|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 3 users and 28 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: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 10:20am.
In an area with "Maximum Amenity", extra Shopping/Mixed-use locations are clearly not in the Public Interest. Parks & Housing are.. Everyone reading this should email the Olympia City Council individually right now and ask each of the members if they support the idea of a Developers Agreement that calls for 100% Residential Housing to be built on the isthmus. And see what they say to you.. http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/citygovernment/council/meetthemayorandcouncil/ Hint: they may tell you that they have to do whatever the developer wants *OR* they may not answer you at all.. Say no to retail on the isthmus.
|
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. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 Isthmus 2008 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
I'm no big fan of this Council, but...
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 11:06am.Guglielmo..
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 11:12am.I just laid it out. Read again:
In an area with "maximum amenity", extra shopping/mixed-use locations are clearly not in the public interest.
Parks & Housing are..
That's not a conflict of interest, Patrick.
Submitted by FRESH on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 11:30am.That's the definition of there being a conflict of interest with a politician.
Maybe you're saying that you think there's a conflict in terms of the best interest of the city, but you seem to be implying prejudice on the part of the council. Please explain, because we've been over this before, just about everyone but Whitlock agreed there's no conflict, and the horse is dead.
yeah..
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 11:35am.Im also clearly addressing the public process..
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 11:37am.Clearly not, sir.
Submitted by FRESH on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 11:53am.So, you want to talk about mixed use developments not being in the best interest of the community? Maybe not using such loaded terms would be a good start.
Also, you haven't given us anything to talk about here because you didn't lay out an argument as to why you believe having shops on the street level is not in the best interest of Olympia. Many, many, civic design professionals would wholeheartedly disagree with you, by the way.
Where did I mention campaign contributions?
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 12:06pm.yes, I apologize for taking it the wrong way.
Submitted by FRESH on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 12:16pm.It's clear to me that you're talking about a public conflict of interest in that you believe mixed use developments to be not in the best interest of our community as a whole. Is that right? If so, you may consider changing your headline, it's very misleading.
COI
Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 12:00pm.Pablum!
Submitted by FRESH on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 12:12pm.We're discussing whether mixed use development is in the best interest of downtown. I say yes. Patrick says no. What do you think?
Larida Passage
Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 12:27pm.What is clear is that if we want sustainability, we have to include arable land in that equation. We have to have locally sourced goods and materials. At this point in our history, the responsible move is toward a humble and modest community - not toward massive retail. The responsible move is toward public transit and human powered transportation - not 500+ spaces parking garages!
This boils down to the fact that the Isthmus is simple the wrong location for any development. Building there is inappropriate. The best use for that land will be as a public park - a monument to our societal relationship with the natural world, with the Deschutes River and the Puget Sound. We need to accomodate the social need to worship our relationship with the planet, the ecosystem - we need to honor the Watershed, and that location is perfect for that purpose.
So, while I believe there is a conflict of interest with the council's support for a project that leans heavily toward the private interest sector (and away from the public interest,) I feel that the Isthmus is just not a suitable location, nor is it a suitable time in history to build a development that designated specifically for those in the upper class.
Too many people are losing their jobs, or underemployed, and in jeopardy of losing their mortgages.
City must focus on creating work force jobs downtown, creating sustainable industry based on locally sourced raw goods and materials. Create jobs. Then construct appropriate housing to suit the needs of the community.
bert
Bert: Empty Storefront or Empty Housing?
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 12:41pm.Empty Storefront or Empty Housing
Whats better?
(leaving the park out, just for discussion)
I don't know
Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 12:56pm.What's better? I don't know.
What's better is to build a project that makes sense. Build affordable work-force market-rate housing.
Create sustainable industry based on watershed economics, for the downtown area. Then do housing.
Be a model for the rest of the nation. Show how a truly sustainable can flourish and meet everyone's needs.
Think toward the future. Think in terms of equity and fair-trade.
bert
also
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 1:24pm.Where is this building?
Submitted by FRESH on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 2:22pm.I don't know exactly..
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 2:57pm.I just figured it would be a good time to pitch green roofs..
(I do like the little ladders and walkways on each floor like that too..)
I walked past this building at least twice a week for 4 years...
Submitted by FRESH on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 9:20pm.Follow the link for more photos of this incredible building.
Actually
Submitted by JMK on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 9:28pm.nice..
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 10:04pm.i like the way it spills right into that little courtyard. that would be a cool place to eat lunch.
!!!!!
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 10:50pm.no no no.. (down here..)
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 12:18pm.Calm down..
Im obviously not talking about campaign contributions.
And, um, I don't know how else to put that this location has "maximum amenity", and a grocery store right across the street..
I do know that the Olympia Comprehensive Plan says that housing (for example) on the isthmus offers unique advantages worthy of formal consideration & deliberation by the Olympia City Council?
Rhenda Strub would agree that housing is in the public interest on the isthmus.
And this is because, unlike the stores surrounding the isthmus, there is no housing..
(thats what makes it unique..)
Im curious though:
Have you ever read the Olympia Comprehensive Plan?
You mean like a novel?
Submitted by FRESH on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 12:21pm.what i learned was:
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 12:31pm.In an area with "maximum amenity", extra shopping/mixed-use locations are clearly not in the public interest.
Parks & Housing are..
To which you would say:
?
?
Submitted by FRESH on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 2:21pm.Olympia Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1 (Pg 78)
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 3:04pm."..both public and private investment Downtown needs to maximize its unique advantages. Following sound principles of urban design can strengthen its community atmosphere, taking best advantage of the historic buildings, views, shoreline orientation, and special sites like Sylvester Park and the nearby Capitol."
Are you in favor of housing on the isthmus?
Submitted by Burr on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 3:51pm.I asked for 250 housing units..
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 4:08pm.Acceptability of Larida Passage
Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 8:28pm.- have a functional green roof,
- be truly green built (I don't know the proper lingo)
- have public access to the roof for viewing purposes.
Short of that, this proposal doesn't even begin to address the public interest in terms of sustainability and preservation, in terms of ecology, of the view-shed, of promoting equity and fair-trade, etc.I'd add..
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 8:53pm.I'd add:
Housing that was affordable to people who live in Olympia. This is a huge sticking point for me. If its going to be luxury housing, it should be luxury housing for Olympia residents, and priced accordingly.
Also, off site parking. I dont think this is a good area at all for parking. Build a giant parking structure nearby and call it good.
(im also figuring parking should be optional because people will be giving up their cars..)
Psssst - Hey Bert
Submitted by JMK on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 9:27pm.If you live in whatever housing they build there no matter what the price, you'd be an Olympia resident!
I Am an Olympia Resident
Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 9:47pm.I think what we're talking about is not favoring the upper class over everyone else. That's public interest.
- Whitlock
Sorry! My Bad!
Submitted by JMK on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 10:08pm.You're right. That should have been directed at Patrick!
That said Bert, I think it's sad you define people by class or financial status. People's class or financial status is what they make it. You are a classic example. You like your life, don't want to further an education in order to make more money. Others don't understand why you live the way you do. Would you like to be referred to as lower or middle class? Irregardless, categorizing people only enhances more division and stigmas.
IMHO, we don't need a Cabrini-Green or "insert name here" public housing project in downtown Olympia.
pssst..
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 10:13pm.Ask anyone on the City Council if these condo units need to be priced for Olympia residents, then come back and let me know what they told you.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
better yet..
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 10:19pm.the price aint right..
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 10:06pm.I'm not sure
Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 09/29/2008 - 11:42am.why we're talking about prices. The city doesn't control them.
Perhaps I haven't quite processed your earlier posts. You seem to be advocating housing on the isthmus, but not not a rezone, and you desire to keep the housing within the price range of average Olympians. And that such a solution would maximize the public's interest. Am I close?
yes
Submitted by pmenendez on Mon, 09/29/2008 - 1:50pm.You are close.
The rezone should only be granted in exchange for 100% housing on the isthmus via the developers agreement between the City of Olympia & Triway, which can specify the minimum number of housing units.
I am saying this in the public interest.
I am also saying more condo units than 141 will bring their prices down and make them more affordable.
I believe we can ditch the mixed-use/shopping, and make at least 250 housing units.
Clear?
I get it, but I disagree.
Submitted by FRESH on Mon, 09/29/2008 - 2:48pm.your un-referenced opinion has been noted.
Submitted by pmenendez on Mon, 09/29/2008 - 3:11pm.huh?
Submitted by FRESH on Mon, 09/29/2008 - 3:14pm.fuzzy logic..
Submitted by pmenendez on Mon, 09/29/2008 - 3:28pm.ill clear that up:
un-referenced in the sense that you can freely start your own post elaborating your position.
again, your opinion has been noted, now go do some citizen journalism.
Why did you start a thread...
Submitted by FRESH on Mon, 09/29/2008 - 3:38pm.Urban housing should not be solely residential, it goes against fundamental philosophies of urban design. We have to strike a balance between living, work, and play space. That's how you build sustainable communities and avoid sprawl or gentrification.
Thanks for noting my opinion, I guess. What would you have me do in terms of citizen journalism? Where is that even coming from? Seems like you're just being a jerk now.
we are back to this again..
Submitted by pmenendez on Mon, 09/29/2008 - 4:00pm.Are there places to work within a 2 block radius from the isthmus?
y/n
That's not a yes or no question, because I don't get it.
Submitted by FRESH on Mon, 09/29/2008 - 4:43pm.For the record...
Submitted by SMASH on Mon, 09/29/2008 - 10:58pm.The idea behind sustainable urban design is for people to live close to where they themselves work and play. Not for rich people to live close to where other people (mostly poor people) work and play. That doesn't prevent gentrification. It IS gentrification.
Gentrification
Submitted by FRESH on Tue, 09/30/2008 - 1:12am.I do agree with you that these condos won't likely attract very many who work within walking distance, unless it's politicians and lobbyists, in which case they'd probably be empty a lot.
Mixed use is still better than single use in the urban core.
Stop the pablum..
Submitted by pmenendez on Tue, 09/30/2008 - 7:52am.The primarily residential option was studied by Pyatok and Associates, a planning firm hired by the City of Olympia. The following is an excerpt from their report titled, Percival Landing Area Housing Study:
"The high level of amenity within a compact area creates a situation where a true mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented downtown, where people live, work, shop and recreate on a 24-hour basis, sppears to be achievable....The missing element is market-rate housing....The areas surrounding the downtown commercial core, currently developed to generally low intensity provide the opportunity for redevelopment into primarily residential districts."
It then went on to identify four distinct zones listed in order of "highest ammenity level" (which is another way of saying suitablity for housing), the first of which was the area between what is now Les Schwab and The Farmers' Market. The second area of the four was the following described area:
"The area between State and Fifth Avenues from Columbia Street West to the bridges and the blocks south of 5th avnue betwwen Columbia and Water Streets. This district has the best waterfront views and is immediately adjacent to a grocery store.
ill repeat..
Submitted by pmenendez on Tue, 09/30/2008 - 7:55am.Cherry Picker!
Submitted by FRESH on Tue, 09/30/2008 - 8:18am.Also, I find it ironic that you're using this study (Pyotak) to make your point. It's the same study TriWay uses in it's case for Larida Passage, makes me think you're interpreting it differently than they are.
OK, lets use it right..
Submitted by pmenendez on Tue, 09/30/2008 - 8:43am.At any time does this study call for more retail to be built on the isthmus?
y/n
I don't think I can do this anymore.
Submitted by FRESH on Tue, 09/30/2008 - 8:58am.You brought up the study to reinforce your point, I asked a question about that study. I'm not the one invested in that study proving anything, you are, you're the one using it to try and prove a point.
I don't need to go read that study and answer your question, the burden is not on me right now.
OK
Submitted by pmenendez on Tue, 09/30/2008 - 9:04am.As I understand it
Submitted by SMASH on Wed, 10/01/2008 - 2:17pm.Gentrification is a process that takes place over time, and involves (among other things) rents being driven up in the surrounding area, until lower-income people can't afford to live there anymore, small businesses not supported by the wealthy can no longer stay afloat, etc.
I agree that mixed use is better... within REAL sustainable urban development. Which Larida Passage is not. You really think it'll contain anything as crass as a public laundromat? I seriously doubt that.
That's right.
Submitted by FRESH on Wed, 10/01/2008 - 2:47pm.Olympia is in a unique position, in that our big industry is government, which is made up of thousands of middle class state workers. We also have two large, and growing (TESC plans by 2025 to have the number of students that UW has today, I don't know SPSCC's goals), colleges, those students can't afford a lot in terms of rent. I'm not saying Olympia is gentrification proof necessarily, I'm just saying that conditions here are such that there is and will always be a need for housing that is affordable to middle class and lower income people.
Public Views are a Public Asset
Submitted by Bert on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 9:44pm.(Putting up more buildings on the Isthmus would be a mistake.)
kinda looks like building 7
Submitted by pmenendez on Sun, 09/28/2008 - 10:10pm.