NIMBYs fought this 4 story development on the right for years, and you can barely tell it even exists when biking by it.
hell, the entire street (and several blocks on either side) should be at least this tall
the stroad needs to go tho
btw - this is why we can't meet our climate goals
sprawl. single family zoning. car-centric streets.
the 4 story building?
that's the antidote.
if we really prioritized climate action, walkability, livability, good urban street walls...
the 60' ROW here would have continuous, 60' tall, 6-story buildings lining greenwood (and adjacent blocks) from fremont to shoreline.
just like berlin. seattle pre-zoning did this!
oh dang - greenwood stroad's ROW is actually 80'.
those should be 80' tall bldgs lining either side
but what to do about the stroad...
generous sidewalks... bike lanes... FAT (freight and transit) lanes to accommodate deliveries and buses...
i'd live on this street
you can't even build a duplex a half block off of greenwood ave.
the greenwood urban village is an anemic strip a halfblock deep for most of the length of street.
it's some of the sh*ttiest urban planning i've seen in the US.
just. gonna. leave. this. here.
seattle 5 miles from city center v. berlin 5 miles from the city center
huh. i wonder why greenwood isn't a '15 minute neighborhood'
anyway the NIMBYs who whined about this incredibly benign development are a 'who's who' of homeowners who opposed affordable housing rezones, ADU liberalization, parking reform...
one of them is also now on council
everything about this development irked the NIMBYs.
no parking (!!!)
abutted single family zoning (by design, homeowners forced that in the 90s comp plan)
roof deck overlooking adjacent lots
they wanted a 30' height limit on this massive road
but seriously, all that whining - and for what?
to waste other people's time and money?
to slow needed housing?
to raise rents on people who can't afford million dollar homes?
the building is fine. it's a good background building. we should have thousands more of these
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
'Relegating cyclists to greenways off arterials will never result in the rapid uptake of cycling adoption we need to meet our climate goals. It prevents cyclists from getting to their destinations , which are very often on arterials because of our absurdly limiting zoning plan.'
seattle's mayor - who, instead of leading on climate action and sustainable mobility, has killed and delayed bike lanes all over the city for the last 4 years - proclaims, 'These actions shall include... doing more to incentivize modes like biking '
boy i forget about this every few months - but setback requirements in low rise zones really do make for the sh*ttiest urbanism possible.
LR3 in UV on a 50' wide x 100' deep lot has a 50' height limit, max far of 2.3
5000*2.3 = 11,500. divide that by 5 floors = 2300sf plates
2300 sf plates on a 50' wide build (zero side yard setbacks) results in buildings that are only 46' deep.
however, there land use code requires 7' average setbacks for LR3.
so a 2300 sf floor plate ends up being 36' wide x 63.9' deep
so you go from condition where units open up to street & massive courtyard that is more than half of the lot (left, space for trees!); to one where building units are oriented looking *at* the neighboring lots, almost no usable outdoor space (right)