Point/Counterpoint: CRD on Kirkland Parkplace Social and Economic Impact
What is Point/Counterpoint?
Point/Counterpoint is a three-part series focused on the issues surrounding the redevelopment of Kirkland Parkplace. Both Touchstone and Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development have agreed to participate and abide by a predetermined schedule and set of “rules”.
The purpose of this series is to inform and educate the people of Kirkland of the facts. Both sides of the debate will discuss the major issues surrounding Kirkland Parkplace: Parking, Traffic and Social & Economic Impact. The entire series can be found at our Kirkland Parkplace page.
The Participants
Touchstone – owner of Kirkland Parkplace, plans to redevelop into mixed-use office/retail/hotel
Touchstone is a Seattle-based firm that believes sustainable development is the key to long term linked prosperity for our business, our community and our society. Touchstone plans to redevelop the site into “a community hub with lively retail, active open space and strong pedestrian connections to downtown and surrounding neighborhoods.”
Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development – opposition group, opposes Parkplace redevelopment as planned by Touchstone
Mission Statement: CRD support re-development in Downtown Kirkland according to the Comprehensive Plan for Kirkland. We believe that the future re-development must take into account the distinctive topography of our downtown, respect its hometown setting, and retain its human-scale and pedestrian orientation.
Topic: Social and Economic Impact
Changing the Face of Kirkland.
Is it worth the costs?
By Maureen Baskin
In the 1960s, our city leaders envisioned Kirkland with open space and lakefront parks that would be gathering places for our community. Peter Kirk Park was founded with a HUD grant and later a library and community centers were added. It’s not only a gathering place, it was recently referred to as “The Jewel” of our city.
The multiple 8-story buildings of the proposed Parkplace, will dwarf the park, dominate the views, and take away the human scale that is called for in our comprehensive plan. We’ve been told there will be some retail and restaurants, but as we sit in the park or the promised plaza and look up, it will be the multiple 8-story office buildings that fill our vision.
And will the stores we currently love be able to afford the increased rents that come with a new development? Will our hometown bakery, seafood market, restaurants and more be traded for larger chain retailers? Will the retailers at the bottom of these 8-story buildings remain open on the weekends when the office towers are vacant, or will it become a ghost town like most office parks?
We hear promises of vibrant retail and community gathering spaces, but one need only look down the road a bit to see how empty these promises can be.
Trading Height for Retail Does Not Make for Assured Success
At Juanita Village we traded a 5th story for the promise of a community gathering place and vibrant retail center. Five years later we’ve lost the grocery store (a major community asset) and the only retail is Walgreens. We have the same Starbucks for a gathering place, but several retail spots have never been leased. And to top it all off, there isn’t enough parking. What recourse does the city have when the developer doesn’t follow through with their promises? None.
Eight Stories is Not Necessary for Successful Retail
Touchstone has not supported their argument for the 3 extra stories to justify retail, so why would we compromise our comprehensive plan?
When Robert Thorpe, a respected planning and economic development consultant, reviewed Touchstone’s proposal, he found the claimed need for 8 stories to be false. (see www.kirklandviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/parkplace-rezone-thorpe-final.pdf ).
Of the 40 developers, architects and city planners he interviewed, none supported this assertion. On the contrary, they cited many instances of mixed use working within 5 stories. In fact, they pointed out that adding anything above 4 stories over retail can significantly impact the cost of a project and make it economically unfeasible.
And we must consider that if successful, a project of this magnitude could draw customers away from downtown. We don’t see many shoppers or office workers crossing the Downtown Bellevue park to shop on Main Street. Nor do we see this behavior in Redmond. With 300,000 sq. feet of retail, what incentive would office workers and shoppers have to go elsewhere downtown?
There are also costs to the city. In addition to the initial infrastructure mitigations, there will be ongoing expenses to add more than 13 city staff (fire, police and others), and the costs of implementing a parking permit program for downtown residential streets (something some city council members have acknowledged would be needed to stop office workers from parking in residential areas).
The 115-foot tall buildings with 16-foot roof appurtenances (elevator shafts, HVAC, etc.) will create significant view blockages to current commercial and residential properties which will lower the property values and their corresponding property taxes. These properties were developed under the assumption that the existing comprehensive plan would limit the height of the Parkplace property to a maximum of 5 stories.
This project will more than double the leaseable office space in Kirkland. Will that not drive rents down and lower values? And with vacancy rates on the rise and the economic downturn, wouldn’t 4 stories above retail be more realistic in light of the regional economic realities?
Let’s get this right. We can’t let promises and assertions made by a developer be our only benchmark. Let’s consider our comprehensive plan and potential impacts this development can have on our city—now and in the future. Our success depends on it.
Maureen Baskin is an active resident of downtown Kirkland and a member of the Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development Steering Committee. For more information, visit www.KirklandCRD.org
Touchstone’s Rebuttal:
By A-P Hurd
CRD posed the following question about the Parkplace redevelopment — “Is it worth the cost?”
The answer, I suppose, depends on whom you ask.
Based on the Kirkland Chamber’s endorsement, it’s certainly worth it. It said the plan will provide a solution for commercial-office users who want to stay in Kirkland but can’t find enough Class-A space to satisfy their aggressive growth needs. The Chamber also believes it would solve Kirkland’s parking problem for shoppers, residents and visitors.
The Kirkland Downtown Association, too, believes the plan is worth the cost. The group’s board offered its support citing the synergies that will benefit downtown retailers and the generous amount of public open space that will “make it an attractive and welcoming development” for residents and visitors.
Finally, from the more than 500 local residents and stakeholders who signed the project petition and the many who’ve spoken supportively at City meetings, we keep hearing again and again an emphatic “YES” to this carefully crafted project that’s responsive to all the needs this community has voiced.
This redevelopment won’t happen overnight. It will be done in 3 to 5 years and open its doors in a vastly different economic climate than today’s. Now is the time to plan for the future. Now is the time to invest in this community.
A-P Hurd is a vice president with Touchstone Corp., the owner and developer of the Kirkland Parkplace property. More information on the project is available at www.envisionkirklandparkplace.com.
Posted by Rob Butcher on Monday, October 13, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Filed under Point / Counterpoint · Tagged with CRD, Development, Downtown, Parkplace, Point-Counterpoint
Print This Article
Related Stories:
|
|
|
|
|
“Let’s get this right. We can’t let promises and assertions made by a developer be our only benchmark. Let’s consider our comprehensive plan and potential impacts this development can have on our city—now and in the future. Our success depends on it. ”
Why can’t we depend on the plan created by the developer in conjunction with the city staff? Should we depend upon protestors instead? Atleast the developer and his financial backers have a plan. You may not agree with that plan and that is your right. But they are risking ONE BILLION DOLLARS on this plan, so I would be more willing to follow them than to follow protestors who have only to say NO to everything the developer says.
I know some of you are really scared about change to Park Place but you are not offering a realistic alternative. The arguments you make against view blockage cannot stand. They have no basis because no one “owns” a view. Some other arguments you make may be valid but they can be mitigated. Your argument questioning the economic viability of the project cannot be taken seriously when other’s are willing to invest $1,000,000,000 in downtown Kirkland. Downtown businesses see this as a net gain for them as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
HPW,
What would a realistc alternative be in your view? We have offered support that the five stories is not needed to make the mixed-use project a success. That would mean the builder lowers the height and scale. Why is this not a realistic alternative?
We are not scared about change as you say. In fact, we support whole heartedly the need to redevelop Parkplace. We have justifiable concerns about some of the proposal and would like the city to seek validation on the developer’s assertions.
You are correct that issues can be mitigated–there can be more parking provided so we don’t have to have permits in downtown neighborhoods, for example. But some can’t, such as the 12 plus fire fighters needed to staff the department to “high-rise fire fighting capabilities” due to the eight stories. These are costs that occur forever. Mitigation takes dollars and we must plan for these instead of assume they will work out.
We see differently on the view blockage as I think people have an expectation that zoning will not change to that degree for a single property. But even if you don’t agree, that doesn’t set aside the other issues, in particular, where is the proof we need multiple 8-story buildings to make this project pencil?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Touchstone has made the point that it does pencil with basic retail at 5 stories, but in their plans in order to provide all the higher end amenities such as fountains or more open space, additional retail space, wider walkways, etc – all the things people in Kirkland said they wanted to see at ParkPlace when it was redeveloped then they needed the extra floors to pay for the open space and extra amenities. You can argue with their numbers, but that is their view and since the do want to develop it in a way that makes economic sense to them – it needs to be taken into consideration.
In addition as to being concerned that it will be an office ghost town on the weekends I just do not see that happening. The current ParkPlace is used on the weekends and if their is a movie theater and open space and good restaurants and such people will come. Plus it is in an area where people are on weekends – not out in a far out office park – so people are more likely to frequent it on weekends.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Have you spoken to Hoffmans or other store owners in ParkPlace asking if they are concerned? At meetings I have been to about the project the developers have made it clear that they are willing (perhaps even eager) to work with current businesses to ensure that they stay. As to your comment that they may not be able to lease the stores – this might be true, but why would they as developers want to take that large of a risk if they (and their lenders) did not feel it was feasible.
As to sitting in a park and having building looming over you – have you ever sat in the quad of a University? Many of those have 8 story buildings surrounding grassy areas and those do not feel confining. At least to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just an FYI, Hoffmans, Purple Cafe, Lucia’s, Kirkland Hot Yoga, Tim’s Seafood, Parkplace Books and Emerald City Smoothies are a few of the businesses that are currently in Parkplace that signed a petition SUPPORTING the project, including the 8 story height ammendment.
Also, the 5 story plan is office space only. It does not include retail as the previous “Downtown Condo Dweller” states. This is wrong information.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You may be correct, and my information from this page outlining the two plans may be wrong http://www.kirklandviews.com/resources/kp/ but according to this site the 5 story plan includes 5-8 office oriented retail stores and 5-10 lunch type dining establishments.
I totally support the 8 story plan, but at least according to everything I have read there will at least be very limited retail in the 5 story plan. But again, I may be wrong as you say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Downtown Condo Dweller,
You are correct, there are plans for some retail. In addition, for the time being, the grocery store and the retail across from it would remain.
Cami
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
DTCD – My mistake, actually. I didn’t catch you were referring to the several office oriented retail spaces and lunch dining. Sorry about that!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I live on Finn hill and I can say the tenants at Juanita Village also favored redevelopment. None remain, saving Starbucks and the banks. They think the new development will increase business such that they can afford the increased rent, but it is often not the case. It was sad to see businesses who support our community and were part of our community lost
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Love Kirkland,
It is sad when businesses leave our community. I suppose that most leave because they can’t pay their bills and make a living. I know it iw easy to blame the redevelopment. In reality the business did not have a sound plan and most likely didn’t meet their target customer’s needs. In wataching the Park Place project it is clear that it is a numbers game. The developer needs so many square feet for his plan. they also know what kind and size of sapces they need to offer to the market place. The marketplace (tenants and retail busineeses will then take this information and formulate their own business plans. All of their plans will either work or not work. That is where it starts.
I am sorry for some of the business owners in Juanita who are no longer there. Some business plans didn’t account for change and others must have figured out that the newly developed area was not going to work for them.
Just drive through Downtown and see the weekly and mnthly change of retail. Those places that close all had owner’s with dreams. One day you wake up and realize dream or not that there is a real world that will decide your success or failure.
That’s business.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cami,
You ask what a reasonable alternative is to me. My answer is that it is not my property so I have no say in what the owner wishes to do with it. I have input to the proper governmental entities to which the owner has applied for variances. I can give my opinion to them at hearings. But even the government should not be able to dictate property rights to the degree some seem to want. I sense that some will only be satisfied if Parkplace is 5 stories tall or less. That is an office park. But they then say no no no, we should require retail under the offices. Isn’t that exactly the kind of changing of the rules you complain about when you say that allowing 8 story buildings that will block views for an office building next door? Is requiring retail on a ground floor for an office park any different? How can you argue both sides of this issue?
This is why I see this as a proposal by a property owner. If the city doesn’t like it then they will not approve it and we will get an office park. If they do think it is better for Kirkland to have the proposed 8 stories and mall then they will approve it. Those are the options. To approve of the PAR or not. Whatever third, fourth or fifth options other parties come up with are irrelevant because neither the city nor the developer are considering them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve seem compromises reached in this city before. One can always hope something more reasonable will be arrived at.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“We don’t see many shoppers or office workers crossing the Downtown Bellevue park to shop on Main Street. Nor do we see this behavior in Redmond.”
On what do you base this statement?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Main street in Bellevue has struggled for years and only recently began to become stable with the influx of condo developments. I spent many days at the park when my son was younger, and rarely saw shoppers walking from the mall even come to the park.
I shop in Redmond frequently and know people with office space downtown and you do not see a lot of workers crossing the street from RTC.
In general, people in our society don’t like to walk. And what incentive is there to head downtown, when all you need is downstairs?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cami,
You argue “what incentive is there to head downtown, when all you need is downstairs?” Does that mean you prefer a office complex with 5 story buildings and minimal retail so that all the workers will support downtown?
But aren’t you also petitioning the City Council to force Touchstone to put MORE retail in the alternative development plan for Parkplace.
I’ll admit I’m none too bright, but you arguing both sides of the issue (depending on how it affects KirklandCRD) sounds like your demand for more retail in the 5 story alternative plan is another red herring. I’m just saying it sounds fishy and sort of slippery.
Holy Mackrel! Are you expecting us to swallow it hook, line and sinker?
Sincerely,
John Gill-day
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John,
If you look back on my early posts on this issue, you will see that I have said 5 story offices may be better for downtown as people will have to go there for services. But it is not the preferred option. This is not a change in our position nor anything “fishy.”
We hope for a mixed use development more in line with the comprhensive plan. One that would give us up to thousands of additional workers, and the services we really need without destroying opportunities in other areas of our city and without compromising downtown.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We disagree, Cami. I see many people on the street in Redmond at lunch, crossing over to Matador, Than Brothers, Acapulco Fresh and the rest. Where are they coming from? Beats me. Bellevue’s Main Street is a bit farther from the bigger scene so may not be a great comparison. Still, anecdotes do not evidence make.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tia, they are probably coming from the Microsoft buildings that are in RTC along with several other companies that have office space in the buildings surrounding RTC. Its the same thing I currently see in Kirkland, where the workers from IBM/Filenet, Bungie, and even Google migrate from their offices to Parkplace and downtown to eat at lunchtime.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cami,
I think Bellevue Main Street and Downtown Kirkland is comparing apples and oranges. All the main office uses in Bellevue are at least 6 blocks away from that area. Besides, Lincoln Center etc have the mall across the street plus so much to do within the building. I know that when I go there I park once and can easily get to any building in that block without getting wet. At least Park Place hasn’t proposed skybridges!
Al
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Al- you forgot to mention that (as far as I can tell) there isn’t much on Main Street in Bellevue that I would go out of my way to go to! I’ve actually done that walk from Bellevue Square to Main Street just to try and support it and was mightily disappointed- if I want $500 shoes or $1000 dresses I can stay warm and dry in the square. Bis on Main might be worth the walk but not often-at least for my pocket book. I think you are correct in saying that Main Street and DT Kirkland are not comparable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Al & Tia, you can walk out of Bell Square (By Penny’s), cross the street to the park and cross the park to Main Street. I think that is very similar to what Parkplace offers. You cross the parking lot, cross the park and then you are on Park Lane. It doesn’t happen there and I question that it will happen here.
Your point of all the services available to office workers right in their building is exactly my point. It would be the same with the proposed Parkplace–you will be able to get to every building without getting wet. So why walk downtown?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Al’s right about apples and oranges. What motivation is there to cross on foot to Main Street (although I have done it a couple of times)? Bellevue’s Downtown Park seems more of an impediment with its circular path and huge grassy area. Once across you are on 2nd, not Main, and save for a couple of small shops there isn’t anything to stop for until you go another block. Bellevue was laid out for cars and it feels like it with the long blocks. Chi-chi boutiques and $4-a-slice cake aren’t reason enough to make the trek on foot. People are surely moving around the complexes in Bellevue, but crossing 8th, Bellevue Way, and 6th to go do everyday things.
With other projects in the works, downtown Kirkland will have shops and restaurants spread in a way that feels more connected organically. The antique mall redevelopment will help immensely with that. It’s one reason CiVik argues against the bank on the corner. They want closely spaced businesses inviting pedestrians inside. I think human nature is to seek out a variety of experiences and people will leave their office buildings in Parkplace to go do something different now and then, particularly since the complex will end at park’s edge and people won’t have to cross a parking lot to head out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One great solution to dealing with rain issues is employed at what they are calling The Bellevue Collection (Bellevue Square, Lincoln Square and Bellevue Place), Redmond Town Square and University Village: Umbrellas.
Kirkland and Parkplace could have the town awash with umbrella stands, thus inviting people to leave their cars and go on foot to explore other shops.
The only downside I see to this plan is that shoppers will need four hands to hold umbrellas, Take It To Make It flags, shopping bags, and lattes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Great idea Rob. Maybe we can get orange umbrellas that have hooks to hang bags from. No need for the flag and you will have a free hand for your latte.
I also would support a shuttle to bring workers downtown and even to Parkplace. It could make the rounds from Parkplace, Carillon Point and maybe even the office park off of 124th. Bellevue has somethng like this. But I doubt we will see our cash strapped city be able to fund such an idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually Rob, that is an EXCELLENT idea. Anything that makes it easier to spot pedestrians on dark winter afternoons in The Pacific Northwest is a good plan and the cost is minimal (it cost the city over $60,000 to implement ‘Take it to Make it’). I would imagine bright umbrellas with Parkplace logo scattered in stands in front of Georges, The new Hector’s and whatever restaurant is currently trying to make it at the TJ’s location.
Making it more comfortable for Parkplace employees to frequent downtown is a bonus.
The Sun spoke with Google, Carrilon and several downtown merchants and the shuttlle idea is very much alive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think the shuttle idea would be great and has worked well in other cities. Something else that would work well (and be a little more eco-friendly) would be if we could get some of the pedicabs over here from Seattle. Especially if they ferry were running there might be enough business to make them feasible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I too agree what a great idea…
But all those locations listed above have “tons” of shopping, retail and restaruants, etc to support that kind of venture. Doesn’t this work only if we get a large and thriving Park Place, like option #1 and not just a 5 story office building?
Funny how many of these folks with CRD state they do shop in Bellevue and Redmond Town Center… Is it that those locations offer what folks want. Lots of shops. Why not here? Put those tax dollars in Kirkland not Bellevue and Redmond.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A shuttle system is a cool idea! I don’t care if it is pedal powered or not as long as it connects to Houghton.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Been quite for a while…but I have to agree that a downtown and surrounding neighborhoods shuttle would be a great idea. I sometimes travel to SF on business and love to catch a ride on the trolley system there. It would be cool to have some sort of shuttle/trolley running through downtown and to the surrounding neighborhoods, etc.
The umbrella idea is also a good one…
Looks like we finally have found something everyone agrees on
Also, the walk from ParkPlace to Lake Street by itself is too short to warrant putting in a shuttle system; however, having it serve from Carillon Point to the south to Juanita Village to the north would be great.
EOM
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A bit of history on the shuttle idea- Metro actually worked with the city several years back and set up a circulator bus that moved between each of the major employment/shopping centers. It received very little ridership and after a couple years was cancelled. It sounds like a great idea but before jumping on the shuttle idea we should definitely consider why the circulator failed previously. I doubt that metro would agree to try it again without a lot of proof that it would work this time and if I remember correctly, when Dave Asher was working on this idea it was pretty expensive for the city to do on its own. Not that I don’t think we should look into it, just that there is history that it hasn’t worked before that would have to overcome in order to get anywhere with the idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because we can’t support “regional malls” in every city, that’s why! Bellevue and Kirkland already have established retail now. You can’t just add more and expect it to work. If they build it, people won’t necessarily come.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is “Bellevue and Redmond” have established retail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think the pedestrain amentities and the design proposed are lacking. In my mind this is one of the biggest concerns I have about the applicant’s preferred project. The quality of space is very important and it is not just about giving up square footage for plaza and courtyard space. The spaces need to be designed as an amentity not as an afterthought. Council needs to condition the project to use a good open space/public space designer. The grand plaza is surrounded by roads. Would you feel safe about having a toddler in that space? The pedestrian connections are awful. Are there any dedicated pedestrian pathways proposed or do all of them cross roads? To get to the park a person must cross a road. Solutions that create dedicated pedestrian space and links must be created. I envision a blurry line between the park and the development instead of a road and a distinct separation. I would love for opponents to focus on the these issues that could improve the project and make it a success.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jester makes some really good points. I don’t know enough about the design to say if he’s right or wrong but he is coming at this in a productive fashion. He hit the nail on the head when he recognized that the opponents have no interest in making the project better unless it is limited to only five floors and won’t block their view!
I came late to this discussion and have spent an hour reading everyone’s points. CRD can be summed up as opposing anything that blocks views and has offered almost nothing constructive to help make it a better project. Their idea of a better project seems to be a shorter project.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Park Laner,
I hones
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There are actually a few – a minority – of the members of KirklandCRD that have real concerns that Kirkland is growing too fast. But this too is misguided.
Residents vote in elected officials, so those officials are pandering to the homeowners over the commercial developers. That might sound great on the surface but that selfishness is shortsighted. It is the commercial developments that provide the majority of the tax base.
Kirkland has done an excellent job building housing to the detriment of the commercial space that supports our residential neighborhoods.
Ken Davidson of KirklandCRD touched on the REAL reason for CRD’s existence Thursday evening at the planning committee meeting
“A reduction of $2 per square foot will equate to a million dollars in lost revenue for the owners of the buildings behind Park Place.”
Too bad Ken forgot to mention he is the OWNER of one of those buildings.
That argument is akin to me saying that Brad Pitt totally messed up my chances with Angelina Jolie. The truth is that NO ONE guarantees your view will be preserved unless you OWN the view corridor.
So when KirklandCRD tries to purposely misinterpret the data, confuse the issues and pretend that ‘maintaining the flavor’ of Kirkland is their sole focus… well, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I can only hope that the powers that be look to our childrens future and approve this important project, We’ll live with their decision for decades.
This isn’t a Touchstone – it’s a keystone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Park Laner,
Looks like my comment got cut off, but I honestly don’t understand how you can read this thread and say it’s all about views? We are not opposed to a compromise on height event. But we maintain there is not enough parking, the traffic has been underestimated and the project is too large for downtown Kirkland. The five stories have more to do with lowering the heights and the impacts than views.
CRD is not the developer, but we have many ideas on ways to improve this, but it all comes down to ultimately building less. If the developer is willing, we would love to disucss our ideas, which include limiting heights near the park, placing height at the back and cascading down and much more. But we are not able to create a plan for the property, that must come from Touchstone. Their plan calls for 100 – 115 tall buildings throughout. When I looked at the model yesterday, I was blown away at the scale and impact it will have on downtown. Portsmith will be nothing.
But, if you walk away wiht one thing from my response—it’s not all about views.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John,
You miss the point, again. Ken is only one member of CRD. He does own property that will be impacted and that’s where his concern comes from. Is he not entitled to that?
But the rest of us, many who spoke last night, brought a wide variety of viewpoints and concerns from the “threat” of the 5-story office-only and how that’s impacting the decision of the staff, to the traffic concerns to impact on the landscape and much more.
We are not purposefully misinterpretting the data and I take offense at that. We have spent money to hire experts to interpret this and provide us with honest opinions. At citizen expense I will add.
I have said this before and I plead with you to really listen, we are for redevelopment, but feel the 1.8 million square feet is too large for Kirkland to manage and maintain and is a huge sacrifice on the look and feel of our downtown. There is a middle ground, hopefully we can find it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I understand that you feel that 1.8 million square feet is too large. What do the experts CRD has hired advise for the total square footage of devvelopment that the City can accomodate regardless of building height? Is it consistent with the current zoning, or will CRD be asking the City to down-zone the property?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A shuttle bus would be a great thing in Kirkland once we had the number of people who would use it daily and would need it. Maybe it could go to a park and ride to prevent more parking downtown.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think CRD’s case would be better served if they backed away from language such as the “threat” of five stories. The developer has investors and needs to proceed at some point. They have two concepts and will go with one. What did I just read on another post, that this was the 27th public meeting on this project? Wow. What does CRD say about the 5 story project, apart from the ground floor retail issue?
If this much new retail is not viable then let’s get the antique mall, McCleod and BofA projects going to fill up the wasteland that is currently our downtown. Empty storefronts do not inspire prosperity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tia,
I understand your concerns. My concern is appeals to the project if someone doesn’t like it. It looks to me like no matter what is built it will be appealed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My understanding is that there is nothing to appeal in the 5-story plan. It meets code.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Have some people in this crazy town forgotten that we do not live a commune or a socialist society? What ever happened to property rights? It is scary to hear these people say the things they are. I guess it is fine for them to dictate what everyone else has to do with their private property but God help us if we tried to do the same to theirs. On what basis does CRD want Kirkland to steal the property rights of private property owners? I hear a lot of things like limiting zoning and requiring retail on Park Place. That is too heavy a hand for even the overly invasive city of Kirkland to attempt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shades,
I would remind you that Touchstone bought that property knowing the zoning. So what they are doing is open to community concern. If they were building within the zoning, there would be very little anyone could or would be able to do about it. What is being argued is their desire to do something with their private property that is not allowed under current cods.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cami,
Your experts are the ones shooting you in the foot!
When you published that ‘Pink Park Perspective’ that showed a looming beheamoth of a building towering over Peter Kirk Park you lost all credibility.
Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of perspective would see that building as 400-500 feet tall. CRD knew it would be misinterpreted and banked on it.
Take a look at the November 1 issue of The Eastside Sun for a true perspective vesus the one your group chose to publish.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, there are credibility issues with that big pink building AND the CRD-proposed layout that conveniently places 1 to 3-story buildings in front of Davidson’s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is the problem I have seen with this CRD position. I didn’t attend the public hearing so I can’t comment on what took place there but I did read the CRD report on another post. It is my opinion that Mr. Davidson is defending his view. But I have to ask you, So what?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good point James… So What?
Mr. Davidson has the right to defend his views and to try everything in his power to keep his view of Lake Washington.What I find a problem with is that hundreds of people have spent millions of dollars to buy ‘Air Rights’ over the buildings located in front of them so that their views can be preserved. The ‘View Corridor’ for their tenants is saved and the high rents that the view produces can be maintained.
Mr. Davidson is trying to FORCE Park Place to build what HE wants and he admitted it in testimony last week. KirklandCRD (Kirkland Citizens for Responsible Development) would be better named be KirklandCBWKW (Kirkland Citizen’s Building What Ken Wants)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John,
when did you get your architecture or engineering degree? This was prepared by an engineer using a CAD program on his VOLUNTEER time. It is absolutely correct and has been vetted by two architectural experts. Please find me an engineer or architect that suppors your 400 foot perspective. And once again, I say, you offend every hard working citizen involved in CRD when you make this all about Ken. Open your eyes John…there are many (more than 500 have signed our petition) that have concerns about Parkplace. It is NOT all about Ken
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Guess I’m just following the money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Since you don’t sit on CRD Steering Committee you are not informed on where our support comes from. I will tell you, many people have contributed to CRD. I await your delivery of an architect or engineer that supports your 400 foot theory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Where does this third option I keep hearing about come from? I think CRD is not making sense because they are asking the city to throw out Park Place option 1 and 2 and replace it with CRD’s plan. How does that make any sense? I can’t imagine another city north of Berkley , California that would allow this sort of thing to take place. More intrusive government is not the solution. Micromanaging private property is no ones business. The city should only set broad goals and zoning requirements designed to promote business and growth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The choice is is clear: office park or mix use mall. There is no other option.
I want vitality, restaurants and shopping. I don’t want to lose our theater.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would agree these our the choices and CRD has not made a plan to choose from. This is not our place. It is our belief that the project is too big. It is our hope, it will be scaled back and we will end up with a better MIXED USE (not all office) project for Kirkland.
Shades, many cities all across the country welcome and encourage citizen involvement in zoning changes that alter the city in a significant way. In fact, I can’t think of one that doesn’t. This isn’t just about CBD 5. It’s about the entire direction of downtown.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I just picked up a copy of the Kirkland Reporter at Subway. In it Cami Keyes says in a letter to the editor “Developer Doug Howe’s Nov. 3 letter to the city says it all. In it he says “there is no middle ground.” The only compromise, in his eyes, would be to take advantage of an oversight in our city zoning and build a five-story office-only project. He’s holding the city hostage, offering sales tax revenue if we pay the ransom with our city skyline and comprehensive plan.
It is time to expose Touchstone’s alternative for what it really is — a threat. The ball now lies with City Council. It’s time for compromise on Parkplace.”
Cami , please defend these statements above. You are claiming that Touchstone is holding the city hostage? You are claiming that Touchstone’s office park alternative is a threat? You are claiming that Touchstone is taking advantage of “an oversight in our city zoning?” Really? Please help me with these issues.
As I see it, Touchstone had no other option than to pursue the alternative office park because in case the preferred option were turned down, they have a fall back paln with their investment. After this very long process to not have anything to show for it would be ridiculous and Doug Howe would be fired. Touchstone would have to start from scratch. They were wise to come up with a plan that did not ask for any changes in the zoning as a fall back just in case CRD was able to convince the Planning Commission to reject their plan. In fact, I would guess that you would do the exact same thing if it were your money on the line.
You say Touchstone took advantage of an oversight in our city zoning. Isn’t your solution to change the zoning to require retail on the ground floor? Can’t you see you are being a hypocrite by accusing Touchstone of asking for changes in zoning and then you are silent on the fact that your “compromise” solution would require zoning changes too? You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Some of us are watching.
These tactics of yours against Touchstone are akin to the kind of divisive, name-calling you have condemned in the past. You can’t have it both ways. You have argued your position above, but I don’t see how you can write what you have in the Kirkland Reporter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you read that planning document from May that Rob posted here it suggested one way of weathering financial ups and downs is for the city to become LESS dependent on sales tax. Now I’d like shops, restaurants and a theater as much as Cami would, but perhaps the powers-that-be aren’t so committed. We’ll see what the council does with this.
But really, Cami–”hostage”, “ransom”, “threat”? Are you the spokesperson for this group? And to your earlier assertion that CRD has no plan, what is the Solutions page on your website showing? http://www.kirklandcrd.org/content/solutions
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey! Go easy on Cami. After all, she probably didn’t even get her entire letter printed.
They edited out the part where she admitted KirklandCRD is financed by one of Park Place’s adjacent property owners.
They cut the part where KirklandCRD admits misleading the general public about the massing and height of The New Park Place – making it look like a looming skyscraper.
They cut the part where Cami and KirklandCRD suggested putting the sorely needed office space in place of Fox Cleaners (blocking the views of condo owners and, coincidently, NOT blocking the views of the building owned by the financiers of KirklandCRD).
They must have cut a LOT of Cami’s letter.
BTW, what is this ‘Kirkland Reporter’ you speak of? They sound dangerous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I noticed that the invitation on Civik’s web page for a fund raiser last month was posted by a member of the CRD Steering Committee. Perhaps Civik is raising funds to pay their legal expenses for the BOA appeal, perhaps they are looking to increase the war chest on CRD’s behalf . How would one know for sure?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello All, Let me right off the bat correct two mistatements here. We have not ever, nor would we, suggest an office building where the Fox cleaners is. We have been solely focused on Parkplace and only Parkplace. And our financing has come from a number of source, but none from CIVIK. We are completely separate organizations focused on completely separate issues. As for the drawings, I have said and will say again, these are CAD drawings done by an engineer and reviewed by two separate architects. Again I invite you John to get an architect to say they are not an accurate depiction of what the project will look like.
People really don’t understand the scale of 115′ tall building. You can study the developer’s own model and see how small other buildings look next to the proposed Parkplace. The Watermark apartments look completely dwarfed and the buildings are as high as other 4-story buildings on the hill. When Portsmith was built, some of the city council members who approved it said later they had no idea how big it would be. It is the same here. Why do you think Touchston has not ever shown a model depicting what it will look like from the park or downtown or when you are standing in it. At the last Planning Commission Hearing they used sophisticated software to “fly us through” the project, but always from the point of view of a seagal. We need to understand how this project will feel on a human scale, from where we stand.
Now as for the “threat”
In meeting with all but one of the planning commissioners and several city council members, I can assure you that many, if not all, feel threatened by the five-story alternative. Additionally, they have found Touchstone unwilling to compromise on the 8-story alternative. They feel powerless to create the desired changes in either project. I heard things like, our hands are tied and we feel powerless to change much. Sounds like being a hostage to me.
Typically, then a developer proposed a project, there is give and take on what the developer needs and what the city and its citizens wants, but that process as been hampered by the 5-story, office-only alternative, which no one would prefer. What we have is a false choice. Our city officials should be able to moderate a project if they feel that is what needs to be done.
You are correct Christianson, that compromise will mean that we will likely have to go beyond what the comp plan would allow for parts of the project, in return for other things, like lower heigts adjacent to the park. But you are wrong that the planning commission’s choice was to OK or Reject the proposal. They have the ability to moderate it, which they did in very few cases.
We would have liked to see the city require retail at Parkplace, which would be a change in zoning. But what Touchstone is asking for goes beyond a zoning change. It is a Private Ammendment Request to change the comprehensive plan.
To develop a moderated plan does not require touchstone to go back to the drawing board, but rather to make changes in the heights and step-backs of their existing plan. Our alternative on the web site (www.kirklandcrd.org) shows how the project could be developed within existing code, but it is not intended to be a model for Touchstone. In seeking compromise, we would ask for the items we have heard the most concern on from citizens, and look to Touchstone to let us know what they would be willing to do.
Tia you are right that there are people in the city who would like to see us less dependent on sales tax revenue which is very cyclical. And this project would bring far less revenue than one would think when you factor in the costs, in particular the 13.5 plus firefighters, police and city employees it would require. However, retail is still desired in part because its what citizens want, because Parkplace is a gathering place for us now and we want to keep it, and in part becuase there will be some increased revenue and we need all we can get right now.
I thank you all for your continued interest in this project. Even if we are on separate sides of the issue, I respect anyone who is willing to take the time to get informed and ask questions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Does anyone support the idea (floated by the Planning Commission) that Touchstone build an ELEVEN story building in the center of their redevelopment and shorten some of the eight story buildings in compensation?
It seems this is an idea that recognizes Kirkland’s need toplan for a financially secure future while maintaining shorter building (for the most part). I’m certain one of the short buildings could be situated in front of KirklandCRD’s buildiong to maintain their view – so everyone would be happy, right?
Does that idea have any merit?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0