An architect's view of the Wedgwood development project.

We've received comments saying we're against redevelopment. However, we'll say it again, we're for smart redevelopment that benefits the neighborhood. Here is a copy of a letter that local architect Tim Anderson prepared for Snell Partnership (the current architects on the project). We feel that Tim's ideas are far better for both the neighbors and residents of this building than what Snell was able to achieve through their work.

Design recommendations in response to 3/19/07 proposal by Snell Partnership for:
8606 35th Avenue NE, DPD project #6117703
Wedgwood Community Council and Wedgwood Action Group
Prepared by Tim Andersen, Architect

West Elevation
Place full height of building along 35th Avenue NE, and provide an adequate sidewalk for intensified pedestrian use. Give this block front a coherent design as a single, unified building. Clarify the difference in uses between the tall commercial base and smaller floors of residential above. Retain the 13 feet required height for first floor commercial use. Within prescribed limits this will allow a 10’-4” floor-to-floor height for three additional floors. Applicant has already gained a 4 foot height bonus for mixed-use development.

A building this size should be designed employing architectural syntax of traditional urban, not suburban, building types. Wedgwood offers no historic precedent for a building of this scale. The neighborhood developed in the 1940s and 50s as an automobile suburb, and lacks the fine-grain commercial development and streetscapes found in Seattle’s earlier streetcar suburbs. Until recently, Wedgwood’s commercial development has been modeled on the suburban strip with big box stores like Safeway and Rite Aid. We prefer applicant design this building in conformance with Seattle’s Design Guidelines for NC zones. The most recent commercial development on 35th Avenue NE, north of NE 73rd Street, conforms to these guidelines and is a useful precedent.

Applicant should consider the building facing 35th Avenue NE to have a base, body and top. The taller commercial floor should be the base, the residential floors the body and a projecting roof, cornice or attic story for the top. This familiar vertical organization of an urban building has been interpreted in innumerable ways and virtually every style.

Applicant should abandon the strategy of applying a picturesque pattern of materials and arbitrary “modulations” to make façade interesting, or to break down its scale. If the intention of using a variety of materials is to suggest smaller buildings aggregated over time, each individual building would have a coherent design with its own unified palette of materials. In the current design, an appliqué of veneer materials randomly placed makes the exterior wall appear paper thin and cheap.

If upper residential floors are intended to overhang the commercial floor, as they appear to in elevation, they should be visually supported with brackets or other architectural devices. The current design appears top heavy, and as if it had squashed a tall first story into the ground.

Since this building is residential as well as commercial, residents and their guests deserve a generous street entry and courtyard that can become their commons. The applicant should design a significant open-air portal from the sidewalk through first floor to proposed residential courtyard. This public entry should be easy for visitors to find. It should create a shared outdoor space for residents, and become a focus for units not facing the streets. It will also link the courtyard back to the public realm—a gesture Fred Anhalt used so successfully in his 1920s Capitol Hill apartments, such as 1005 East Roy Street.

If applicant placed the landscaped courtyard on second floor east of commercial space it would allow continuous parking below. Perhaps this would eliminate the need for two parking entrances. Applicant has included schematic building sections (sheet A4.2) of proposed development, but no floor plans. In section, we see that the east portion of second floor is only a partial story above commercial floor. Courtyard east of commercial space could be accessible by open stair from sidewalk through a tall portal.

North and South Elevations
We agree that floor plates for portions of the building facing NE 86th and NE 87th Streets should not align with those facing 35th Avenue NE. This allows the applicant to accommodate down slope conditions to the east, and to design these wings as if they were separate buildings and parcels. This could greatly help reduce the perceived scale of the project, and make a transition to single family neighborhood.

The North and South elevations should be designed to emphasize this change, and appear to be separate attached buildings. We recommend the applicant consider live/work townhouses with street entries facing NE 86th and NE 87th Street. Each townhouse would have its own internal circulation, and not be dependent on established floor heights or elevators. These two and three story townhouses could step with the contours just as row houses do on sloped streets. They would have the same “parcel” width, but could vary in height and design as townhouses might in an urban neighborhood developed over time. Obviously, architectural features such as doors, windows, bays, balconies and parking structure entrances should conform to townhouse module and specific design.

We agree with Board majority that required sight triangles for parking entrances be retained while conforming to “townhouse” widths.

East Elevation
We agree with the Board that setting back and recessing the east façade is required. It is a flaw in our commercial zoning that does not require a rear yard when abutting a single family zone without alley separation. If this parcel had been zoned SF-5000, it would have required a 25 foot set back. We are willing to compromise with applicant for 15 foot rear yard if each floor above is recessed an additional 15 feet. That is, in general, second floor would be 30 feet back from east property line, third floor 45 feet and fourth floor 60 feet. This would greatly improve access to light for single family parcels east of development.

Set backs will also enable applicant to provide private roof terraces built over lower floors for units facing east. With traffic noise blocked by west portion of building, this will become the quiet side of the building. Roof terraces will have an elevated view over single family neighborhood. Private gardens with view and usable outdoor space should make these units highly desirable. We recommend adding pergolas and garden walls to increase privacy, but not gabled roofs. Little gables are part of a suburban vocabulary. When used on a building this size they appear trivial, and almost a mockery of single family houses.

Applicant has chosen to employ Seattle’s earlier code which limits floors 2-4 to 64% of lot size. Their current design shows floors 2 and 3 at 76.4%, or 8,102 square feet over what is permitted. Applicant argues that the DPD should approve this since they set the first floor back 15 feet from east property line. However, this rear yard only reduced the footprint by 3,060 (204’ x 15’) square feet. We recommend applicant comply with 64% limit.

More condo facts.

Just wanted to pass along some facts about this proposed building.

* We spoke to the developer and they flat-out said no restaurants will go in here.
* The developer also told us they will not be lowering the building from 4 to 3 floors.
* 86 units are planned. Units range from 492 sq. ft to 1432 sq. ft.
* Excluding sidewalks, there is no plan to create street level public open spaces on the property.

What did you think about yesterday's DPD meeting?

I'm going to post my thoughts later today, but how do you think the meeting went.

What do you think of the design? Nice, ugly?
What did you think of the guy from Williams Marketing?
What do you think of this whole process, do you feel like your voice matters or is it a rubber stamp?