Three Options for 20th & Union Project

By scott
(7 votes) (report abuse)

Last month we talked about the plans for the old copier building at 20th & Union, and one big concern was their plan of having surface parking for 10 vehicles.  Big parking lots create a lot of unfriendly dead space and are definitely not a positive addition for a budding business district.

Last week they held the first design review for the project, and now we can get a glimpse of what they're planning.  They sketched out three options - one with a surface parking lot in the back of the development, and two with underground parking garages.   Every option has a varying amount of ground-floor retail, with 2 stories of residential units above that.   Here's some details for each:

Option 1 contains 4 retail spaces with between 600 and 1000 square feet of space each.  There's an underground parking garage with a driveway on the west side of the building along 20th Ave.   Ten two-story residential units sit on top of the retail, seven facing Union, two facing east towards the gas station, and one facing west on 20th above the garage entry.   The odd thing about this one is the big chunk of open space along the back of the property.  I suppose it gives a buffer to the neighbors to the south, but parts of it exist underneath the residential units that stick out over the retail space.  Why not have larger retail spaces instead?  

Option 2 has a much larger 5,000 square feet of retail space over an underground parking garage, and eight two-story residential units above that.   This seems to make a much better use of the property, although with a smaller buffer facing the southern neighbors.  The garage entrance is still located on the southwest corner of the building on 20th Ave.

Option 3 is the surface parking option (placed at the rear, southern side of the lot), with a smaller amount of retail space and two driveway entrances, one on 20th and one curving around to the northeast corner on Union.   Ten residential units sit on top of the retail and cantilever over park of the back parking lot.   Not only does this have the problematic parking lot, but the additional driveway on Union seems a really bad direction to go, breaking up the sidewalk and ruining what could be a really great pedestrian environment on that side of the street.   The smaller amount of retail (taken by the parking lot) is less than code requires for this zoning.

Overall, I'm impressed with the preliminary sketches of how the building will appear.  But I'm personally hoping the review board kills off options 1 and 3, leaving the much more pedestrian and retail-friendly option 2.

You can download the entire proposal from the city's website at:  http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/dpd/AppDocs/GroupMeetings/DRProp  (warning: it's big, about 45 MB)

Permalink
tags: 20th Union + add tags
savecancel
location: Seattle, Washington
posted on Wed, Jul 09, 2008 03:05 PM
last updated on Wed, Jul 09, 2008 03:36 PM
What's their favorite? byAndrew Taylor1 month ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Presenting multiple options seems to be part of the required Design Review pantomime. (It's not as bad as the farcical "do nothing" option that government often has to study up the wazoo)

Could you tell which option they were really serious about? Maybe you asked at the meeting?

Thanks
Andrew
RE: What's their favorite? byscott1 month ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
Unfortunately, I had another appointment that night and missed the meeting.

Did anyone else go who can provide a 1st-hand account?
I like option one bykt1 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Don't you think the residents deserve trees and a shared space? It cools things down, it's especially great if there are deciduous trees to the south, and we need to increase our green canopy. A restaurant could use part of that area for outdoor dining...some of the neatest restaurant spaces in WA DC are courtyards in back of buildings. And the best thing about my condo was the yard with big trees in back. And, DC is more dense outside of the monument/public buildings areas than we are AND I bet it has more canapy than we do because of practices like this. If security is a concern, then enclose the space.

Whatever happens, definitely not option 3, keep any cars below ground.
RE: I like option one byrm1 month ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
I agree with kt. As a design professional, working for an architecture firm in town, we would typically push for more shared green spaces occupants can take advantage of. Not to mention, in the area we live in (I'm 1 block from there on 20th), I don't believe a 5000SF retail space would lend itself to a neighborhood friendly tenant per say...by potentially providing smaller retail spaces, we may have the opportunity to encourage smaller businesses to flourish.
options byDoug1 month ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
combine opt1 and opt3... "viable" above ground parking covered with green space at the residential level... been done a million times. I suspect that below grade parking would kill this project (in our neighborhood, at this time).
RE: options byktkeller1 month ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
I lived in a great building for a long time. Front first floor was a restarant, back was parking, bisected by the residents' entrance. Upstairs the units were on either side of a cool courtyard with plantings which we used for get togethers or just hanging out. It was secure (excpet for some break ins in the garage). It's the SE corner of 34th and Pike. Ugly color these days..

That would be the foot print of option 2.

BTW, there may be a 'setup here', but most developers who choose to use early guidance appreciate it, and many find the review process to be helpful all round.
It will never be built bybob1 month ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
None of these options will be built when they see the cost. They'll go thru design review and spend $.... and nothing will happen. It's all smoke and mirrors....
preferred option byjoanna1 month ago (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The preferred option is #2 or some combination of one and two for both the developer and attendees. There was discussion of the types of commercial spaces and sizes. Discussion also included whether the open space on the south side should be available to residents only or shared with the public and commercial spaces. The developer seemed to prefer that it be mainly for residents with perhaps some design continuation

The Design review board also indicated a preference of a continuous facade rather than one style for commercial and a different one as planned by the developer for the residential space to hearken to older homes along 20th Avenue.

Also there was some discussion regarding setbacks. My notes should be more complete here, but I think those in attendance were supportive of some reduction in order to create more open space between the development and the residences to the south. I would appreciate someone clarifying this or I promise to look at the report for clarification.

There were few neighbors in attendance but all were supportive of the project.
RE: preferred option byktkeller1 month ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
Thanks!! I still love option one, but if they put in an internal courtyard upstairs I suppose option two would be nice. I'm thinking of the residents.

All the renderings look like it's a pretty nice building.
5000 SF Retail??? byMcMullet1 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Seriously?
5000 SF of retail is a big space and would not have been put up as an option unless the developer was courting a rather prominent retailer. Maybe F&B...Large restaurant?
And honestly Scott, I do not see how option #2 is a "more pedestrian and retail-friendly option" For a retailer to take that much storefront space, the stretch along Union would more than likely end up as one great expanse of storefront with its back to the street. ie, large 6'+ high shelves facing the customer INSIDE the space.
Seriously, for this type of setting, 5,000SF of retail is waaaaaay too much. It will not bring a welcoming storefront along the half block it occupies along Union! That's valuable space on the interior of the store to merchandise!
The only way the 5,000SF of retail will work is if it's for a restaurant and it engages the street. I don't care if it opens up physically or it has a good expanse of glass to peer through and see people happily eating away.
If it's not a restaurant, break the space up into smaller, more affordable spaces for non-conglomerate type of neighborhood retail.
Ooops. I said affordable.
Scratch that developers.
My bad.
add byjoanna1 month ago (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I forgot to add that the development is contemplated as Condos. The retail space is total square footage, but is the number of spaces is undetermined.

Also the Design Review Board advised that the retail space be extended into the open space area a bit to allow for more depth and flexibility of number and types of retail. They also advised that since there is a wide parking strip there with trees that the entry to at least one retailer along Union interact with the street.
20th and Union byDeb1 month ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I am a 15 year resident of 20th, north of Union who has put in huge anmounts of time and energy into my 1906 home. And it looks fab! All I can say is that our end of the hill and Madison Park and Columbia City are about the only commercial residential areas left that still have a skyline. Please keep this in mind and look at Capitol Hill and see where the CD could be going? Do we want to become another Capitol Hill without a sky?

Where are the designers who aim to keep things in perspective for aesthetics instead of piling brick upon brick and people upon people? We will just become another dense area with out anything unqiue going on. Keep it smaller, more specialized and withinthe archietecture of the neighborhood. The codo compex south of the Speech and Hearing Center off 19th and Madison is very aesthetically unappealing. They look like shipping containers about to fall off the top of a building.
Revitalization is important but only if it considers the current occupants who bought in an area that still had some space and uniqueness to it. I am in favor of a smaller building that can be easily maintained over the long haul and not become another building too large to be keep up with which will just bite the dust in 30 years because the occupants could not keep it up. Sustainability!
RE: 20th and Union byjoanna1 month ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
Since this plan fits the current zoning, what are your perceptions regarding this project?

I think there are a lot of people who agree with your basic ideas.
Unless someone wants to go work on zoning... byJohn1 month ago (0 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
and there are plenty of folks doing just that, btw...what's there fits the zoning. So complaining about the footprint isn't going to get you far. And design review, while it often has positive impact, has no teeth.

In other words, it's well and good to complain about the project, but unless you can offer (and create consensus around) an alternative I don't think you have much to go on.
Add Your Comment
Name:
Email:
(will not be displayed)
Subject:
Comment: