Stranger NIMBYs?
Posted Nov. 30, 2006 at 11:02 am by Mike SeelyOn its face, Erica Barnett's feature, "The Death of Pike/Pine," is passionately written, well-researched and arrives at its conclusion — that increased residential density can fuck up the character and street-level diversity of a given block or two — with a great deal of tact and supporting data. As Barnett asserts, you'd be hard-pressed to find many Capitol Hill residents who are thrilled at the prosepct of Manray, the Cha-Cha or Bimbo's giving way to a Mailboxes Etc. or tanning salon on the ground floor of a shiny new condo tower. You'd also be hard pressed to find another anti-density argument in the archives of the Stranger, which, since its inception, has banged the drum consistently for increased density in the metro core.
A classic example was former staff writer Amy Jenniges' December 16, 2004 piece, "How Capitol Hill Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Density." Here, Jenniges muses: "Over the past few years, however, opposition to new construction on Capitol Hill has subsided. The Press Apartments didn't devastate the Pike-Pine corridor, as some predicted. Instead, that sliver of Capitol Hill is thriving. And this fall, the mayor submitted legislation that could boost Broadway's building heights, and the neighborhood Stewardship Council recently passed on a chance to appeal the proposal. Capitol Hill has learned that the benefits of density outweigh the annoyances, and the neighborhood has gotten smart about demanding smart density—including more interesting buildings, like the Braeburn—instead of blocking it. If only other urban nodes—like Northgate or West Seattle—would follow suit."
Be careful what you wish for, I guess: Now that said density threatens to shutter some of the Stranger staff's favorite walking-distance watering holes, the paper has done a 180 of sorts, assuming the very same NIMBY stance that it has consistently belittled. To wit, Josh Feit's June 2, 2005 take on Mayor Nickels cowing to developer opposition to new construction around Harbor Steps: "It's Nickels's hypocrisy that's most galling. Typically, Nickels balks at such selfish whining. The mayor has had no problem denouncing complaints against pro-development rezones when the gripes come from neighborhoods like the U-District..But when it comes to stepping on the toes of big property owners, like Harbor Properties, Nickels sings a more conciliatory tune. Such pandering lends credence to Nickels's growing chorus of critics, who denounce his density agenda as a sop to developers...Dennis Meier, a staffer with Nickels's Department of Planning and Development, was candid about the Western Avenue rezone. 'There was a lot of opposition from residents in the area,' Meier said. How do these neighbors differ from the 'anti-job' variety in the U-District? Well, they're richer, and they had a big developer on their side...One resident said, 'We are not opposed to increases in downtown density. We just didn't want a wall of buildings right there.' She went on to acknowledge: 'Clearly we have a proprietary interest.' Again: Classic NIMBYism, except this time Nickels caved."
Faced with a choice between increased density and losing a few killer bars in low-slung buildings that their staff can walk to from their offices on the other side of Broadway, the Stranger doesn't want the buildings right there either. Classic NIMBYism? You be the judge.
Topics: Newspapers
Comments
Whoa! Wait a minute, Mike. Are you trying to suggest that the Stranger will get its panties in a self-righteous wad on some issue of great principle, and put it all over their cover with exclamation points, and then decide to start selling the exact opposite idea? Are you saying the paper that had its tongue up Judy Nicastro's ass (in their own charming phrase) for years for her noble effort to turn downtown and surrounding neighborhoods into New York, has now decided that it's not such a great idea when it threatens one of their favorite hangouts? Dude. No way.
Posted Nov. 30, 2006 at 2:03 pm by Mark D. FeferWhat I would say is that prior to the pike/pine condo invasion, capitol hill had absorbed its fair share of density more so than other single family home dominated seattle neighborhoods, e.g., wedgewood, magnolia, and greenlake. But only until recently, the density has not eliminated many of the culturally happening places in the neighborhood. Why don't we start rezoning those single family housing neighborhoods so they can get their fair share of out of neighborhood scale condos:).
Posted Nov. 30, 2006 at 2:38 pm by newyorker in seattleThose posers at the Stranger are just angry because they're being outpriced of their neighborhood. There's no way they'll—except Savage—ever be able to afford living in those new condos with their salaries. I sense that's where the bitterness is coming from.
Posted Nov. 30, 2006 at 3:11 pm by JambaI imagine in 20 or so years, when condo construction starts to incur into now single family-home neighborhoods such as Ballard, Wallingford, Madison Park, et al, I don't expect to hear any of you now gloating over CapHill's gentrification utter one word about the inevitable loss of now-sacrosanct local establishments - those of you who haven't already upscaled yourselves to such bastions of culture such as Woodinville, Union Hill or Newcastle, that is.
Posted Nov. 30, 2006 at 4:22 pm by I\'M A BIRTHDAY CAKEThe folks at the Stranger should just stick to writing about porn and body fluids. They get lost in the tall grass when they begin pretending to be real journalists...
Posted Nov. 30, 2006 at 4:38 pm by ReporterwardYo Cake! Nobody's "gloating about Capitol Hill's gentrification," they're snickering at the way the Stranger staff has cheerleaded the redevelopment of Broadway and the Pike/Pine corridor and is now horrified that their beloved density could displace hip bars and restaurants. You'd think at least one of those geniuses would have figured out that anyone trying to sell pricey new condos isn't going to move Linda's into their ground floor.
Posted Dec. 1, 2006 at 10:34 am by J.R.Although I agree that Erica's article had its flaws — those not-in-great-shape "low-slung buildings" will be falling down at some point, after all — it seems y'all are missing her big point: The reason many of these developments are in the works is because of P/P's reputation as a "vibrant arts corridor." Left unchecked, however, these monolothic condo things could end up displacing the corridor's most-trafficked locations.
And what do any of us have against hip bars and restaurants? Since when is a small-business's success a bad thing?
Posted Dec. 1, 2006 at 12:26 pm by horatiosanzserifI have no problem with hip bars and restaurants. I, like Erica, would prefer that those bars stay put. My point was not to dispute that isolated argument, but rather to point out that it's somewhat inconsistent with dramatically different arguments the Stranger has made in the past. Erica thinks my analysis is overly simplistic, pointing to infill versus demolition-necessitating density. I maintain that the Stranger itself failed to fully grasp such nuance until it threatened a few classic bars in its backyard.
Posted Dec. 4, 2006 at 7:39 am by Seely