PPUNC Capitol Hill, Seattle

Urban Neighborhood Counci l

PikePine

May 19, 2015

To: Garry Papers, M.Arch, Senior Land Use PlannerFrom: John Feit, Chair, PPUNCRE: Project No.3018096, 3020176, 3020177, Washington State Convention Center Expansion, EDG Hearing #1

The Pike|Pine Urban Neighborhood Council (PPUNC) is among Seattles most respected neighborhood organizations. We have been instrumental in the nationally recognized improvements in the neighborhood, and are seen as great collaborators and supporters in achieving the best possible urban realm. We typically begin our testimony by stating that the applicant has presented to PPUNC and that we are appreciative of their outreach efforts. In this instance, we unfortunately are unable to state so as the applicant has not presented their work at a PPUNC meeting.

This expansion of the Convention Center is a complicated and enormous task. We are fortunate that the assembled team represents the best in the profession. We remain concerned, however, that the presented analysis does not offer a clear path forward by which to evaluate the forthcoming building and landscape design options. While extensive in its content, the urban design analysis in the EDG packet is tepid, at best, and is insufficient to instill confidence in PPUNC members. Specifically, the analysis:

1. Lacks the hierarchy, vision, or major goals required for a landmark project and only addresses the low-hanging fruit and obvious needs to repair a poor urban environment. While important to consider, greater specificity and a more detailed approach should be presented including the analysis for the future co-development;2. There is a lack of specificity on strategies for strengthening connections to the surrounding environment. Although this is only an analysis packet, it is difficult to discern how the existing context will be leveraged to achieve this goal; 3. While the design team has a good grasp of the building program, there is a lack of detail on how these requirements will be arranged to strengthen urban design goals; for instance, we would like to see greater opportunity for pedestrian interaction with the building interior along Pine, Boren and Olive Way;4. The building sections shown on pages 48 and 49 show alarming disregard to the pedestrian environment on Boren Avenue, Olive Way, and Pine Street by showing building slabs or steep-slopes along the sidewalk. Given the deep structure needed for the long spans, these conditions will be critical and require scrutiny by the Board. Although the brief calls for healing these pedestrian connections, they seem to still be blocked by long walls cutting people off from the interior of the building;5. While some exciting relationships are indicated by the building sections including day-lit spaces that promote interior connectivity their focus is emblematic of the rest of the content of the packet: that of being internal and not imagining how the interior spaces can help strengthen the urban environment;6. While sensitivity to the smaller-scaled and vibrant Pike|Pine corridor is listed as a goal, there are no graphics or meaningful text that outline a strategy as to how such an enormous building and landscape will do so;7. Other characteristics of the packet that undermine our confidence in its thoroughness are a lack of adjacent grades in the plans, the lack of section cuts indicating where sections are taken, as well the indication of view corridors that simply do not exist due to there being obscured by either retaining walls or buildings; 8. The visuals on pages 54 through 65 do not offer any architectural or urban design directions in support of their opportunities; again, what are the strategies -- if not the solution -- for addressing the opportunities? What will come to the forefront and guide the massing options to be presented at the second EDG?