As to commercial and retail I’m not sure what the specific City of Seattle requirements in specific areas are, but I do know there is retail space in new construction with no off-street parking provided.

With larger stores like a Target or a supermarket the tenant requirements are often what drives the parking more than the local codes.

Retail/commerce/industry on the other hand is heavily encouraged to include parking: the idea being that if a Target store goes in, the residential neighbors shouldn’t have their typical street parking options negated by surly target shoppers (and therefore cause congestion of the ‘circling for parking’ variety).

There’s also SFH on Harvard, on the same block as Broadway’s higher zoning:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1819+E+Republican+St,+Seattle,+King,+Washington+98112&t=h&layer=c&cbll=47.618944,-122.322191&panoid=7bBcHG5S91CYoy-6oOtsvw&cbp=12,127.2,,0,5&ll=47.618939,-122.322193&spn=0,359.999008&z=20

Even with limits on high rise and stepdowns as you suggest, imagine the non-village portion of Magnolia becoming a huge developer-run zoning free-for-all: I don’t imagine it would be too different from the Sammamish fiasco: 15th/western/ballard bridge gridlocked, the city left on the hook for critical utility shortages, design aesthetic and neighborhood history & culture ignored…

NO thanks, I’m happy we’ve got the slow laboring machine of zoning in place. Not because it’s slow, but because it does usually work.

I’m for both (though ‘hood-wide moderation & design wisdom must prevail). Humanity does indeed desire ‘open space’, namely sunlight and sky views: more specifically and scientifically, we need access to the sky to see the stars and clouds and feel the sun (vitamin D production being the science that I’d offer as proof of humanity’s need for open air/sun access).

While I like a well-designed Harlem or Greenwich Village rowhouse block, I’m having trouble thinking of a similar example of satisfying building-to-building design in Seattle.
So, The beggar’s-run canyon of Brix and Joule on capitol hill: buildings up against one another… tiny token setbacks and out-of-scale impositions… Would these by your standards represent better livability?

You can also search on seattle.gov for their census results – if you really want to dig /drill down and compare stats for things like median travel times, commutes delays, etc ; broken out per urban village/neighborhood.
But in short, nearly anywhere within 1-2 miles of SU isn’t too bad off in regards to bus access. So choosing an area might become more of a cultural comparison for you if you stay close.

It goes against my nature to not mouth off online about topics I care about, so it’s particularly frustrating here. (Incidentally, I live a block away from some of the property that would likely have been upzoned, and the land my house sits on is already zoned NC2-40′.)

I am glad, at least, to see that so many other people care about the issue. I hope that all the Beaconians who care strongly about it one way or another will make their opinions heard, and even if you hate the whole “neighborhood meeting process,” please consider showing up at things like the North Beacon Hill Council meetings to get your voice out there.

We need to look at how to make the process fair and accessible to everyone, while limiting the ability of “individuals” to obstruct things for the sake of obstruction.

Perhaps appeals could be required to have a certain number of supporters? Or go through a preliminary review to determine if they have merit? I don’t know what the answer will be, but I share Chris’ concerns that we’ll see a repeat of this charade when it’s time to update Columbia City & Rainier Beach.

That’s a style that has been built plenty of places for higher-density residential buildings, and yes, you can fit six floors of it in 65′. But it’s not mixed use, so it’s not really a fair representation of what will be going in around the stations.

Those who don’t like these delays should consider how much more walkable many American cities would be today if it hadn’t been so easy to ram through freeway-oriented “redevelopment” projects a generation or two ago.

For one you’d want to keep the height step-downs as buildings approached the water. Impact fees are another good idea. You might also want to limit the free-for-all to areas with either an urban village designation or in a transit overlay area.

A 40′ 4-story building wouldn’t be able to have the typical 15′ retail slot, no.

This is a problem where 4-story buildings have been built in 40′ zones. Sometimes the developer will try to get a zoning variance so they can have 15′ ceilings on the ground floor.

And where are the rooftop utilities? Here we count them as part of the height limits. Also, there will be building code imposed floor heights of some sort.

I don’t believe rooftop utilities count against the height limit here. I’m also not sure what the code imposed floor heights are but clearly it is enough to allow 4 stories in a 40′ zone.

I’ve seen new-construction 4 story buildings in 40′ height zones so I know it can be done. The marketability of any ground floor retail is a concern where this has been done. This is why a lot of developers would like to see the 40′ zones raised to 45′ and why a number of projects in 40′ zones have asked for a height variance.

So unless your building codes allow Hobbit sized floor heights, 40′ isn’t going to get you four stories.