Towards a Higher Seattle

Seattlest isn't going to stand here in front of you and pretend we know anything about architecture or urban planning or design or anything like that, because we don't. It just doesn't seem intuitive to us that the results of a City Council commisioned study suggest that the way to encourage high-rise structures downtown is to make them more expensive to build. High-rise buildings (or higher-rise buildings) are a part of Mayor Density's plan to Vancouverize Seattle and so we understand that he wants taller buildings and probably more of 'em and that's great. We think giant buildings are a good idea particularly if there's some affordable residential pieces there. What they're going to do to traffic is a whole other rant, but we like the concept. Urban, right?

Isn't the way to encourage developers to build them to make them cheaper to build, though? Right now you can only build a building so high in Seattle. Whatever, it's some number: a million feet high. This study proposes that the roof be raised to two million feet high. So far so good. Is that something that developers are itching to do? Other than the Trumps out there who want to build their penises as high and as garish as humanly possible, is there a financial incentive to build to two million feet in a city like Seattle? With the infrastructure of the city the way it is we think it may not be and you're going to have to trot a few builder-types out onto the stage and have them say it will be financially viable to build to two million feet and actually they are wetting their well-pressed slacks in anticipation of paying the city loads of money for the priviledge of doing it to make us believe it. Even then we'll doubt it, actually.

From the Seattle Times:

Mayor Greg Nickels recommended that taller buildings be permitted as a way to spur more high-rise condos and apartments, and make Seattle more like Vancouver, B.C. By allowing taller buildings, Nickels hopes more people would live closer to their downtown jobs, curbing sprawl and reducing traffic.

To construct taller buildings, developers would have to pay into a pool for downtown affordable housing, under Nickels' proposal.

Steinbrueck wants to double the amount — to $20 per square foot — developers would contribute to affordable housing. He said it's fair to ask developers to replace some affordable housing that new buildings are likely to displace. "I think it's a good quid pro quo," he said.

It all sounds like a great plan and we're all for forcing developers to pay for stuff but do developers actually want to go higher? And this affordable housing - where, exactly, are we talking?