Instead, both camps have to go through a design-review process that began in 1994 for private projects and in 1968 for the city's capital-improvement projects.
The need was especially evident with private projects, according to Vince Lyons, manager of the city's design-review program. The problem was the result of new land-use codes that went into effect in the early 1980s, he said.
The new codes were a creative attempt to prevent the creation of ugly buildings, but it didn't work out that way. One example was the construction of "big ugly boxes in Ballard," Lyons said. "They were too high, they were too wide and they were too big."
It was obvious that getting more people meaningfully involved early in the design process was necessary, he said. "And we needed some critics."
That led to the creation of seven, five-member Design Review Boards in Seattle to: "encourage better design and site planning that enhances the character of the city and ensures that new development fits sensitively into neighborhoods," according to a city Web site.
The boards review projects in the northwest, northeast, southwest, southeast, Queen Anne/Magnolia and Capitol Hill areas, as well as in downtown.
Board members are appointed by both the mayor and the Seattle City Council, and they have to be confirmed by the city council. They represent a cross section of the community and include a combination of design professions, development interests, community-at-large interests, local residential interests and local business interests, according to a city Web site.
Opponents used to be able to appeal projects to a city Hearing Examiner and then to the city council if they weren't satisfied with the Hearing Examiner ruling, Lyons said. It made for an adversarial situation, and lines were drawn in the sand, is how he put. "It was ugly."
"We dropped the appeal to the city council as a tradeoff," added Lyons, who noted that Hearing Examiner rulings can still be appealed in Superior Court.
Design review has had an effect. During the last 14 years, there have been three or four appeals a year, Lyons said. "When prior to design review, there were probably 30 to 40 a year."
Matt Roewe, an architect and local residential representative on the Queen Anne/Magnolia Design Review Board, believes the program is effective.
"I can honestly say that every project I've been involved with has been a better project because of the process," he said. "The other part of it, it's a public forum."
Indeed, part of every Design Review Board meeting is set aside for public comment, which the public does in no uncertain terms sometimes.
That's understandable, because some of the project he sees are "real stinkers," Roewe said. The problem often lies with small design firms that don't have a rigorous critique process, he said.
"Believe it or not, the participation of the public makes a difference to the board," Roewe added. And criticism from the public and board members makes a difference to developers, he said. "More often than not, they do take it seriously and incorporate it."
The design-review process is a pretty unique program, according to Roewe. "If it was just a bunch of architects or neighbors, it wouldn't be the same," he said of the board.
Board members don't agree with each other all the time, Roewe added. "That's why we deliberate." Furthermore, board rulings are only advisory; the Department of Planning and Development makes the final call, he noted.
The Commission
Like Design Review Board with private projects, the 10-member Seattle Design Commission weighs in on the design of "capital improvements and other projects that shape Seattle's public realm," according to a city Web site.
Current member include urban designers, an architect, an urban planner, an architect, an at-large representative, a landscape architect, a fine artist, an engineer and a "Get Engaged" representative, the last of which has to between 18 and 29 years old.
Members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. "So the folks, they're all pretty substantial leaders in their fields," said John Hoffman, a commissioner who is an urban designer. The rationale behind the commission is that good urban design provides a public benefit to the city's residents, he said.
Like the Design Review Boards, the design commission is advisory, and it deals with public projects such as libraries and new community centers, Hoffman said. "We've looked at a whole boatload of fire stations," he added.
And the commission has also been involved in the designs of the Light Rail stations, the street car, plans to fix or replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, highways 520 and 519, and the proposed Mercer Mess fix as it applies to the urban landscape, Hoffman said.
"But we also interface with private projects when they need an alley vacated," he said of one example. In another example, a family wanted the city to vacate part of a public stairway so they could landscape it and make it part of their yard. The commission said no, he remembers.
The Seattle Design Commission meets twice a month, and they review roughly 200 projects a year. The first step is taking a look at a concept level and then a schematic level. "And we offer our suggestions."
Staff reporter Russ Zabel can be reached at rzael@nwlink.com or 461-1309.[[In-content Ad]]