Last night, we published a short summary right after the design-review meeting about the Conner Homes megaproject in The Junction; now, here are full details on what was seen and said, and what happens next:
By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor
The crowd reaction was a bit reminiscent of an evangelistic church service when Rene Commons (above) stood before the Southwest Design Review Board last night to show those photos she’s shown holding. Many people in the 50-or-so-member crowd murmured and mumbled “uh-huhs,” maybe just short of an “A-men.”
Her point was that the Conner Homes two-building, 7-story megaproject at California/Alaska/42nd needs architectural flair, given its prominent future position in the heart of the business district that is now branded as Downtown West Seattle.
And the desire to see more detail is part of why SWDRB members asked Conner and his development team, including architects from Weber Thompson, to come back for (at least) one more review.
(east building rendering – all project art courtesy Weber Thompson)
The project already has come before the board three times. Two of its members — chair David Foster and immediate past chair Deb Barker — were supposed to end their tenure after last night’s meeting, though Foster told WSB afterward that he is hopeful the city will let them hang on for the next and likely final review of the Conner development. “A project of this size, this important” merits another meeting to work out the details, he had said minutes earlier before the public session was adjourned.
Though this didn’t really factor into the outcome, the meeting was more rushed than most of this magnitude because of a clear error in booking — it was scheduled for a small room in the High Point Library, which ordered the group out by normal closing time at 8 pm — design-review meetings on major projects, with intense public interest, have been known to go as long as three hours, twice the time possible for this one. (The board has no regular meeting place; in our nearly two years of covering it closely, it’s bounced around from schools to community centers and even to a church meeting room. We followed up today with the project’s planner, Michael Dorcy, who says a DPD staff person makes the bookings but has had “tremendous difficulty” in finding appropriate places for the West Seattle meetings)
The meeting began with remarks from Conner Homes boss Charlie Conner, who made a plea on behalf of the “departure” his project needs approval for — in order to allow parking-garage access from 42nd, near the south end of the east building, instead of the alley entrance that the city would expect otherwise under current policies. He contended that if his project has to have its entrance on the alley, as does Harbor Properties‘ Mural to the south, “It would be very difficult for traffic to get in and out of there.”
He also confirmed that an agreement has been reached with concerned Junction-area parties to keep the alley between his two proposed buildings from closing for long stretches of time during construction – instead, it will be temporarily rerouted during parking-garage construction. (You’ll recall there was a petition drive at one point expressing concern about the alley situation; those involved with that tell us they are pleased with what’s been worked out.)
After Conner’s brief remarks, the project presentation was given by architect Peter Greaves of Weber Thompson.
In the interval since the most recent design-review meeting last year, we have shown many new renderings for the project, while covering Conner presentations to the Seattle Design Commission in order to obtain their signoff (granted last week, as reported here) for the alley vacation. Greaves recapped many of those points in last night’s presentation (most of the graphics shown last night are linked here).
In addition to the main points – 7-story buildings, in an area zoned as NC3-85 — he also discussed how the architects and developers had responded to guidance from the previous two meetings, including the masonry on the 4-story lower half of the westernmost building and the lower facade for its commercial spaces heading southbound on California:
He also discussed the “vertical modulation of the retail podium” along 42nd, and the “hollowed-out” corners for pedestrian use at California/Alaska and Alaska/42nd — those are not retail entryways.
(Though he also talked about the project’s interplay with Junction Plaza Park across the street, Junction Neighborhood Organization president Erica Karlovits noted in public comment that Conner Homes is no longer required to contribute to the park development as part of the “public benefit” in exchange for the alley vacation, and she says that’s a major disappointment.)
Other details recapped here – the “receiving” section of the eastbound building across the alley from the end of the passthrough on California, where you will find a “specimen tree,” and the planned apportionment of the retail spaces — although, Greaves emphasized, these spaces could be further subdivided, or combined, depending on who the tenants turn out to be, right now the west building (facing California and Alaska) includes four retail spaces, 1900 to 3200 square feet each; the east building (facing Alaska and 42nd) includes spaces varying from 750-square-foot live/work to a 1,500-sf corner space to 5,500 square feet where the building meets the alley along Alaska (current site of Rocksport). The retail spaces will have fairly high ceilings, “taller than you’d typically have,” said Greaves.
(rendering of the SW Alaska retail frontage)
That drew mixed reviews in the public comments, which we will summarize as thoroughly as possible at this point, because that’s where they began — again, they were shorter than they might have been, given the extreme time constraints of the mandatory 8 pm meeting end – after the first wave, chair Foster asked the next group to keep its comments to 30 seconds each (and most people did an admirable job doing exactly that).
“I’ve watched a lot of projects go up – I’ve seen good projects and bad ones. This is a good one. I’m sick of seeing projects get beat up so long that everything’s gone out of it. I don’t want to end up seeing West Seattle look like Lynnwood — I’d like to see small-scale retail like this one,” said John Comick of Vending Solutions, which runs its national business, with 22 employees, from a California SW office. “This is better than a whole lot of the other ones built up and down California Avenue – we like stores, restaurants, other things … as more and more of the core development goes where the Huling lots are, if we don’t get this type of stuff along California, we may lose some of what we like about California Avenue – it’s critical to see that something good goes there. A lot of people may think it’s great if it’s one story and stays that way. That’s not going to happen.”
Next comment: “I like everything about it except that it’s seven stories tall, and I’d like to see it six.”
Warren Jewell, a Junction businessperson: “I’ve seen a lot of businesses come and go on California, but one thing I haven’t seen is any change. The business owners haven’t been doing upgrades. A building like this will spur some much-needed improvement in the (buildings nearby). I think this is a win-win situation for the shoppers … the business owners … will bring in a lot more people.”
At that point, Foster reminded commenters that the board needed most to hear about the project’s design.
Next, Karlovits from JuNO, who in addition to expressing disappointment with the park getting left out of the public-benefit expectation, suggested that the retail spaces along California and Alaska should incorporate features like Talarico’s and Easy Street, with windows and doors that could open up and/or out in summertime. She also suggested the eastern building “doesn’t have enough of a Main Street feel … it seems like a vertical wall,” and she would like to see some “outdoor seating space.”
Nancy Driver from the nearby Fairmount Community Association (the area uphill immediately south of the Triangle): “I feel like some consideration’s been given, some things have changed, but my initial objections to the whole thing still stand … it’s too massive for that corner (California/Alaska). To me, it’s going to destroy the character of The Junction. And this is not going to attract me, I’m not going to want to go shop or do anything else there. If this is what The Junction is becoming, a bunch of behemoths, I’m not going to want to be in The Junction.”
That’s when Renee walked up and showed the board members the photo boards she’d brought – “So that we might have more harmony and continuity in the West Seattle Junction.” The examples included existing Junction buildings. “We have heritage (to celebrate) … trolley cars used to run through there … we’re missing character and continuity.” That drew applause.
Next, Kevin Wright with Hewitt Architects, which worked on two neighboring megaprojects, Mural and Leon Capelouto‘s Capco Plaza/Altamira Apartments to the north. His primary concern: The Conner proposal to bring traffic out onto 42nd could be a major conflict with the pedestrian touches they have created at Mural – which will start renting apartments soon — on the 42nd streetfront. “Our client has created a curb bulb at their part of the midblock connector. The juxtaposition between that parking exit and the midblock connector is a problem.”
Another commenter brought back concern about the mass of the buildings, particularly at California/Oregon, identifying himself as an architect and saying, “It’s not Weber Thompson’s fault, this is the city creating urban villages, potentially destroying the character of a village that already exists, to make it an urban village. But that said, I think these guys did a great job,” though he also suggested it had the traits of a “monolithic slab.”
“The attempt was to make something quiet,” responded Greaves.
“I guess, then, I like noisy!” was the reply.
Rob Coburn from Ama Ama Oyster Bar and Grill (WSB sponsor) said he supports having the Conner project’s entrance/exit on 42nd, because the alley is already insanely busy with delivery trucks for his restaurant/bar and other establishments, and he’s worried enough already about how the traffic for Mural will affect that. “It’s a nightmare waiting to happen already … These places are all set up to be delivered to the rear, not the front. We need those alleys to function.”
Another comment: “Architectural details are lacking … If you do nothing else, consider that the east building is the entrance to West Seattle as you come up Alaska … the park will be landscaped .. consider symmetrical tree plantings.”
Then, from architect Brandon Nicholson, currently on leave from the Design Review Board while working on a city contract: “As much as I was (previously) skeptical about the entry from 42nd, I think they made the right decision. The massing has come a long way since the earlier meetings. But what concerns me is that the building is responding to what’s adjacent now (with the 1- and 2-story facades) but should consider what’s coming in the future … the 1-story (along California) is too low, and should be two stories. Regarding the architectural detail, just brick is not enough … it needs more, and the back of the building needs pattern and interest.”
(“Thank you,” came a murmur from the back row.)
Another man: “if you can’t make it classic … I don’t care if the colors are horrible, as long as it looks beautiful. Please don’t make it a square box. Nothing in nature is a square box.”
Then a Harbor Properties representative, echoing their architect’s concern about the exit onto 42nd: “All you have to do is look across the street and see how brutal Jefferson Square is, especially if (any of these stores) goes big-box … I’m proud to say we leased all our space to local West Seattle retailers. I can tell you, 750 residents don’t produce a lot of traffic – it’s the retail that’s going to produce the traffic.”
Local resident Diane Vincent said she’s worried that the buildings look like a “sterile box” and supported Renee’s call for “more architectural detail.”
With that, the board started its deliberations with barely 20 minutes to go until the librarians – who already had issued warnings – would have to evict the group. Chair Foster opened by saying, “Even if we had an extra half-hour, a lot of the detail aspects, we haven’t seen, materials haven’t been proposed …”
Board member Joe Hurley, an architect, said he was glad the proposal responded to previous concerns voiced by the board “and the community. … (But) I feel they’re within a hair’s breadth of being on the other side, with the envelope packed as densely as I can imagine it and being worthy of approval by this board.”
Next, Christie Coxley, a landscape designer: “I like their thinking and the way they organized the spaces of the building, and I do think they responded fairly well.” She shared Karlovits’ disappointment in the decision not to “interact” with the park across the street: “They’ve blown that, frankly.” She concluded, “The devil is in the details and that’s where this project comes down to it for me – it’s a great foundation but it can go really far south if the details aren’t well thought out.”
Fill-in board member (and past board member) Vlad Oustimovitch noted the project “incorporates some really good elements” and also noted that the walkway alongside Mural was an element of what was supposed to be on the site back when it was going to be a monorail station, “so the pedestrian passthrough is a great thing for the community … I also think the fact the retail can all be relatively small is a positive thing – the Whole Foods (Fauntleroy Place) project suffered because it didn’t allow that to ever happen. Small retail is what The Junction is all about. One of the things the project does not incorporate – a sense of character at retail level. … I think the strength of the building is not there at retail level yet.”
Deb Barker, an urban planner, expressed appreciation for the thoughtful comments from both meeting attendees and fellow board members: “My basic issue is still the feeling of the massing at the corner of California and Alaska .. it still feels like too much,” particularly the 4-plus story height right at the corner. She also was not entirely sold on the hollowed-out corners, which she described as a “void.”
Finally, from Foster: “I generally feel the applicant has made a really great effort to address the earlier guidance. I do think there are some detail aspects of the building that need to be gone over before I would feel comfortable giving approval to move on. But I disagree about the four-story structure … I’m more concerned about what happens behind there.”
At that point, a detail discussion about articulation ensued, and some back and forth with Greaves regarding the building’s appearance, and eventually Foster said he believed another meeting was in order; his fellow board members agreed.
WHAT’S NEXT: DPD’s Dorcy tells us that a decision will likely be made next week, after consulting with Design Review program manager Vince Lyons, regarding whether the next review can be held on April 2nd, which otherwise would be a non-standard meeting date for West Seattle’s board — he says board members all agreed to volunteer their time for an additional night to make it happen if it gets approval. After that, if the design is approved, the project would move through the rest of the process; comments on any aspect of the proposal can be sent to Dorcy at any time — michael.dorcy@seattle.gov — you can find the rest of his contact information here.
| 27 COMMENTS