Should the Building-Height Limit be raised? (Seattle, Vancouver: crime rates, neighborhoods, live in)

[DevanXL]

For years developers have been trying to raise the Building Height Limit in South lake Union and other Urban centers in Seattle, to construct Tall residential buildings and Medium Sized commercial High rises. Many have also expressed to the FAA to raise the Height Limit on the city to possibly build Super Talls in the near future. Should the Building Height Limit in downtown Seattle's urban centers be raised?

[RunTheDistance476]

No. Bi honestly think there should be a limit on the number of people who live in the city, meaning, trying to Git 900000 people inside city limits would be awful. I think developers need to continue to expand and renovate old neighborhoods, especially those with high crime rates to further push out thugs.

As far as office space goes, I think 1000 sq foot limits are still OK.

[JBVirtuoso]

Coming from Chicago, I'd be all for more high rises in Seattle. But I really don't think Seattle is ready for that kind of development outside of a few neighborhoods near downtown. The city has a lot of work to do to improve its transit. High rise neighborhoods don't work without really good transit. You can't have an entire neighborhood full of high rises where everyone owns a car. There's just no space for all that parking. There are plenty of high rise buildings in Chicago and NYC that don't offer parking at all, or offer only a limited amount with a waitlist. Based on what I've read about transit and parking issues in Seattle, that wouldn't go over so well in most of the city. Essentially, what has to happen is that Seattle's transit has to be so good that even wealthy high-rise dwellers are willing to take transit instead of owning their own cars. Seattle is nearing that point, but there's still plenty of room for improvement.

[RunTheDistance476]

Originally Posted by JBVirtuoso

Coming from Chicago, I'd be all for more high rises in Seattle. But I really don't think Seattle is ready for that kind of development outside of a few neighborhoods near downtown. The city has a lot of work to do to improve its transit. High rise neighborhoods don't work without really good transit. You can't have an entire neighborhood full of high rises where everyone owns a car. There's just no space for all that parking. There are plenty of high rise buildings in Chicago and NYC that don't offer parking at all, or offer only a limited amount with a waitlist. Based on what I've read about transit and parking issues in Seattle, that wouldn't go over so well in most of the city. Essentially, what has to happen is that Seattle's transit has to be so good that even wealthy high-rise dwellers are willing to take transit instead of owning their own cars. Seattle is nearing that point, but there's still plenty of room for improvement.

I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER want Seattle to be ANYTHING like Chicago.

NEVER.

[JasR30]

I don't want Seattle to ever become a Chicago either but I would like to see it become more like Vancouver; more residential towers in the CBD. I would love to see downtown Seattle become a great place to raise a family with grocery stores and plenty of park space to take the place of all of the big ugly parking garages.

I don't know if the city needs more super talls but it could use lots more medium talls.

[DevanXL]

Originally Posted by JasR30

I don't want Seattle to ever become a Chicago either but I would like to see it become more like Vancouver; more residential towers in the CBD. I would love to see downtown Seattle become a great place to raise a family with grocery stores and plenty of park space to take the place of all of the big ugly parking garages.

I don't know if the city needs more super talls but it could use lots more medium talls.

I think 3-4 more buildings above 900 would be nice for the city!

[JasR30]

I have to admit, those super talls do make a city appear more beautiful.

[winterforge]

I would say no, Seattle isn't configured properly to be a bustling metropolis such as Chicago or New York. I think Seattle is just fine as a "junior city."

[xboxmas]

I think they should.

[UrbanAdventurer]

Originally Posted by JBVirtuoso

Coming from Chicago, I'd be all for more high rises in Seattle. But I really don't think Seattle is ready for that kind of development outside of a few neighborhoods near downtown. The city has a lot of work to do to improve its transit. High rise neighborhoods don't work without really good transit. You can't have an entire neighborhood full of high rises where everyone owns a car. There's just no space for all that parking. There are plenty of high rise buildings in Chicago and NYC that don't offer parking at all, or offer only a limited amount with a waitlist. Based on what I've read about transit and parking issues in Seattle, that wouldn't go over so well in most of the city. Essentially, what has to happen is that Seattle's transit has to be so good that even wealthy high-rise dwellers are willing to take transit instead of owning their own cars. Seattle is nearing that point, but there's still plenty of room for improvement.

Seattle's nowhere near that point. It's car or bust here and will be for the foreseeable future.

Now if they'd given that federal funding to Seattle instead of sucklanta for the MARTA system back in the 70's, you'd maybe have a different story by now. Woulda coulda shoulda.