posted
09/19/09 02:02 PM
|
updated
09/19/09 03:05 PM
Featured Post! |
Views:
1041
|
Comments :
11
|
News, etc.
Vulcan Pushing Forward with Plans for UW Medicine III
|
Designs?
|
|
|
Rick, I haven't seen the designs but from the comments I think you're missing the main point: the 20' podium. |
|
|
Comment by
joshuadf
5 months ago
|
(
0
votes
)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
RE: Designs?
|
|
| Plans haven't been made publicly available online just yet. The podium height will have an impact on the pedestrian experience (and things like context)...is that your point? | |
|
Comment by
rick.s
5 months ago
|
(
0
votes
)
(
report abuse
)
|
|
Why is the opposition an instance of "circular logic"?
|
|
|
Hi, If it is to occupy the space bounded by 8th and Dexter / Republican and Mercer and it is to be 125', then it does not meet the 85' height restriction as shown on the LUOA map you show in the post. Strictly speaking, then, their reasoning is not circular or flawed. Granted, its immediate surroundings allow for 125', but if a border has been drawn it should be respected since to do otherwise would result in slippery slopes all over the place. |
|
|
Comment by
E.
5 months ago
|
(
0
votes
)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
RE: Why is the opposition an instance of "circular logic"?
|
|
|
My impression is that LUOA's re-zone plan is illustrative and far from the actual zoning boundaries that would ultimately be negotiated and drawn. Their opposition is not due to the building being across the street from their proposed 125' zoning area. You wouldn't call a building of the same height as buildings on the other side of the street "out of context". If these same exact plans were drawn up one block south, do you think UW Medicine III would have LUOA's full support? |
|
|
Comment by
rick.s
5 months ago
|
(
0
votes
)
(
report abuse
)
|
|
RE: Why is the opposition an instance of "circular logic"?
|
|
|
Well, I was just pointing out that the proposed height does not match LUOA's proposed height on the map; thus they have reasons for their opposition. Calling it "circular logic" did not seem a fair evaluation. That is all. If I can hazard a guess, I think the "out of context" comment has more to do with what the future of the Mercer area and the lakeside has in store rather than about the taller buildings to the South. Seems like the "context" that they are trying to set is reduced heights as we get closer to the lakeside. Good idea, I think. I'm moving to the area soon so I am keen on these topics, as you can guess. Thanks for this site. |
|
|
Comment by
E.
5 months ago
|
(
0
votes
)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
Got your facts wrong...
|
|
|
If you look at the map you posted, you will see that LUOA actually proposed 85 foot buildings in that area and there are residential buildings very close to the UW project as well. At this juncture, Seattle DPD has yet to finalize a viable plan for development in SLU therefore any variance with the current zoning of I believe 65 feet is inappropriate and incongruous with the surrounding area. Also... think of what happens to the view of the Space Needle from the SLU park. Is this what Seattle wants for a neighborhood? |
|
|
Comment by
Lorie Groth
5 months ago
|
(
0
votes
)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
yes
|
|
|
Yeah, the pedestrian experience is mainly what I'm talking about. There's also something wrong with "7-story, 125' tall, 200,000 sq. ft.". That doesn't make sense unless they have some reallllly high ceilings planned. Maybe the 7th floor IS a space needle. :) There is a lot of residential in that area, with hopefully more to come, 901 Dexter for example. To me that means there should be good street-engaging retail like at the Neptune (restaurant, deli, etc.) Hidden retail with short hours is one of my pet peeves on UW campus that unfortunately UW SLU's Cafe 815 continues. Does anyone who doesn't work there know there's a coffee and sandwich shop hidden in the middle? Does it make any sense that a restaurant with literally thousands of potential customers living a few blocks away is closed on evenings and weekends? |
|
|
Comment by
joshuadf
5 months ago
|
(
0
votes
)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
RE: yes
|
|
| So do you think 20' is too high for the podium? Street level retail would be a great addition to the next phase of the UW Medicine campus. The Amazon campus might be a good model to follow, depending on how well that works out. Still, getting pedestrians to go that far west on Mercer may be difficult, 2-Way Mercer or not. | |
|
Comment by
rick.s
5 months ago
|
(
0
votes
)
(
report abuse
)
|
|
125' walls
|
|
|
Oh, 20' would be great. But the LUOA post says UW SLU III "would be out of character with the neighborhood with walls 125’ high on all property lines." The high walls is what I don't want because that directs high-altitude wind down to pedestrians--one reason the financial district feels so cold. People argue about a "good" building heights, I think you can probably do up to 5 stories of lot-line podium: Check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearst_Tower_%28New_York_City%2 That's another thing: I'm expecting the SLU Urban Design Framework will have things like FARs and podium heights. This feels like Vulcan is saying "we don't have these requirements yet--let's get this last building approved quick!" That may not be the case at all, for example the architect may be out of the loop on the UDF, but I'd rather Vulcan try hard to follow the draft UDF. |
|
|
Comment by
joshuadf
5 months ago
|
(
0
votes
)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
pedestrians
|
|
| Oh, and on the pedestrians on Mercer thing: I don't know if anyone will walk on Mercer (two way or not), but there is a lot of residential right there: Neptune (and the condos up the hill, I don't remember the name), Dexter Lake Union, Veer, etc. If something happens with Mercer II or Aurora, there would also be better access for Taylor28 and so on. In the future, the area north of Denny Park is also supposed to be zoned for highrise residential--with podiums of course! Dexter is also a major bike route... bike shop?? | |
|
Comment by
joshuadf
5 months ago
|
(
0
votes
)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
|
LUOA's actual position
|
|
|
Position on Proposed UW Phase III Introduction - The Lake Union Opportunity Alliance (LUOA) is supportive of the University of Washington Medical Research Facility Phase III being located in South Lake Union. It can be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood and with the Fred Hutchison facilities and the upcoming Gates Foundation Headquarters will provide a world-class center for public health and health related research. Summary of Concern - However we have serious concerns about the current proposal for a text amendment, spot rezone, of the currently allowed 85’ height to 125’ height. The basic zoning for this block is S/M 65, allowing 65’ high buildings. That is also true to the west, north and east. There has been a special concession in South Lake Union for Biotech facilities to add 20’ (to 85’) because of the higher floor height requirements and the need for added mechanical equipment for Biotech. However, the proposal, instead of adding 20’, would add 60’ (or 92%) to the basic underlying zoning. Although the proposal shows considerable interior open space, that space functions primarily as a light well for the interior offices and labs, and open space for the building occupants. There is no large public, ground level space open to the sidewalk, only corridors to the interior space; and includes no interior retail requirement to draw in the public. Despite this open space, the proposed project will appear as a monolith 125’ high when viewed from a block or two away and will present a wall about 125’ high to pedestrians on a large part of all four sides, without any setback requirements. But the compelling reason to object to this rezone is that this is the wrong way to do land use planning. Earlier rezones done for a single property owner and single business operator (Vulcan and Amazon) resulted in rezoning blocks that had been zoned for 65’ and 85’ in height to 160’ in height (increases of 146% and 88%), and not for a slim towers, but for huge commercial building that are out of context with all other buildings in the area. Now being proposed by one property owner and one business operator (Vulcan and UW) is a second ‘spot rezone’ for South Lake Union, in an area zoned S/M 65 to 125’. Making decisions this way opens the City up to charges of favoritism, as compared to following the existing codes, rules and regulation. Conclusion - Without compelling reasons for a rezone, and none has been provided to date, we see no reason to break the current code, rules and regulations that have already been relaxed for biotech and that are being observed by other projects in the vicinity. We object to the rezone as currently proposed. If there were a compelling need, then adequate compensating true public benefits would be required as mitigation for the clear environmental impact of the rezone. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND HEARING ON THIS ISSUE 9/23/09 9:00AM - 2nd FLOOR - CITY HALL - PLANNING, LAND USE AND NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE INITIAL DISCUSSIONS 11/18/09 – 9:00AM – 2nd FLOOR – CITY HALL - PLANNING, LAND USE AND NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING 12/9/09 9:00AM - 2nd FLOOR - CITY HALL - PLANNING, LAND USE AND NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE VOTE |
|
|
Comment by
Kevin
5 months ago
|
(
+1
votes
)
(
report abuse
)
(
reply
)
|
