| 1 | Mar 2, 2010 3:01 AM | If it is legal for buildings to be up to 4 stories high, then we should not waste energy fighting it. We should maximize potential for well-designed spaces. |
| 2 | Mar 2, 2010 5:15 AM | I think Wedgwood has great potential to be a vibrant neighborhood with peaceful housing and a strong "town square" area. |
| 3 | Mar 2, 2010 3:49 PM | I'm not opposed to development within Wedgwood, but it needs to be carefully planned and scrutinized, and fit with the character and size of the neighborhood |
| 4 | Mar 2, 2010 4:45 PM | Jumping up to 4 stories high would be inappropriate. ALso it is crucial that any new density and development not turn wedgwood into another bland American suburb with the standard chain stores. |
| 5 | Mar 2, 2010 6:14 PM | The present unplanned strip on NE 35th needs to be carefully thought out and then a campaign to seek out the desired type of changes. |
| 6 | Mar 2, 2010 6:54 PM | I'd actually like to choose both #1 and #3. One of the main missing pieces in Wedgwood is a vibrant commercial corridor. The old, unattractive commercial buildings along 35th should be redeveloped with new buildings with high quality pedestrian friendly design. More commercial zoning and greater densities will be required to make this economically feasible. Wedgwood should embrace new commercial growth and prepare for it by developing a clear vision for future design and developing its own community plan/design guidelines. |
| 7 | Mar 2, 2010 6:54 PM | 40' buildings with single story homes behind them is NOT a good development practice!! |
| 8 | Mar 2, 2010 9:54 PM | I strongly believe mixed-use is in line with sustainability. So-called "McMansions" provide so much for so few, whereas mixed-use provides so much for so many. |
| 9 | Mar 2, 2010 11:23 PM | Only developers can afford to build 4 story buildings. If we want independent businesses to build and own their buildings, we should limit to 2 stories. Then they could afford to buy property. |
| 10 | Mar 3, 2010 12:16 AM | To match the City's plan put forth under former Mayor Nickels, we should be looking to accommodate more population. That can be done, if done thoughtfully. |
| 11 | Mar 3, 2010 7:04 AM | If I wanted to live in a place like Fremont or Wallingford, I would live in Fremont or Wallingford. |
| 12 | Mar 3, 2010 2:31 PM | neighborhood foundations should buy up buildings of elderly and making neighbhorhood housing assn to offer them for student use or family rentals to preserve the nature of the neighborhood in the intergenerational turnover. |
| 13 | Mar 3, 2010 2:48 PM | There must be ample off street parking for increased density determined before building approval. |
| 14 | Mar 3, 2010 3:40 PM | The above reflects my opinion as long as it is genuinely a Wallingford or Fremont approach and not a Ballard or Lake City approach. |
| 15 | Mar 3, 2010 3:57 PM | no more than 4 stories - and design needs to stay in context with the Wedgewood communities |
| 16 | Mar 3, 2010 4:21 PM | Diversity is fine, eyesores are a different mater. I think Fremont and Wallingford are great examples to follow. |
| 17 | Mar 3, 2010 4:30 PM | As long as it's certified green building with solar and/or wind turbine... gray water catchment. etc |
| 18 | Mar 3, 2010 4:56 PM | 4 stories should be clustered by existing big buildings like Safeway, 3 stories should be clustered by residential areas. |
| 19 | Mar 3, 2010 5:33 PM | I enjoy the small neighborhood feel of Wedgwood. Univeristy Village, the U District and Northgate are very close if I want to shop or visit other types of businesses. |
| 20 | Mar 3, 2010 5:54 PM | I don't want more density. I want fewer automobiles. |
| 21 | Mar 3, 2010 6:16 PM | Design is everything and will make all the difference |
| 22 | Mar 3, 2010 8:08 PM | We will lose the quiet, solace, natural habitat of the area with the condo development. |
| 23 | Mar 3, 2010 8:32 PM | Too much of 35th between N.E. 75th and the QFC is just dead space- - particularly the Hunter Tree Farm lot, which is an eyesore 330 days a year. |
| 24 | Mar 3, 2010 8:33 PM | I do not categorically fear large chain stores. It is often unrealistic to expect that small businesses can survive and prosper. I'd rather see permanent larger businesses, including chain stores, than smaller ones that don't survive , leaving vacant storefronts. |
| 25 | Mar 3, 2010 9:22 PM | Would strongly prefer keeping it down to two or max. of three stories - keep our historic charm |
| 26 | Mar 3, 2010 10:42 PM | Improved mass transit requires greater density. |
| 27 | Mar 3, 2010 10:44 PM | I am very opposed to commercial growth and want to keep the neighborhood for single-family dwellings and residents as it has historically been. We do NOT want to be another Fremont or Ballard. If we do, we'll lose our residents who love Wedgwood. |
| 28 | Mar 4, 2010 12:25 AM | Hit-and-run developers have strewn a wake of ugly, mostly vacant "mixed use" buildings across the city. Real density develops slowly and organically. |
| 29 | Mar 4, 2010 1:23 AM | I don't think Wedgwood should be as busy as Wallingford/Fremont but it would be nice to attract more restaurants/small businesses |
| 30 | Mar 4, 2010 1:39 AM | There is a small area of 35th that is wider and more conduscive to density, 87th - 85th. This area should be maximized and the rest have careful minimal bulk/density for effective traffic flow and neighborhood feel. I see no demand for increased business district from 83rd to 75th and no interest in another "Lake City Way" in Wedgwood. |
| 31 | Mar 4, 2010 2:04 AM | keep growth in check! God forbid Wedgwood become another Wallingford or Fremont- nice places to visit but I don't want to live there!!!!! |
| 32 | Mar 4, 2010 2:06 AM | Mixed-use buildings would be more appropriate along Lake City Way NE |
| 33 | Mar 4, 2010 2:16 AM | Once you allow taller buildings in--the personality of the neighborhood changes & its hard to go back--would limit height growth as a priority. |
| 34 | Mar 4, 2010 2:47 AM | set backs are important and can provide opportunity for sidewalk cafes, |
| 35 | Mar 4, 2010 3:17 AM | We need to do all we can to keep bulk and scale of new development in check. |
| 36 | Mar 4, 2010 3:42 AM | I actively like the appearance and function of residential buildings with retail or restaurant spaces below. |
| 37 | Mar 4, 2010 3:43 AM | Two stories tops! |
| 38 | Mar 4, 2010 4:49 AM | No noise or traffic please. A quiet, low traffic, unharried neighborhood would be more pleasant. |
| 39 | Mar 4, 2010 5:14 AM | This type of building is never reversible, so restrictions now are critical |
| 40 | Mar 4, 2010 5:56 AM | Discourage any 4 story building at old JCC site. |
| 41 | Mar 4, 2010 6:22 AM | Keep the Xmas tree/fruit stand lot on 35th at 80th in its current state! |
| 42 | Mar 4, 2010 7:16 AM | I think we should utilize the space but I think 4 stories high is a bit much. Keep it balanced. |
| 43 | Mar 4, 2010 5:31 PM | Wallingford and Fremont are very attractive - we only didn't buy there due to the cost of housing |
| 44 | Mar 4, 2010 6:49 PM | I think that we need to think through how we develop the NC40 area making sure that what we put in that area can absorb the required parking into their development. We also need to develop an improved traffice flow prior to adding the congestion. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BULK AND SCALE IS APPROPRIATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| 45 | Mar 4, 2010 8:20 PM | we need to develop to draw university and business owners of IP based businesses to the neighborhood |
| 46 | Mar 4, 2010 8:22 PM | While I'm not a fan of 4 story buildings for Wedgwood, it would be hard to say that it would always have to be "evil". If very carefully planned and thought out, it is possible to do well. |
| 47 | Mar 4, 2010 8:33 PM | we need a park with several shelters, bbq pits (covered), firepits, and a story or lectuer area (like in a national park) for families to gaterh and clubs to meet ourdoors and in covered areas in park |
| 48 | Mar 4, 2010 8:45 PM | We don't want to become Wallingford or Fremont. What makes Wedgwood different is the green space and small businesses. Quieter and more family friendly. |
| 49 | Mar 4, 2010 8:46 PM | we need to find a way to put in affordable office spaces to get small tech and individual business to come adn stayu in wedgwood - activespace or such places |
| 50 | Mar 4, 2010 10:24 PM | Let's not look like Wallingford or Fremont. |
| 51 | Mar 4, 2010 11:45 PM | By increasing density and business diversification we can move toward fewer car trips to other urban villages. The ideal would be to live and work within a 1 mile radius. |
| 52 | Mar 5, 2010 1:00 AM | We need an architectural review board to guide developers in the direction best suited to the community. |
| 53 | Mar 5, 2010 2:04 AM | Increase businesses while keeping down population density. Leave the condos and apartments in Ballard! |
| 54 | Mar 5, 2010 2:32 AM | this is not something I want I like Wedgwood because of its small neighborly feel and tall buildings take away from this! |
| 55 | Mar 5, 2010 3:14 AM | With appropriate setbacks (sidewalk clearance) I believe that 4 story buildings would be fine. |
| 56 | Mar 5, 2010 4:12 AM | somewhere between 2 and 3. I dont have all the services i need within walking distance. I love sandpoint are and 15th on capital hill or madison valley; charming, attractive to outside residents but maintaining character of the neighborhood |
| 57 | Mar 5, 2010 4:42 AM | Wedgwood isn't Fremont and I don't think it should be forced into something that doesn't fit the "feel" of the neighborhood. But it IS a vibrant community that would embrace an authentic, self-sustaining retail core with a "third place" element. |
| 58 | Mar 5, 2010 4:56 AM | could do more but definitely don't want anything on the scale of Wallingford or Freemont. |
| 59 | Mar 5, 2010 7:03 AM | does every are have to become an urban village? is vibarancy only defined by increased density & businesses/ |
| 60 | Mar 5, 2010 5:22 PM | Living in a great town like Seattle means that a lot of these amenities are already available close by. So I don't favor the influx of large buildings that would change the flavor of this very livable neighborhood. |
| 61 | Mar 5, 2010 6:42 PM | I am not averse to taller buildings / increased density in commercial zones. What's important is the quality of design and construction. The bldg north of Chase is unacceptable and a black eye on the neighborhood; the series of new bldgs containing Starbucks at NE 73rd is tastefully done (brick exteriors, etc). More of this type of desgn I can accept, including 4+ stories. |
| 62 | Mar 5, 2010 7:34 PM | I like business to come in, and just a little mixed-use residential, but don't want a huge jump in density. Parking issues, property upkeep, vacant developed property, and crime are my fears with jumps in high-density. |
| 63 | Mar 5, 2010 8:40 PM | As long as impacts to the traffic and parking are dealt with properly and this is kept small scale and not all along the length of 35th. I enjoy the residential feel of this area and do not want to be in Ballard. |
| 64 | Mar 5, 2010 8:59 PM | We do not have transportation support for urban village concept |
| 65 | Mar 5, 2010 11:10 PM | The development model of Wallingford and Fremont benefit everyone. This maximizes the housing and commericial space. |
| 66 | Mar 5, 2010 11:50 PM | We moved from Wallingford. It was great when were home but awful to leave or return to due to awful traffic. No place to walk there without fighting cars. A balance for Wedgwood would be ideal (see question 4!). |
| 67 | Mar 6, 2010 4:23 AM | Urban "villages" have very little local character - long-term residents are priced out and crowded out. Business and upwardly mobiles move in - so that real estate changes hands rapidly and rental increase. |
| 68 | Mar 6, 2010 5:00 AM | I wouldn't call Wallingford an urban village; but its character doesn't bother me. |
| 69 | Mar 6, 2010 4:42 PM | Wedgwood is lacking the vibrancy and charm of other Seattle villages, however, many of the buildings in those areas are charming older buildings that have been renovated and/or repurposed and that is largely what creates the charm. Wedgwood will need to be careful in approving new building design so that 35th doesn't end up looking like a strip center or worse. Careful thought must be taken as to how new buildings will look, feel and interact with those that are already here. |
| 70 | Mar 6, 2010 5:26 PM | I am happy to see an "urban village" but I don't want to sacrifice a lot of green space and end up with a concrete-only neighborhood. Buildings should be designed to fit the neighborhood, not the other way around. |
| 71 | Mar 6, 2010 8:58 PM | 4 stories is too high. |
| 72 | Mar 6, 2010 10:08 PM | Regardless of the height of buildings, I am most concerned about the increase of traffic on 35th. Bigger buildings, more people, more traffic congestion and less admirable qualities are added to the community. |
| 73 | Mar 7, 2010 2:23 AM | New buildings must add visual appeal |
| 74 | Mar 7, 2010 3:13 AM | Lack of parking, traffic slow down, increase pollution & noise would only follow if these 4 storey units are built. |
| 75 | Mar 7, 2010 3:04 PM | QFC is encouraged to continue being the largest building in site along with the drug store across the street. I love the way Starbucks and shops down the way look and feel, although a more town center area would be nice and not so much a side of the road as our shops our now. I like eclectic shops and cafes to mix in with "names" I trust such as QFC Starbucks etc. I love the space around the Audubon society and it's green area. Our library is nice too other than parking issues there. Of course it encourages more foot traffic and bus use perhaps. |
| 76 | Mar 7, 2010 3:44 PM | urban village on a much smaller scale than wallingford/fremont would be nice, to have the feel of a small town hamlet(ie Lexington, Ma) |
| 77 | Mar 7, 2010 5:09 PM | would like Wedgwood to keep its character of not being overly densely populated, like U Dist, or Fremont. |
| 78 | Mar 7, 2010 6:43 PM | Wedgwood is not Fremont. It is a quite neighborhood. |
| 79 | Mar 7, 2010 8:33 PM | We are not big enough to be an urban village |
| 80 | Mar 7, 2010 10:03 PM | Most economically viable cinemas are multiplexes, the scale of which (and the attendant traffic) wouldn't fit here. |
| 81 | Mar 7, 2010 11:22 PM | Change zoning to allow no more than 1 story high. |
| 82 | Mar 8, 2010 12:17 AM | schools are already too crowded--density would not serve us well |
| 83 | Mar 8, 2010 1:15 AM | I had a tough time picking between the 2nd and 3rd choices on this question. I think that there can be carefully designed mixed-use buildings which create a vibrant neighborhood, and I also think that these can maximize development potential. I don't think that they are mutually exclusive. I think that development potential for 35th Ave NE over the next 20 years probably will be 4-story mixed use buildings (between 75th and 85th), with retail on the ground floor and a mix of residential and commercial above. In the end, private sector demand drives development potential. I can't see there being private sector demand for 15 eight story office buildings (or the like) that currently exist in other north Seattle urban centers. With all this being said, I really want to see more density along 35th, with mixed-use buildings providing a vibrant commercial/residential core, and a town center feel. I also want the focal point of town center to be a new City Park constructed at the hunter tree farm property. This property could serve as the "village green", with, benches, a child's playground, water feature, etc., etc. I will try to make it to the meeting this Thursday (3/11) to more fully elaborate on this vision. |
| 84 | Mar 8, 2010 3:50 AM | Density is the only way to go in Seattle and in our current economy. just be sure to add turn lanes and parking. |
| 85 | Mar 8, 2010 8:58 AM | We don't want four story buildings on 35th between 75th and 85th |
| 86 | Mar 8, 2010 6:47 PM | I absolutely do not want the density of Wallingford or Fremont. Friends moved away from those areas to Wedgewood to avoid, noise, density, traffic etc. Urban viallge density would likely increase height and bulk of bldg's I like the sun and feeling of openess in Wedgewood. |
| 87 | Mar 8, 2010 7:23 PM | A few larger chains are okay with me....for example Bartells, QFC, a movie theatre, a couple of good restaurant chains would be fine...but kept to scale the way QFC did in Wedgwood works for me. A small pizza chain, or other restaurant chain would be okay with me. |
| 88 | Mar 8, 2010 8:33 PM | If we "maximize", I think a lot of consideration should be given to traffic/public transportation. The one thing that strikes me about Fremont and Wallingford is that traffic is a problem. |
| 89 | Mar 8, 2010 10:00 PM | It would be great to see Wedgwood become a hub for developers who are creative, forward-thinking, & truly green builders. I'd like to see development that kept pedestrians at the forefront, making this a human-scale, walkable neighborhood with creative solutions for parking, building in greenbelt space, and also providing many natural spaces for children to maintain contact with nature in the city. |
| 90 | Mar 9, 2010 3:37 PM | We lived in a mixed use building in downtown Vienna, Austria which was part of a large development built around the perimeter of an approximately nine square block area (Wedgwood Estates is four square blocks) where the outside of the development included retail stores at the ground level, and apartments were above and to the back of each building; and there was a large courtyard with large trees, birds, etc in the center. Access to the center was through narrow pedestrian walkways. |
| 91 | Mar 9, 2010 6:50 PM | too crowded now. 35 Ave NE not build to withstand this. |
| 92 | Mar 10, 2010 4:25 AM | Design mixed use buildings, with compromises in terms of height and set-back from road (less of both). Study other areas of town to see what has worked (some areas of ballard, capitol hill) |
| 93 | Mar 10, 2010 5:00 AM | Business development must be balanced by traffic management---35th is already dangerously busy at some hours and might need structural/lane/traffic light adjustments |
| 94 | Mar 10, 2010 5:22 AM | Carefully designed means not tall, large, bulky. |
| 95 | Mar 10, 2010 3:39 PM | I would like to down size from my house but remain in the neighborhood and move into a condo |
| 96 | Mar 10, 2010 7:53 PM | I hate Wallingford and Fremont and chose to live in Wedgewood because it exemplified everything those two neighborhoods don't. We don't want it to take us 20 minutes just to drive up 35th or have to deal with all the parking issues on the outlying streets. Add a few more businesses and that's it!! |
| 97 | Mar 11, 2010 2:26 AM | Zoning was put in place with little regard for placement of zone, current adjacencies and topography. Need to relook at the current zoning and likely make some adjustments. |
| 98 | Mar 12, 2010 1:08 PM | I like Ww the way it is. I don't want it to be like Fremont. I don't like any of the ideas in #4, including the active resistance one! (I know it's contradictory with wanting things to stay the same.) |
| 99 | Mar 12, 2010 8:36 PM | I rent, but my landlord grew up in Wedgwood - what are you doing to involve non-resident property owners (3512 NE 94th St. - Roger Larson - owner) in the vision? |
| 100 | Mar 12, 2010 9:20 PM | Balch tired to change the code so the businesses on 35th could elevate their structures. This was denied by the city council as it would interfere with the light and with the privacy of the homes on 36th. It is extremely important that this type of developing not be allowed. It would only serve those who had the businesses. |
| 101 | Mar 12, 2010 9:49 PM | Should have a buffer zone between commercial and single-family zones - maybe medium density multi-family with building standards similar to single-family. |
| 102 | Mar 12, 2010 10:57 PM | We need to look at the Safeway space. It is an eyesore and also a terrible parking area...Many other neighborhoods have upscale Safeways and we have a very old and ugly one... That lot is the cornerstone of Wedgwood and it is horrible. This needs to be upgraded in many ways. That said, I don't want to have a large apt building with the Safeway on the bottom level like many other neighborhoods. We need a space with trees and green space. |
| 103 | Mar 13, 2010 6:05 AM | It would maintain the great feel of Wedgwood if we can develop businesses in houses along 35th (like Wallingford) rather than building mini strip malls like the one that Starbucks resides in. |
| 104 | Mar 13, 2010 3:24 PM | Part of the character of our neighborhood is the small stature of the buildings--being able to see the sky when you look up, a feeling of openness in our surroundings. Large, tall buildings diminish the quality of our living space. On a side note: This survey spins density like it's a good thing--it's not good for the character of a neighborhood--in fact, density is only good for the tax collectors. |
| 105 | Mar 13, 2010 7:41 PM | I'm for having some quality condos on 35th. I am not for the expansion multi-family rental units. |
| 106 | Mar 15, 2010 1:23 AM | Out-of-scale height will seriously ruin the peaceful character of Wedgwood. Who needs more tacky apartments-over-businesses like those along 65th between 20th and 25th? Wish we could demand good, human-spirit-uplifting design! Seattle doesn't need any more ugly townhomes squeezed onto an asphalt lot-we need cottages, beautiful courtyard apartments with gardens, etc. |
| 107 | Mar 15, 2010 8:06 PM | I do not accept the official Seattle government position of push up density in Seattle. NE Seattle generally works well now and should not be ruined. |
| 108 | Mar 17, 2010 8:23 AM | This is a NEIGHBOORHOOD, not a strip mall. |
| 109 | Mar 17, 2010 7:04 PM | Would like to see more small business but do not want Wedgwood to become Wallingford/Fremont. |
| 110 | Mar 17, 2010 11:27 PM | I do not see increasing density as a goal |
| 111 | Mar 18, 2010 5:15 PM | I have to go to Northgate or Lynnwood for most shopping. |
| 112 | Mar 18, 2010 9:43 PM | I'm not opposed to tall development per se, but it'd be lovely to be able to have taller, denser development be consistent with a neighborhood feel. |
| 113 | Mar 22, 2010 12:38 AM | I like that Wedgwood is slower paced than Wallingford or Fremont - it feels friendlier to families and the elderly. I don't think some modest development would necessarily ruin that. But I also value the "open spaces" used for the fruit stand and Christmas tree people. These make our neighborhood special. |
| 114 | Mar 22, 2010 4:35 PM | I support increased density in Wedgwood but want new development to be sensitive to our "small-town" feel. When I say "small town", I am in NO WAY implying "suburban". |
| 115 | Mar 24, 2010 4:30 AM | wedgwood needs a bit of a facelift - some restaurants are out-dated and we need a better selection of family-friendly restaurants |
| 116 | Mar 24, 2010 5:50 AM | I like Wedgwood's small town feel. I moved back here because of the trees and more laid back nature while still having access to the city. I would like more options to eat and run errands in Wedgwood, but don't want to become a destination neighborhood. |
| 117 | Mar 24, 2010 6:40 AM | Carefully designed means esthetically-pleasing buildings that are not built up to the setbacks, with proper scale. Built and designed as if the developer was going to live in the building, not just a spec development. |
| 118 | Mar 24, 2010 4:30 PM | Fremont is too industrialized. Wallingford has too much of a 'strip' quality. I hope Wedgwood does not become like them. I like the small town residential style best. |
| 119 | Mar 24, 2010 6:35 PM | apts and condos do not need comercial space on ths stree side. use plantings and patios. 35th has enough space already for comercial. |
| 120 | Mar 24, 2010 7:50 PM | Personally, I think the spirit of Fremont and Wallingford (and now Ballard) has been significantly diminished by the type of office/multi-use construction that's been allowed to occur. Development should result in a continual flow from old to new. New development shouldn't be quite so obvious. |
| 121 | Mar 25, 2010 6:20 AM | Love it the way it is, most things we need are right here, additional businesses/services are a short drive away. |
| 122 | Mar 25, 2010 6:23 AM | I understand that the Post Office was trying to expand and the community nixed the growth-I heard this so do not have all the facts. If true, I disagree. We need that growth to servie residents who want to do our business within walking distance. We have to go to Lake City to collect mail when out of town. The postal workers say their hands are tied and though we live in Wedgwood, we cannot have our mail held at our local USPS. |
| 123 | Mar 26, 2010 1:07 AM | Reduce through Traffic, Limit Development |
| 124 | Mar 27, 2010 5:12 AM | No, No, Keep It Low! |
| 125 | Mar 27, 2010 3:53 PM | I don't want to 'attract more businesses', I want whatever is here to be sustainable, big or small. |
| 126 | Mar 28, 2010 9:43 AM | I think we should definitely try and make wedgwood more capable of meeting its residents daily needs for shopping, and eating out. But we need to do this with proper care due to how close houses are to 35th ave(i live on 34th across from the wedgewood broiler, and yet for being so close, its dark, noise free, and has almost no traffic. If we add too much, and make it too tall, not only will my yard no longer be private, but parking will become a nightmare. Right now i enjoy the ability to have 5-6 cars of friends over at once for a dinner and they can all park within 100ft of my property with ease any time of day. |
| 127 | Mar 29, 2010 12:40 AM | Human scale is an important requirement in a neighborhood such as this one. |
| 128 | Mar 29, 2010 1:39 AM | I would like Wedgwood to have more shops and entertainment options while keeping as many of the trees as possible and keeping Wedgwood's charm. |
| 129 | Mar 29, 2010 2:32 AM | emphasize design not just maximum square footage |
| 130 | Mar 29, 2010 5:09 AM | building a 4 story building with maybe 30-40 units might be reasonable, but 80 units is not |
| 131 | Mar 30, 2010 2:53 AM | Gold LEED standards at a minimum for new buildings, not faux-green |
| 132 | Mar 30, 2010 4:20 AM | It would be nice to have some quality and interesting businesses locally. It's pretty dull as it is now ! |
| 133 | Mar 30, 2010 4:48 AM | Building height kills sunshine. There IS a certain vitality to mixed-use, but it can be achieved equally well in an open space (town center) setting. |
| 134 | Mar 30, 2010 5:07 AM | Not sure how I feel about this. I wouldn't like it if I was living in its potential shadow! Then again, our business district is kind of lame, and there is a dearth of affordable housing. I'd just hate to see us get completely Ballard-ized. I would look toMaple Leaf as a district that has similar scale but has done a better job of incorporating what people actually want and will walk to. |
| 135 | Mar 30, 2010 11:58 AM | Reality is that we need to increase densities. However, we need to keep traffic at a minimum. Density on busd lines is good but too much can bring it's own set of issues. Single family homes with nice yards are a signature of Wedgwood and should be honored outside of 35th. |
| 136 | Mar 30, 2010 1:45 PM | I would preferr to keep Wedgewood quiet, and boost the gardening. I would like to have readily available soil testing data. |
| 137 | Mar 30, 2010 6:31 PM | Yea, I was thinking of something similar to Fremont and Wallingford. |
| 138 | Mar 30, 2010 7:23 PM | but the building bulk and scale must be controlled, and parking must be available. |
| 139 | Mar 30, 2010 11:39 PM | i've got an idea... how about letting people build a one extra story for every ten feet they build back from the property line? Look at the rite aid. One big wall, lot line to lot line. VERY unfriendly. But look at the apt building at 88th and 35th, on the east side. You don't even notice that it's 4 stories, because it's NOT on the lot line and landscaped. |
| 140 | Mar 31, 2010 3:58 AM | There is something essentially different about Wedgwood that doesn't compare with Wallingford or Fremont. I think it is Suburban. Although we now live in the city, the character of Wedgwood is not urban. |
| 141 | Mar 31, 2010 4:23 AM | I am between numbers three and four. I would love it if 35th felt more like an "urban village like Wallingford" but our properties could remain as large and our neighbors as lovely. |
| 142 | Mar 31, 2010 6:00 PM | Either the old Jewish Community Center site, or the Hunter's Tree Farm site, should be developed into a community park, preferably with a bandshell and lots of bicycle parking. |
| 143 | Apr 1, 2010 5:27 AM | I am happy with larger/ higher development along 35th as long as such development is sympathetic to the much smaller properties that lie immediately off 35th. No-one wants to live in the shadow of a large block. |
| 144 | Apr 1, 2010 7:13 AM | The more i drive through Freemont the less I se the sun. The buildings block it. driving down Stone is like driving in a canyon. |
| 145 | Apr 1, 2010 5:21 PM | 4 stories feels out of scale for the neighborhood. Would prefer 3 story limit. |
| 146 | Apr 1, 2010 7:57 PM | 4 stories is too high without a green belt. Private homes will loose sunlight and single home environment. |
| 147 | Apr 2, 2010 4:54 AM | more density brings more people, which brings more retail. more retail=a more vibrant community! |
| 148 | Apr 2, 2010 3:52 PM | I'd love to see carefully designed buildings but it doesn't appear that the City of Seattle is concerned. |
| 149 | Apr 2, 2010 6:32 PM | Wedgwood is not centrally located to anything else the way Wallingford and Fremont are. We should keep it's scale small in accordance with the single-family neighborhood it's always been. |
| 150 | Apr 3, 2010 5:50 AM | The arterials in Wedgwood are not wide enough or safe enough for pedestrians to support the maximum development. An attractive and pleasant sidewalk scape requires more arterial width than is presently available. |
| 151 | Apr 4, 2010 5:26 AM | The key in my mind is character. A mixed use building is fine, if it is stylish. But the street needs to feel cohesive and inviting. |
| 152 | Apr 4, 2010 11:00 PM | 4 stories should be max, and we definitely need greenspace and trees in the mix. Not all hard surfaces. |
| 153 | Apr 4, 2010 11:23 PM | NO MONSTER CENTER AT 35th next to Rite Aid. How dare even propose it. |
| 154 | Apr 5, 2010 12:03 AM | However, if we increase density, we need to do something to mitigate the increased car traffic. |
| 155 | Apr 5, 2010 5:19 PM | We do need to maximize the potential I love what has happened to Fremont and Wallingford I shop there all the time |
| 156 | Apr 5, 2010 6:46 PM | It would be great to see some growth and development come to Wedgwood but not to the scale of Wallingford or Fremont. Particularly not like Fremont. Love Fremont but don't want to live there. I would like to see a mix of more businesses and some larger/higher buildings but I think it should be mixed together with smaller scale buildings and businesses. |
| 157 | Apr 5, 2010 8:27 PM | The more services, retail and restaurants we can walk or bike to, the better. We have elementary age kids and the more we can stay close to home, the better. Friends who moved to Ballard in the 90s because the housing was cheap now adore all they can do in the neighborhood. And West Seattle also has a wonderful "downtown." I would love to see more of that in Wedgwood |
| 158 | Apr 7, 2010 2:38 AM | More multifamily along 35th can make a greater variety of stores and services more viable. This is a good thing for everyone. |
| 159 | Apr 7, 2010 4:51 PM | It all depends on what type of businesses come in, what do about parking, what type of noise it brings, etc., not just size of building so too hard to answer this as a blanket question. |
| 160 | Apr 8, 2010 3:31 AM | We should encourage business so we can walk to meet all our needs within our neighborhood. I would like to see us develop a model like the Saxe Apartments in Ravenna along 65th and 25th. |
| 161 | Apr 8, 2010 7:31 AM | we need to preserve the nature of wedgwood and keep it in line with laurel hurst and bryant more so than fremont and wallingford |
| 162 | Apr 8, 2010 2:31 PM | Fremont has been devastated. Let's keep Wedgwood smaller, shorter, no more than TWO stories. But yes, "carefully designed mixed-use bldgs" would be fine with that 2-storey caveat. |
| 163 | Apr 8, 2010 3:05 PM | This question appears biased to anti-hieght |
| 164 | Apr 8, 2010 4:11 PM | allow and encourage higher density residential development along transit routes, require good design that is economic to developers |
| 165 | Apr 8, 2010 4:25 PM | Our current ambiance is a direct result of the lack of high-rise buildings. The surest and quickest way to destroy our neighborly feeling would be to allow, let alone promote, high rise buildings, whether commercial or residential. The limit should be two stores. |
| 166 | Apr 8, 2010 5:33 PM | I lived in Wallingford for 17 years and loved walking to so many services and business needs. The traffic was a strong negative but Wedgwood could benefit from more development along the lines of Wallingford and Fremont. |
| 167 | Apr 8, 2010 7:35 PM | enjoy seeing mountains from 35th st in both directions, dread the day blgs along ridges block all those views. |
| 168 | Apr 8, 2010 9:20 PM | I believe stories should be limited to three stories in residential and business. Building should have a buffer at least 5' of plants between the building and the sidewalk |
| 169 | Apr 8, 2010 10:25 PM | I would like to see a halt to the proposed condo project at 35th & 86th Street - It would have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and a Pea-Patch on that property would be nice! |
| 170 | Apr 9, 2010 12:37 AM | Needs sufficient parking and/or transit for the increased density. |
| 171 | Apr 9, 2010 2:18 AM | Mixed use buildings with Subway, Jamba Juices, Starbucks etc are NOT what I want to see. I like to see density in areas that can sustain it locally which I think Wedgwood almost can at this point. But local businesses create community not chains! |
| 172 | Apr 10, 2010 4:01 AM | YES in my back yard! |
| 173 | Apr 10, 2010 5:33 PM | Denser areas should include public space |
| 174 | Apr 10, 2010 9:00 PM | For a vibrant business community we need to have enough density. I think that concentrating higher-density housing in an around commercial zones helps with this. I would want to see housing units on top floors of all commercial buildings in the commercial zones. However, to preserve the neighborhood feel I would suggest limiting the height of commercial and mixed-use buildings to 3 stories. |
| 175 | Apr 12, 2010 7:46 PM | We love Wallingford and Fremont and think they have been managed pretty well. |
| 176 | Apr 12, 2010 9:20 PM | Would much rather have a 3 story limit; in any case, code should mandate that any building comply with design requirements, so there is no stark, flat walls facing 35th. |
| 177 | Apr 13, 2010 4:32 AM | Right now, Wedgwood is neither fish nor fowl -- not quite the retail/entertainment district it should be, considering the surrounding residential neighborhoods. We need more shops and restaurants we can go to without having to drive. |
| 178 | Apr 13, 2010 10:20 PM | Any ammenities that would come with the urban village designation would not be worth the loss of our quiet single family character. Any mixed use we accept should be at a node not a wall of four story buildings. Some increase in density along 35th makes sense for better transit service. We should also have a flex car avalable to perhaps lower car ownership. |
| 179 | Apr 14, 2010 2:22 AM | By trying to have more businesses will need to accept that Wedgwood may go from a local business center to a destination business center thus increasing car traffic. |
| 180 | Apr 14, 2010 6:07 PM | I would like to see some more development but I think it should be done carefully. More is good but it certainly should be less than Wallingford or Fremont. |
| 181 | May 3, 2010 1:42 AM | University Village and surrounding area is the place for larger businesses, as well as Lake City. Leave Wedgwood out of serious development. Small is beautiful. |
| 182 | May 3, 2010 2:06 AM | To me, the beauty of Wedgwood is "a little bit of country in the city," so it is critical to maintain the balance of amenities with green space/gardens. |
| 183 | May 3, 2010 2:19 AM | Wallingford's and Fremont's business districts are not what I want to see in Wedgwood-much too dense/crowded. |
| 184 | May 6, 2010 4:00 AM | We need to think smaller scale. . . the density and instensity of the urban village like Fremont are a blight. More density is stressful. Our economy will never be what it was (maybe that is a good thing?) People like Wedgwood because it is "single" family housing,not dense, does have some trees left, has small businesses and is unknown (compared to Fremont). |
| 185 | May 7, 2010 4:45 AM | traffic and auto parking space |
| 186 | May 7, 2010 5:07 AM | Urban village concept is okay but on a small scale. If buildings go up 4 stories high, don't build them right up against the pavement. Don't wall in 35th Ave NE. |
| 187 | May 9, 2010 4:16 AM | Need a new larger post office parking bad. Why is the Wedgwood Council against post office getting larger lot? |
| 188 | May 9, 2010 4:32 AM | We can take the bus to other areas with larger stores. The car traffic we have already is enough. |