Shaping The Triangle: “The 500-pound gorilla in the room”

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

As an all-star group of community activists and businesspeople gathered for the first in a new series of meetings to map a vision for The Triangle – the mostly industrial/commercial area east of The Junction, bounded by 35th/Fauntleroy/Alaska – what wasn’t discussed loomed almost as large as what was.

The two-hour-long meeting was about three-fourths through when Harbor PropertiesDenny Onslow angled into the issue: “The parking issue is the 500-pound gorilla in the room. We can’t ignore it, or say we’ll address it later.”

Harbor has one of the biggest stakes in The Triangle right now, with what is currently the biggest in-progress construction project in West Seattle, Link, which will supply about 200 of the potential 2,000 new residential units the area might eventually hold, and will not solve “the parking issue,” as it is designed with fewer than 1 space for each of those units.

But the Triangle already has its parking-challenged moments, even before new residents start moving in.

Before we dig into the issues, let’s look at who’s on the advisory group that’s scheduled to meet several times in the next few months:

At the back of the photo is the DPD senior urban planner who’s the project lead, Susan McLain, who pointed out at the start of the meeting that she is a West Seattleite.

The roster she sent out the morning of last Wednesday’s meeting (noting these don’t list all of each member’s affiliations – many are involved with several groups/concerns):

Catherine Benotto, Seattle Planning Commission
Nancy Folsom, North Delridge Neighborhood Council
Steve Huling, property owner
Erica Karlovits, Junction Neighborhood Organization, Southwest District Council co-chair
Sharonn Meeks, Fairmount Community Association
Susan Melrose, West Seattle Junction Association
Patti Mullen, West Seattle Chamber
Brandon Nicholson, NK Architects, Southwest Design Review Board
Denny Onslow, Harbor Properties
Chas Redmond, Morgan Community Association, Sustainable West Seattle, SW District Council co-chair
Josh Sutton, West Seattle YMCA (WSB sponsor)

All were in attendance. In the gallery – chairs ringing the edge of a meeting room at the Senior Center of West Seattle, the expected venue for subsequent meetings too – were about 10 more people, including Brian Hawksford from the office of City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, a West Seattle resident who’s been closely involved in discussions of The Triangle for the past few years. The city also had an SDOT rep at the table, Casey Hildreth – from the department’s “Complete Streets” group — and a consultant, architect David Hewitt, who explained he’s been looking at The Triangle “a long time” on behalf of Harbor Properties, with whom he’s worked on projects including the relatively new Junction mixed-use Mural (WSB sponsor).

You can call this a restart; as McLain acknowledged in preparatory materials for the meeting, and as you can see on the city’s West Seattle Triangle webpage, area issues were addressed at a meeting almost a year and a half ago (the city’s minutes are here; our coverage is here). Many of the same people are involved now in terms of the advisory group members (just compare the names listed in our 2008 article), but it’s a mostly different cast on the city’s side.

Back to the “500-pound gorilla” and other issues: Much time was spent discussing what should be discussed/decided. And the interests/priorities listed by each participant as part of their self-introductions revealed a host of intentions: Land use, design, areas to congregate/socialize, pedestrian-friendliness, livability, connectivity with other neighborhoods, addressing the fact that Fauntleroy Way can be perceived as a “barrier” between neighborhoods … Huling even wondered aloud about the name, saying that “Triangle” makes him think of “Bermuda Triangle.” (McLain said, “Certainly, whether this is the appropriate name long-term, is a good issue.”)

Inbetween “official” efforts, the neighboring Fairmount Community Association has continued to evangelize Triangle advocacy – organizing walking tours like this one last October and another, with Councilmember Rasmussen, a month later – and Meeks (its president) summarized, “This is a onetime opportunity we’ve got – it’s sat there, as it is, since I’ve lived there” – 27 years.

The official scope, as laid out by McLain: Addressing land-use issues such as height and density, “the kind of street environment we want to see, shape and size of future buildings,” with an eye toward developing a draft by fall for community review, and a proposal by year’s end for the City Council. The streets’ role could result in a “concept plan that can be part of the city’s right-of-way improvements manual,” according to Hildreth, who said that could get as granular as details on what type of street trees should be in the area. (Four of these “concept plans” are already on the books elsewhere in the city – you can check them out here.)

But those on hand wanted to make sure important points weren’t missing from the plan. Like Steve Huling’s reminder that “communication” should be on the list: “Any time a group like this gets together, they start talking about how they’re going to spend my money, my tax dollars. How do you communicate to the property owners? Am I going to be displaced? … Communication is a huge part of this. … If you have a business there, people are going to want to know how does it affect me and my employees … You’ve mentioned zoning twice now. What do you mean by that? I know what I’ve got [regarding zoning] now, but if you have plans to change (it) … I’ve got a lot of property in the process of being sold or leased. What do I tell these people about what’s going to happen? … We as a family have longer-range plans for some of this (land). How does (this process) affect what we are going to do?”

McLain said, “We definitely have a process for our outreach. We’ve been meeting with property owners over the past few months. … We’ll hold meetings before we make recommendations to the City Council, and we’d love to sit down with you again.”

West Seattle YMCA’s Sutton interjected, “I think we all have a stake in zoning.” Junction Neighborhood Organization’s Karlovits added, “The transparency point is huge,” and observed there are other major Triangle landowners not represented in the advisory group.

Eventually, the concerns about the group’s scope made way for viewing of a presentation by architect Hewitt, who noted his firm is “donating some of our time” to the project, believing The Triangle will become a “sweet, wonderful neighborhood at some point.” His firm also has been involved with the Metro RapidRide “C Line,” which is planned to run through The Triangle along SW Alaska.

Described by Hewitt as having been “put together for a variety of uses,” the presentation (too big for us to upload in its entirety) is dated in spots – particularly the slide with an outlook for various potential developments in West Seattle, some of which are no longer in the works, or which have stalled (e.g. Whole Foods/Hancock/etc.). But it outlines a vision for a “walkable, safe neighborhood,” with an enhanced “pedestrian landscape.” One striking point involved the concept of having two different types of streetscapes, given that The Triangle has two different types of streets, 80-90-foot-wide north/south streets and 50-60-foot-wide east/west streets = here (photographed from our laptop screen) are two concepts:

(“Woonerf” is explained here.) Looking at street concepts opened up a box of hot issues again. With RapidRide coming to The Triangle, Sutton wondered what would be done to discourage “park and hide,” an issue with which Junction neighborhoods have struggled, as people drive from other parts of the peninsula to catch the buses going directly downtown. Karlovits agreed that could be an issue, saying the recently completed parking review in The Junction “only made things worse.”

That’s when Onslow declared parking to be “the 500-pound gorilla in the room.”

“I agree that it’s one of the big issues,” said McLain, “but it’s bigger than (this group). Maybe we could organize a separate meeting specifically to talk about (it).”

Clearly, though, it was also a sizable issue for those in the gallery; JuNO’s Rene Commons called it “huge” and suggested underground parking for commuters, voicing a hope – frequently heard at many a neighborhood meeting – that SDOT would “reconsider park and rides.” The one park-and-ride that does exist in the West Seattle area, under The Bridge, isn’t safe, pointed out Diane Vincent, saying you can leave your car for the day and wonder if its window/s will be intact when you get back to the lot. Another observer identifying herself as an area resident said she’s concerned about parking for employees of neighborhood businesses. Onslow wondered about a public/private partnership, with parking that had specific daytime uses and different nighttime uses, but also noted, “To dig a hole for parking gets really expensive.”

(You probably won’t be surprised to hear that a suggestion to turn the “Hole Foods” hole into a park-and-ride, with a “nice park on top,” came up next.)

That, it was agreed, would “take the lid off” potential Triangle ideas – a phrase Onslow had used earlier, particularly in relation to the streetscapes: “Part of the opportunity before us is, take the lid off, change the grid … One-way (streets)? Walkable (streets)? What do you want to do? Stop and say what CAN you do, then we can find all the reasons why we can’t.”

The group meets again April 14th – same time and place (6 pm, Senior Center of West Seattle) as of this writing. McLain said the agenda would include looking at Triangle streets’ “character” plus “traffic pattern and flow.” And about that 500-pound gorilla? We’ll see if it turns up in the room then too.

21 Replies to "Shaping The Triangle: "The 500-pound gorilla in the room""

  • d April 5, 2010 (11:36 pm)

    Excellent coverage of the meeting, WSB. Thanks!

    Parking is no doubt expensive, but it’s an investment that has to be pursued, I think, for quality of life all over the peninsula, not just the development area and surrounding neighborhoods.

    I personally cannot fathom how this might be envisioned without a park and ride. So, yeah, public/private partnerships sound like a smart, responsible idea. Go for it! :)

  • mar3c April 6, 2010 (6:47 am)

    i’m sure west seattle bowl would love to have their parking spaces back.
    .
    interesting that huling attended. his property is becoming an eyesore, as well – and a place for local riff-raff to hide and get drunk. as a taxpayer, i’d like to know what some of his designs are for that land.
    .
    and as ms. meeks said, this is an opportunity to do this right, so i hope the city doesn’t approve cluttering up fauntleroy with mixed-use condo buildings or cheap, ugly retail.

  • kathleen April 6, 2010 (9:01 am)

    No matter how idealistic the bus and transit people are, the reality is there has to be parking. Few businesses can survive on the patronage of only the residents within walking distance. Even apartment dwellers have guests, if parking is always a hassle, turnover will be terrific. The triangle will only be a transitional neighborhood. Adequate parking is part of the livability of the neighborhood.

  • Brandon April 6, 2010 (9:09 am)

    Maybe I am short sighted but walking in that area seems almost impossible, people come flying around those corners. And something needs to be done with those lots, as it is not very welcoming for people not familar with West Seattle to see empty car lots hanging around. Park & ride seems pretty reasonable given the size of the lots.

  • Sue April 6, 2010 (9:23 am)

    Brandon, I live just south of the Triangle, and I agree that walking has its challenges. It can be very intimidating when people are flying about in their cars and you’re trying to walk. Even walking home from the Junction, I often wonder when I’m going to get hit by someone who doesn’t see me, despite the flashing lights I carry at night.
    I’m also starting to notice more cars parking on my street for the express bus at Dawson – everyone used to just drive up to the last stop (Oregon?), but I guess parking got more difficult and restrictive, and there are no 2-hour zones down near me.

  • KBear April 6, 2010 (9:24 am)

    I do not understand the city’s aversion to park-and-rides. Until they can provide door-to-door public transit for everyone (yeah, right), driving to the bus stop will be the only way for some people to use public transit. Sure, there are many locations where a park-and-ride is undesirable, but why not evaluate on a case-by-case basis? It would seem that the Triangle would be an ideal location for this type of use.

  • Sue April 6, 2010 (11:24 am)

    I agree KBear – I see no problem with looking into a park and ride in that area (or wherever it’s needed). I know a lot of people who live in the southern end of WS who drive up near the bridge to have more options for a bus. If it’s happening already, why not make it easier than having more people bitch that someone’s parking in front of their house? (And before anyone says anything, when I mentioned in an earlier reply that bus riders were parking on my street, it was not a complaint about it – just observation.)

  • JW April 6, 2010 (11:24 am)

    Thanks for the coverage!

    I’m one WS resident against placing a Park & Ride in this location. P&Rs make sense to me farther out at the end of a transit line, someplace where there’s no walking to be had, far out in places with less density than here. Putting a P&R right in the part of WS with the most density means just concentrating cars and creating traffic right where it doesn’t need to be.

    I LOVE living in a walkable neighborhood. I spend time in comparably-sized cities that have optimized pretty much the whole city for driving and parking and am always so very happy to be back here where the sidewalks actually lead someplace, where there are other people walking on them, and where – wonder of wonders – most drivers will actually stop to let you cross the street. This is NOT the rule elsewhere, and yes you have to wait sometimes in Seattle, but it’s nothing like other places. We’re very lucky, and it didn’t happen by chance.

    Holding on to the great things about this town requires compromise. That might mean not optimizing for parking and driving in this neighborhood. With an already great and growing selection of places to walk to where you can shop, dine and be entertained, I think it’s an easy compromise to make.

  • dsa April 6, 2010 (12:17 pm)

    The Triangle area presents a unique opportunity for a park and ride that can only be captured if there is a significant change in the city’s negative attitude toward them.

  • d April 6, 2010 (12:27 pm)

    Just a thought –

    Delridge residents have been shut out of Rapid Ride. Unless Metro adds that route in the near future, Delridge peeps who by and large should have been the socio-economic target served by RR based on the highest ridership, have been stiffed out of access. And this particularly grinds me because now the conditions are created which encourages, if not forces, those bus-riders throughout Delridge and southern peninsula areas and, yes points further east and south, to drive to where the access is. But, I think it unlikely those are folks who are trying to grab a bus to going shopping. They might just be trying to get to work. Ya’ know? ;)

    I dunno. In an ideal world, P&R would be in this location to at least alleviate some of the local parking clog as well as one down in South Delridge. But, what is the point of having a southern P&R, even if the city were to establish one there, if there is no RR to take the riders into the city?

    Doesn’t make much sense to me, but so what else is new? ;)

  • old timer April 6, 2010 (2:16 pm)

    I think the developer’s should not look to the city/metro for money for any park & ride. I think they should consider doing it as a private endeavor.
    A park & ride in the Triangle area would offer transit riders a lot more choices of routes than if placed at the end of any one particular route.
    Available choices would be the new RapidRide, the 22, the 55, and, depending on how much the RR supplants it’s service, the 54, and a block or so east to the 21.
    Also access to the 773 connector to the Water Taxi.
    With access to all these routes, people would have much less waiting time for a departure, and a larger selections of ultimate destinations.

    Not to forget that this would be east of the Junction bottleneck which consumes a lot of time for traffic (including transit) passing thru, allowing users to find alternate routes to their driving destinations in WS as well as gaining access to the transit, bypassing the time consuming bottleneck in both directions.
    For commuters, a monthly pass could be created by the private owner of a garage with specific levels reserved exclusively for this service. If very moderately priced, it could aid a development’s cash flow, while being cost justifiable by the users.
    Yes, digging holes can be expensive, but maybe a bit more cost analysis would prove worthwhile for the Park & Ride concept.

  • Julie April 6, 2010 (2:39 pm)

    Any parking added should be pay parking. Free parking increases congestion:

    http://www.its.ucla.edu/news/newsdetails.cfm?id=19606

  • New Guy April 6, 2010 (3:19 pm)

    If there were a P&R in the Triangle, who in WS would NOT use it? Commuters living near an arterial with a downtown-route’s bus stop a block away from their house would suddenly find it too “inconvenient” to walk to the bus stop and go downtown. Or it would be just too tempting to leave the car at the P&R so that you could fill up the trunk with groceries on the way home.

    All of that sounds pretty fabulous…but…again, who would NOT use it? Do I want to pay to put up parking for say, 50,000 cars in the Triangle? ‘Cause that’s what would sooner or later be competing to use this new amenity. Do I want to live in a community with a wall of parking garages as a welcome mat? Do I want to be anywhere near this place between the hours of 4 and 7 PM on a weekday?

    Ever sat in traffic by a huge factory when a shift lets out? Now think about the equivalent of that factory sitting just off Fauntleroy when you’d like to drive through there.

  • elevated concern April 6, 2010 (4:10 pm)

    Here here to the New Guy!

  • Daria April 6, 2010 (6:13 pm)

    I agree with New Guy. I would hate to see a park and ride in the triangle area. Why would we want to encourage hundreds of new cars coming into area mostly to park all day? This sounds like a congested nightmare. The reason people park all day in- and around the triangle is because parking is FREE. Park and ride would ruin the triangle.

  • dsa April 6, 2010 (9:54 pm)

    We did not need Rapid Ride or Park and Ride 40 plus years ago, (I remember). Some adjustments need to be made in order to satisfy the needs of our growing community even if it’s pay to park.

    BTW the comparison to a P&R and a factory letting out is ridiculous. At worst case if everyone got off the bus, what could you have, 60 cars lined up at the exit?

  • Chad April 6, 2010 (11:09 pm)

    The Triangle should be planned to be an eastern extension of what the Junction is becoming: a walkable neighborhood filled with a wide variety of shops, public facilities and 6 story residential flats. Key challenges are to ease the pedestrian connection to California by taming/calming Fauntleroy through the area, and keeping buses flowing freely, especially rapid Ride.

    To d – Us Delridge 120 riders have a faster, more direct and accessible transit route now than “Rapid Ride” users will have in the future. We aren’t missing out on anything.

  • austin April 7, 2010 (8:43 am)

    Among other things, the whole foods hole would make for an excellent underground parking garage. Paid for by the sorts of developers that allowed it to happen in the first place, of course.

  • cabbie April 7, 2010 (3:50 pm)

    Elephant, not Gorilla! Those commercials are infecting you.

  • Anonymous April 8, 2010 (5:27 am)

    Although a walking neighborhood would be ideal, that is simply not the reality here. I currently live in the Mural apartment building, which is a Harbor property, and I really hope that their plan for parking is better at their new building. They planned for one car per unit, but a lot of people drive, so they oversold the parking spots in the garage. Some residents with larger cars are forced to park on the street because they cannot fit around the parking spots the building management placed ON THE RAMPS in the parking garage! My point is, the builder is planning for one car per unit, and there will be more cars, where will they park?

  • Karen April 19, 2010 (9:05 pm)

    I hope that DPD isn’t actually using the map they have posted on their website, California Avenue and the corresponding Rapid Ride route are off by two blocks.

Sorry, comment time is over.