Followup: What you missed at the West Seattle Triangle open house

| Development | Triangle | West Seattle news

We reported “live” last night from the West Seattle Triangle open house, which drew more than 60 people, including local neighborhood and business leaders as well as city planners. (Here’s our story, including video of what City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen had to say.) If you couldn’t be there – you can still take a look at what was presented, now that it’s all published to the city’s website. The introductory overview is here; the “boards” are here, including the final few pages focusing on the potential of 85-foot-high buildings in part of The Triangle, 20 feet above current zoning; and a closer look at the “street-use concept” proposal is here. Next steps: These concepts get official city reviews, with more opportunities for you to officially comment.

JB February 8, 2011 (6:14 pm)

85 foot high buildings!Good bye views and sunshine, hello shade and concrete. What a great freaking idea!

natinstl February 8, 2011 (7:33 pm)

I agree, not necessary to turn us into a mini downtown.

Mark February 8, 2011 (8:17 pm)

I actually like the idea of more building height in this area. Plus, as I understand, the idea is to make sure buildings set back at upper elevations above the street to let light onto the street.
.
It would not hurt to have more people here–this is where all the grocery stories and buses are located.

Triangle Resident February 8, 2011 (8:50 pm)

There is no justification for 85 feet anywhere in West Seattle. The code states 65 feet and that’s the height the Neighborhood Plan endorses. Interesting that a great deal of zone A is owned by Time Properties LLC, aka Huling. The hole should be the priority for the city, not creating a canyon of congestion. Cap the height at 65 feet and the developer can get more creative with floors 5 and 6.

westside February 9, 2011 (12:02 am)

The Triangle is right next to the biggest business and residential area in West Seattle. It will also always have the best transit connections. It makes sense to plan for the future. Nobody is kicking anyone out who owns a business there now. But as property comes open we should absolutely be building a dense, walkable, neighborhood with lots of ground floor retail.

WSJeep February 9, 2011 (6:49 am)

I am all up for 85ft high buildings. A lot of people talk about being green and having a dense living area is being green. The only thing that I wish the city could do is maybe offer cheaper bus rides to people who do not own a car to help encourager it.

Alki Area February 9, 2011 (11:40 am)

OMG, don’t freak out over 85′ buildings. It’s just within ONE tiny 4 block wide segment in the entirety of West Seattle. Again, reality here. West Seattle can’t “sprawl” like a suburb. It’s bound by land and water. The ONLY theoretical way it will grow (and it will) is to go up. Sorry. Just physics. Unless we dig underground and build a underground level to the city.

And building up is “greener” than sprawl (new construction). Sorry folks, but New York city is “greener” living than Kirkland. Having 1,000 people living one one high rise taking up half of one city block (ground cover) is greener than 1,000 0.25 or 0.5 acre McMansions sprawling in the burbs.

@SW February 9, 2011 (12:59 pm)

While density can make being “green” easier, its not a given. There is a whole lot more to having a low environmental impact than ground coverage. If the people planning, designing, and building the structures, neighborhoods, cities, etc. aren’t focused on being green, then the density in and of itself does not guarantee greenness.

In this case, its moot, because they are proposing setting the buildings back from the street, and then allowing the developers to build higher to offset the lost space from the smaller footprint. The end result would be taller, skinnier buildings but not an increase in population density.