Another perspecitve on Triway Condo open house

Navigation

User login

Online users

enpen
w1r3d1
The Original Yoda
sasqwatcher

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

itsthewater
tsunamizombie
Brooks
Teresa Marie Staal
Jeff151

Upcoming events

FROdependence Day Pizza Party(1 day)
Kimya Dawson, Ghost Mice, Heathers and June Madrona at Freeschool Fundraiser!(3 days)
Lunchtime Stories in the Park(4 days)
Jerry E. Smith on HAARP and Weather Warfare!(6 days)
OAR - Basic Sculling Class - Offering 5(7 days)
Oly Free Herbal Clinic Cob-Oven Pizza Benefit(8 days)

Poster Calendar

Another perspecitve on Triway Condo open house

Submitted by emmettoconnell on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 9:01am.

From Janine Gates via email:

...I attended the Triway Enterprises "open house" last night at Tumwater Lodge, met Jeannette Hawkins and Mr. Tri Vo, the project developer, the project designer, and others. A Triway-hired limo driver enthusiastically insisted on taking me the short distance from the overflow parking lot up to the lodge. That about says who was really invited to this "open" house. I walked back to my car.
I asked Jeannette who was invited. She said the Chambers, the Olympia Downtown Association, the Westside Business Association, the 2012 group, etc." By only inviting such an elite sliver of the community, an opportunity for real dialogue was missed. I asked when she was going to invite the local environmental community to participate in the discussion and she laughed, saying that she had lots of time, "until September." Mostly likely, she had no intention of reaching out so I asked if she would be interested in coming to a forum that SPEECH would sponsor and she said yes, she would welcome the opportunity. So, SPEECH will be sponsoring a forum, date and time to be announced soon, stay tuned.
Do these people really want to work and play with us? I don't think so. I've lived here 25 years and I still don't personally don't know anyone who could afford to buy one of those condos, which they said would retail for $800,000 - $1 million each. They said there is a pent-up demand for view condos at that price. Build it and they will come seems to be their philosophy. But at what price are we wiling to sell the soul of our community - our views, our way of life, our sense of community spirit?
The proposed design is by no means what we will get if the area is rezoned. There is still a lot to learn. Please, if anyone would like to help me with an upcoming forum, and perhaps, set up a card table and discuss the issue with people coming into downtown for the Wooden Boat Fair this weekend, please let me know.

emmettoconnell's blog
Login or register to post comments

see my problem here:

Submitted by emmettoconnell on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 9:06am.

Do these people really want to work and play with us? I don't think so.

This is where I'm tripping on the anti-condo arguments, that apparently these people who would buy these condos aren't going to be like you. Apparently, that's a bad thing.

I would assume that one of the reasons people would want to live downtown is, in addition to the views, would be because they would be downtown. They would move to downtown because they want to be downtown, as it is right now. Downtown right now would be a selling point.

I also, at some point in my life, want to live in a downtown condo. Probably after I retire.

No, thank you.

Submitted by ronnie on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 11:28am.

I am opposed to this project for a number of reasons. First, I think traffic will be awful. Secondly, I think aesthetically, the project would be an eyesore. And finally, on a more "philosophical" level, I would like to see that area of town remain accessible to all who live and visit Olympia. Projects like this are common in other cities but I think it is not the right fit for our town. I would be willing to become involved with a citizen's group opposing the development. Thank you.

What sitting on those sites

Submitted by wilson on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 12:07pm.

What sitting on those sites now is anything people would want "access" too? All I see is a couple of un-maintained buildings and some parking lots. Serious question, maybe I'm missing something.

More specifically

Submitted by ronnie on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 2:33pm.

I guess I would rather see nothing there to be honest. And my argument may be hard to justify in the face of money and opportunity. However, if I could speak in somewhat loose/nebulous terms i would say this: That when I drive, walk, or bike through that part of Olympia there is an openness a connection to the sky, the water, the city that I think is unique. It is simple. There is value in this simplicity. I would support a renovation of the existing structure. I think that could be a responsible compromise. I just can not support some large out of place monolith that in my opinion would serve only a select few while impacting the lives of many citizens negatively. Respectfully, Ronnie

But that's the owners' fault

Submitted by Bauermeister on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 8:25pm.

Wilson, you speak as though those lots were empty by accident, and not because the owners are just sitting on them until they can get the jacked-up prices which will enable them to add a few more millions to their bank account. As far as I can see, that's really all they're interested in, not helping promote reasonable growth in the downtown area. And let me be clear: I don't oppose growth or high buildings in downtown, I just don't think it's the city council's job to underwrite the investments of real-estate developers.

On what Emmett wrote

Submitted by Sarah on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 2:58pm.

I agree with you Emmett on the language choices. Personally the "us vs. them" stuff doesn't work for me and I often have to just screen it out.

But even though I may disagree with the propaganda - salesmanship type choices, I might agree with the bottom line issue. For example - shouting "Tear it down!" doesn't work for me personally. Nor does this divisive stuff used in the condos downtown debate. But I am against the war and also against Port of Olympia militarization. And condos downtown at that location doesn't sound like a good idea so far to me.

I do appreciate your point though. I wish we all could debate things without other-ing the other side.

bad design is...

Submitted by chad360 on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 10:37am.

...bad design (condo-wise), but the idea of "bad" people is not inclusive.

Rich or not, folks are folks, and I just don't buy into this idea that economic status dictates whether someone is "bad" or not-

How do we get ahold of Janine if we want to be involved?

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 11:25am.

sorry, should have put that there

Submitted by emmettoconnell on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 11:31am.

She's prez of SPEECH.

Here's her website.

open spaces

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 2:40pm.

I would like to see how much support there would be in the community for the concept turning the isthmus into an open space / park themed natural / wilderness area. It would be interesting if the council would devote equivalent resources to the concept of life-sustaining wilderness as it seems to devote to the concept of industrial-growth (limitless capitalism).

equivalent resources

Submitted by emmettoconnell on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 3:38pm.

The reason the city is expending any resources at all is because the property owner is proposing to use his property. The city is duty bound to hear him.

If someone else had bought the property or if someone had campaigned the city to buy it and turn it into parks when it was up for sale, then we would be expending resources in that direction.

Oddly

Submitted by rainy gray on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 4:37pm.

I don't quite know the significance of this, but apparently the land on the isthmus targetted for development is owned by several corporations, and an individual. One parcel is owned by "Capital Shores LLC," for whom the agent of record is Tri Vo, but other parcels in that area are owned by "Capitol Center, LLC," "Views on Fifth," Zita Zvirzdys, and Olympia Parks.

I think it's a great place for a park or wilderness area

Submitted by jlw on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 2:46pm.

It's immediately adjacent to Heritage Park, and the fountain, and close to the Park of the Seven Oars. How about a native plant garden? And while we're thinking big, let's try to get that hideous eyesore of a building torn down.

tear it down!

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 2:53pm.

Yes, the novel concept of a wilderness area would be sure to inspire the further future greatness Olympia.

Olympia is too good, and too cool for the status quo. We deserve better! Wilderness area, park-reserve ahoy!

I like the multi-use natural area concept for isthmus, including but not limited to recreational and educational focus, and a true and protected wilderness area preserve.

This society has been take take taking from nature for so long. It's about time to start giving something back!

I completely agree with you

Submitted by wilson on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 2:58pm.

I completely agree with you Rob. That is why these buildings need to get built. They are within the UGA and promote higher density living, which is exactly what is best for our wilderness areas. Instead of carving out space in undeveloped areas people can purchase these units and live responsibly due to the high density and the limited auto use that this type of development encourages.

"complete agreement"

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 3:13pm.

Your idea of "complete agreement" is unusual, Wilson. Perhaps you would re-consider your comment in the light of truthfulness and honest listening.

You have demonstrated complete neglect for the core of my ideas (that increased density is good - just not on the isthmus).

Thusly, I feel disrespected.

You know what, it was an

Submitted by wilson on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 4:58pm.

You know what, it was an honest comment. I think the crime I may have committed was having an honest disagreement with you. We both want the same thing, just diffferent ways of going about it.

i agree with both of you

Submitted by emmettoconnell on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 9:22pm.

The best (towards Rob W's perspective) that could be hoped for on the site would be a managed park. "Wilderness" could never really be attained. From my understanding, the ecological function of those two city blocks would be very limited.

It would be cut off from other wilderness or even close to wild areas and would offer very little to the ecological function or the area, aside from an increase in pervious surface. I think Wilson is right here, that in terms of taking pressure off of developing rural and already wooded areas, this project is good.

I like high density housing, too

Submitted by jlw on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 7:09am.

It does help preserve wilderness and reduce sprawl. But there are a lot of parcels in downtown Olympia where high density housing could be built without destroying the view corridor from the Capitol Campus, which is why the current zoning exists in the first place. The isthmus is targeted for development because the views are so great at that spot, on both sides. A great view enhances the value of the condo, so the developer makes more money. There are other spots in downtown where some of the units would have a nice view, but can you think of anywhere else where there would be alluring views from both sides of the building?

The view is altered by the

Submitted by wilson on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 8:18am.

The view is altered by the proposed buildings. The view study that was completed by the architect (using approved methodology) determined that approximately 1% of the view would be altered. We would no longer be able to see Bayview or the Oysterhouse. I would hardly classify that as being "destroyed". Also the view from standing on the property would be the same. Stand in back of the old health building and look towards the Sound, you would be staring at a wall, the same thing you would be staring at with the new buildings.

Why did you put "destroyed" in quotes?

Submitted by jlw on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 10:02am.

You weren't quoting me. In fact, the way things are threaded, it looks like you are responding to what I wrote, but what you have written does not seem to indicate that you even read my post. 1% of what view? "1% of the view" sounds... daffy. How many perspectives are you quantifying there?

My chief concern is that the view from the Capitol Campus, which has been preserved for decades by zoning, is seriously degraded by this project. Talking about the degradation of the view of the scenery with percentages seems very odd, but if I had to do it, I would say that the eyesore that is already there alters the view significantly -- 1% certainly seems like an understatement.

Actually, I'm rather interested in this "view study" that was completed by "the architect." What are you talking about? The area has not been re-zoned yet. The city hired urban planners to create designs of the possible impact of zoning changes allowing different heights. Is that what you're referring to? Or is there indeed a "view study" by an architect that hasn't yet been shared with the public?

The view study was completed

Submitted by wilson on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 11:41am.

The view study was completed by the firm handling the design of the buildings (BCRA out of Tacoma). As far as percentages sounding daffy that is the way it is calculated for industry and regulatory purposes. The only reason I had put quotes around destroyed is because it is exactly what was said, sorry. The view study was presented at the open house this week, and is I am sure availible upon request from Triway, it is probably on the website. I am not trying to upset you with quotes, so please don't take it that way.

I don't see it on the

Submitted by jlw on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 1:36pm.

I don't see it on the website. And it was an "invitation only" open house, don't forget. And, at the risk of sounding cynical, I doubt if this was a completely objective assessment of how the view corridors would be impacted. Some of Triway's promotional materials regarding the project actually claim the views will be improved!

I can understand how one

Submitted by wilson on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 5:46pm.

I can understand how one could think that. However the assesment has to be done a certain way and under certain rules not set by the developer or designer to be able to be used in any permit or development process.

That's hard to judge when

Submitted by jlw on Sun, 05/11/2008 - 6:43pm.

That's hard to judge when it's not publicly available.

good point...

Submitted by chad360 on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 10:40am.

...now, if they (the proposed condos) were less costly, that would be a step in the correct direction.

I'm all for a private citizen buy-out...how much is the land worth?

It's worth a lot less the way it's zoned now!

Submitted by jlw on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 1:34pm.

But it's very pricey. One parcel last sold for over $11 million, and I think all or most of the other parcels are at least $1 million. Check it out at the assessor's website.

The condo proposal could be a good project

Submitted by Laurian on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 4:26pm.

but the location sucks. This a unique piece of property and pardon my classism here by why does the best always have to go to the rich?

Take what ya need, but leave the rest.

But they never should have taken the very, very best.

The Night they drove old Oly Down...

RW,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 4:36pm.

I'm not sure what you're so bent on preserving. I look at that spot and see a whole lot of concrete and who knows how much pollution in the soil underneath it. I agree with Matthew here, and Wilson, we need high density housing downtown. I, like Laurian, don't think this is the best location, but they aren't going to be tearing down a forest to build on it either. I just hope the council trades the height limit for some affordable housing like they do in Seattle.

Good idea

Submitted by Matthew Green on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 6:35pm.

The city council can -- if it wants to -- sign a development agreement with the developer, where the city grants the zoning changes and the developer signs a legally binding agreement to provide affordable housing or whatever else is agreed to. Matthew

If I recall correctly,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 7:30pm.

Seattle mandated that 15% of the number of units they were building above the height limit had to be affordable. Not that those units weren't all on low floors, but they still had to build them. I don't know what percentage of the median income they pegged the units to, I imagine it would be around 80%. It'd be nice if they'd go to 50%, and really open them up to low income people.

And with a handful of lawyers

Submitted by Laurian on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 7:01pm.

he will weasel right out of that deal. Like the current council will ask anything from this ex-slum lord. Oh snap!

Here's an idea!

Submitted by ronnie on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 8:51pm.

How about renovating the existing structure (eco-friendly, reusable materials, etc) and price them under $250,000? Then turn the remaining grounds into open space or a park- like area to connect the lake area with the landing...

That would be a very good

Submitted by wilson on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 6:44am.

That would be a very good idea if it made financial sense.

(No subject)

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sun, 05/11/2008 - 4:13pm.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our Social Contract. You should also look at our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Olyblogger of the Month:

decorabilia

Online users

Comment viewing options