Optimism Brewing, which opened last year inside a fully overhaul auto-row era building on E Union, is neither a “do” or a “don’t” — the new guidelines don’t address how best to preserve complete buildings (Image: CHS)
After six years of projects subject to the Pike/Pine Neighborhood Design Guidelines, Capitol Hill has seen its fair share of good and bad buildings. The guidelines are used by the East Design Review Board as the basis to recommend design changes to new projects in the neighborhood. But explaining what exactly makes a good and bad design under the guidelines can be frustrating for board members, architects, and the public.
To better inform everyone on the intentions of the design guidelines, a proposed update adds an appendix featuring real world examples of good and bad designs. The 18-page addition was created by city-hired consultant, Makers Architecture and Urban Design.
“The hope was to have more information to guide on things that were really general,” said Dennis Meier, a strategic advisor with the Office of Planning and Community Development.
One example offered in the new appendix shows how the design guidelines favor a 12th and Pike facade over that of one built on Broadway:
Another example shows how the design of the Collins on Pine building fails to break up the building’s mass while one on E Pike does a better job of reducing the apparent size to pedestrians:
And here is the document’s clearest example of what to avoid when designing a facade:
In 2014, provisions of the Pike/Pine Conservation Overlay District were added to the guidelines. The program offers height bonuses for developers that incorporate older buildings and facades into their projects. The new appendix includes further explanation on the benefits of preserving Capitol Hill’s auto row-era structures.
A hallmark of Pike/Pine commercial structures is the tall ceiling heights of the ground floor. In situations where the interior of a character structure is removed, maintaining the original volume of the ground oor space in the new structure helps retain the integrity of the character structure. Adapting these spaces to new uses, and accommodating a new structure that overlaps with the old creates special challenges that may warrant additional flexibility.
A handful of changes were made to the guidelines themselves. A new section was added to provide more guidance to developers requesting a departure from standards for retaining Pike/Pine character structures (buildings built prior to 1940). For example, departures may be granted to accommodate other desired amenities, such as green space, or departures that improve the preservation of other character structures on the site.
How three projects used incentives to create E Pike’s ‘preservation’ row
One section was expanded to emphasize an active street environment as a means for achieving public safety. Another section was edited to provide more clarity on what types of signage issues the design boards are likely to address.
More cosmetic changes were made to the document in order to standardize the formats across the 21 other neighborhood guidelines. That will also be useful if a proposed overhaul of the city’s design review system is implemented later this year. Under the proposed changes, the East Design Review board would dissolve and Capitol Hill would be split into two other design board boundaries.
The updated guidelines are currently undergoing environmental review. Officials at OPCD hope to get the changes before the City Council for approval before the end of the year.
Since the rules are meant to be used for only to new projects, the guidelines offer little guidance for preserving entire buildings. They also do not address what some say is a major shortcoming in Pike/Pine’s conservation program where incentives are offered to partially preserve auto-row buildings but not fully preserve them. For instance, the owners behind Broadway and E Union’s Optimism Brewery saved their entire building, meaning they were unable to leverage height bonuses in exchange for preserving old buildings offered under the Pike/Pine conservation district.
“There is no incentive for us, if you preserve our facade you get to go up another story, but we weren’t knocking down the building,” said Optimism owner Gay Gilmore. The conservation program was designed to balance the desire for some historical preservation with the need to build more density.
Inside Optimism (Image: CHS)
Transfer of Development Rights offers one alternative, where building owners can sell preservation height bonuses to other projects in the same neighborhood. However, there appears to be little demand for such rights on Capitol Hill, where many projects have already sought zoning departures to build higher.
Gilmore says allowing Capitol Hill preservation projects to transfer height bonuses across neighborhoods, or even just to First Hill, could help preserve more of the neighborhoods buildings. “Adding another story to the Whole Foods project wouldn’t be that big of a deal,” she said.
I’ve only read your story, not the entire Guidelines, but the two do-and-don’ts shown point out a problem with design guidelines. Though the guidelines themselves might make sense, the results don’t necessarily *look* good. In both cases, the don’ts are more pleasing to my eye than the dos.
The “false gable” building is at Bellevue & Olive, and has been there since at least the 90s. Its shabby ersatz po-mo is awful, but not a current architectural style–now we’ve just got to deal with ugly faux-industrial buildings like Viva on Union.
“…variety of architectural elements and interlocking geometries accomplishes a number of functional and visual objectives.”
Leave it to the idiots in Seattle government to come up with a sentence like this. They’ve identified exactly what’s wrong with current design trends and they’re calling it an example of good design.
the appendix with the guidelines was actually created by Makers Architecture and Urban Design as noted in the article. the government only hired them.
the thing to keep in mind with the guidelines document is that “good design” is highly subjective and coming up with something that will please everyone is impossible.
Good design is not subjective; some people just have bad taste.
> One example offered in the new appendix shows how the design guidelines favor a 12th and Pike facade over that of one built on Broadway.
The text under that picture seems to indicate the reverse, that they prefer the Panera Bread building over the one off 12th.
I can’t stand the “building on the right’s variety of architectural elements and interlocking geometries”. Everything that’s wrong with Seattle architecture. Much prefer the Throwbacks NW building.
Can’t quite understand why they’re comparing those two buildings, as the Throwbacks building is a much older one of the type we should be preserving, and the Panera building is a modern mixed use development…