From Aubrey Cohen at the P-I:
The Seattle City Council’s Planning, Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee has endorsed a proposed rezone for a $300 million redevelopment of a 10-acre site in Little Saigon. The full council is scheduled to consider the rezone Feb. 17.
Ravenhurst Development, operating as Dearborn Street Developers LLC, has proposed a six-story building with 600,000 square feet of retail space, plus 45,000 square feet of offices and 500 homes at the northwest corner of Rainier Avenue South and South Dearborn Street. Most of the land is home to Seattle Goodwill, which would remain on the site.
Hearing Examiner Sue Tanner recommended approval of the plan in October, with conditions that the developer, among other things, abide by an agreement with the Dearborn Street Coalition for Livable Neighborhoods, which is made up of business, neighborhood, labor, faith, housing, environmental and ethnic community organizations.
The future of Dearborn Street at Rainier Avenue South. Image/Darrell Vange, Ravenhurst Development
{ 28 comments }
If the City of Seattle was really serious about creating density around the light rail stations and economic development in SE Seattle, they would be encouraging significant development projects such as this to be located around a light rail station. Instead, our light rail station neighborhoods live under the threat of being mandated to create a certain amount of density while real accelerator economic development opportunities such as the Dearborn retail center, as well as opportunities to organically increase density, go up just out of reach of light rail riders.
This will truly be the light rail to nowhere as SE Seattle will be bookended by the Dearborn retail center to the north and Southcenter to the south; both offline and not making things more “walkable” for us.
A giant sucking sound will be heard coming out of SE Seattle as retailers continue to settle everywhere but SE Seattle.
Does the City of Seattle live in some bizarro alternative reality? They throw down design guidelines that force us to walk and not drive and yet major neighborhood shopping centers such as this continue to be off the light rail and out of SE Seattle resident’s reach and walking radius.
We should be demanding a private/public partnership from the City that says no to major retail centers off the light rail but ridiculously close to the very community that will end up shopping there!
Hey, I’m not protesting the development, I’m protesting the ridiculous double talk and double standards for our “light rail” community while major retail opportunities end up elsewhere.
“they would be encouraging significant development projects such as this to be located around a light rail station.”
Isn’t this what “we’ve” been fighting against?
This neighborhood will fight anything, and all the good stuff will go to less squeeky places. I guess we won. Yippee.
Ratzby — always the optimist…
tsktsktsk
If we operated like a democracy instead of relying on a few outspoken, selfish individuals to speak for us…
Oh, forget it.
Actually Ratzby, this neighborhood was very squeaky. Look to the key word of this article: an “agreement” with the Dearborn Street Coalition. SE Seattle residents have fought certain projects but never got a community agreement from a developer. You have to be really squeaky to get that.
I see Ratzby’s point. If you look at the most vocal activists around here as a whole (which may or may not be fair), the southeast seems unambiguously anti-TOD, anti-developer, anti-mayor, anti-city council. What nuance there is in positions like yours, jewalden, get lost in all the “this is a conspiracy,” “we are persecuted victims” talk that gets wheeled out. We are famed for saying no. The focus should be on serious engagement and negotiation, which means moderating incendiary talk and not impuning the motives/reputations of the players (at least until the battle is lost). If I were a developer and had to deal w/ our beloved Anon as the community’s gatekeeper, I might consider engaging with a different community.
It really would be great to join a fight FOR something. That would get my attention, and likely my wholehearted participation.
Have I missed it? Has someone written a manifesto for the South End? Or have we allowed Anonymous to drown out the creative voices who could unify us and lead our neighborhoods off in a positive direction?
Actually John Hoole, that is what neighborhood planning is for. It’s to plan and indicate to the City what we are “for”. Unfortunately, the City has often overlooked these plans and subordinated them to the numerous overlay and other design guidelines and new policies. So then we spend the next 8 years fighting against things that don’t work with the neighborhood plan such as TOD, station area planning and a concentration of the City’s supportive housing and Section 8 housing.
What examples can you show that we’ve been anti-development? I think that is just a presumptious conclusion you’re making.
Really? I’m not even going to bother tracking down an example of anti-developer sentiment — Nickels is in bed with the developers, greedy developers, the city is paving the way for developers to throw out low income residents – all manner of indictments against developers are readily available in comments all over this site. And it’s not specific developers usually – it’s developers as a self-evidently sinister class. Anybody wanna cast a stone at Futurewise? Mention the word “developers” in the same sentence with ‘em. Developers + (perceived enemy) = malevolent puppetmasters. It works for pretty much anything! This kind of thing is easy enough to hear at public meetings too.
Your point about “agreement” is exactly right — attracting development that’s favorable to the neighborhood is all about negotiation. My point is that to portray oneself as a victim encircled by enemies is the worst possible negotiating position imaginable.
Futurewise Board of Directors and employees:
Weyerhaeuser, Parsons-Brinkerhoff, GGLO Architects, Lorig Associates,……
Environmentalists or engineers, architects, and developers?
‘nuf said.
Totally! Thanks Anon!
Consider this; the old Long’s Drug store remains vacant year after year because of population demographics that are not conducive to a healthy and commericially viable business environment. Simply put, we’re Seattle’s poorest community and businesses see very limited opportunity to make a profit in the vacant space. Therefore, it remains vacant, a symbol of a community in distress.
A community cannot grow or attract positive development if the powers that be continue to encourage only low-income development and services which support a low-income population. Poverty breeds more poverty. Eventually mainstream business and private-sector investment leaves and social services begin to expand. That’s a well-established pattern in many cities and it’s happening in the Rainier Valley. The trend is unmistakable and it started several years ago during boom times. If you think things are tenuous now, wait a year or so.
In order to turn the situation around requires city intervention to stop the pattern of decline. This is either not important enough or not desired by the current Mayor or the City Council. If the city wanted jobs and retail business in the Rainier Valley, we’d have them and plenty of them, if that’s what city leaders wanted.
We have the exact community that our city leaders want us to have. Hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding is available to a community like southeast Seattle. The problem is, the funding is for social services and not retail businesses and jobs. If the government funded businesses the Rainier Valley would be one long strip mall. Instead, the Rainier Valley is filled with social services.
You cannot separate politics from economic success (or failure).
um, sentiment aimed at developers or at their proposed development? I think again, you’re recalling your own conclusion based on a pre-filtered perspective. I don’t recall anyone protesting any specific development projects on this forum. To be anti-TOD is not anti-development btw. But pro-TOD people might jump to that conclusion.
Also, I have worked for developers and contractors and have a masters in real estate finance and investment. I have also done some small development myself. I understand what their main objectives are and don’t fault them for it; just sometimes it doesn’t work for the community’s best interest, but that’s what the process is there for.
When I wear several hats, I try to remember what objectives I’m representing. I do not think I am at cross-purposes with myself and believe there is room for improvement from developers the City and the community. To offer constructive criticism rather than rubber stamp everything thrown your way is to beg for mediocrity.
BTW, I agree that it’s very important to present a positive vision for the community to the stakeholders and decision-makers. If you are only complaint-driven then you will only be playing defense.
However, there is a vision for SE Seattle coming from the City that a lot of people are not on board with. These people need to present an alternative reality but also need to fight poor policies or things that may harm what community residents are trying to protect (or not impact anything residents are trying to change).
The key is to provide BOTH positive visions and complain about existing practices that don’t work. We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Having said that, are you just complaining about the complaining? Not sure what your point is…
Not all development is good. Not all social services are bad.
There are some people on this blog who have extensive experience in business and development and they have a vision how development can make a stronger community. There are some people on this blog who are committed to supporting all social services and they believe more services are better than fewer services.
There are some long-time residents who have the perspective of age and experience. There are some new residents that have no historical perspective but lots of idealism and a desire to play a role in the future of the community.
There are political leaders that are honestly trying to make Seattle a better place. There are politicians that are consumed with their own political advancement and giving favors to their influential friends.
All these people are crossing paths in Seattle’s most stressed, underrated,stereotyped, burdened, beautiful, eclectic, diverse, dangerous, and exciting community.
Southeast Seattle has so much potential but there are too many competing agendas. Only the most powerful will prevail here. Who are the most powerful here?
I dunno, anon, but that was a powerful post!
Not as powerful as it could have been. I’ve seen him hide his real agenda better.
Take the first sentence out of every paragraph and he’s describing himself as he wishes to see himself.
1. “extensive experience in business and development and they have a vision how development can make a stronger community”
2. “long-time residents who have the perspective of age and experience”
3. “political leaders that are honestly trying to make Seattle a better place”
If this were true I’d have no complaints. But it’s not really true. What’s true:
1. A handful of people with business and development experience completely dedicated to their own enrichment.
2. NIMBYs
3. Bullshit. Just a few local business people trying to influence the few local political leaders who want to be seen as listeners.
These business “leaders” are trying to influence things that benefit them. No surprise, is it? But if you took a poll of every homeowner and renter in the SE about what would make them happy, these leaders would crumble. They want to shut out the average homeowner, day job worker, child rearing everywoman/man.
Do those folks want to attend a meeting of the wildly wacky SE groups? No more than they want to bang their heads against a wall. So those leaders succeed in pushing their agenda and become the official face of the South End.
It’s not a pretty face.
If I were the mayor or council, I’d look away, too.
Put that face on a list or something.
“Ratzby” that’s a lot of venom. You should check yourself. “Anon’s” entry is an honest assessment of the volatile dynamic of our community.
Maybe everyone should check themselves before they spend time promoting hate and negativity? Try listening, followed by some trust in a fellow human being.
I don’t mean to promote venom (really). But I am tired of a few people supposedly speaking for me.
I know, if I wanted something different I’d attend meetings myself, and make my own voice heard. But I’m not a meeting-goer.
I just give my weak voice on this forum because I’m too lazy to be more agressive. I’m not going to go to the meetings. If that means giving up control to those few, it’s my own fault.
The good thing is my life will be just fine, developement or not. I’m easy.
Ratzby, are you saying that you’re just an easy-going nihilist or deconstructionist?
“Ratzby”, I sure wish you’d go to a few meetings. You might not like what’s being done in your name.
Morning Anon!
I’m confused Ratzby. It seems that what you’re basing your opinion on for SE leadership is that a project like this underwent a completely different process…some process that included pro-development sentiment with helpful community people who the mayor/city council turned to and embraced? As opposed to our community which has gangs shooting all around it and mandated density. Why can’t we just get along with the City like Queen Anne neighborhoods? Perhaps because our objectives and goals are different?
This project met a lot of opposition which was fought tooth and nail and still being fought tooth and nail. The agreement came out of being a more committed squeaky wheel, people showing up at committee meetings, writing letters, having meetings, talking to people, etc…
What different process do they engage that we don’t? As far I can tell, its that people actually have gotten off their duff and done something about it rather than being a couch activist.
And if you’re not a paid nonprofit employee or a paid business leader, then you doing this stuff on your own time and for free. So volunteers are spending their time to hold the City and others to some level of accountability and what??? what is the complaint here.
Unsubscribe from comments feed. Seeking greener pastures. Best of luck.
“Ratzby, are you saying that you’re just an easy-going nihilist or deconstructionist?”
Neither.
I read the Bhagavad Gita and misunderstood it. Now I just watch the world go by, and grin nervously.
I though you were lamenting the fact that surrounding neighborhoods were developing and we weren’t. And I thought I was stating the obvious (to me) reason for that.
I don’t want to watch the sausage being made; that’s what activists and politicians are for. But the result of always saying “no” is that we have what we have.
Somebody in Renton has either been saying “yes”, or they need to borrow a few of our activists.
So JenWalden, what’s your vision? What should the RV look like in ten years?
Come to think of it, that’s something I’d love to see on the RVP. Everyone’s vision.
A heads up could be given, say a week or two. We could all do some deep thinking about just what we’d want things to looks like ten years from now, along Rainier, MLK, other neighborhoods. Lurkers could be encouraged to jump in, maybe for the first time.
Sound possible? Useful?
(Is anyone else noticing the the code word verification is starting to throw out actual words instead of just random letters? I had “sperm” the other day.)
My vision for the valley? I have some specific ideas, but it has to work with what grassroots and the community wants. But for instance to point to the content of this article, I think its a shame that neighborhood retail centers end up off the lightrail. Shopping options are in great need here and these opportunities would be better serving the City and the RV community if they were off the light rail say at the McClellan Station, not 1.3 miles off the light rail. People will drive there anyway. I haven’t heard anyone dispute the common sense of this complaint, but it went off on some tangent. But I appreciate the opportunity to explain some backstory to the complaining.
Competing retail is a good reason not to come to a community. If Target goes there, they will not go anywhere near RV. They are not going to compete with themselves and other big players won’t want to compete with Target.
So now we’re driving our cars to shop again.
I see RV as a community starving for employment opportunities, a real commercial center with walkable villages and higher education opportunities. My real hope is to expand the South Seattle Community College around Othello as well as vocational training focused on “green collar jobs”.
SE Community leaders have a very forward-thinking vision that utilizes clean energy, job-creation, higher education and vocational job training, interesting development that provides competitive real estate product (competitive with other neighborhoods) addresses new industry needs and small businesses and that leverages the light rail, unique and interesting green spaces, connection between SE neighborhoods (especially east-west connections), shoring up public saftey issues, bringing additional shopping opportunities that don’t force us to drive to Renton or Tukwila for shopping and employment centers.
We also tend to be against top-down authoritative planning (HB 1490, Incentive zoning, residents paying for light rail permits), lack of transparency and a concentration of the City’s social services and supportive housing in the community which we believe is the entire City’s burden to distribute these resources equitably throughout all neighborhoods, not just SE Seattle’s.
For decades a handful of nonprofits have been the de-facto leaders in charge of the economic development of this community and frankly, its mediocre. I do not mean to discount the hard work and effort that they have produced; only the results. We really want to see progress towards creative and out-of-the-box solution to accelerate a positive vision. We’re demanding better solutions and visions from the establishment.
So what you may determine as “positive” vision can also be determined as rubberstamping an existing vision provided from the very folks who have not an ounce of creativity in their pinky.
I think your vision is fantastic, and I couldn’t come up with a better one.
One thing though; about top-down planning, I’m not sure I’ve seen a clear vision (apart from yours) given yet, and I wouldn’t want an airplane or a neighborhood designed by people with little knowledge beyond their own small world. There are people who dedicate their education and their lives to this very thing, and just because they didn’t grow up in South Seattle isn’t reason to blow them off entirely. We should hire them, and if not us then the city or the state.
Full disclosure: I’m not one of those people. Please don’t hire me or anyone like me to design the neighborhood. I’ll stay out of your meetings if you’ll agree not to have any say in the design of my parachute or oxygen mask.
Thanks JeWalden.
Comments on this entry are closed.