Arena or Amazon: Does Seattle know what's important?

[seaskyfan]

Yes. Looks like 1,172 as of 1/12.

http://downtownseattle.com/Resources/EconomicProfile

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by seaskyfan

Yes. Looks like 1,172 as of 1/12.

http://downtownseattle.com/Resources/EconomicProfile

The same Downtown Seattle's Association 2012 State of Downtown Annual Report shows 1264 stores for 2009 though, as opposed to the 901 in the article I linked to, so they're obviously measuring something different and/or a different geographical area.

These kinds of inconsistencies (from the same organization) really bug me.

[seaskyfan]

^ Another potential option - the Seattle Times screwed up the reporting. Wouldn't be the first time that happened.

[mhays]

The DSA is notoriously horrible for statistics, which are often very easily dissectable as in error, apples and oranges, etc.

[J. Will]

The same DSA annual report says that Belltown has 9247 people, and a density of 5512 ppsm, which would mean it is 1.68 square miles. It is obviously a fraction of that. They also list far more "street level services" than "street level stores", but they don't say what exactly "services" are? Are they including banks, hair salons, travel agents, dry cleaners...... To have such a larger number than "stores" it much be including a huge number of types of businesses under "services", but it doesn't specify.

[seaskyfan]

^ They're essentially the Chamber of Commerce - not a research entity or any kind of official government agency. I wouldn't spend too much time on their reports.

[M II A II R II K]

The Quest to Make Regulatory Reform Work in Seattle


Mar 27, 2012

By Charles R. Wolfe

Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/pol...-seattle/1607/

PDF Report: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/mee...120328_10a.pdf

.....

In a Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee public hearing on Wednesday, March 28, the Seattle City Council will consider the roundtable's proposals and set the stage for a full council vote in April. In summary, the proposals are as follows, with more detail available.

• Allow Small Commercial Uses in Multifamily Zones and Bring Back the Corner Store The Roundtable acknowledged the national trend towards re-establishing the small corner store amid the urban fabric. Historically, residential zoning has often been an impediment to locating such small commercial uses close to where people live.

• Concentrate Street-Level Commercial Uses in Core Pedestrian Zones Near Transit and Allow Residential, Live-Work or Commercial Uses in Other Areas Based on Market Demand The Roundtable acknowledged that ground floor commercial uses makes sense in shopping and other pedestrian areas---and is a major premise of the reinvented American city going forward. However, recessionary times have made clear that more flexibility is needed outside of those areas to build buildings without ground-floor commercial spaces because such commercial spaces may not be leasable. The solution? Let the market determine if the demand actually exists, and allow regulatory flexibility to do so.

• Enhance the Flexibility of Parking Requirements The Roundtable recognized the premise that as Seattle’s transit service improves, demand for on-site parking will shrink. This recommendation allows the market to determine how much parking should be provided for major institution and other non-residential uses in locations within a quarter mile of good transit service.

• Change Environmental Review Thresholds The Roundtable recommended that the city take advantage of opportunities under Washington State law to streamline and combine environmental review with other aspects of land use regulation, for proposed residential and mixed-use projects in areas designated for growth (such as urban centers and light rail station areas). When announced last summer, labor groups explained how this streamlining could result in 40 new construction projects with 100 to 250 units each year. The Seattle Building Trades Council estimated that 2,400 direct jobs in skilled construction trades could be created through such measures.

• Encourage Home Entrepreneurship The Roundtable embraced the assumption that the home-based business is an incubator for new ideas which create jobs. The recommendation allows property owners to operate home-based businesses ("home occupations") in any structure, as long as impacts to surrounding properties are minimized, and any associated alterations to structures are permitted in the underlying zone.

• Expand Options for Accessory Dwelling Units and Rental Incomes The Roundtable recommended additional flexibility for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's) through allowance of backyard cottages on "through lots" (lots that front two streets), essentially providing for a "backyard" in cases where the Seattle Land Use Code has historically interpreted two front yards. The recommendation also provides more flexibility for the height of backyard cottages on sloping sites and clarify that ADUs are allowed in all housing types (including townhouses, row houses as well in multifamily housing in mixed use zones).

• Expand Allowance of Temporary Uses The Roundtable endorsed a continuation of flexibility to non-permanent uses which help enliven neighborhoods. This recommendation would allow more opportunities for low-cost business activity where no permanent structures are needed. This recommendation would also extend the permitted days and hours of farmers markets, and extend the duration of certain temporary use permits.

.....

[RoseCityFreePress]

Im not sure if this has been said before but Quebec City has entered the race to attract a new pro sports team to town. They are building a new 18,000 seat arena. Though lucky for you guys they are not interested in the NBA. For them its NHL or bust and it looks like they have an ownership group ready as well once a team becomes available. I dont follow the NBA at all because i like real sports so i dont know the ownership situation in that league but Taking the NHL out of the running is it still worth it to build a new arena?



New Quebec City arena gets the green light


BY MARIANNE WHITE, POSTMEDIA NEWS MARCH 25, 2012

15

STORYPHOTOS ( 2 )



Quebecor President and CEO Pierre Karl Peladeau (L) speaks with the mayor of Quebec City Regis Labeaume (R) during a news conference at the city hall in Quebec City. Peladeau, the city and the Quebec's goverment announced the details of the involvement of Quebecor in the management of the new NHL-caliber arena.
Photograph by: Mathieu Belanger , REUTERS
QUEBEC — Quebec City’s mayor made it official Sunday, announcing that the construction of a much-anticipated $400-million NHL-calibre hockey arena will kickoff in September.

The city and the province of Quebec will, as planned, split the cost of building the 18,000-seat arena by 2015.

Mayor Regis Labeaume also announced a final agreement was reached before the March 31 deadline with media giant Quebecor to manage the building, which could serve as the future home of a professional hockey team.

“The city is closer than it has ever been to its dream,” said Labeaume, in reference to the city’s and Quebecor’s efforts to bring back an NHL team.

Quebec lost the Nordiques in 1995 when the team moved to Denver to become the Colorado Avalanche.

Quebec city council approved recently a $7-million refurbishment of the city’s aging Colisee, built in 1949, if an NHL team is approved before the new arena is built.

Sunday’s announcement comes as the future of the Phoenix Coyotes is uncertain. Quebec City, Seattle and Kansas City could be considered as potential homes by the NHL if the league decides to move the team from Arizona.

But Labeaume and Quebecor president and CEO Pierre-Karl Peladeau remained tight-lipped on the question.

“Now we are going to get the building, it’s done. It’s a heck of a relief,” Labeaume said Sunday. “As for the team, I have nothing to say.”

The provincial government is also on board with its previously announced investment of $200 million to build the arena.

The arena will be located outside the city’s downtown, on the site of the hippodrome, a horse-racing track set to close in a few months.

Labeaume noted he had to scale back the size of the building to stay within its $400 million budget from 70,000 to 64,000 square meters, the size of the Kansas City arena. With the use of an adjacent building for administrative purposes and possibly to host a restaurant, the arena will reach 68,000 square metres.

Quebecor has agreed to pay the city to manage the arena for at least 25 years, with a possibility to extend the contract for an additional 15 years. Quebecor’s rent will be $4.5 million annually with a team, and $2.5 million without.

The media company will get naming rights for $63.5 million if Quebecor succeeds in landing an NHL team, but the price tag drops to $33 million without NHL hockey in the building.

Quebecor said Sunday it will invest between $30 and $40 million to build a TV studio in the arena.

“Today is a great day. There are no more obstacles, no more way out and no more uncertainty,” Peladeau said.



Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Quebec+Ci...#ixzz1qxmylNds

[M II A II R II K]

First Look at NBBJ’s New Amazon Complex in Seattle


May 10, 2012

By Ariel Rosenstock

Read More: http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/37881

The largest development proposed in the history of downtown Seattle—an approximately 3 million square-foot headquarters for Amazon—may take eight years to complete. Project details presented at a recent downtown design review committee meeting revealed that Amazon’s glassy three block project, designed by NBBJ (designers of the recently-c0mpleted Gates Foundation, also in Seattle), will be built in three phases of two to four years.

The pieces—”Block 14″ to the south, “Block 19″ to the west, and “Block 20″ to the north— would each include a tower up to 37 stories tall surrounded by smaller buildings connected by skybridges. Phase one at Block 14 on Leonora Street will include a 1 million square-foot tower and a 40,000 square-foot meeting space and auditorium building. Amazon’s site resides in Denny Triangle west of Westlake Avenue, a small, but central neighborhood sandwiched between the downtown business and retail district to the south and South Lake Union to the north. Although the majority of the three blocks are now covered with parking lots, there is a building on each block that will be demolished: the Sixth Avenue Inn on Block 14, the King Kat Theater on Block 19, and a building occupied by Toyota of Seattle on Block 20.

.....

http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6029

[seaskyfan]

^ Those images are of the (now completed phases) of the Gates Foundation HQ, not the Amazon complex.

[mhays]

Speaking of the Gates foundation, that fringe on the near end of the complex will go away as Mercer Ave is being turned into a two-way boulevard vs. the current one-way.

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by mhays

A metro of 4,200,000 looks thin? I'm forgetting, but aren't we by far the largest city without NBA?

No. The riverside san bernardino metro is much larger and doesn't have an nba team.

And in terms of cities San Diego, columbus, Fort worth,el paso, San Jose, Austin and Jacksonville are all bigger cities without an nba franchise.get in line seattle.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Two words: Media markets

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

No. The riverside san bernardino metro is much larger and doesn't have an nba team.

And in terms of cities San Diego, columbus, Fort worth,el paso, San Jose, Austin and Jacksonville are all bigger cities without an nba franchise.get in line seattle.

You're kidding, right?

Riverside/SB is part of LA. San Jose is part of the SF area. Fort Worth is part of the Dallas area.

As for city limits populations, I'm sure you grasp why that's irrelevant.

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by mhays

You're kidding, right?

Riverside/SB is part of LA. San Jose is part of the SF area. Fort Worth is part of the Dallas area.

As for city limits populations, I'm sure you grasp why that's irrelevant.

SB-Riverside is not part of Los Angeles Metro. San Jose is not part of the San Francisco metro. San Francisco doesn't have a basketball team in the city.

I am sorry maybe I am wrong but I thought you wrote that Seattle is the biggest city without an NBA team. City size is based on population. There are about a half dozen cities bigger than Seattle that don't have an NBA team. There is at least one metropolitan area much bigger than Seattle metro that doesn't have one.

Seattle had a team but the city did such a bad job of supporting it it moved to the greener pastures of Oklahoma. I would rather see SB-Riverside, San Diego, Austin or Colombus get one first as they are larger metros or larger cities that have never had a team and deserve a change to support one (although didn't the Clippers used to be in San Diego?, not sure but the San Diego Clippers has a ring to it).

[ChiMIchael]

^ I'm sorry but Texas does not need another team.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

SB-Riverside is not part of Los Angeles Metro. San Jose is not part of the San Francisco metro. San Francisco doesn't have a basketball team in the city.

I am sorry maybe I am wrong but I thought you wrote that Seattle is the biggest city without an NBA team. City size is based on population. There are about a half dozen cities bigger than Seattle that don't have an NBA team. There is at least one metropolitan area much bigger than Seattle metro that doesn't have one.

Seattle had a team but the city did such a bad job of supporting it it moved to the greener pastures of Oklahoma. I would rather see SB-Riverside, San Diego, Austin or Colombus get one first as they are larger metros or larger cities that have never had a team and deserve a change to support one (although didn't the Clippers used to be in San Diego?, not sure but the San Diego Clippers has a ring to it).

Your so wrong on this. I am a Sonics fan the issue was not fan support or sponsorship money. The issue was an Arena. The City felt no reason to build an Arena for a billionaire (rightfully so) the NBA called its bluff and moved it to the middle of nowhere in OKC.

Seattle is a corporate hub and in a large media market that stretches into Canada. Stern was to impatient with Vancouver and to harsh on Seatlle. In the end the league will have to return, for the Sonics flat history it was in that City first before the hawks or Mariners and had/has a loyal fan base. If the NBA never planned to return then it would of not let Seattle keep the trademark for the Sonics and all the records. Ussually these leave with the team.

Pro sports is not charity. No City holds weight over another simply due to population numbers. Leagues go into Cities where they think they can
make good money with the availability of new facilities. Of course it's not always perfect (NFL in Jacksonville, NHL Sunbelt strategy, NBA moving to quickly to smaller markets) but in time they learn and correct the mistakes only now a lot more lawyers are involved versus in decades past.

[JiminyCricket II]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

SB-Riverside is not part of Los Angeles Metro. San Jose is not part of the San Francisco metro. San Francisco doesn't have a basketball team in the city.

I am sorry maybe I am wrong but I thought you wrote that Seattle is the biggest city without an NBA team. City size is based on population. There are about a half dozen cities bigger than Seattle that don't have an NBA team. There is at least one metropolitan area much bigger than Seattle metro that doesn't have one.

Seattle had a team but the city did such a bad job of supporting it it moved to the greener pastures of Oklahoma. I would rather see SB-Riverside, San Diego, Austin or Colombus get one first as they are larger metros or larger cities that have never had a team and deserve a change to support one (although didn't the Clippers used to be in San Diego?, not sure but the San Diego Clippers has a ring to it).

Ask any NBA player and they will tell you Seattle had one of the best fan bases. You don't know what you're talking about or why they even moved. But I feel like you're just trolling anyways.

As for the rest, you apparently don't grasp that invisible political boundaries does not a "city" population make. Otherwise you would know that San Jose is in SF's media market, and Riverside is in LA's media market.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

SB-Riverside is not part of Los Angeles Metro. San Jose is not part of the San Francisco metro. San Francisco doesn't have a basketball team in the city.

I am sorry maybe I am wrong but I thought you wrote that Seattle is the biggest city without an NBA team. City size is based on population. There are about a half dozen cities bigger than Seattle that don't have an NBA team. There is at least one metropolitan area much bigger than Seattle metro that doesn't have one.

Seriously, you must be joking. Surely someone on SSP so long would understand this stuff?

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

SB-Riverside is not part of Los Angeles Metro. San Jose is not part of the San Francisco metro. San Francisco doesn't have a basketball team in the city.

I am sorry maybe I am wrong but I thought you wrote that Seattle is the biggest city without an NBA team. City size is based on population. There are about a half dozen cities bigger than Seattle that don't have an NBA team. There is at least one metropolitan area much bigger than Seattle metro that doesn't have one.

Seattle had a team but the city did such a bad job of supporting it it moved to the greener pastures of Oklahoma. I would rather see SB-Riverside, San Diego, Austin or Colombus get one first as they are larger metros or larger cities that have never had a team and deserve a change to support one (although didn't the Clippers used to be in San Diego?, not sure but the San Diego Clippers has a ring to it).

Chase man, you've been here too long to be making these types of mistakes.

All you need to look at is Nielson's DMA list to get the perfect snapshot of an area's pro sports support capacity. Note that the Inland Empire is decidedly not a separate media market from Los Angeles. Neither is San Jose from San Fran.

http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/c...enetration.pdf