Your Chance to Speak Out on 23rd & Union Project

By scott
(2 votes) (report abuse)
Architectural rendering of building proposed for 23rd & Union
Tomorrow is the big day: the city hearing examiner will be taking public testimony on Jim Mueller's new building at 23rd & Union. The main issue under consideration is whether to rezone the property to accommodate the 65-foot height of the project.

This is the second to the last hurdle for the proposed development, with the final one being city council approval of the rezone. When I spoke to Jim yesterday morning, he said that construction should begin next spring if the rezone is granted.

The hearing begins at 1:30pm in Key Tower:
700 5th Avenue, Suite 4000

Permalink
tags: 23rd Union + add tags
savecancel
location: Seattle, Washington
posted on Sun, Jun 15, 2008 06:39 PM
last updated on Sun, Jun 15, 2008 08:47 PM
CommentsRSS Feed
Want to leave a comment? Log In to your account
Interesting bygatortv June 15, 2008 (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I'm gonna try to swing by the meeting while I'm downtown.
New building at 23 and Union bycsw June 15, 2008 (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I sent a letter in support of the building to the Hearing Examiner, and I plan to be at the hearing tomorrow.
Support this by attending - send word far and wide... byRon June 15, 2008 (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Whats the single fastest way to discourage the drug dealing, prostitution and crime on and around 23rd and Union? Show up and support this rezone! Why have the druggies departed the Deanos block? Was it the neighbors or the police (NO) see Saturdays Times article. It was the new developmnt made possible when the city rezoned Madison to 65ft. Run dont walk to support this people....
I support the project but.... byAndrew Taylor June 15, 2008 (2 votes) (report abuse)
I must disagree about the reason for the changes on Madison Street!

Madison Street has been zoned NC3-65 since the early 90s. Deano's lot was rezoned to be all NC3-65 in 2001 but the drug troubles persisted.
The Safeway building was built about 3 years ago. When the Safeway opened the dealers retreated one block (to Denny) but were back on Madison within the week. The residents above the Safeway were some of the "eyes on the street" and there were customers in and out of the grocery store, but the dealing etc persisted. In fact it seemed that some of the people on the street supported their lifestyles by shoplifting from Safeway!

Problems only went away (and did so immediately) when Club Chocolate City closed! So (I'm afraid) you may not see an immediate improvement on the streets when Mueller's property is developed. I (personally, as a somewhat distant neighbor) think it's an attractive and positive development, but I don't think it will be a panacea.

BTW: what was the Saturday Times article (Seattle Times?). Could not find it.
@Andrew Taylor byRobC June 16, 2008 (0 votes) (report abuse)
Was closing the club the entirety of it, though? I personally saw what appeared to be an obvious deal happen after the club shut down but before Deano's grocery was gone--a sketchy crowd hung around outside the grocery for ten minutes or so, SUV pulled up and parked, guy gets out, crowd followed him into the grocery, then slowly dispersed. Seems to me that the grocery's closing was the final nail.
To RobC byAndrew Taylor June 16, 2008 (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Maybe not 100% of it but surely 95%+

Agreed. I'd expected ALL the crowd to move down to the grocery but they pretty much all left overnight. And the grocery closed a few days later. But that just confirms my point, that it was the closing of the businesses (bar, grocery) and not the development across the street that made the difference.

The bar closed after it surrendered its liquor license. The grocery was moving anyway. Both businesses (and the street dealing) remained active despite the new apartments and grocery store kitty-corner from them, and despite the zoning desired to develop Deano's site having been around since ~ 2002.
develoment byjoanna June 16, 2008 (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Imposing no conditions on development, taking little interest in the overall design, and not ensuring the best design and facade possible for the neighborhood is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. These actions only ensure under achieving development. Why would we not advocate for the best.

Despite all the tall building growth (as zoned) around 23rd and Jackson, I note that udesirable activities continue in that area. At 21st and Union the closing of a tavern, Pals, which had become a problem spot was very helpful, but the opening of a convenience store which attracted a crowd interested in high potency beer and wine and single container sales spelled more udesireable activities. In between we had a shuttered storefront and peace. No one thing is a pancea. Willingness of businesses and residents to report illegal activities will do more to enhance a neighborhood than tall buildings. Some development is good, but desperate development will lead only to speculators putting up disposable buildings or worse, horrible new buildings that we will have to endure for decades and the destruction of older buildings with beautiful facades.