Read on Twitter
i received a DM a few nights ago, asking what the south lake union redevelopment would look like if it had been undertaken in a city like munich or vienna, instead of what was built here...
south lake union is a neighborhood just north of the downtown core
historically, owing to the proximity to the lake, it has been a neighborhood of low-rise buildings, largely industrial or commercial in nature. there was also a fair amount of residential sprinkled in
historically, owing to the proximity to the lake, it has been a neighborhood of low-rise buildings, largely industrial or commercial in nature. there was also a fair amount of residential sprinkled in
in 2013, the neighborhood was upzoned from largely low rise with some mid-rise buildings, to largely mid rise and high rise buildings. there really wasn't any planning on this.
http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2013/slu20130422_1c.pdf
http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2013/slu20130422_1c.pdf
this is how 'planning' is done in seattle.
you add more height to an existing zone, normally without changing the use designation. like this:
you add more height to an existing zone, normally without changing the use designation. like this:
and you pack in more FAR. i could rant for days about how we allow too much FAR for these buildings, resulting in short floors, and fat breadload buildings with bad daylight or really awful apt layouts, but that's a rant for another day.
the city expected thousands of residents to move to this neighborhood, but there was no concurrent planning for transportation, for schools, open space, etc.
there certainly wasn't any participatory planning on what neighborhood would look like
there certainly wasn't any participatory planning on what neighborhood would look like
the city's adopted bill included incentives for a developer to include a school - but those incentives seemed to have done virtually nothing to incentivize the actual construction of a school.
there is also no community center. no public pool.
there is also no community center. no public pool.
now, light rail is *planned* for south lake union - but it won't be getting here until over 20 years after the rezone.
https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/west-seattle-ballard-link-extensions
https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/west-seattle-ballard-link-extensions
there *is* a streetcar, but most of it was designed to run in traffic, and it doesn't connect to anything, so ridership has suffered.
and the opportunity to connect it to more streetcar has been delayed by current council. again.
yaaay!
https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/06/25/streetcar-on-hold-again/
and the opportunity to connect it to more streetcar has been delayed by current council. again.
yaaay!
https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/06/25/streetcar-on-hold-again/
the process in a city like munich or vienna would have been incredibly different, resulting in a much more vibrant and diverse neighborhood - with all the amenities a dense urban neighborhood should have
spatial planning in austria and germany is much more intentional than in the u.s.
in vienna, the windfalls from rezones are broadly shared between the public and private landowners - either in the form of open space, social housing, or infrastructure.
in vienna, the windfalls from rezones are broadly shared between the public and private landowners - either in the form of open space, social housing, or infrastructure.
seattle rezoned south lake union a second time just a few years after the first, adding an even greater windfall to developers - with virtually no public benefit.
this sort of thing would never have passed muster in vienna.
this sort of thing would never have passed muster in vienna.
after the initial round of participatory planning, there would be a design competition. this would be at a conceptual level, with some sort of cohesive language or thread tying it together. also layered in would be transit, energy, water, open space, location of amenities, etc.
here's where it gets interesting. vienna has specific/lengthy rules when it comes to the conceptual level planning competitions. one of the more interesting? jury make up. young people (25%) and women (25%).
this is a recurring theme in vienna https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/may/14/city-with-a-female-face-how-modern-vienna-was-shaped-by-women
this is a recurring theme in vienna https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/may/14/city-with-a-female-face-how-modern-vienna-was-shaped-by-women
the city also tries to make it easier for firms led by women, and young firms, to enter.
i could (and have) talked about how the RFP process in the US has historically been used to result in the exact opposite of this.
i could (and have) talked about how the RFP process in the US has historically been used to result in the exact opposite of this.
but there's also another motivation for the competition - cultural.
it allows for a level of transparency in awarding contract for best proposal for development, simultaneously increasing the quality of buildings and open space.
we have none of this in seattle.
it allows for a level of transparency in awarding contract for best proposal for development, simultaneously increasing the quality of buildings and open space.
we have none of this in seattle.
here's freiburg's documentation of urban planning for new dietenbach district. you get a sense of urban form, connections to city via bike/transit, open space, response to climate change, type of housing, how much social hsg, etc. https://www.freiburg.de/pb/site/Freiburg/get/params_E-1038854130/1416951/FDB_2018.pdf
after the winning selection, the planning contracts would be awarded, with continued dialog w/ owners, residents (present, future, etc) and a planning framework would be developed.
this gets to the more technical aspects of the new district. street layouts, ped zones etc
this gets to the more technical aspects of the new district. street layouts, ped zones etc
here is the framework doc for munich's freiham nord neighborhood, presently underway. integral to this framework is space for school(s), for kindergartens. housing v. shops v. office buildings. building extents, building heights, etc.
https://www.ris-muenchen.de/RII/RII/DOK/SITZUNGSVORLAGE/3163623.pdf
https://www.ris-muenchen.de/RII/RII/DOK/SITZUNGSVORLAGE/3163623.pdf
just as important to the design and planning of this development, is the funding. there are some interesting ways to fund urban development - in past, freiburg has paid for cost, but then recouped it w/ sale of land, increased in value. if city owns land, this makes sense
and also critical to these projects - that the amenities and infrastructure are not just kicked down toad for 20 or 40 years like they are here - but funded immediately. in vienna's seestadt aspern development, the u-bahn stations built in beginning, not 25 years after rezoned
and i think this is the crux of the difference in planning between the US and places like vienna, munich.
we kick the can down the road. we don't fail to plan, we plan to fail.
there is no integration in planning. there is no immediate funding. there is virtually no open space.
we kick the can down the road. we don't fail to plan, we plan to fail.
there is no integration in planning. there is no immediate funding. there is virtually no open space.
there are no overarching concepts, there is no funding for social housing, or using the massive lift in land values to require that social housing.
we let the market decide what should go where, and then poorly react to it.
it is, in fact, the opposite of planning.
we let the market decide what should go where, and then poorly react to it.
it is, in fact, the opposite of planning.
so while we may get density, we don't get diversity.
we don't get an economic mix of residents. we don't get a social mix of residents. we don't get ample open space. we don't get well-tuned transit. we don't get schools or kindergartens where needed.
how do we change this?
we don't get an economic mix of residents. we don't get a social mix of residents. we don't get ample open space. we don't get well-tuned transit. we don't get schools or kindergartens where needed.
how do we change this?
so it's difficult for me to think about what this would physically look like.
but it's not hard to imagine what would be there.
much more of the housing would be social housing.
there would have been ample open space, perhaps like the commons. streets to pedestrian zones...
but it's not hard to imagine what would be there.
much more of the housing would be social housing.
there would have been ample open space, perhaps like the commons. streets to pedestrian zones...
schools would have been planned for and funded.
same for kindergartens.
transit connections, bike and ped priority would have been integral to planning, and built shortly after rezone
same for kindergartens.
transit connections, bike and ped priority would have been integral to planning, and built shortly after rezone
there would be a community center. there would be a pool, or sportshall.
there would still likely be skyscrapers, too.
perhaps, in the end, something like this: https://www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/projekte/nordbahnhof/grundlagen/leitbild-2014/pdf/leitbild-2014-lang.pdf
there would still likely be skyscrapers, too.
perhaps, in the end, something like this: https://www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/projekte/nordbahnhof/grundlagen/leitbild-2014/pdf/leitbild-2014-lang.pdf
