Even an attempt to mitigate the traffic and transportation impacts would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Alternatives studied in the EIS must be reasonable. Children’s alternatives are so far out of line with the “reasonableness” requirement of SMC 25.05 that it would be pointless to waste the extensive resources that would be required to study them because there is no means to mitigate the impacts. On the other hand, the alternatives developed by the Laurelhurst Community Club do meet the reasonableness requirement. One alternative would allow square footage expansion within the existing height limits which have not been reached. This should be studied. The other alternatives allow height increases up to 90 feet in areas currently zoned at lesser heights with different development scenarios. Alternative square footage additions either at 250,000 square feet or without a specific square footage limit are recommended for study in the EIS at the reduced height limits. While these latter alternatives call for considerable expansion, at least there is the possibility of mitigating the impacts.
[This letter will be continued in "Children's can respect laws and neighborhoods (if they feel like it). Part 2]
We believe that Children's expansion can be accomplished in an economically and neighborhood-friendly manner without skirting, stretching, ignoring or violating applicable codes, ordinances and regulations.
Scott Ringgold, Land Use Planner
Department of Planning and Development
700 5th Avenue, Suite 2000, P.O. Box 34019
Seattle, Washington 98124-4019
RE: Children’s Hospital Scoping Comments, MUP #3007521 and #3007696
Dear Mr. Ringgold:
The Seattle Community Council Federation, a coalition of community groups throughout the city of Seattle, has reviewed and discussed Children’s Hospital Concept Plan and the hospital’s proposed alternatives for expansion. Children’s alternatives should be rejected outright and should not be included for further study in the environmental impact statement (EIS). The Federation supports the detailed alternatives submitted by the Laurelhurst Community Club and urges you to study these alternatives in the EIS. We further endorse the excellent comments submitted by Carol Eychaner on behalf of the Laurelhurst Community Club.
The Federation sees no conceivable way to mitigate the impact of the addition of 1.5 million square feet of development and the increase of building heights from 37, 50, 70 and 90 feet to 240 feet as proposed by Children’s Hospital in this quiet low density residential neighborhood. Even an attempt to mitigate the traffic and transportation impacts would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Alternatives studied in the EIS must be reasonable. Children’s alternatives are so far out of line with the “reasonableness” requirement of SMC 25.05 that it would be pointless to waste the extensive resources that would be required to study them because there is no means to mitigate the impacts. On the other hand, the alternatives developed by the Laurelhurst Community Club do meet the reasonableness requirement. One alternative would allow square footage expansion within the existing height limits which have not been reached. This should be studied. The other alternatives allow height increases up to 90 feet in areas currently zoned at lesser heights with different development scenarios. Alternative square footage additions either at 250,000 square feet or without a specific square footage limit are recommended for study in the EIS at the reduced height limits. While these latter alternatives call for considerable expansion, at least there is the possibility of mitigating the impacts.
[This letter will be continued in "Children's can respect laws and neighborhoods (if they feel like it). Part 2]
Children's can respect laws and neighborhoods (if they feel like it). Part 2
Report a violationPosted by: rickbarrett on Sep 17, 2007 2:25 PM
Report a violationPosted by: rickbarrett on Sep 17, 2007 2:25 PM
Pasted below is a continuation of the Seattle Community Council Federation's letter to DPD "RE: Children’s Hospital Scoping Comments, MUP #3007521 and #3007696"
Children’s has not really even proposed alternatives as required by SEPA. The two alternatives in the Concept Plan are essentially identical with the same square footage added and
the same building height increases. SEPA contemplates a thoughtful comparison of alternatives—not just a variation of one alternative. This is in stark contrast to the four alternatives included in the EIS during the last master planning process, one of which was proposed by the Laurelhurst Community Club. Three of the alternatives included variations of plan elements that were also studied in the EIS. There is no reason that Children’s Hospital should be exempt from compliance with environmental standards in our law, despite its laudable mission.
Children’s must also comply with the Major Institutions Code. In creating two new entrances/exits on Laurelhurst residential streets, Children’s has ignored a key provision in the Code. SMC 23.69.008 states that “Major Institution uses which are determined to be heavy traffic generators … shall be located away from abutting residential zones.” Tripling the size of the hospital will generate considerably more traffic onto residential streets, including one that is a nonarterial, in an area abutting single-family and low-rise multifamily zones.
The two new entrances/exits are located near two elementary schools, three churches and the Laurelhurst Playfield and playground in a single-family neighborhood. Children’s has demonstrated no regard for the safety of children walking and riding bicycles to school and no regard for the safety of its neighbors. Instead, Children’s seeks to direct a high volume of vehicular traffic into a residential neighborhood, when the Code does not allow alternatives that would support such an expansion solution.
There is also no precedent for allowing height increases from 37, 50, 70 and 90 feet to 240 feet. The highest MIO height that the City has ever approved for any of the six major institutions in a neighborhood context similar to Children’s Laurelhurst campus is 105 feet. These six institutions are located in low density, low scale single-family and/or low-rise multifamily areas. The higher 105 foot limit is designated for major institutions that are either adjacent to I-5, another major institution or commercial areas with more density that the Laurelhurst community. Therefore, the height limit for Children’s campus should be kept at 90 feet.
By requesting heights of 240 feet on its Laurelhurst campus, Children’s seeks to transform a single-family, low density area into a new urban center. As pointed out in Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan, urban centers are the densest segments of the city and intended to accommodate future growth. This segment of northeast Seattle is wholly inappropriate for an urban center designation. Such a designation is inconsistent with Seattle’s comprehensive plan that calls for preservation and protection of low-density, single family neighborhoods.
Only three major institutions—Swedish Medical Center/First Hill, Harborview Medical Center and Virginia Mason Medical Center—have been granted 240 foot height limits. They are all located in the First Hill Urban Center Village, an area with highrise and commercial zoning very dissimilar to the low density, single-family neighborhood in which Children’s is located.
[This letter will be concluded in "Children's can respect laws and neighborhoods (if they want to) Part 3]
Children’s has not really even proposed alternatives as required by SEPA. The two alternatives in the Concept Plan are essentially identical with the same square footage added and
the same building height increases. SEPA contemplates a thoughtful comparison of alternatives—not just a variation of one alternative. This is in stark contrast to the four alternatives included in the EIS during the last master planning process, one of which was proposed by the Laurelhurst Community Club. Three of the alternatives included variations of plan elements that were also studied in the EIS. There is no reason that Children’s Hospital should be exempt from compliance with environmental standards in our law, despite its laudable mission.
Children’s must also comply with the Major Institutions Code. In creating two new entrances/exits on Laurelhurst residential streets, Children’s has ignored a key provision in the Code. SMC 23.69.008 states that “Major Institution uses which are determined to be heavy traffic generators … shall be located away from abutting residential zones.” Tripling the size of the hospital will generate considerably more traffic onto residential streets, including one that is a nonarterial, in an area abutting single-family and low-rise multifamily zones.
The two new entrances/exits are located near two elementary schools, three churches and the Laurelhurst Playfield and playground in a single-family neighborhood. Children’s has demonstrated no regard for the safety of children walking and riding bicycles to school and no regard for the safety of its neighbors. Instead, Children’s seeks to direct a high volume of vehicular traffic into a residential neighborhood, when the Code does not allow alternatives that would support such an expansion solution.
There is also no precedent for allowing height increases from 37, 50, 70 and 90 feet to 240 feet. The highest MIO height that the City has ever approved for any of the six major institutions in a neighborhood context similar to Children’s Laurelhurst campus is 105 feet. These six institutions are located in low density, low scale single-family and/or low-rise multifamily areas. The higher 105 foot limit is designated for major institutions that are either adjacent to I-5, another major institution or commercial areas with more density that the Laurelhurst community. Therefore, the height limit for Children’s campus should be kept at 90 feet.
By requesting heights of 240 feet on its Laurelhurst campus, Children’s seeks to transform a single-family, low density area into a new urban center. As pointed out in Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan, urban centers are the densest segments of the city and intended to accommodate future growth. This segment of northeast Seattle is wholly inappropriate for an urban center designation. Such a designation is inconsistent with Seattle’s comprehensive plan that calls for preservation and protection of low-density, single family neighborhoods.
Only three major institutions—Swedish Medical Center/First Hill, Harborview Medical Center and Virginia Mason Medical Center—have been granted 240 foot height limits. They are all located in the First Hill Urban Center Village, an area with highrise and commercial zoning very dissimilar to the low density, single-family neighborhood in which Children’s is located.
[This letter will be concluded in "Children's can respect laws and neighborhoods (if they want to) Part 3]
Laurelhurst vs. the world
Report a violationPosted by: J.R. on Sep 17, 2007 2:33 PM
Report a violationPosted by: J.R. on Sep 17, 2007 2:33 PM
Thanks for noting your conflict of residence, Casey, but you should also mention that the Laurelhurst Community Club is the best-funded neighborhood group in the city (it even has a Rainier Club membership!), so this is hardly a David vs. Goliath scenario. Children's Hospital is obviously asking for a lot in terms of upzoning on its campus, and there's no reason they should get everything they want (or even most of it). But, the hospital has been in its current location for a long time and I haven't yet heard any good reason why they should pack up their operations and move somewhere else. Maybe we should try some sort of compromise...
Children's can respect laws and neighborhoods (if they feel like it). Part 3
Report a violationPosted by: rickbarrett on Sep 17, 2007 2:36 PM
Report a violationPosted by: rickbarrett on Sep 17, 2007 2:36 PM
This concludes the letter from the Seattle Community Council Federation to DPD "RE: Children’s Hospital Scoping Comments, MUP #3007521 and #3007696"
Children’s Hospital should not be allowed to expand its major institution boundaries by leapfrogging across Laurelon Terrace to encompass the one-story Hartmann Building across Sand Point Way. First of all, the Major Institutions Code discourages major institution boundary expansion. Second, leapfrogging over this affordable housing will ultimately lay the groundwork for ultimate acquisition of Laurelon Terrace for institutional uses. There will be negative impacts to the fragile, but growing Laurelhurst business community and pressure to convert existing businesses to serve Children’s, rather than the surrounding communities.
The Seattle Community Council Federation strongly encourages the City to reject the alternatives proposed by Children’s in its Concept Plan, to study the alternatives proposed by the Laurelhurst Community Club in the EIS and to deny Children’s request to expand its institutional boundaries. Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Rick Barrett, Vice President
Children’s Hospital should not be allowed to expand its major institution boundaries by leapfrogging across Laurelon Terrace to encompass the one-story Hartmann Building across Sand Point Way. First of all, the Major Institutions Code discourages major institution boundary expansion. Second, leapfrogging over this affordable housing will ultimately lay the groundwork for ultimate acquisition of Laurelon Terrace for institutional uses. There will be negative impacts to the fragile, but growing Laurelhurst business community and pressure to convert existing businesses to serve Children’s, rather than the surrounding communities.
The Seattle Community Council Federation strongly encourages the City to reject the alternatives proposed by Children’s in its Concept Plan, to study the alternatives proposed by the Laurelhurst Community Club in the EIS and to deny Children’s request to expand its institutional boundaries. Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Rick Barrett, Vice President
RE: Children's can respect laws and neighborhoods (if they feel like it). Part 3
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Sep 18, 2007 8:17 AM
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Sep 18, 2007 8:17 AM
Perhaps one of the most telling measures of the failures of the Seattle Establishment is the, frankly, fringe, status of such a well spoken, community based voice of Rick Barrett from the Haller Lake nieghborhood between Aurora and I-5 at 130th.
I'm not saying that Mr. Barrett should be final arbiter of this decision, however his, and his associates, abilty to evaluate such issues on their own time deserves one hell of a lot more respect.
-Doug
I'm not saying that Mr. Barrett should be final arbiter of this decision, however his, and his associates, abilty to evaluate such issues on their own time deserves one hell of a lot more respect.
-Doug
Haller Lake and NW Hospital
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Sep 18, 2007 8:31 AM
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Sep 18, 2007 8:31 AM
In the interests of full disclosure, Mr. Barrett should have disclosed that his own neighborhood has a similiar relationship with a neighborhood located major medical institution, NW Hospital.
As I recall NW Hospital's legal representation is Foster, Pepper, and Sheffelman whose land use practice led by Judy Runstad has long been a leader in the development of these regulations.
Though the former land use attorney cum wife of Developer (and resigned UW Regent, Jon Runstad) is one of the largest regular contributors to Council campaigns there land use practice is not without controversy. Most notably is the one million dollar judgment for neighborhood environmental activist Toby Thaler for second senior partner Tayloe Washburn's witness tampering in the Ballard Fred Meyer development.
There are also problems still simmering from the legal community's tampering with the Seattle University Master Plan of 1989 or so, where Washburn was active lead.
FWIW FPS rose to prominence as an alternative to the Western Washington municipal finance alpha's at Preston Gates doing low income housing finance with Mayor Rice. I believe they are also lead counsel to the private bank, Washington Mutual, though this would be under a different Senior Partner.
Senior Partner Hugh Spitzer(a University District resident) teaches constitutional law at the UW and is perhaps the most respected at the firm, deservedly or not.
The question for me is did Foster, Pepper's rise to prominence improve the legal profession's ability to serve the public - or did they degrade it even further from the good old boy highway days? This issue will provide a good metric, though there of course oh so many...
-Doug
As I recall NW Hospital's legal representation is Foster, Pepper, and Sheffelman whose land use practice led by Judy Runstad has long been a leader in the development of these regulations.
Though the former land use attorney cum wife of Developer (and resigned UW Regent, Jon Runstad) is one of the largest regular contributors to Council campaigns there land use practice is not without controversy. Most notably is the one million dollar judgment for neighborhood environmental activist Toby Thaler for second senior partner Tayloe Washburn's witness tampering in the Ballard Fred Meyer development.
There are also problems still simmering from the legal community's tampering with the Seattle University Master Plan of 1989 or so, where Washburn was active lead.
FWIW FPS rose to prominence as an alternative to the Western Washington municipal finance alpha's at Preston Gates doing low income housing finance with Mayor Rice. I believe they are also lead counsel to the private bank, Washington Mutual, though this would be under a different Senior Partner.
Senior Partner Hugh Spitzer(a University District resident) teaches constitutional law at the UW and is perhaps the most respected at the firm, deservedly or not.
The question for me is did Foster, Pepper's rise to prominence improve the legal profession's ability to serve the public - or did they degrade it even further from the good old boy highway days? This issue will provide a good metric, though there of course oh so many...
-Doug
"Can't we all just get along"
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 18, 2007 12:38 AM
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 18, 2007 12:38 AM
I have yet to hear any of the proponents of Children's expansion plans address the issue of site appropriateness. I'm sorry if this is beating a dead horse but there's a reason the other top 10 pediatric hospitals are sited where they are.
Having a hospital served by two semi-accessible arterials is not good planning. Having a hospital not adjacent to other teaching/research/outpatient/service-oriented facilities is not advantageous.
It's just not good long-range planning to keep building on this site. If I thought otherwise I'd be delighted to see Children's grow, prosper and be the star player in the neighborhood.
I also believe the Laurelhurst community committed a terrible error in limiting the helicopter flights. Stupid, self-serving, as all the critics of the neighborhood contend.
It was wonderful hearing a fuller history of the neighborhood. The Naval Station, the dump, all true. In that context, the original Children's (Orthopedic) Hospital made perfect sense. It was before helicopters, advanced technology and mega-institutions.
The vast majority of the current residents of the neighborhood don't give a fig about Associations, clubs, and past land battles. They are renters, home owners, working and retired, small businesses. They are occasionally correct, occasionally wrong, flawed people like all of us.
Get over what you think of "Laurelhurst" and think about what Children's can be if it takes the long view. It's important that we have a great regional medical center for children. The real question is: Is this the best we can do?
Peter
Having a hospital served by two semi-accessible arterials is not good planning. Having a hospital not adjacent to other teaching/research/outpatient/service-oriented facilities is not advantageous.
It's just not good long-range planning to keep building on this site. If I thought otherwise I'd be delighted to see Children's grow, prosper and be the star player in the neighborhood.
I also believe the Laurelhurst community committed a terrible error in limiting the helicopter flights. Stupid, self-serving, as all the critics of the neighborhood contend.
It was wonderful hearing a fuller history of the neighborhood. The Naval Station, the dump, all true. In that context, the original Children's (Orthopedic) Hospital made perfect sense. It was before helicopters, advanced technology and mega-institutions.
The vast majority of the current residents of the neighborhood don't give a fig about Associations, clubs, and past land battles. They are renters, home owners, working and retired, small businesses. They are occasionally correct, occasionally wrong, flawed people like all of us.
Get over what you think of "Laurelhurst" and think about what Children's can be if it takes the long view. It's important that we have a great regional medical center for children. The real question is: Is this the best we can do?
Peter
Time Marches on, and sometimes NIMBY gets run over...
Report a violationPosted by: hacknflack on Sep 18, 2007 8:44 AM
Report a violationPosted by: hacknflack on Sep 18, 2007 8:44 AM
In his comment, "Children's can respect laws and neighborhoods (if they feel like it). Part 2 Posted by rickbarrett on Sep 17, 2007 2:25 PM, Mr. Barret notes:
"There is also no precedent for allowing height increases from 37, 50, 70 and 90 feet to 240 feet."
Have you measured how tall the apartments are on Sand Point Way in the 4500 block? They are taller than 37, 50, 70 and possibly 90 Feet… the apartments were built at least 30 some years ago.
“Only three major institutions—Swedish Medical Center/First Hill, Harborview Medical Center and Virginia Mason Medical Center—have been granted 240 foot height limits. They are all located in the First Hill Urban Center Village, an area with highrise and commercial zoning very dissimilar to the low density, single-family neighborhood in which Children’s is located…"
Excuse me, but all three mentioned hospitals are also within blocks of elementary schools, churches and playfields. I would suggest he walk around First Hill. Laurelhurst is NOT the first single-family neighborhood to face increased density.
As to the comment that Children’s has demonstrated no regard for the safety of children walking and riding bicycles to school and no regard for the safety of its neighbors is consistent with the installations of traffic lights, sidewalks, pedestrian markings, cautions, etc. Sand Point way has seen a REDUCTION of speed limits since it’s origins as a state highway. The volumes of traffic have ALWAYS been a part of that street. Mr. Barret might recall the activity when the base was in full use.
Children’s directs its traffic to Sand Point Way, which is designed as a high volume arterial. Side street increases are due to the number of neighbors who sold out years ago and built multi family housing.
As to PS Newman’s comment, “…there's a reason the other top 10 pediatric hospitals are sited where they are it is because that’s where THEY were built. A lot Seattle was built where it was built because of reasons that made sense years ago, and time marched on…
They almost built the Locks in 11 other sites, and the motivation was to get Coal from Renton to the waterfront to sell to ships. By the time it was built, ships were using oil. It heads straight out to Shilshole, because Chittenden was concerned about trying to turn log rafts south if the locks had exited at Interbay. How many log rafts use the locks today?
According to HistoryLink.org Essay 3363, Children's Orthopedic Hospital was founded on January 4, 1907. by Anna Herr Clise (1886-1956) and 23 of her affluent Seattle women friends… …They did it to address a health care crisis -- namely the lack of a facility to treat crippled and malnourished children. Anna Clise had become painfully aware of the inadequacy of facilities for treating children when her 5-year-old son, Willis, died of inflammatory rheumatism in 1898. No physician or hospital in Seattle specialized in pediatric care at the time.
The hospital started out in a wing of the Seattle General Hospital. In 1908, the hospital moved to a 12-bed cottage on Queen Anne Hill. In 1911, a 40-bed facility opened on an adjacent site. In 1953 the hospital moved to the Laurelhurst neighborhood of Seattle.
I would point out that while the top ten pediatric hospitals tend to be inner city, many other prestigious pediatric hospitals ARE near neighborhoods they serve. And MANY other prestigious medical facilities can be found in the middle of low density housing and neighborhoods.
Welcome to the northwest, where growth has changed everything… just ask the folks who live adjacent to MICROSOFTS campus, or who used to live in the Cascade Neighborhood… The key difference is mission, and who was there first.
"There is also no precedent for allowing height increases from 37, 50, 70 and 90 feet to 240 feet."
Have you measured how tall the apartments are on Sand Point Way in the 4500 block? They are taller than 37, 50, 70 and possibly 90 Feet… the apartments were built at least 30 some years ago.
“Only three major institutions—Swedish Medical Center/First Hill, Harborview Medical Center and Virginia Mason Medical Center—have been granted 240 foot height limits. They are all located in the First Hill Urban Center Village, an area with highrise and commercial zoning very dissimilar to the low density, single-family neighborhood in which Children’s is located…"
Excuse me, but all three mentioned hospitals are also within blocks of elementary schools, churches and playfields. I would suggest he walk around First Hill. Laurelhurst is NOT the first single-family neighborhood to face increased density.
As to the comment that Children’s has demonstrated no regard for the safety of children walking and riding bicycles to school and no regard for the safety of its neighbors is consistent with the installations of traffic lights, sidewalks, pedestrian markings, cautions, etc. Sand Point way has seen a REDUCTION of speed limits since it’s origins as a state highway. The volumes of traffic have ALWAYS been a part of that street. Mr. Barret might recall the activity when the base was in full use.
Children’s directs its traffic to Sand Point Way, which is designed as a high volume arterial. Side street increases are due to the number of neighbors who sold out years ago and built multi family housing.
As to PS Newman’s comment, “…there's a reason the other top 10 pediatric hospitals are sited where they are it is because that’s where THEY were built. A lot Seattle was built where it was built because of reasons that made sense years ago, and time marched on…
They almost built the Locks in 11 other sites, and the motivation was to get Coal from Renton to the waterfront to sell to ships. By the time it was built, ships were using oil. It heads straight out to Shilshole, because Chittenden was concerned about trying to turn log rafts south if the locks had exited at Interbay. How many log rafts use the locks today?
According to HistoryLink.org Essay 3363, Children's Orthopedic Hospital was founded on January 4, 1907. by Anna Herr Clise (1886-1956) and 23 of her affluent Seattle women friends… …They did it to address a health care crisis -- namely the lack of a facility to treat crippled and malnourished children. Anna Clise had become painfully aware of the inadequacy of facilities for treating children when her 5-year-old son, Willis, died of inflammatory rheumatism in 1898. No physician or hospital in Seattle specialized in pediatric care at the time.
The hospital started out in a wing of the Seattle General Hospital. In 1908, the hospital moved to a 12-bed cottage on Queen Anne Hill. In 1911, a 40-bed facility opened on an adjacent site. In 1953 the hospital moved to the Laurelhurst neighborhood of Seattle.
I would point out that while the top ten pediatric hospitals tend to be inner city, many other prestigious pediatric hospitals ARE near neighborhoods they serve. And MANY other prestigious medical facilities can be found in the middle of low density housing and neighborhoods.
Welcome to the northwest, where growth has changed everything… just ask the folks who live adjacent to MICROSOFTS campus, or who used to live in the Cascade Neighborhood… The key difference is mission, and who was there first.
Chicken Little Laurelhurst and the Great Nearby
Report a violationPosted by: Stuka on Sep 18, 2007 11:09 AM
Report a violationPosted by: Stuka on Sep 18, 2007 11:09 AM
I've gotta assume that the people of Laurelhurst are mainly good people. But their collective actions manifest themselves as a kind of corporate Chicken Little.
First, we were all going to die of light pollution (even in Kirkland) because of lighted fields at Magnuson Park. Then the sound of helicopters delivering dying children in the dead of night was too much for this sensitive community to bear. Now a tall building is apparently going to destroy this haven for the paranoid and distressed. Would the Chicken Littles prefer that Children's pursued sprawling horizontal growth instead? Frankly, none of these horrible effects amount to not much more than a hill of beans. Yet, we'll likely see hysterics, lawyers, lobbyists, and the scouring of every rule, law, and regulation that might remotely apply to justify doing the wrong thing. In most parts of the world they'd call this stupid and evil. Here, we call it the Seattle process. I've never been a fan of eminent domain, but in this case I'd be in favor of razing about hundred acres of Laurelhurst and replacing it with a garbage dump. Then, in public appearance at least, the place would have a lot more heart.
Anna Clise found a way to do good, not a way to prevent it. She wasn't blinded by "light pollution" from kids playing, she wouldn't have minded the sound of a helicopter transporting her dying son to Children's, and she is smiling from beyond the grave knowing that Children's is reaching towards the stars with its expansion.
Imagine if the good people of Laurelhurst when looking up at the new building thought "What a miracle! I'm lucky to live near this newly heightened institution of compassion, now caring for hundreds of additional kids. I'm thankful it's nearby, and part of my Great Nearby!"
First, we were all going to die of light pollution (even in Kirkland) because of lighted fields at Magnuson Park. Then the sound of helicopters delivering dying children in the dead of night was too much for this sensitive community to bear. Now a tall building is apparently going to destroy this haven for the paranoid and distressed. Would the Chicken Littles prefer that Children's pursued sprawling horizontal growth instead? Frankly, none of these horrible effects amount to not much more than a hill of beans. Yet, we'll likely see hysterics, lawyers, lobbyists, and the scouring of every rule, law, and regulation that might remotely apply to justify doing the wrong thing. In most parts of the world they'd call this stupid and evil. Here, we call it the Seattle process. I've never been a fan of eminent domain, but in this case I'd be in favor of razing about hundred acres of Laurelhurst and replacing it with a garbage dump. Then, in public appearance at least, the place would have a lot more heart.
Anna Clise found a way to do good, not a way to prevent it. She wasn't blinded by "light pollution" from kids playing, she wouldn't have minded the sound of a helicopter transporting her dying son to Children's, and she is smiling from beyond the grave knowing that Children's is reaching towards the stars with its expansion.
Imagine if the good people of Laurelhurst when looking up at the new building thought "What a miracle! I'm lucky to live near this newly heightened institution of compassion, now caring for hundreds of additional kids. I'm thankful it's nearby, and part of my Great Nearby!"
The law of the hole...
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Sep 19, 2007 8:23 AM
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Sep 19, 2007 8:23 AM
The Laurelhurst community needs to remember that when you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is...QUIT DIGGING!At the end of the day, after all the discussion is over, and net, net, net...the efforts of Laurelhurst residents and their apologists has left them both in a worse position than before and, what's even more disasterous, looking worse than before.
You know the old saying, "You can't fight City Hall?" Well, here's a corollary: You don't dare fight sick kids. Simply from a PR standpoint, that's what it looks like Laurelhurst is doing.
How stupid is it to, at one time, fight tooth and nail against a helicopter pad at Children's arguing that it's unsafe, and then in a horrible PR stunt to then fly a helicopter not just over the Laurelhurst community, but over a hospital filled with sick kids? Where's your concern for safety?
With all due respect to Peter Newman, his arguments against siting ignore the reality that Children's is where it is, has been there for a very long time, and is not about to move. Why should it, and where could it? And citing what happens in Philadelphia or any other city isn't persuasive. I'd rather have Children's here than anything in Philadelphia at any time. Face the historic realities.
But it's Rick Barrett's "lawyering up" that takes the cake. Talk about your blunt object! Let's deny sick kids both the immediate care and world-class research facility Children's is today and needs to expand tomorrow in order to retain that status all so Laurelhurst can continue as an enclave for the rich and powerful (that's how it's perceived - perception is reality) and a neighborhood that while not a gated community in fact, acts like one and has that mentality.
Zoning ordinances and height restrictions are subject to variances all the time; they're not on a level with the Ten Commandments, the Bill of Rights, or even King County's 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. Not far from where I live, Evergreen Hospital is nearing completion of a pretty tall expansion that I'm guessing exceeds 240-feet (I tried to find out how tall it was to no avail). Admittedly, Evergreen isn't a stand-alone in a residential neighborhood, but it sure is visible from one. My take? Greater availability of and access to healthcare for a growing community; instead of cursing the darkeness of its height, I see it as not just a lit candle, but a bright beacon of light illuminating how my community welcomes and embraces having such a fine facility within its midst.
Given both the nature of the responses in support of Children's and its expansion plans and the very broad diversity of pro-Children's respondents - left, right, center, we don't agree on much, but this one is hands down and a slam dunk - Laurelhurst decision makers need to read the very large and very clear handwriting on the wall and change strategies.
Instead of complaining, start cooperating...or at least LOOK like you're cooperating. Embrace Children's as the gem in your community that it is. Welcome its growth and increased ability to serve not just the region and PNW as a whole, but also the sick kids in your own neighborhood. Recognize the reality that almost every neighborhood deals with some form of change and development that seems to break existing rules and change established patterns.
Accept that Children's will grow beyond your comfort level, so work to get a problem-solving, win-win-win place at the table instead of having yourselves and your neighborhood tagged as being against sick kids...more than you are already.
You may not like it - you may even consider it wrong or unjust - but unless you do, at the rate things are going, your collective eye will just get blacker and blacker, and the end result will be even less to your liking.
The Piper
RE: The law of the hole...
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 19, 2007 10:14 AM
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 19, 2007 10:14 AM
My last thoughts on the subject and then I shut up.
The Piper is exactly right about many things. The PR stunt, the reflexive response to mercy flights, the fact that neighborhoods change over time. I'm not against Children's, good health care or growth. What I am for is good neighborhood planning. And good neighbors. Children's has been less than forthcoming with their plans and their plans do not seem to take into account the fact that they co-exist in a low/mid density community.
As for looking to other communities as a guide, I think to do otherwise smacks of provincialism. If you won't look at Philadelphia look to Portland, where Doernbecher Children's Hospital is on the OHSU campus. Actually OHSU moved their facility in 1926 to adjoin Doernbecher. They were originally downtown. Also at that location is the Veteran's Hospital. Medical institutions, or at least some of them, recognize that being near other facilities has many practical benefits.
If I may also site a personal example: My wife does a lot of work in Houston at University of Texas and M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Both located at Texas Medical Center. As are the following:
Harris County Hospital District, Ben Taub General Hospital, Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital, Quentin Mease Community Hospital, The Houston Hospice and Palliative Care Systems, Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital, The Methodist Hospital, St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, Shriners Hospitals for Children, Houston, Texas Children's Hospital, TIRR (The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Houston, City of Houston Department of Health and Human Services, Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center, Harris County Medical Society, Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services, Houston Academy of Medicine, Houston Academy of Medicine - Texas Medical Center Library, The Institute for Religion and Health, Joseph A. Jachimczyk Forensic Center - Office of the Medical Examiner of Harris County, LifeGift Organ Donation Center John P. McGovern Museum of Health and Medical Science, YMCA Child Care Center in the Texas Medical Center.
If you don't think having that kind of medical horse-power assembled in one place doesn't make a difference then nothing else I can say will convince you. I can tell you personally that the kinds of personal, academic and logistical connections that are made when you have a community of interest does make a difference. If Children's is to get to the next level of excellence then it will need to be more than an isolated facility located by itself in a residential neighborhood with mediocre public access and little physical connection to other medical institutions. The Piper and others may think this is a matter of the "Old Seattle Process" vs. "progress and growth." It isn't. Quite the contrary. It's about "Our Seattle Institutions are just fine, they know best" vs. "Let's embrace other ways of thinking, borrow from other communities and build a better city."
Children's has just outgrown it's home. And when a child grows up, it usually leaves home to start a new home and a new life. Time to leave the nest.
Peter
The Piper is exactly right about many things. The PR stunt, the reflexive response to mercy flights, the fact that neighborhoods change over time. I'm not against Children's, good health care or growth. What I am for is good neighborhood planning. And good neighbors. Children's has been less than forthcoming with their plans and their plans do not seem to take into account the fact that they co-exist in a low/mid density community.
As for looking to other communities as a guide, I think to do otherwise smacks of provincialism. If you won't look at Philadelphia look to Portland, where Doernbecher Children's Hospital is on the OHSU campus. Actually OHSU moved their facility in 1926 to adjoin Doernbecher. They were originally downtown. Also at that location is the Veteran's Hospital. Medical institutions, or at least some of them, recognize that being near other facilities has many practical benefits.
If I may also site a personal example: My wife does a lot of work in Houston at University of Texas and M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Both located at Texas Medical Center. As are the following:
Harris County Hospital District, Ben Taub General Hospital, Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital, Quentin Mease Community Hospital, The Houston Hospice and Palliative Care Systems, Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital, The Methodist Hospital, St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, Shriners Hospitals for Children, Houston, Texas Children's Hospital, TIRR (The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Houston, City of Houston Department of Health and Human Services, Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center, Harris County Medical Society, Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services, Houston Academy of Medicine, Houston Academy of Medicine - Texas Medical Center Library, The Institute for Religion and Health, Joseph A. Jachimczyk Forensic Center - Office of the Medical Examiner of Harris County, LifeGift Organ Donation Center John P. McGovern Museum of Health and Medical Science, YMCA Child Care Center in the Texas Medical Center.
If you don't think having that kind of medical horse-power assembled in one place doesn't make a difference then nothing else I can say will convince you. I can tell you personally that the kinds of personal, academic and logistical connections that are made when you have a community of interest does make a difference. If Children's is to get to the next level of excellence then it will need to be more than an isolated facility located by itself in a residential neighborhood with mediocre public access and little physical connection to other medical institutions. The Piper and others may think this is a matter of the "Old Seattle Process" vs. "progress and growth." It isn't. Quite the contrary. It's about "Our Seattle Institutions are just fine, they know best" vs. "Let's embrace other ways of thinking, borrow from other communities and build a better city."
Children's has just outgrown it's home. And when a child grows up, it usually leaves home to start a new home and a new life. Time to leave the nest.
Peter
It's not "There goes the neighborhood", it's "There goes the imagination."
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 19, 2007 8:20 PM
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 19, 2007 8:20 PM
My last thoughts on the subject and then I shut up.
The Piper is exactly right about many things. The PR stunt, the reflexive response to mercy flights, the fact that neighborhoods change over time. I'm not against Children's, good health care or growth. What I am for is good neighborhood planning. And good neighbors. Children's has been less than forthcoming with their plans and their plans do not seem to take into account the fact that they co-exist in a low/mid density community.
As for looking to other communities as a guide, I think to do otherwise smacks of provincialism. If you won't look at Philadelphia look to Portland, where Doernbecher Children's Hospital is on the OHSU campus. Actually OHSU moved their facility in 1926 to adjoin Doernbecher. They were originally downtown. Also at that location is the Veteran's Hospital. Medical institutions, or at least some of them, recognize that being near other facilities has many practical benefits.
If I may also site a personal example: My wife does a lot of work in Houston at University of Texas and M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Both located at Texas Medical Center. As are the following:
Harris County Hospital District, Ben Taub General Hospital, Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital, Quentin Mease Community Hospital, The Houston Hospice and Palliative Care Systems, Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital, The Methodist Hospital, St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, Shriners Hospitals for Children, Houston, Texas Children's Hospital, TIRR (The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Houston, City of Houston Department of Health and Human Services, Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center, Harris County Medical Society, Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services, Houston Academy of Medicine, Houston Academy of Medicine - Texas Medical Center Library, The Institute for Religion and Health, Joseph A. Jachimczyk Forensic Center - Office of the Medical Examiner of Harris County, LifeGift Organ Donation Center John P. McGovern Museum of Health and Medical Science, YMCA Child Care Center in the Texas Medical Center.
If you don't think having that kind of medical horse-power assembled in one place doesn't make a difference then nothing else I can say will convince you. I can tell you personally that the kinds of personal, academic and logistical connections that are made when you have a community of interest does make a difference. If Children's is to get to the next level of excellence then it will need to be more than an isolated facility located by itself in a residential neighborhood with mediocre public access and little physical connection to other medical institutions. The Piper and others may think this is a matter of the "Old Seattle Process" vs. "progress and growth." It isn't. Quite the contrary. It's about "Our Seattle Institutions are just fine, they know best" vs. "Let's embrace other ways of thinking, borrow from other communities and build a better city."
Children's has just outgrown it's home. And when a child grows up, it usually leaves home to start a new home and a new life. Time to leave the nest.
Peter
The Piper is exactly right about many things. The PR stunt, the reflexive response to mercy flights, the fact that neighborhoods change over time. I'm not against Children's, good health care or growth. What I am for is good neighborhood planning. And good neighbors. Children's has been less than forthcoming with their plans and their plans do not seem to take into account the fact that they co-exist in a low/mid density community.
As for looking to other communities as a guide, I think to do otherwise smacks of provincialism. If you won't look at Philadelphia look to Portland, where Doernbecher Children's Hospital is on the OHSU campus. Actually OHSU moved their facility in 1926 to adjoin Doernbecher. They were originally downtown. Also at that location is the Veteran's Hospital. Medical institutions, or at least some of them, recognize that being near other facilities has many practical benefits.
If I may also site a personal example: My wife does a lot of work in Houston at University of Texas and M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Both located at Texas Medical Center. As are the following:
Harris County Hospital District, Ben Taub General Hospital, Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital, Quentin Mease Community Hospital, The Houston Hospice and Palliative Care Systems, Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital, The Methodist Hospital, St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, Shriners Hospitals for Children, Houston, Texas Children's Hospital, TIRR (The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research), Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Houston, City of Houston Department of Health and Human Services, Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center, Harris County Medical Society, Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services, Houston Academy of Medicine, Houston Academy of Medicine - Texas Medical Center Library, The Institute for Religion and Health, Joseph A. Jachimczyk Forensic Center - Office of the Medical Examiner of Harris County, LifeGift Organ Donation Center John P. McGovern Museum of Health and Medical Science, YMCA Child Care Center in the Texas Medical Center.
If you don't think having that kind of medical horse-power assembled in one place doesn't make a difference then nothing else I can say will convince you. I can tell you personally that the kinds of personal, academic and logistical connections that are made when you have a community of interest does make a difference. If Children's is to get to the next level of excellence then it will need to be more than an isolated facility located by itself in a residential neighborhood with mediocre public access and little physical connection to other medical institutions. The Piper and others may think this is a matter of the "Old Seattle Process" vs. "progress and growth." It isn't. Quite the contrary. It's about "Our Seattle Institutions are just fine, they know best" vs. "Let's embrace other ways of thinking, borrow from other communities and build a better city."
Children's has just outgrown it's home. And when a child grows up, it usually leaves home to start a new home and a new life. Time to leave the nest.
Peter
RE: It's not "There goes the neighborhood", it's "There goes the imagination."
Report a violationPosted by: Ebenezer on Sep 20, 2007 3:02 PM
Report a violationPosted by: Ebenezer on Sep 20, 2007 3:02 PM
Peter --
You make a great point. Of all the major industry clusters, life sciences businesses and organizations tend to be located the closest together, as collaboration is critical to success. I remember seeing a map of San Diego's life sciences cluster businesses and being astonished at how tightly the key businesses were huddled next to each other.
Some people tend to think that major hospitals like Seattle Children's are all the same in the quality of care they provide. As illustrated in Atul Gawande's Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance, the success rates for treating diseases such as cystic fibrosis vary widely across the U.S. A big factor in quality of care is having collaboration and competition between doctors and facilities. I believe the care at Children's will get better if they're in the core of the life sciences area, not separate from it.
You make a great point. Of all the major industry clusters, life sciences businesses and organizations tend to be located the closest together, as collaboration is critical to success. I remember seeing a map of San Diego's life sciences cluster businesses and being astonished at how tightly the key businesses were huddled next to each other.
Some people tend to think that major hospitals like Seattle Children's are all the same in the quality of care they provide. As illustrated in Atul Gawande's Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance, the success rates for treating diseases such as cystic fibrosis vary widely across the U.S. A big factor in quality of care is having collaboration and competition between doctors and facilities. I believe the care at Children's will get better if they're in the core of the life sciences area, not separate from it.
Not A Logical Place for Children's
Report a violationPosted by: Ebenezer on Sep 20, 2007 2:41 PM
Report a violationPosted by: Ebenezer on Sep 20, 2007 2:41 PM
I have to admit that when I first heard this story, I was angry at Laurelhurst for their NIMBYism. But thinking about it, there are certain places where a 24-story tower should go, where the transportation infrastructure can handle it. That isn't Laurelhurst.
Children's should be close to other medical and research facilities, and where people aren't forced to drive and create more congestion. Why not have it next to the UW Medical Center, South Lake Union, Uptown near the Gates Foundation, or on Pill Hill? Many pediatric doctors work both a Children's and another hospital - it makes more sense to have them close by, where they can easily go from one to another, and where Children's researchers can easily confer with colleagues in the life sciences community. There's a reason why life sciences facilities are located very close together - because it's easier to collaborate that way and improve treatments.
People coming in via airplane or train could avoid renting a car and driving in an unfamilar city, and be able to stay in a hotel close to where their child is being treated. It'd makes so much more sense than expanding outside of Seattle's core.
Children's should be close to other medical and research facilities, and where people aren't forced to drive and create more congestion. Why not have it next to the UW Medical Center, South Lake Union, Uptown near the Gates Foundation, or on Pill Hill? Many pediatric doctors work both a Children's and another hospital - it makes more sense to have them close by, where they can easily go from one to another, and where Children's researchers can easily confer with colleagues in the life sciences community. There's a reason why life sciences facilities are located very close together - because it's easier to collaborate that way and improve treatments.
People coming in via airplane or train could avoid renting a car and driving in an unfamilar city, and be able to stay in a hotel close to where their child is being treated. It'd makes so much more sense than expanding outside of Seattle's core.
RE: Not A Logical Place for Children's
Report a violationPosted by: sean98125 on Sep 21, 2007 11:39 AM
Report a violationPosted by: sean98125 on Sep 21, 2007 11:39 AM
The cost of building a brand new facility on land that would need to be purchased on First Hill or South Lake Union is prohibitive for a facility that size. That would take up hundreds of millions of dollars in capital that would not be available for purchasing equipment that could be used to treat patients. It's a waste of money.
I thought I'd finally shut up... but...
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 20, 2007 8:21 PM
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 20, 2007 8:21 PM
If anyone thinks all the people in Laurelhurst are NIMBYs let me propose the following:
Children be allowed to build the facility they desire.
Now consider the tract of land between Children's and the University of Washington Medical Center. It's parking lot (read: last century's land-fill.) If it is possible to build on that swamp, and I'm not sure it is, turn the whole stretch into a medical magnet. Funnel all the growth that Swedish, the UW, Hutch, etc. have into that area. Light rail will be serving the area. It's close to 520/I-5. Make the North-of-Montlake/Southeast Laurelhurst area a full medical center. In that context, Children's location and expansion makes perfect sense.
Yes, we'll loose parking but that's last century's news. We might have to relocate the IMA but that's a small price. I wouldn't even overlook the possibility that Hec-Ed and Husky stadium would have to be relocated. But how many days a year are those facilities used? In comparison to building a world-class medical community the trade-off is trivial.
Whatchalallthink?
Children be allowed to build the facility they desire.
Now consider the tract of land between Children's and the University of Washington Medical Center. It's parking lot (read: last century's land-fill.) If it is possible to build on that swamp, and I'm not sure it is, turn the whole stretch into a medical magnet. Funnel all the growth that Swedish, the UW, Hutch, etc. have into that area. Light rail will be serving the area. It's close to 520/I-5. Make the North-of-Montlake/Southeast Laurelhurst area a full medical center. In that context, Children's location and expansion makes perfect sense.
Yes, we'll loose parking but that's last century's news. We might have to relocate the IMA but that's a small price. I wouldn't even overlook the possibility that Hec-Ed and Husky stadium would have to be relocated. But how many days a year are those facilities used? In comparison to building a world-class medical community the trade-off is trivial.
Whatchalallthink?
PS...
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 20, 2007 8:25 PM
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 20, 2007 8:25 PM
Let the Huskys play in Safeco field. Hey, it's on Saturday. The Seahawks play on Sunday.
Basketball? I think we will soon have a place where the UW team can play any time they want.
Peter
Basketball? I think we will soon have a place where the UW team can play any time they want.
Peter
RE: PS...
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Sep 21, 2007 8:37 AM
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Sep 21, 2007 8:37 AM
Huskies...Safeco Field?Basketball...Adieu, Sonics; don't let several hundred thousand slamming doors hit you in the collective butt as you leave town. But Key Arena wouldn't work for Husky basketball, which, like Husky football, should stay on the Husky campus.
Remember...Husky stadium underwent substantial improvement not all that long ago, and it's still about the most picturesque venue for college football in the Pac-10, if not the country.
Suggesting the demolition of Husky Stadium and Hec Ed is throwing the baby out with the bath water; you think you got PR troubles now, just wait until the Tyee Club weighs in on that proposal.
BTW...I graduated from Western, so I wouldn't have a personal dog in that fight.
The Piper
Sorry, I meant...
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 21, 2007 4:17 PM
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 21, 2007 4:17 PM
Seahawk's stadium. And of course you're right, it would never fly. But we'd have the most picturesque venue for a medical center in the country.
Brilliant Idea... But That IS Why Childrens is where it is...
Report a violationPosted by: hacknflack on Sep 25, 2007 12:19 PM
Report a violationPosted by: hacknflack on Sep 25, 2007 12:19 PM
Infrastructure is there. It is ALREADY built. Close enough to work, but not located atop a potentially toxic site, adjacent to Loud sports facilities... The list you cite is lovely... but with a little time I could probably create a longer list of needed medical care in awkward places... and Childrens Placement IS cited far closer than say, HARBORVIEW is to the UW... Shall we move Harborview NEXT?
Bridge traffic is HORRIBLE... Perhaps we should move the Lock, too? Originally, it was to cut through by Dearborn... that is why that ravine exsists!!! A simple move of the hill at Leschi would do the trick nicely.
Last I heard, The UW still harvest the Methane off the Dump/Mountlake Lot and uses it to heat the dryers at the IMA... Not the best mix for possible leakage up to medical facilities. Not to mention you now engage the MOUNTLAKE community and THEIR NIMBY Lawyers.
Let me get the popcorn -- that would be quite the show.
Bridge traffic is HORRIBLE... Perhaps we should move the Lock, too? Originally, it was to cut through by Dearborn... that is why that ravine exsists!!! A simple move of the hill at Leschi would do the trick nicely.
Last I heard, The UW still harvest the Methane off the Dump/Mountlake Lot and uses it to heat the dryers at the IMA... Not the best mix for possible leakage up to medical facilities. Not to mention you now engage the MOUNTLAKE community and THEIR NIMBY Lawyers.
Let me get the popcorn -- that would be quite the show.
Past Helicopter issue
Report a violationPosted by: nellyr on Oct 15, 2007 6:43 PM
Report a violationPosted by: nellyr on Oct 15, 2007 6:43 PM
It's not fair or even remotely accurate to characterize people who live in Laurelhurst as "against the landing of helicopters at Children's." For those of you who don't know, one of the issues surrounding Children's original application to land helicopters at the hospital itself was that there were major concerns about landing aircraft in that particular zone, mostly because of some squirrelly winds in the area. Aviation experts spoke to this; it was a serious safety concern. So please, people, rather than put down Laurelhurst-area residents as "uncaring" I wish you would consider that there are reasonable, thoughtful people living here. At the same time, know that we value the work done at Children's. It's safe to say the vast majority of us have personally known a child who was treated at Children's, so we are keenly aware of the good they do for everyone on the planet.
As for the expansion controversy, this is NOT about being against treating ill children! It is about expecting a major institution to provide design alternatives for their proposal ( just as any business would need to do given the scope of this project), and to work cooperatively with the surrounding communities (Laurelhurst AND others). It's about being good neighbors in a residential area. It's about scale and scope and degree. Three 16-story towers is not an easy thing to think about having constructed a block from your 2-story 1940's home, the local public elementary school, and community center and park. The recent Children's-sponsored telemarketing survey calls this "adding to the iconic skyline of Seattle" but how anyone in their right mind would buy that, I don't know! Laurelhurst is not located in Belltown! So to those of you who gripe about Laurelhurst and think we're a bunch of snobs, please remember, this neighborhood is filled with teachers, small business owners, retirees, blue collar workers, you name it. Normal people live here. And of the wealthy ones who reside here, lemme tell ya, you can't find a kinder, more down-to-earth and generous bunch than they. Bottom line is, we all care about the neighborhood and just want some say and input into what goes on around here.
As for the expansion controversy, this is NOT about being against treating ill children! It is about expecting a major institution to provide design alternatives for their proposal ( just as any business would need to do given the scope of this project), and to work cooperatively with the surrounding communities (Laurelhurst AND others). It's about being good neighbors in a residential area. It's about scale and scope and degree. Three 16-story towers is not an easy thing to think about having constructed a block from your 2-story 1940's home, the local public elementary school, and community center and park. The recent Children's-sponsored telemarketing survey calls this "adding to the iconic skyline of Seattle" but how anyone in their right mind would buy that, I don't know! Laurelhurst is not located in Belltown! So to those of you who gripe about Laurelhurst and think we're a bunch of snobs, please remember, this neighborhood is filled with teachers, small business owners, retirees, blue collar workers, you name it. Normal people live here. And of the wealthy ones who reside here, lemme tell ya, you can't find a kinder, more down-to-earth and generous bunch than they. Bottom line is, we all care about the neighborhood and just want some say and input into what goes on around here.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Report a violationPosted by: psnewman on Sep 17, 2007 8:14 AM