Tonight’s Ballard District Council meeting will discuss several topics of interest (agenda here). The first will be a presentation by the city’s budget director Dwight Dively on Mayor Nickel’s proposed 2010 budget, which considers a $72 million deficit. He will “also provide his forecast of how our recovering economy is likely to influence city tax revenue,” the council agenda states.
Andrea Petzel with the Department of Planning and Development will talk about the proposal to rezone parts of Ballard. If you miss tonight’s meeting, there is an open house tomorrow from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in the cafeteria auditorium of Swedish Ballard (5300 Tallman Ave).
Therese Casper with the Seattle Department of Transportation will present, “Bridging the Gap; Another Opportunity to Finance Costly Public Improvement Priorities in our Community.”
Elections for the 2010 District Council officer positions are tonight. The nominating committee has selected its recommendations, although they will accept nominations from the floor. Eligible candidates must be a designated representative from member organizations.
The meeting starts at 7 p.m. at the Ballard Library.
Can anyone tell me why we should support MORE density, MORE condos, MORE congestion, and the continued rapid conversion of Ballard into a ghetto?
WHY DO THEY SEEM TO HAVE IT IN FOR BALLARD?
WHY DO WE LET THEM DO THIS TO US?
I can't answer for the last 6 questions, but I think the reason we should support more density is to reduce sprawl. If people are going to move here let's keep them all near the downtown ballard core where they are more likely to walk than drive. That's one way to reduce traffic while realizing that population growth in a great neighborhood like Ballard is inevitable.
Are you going to the meeting to bring up these points or are you just going to complain to the internet about what THEY are doing to you?
I'm ok with increasing density in the Ballard core, but with it we need to improve transit … that's not been happening. Instead, they've increased density, decreased parking, and kept transit the same.
As for the industrial zone abutting the residential zone, BUTT OUT. The industries were here first long, long before the city and developers decided to raise all the condo buildings. Anybody buying a condo in Ballard should realize what the neighborhood is about … all of it, not just Market Street and Ballard Ave. It's a lot like buying a house near the airport then bitching about the noise. Get over it.
I agree that transit out of and into Ballard needs to improve. I ride the bus everyday to and from work downtown and most days my bus is standing-room-only.
As for the industrial/residential interface I think that as long as the industrial sector in our town is viable and thriving then people abutting these areas should not complain about noise, etc. If howver, there are industrial areas that are in disrepair and not being used, I think they should be changed to meet other needs (residential, commercial, or whatever.)
My understanding of the industrial zoning change is this. The way the zoning map works right now, an industry could be shut down or significantly limited by noise complaints by an adjacent non-industrial development. Part of the reason behind the change is to create a buffer zoning next to the industrial zoning – which would make the immediate neighbors of the industrial zone unable to do that.
I'm not certain that I'm explaining that clearly – but I'm sure you could get clarification on that tonight.
In addition to transit to/from downtown, we also need buses that run cross-town and to other neighborhoods. It's difficult to visit businesses in Fremont, Wallingford, Queen Anne and other neighborhoods anymore because they've also increased residential density and decreased parking. Without viable transit, these neighborhoods become islands accessible only by the people who live close enough to walk to them. While I certainly love living in, shopping in and dining in Ballard, I also miss my old stomping grounds around town.
“Reducing sprawl” sounds nice, but it does nothing good for the people that already live here – in fact, it has destroyed a once-great neighborhood.
Why should ALL the density be shoved down Ballard's throat? Put some of that density somewhere else for a change!
Honestly, is there ANYONE in Ballard who thinks what this neighborhood needs is more condos?! Besides the developers and bar owners, that is.
Ballard-Dad: you say “IF more people are going to move here…” and you act as if that just happens by magic. It didn't and it doesn't. The reason Ballard has become a dystopia in recent years is because some idiot downtown decided that this was going to be the next “urban village” (gee, that sounds so quaint…) and they were going to force another 40,000 residents into a small area. Now they want to do more of that. It's not inevitable – there are thousands more people here because somebody decided to attract them here. Do we need more? When does it stop? When there are wall-to-wall condos from the ship canal to Olympic Manor?
I say, to hell with that. They've wrecked Ballard enough – put the “density” in some other lucky “village”.
It will CHANGE the neighborhood not destroy it. Change is not destruction. Also it is not just Ballard now and it will not be in the future.
Too true. One of the ways to do this is to finish the damn missing link of the Burke Gilman. Ballard is missing out on quite a bit of customers to the Old Ballard Ave shops, restaurants, and farmer's market because of this.
Cities always have problems making that step from having an in-out transit orientation to an in-out-around orientation. Then again, we still don't even have a very good in-out if you need to get to the east side.
LOL. Are you really so dense as to not understand how a tax base works? It's either density or suburban sprawl with strip malls. You can't have it both ways. Please go to and play your “birther/tea party” screaming match. It looks quite funny when you get in there screaming for sprawl…only to have you return to complain about 1 story strip malls with parking in front a couple years later.
Lookup economies of scale, and agglomeration and cross reference with how this aids businesses and professionals in terms of value of time.
I could tell you much more, but I'm pretty sure its like trying to reason with a drunk…no answer will satisfy the reactionary responses you are screaming.
Umm you do realize that it was voted on right? -The urban village and improvement zone containing the library and park etc. You voted on it. I get a kick out of how people are so quick to bash the condos when that's what created the first iteration of Ballard. This conversation isn't new. In Munich they've created a mini-caste system where old Munichs consider themselves better than new Munich residents.
Now that you live here, are you really in such a hurry to kick others out? Change is inevitable, I'm sorry you seem to just now come to this realization.
I'll support anything that drives out the remaining trailer trash in Ballard.
As someone who's main concern is the value of his home and investment in Ballard (yes, a fiscally self-interested yuppie), I fully support greening up Ballard, increasing density in the core, buiding a tram or train. It will only help keep Ballard a valuable destination and place to buy a home. All those condo dwellers will eventually marry, have kids and want a single family home and in 10-15 yrs I'll be here, ready to sell, far enough from the core not to be affected, close enough to make a handsome profit.
Nothing better for profiting on property than urban liberalism.
Face it, Republicans would bring us Walmart, strip malls and lower class people. I want farmers markets, boutiques, European beers and French wine. You don't get that with today's Republican (we did with my grandmother's ). So go Greens, you put the green in property owners' pockets.
I'm a republican, living in Ballard, loving the farmers markets, boutiques, and awesome beer. Now doesn't that just blow your ignorant little mind?
Correct! Even getting to Greenwood / Phinney by bus is harder than it should be.
Like renters?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be a republican, but between Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber, they've lost all their class. So for me, at least, I find urban liberals are much more aligned with my financial interests and protecting my investments. Turning Seattle into the quant european city that they want will only make our property more valuable. We'd get cafes, trams, museums. It'll be great! No Walmarts or strip malls.
The issue of density vs. sprawl seems irrelevant for Ballard. Assuming that sprawl means developing new housing into undeveloped space, there is nowhere for us to sprawl to. We’re already built out: the canal, the sound, and Northgate. More density here might mean less sprawl in Shoreline, but means nothing save more density for Ballard. We can’t wedge in another SF 5000 lot, much less a strip mall.
This isn’t an argument against more condos here. I don’t like them, but I’m not arguing against them either. But when the pitch is density vs sprawl for Ballard; I take issue with the simple geography of the argument.
Densitty means that instead of walking .2 mile to West Woodland, ” the numbers” say it is more expedient to bus to B.F.Day 1.7 miles.
All the vacancies are bringing costs down, my property taxes have already dropped over $2,000. per year!
Quit crying. No one cares what you think.
Hi, I think what Ballard needs is more condos. Well-built, attractive condos with plenty of underground parking, courtyards or rooftop decks for picnics and recreation, and quality retail and services at street level. Canal Station is a good model.
These buildings should replace some of the dilapidated wrecks in the neighborhood. For example, I'm really looking forward to the new building that is going up on the site of the old Denny's.
How were your comments received at the zoning meeting last night xaphaeod?