A look at this curve of E Olive Way’s future
(Image: King County)
The Seattle Design Review program isn’t dead yet but Wednesday night’s session for an eight-story, mixed-use project planned to rise along Capitol Hill’s E Olive Way provided a few more reasons why the process could change.
The development has been in the works for years after a massive 2019 real estate deal with Vancouver, Canada-based real estate investment and management company Low Tide Properties paying $21 million for a collection of commercial buildings including former Coldwell Banker offices and the former Fred Wildlife events space.
The east review board Wednesday night approved a small roster of updates to the project’s design in a meeting necessitated by the requirements to add an elevator and make a few changes to the development’s parking garage that emerged since the board looked at the design the first time in 2023.
Wednesday’s session required 90 minutes and a full presentation from the developer and the Seattle-based MG2 project architect, time for public comment, and a full board deliberation from Landscape Design Representative Emily van Geldern, Design Professional rep Gina Gage, Local Residential Representative Jacob Cosman, Development Representative Akhil Arun, and Local Community Representative Joe Reilly.
In the end, the board signed off on the changes and the project is once again clear of at least one more hurdle in the Seattle development process.
The project first came before the review board in December 2022.
Once financing, demolition, and construction timelines line up again, the development will create a new 8-story, 164-unit apartment building with street level commercial space and underground parking for more than 100 vehicles.
As slow as it has gone, at least nobody tried to landmark the 1966-built office building the project will replace.
The Low Tide project could be part of a ripple of redevelopment and real estate activity along the curves of E Olive Way. CHS reported here on the plans for a new eight-story mixed use project readied and waiting for the All Season Cleaners property just below Broadway. Meanwhile, across the street, the former E Olive Way Starbucks is still searching for a tenant while eventual plans for a new mixed-use development on that wedge of land also lurk in the background. And a development lower on the Hill where E Olive Way meets Bellevue is looking for a buyer as the property and approved mixed-use project planned to someday replace City Market — and make a new home for the grocery — was put up for sale earlier this year.
As for the design review process, thanks a slowdown in the area pipeline, changes made during the pandemic to allow more “administrative” reviews by city staff, and new exceptions added for affordable projects, full-blown Capitol Hill reviews are few and far between these days. CHS last reported on a review in January as the board moved forward a proposed “U-shape” mixed-use project on Broadway’s Bait Shop block to the next stage in the process. Prior to that, you have to go back to October when the mixed-use project being planned for 15th Ave E’s old QFC block took a bow in front of the board.
But they won’t disappear completely. New legislation proposed by Mayor Bruce Harrell seeking to spur the creation of more housing would eliminate the slow and costly review process for the city’s downtown core and areas including First Hill but areas like Pike/Pine and Broadway, so far, haven’t been added to the proposal.
Looking ahead, the East Design Review Board’s 2024 schedule is currently empty.
You can learn more about the 1661 E Olive Way project here.
PLEASE HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE!
Subscribe to CHS to help us pay writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.
Lol Joe Reilly got fired from Seattle Subway for being such a douchebag at design review.
Your piece expresses a not very favorable opinion of the City’s Design Review process. Almost everyone can agree that Seattle needs more housing, especially less expensive housing, and needs it to be built as quickly as possible. Hardly any controversy there.
Many people think the Design Review process adds real value to development and to the communities in which the development occurs. But, of course that’s a judgment, with which you are free to disagree.
But, the conclusion that Design Review is a significant factor in holding up the production of new housing needs to be examined. Who is pushing that argument and where do they get their facts? The City of Seattle as part of its review of the effectiveness and impact of the Design Review process commissioned an independent study of the effects of the current system. The results indicate that, for proposals going through the full Design Review (the process including an opportunity for public meetings) the design review process equaled 23% of the time required to obtain a Master Use permit. For proposals going through the Administrative Design Review process the design review process equaled 22% of the time required to obtain a Master Use permit. (Note, this overall time frame does not include the full process for obtaining a building permit; if it did, that 23%/22% portion would be significantly smaller).
In other words, eliminating Design Review would have almost no impact on the amount of time it takes for the City to issue a development permit.
Sure, it seems like the amount of time to get a development permit could be reduced. How about the City (and developers) focusing on some strategies that actually could be effective rather than eliminating or hobbling one part of the process that actually contributes value?
THANK YOU! You are entirely correct. Don’t buy the development communities BS. There are definitely ways the City could make the Design Review process more friendly to general public but DR doesn’t have a major impact on good projects from developer/architect teams who understand the code and are tuned into the neighborhoods they hope to build in.
bcd, have you ever gone through the DR process? It can be time consuming and costly. This means uncertainty, which spooks many developers. Also, I thought a Administrative DR was limited to 8 units or less. If I’m right, that’s not a very good comparison.
With that said, I’d be in favor of keeping the DR process in place.
Jim
22% is still several months – that’s an absurd amount of time and money wasted, contributing to housing shortage.
You mention value being contributed – what is the value for this extremely expensive process?
I’m still just baffled that a 20%+ reduction in time is considered “almost no impact” – that’s an absurdly large number.
Sorry I sat through many DRB meetings and I kept a tally of how many “concerned residents” said “it doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood” and continued on saying “it looks like everything else” without knowing the irony of those two statements. At the end of a meeting it was a very high percentage of commentors.
When you travel to other cities known for their great architecture -I assure you it is run by professionals of the industry (AIA’s, Engineers, planners etc.) not by concerned karens who are not sure the brick will look authentic enough for her, so maybe come back in 9 months when a different concerned karen (the original likely will not be make the follow-up) wants to discuss the history of the structure.
In its worst days Blaine Weber (who effectively ENDED the Seattle Times architectural critic columnist role by suing) would use his position for the downtown DRB and kick his competition to looong waits over minor questions. He would also have his employees there to assist him in this endeavor -they usually came straight from work and forgot to leave their WeberThompson carrier bags at the office.
In South Seattle, the goodwill site was to be home to a massive mixed use project near several transportation hubs. The DRB was used by numerous local groups that appeared out of nowhere asking for vans, free office space or they would (and did) go to DRB meetings and hold up a project endlessly -which eventually killed the project actually.
In its best days…I guess it helped citizens feel as though they had a say or at least a way to delay a project in their back yard.
It needs to go.
> kept a tally of how many “concerned residents” said “it doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood” and continued on saying “it looks like everything else” without knowing the irony of those two statements.
There’s no irony. It doesn’t look like the the good older stuff, and it looks exactly like the bad newer stuff. Anyone can recognize what was meant, if they aren’t being willfully stupid and arguing in bad faith.
Are they really going to take Bait Shop away?