There's nothing in here about why we need population density on the isthmus, rather than one of the many other spots downtown that are already zoned for high density housing. We can have our views and high density housing, too.

By the way, is this environment-loving, tree-hugging Stroble related to the Strobles who have made a fortune milling cedar with the Welco Lumbar Co.?

As for the ridiculous argument that big buildings between Heritage Park and Percival Landing will actually IMPROVE them... by "sewing them" more deeply into the fabric of the community, I beg to differ. I think, instead, monolithic buildings for rich residents and shoppers will divide and isolate those public spaces, driving away many of the people who now enjoy them, partly because these spaces offer beautiful views and cost no money to enjoy.

Stroble contends that huge condos will end up "nurturing a sense of safety, function, vibrancy, virtue and civic pride in and around them". Who can argue with virtue? But I fail to see exactly how developing these particular condos will nurture it. Please explain.  How will the construction of Larida Passage at Pearlwater nurture virtue? 

Some people (like Olydowntowner!) know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Well, I am living proof that luxury condos, even those in the million dollar range, have a value far beyond their sticker price. Luxury condos can save souls! Let me tell you my story…

I grew up in the school of hard knocks, and I learned the hard way that there’s no free lunch. (Except for that weird government surplus subsidized crap in the school lunch programs.) In the soulless suburb where I was raised, there was nothing to love, nothing to hope for, nothing to do but run through the sprinklers on hot summer days and wait for the ice cream truck to tinkle past. No one to talk to but my siblings, my parents, and our neighbors, their pets, the teachers and other kids at the local school. It was a life of unmitigated despair. Can you blame me for running away at 14 and becoming a crack whore?

Life on the streets was rough. The johns were mean, the pimps were meaner, and the other girls didn’t care about anything except their next fix. Yet when I thought back to where I’d come from, the only other life I knew, I was glad to be where I was, hiking up my hotpants, and hoping the next guy wouldn’t smell too bad. I couldn’t go back to my unsustainable life in the suburbs, I just couldn’t!

But one day my life changed. My pimp threw me and a bunch of the other girls in a van and took us down to Portland to entertain a bunch of visiting businessmen. The customers were as gross and creepy as you’d expect, but something happened there that changed my life. As we were driven through the city, I managed to catch a glimpse, through the tinted glass, of some beautiful condos. Men and women, children and servants came and went, sweeping past the doorman and climbing into waiting limousines. “That’s the life I want,” my spirit vowed. Suddenly, there was something to hope for, a reason to give up my life of dissipation and debauchery! I leaped out of the van at the next intersection, and hitchhiked back to Olympia.

And as soon as I got back home, I took an honest job, a minimum wage job, and began saving every penny I could. The new watchwords of my life are virtue and thrift. I am so excited that Triway is building luxury condos in Olympia now! Someday, my savings will be enough for me to buy a latte in the Starbucks that will most certainly open at Pearlwater. Now that’s something to look forward to, with my whole heart and soul, a pure joy, a virtuous goal. I am certain that I am not the only person who will be thus affected by these inspiring buildings. The only losers in this project are the pimps and bar-owners who will have no one left to exploit when virtue is restored to Olympia. Better go somewhere else, you devils, and take the tattoo artists with you!

I would like to see this monumental area preserved. I think it's possible for a majestic wilderness corridor to co-exist in close proximity with an urban center. That's the vision I want to move toward.

There seems to be wide agreement (including from some unusual corners) that urban density is necessary to combat suburban sprawl. Urban density is a promising remedy. But the promotion of urban density must be pursued with a critical eye to important open spaces that exist within urban centers. Olympia is lucky to have the isthmus.

The best use of the isthmus would be as a monument to wilderness. Wilderness juxtaposed with the dense urban core. That would be awesome. This concept is especially relevant given the current problems with pollution, depleted resources, and human caused climate disruption.

bert

"As a life-long Washingtonian, I want a view that confirms that Olympia was chosen by our former state leaders as the Capitol because it is an exemplary city unto itself, not just because it offered a grand perch upon which to set our capitol campus."

This is historical revisionism. 

Actually Olympia was chosen as a Territorial and later the State Capitol because it was:

A. Relatively easy to get to in a day when water transportation was the norm.

B. Ready availability of liquor and hookers, and places to partake of such pleasures.

C. It wasn't Seattle or Tacoma.

My source? Glad you asked. Rogues, Buffoons, and Statesmen by Gordon Newell, a fun, extensively researched and definitive history of Olympia and State government up to the 70's.

essay. Thanks, Burr, for passing it along.

I'm (still) not a member of Stroble's group, but the guy is making sense. I like that he faces the reality of moderately-impeded views when the isthmus is developed, but frames the impact in the context of the greater good. For me, this isn't about Wilder and White and Olmsted, or "Friends" of the waterfront and their ex-Governors, or even about mental-masutrbation-fearing planning commissioners. It's about what matters most in the real world of compromise and economic reality and our deteriorating downtown. 

I live here by choice, and I love Olympia for what it is but I also recognize that it could be a much more dynamic, healthy and vibrant place.  I'm not someone who's scared to eat/park/walk downtown (and I do all three virtually everyday) but I'm also not going to pull any punches--downtown is getting more worn out, more empty, and less inviting each year.  I don't think higher-end condos will solve any of our ills in one fell swoop, but I am certain that having a more diverse and economically stable residential population will.  I'd love to take the approach of several un-named opponents and say "Oh, hey, yes, please let's have some downtown housing (preferably to be constructed by someone interested in buying one of my own buildings) but just not here, or here, or here."  That "logic" is just plain old silly--developers are like any other class of investors--the first ones to take the plunge are at once the most risk tolerant (there's a reason there's been no market-rate housing construction downtown in the last 30 years) but also the ones who are looking to most set themselves up for success.  And there's the rub--if we want to get this ball rolling (and I really believe most Olympians want redevelopment of our downtown, notwithstanding the let's-turn-the-entire-waterfront-back-into-marshland noise-makers) we're going to have to make some compromises, and allowing limited, controlled, and well planned development on the isthmus is a reasonable one in my opinion as a citizen, employer and parent.

The development as proposed will actually work counter to the interests and purpose of sustainable society.

Yes, promoting an increase in housing density is the right thing to do. But just because it is right to increase housing density in the downtown corridor doesn't make it right for special private interests (wealthy developers, owners, et al.) to plop down where-ever they please - especially when the proposed development goes against the public interest in so many ways.

just views and cash for Olympians. This is the State Capitol and the views we are debating belong to more than us or Tri Vo's well heeled customers. They belong to all Washingtonians. $20 million may be beyond the city's means but not the State.

As to Tri Vo being the only capitalist brave enough to build downtown housing, that is simply not true. One word. Colpitts. Seven stories of parking, storefronts, and market rate housing.

The only way Tri Vo can make this project pencil out is to appropriate public wealth, intangibles like views and tangibles like tax subsidies, for private consumption.

Here's some more reality for those pushing the petition approach: the State has been asked not once, not twice, but five times over the last fifteen years about their interest in expanding Marathon/Heritage including (four of five times) acquiring most or all of the isthmus. The most recent iteration of the request was made in part via many of the same former planning commissioners who are now rising phoenix-like from the ashes of their former seats of power. Each time, the State (most recently through some of its local House Reps) answered succinctly and clearly: NO. And let's recall that that's when the price tag was substantially lower than today.

Here's something else to chew on: let's say the "petition drive" is a rousing success. This might (but not necessarily) compel the City to perform a costly feasibility analysis. Then, the State will be asked at one point or another, and the State (via the legislature) will be forced to answer this question: when gas is $4 to $5 a gallon, the State is laying off workers and enforcing a hiring freeze, the mortgage default/delinquency rate is popping well above historical norms, and unemployment is spiking, should the citizens of the entire state of Washington be forced to pay for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of park whose sole reason-detre is to preclude a specific commercial development? And let's not kid ourselves--if this development weren't under consideration, there would be no meaningful push for a state-funded parkland acquisition. Yes, I know, it ought to be a wilderness sanctuary/foos bank/rustic meadow/etc no matter what. But the impetus is clearly the development and how to prevent it.

jlw, you seemed SO empathetic about the challenges that everyday citizens were facing in your latest well-researched WIP piece. How do you reconcile that with your desire to layer new taxes and fees on your fellow citizens in Olympia and Spokane and Tukwila and all the other parts of our state that are under such duress? It's not that I think you or your comrades are not entitled to an opinion, it's that I find the reasoning so lacking that I'm beginning to question whether the opposition camp (including the former-planning-commissioners-of-Olympia) has sufficient real-world knowledge and experience for these opinions to be taken seriously.

Here's some more reality for those pushing the petition approach: the State has been asked not once, not twice, but five times over the last fifteen years about their interest in expanding Marathon/Heritage including (four of five times) acquiring most or all of the isthmus.  The most recent iteration of the request was made in part via many of the same former planning commissioners who are now rising phoenix-like from the ashes of their former seats of power.  Each time, the State (most recently through some of its local House Reps) answered succinctly and clearly: NO.  And let's recall that that's when the price tag was substantially lower than today.

Here's something else to chew on: let's say the "petition drive" is a rousing success.  This might (but not necessarily) compel the City to perform a costly feasibility analysis.  Then, the State will be asked at one point or another, and the State (via the legislature) will be forced to answer this question: when gas is $4 to $5 a gallon, the State is laying off workers and enforcing a hiring freeze, the mortgage default/delinquency rate is popping well above historical norms, and unemployment is spiking, should the citizens of the entire state of Washington be forced to pay for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of park whose sole reason-detre is to preclude a specific commercial development?  And let's not kid ourselves--if this development weren't under consideration, there would be no meaningful push for a state-funded parkland acquisition.  Yes, I know, it ought to be a wilderness sanctuary/foos bank/rustic meadow/etc no matter what.  But the impetus is clearly the development and how to prevent it.

JLW, you seemed SO empathetic about the challenges that everyday citizens were facing in your latest well-researched WIP piece.  How do you reconcile that with your desire to layer new taxes and fees on your fellow citizens in Olympia and Spokane and Tukwila and all the other parts of our state that are under such duress?  It's not that I think you or your comrades are not entitled to an opinion, it's that I find the reasoning so lacking that I'm beginning to question whether the opposition camp (including the former-planning-commissioners-of-Olympia) has sufficient real-world knowledge and experience for these opinions to be taken seriously.

Edited to make a small change per request of another OlyBlogger.

but I'm not sure how you claim the Legie has said no to acquiring the isthmus when members of the Capital Facilities committee have expressed reservations about the project. Admittedly they have said they will take a wait and see position while Olympia works out the zoning issues but they have made their reservations about the project public.

The economic downturn we are currently experiencing will pass. Now may not be the time for the State to shell out $20 million but in a year or two it will be in the position to make such expenditures. Acquiring the land on the isthmus may take years, just as it took Tri Vo. The land has lain fallow for decades. Waiting another few years is preferable than going ahead with a gigantic mistake we will live with for 50 to 75 years. By then rising sea levels or the forecasted 8.0+ earthquake will take care of the problem. 

It is better to do nothing than do something bad. Larida Passage is a bad idea, a sentiment clearly held by a majority of Olympians.

Your implication that nothing is being done about the health and welfare of downtown is contradicted by your efforts and those of Peter, Rob et. al. who attend the Thursday at Noon meetings. From the minutes you post there I read of progress on getting a tax rebate from the State. The ODA and PBIA are moving ahead and getting results. Colpitts is going to be built. The DNA partnered with the City to have security lights installed in several alleys. Your cogent discussions about a walkable downtown have swayed me. Although the challenges facing this town we all love are daunting, good people with good ideas are moving forward.

What is really killing downtown are real estate companies, many of them out of town, keeping the commercial vacancy rate at 15% with rents the local market cannot bear. I confess to being stumped on how to get rents in line with the local market but I am pretty sure adding unafforable housing to that mix will not help.