This week, Dan Bertolet published a great post titled simply 'McNeighborhood,' over at Publicola. The post discusses a project called The Corydon Apartments/Merril Gardens, located a few blocks north of University Village. Bertolet characterizes the project (which is pretty giant at two city blocks long) as a McNeighborhood and has this to say about its design:
"The overall effect is, well, just fine, I guess. Pleasant, though not inspiring. Sort of like the Pottery Barn aesthetic writ large—it looks good on a superficial level, but the soul is missing."
I read the post with interest, then I read the comments. Many are quite positive. Commenter Cook says: "The building is actually quite nice compared to what could have gone in there." Commenter Gomez said the design criticism has weight but the project is better than what was on site before -- nothing.
Commenter giffy says: "I'd say this is exactly the kind of development we need more of in this city. And
Taken together, I think the post and comments pose an interesting question: just how much should we require of design? Should this project be commended for being better than what previously existed or should it be penalized (in our opinion) for not being as good as it could be?
In the interest of total disclosure, I'll tell you that I grew up in this neighborhood and now live in it, so I've watched this site change and develop over a period of many, many years. Yes, the Corydon/Merrill Gardens is a big, big development for the area. But at street level, it is less jarring than a number of other nearby projects. Additionally, the storefronts are filling up with (mostly) local, user friendly shops. A liquor store, a clothing boutique, a Peet's Coffee and a Japanese restaurant.
The new project is also a lot better than the burned out husk of an Italian restaurant that used to be there (Ciao Bella, though in all fairness, the space wasn't a husk for too long and was renovated following the fire in 2003).
So here's my question: just how ugly is this building? Is it an example of poor design? Or is it pretty darn good for the area it is in. What do you think? To see more pictures, click on the link to Bertolet's post above or click on the link to Corydon.
I've been writing a lot about Vancouver's density recently, in comparison to Seattle's so I know I should move onto another topic. And I promise I will next time. But I just can't resist posting these pictures of my sister's neighborhood, Kerrisdale.
Kerrisdale is about a 15-minute drive away from downtown and a 10-minute drive away from the University of British Columbia. It is a sweet neighborhood, filled with restaurants and shops (but only one bar that I could find). However, what's unique about it isn't the composition of retail. It's the composition of housing types within a two-block radius. I'll let the pictures speak for themselves:
This neighborhood has nearly every type of housing within two blocks, all mish-mashed up together. That McMansion above? It's located across the street from the first picture of row-houses. The mixing of housing types doesn't feel crowded; it feels like a nice, traditional neighborhood. It's a real urban village.
Seattle has neighborhoods that exemplify this mixed-use concept just as well. Capitol Hill, Lower Queen Anne, Ballard to some degree. But for some reason, the way Kerrisdale did it just felt smoother. Maybe it's primarily an architectural issue? But it feels to an outsider like the apartment building is meant to be located next to a large, single-family house.
To all my density nerds out there, what do you think is Seattle's best example of density that meshes well? It is Capitol Hill or Lower Queen Anne? Any particular street or corridor that really stands out? A really good recent example, I find, is NK Architect's latest project on Lower Queen Anne called Fourth and Roy. The DJC wrote about it last month here. Basically, the team designed it to consciously fit in with the neighborhood.
In our story, Brandon Nicholson, a principal at NK, said he tries to picture a four-plex craftsman knockoff on the parcel and does not think it would fit in with the neighborhood's character. “In a neighborhood filled with old brick buildings, it might be much more modern in aesthetics but in materials and scale, it's appropriate for the context of Lower Queen Anne.”
I'm back in Seattle and the haziness of the Globe Conference (so many conference sessions on giant, world changing ideas!) is finally lifting from my head.
However, I must return to a theme I explored last week in this post about whether Vancouver or Seattle is greener. In that post's comments, Mhays said Seattle needs to encourage density to really be the greenest it can be. "We’re doing a good job in many ways, but way behind Vancouver," he said.
After spending some time there and paying particular attention to the density issue, I couldn't agree more. Sure, Vancouver has its problems. In one session at Globe, Peter Busby explored one of these saying people in Vancouver that live near the center of the city have lower greenhouse gas emissions than those who live further out. To counter this, he proposes creating density nodes throughout the rest of the city that would allow people to live, work and play in their neighborhoods rather than having to go downtown. (More on Vancouver's stance on density here).
But when you look at the variety of housing types in Vancouver's downtown, it just blows Seattle out of the park. Basically, in Seattle, you can live downtown if you want to - or can afford - a condo. In Vancouver however, you don't have to be confined to a condo to live downtown. They have - gasp! - row houses!
Here are a few images of downtown housing types. They are just a small tidbit of the many varieties of styles I saw:
The pictures don't show the difference as clearly as you would see with your own eyes. But basically, in parts of Vancouver's downtown, you can live in units that are much more like townhouses than they are condos. This row-housing type is shown in the first image and last image. If you look closely, you can also see this type of housing at the base of the second image.
The variety of housing types is sure to attract different kind of people. Not everyone wants to live downtown in a condo... but if you could live downtown in something resembling a townhouse with a bit more private space, suddenly you attract a whole other market.
So... why can't Seattle do this? Why can't we bring other housing types downtown? What stops us from having that variety? And is there anything we could do now to encourage it?
Busby had an interesting observation. As cities grow, he said, many new inhabitants will be immigrants from Africa and other areas that are already used to living densely. Generally, he said they are used to small living areas and to lots of walking. We can take advantage of this influx, he said, to "change the pattern of organization" in cities.
Now, I don't mean to knock Seattle. We have a great city that is moving forward on a number of fronts. But as far as diversifying housing use in downtown... it seems like the same old same old. (And by diversifying, by the way, I mean doing so for different price points as well as in unit styles).
Even in Vancouver, these things aren't easy. But the important thing is to keep improving. Mayor Gregor Robertson said, "There's angst about the transition here and potential political disaster associated with that but in Vancouver, we see huge opportunities for change."
P.S. Nick Christensen of OregonLive.com has an interesting article from January on a similar topic here.
Last week, I attended a Town Hall lecture by David Owen, a columnist at the New Yorker and author of the book 'Green Metropolis.'
Owen spoke about his own experience of living in both Manhattan and in the countryside, and about which is greener (cities because people have everything they need at their fingertips).
But he also said something striking: that big, tall buildings in cities are actually the greenest projects we
For example, Owen discussed Sprint's (now Sprint Nextel) headquarters outside of Kansas City, Mo. The corporate campus, he said, consists of 15,000 employees spread among a 50 building low-rise campus. The space also has 15 parking lots and an underground parking garage, providing one parking space per worker because everyone has to drive to the headquarters in the middle of nowhere. Though the campus was planned before LEED came out, one of the buildings at the site ended up receiving LEED certification. The space also preserves 200 acres of property as open space. How is this a greener situation, he asked, then simply letting the farmland be that had previously existed?
He argued that setting up a business in a location that requires car travel is not green, even if the buildings are certified as such.
Should buildings in the middle of nowhere receive LEED certification? And should organizations that are about sustainability - like the Rocky Mountain Institute and its headquarters in Snowmass, Colo. - be held to a higher level of accountability and locate in a dense area? Or is there value to having great environmentally friendly buildings in the wilderness?
I suppose it comes down to what you prioritize and what you think the future of cities and urban planning is.
In this economy as well, it's worth noting that cities across the nation have vacant high-rise buildings that currently are not at capacity, and are likely wasting large amounts of energy.
What do you think? Is Owen right on or way off base? If Owen is right - and the greenest project is in a city be it LEED certified or not is a high-rise - than should LEED reflect this in its rating system and how so?
Incidentally, his book also argues that New York City is the greenest city in the world. That seemed to touch an interesting nerve at Portland's The Environmental Blog here.
In today's edition of The Seattle Times, Eric Pryne examines how the recession is affecting Seattle's premier Green Lake neighborhood. For the most part, the article focuses on apartment and condo complexes. But it also mentions that Pryde Johnson's LEED platinum Ashworth Cottages is in the process of foreclosure.
According to the article, only two of the 20 homes have sold though it also mentions that another four of the houses are in various stages of possible sale.
Of course, the obvious reason for the project's current state is the economy. But
First, some background: Ashworth Cottages opened to a lot of media attention. They were the first LEED platinum residential project in the state (seventh in the country), and thus received a press conference attended by Mayor Greg Nickels. The 20 cottages are on a lot originally zoned for six houses. To get it rezoned for 20, Pryde Johnson waited an extra 6 months, and had to get it approved by Seattle City Council. I wrote an article about the project's grand opening. It's available here.
At the time, Curt Pryde and Fawn Johnson said they were confident Seattle buyers would appreciate the quality and health benefits of the platinum projects and pay between $739,000 and $950,000 for the ultimate green two-to- four-bedroom home. Apparently, that has not been the case.
I live on the other side of Green Lake - and what many people would say is the more expensive and disireable side. Even in this recession, houses around me are for the most part being snapped up. Sure, they might be on the market longer than usual but it seems like they're still selling. Heck, even a gross ex-college party house I toured with rooms that smelled of urine sold for a pretty good price. If Ashworth Cottages were on the other side of the lake, would they have sold? Is it location, location, location?
By the way, you dear readers, have voted Ballard/Fremont the greenest neighborhood in my poll at right, followed by Capitol Hill, followed by Green Lake/ Wallingford. Maybe this project would have done better in a different neighborhood?
Maybe it's a question of what people want for their $750,000. The Ashworth Cottages are very quaint but they don't really have yards (the argument here is that Green Lake is basically a person's yard). At the July 2007 grand opening, they were touted as a model example of what the city should be striving for in density. But could it be that people want more space for their money and don't really want to spend $750k for "the model" of dense living?
Or is it the elephant in the room .... that people just do not put that high a price on green features yet and aren't willing to pay a premium for them?
Was it the recession after all? What do you think the problem was? If you had $750k, is this the house you would spend it on? Comment below and tell me what you're thinking.....
By the way, the project's Web site now says homes begin in the mid-$500s.
Yesterday, the New York Times published an opinion piece by David Brooks called "I Dream of Denver." The piece, based on the late January news on what cities Americans want to live in, calls into question what Americans want from their cities, from density and from their lifestyle.
Reading the piece, I kept thinking about how the descriptions of how people want to
live are quintessentially Seattle culture. One thing Americans want, the article says, is a stuffed garage "filled with skis, kayaks, soccer equipment, hiking boots and boating equipment. These are places you can imagine yourself leading an active outdoor life." If that's not Seattle, I don't know what is. Then again, Seattle was named third on the list of cities Americans would most want to live in.
This sentiment, of people from other cities knowing Seattle and identifying with it, never struck me harder than at the U.S. Green Building Council's 2008 Greenbuild conference in Boston when faced with a trio of reporters from the Eastern half of North America. When I said I was from Seattle, all three of them (two from New York City and one from Toronto, I believe) all sighed and said, "I want to live in Seattle!"
One of the New Yorkers went so far as to say, "Everyone wants to live in Seattle." Which stuck me as funny because from my experience, everyone wants to live in New York. And when going to college in Boston, nobody I spoke with had really ever heard of Seattle.
The reporter went on to say that once people realize they can have an urban lifestyle ... and not live in an apartment, they fall in love.
(Not sure if they also fell in love with this city's must-have-a-car mentality or the lack of a subway but that's a different story.)
The mix of home-life and city-life has always been my favorite thing about Seattle. But the NYT opinion piece points out that urban-living is still an ideal of the young, and I am in that demographic. Even here in Seattle, there seems to be a large amount of baby boomer residents who just want more space, whether it be in another state, on one of the islands or in a more spacious city neighborhood. My mother, for example, recalls the excitement of living in urban Chicago in her youth but now wants nothing more than a remote log cabin in Montana.
Is the desire to live in an urban environment a sentiment of youth? Will we, like our parents prefer to retire in a more remote space? ... or is it generational? Will today's younger generations (meaning Xers, Yers....etc.) still idealize open space and isolation or will we choose density?
What do you think? Comment below or answer my poll at right.
P.S. If you read the NYT article, also check out the comments. They're pretty interesting.
Readers, I'm sorry I haven't posted in a couple days here, but like I mentioned in an earlier post, September is CRAZY. Tuesday, that craziness was exemplified by my calendar, which had me rushing from the Urban Land Institute's launch of the Quality
In case you missed both those events (and the recommendations put out by the Western Climate Initiative to boot) here is a rundown for your viewing pleasure:
The Quality Growth Alliance. Anyone remember Reality Check in April? The huge event that got 250 big-wigs playing with Legos? At that event (DJC story on it here), I spoke with Jim Potter of Kauri Investments who told me it was a great planning exercise as long as the results didn't fade away into the sunset. Well the alliance is the attempt of prominent groups - from the UW's College of Architecture and Urban Planning to NAIOP - to make sure the results stick around and influence future planning policy. More info in my story in today's DJC or at their Web site.
The Panel Discussion. In case you missed this one, it was a lot of fun. Hosted by SMPS, panelists represented various fields of the AEC community (architecture, engineering, construction) and were Eric Anderson of MulvannyG2, Jeffrey Cox of Triad Associates, Rae Anne Rushing of Rushing and Yancy Wright of Sellen Construction Co. Among some of the interesting tidbits:
- Collectively, panelists said sustainable or green design is changing so quickly, that as soon as you read about it, it's old. If you want to know what's going on you need to work to educate yourself. This is true for everyone, and especially for marketers.
- Marketing and public relations professionals, they said, need to be really careful about sounding really stupid. Oftentimes they (and I incidentally) get press releases that virtually make no sense. If you're going to write about green systems or projects, understand it, otherwise you run the risk of major embarrassments (I can't tell you how often I get press releases that tell me a product will get me 10 "Leeds" points).
- Green building doesn't have to be more expensive if you start from the beginning and have the right leaders on board. If you start thinking about integrative design and green systems midway through a project, there's a good chance it's going to be more expensive.
- Everyone needs to be on board with green building, even those who have been in the industry for many years and are hesitant to change the way they work. Panelists said they need all disciplines at an eco-charette and that bringing and open mind really, really helps.
- Definitions aren't clear and because everyone has different definitions.... it's hard to understand what a word, be it 'eco-charette,' 'sustainability' or 'integrative design,' means to a specific person. Define those definitions for your project, or your company.
Western Climate Initiative. And don't forget yesterday's announced recomendations by the Western Climate Initiative for a regional cap and trade system. If you want to learn more about this one, read the Seattle Times or the PI.
That's all for today folks. If I don't thank you enough, thanks for reading!
When talking density in the Pacific Northwest, Seattle is inevitably compared to Vancouver, BC. Heck, all you have to do is drive through both cities and the differences are staggeringly obvious: Seattle has its traditional tiny section of skyscrapers, all of downtown Vancouver IS skyscrapers.
.... And Vancouver is often lauded for its density. I myself have looked at the two cities (to see past posts, look under tag Vancouver BC) and wondered why Seattle can't do some of the density wonders Vancouver can. But a recent sprawl analysis from the Seattle-based think tank Sightline says Vancouver's leadership in smart growth is slipping.
Boiling it down, the report says that in the 1990s, 67 percent of Vancouver's growth was in compact neighborhoods while between 2001 and 2006, compact growth slipped to 56 percent of new urban and suburban development.
To conduct the study, Sightline mapped population density trends in the greater Vancouver area using data from the last four Canadian censuses.
Clark Williams-Derry wrote the report. This is a warning signal, rather than an alarm bell, he said. "Greater Vancouver is still a smart growth leader. But in light of BC's ambitious climate goals and the rising costs of gasoline, the Lower Mainland should redouble its efforts to foster neighborhoods where residents can walk, bike, or use transit to for their daily travel."
Vancouver also has a very nifty Web site totally dedicated to its push for density, which it calls 'EcoDensity'. To see it, go here. To read about the local fight for and against EcoDensity, go here or here.
P.S. Readers: I will be out of town for a few days so if you don't see any new posts, now you know why!!!
If you had ultimate super-human power, how would you design the region you live in to support more people? Would it look like the picture of sprawl directly below or would it look like Vara in Fremont, the project pictured below right? Or would it look like something else?
That was the question on the mind's of the Puget Sound region's top 250 most powerful political, environmental, development, business and nonprofit leaders, who gathered at the University of Washington on April 30 for Reality Check 2008 (for more on this see posts below or my story in Friday's edition of the DJC).
The overall results of Reality Check? Leaders want a region with compact and livable transit-oriented communities that are also beautiful and support the region's quality of life. Easy, right?
... Or is that too much to ask and if so, why? If not, what do you do to create those communities? Bill Krieger of Mithun said it means local politicians will have to reinvent zoning and reinvent the entire process of land use, permitting and transportation..... are any of our politicians quite that brave?
If density is the answer, what's the best example of good density in your city? Or if density is a word you associate with 'nightmare,' why does it have such bad connotations? Where's an example of how density went wrong?
Ed McMahon of the ULI was the keynote speaker. He said our country is doing some really good work on cleaning air, and cleaning water - but our sense of place is slowly being replaced with convenience stores and Wal-Mart's.
"The truth is... the special, unique character (of our towns and cities)... has been in many ways disappearing faster than ever."
"I could drop you in any U.S. city and you couldn't tell where you were because it all looks exactly the same," he said.
If regions plan better and decide what sort of a community and quality of life they want, he said they can keep their character and quality of life. Dense, compact developments are a part of that, he said.
So what do we do? What should the Puget Sound region do? What should the U.S. do? Is there anything to do or is this just a hopeless situation. What would help you build dense communities, or convince you to live in one? Let me know what you think!