TO: Seattle Department of Planning and Development FROM: Kevin Teismann owner Madison Tower RE: Project #3021574. former Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) SUMMARY: The applicant's submittal is incomplete and premature. The size and mass of the project undermines the plaza established between Marion Street, and Spring Street along Second Avenue. The project's bulk creates an intimidating boundary to enjoyment of established public uses at the intersection of Second Avenue and Madison Street. The project's height and mass fights established East to West transitional patterns along Spring, Madison and Marion Streets. The project seriously undermines the light, air flow and thermal patterns at the Madison Street and Second Avenue intersection; patterns which are critical to maintaining a livable urban community for downtown residents. DISCUSSION: Design Review Guidelines for Downtown Development are intended to provide a broad framework for creativity, innovation and adaptation for downtown development opportunities. The underlying goal is to enhance the urban experience through innovative design and architecture. The proposed project fails to achieve this goal. Instead the project's commercial goals clearly subordinate its design considerations. INCOMPLETE AND PREMATURE SUBMITTAL: Applicant's project submittal is incomplete by failing to: adequately describe the design concept; its neighborhood context, and offer viable alternatives. The uncertainties and impact of the Historic Landmark requirements are not addressed. Alternatives concepts are not materially different from the baseline proposal. PLAZA: There currently exists a "plaza" from Marion Street to Spring Street along Second Avenue. This plaza greatly enhances the public's urban experience. Daily activities in the space range from outdoor lunches, dedicated bike lanes, and large public gatherings of citizens exercising their First Amendment Rights. The FRB's location at the northwest corner of Second and Madison, is critical to maintaining the plaza, as an inviting streetscape.
The plaza's surrounding structures were careful to preserve open space for light, air flow and human interactions. On the east side of Second Avenue grade level changes, multistory connections, site steps, terraces, intermediary landings have been incorporated in the Wells Fargo property. Across Second Avenue to the west the Jackson Federal Building, has created broad, open spaces on its perimeter. To the north of Madison Street, the 1000 Second Avenue Building accommodates the plaza by its "stair-step" design back from Madison and positioning its tower on the north portion of the site. Further north, along the west side of Second Avenue, the 1101 Second Avenue Building , the Second and Seneca Building and the 1100 Second Avenue Building, all contribute to the humanizing proportions of the plaza, through their low and mid-rise profiles. A BOUNDARY: The project submittal proposes to create a "north boundary" for the "Second Avenue Plaza". This is the wrong approach. Rather than creating a boundary, the project
should create an "invitation". As much as practicable, the project's scale, mass and
positioning should focus on expansion of the plaza space; not enclosing it. The project's current design creates a "cave-like" corridor along Second Avenue. Instead the project designers should create an open invitation to the Plaza. A TRANSITION: The proposal correctly observes that Second Avenue is a transition point. Development to the east consists of higher, more massive structures; projects to the west, are generally less intense, mid-rise commercial and residential uses. This project's mass and height would violate this transition, as the neighborhood moves from east to west along Spring, Madison and Marion Streets. For example, to the west the proposed project is 3X and 5X times the heights of its nearest neighbors (Madison Tower and Holyoke buildings,respectively). To the north the project is 2X higher than its neighbor (Second and Seneca Building) and 25% higher than its neighbor (Jackson Federal Building) to the south. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT: The project makes no allowance for the adverse impact it creates for its residential neighbors to the immediate west. The massive structure is positioned approximately 16 feet from the windows and decks of the Madison Tower residents. It will block sunlight by 90% and airflow by 70% that is currently available to Madison Tower's east facing units. Allowing such an insult, to the environment for downtown residents creates a chilling affect on the desirability and unpredictability for owners and tenants. If the City is serious about maintaining the livability of Downtown it must address this situation. SOLUTION: However, in this case there is a straight-forward solution: reduce the project's base and position the office/residential tower to the northern portion of the site. This solution will increase sunlight and airflow, it will maintain the openness of the Plaza and more fully reveal the unique Historic Landmark features of the FRB. Opportunities for greater pedestrian interaction would emerge. And a tall thinner building set atop the FRB could provide a more well-proportioned, unified site. Finally, a thinner profile building would enhance and promote the skyline. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Teismann