|
|
||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 7 users and 53 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: Who's new
|
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 3:19pm.
The following is an excerpt from a Green Pages article written by former Mayor Bob Jacobs. He is a member of Friends of the Waterfront, a group that is opposed to a rezone proposal for urban waterfront areas on the isthmus (peninsula). The proposal would accommodate building heights (and luxury condominiums) of over 90 feet in some areas. The current building height limit is 35 (plus some roof-top utility structure.)
» ...See here for information on tonight's community downtown Olympia envisioning forum: olyblog.net/speech-sponsors-community-forum-envision-downtown-olympia
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
Isthmus 2008 |
Hmm...
Submitted by Just another voice on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 5:46pm.So what have they been doing in the mean time? It would seem that the first thing I would if I knew that land was threatened from 'the rich' I would attempt to buy the land, or ask the city to buy the land or ask a trust to buy the land. It interests me that they just walked away after a 'win' and waited until now to stand back up.
Why keep fighting it when you had/have the power to buy the land. I am sure people have known this day was coming since 197X, when the 'mistake on the lake' was built.
And another thing that I am sick of hearing: "the yuppies are coming!" Ughh. "No Expensive Condos!" and "No tax breaks for the rich!"
Well, those tax breaks worked in Bellingham and Portland. They have a nice mix of both low-income and high end condos. All because people were willing to start infilling in the downtown. I would really encourage everyone to look into Bellingham and see the development that is going on. I see a lot of parallels between us and them. Right now, they just finished a project that has about 55 Housing Authority units in the edge of downtown-- directly next to a high-end condo development.
It is pretty gross that people are using the idea of 'the rich coming' as an excuse to say no to this project. If they are that serious about hating the rich coming, then you should ask about 3/4 of the downtown businesses to close, since they are antique and specialty shops that low-income folks are not shopping or eating at.
But I am Just Another Voice
What have they been doing in the meantime?
Submitted by jlw on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 10:01pm.We have been "visioning" in
Submitted by wilson on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 6:28am.Building
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 10:02am.What about the fact that a substantial portion of the population doesn't want to see buildings there?
Does it matter what members of the public want?
Right now, they just
Submitted by Meta Hogan on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 8:57am.Right now, they just finished a project that has about 55 Housing Authority units in the edge of downtown-- directly next to a high-end condo development.
And our current city council has explicitly stated that they are not interested in bringing more "social service customers" downtown. I am fairly certain that we will not see 55 low-income housing units anywhere near downtown for a while. If that were part of a larger plan to increase urban density, if we were talking about a comprehensive, mixed-income, mixed-use, sustainable densification of downtown (instead of a single project with million-dollar condos) then I would be out there happily waving the development banner. (And, yes, I will continue to refer to them as million-dollar condos. That's what they are. If the phrase "million-dollar condos" is too charged with class-war emotion, then maybe we should examine the figure itself.)
The problem is no one is proposing a Bellingham style project
Submitted by Laurian on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 6:46pm.What is on the table is 141 600 to 1.2K condos with 10 a year property tax exclusion. Nowhere in Triway proposal is any mention of living wage let alone low income housing. Oly2012's steering committee is proposing millions of infrastructure spending with no realistic funding source.
The proposal on the table is simply surrender a community asset to a developer with a checkered past for the unsubstantiated promise that the rich will shop downtown. It is vital we debate what is actually proposed, not what other cities have done nor what sounds good.
Exactly.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 7:49pm.This wasn't exactly a
Submitted by Just another voice on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 7:52pm.If the city was selling the land, or did sell it, yes, it would be a much different issue. The city has done a really good job in allocating important park areas on the isthmus. The fountain and its adjacent businesses are a prime example (Rang Dong, etc...)
I would be much more inclined to listen to alternatives if their actually were alternatives. But all I am hearing is people mad about the possibility that the rich will 'infiltrate' downtown, or something, and Olympia will become a city where rich people might be seen outside of the mall, or wherever they hang out.
Even if the rezone doesn't pass, won't TriWay-- or some other business-- come along and build to the 3 story limit eventually anyway, with no room for public debate, since it is allowed?
But I am Just Another Voice
Hmm
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 8:00pm.I'm told most of downtown housing is already subsidised, so there may be an economic disparity in downtown housing. Some high end condos can't hurt anything (although I think it is fashionable to hate "the rich" whatever the definition may be.)
Let them build the stupid condos. Then build some more middle class and subsidised housing. Then build some more high end condos. Repeat as needed. A nice dense urban corridor, and a nice open suburbia with trees and stuff. Everytime I see a nice patch of woods get clearcut for more cookie cutter homes I cringe. Mebbe some condos would have saved some of those woods?
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." --Mark Twain
Can you be a little more specific?
Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 8:04pm.Who here said that we didn't want the rich to be seen "outside of the mall, or wherever they hang out"?
The Canaanite's Call
Well, if you do a search on
Submitted by Just another voice on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 8:12pm.Like, we get it, these condos are expensive. A lot of stores downtown are too expensive for those on the average income, too. But nobody wants to talk about getting rid of all those antique stores or specialty shops.
But I am Just Another Voice
No it has not always been private property.
Submitted by Laurian on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 8:07pm.It was the city and state that collaborated to fill in the land that we now call the isthmus.
Move over there is the 800 lb. gorilla floating out there called the State of Washington. The city of Olympia may not have the economic where with all to do the right thing but the State does. Building on the isthmus is the Mistake on the Lake II.
I'm not mad about the rich, (take that either way) but there is nothing but speculation that the Triway proposal will be good for anyone but Triway. \
By the way the community does have the right and the obligation to shape how the city is developed.
Hmm...
Submitted by Just another voice on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 8:19pm.I agree that the community has the right and the obligation to shape how the city is developed. I don't think I said we didn't.
But I am Just Another Voice
Of course it will be good for Tri Way
Submitted by security_six on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 8:25pm.They are not in business to loose money. But who else might it be good for? The potential condo owners I would assume. Bayview would benifit, and by extension, their employees. People who work in or own business' downtown would benifit, especially in these troubled times. The more people living downtown and presumabley shopping downtown the better. There very well may be a decent trickle down effect here.
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." --Mark Twain
When it comes to Trickle Down Theory
Submitted by Laurian on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 8:48pm.Consensus Tonight
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 11:26pm.A need for dense urban high rise living units: This need arises from ecological pressures. Our footprint as a society can be greatly reduced by living more densely urban. On this there is wide ranging agreement. Who would disagree? Suburban sprawl has one of the most deleterious effects on ecology. It swallows up viable and useful farmland. It swallows up wilderness. It's not desirable. It's not sustainable. If we want to keep going as a culture, as a society and as a species, then we will need to "grow up." Wise and efficient land use is a major part of that equation.
Tonight's meeting also had a general agreement, if not an outright consensus, that the "isthmus" area is not the right place for tall buildings. Many people feel that this is a sacred space. It is a place where two waters meet. It is symbolic and special. The public really ought to decide how this area is used. One person felt that it would be okay to develop something there, but just not a high-rise. However, the overwhelming sentiment and general agreement was that the best use for the area would be as a park. I agree. I think it makes the most sense to simply, for starters at least, expand Heritage Park one block to the North. Relocate the businesses in between 4th and 5th, and Water St. and the bridges; then demolish the vacant buildings and expand the park.
I like the park idea because it would be a monument to nature. I think an expanded park would also serve to attract people to downtown. It would attract shoppers and residents. The park would serve as a novel feature, and its juxtaposition to the dense urban core would be striking and remarkable and help to set Olympia further apart as a forward thinking community. A community that takes its relationship with the natural-world seriously.
Maybe a good name for the park would be "Triway Two Waters Park." I like the idea of further expanding the park to the North as businesses located to the North of 4th Avenue become ready to move - in their own time of course (though with community encouragement.)
So I think it is important to think of best use. One of the most convincing reasons not to develop in this location is the likelihood of sea-level rise. Olympia already actively manages for floods during high tides. As sea-level rises, flooding will become more frequent, and it would affect the surface area around where the development is proposed. A park would be much better suited to coping with flood waters than would a multi-use high rise building. Would people want to live there if tides regularly flooded the surrounding area a few months out of the year?
In no area of the city that is flood prone should permanent structures be developed. That is just good business. We can talk of building levees and dikes. But until we take seriously our obligation to reduce output of global warming gases to sustainable levels, putting our effort into building dikes is just unethical - and foolish. We can't run up against the green giant of mother nature and expect to go without getting slapped over and over again, and eventually to have her collapse on us.
Building levees against flood waters is the wrong way to go. It pushed away something that nature is doing to cope with the heating and climate change that we are causing.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge the serious harm that this society is doing to nature. We have an opportunity to formally acknowledge that harm and accept responsibility for doing something about it. We have a responsibility to encourage dense urban housing (the county or state should put a moratorium on suburban development.) And we have an opportunity right here in Olympia to make that a park, a monument to that vision. A monument to our relationship with nature. A formal place where people can be reminded that we are ultimately fighting a terrificly losing battle in humanity v. nature. Let's learn to live alongside nature. To respect it. Triway Two Waters park. Where humanity and nature meet, and become partners.
- bert
* "isthmus" in quotes b/c it's not really an isthmus. It's a peninsula. An isthmus is a land bridge. The Westside of Olympia is connected via aerial bridges. Even the 5th Ave dam is an aerial bridge.
[June 21, '08 update: I put a slightly enhanced version of the above comment on my blog here: Reflection from Envision Downtown Olympia]
Thanks...
Submitted by einmaleins on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 9:27am....for the great summary of the event.
One thing I was curious about is, if there was any talk on where to put the housing instead?
For me the conversation is more about the housing than the the isthmus/peninsula.
If we could find the "killer" location for housing in downtown, than perhaps the city and the developers would leave that precious piece of land alone?!?
mathias
einmaleins
location is everything
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 10:18am.There are a lot of "killer" locations.
Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 10:31am.I fully support the project slated for Columbia St, between 4th and 5th Avenues. In addition, the City owns a lot of parking lots downtown, many in locations due for "in-fill" development under the various plans and visions for downtown. The construction of apartments or condos in the downtown core, away from the waterfront, seems to be more in keeping with the values of the City: If the objective is to reduce sprawl (a stated goal of many of the City Council members), then we want to build condos in the range of$180 to $300K, to compete with the prices of housing in the outskirts. Million dollar condos fail to contribute to this goal, and the proposed location conflicts with the very-long term vision for downtown.
I'm also not at all opposed to the use of City resources to promote downtown in-fill. I wouldn't object a bit if the City wanted to buy up the Diamond parking lots, and then sell them (even at a loss if necessary!) to housing developers. We really do need more housing downtown, and in-filling empty lots and parking lots will increase pedestrian activity on the sidewalks and build a stronger community.
The Canaanite's Call
need too
Submitted by Just another voice on Sun, 06/22/2008 - 1:59pm.But I am Just Another Voice
Speakers corner
Submitted by sasqwatcher on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 8:36am.speakers corner
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 10:20am.Oh yeah more park
Submitted by Just another voice on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 8:38am.Besides, the ecology footprint of a park is not great. Grass requires a large about of water, fertilizer and mowing (lots of CO2). Plus, the park couldn't have trees because that might block the view, right? And if you want to enjoy this park where will you put your car. You will need a parking lot, another ugly surface parking lot.
This goes back to my original point that the FOTW have failed in proposing an alternatives. Yes, they say "build a park" but who has seen ideas for funding, drawings, plans, etc. If you have been so worries about this piece of land for the last six-plus years you should have developed something that might work, with or without the Cities support.
And as side note, if we are so worried about tax brakes for this land, what kind tax revenue does a park bring in?
But I am Just Another Voice
FOTW is asking for a community-wide planning process ...
Submitted by jlw on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 8:55am.I have to say, your scornful tone and angry bluster (such as "Plus, the park couldn't have trees because that might block the view, right?")isn't conducive to a mutually respectful discussion.
Can someone tell me
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 9:13am.What the per capita income of someone living downtown is? Also what the average rent is?
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." --Mark Twain
You might have to look it up.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 9:49am.Well
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 7:45pm.I have census figures for Olympia as a whole, even a drunken politician could get those. I was specificially interested in downtown, and silly me thought one of the many poor peoples advocates could tell me. Guess not.
At any rate the info I found is telling enough to suggest that maybe some high end condos and "rich people" might be long overdue, that there is a disparity of high end to low end housing downtown.
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." --Mark Twain
really,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 8:02pm.Well that was simple
Submitted by security_six on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 8:04pm.Thank you.
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." --Mark Twain
You might email the city and ask them if they can help.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 06/20/2008 - 8:06pm.