Comments on: The Future of Mixed Use http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2009/04/future-mixed-use Puget Sound Transportation and Land Use Issues Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:55:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: serial catowner http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2009/04/future-mixed-use/comment-page-1#comment-1111 serial catowner Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://wp.orphanroad.com/?p=1064#comment-1111 Why would you want to? The back story here is a change in land-use policies that focused on arterial streets. More and higher development was allowed on certain arterial corridors with ground floor retail and storefronts mandated. At the time the focus was on preserving and encouraging storefronts and public use. However, I'm sure we can all agree that we now think building residential near transit is also a valuable task. In general, we'd like to see more residential concentrated near more transit. But surely Mr. Retailer would also like to see an 'installed base' of residential consumers built on top of their stores. I'm having a hard time thinking a recession mixed with the growth of on-line retailing is going to be characterized by a shortage of retail space. If it were, there is a very simple solution- high-grade the offering. In any case, the problem right now is the crash of national credit markets as a result of extensive hanky-panky. Changing land-use rules now won't result in any development now, but could mean problems down the road. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and it seems plain from the list in the CD News of projects on ice that the only thing broke here is national lending. Almost every project listed has more retail space included than on-site residents can make profitable. And I'm not so sure how much retail we still need. Last year fuel took every buck I could scrape together. On a different axis, I went to Target yesterday and, although they still sell music CDs, they basically no longer sell CD players- just iPhones & etc. At this rate, it won't be long before we're living on air... Why would you want to?

The back story here is a change in land-use policies that focused on arterial streets. More and higher development was allowed on certain arterial corridors with ground floor retail and storefronts mandated. At the time the focus was on preserving and encouraging storefronts and public use.

However, I’m sure we can all agree that we now think building residential near transit is also a valuable task. In general, we’d like to see more residential concentrated near more transit. But surely Mr. Retailer would also like to see an ‘installed base’ of residential consumers built on top of their stores.

I’m having a hard time thinking a recession mixed with the growth of on-line retailing is going to be characterized by a shortage of retail space. If it were, there is a very simple solution- high-grade the offering.

In any case, the problem right now is the crash of national credit markets as a result of extensive hanky-panky. Changing land-use rules now won’t result in any development now, but could mean problems down the road.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, and it seems plain from the list in the CD News of projects on ice that the only thing broke here is national lending. Almost every project listed has more retail space included than on-site residents can make profitable.

And I’m not so sure how much retail we still need. Last year fuel took every buck I could scrape together. On a different axis, I went to Target yesterday and, although they still sell music CDs, they basically no longer sell CD players- just iPhones & etc. At this rate, it won’t be long before we’re living on air…

]]> By: Bernie http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2009/04/future-mixed-use/comment-page-1#comment-1112 Bernie Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://wp.orphanroad.com/?p=1064#comment-1112 I like the mixed use residential/retail model. Downtown Redmond has also followed that model but has the opposite problem. Way more demand for housing than can fill the street level retail. I suspect the difference is related to employment density. Redmond is still somewhat of a "bedroom community" where downtown Seattle is center of employment. In the case of Redmond I think one part of the solution is to work on more mixed use office residential along the lines of what downtown Bellevue has done. Obviously 450' towers aren't going to happen but Redmond Town Center type development with it's office space could help. Downtown the model for SLU should help if they push the residential density. Sufficient underground parking should be part of any mixed use project but the greater the available transit options and proximity to employment the lower that requirement should need to be. I like the mixed use residential/retail model. Downtown Redmond has also followed that model but has the opposite problem. Way more demand for housing than can fill the street level retail. I suspect the difference is related to employment density. Redmond is still somewhat of a “bedroom community” where downtown Seattle is center of employment.

In the case of Redmond I think one part of the solution is to work on more mixed use office residential along the lines of what downtown Bellevue has done. Obviously 450′ towers aren’t going to happen but Redmond Town Center type development with it’s office space could help.

Downtown the model for SLU should help if they push the residential density. Sufficient underground parking should be part of any mixed use project but the greater the available transit options and proximity to employment the lower that requirement should need to be.

]]> By: serial catowner http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2009/04/future-mixed-use/comment-page-1#comment-1113 serial catowner Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://wp.orphanroad.com/?p=1064#comment-1113 I'm not so sure the towers won't happen. Des Moines was reported to be working on a tower-oriented plan, and another small town over on the east side of the Green River Valley. People have different reasons for not liking towers, but the empty dead feeling at street level of a residential tower with no commercial has to be high on the list. Neighbors also worry about parking but towers on transit lines wouldn't need so much. It would not surprise me at all to see towers emerging. I’m not so sure the towers won’t happen. Des Moines was reported to be working on a tower-oriented plan, and another small town over on the east side of the Green River Valley. People have different reasons for not liking towers, but the empty dead feeling at street level of a residential tower with no commercial has to be high on the list. Neighbors also worry about parking but towers on transit lines wouldn’t need so much.

It would not surprise me at all to see towers emerging.

]]> By: Matt the Engineer http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2009/04/future-mixed-use/comment-page-1#comment-1114 Matt the Engineer Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://wp.orphanroad.com/?p=1064#comment-1114 I'm with [catowner] on the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" line of thought. We will never have a surplus of housing in Seattle. City living is desirable to a level that keeps housing more expensive than suburban housing. Even if there's a bubble of homes not selling, they will sell once prices adjust downward. Our townhouse model is broken. Our sidewalks are broken. Our bus system is broken. But our housing over retail? That works fine, and I'm happy with it. I’m with [catowner] on the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” line of thought. We will never have a surplus of housing in Seattle. City living is desirable to a level that keeps housing more expensive than suburban housing. Even if there’s a bubble of homes not selling, they will sell once prices adjust downward.

Our townhouse model is broken. Our sidewalks are broken. Our bus system is broken. But our housing over retail? That works fine, and I’m happy with it.

]]>