|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 7 users and 39 guests online.
Online users
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
 |
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 4:16pm.
Today's Olympian featured an article on the proposal to build new multi-use high rise buildings in the area between Capitol Lake and Budd Bay.
» Can Olympia use high-rise buildings of this type, is there demand? What are the likely positive and negative outcomes of such development? (tax revenue, cultural benefit etc. v. obstruction of view, obstruction of wildlife corridor, other undesirable environmental impacts, etc.) I have concerns about the effects that the proposed buildings would have on the aesthetic qualities of the Capitol Campus and views of Budd Bay. For example I will point to the new condominium that was built on Westbay Drive, the one that is at the bottom of the steep hill (that goes up to Raft Street). It obstructs the (former) view of the Capitol Building from the hill. I think it is an example of poor planning and a betrayal of the public interest. That view was a public asset. Now it's private. It's a great view. Maybe I can make friends with the people who live there. Maybe I can make enough money to afford to live there myself. Are there any benefits to the public which outweigh or balance the loss of the view? Might the generation of tax revenue compensate? View Larger Map Promoting density and preventing urban sprawl sound like good ideas. But I am not sure that the proposed location for these buildings is appropriate. Would 30 residential units do all that much to increase foot traffic downtown or to prevent urban sprawl? (I wish city planners were as worried about urban sprawl 30 years ago.) I think it is important to genuinely weigh the potential positive outcomes against the potential negative outcomes. What kind of benefit would these buildings provide? What kind of property tax revenue would they generate? I think most people would oppose building in the proposed location. What do you think? View Larger Map
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. 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. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 Isthmus 2008 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
Right now the area is a bit of a wasteland at night
Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 4:30pm.some development
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 8:23pm.I like the idea of more people living downtown - a denser urban core.
But, I don't like the idea of building anything very high in the area between the lake and the bay. I think how cool that area would be if it was open space. An open corridor there would be my ideal.
I wish the 110 foot tall building wasn't there. I support putting it to use so long as it's within its usable lifespan. But how long has it been since it's been used? If it doesn't get used, I think it should be razed. It's an obstruction and an eye-sore. We are also probably paying to have it heated and maintained.
The notion of building two more tall buildings next to one that goes unused seems crazy to me. Wasteful. We can do better than that!
well said
Submitted by Katherine on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 8:51pm."We can do better"
Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 9:45pm.that part of town
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 9:58pm.Is it economically viable? Sure it is. I am not talking about overnight. Say this plan is for some distance in the future, say 50-100 years from now; it'll be a gradual progress.
I like the idea of the dense urban core butting right up against a natural area. It has great contrast, and it's thought provoking. Although it may not seem like it, we are dependent on the natural world and wilderness for our survival. The notion of separation from the natural world is illusory and based on our limited perception of reality as sensory beings.
So a natural area butting up against the urban core would be relevant and inspired. Of course it might not matter if the sea level rises a meter.
I'm all for some more agressive development downtown...
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 9:39pm....but I don't like the location for the proposed 2 huge new buildings. I doesn't make sense.
I really am for some new housing downtown, though. Both low and high income or whatever. We need some wealth downtown and some wealthy people to be invested in it. We just need to go slowly and make sure all voices are heard in the process.
I love the small town vibe here and I've always been against big buildings in our downtown but lately I feel like Olympia is ready for maybe one new big building...and hopefully, it can become part of that aesthetically dynamic, economically viable, pedestrian friendly and green model(see Katherine's post) that would make people say:
"Awesome. Look what the people have done here."
Sounds like a good idea to
Submitted by Dylan Carlson on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 10:34pm.Let's get real...
Submitted by Phil Owen on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 10:45pm....this isn't about promoting density or about creating affordable housing. What we're looking at here is upscale condo's for uber-rich people who can afford to live wherever they want and who will spend lots of money in pricey boutiques.
If we really wanted to increase urban density or to do something about skyrocketing housing costs, we'd be focusing on drawing apartment buildings that run in the range of $600 to $800 for a one bedroom. That would make a real difference.
This crap with attracting bourgie condos will only drag up the housing costs for the rest of us, effectively pricing some of us out of the market. Class war at its worst.
The Canaanite's Call
lets do it
Submitted by Just another voice on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 11:02pm.But I am Just Another Voice
Well,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 10:32am.Phil's right, this will be housing that people who live here now can't afford. This will not stimulate our economy, more likely, this will stimulate Seattle's economy. The people that move into this housing will be working and shopping in Seattle, they already do, and likely that won't change.
The city council is trying to develop our downtown completely backwards. You can't force people to live in housing just because it's there, and you can't expect people to enjoy and spend money in downtown if there's nothing there for them to enjoy. The city ought to be developing parks and small businesses and community events before they get gung-ho about housing. The city council is failing to realize that the housing will come when there is a market for it. I've yet to see any polls, or hear any any public outcry that there is a burning desire to live in downtown Olympia, especially in a million dollar condo.
Is the City Council developing?
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 10:40am.The council encourages or
Submitted by Phil Owen on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 11:02am.The council encourages or discourages development through land use codes and public investment (a common slogan in the last election season was that "private follows public" investment). The current council does certainly appear to favor high-end development, and I thing the waterfront properties will be an immediate focus. It's too bad really, because I really do think the rest of us are really going to lose out because of it.
(Besides which, when sea level rises and all those uber-rich condo dwellers are at risk of losing their investment, their economic status will position them well to demand an uber-expensive sea wall to protect their housing. The rich always get their housing protected while the poor get the shaft.)
The Canaanite's Call
Just wanted to get that straight
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 11:24am.Commuters filling up new home developments in county
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 11:42am.Rolf Boone
The OlympianMore than half the new homes built in eastern Thurston County are occupied by someone who commutes to work in another county.
In communities such as Hawks Prairie, Lacey and Yelm, 55 percent of the homes built between 2000 and 2005 are occupied by at least one outbound commuter, said Pete Swensson, a senior planner with the Thurston Regional Planning Council.
And in households with at least one commuter, earnings totaled $20,000 more than in those without a commuter, Swensson said. In 2004, the county’s median household income was $51,000; in households with at least one commuter, it rose to $73,000, he said.
“Outbound commuters make more money on average than those locally,” Swensson said.
The primary destination for outbound commuters living in the eastern part of the county is Pierce County. About 18,000 commute to Pierce County daily; an additional 2,900 drive to King County.
More here
Oh dude,
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 11:54am.I'm sure the numbers in Olympia are vastly different being that
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 12:07pm.I see your point about this article but this has been a growing trend in all of Thurston county. Cheap housing is attracting out of county workers. Now an executive at Microsoft will be able to live in downtown Olympia and spend the money they save in Seattle. Help me understand why I'm wrong, and how this condo development is somehow immune to this pattern.
Trust me Rob
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 12:32pm.truth conditional semantics
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 11:21am.The city IS trying to develop downtown into something that it's not right now.
hmm
Submitted by enpen on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 12:12pm.The city IS trying to develop downtown into something that it's not right now.
All development falls into this category. If you and I have our ways and get to turn some alley ways into dedicated pedestrian thoroughfares then we'll be developing downtown into something that it's not right now.
A real problem I have with our City Council seeking this type of development is that they continue to push the rationale of Olympia needing more housing downtown. But I didn't see this same group of people so much as budge a finger when WSECU put in its permit requests and demolished 40+ apartment units off of Union just two months ago in order to construct a new office building.
"In principle, I am an anarchist. Kurt Vonnegut once said he was an agnostic who respects Jesus Christ. I am an anarchist who loves democracy." - Kenzaburo Oe
I was trying to define what I meant by develop
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 12:20pm.outbound commuters
Submitted by IFerguson on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 2:42pm.As an outbound commuter myself (3 days a week), I think you may have this backwards. Some outbound commuters develop the local economy, not the one where they work. I almost never shop in Seattle, carrying home purchased items on the bus would be a hassle. Besides, I live here and want to shop local. Our Food Coop can not be beat. I earn money in Seattle, but spend it here.
Also, it may seem like the difference is small, but after a long day, Lacey and Yelm really are much closer than downtown Oly. I pity the poor rich condo owners if they are commuting to Seattle every day from Olympia. Friday evenings it takes 3 hours on a good day.
I would second Rob Whitlock's plan of making that area natural, and encouraging development in downtown places (perhaps of slightly higher elevation. East downtown would be a good place (although I love always being able to park right in front of the Cherry St. roaster, and will miss that) But if it were more developed, I'd have to walk, but I'm starting to ramble.
Thanks Gug,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 3:59pm.If you want to stimulate downtown's economy these are not the people that are going to do it in my opinion. I'm looking for a more well rounded plan from the city, and I'm not hearing one. Housing is important, but they also need to focus on having a social structure to nurture the relationships between people living in dense environs. I want to hear about weekly community events, streets downtown dedicated to pedestrians with cafes and stores spilling out onto them. Those things, along with housing will stimulate downtown. Building boxes for people to lay down in when they get off work isn't my idea of stimulation.
Agreed,
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 4:18pm.I also want to see
Submitted by Phil Owen on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 11:17pm.a clearer commitment from the council for market rate housing that the average working person can afford. That would not be waterfront condos.
While I'm not sure that I agree with you about the commuter aspect of this, I do definately get the sense that the council is aiming to attract consumers rather than community members. The deeper the pockets, the better.
There are two reasons that this bothers me. The first is that doing this will price me out of my own town. The second is that I believe that nothing is worse for culture and community than trying to pack it full of rich consumers. We'll wind up with a lot of Starbuck's cafe's and chinsy boutiques, and with no access to public space for civic engagement. Public space brings poor people, because it's the only space the poor have access to. And rich people often seem to have a terrible phobia of poor people.
The Canaanite's Call