body { -ms-overflow-style: scrollbar; overflow-y: scroll; overscroll-behavior-y: none; } .errorContainer { background-color: #FFF; color: #0F1419; max-width: 600px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 10%; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .errorButton { margin: 3em 0; } .errorButton a { background: #1DA1F2; border-radius: 2.5em; color: white; padding: 1em 2em; text-decoration: none; } .errorButton a:hover, .errorButton a:focus { background: rgb(26, 145, 218); } .errorFooter { color: #657786; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5; padding: 1em 0; } .errorFooter a, .errorFooter a:visited { color: #657786; text-decoration: none; padding-right: 1em; } .errorFooter a:hover, .errorFooter a:active { text-decoration: underline; } #placeholder, #react-root { display: none !important; } body { background-color: #FFF !important; }

JavaScript is not available.

We’ve detected that JavaScript is disabled in this browser. Please enable JavaScript or switch to a supported browser to continue using twitter.com. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Imprint Ads info © 2023 Twitter, Inc.

Conversation

It honestly, should be pretty easy to kill this in design review, this plan fails for multiple reasons which I'll go through. I'll refer to the citywide document: seattle.gov/Documents/Depa As well as the Mount Baker document: seattle.gov/Documents/Depa

Quote Tweet

Frank Chiachiere

Here’s the site plan. Just a whole mess of surface parking. cosaccela.seattle.gov/Portal/Cap/Cap

Show this thread

4:21 AM · Apr 7, 2021

2

Bookmarks

First, the citywide document, this project fails miserably at literally all of the "Public Life" tests, but in particular PL2 walkability (it's actively harmful to walkability), and PL3 Street level interaction (where again it's actively harmful).

1

5

DC1.B.1: "Choose locations for vehicular access, service uses, and delivery areas that minimize conflict between vehicles and non-motorists wherever possible" That's a fail.

1

3

DC1.A.3: "Flexibility: Build in flexibility so the building can adapt over time to evolving needs, such as the ability to change residential space to commercial space as needed." Lol, no.

1

3

DC1.C.1: "Below-Grade Parking: Locate parking below grade wherever possible. Where a surface parking lot is the only alternative, locate the parking in rear or side yards, or on lower or less visible portions of the site." HAHAHAHAH

1

2

DC2.B.2: "Blank Walls: Avoid large blank walls along visible façades wherever possible." I'm just going to *guess* that the giant warehouse building isn't going to pass this one.

1

3

Ok, now for the Mount Baker specific document. That's where if design review isn't a farce this is DOA, first off, yes this document applies to this project.

Map of the area where the mount baker station area overly and town center guidelines apply. This project falls in the area and is marked with a red arrow.

read image description

ALT

1

4

First, the high level goals: 1. Concentrates housing, commercial uses, services and living-wage employment opportunities 2. Is well-served by transit and non-motorized travel options 3. Is well-designed and attractive to pedestrians

1

2

4. Serves North Rainier residents and is a destination shopping area with stores that serve the greater Rainier Valley

1

3

So, Amazon will argue that this is good jobs, but unless they drastically change it to be less car-centric and add some sort of small storefronts and residential the plan fails at all of them.

2

5

High level design directions 1. Breaking down scale of super blocks to create a balance of inwardly and outwardly focused development 2. Improving pedestrian connections and providing comfortable sidewalk widths

1

3. Open space that invites people together and to engage in physical activity 4. Housing doesn’t create a “wall” of undesirable facades that is counter to the feel of the neighborhood

1

1

Again, this honestly, fails all 4, It doesn't break up the superblock, it won't improve ped connections/comfort, there's no open space, and it frankly will create an undesirable facade wall.

1

2

Ok, but here's the real killer CS2.II.i: "All new development fronting on Rainier should be designed with buildings to the sidewalk edge, minimizing curb cuts, minimizing surface parking, and providing active, transparent street facades. "

1

7

CS2.III.i: "New development should set a good precedent for future redevelopment on the block by building to the sidewalk, providing active street level uses, and minimizing surface parking."

1

1

CS2.III.ii: "The Town Center encompasses several very large parcels. New development sites should be broken up with shared-use, mid-block connections wherever feasible."

1

1

1

cont: "For example, he Lowe’s site, which has nearly 1,000 feet of continuous frontage on both Rainier Ave. and Martin Luther King Jr. Way, along with about 700 feet on Bayview St., and more than 400 feet on McClellan St."

1

1

2

Unless the review board *literally* ignores the unambiguous text in the document that literally says the Lowes parcel has to be broken up and developed as multi use, this Amazon plan is DOA.

1

4

Just going to tag @TheUrbanAce, and walk away now.

1

8

Actually found some more very obvious stuff DC1.III.i: "Surface parking should be minimized..." DC1.III.ii: "On-site parking should be minimized, given proximity to a high capacity transit station. "

6