SEATTLE | 2301 6th Ave - Insignia | ft | 41/41 floors

mSeattle · #1 Posted: **Jun 7, 2012, 5:31 PM**

Bosa starting construction soon on 2 condo towers in Regrade
http://www.djc.com/news/co/12041770.html

Image courtesy of Bosa Development Corp.

Burnaby, B.C.-based Bosa Development Corp. will start construction in the next two weeks on the first of what will be two 41-story, 335-unit condo towers in Seattle's Denny Regrade.

colemonkee · #2 Posted: **Jun 7, 2012, 7:11 PM**

Not bad. Not bad at all.

TallBob · #3 Posted: **Jun 7, 2012, 7:23 PM**

Is that the Max height for the Regrade? The reason I ask is because that podium is huge. Would be nice to see a few more floors and smaller podium. Just my opinion.

mhays · #4 Posted: **Jun 8, 2012, 1:24 AM**

Love the podium. Need the street wall and general mass.

Belltown has a lot of 85', 125', 240', and 400' zones, with the 400' zones requiring bonus payments to go over the original 240' zoning. Housing gets 10% more for mechanical and architecture, or something like that, so in a 400' zone housing will be 440'. Nearby we have 500' zones, including where Amazon is going, but I don't think they get the 10%.

Yes, we make them pay. In a quest to look like idiots, the thing we want is taxed at an extra $19/sf above the original height, if I recall.

One other 440' apartment is supposed to start this month. Otherwise we have a handful of 240's underway.

TallBob · #5 Posted: **Jun 8, 2012, 5:19 AM**

I lived in Seattle in the 80's 'till '91 and the Nimby groups really pushed the city to enact these height limits in and around DT. Some folks actually thought it was Martin Seilg, Wright Rundstad, ect., finance these groups secretively, so that knowbody would build taller than theirs! Which, I always thought was a stretch. Anyway, nice proposal Seattle!

KevinFromTexas · #6 Posted: **Jun 8, 2012, 6:19 AM**

Ooh, I like! I like the color and design of the towers.

Complex01 · #7 Posted: **Jun 8, 2012, 1:55 PM**

Ooo its back. Yea. I like this one...

mhays · #8 Posted: **Jun 8, 2012, 3:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallBob

I lived in Seattle in the 80's 'till '91 and the Nimby groups really pushed the city to enact these height limits in and around DT. Some folks actually thought it was Martin Seilg, Wright Rundstad, ect., finance these groups secretively, so that knowbody would build taller than theirs! Which, I always thought was a stretch. Anyway, nice proposal Seattle!

The limits are higher in some places.

You're referring to the CAP initiative. It was a reaction to the wave of towers proposed and underway at the time, and to the recently-built Columbia Center. But I'd say the angst was just as much about Downtown's overall construction mess, which was largely about building the Bus Tunnel, as well as the convention center over the freeway. Thankfully CAP's square footage per year requirements are long gone (never mattered...we overbuilt), and even before the latest round the height limits were relaxed somewhat.

mhays · #9 Posted: **Jun 12, 2012, 7:00 PM**

They're reportedly digging.

J. Will · #10 Posted: **Jun 13, 2012, 2:51 AM**

Hopefully it will have more than one floor of retail. Doesn't really look like it from that rendering though.

plinko · #11 Posted: **Jun 13, 2012, 3:45 AM**

Looks alot like Bosa's recent 39 story project (the Grande at Santa Fe Place) in San Diego:

N830MH · #12 Posted: **Jun 13, 2012, 5:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinko

Looks alot like Bosa's recent 39 story project (the Grande at Santa Fe Place) in San Diego:

Wow! Nice pics! I like it. I wasn't wonder to know why and they didn't adding more floors to 50 or 60 floor? Is that height restrictions? I wasn't sure if FAA will allow it or not.

mhays · #13 Posted: **Jun 13, 2012, 6:18 AM**

Seattle has tight height limits. They're allowed 400' plus 40' for architecture and mechanical. Or something like that. Even then I gather they had to pay a fee in the millions for the right to go above 240'. My knowledge is sketchy on this.

Zapatan · #14 Posted: **Jun 13, 2012, 6:38 AM**

someone needs to change zoning laws in seattle, it's ridiculous,

nice filler buildings though.

mhays · #15 Posted: **Jun 13, 2012, 7:40 PM**

We do need higher zoning. That'll be more clear in a decade, when a lot of our 500' and 400' zones are more filled out.

Only one 440 (i.e. 400' + rooftop stuff) is underway, Insignia. But a lot is planned.

In the 500' category (no bonuses for commercial uses) are the three Amazon towers and a hotel tower.

In the 400' category are Insignia Phase II, the 815 Pine apartment that's supposedly starting this month, a handful of others that have shown signs of life recently, and another handful from the last boom that haven't shown anything lately.

A few are planned in the zone where height is not limited, but FAR is still restrictive -- an office around 650', an office in the high 500s, and an office/apartment in the low 500s if I recall. All vague recollections.

Even these zones don't cover a lot of ground. There's a lot of 240' and even down to 85' where you'd think highrises would be encouraged. Today it seems like we have a lot of room to grow, but in a decade it won't look that way. And we'll wonder why we have a large flat-top area rather than a higher peak.

As for these buildings being "infill," they'll be easily the tallest between the CBD (or near part of Belltown) and the Space Needle. They'll be landmarks for a while.

easy as pie · #16 Posted: **Jun 23, 2012, 7:05 AM**

i don't know that the problem is heights, like seriously, looking at google maps, i'm actually astonished at how many surface parking lots you have there in the downtown area, like that's at least two decades of development there before you're back to any sort of streetwall, let alone something that people would actually consider good urbanism. lucky you have the vancouver guys coming down there to get you on track, yeesh.

Starsky · #17 Posted: **Jun 25, 2012, 5:52 AM**

We'll, the Seattle electorate tends to be a bit left leaning, I mean its hard to imagine a worse mayor than the last, but each one gets worse and more hostile to economic development in Seattle, which leads to less building. Its no wonder there are building almost as many highrises in Bellevue, a city about 1/8th the size, when you Seattle's bicycle clubs have more clout than it's business community.

Think about it this way, France elects a socialist PM, the newstory 2 days later is that tons of french businesses are now crossing the channel to escape the 75% tax rate. You want more skyscrapers, the provide incentives for businesses not treat them as an ATM machine for government.

seaskyfan · #18 Posted: **Jun 25, 2012, 6:43 AM**

This project is now under construction.

mSeattle · #19 Posted: **Jun 25, 2012, 8:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starsky

We'll, the Seattle electorate tends to be a bit left leaning, I mean its hard to imagine a worse mayor than the last, but each one gets worse and more hostile to economic development in Seattle, which leads to less building. Its no wonder there are building almost as many highrises in Bellevue, a city about 1/8th the size, when you Seattle's bicycle clubs have more clout than it's business community.

Think about it this way, France elects a socialist PM, the newstory 2 days later is that tons of french businesses are now crossing the channel to escape the 75% tax rate. You want more skyscrapers, the provide incentives for businesses not treat them as an ATM machine for government.

Wow, you covered a lot of territory:
1) Bike improvements do not negatively impact redeveloping a plethora of surface parking and under-used sites.

2) Downtown Bellevue can fit in Seattle's Belltown and Denny Triangle area.

3) Downtown Bellevue is the office-tower center of the Eastside suburbs. Don't blame Seattle mayors for the massive sprawl of Central Puget Sound, go complain to the county councils and state legislators.

4) Are those Frenchmen and Frenchwomen fleeing France any relation to the Tax Dodgers in the US trying to dump their citizenship to not pay their fair share of taxes?

mhays · #20 Posted: **Jun 25, 2012, 3:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starsky

We'll, the Seattle electorate tends to be a bit left leaning, I mean its hard to imagine a worse mayor than the last, but each one gets worse and more hostile to economic development in Seattle, which leads to less building. Its no wonder there are building almost as many highrises in Bellevue, a city about 1/8th the size, when you Seattle's bicycle clubs have more clout than it's business community.

Think about it this way, France elects a socialist PM, the newstory 2 days later is that tons of french businesses are now crossing the channel to escape the 75% tax rate. You want more skyscrapers, the provide incentives for businesses not treat them as an ATM machine for government.

You're way off. Until last month, Bellevue had no highrises under construction, while Seattle had several. In general, Seattle has the lion's share of the region's housing construction right now, highrise an other types. Likewise Seattle has office buildings going up while Bellevue doesn't. Both are doing well drawing companies closer in, and keeping the companies they already have.

The last mayor was a good one. He was liked by many on the mid-left, and was also popular among developers. I attended a NAIOP (developers and brokers) breakfast where he spoke and got a nice applause, for example. He was a good transit advocate. He lost because he was perceived as not paying enough attention to the day-to-day stuff, with the main reason being poor response to one of our worst few days of snow in memory.

The current mayor is a buffoon. I like a lot of his ideas (his opposition to the 99 tunnel being the biggest exception) but he's too idealistic, rigid, and exclusionary to get much done. He's a one-termer. But that hasn't hurt Seattle's remarkable success (part luck) being a growth hot spot right now.