It would be great to see this in locations where businesses don’t have room on the sidewalk or there simply is too much demand for outdoor seating. This type of seating would however requires a change in state law if the establishment serves alcohol. I personally think this is key for activating public spaces. Cafe and bar patrons are about the “hardiest” type of customer you can have. They’ll put up with just about anything, sit around for a long time, activate the space, and expand the time frame during which people are out. Add umbrellas and cheap blankets and outdoor seating becomes practical for a majority of the year, even in much colder climates like Stockholm. These types of establishments thrive 5-6 months a year there.

31 Replies to “Amenity Zone”

  2. How have the places (mainly US) kept homeless from invading these plazas and green spaces? We have many small plazas and grass areas around Seattle the are simlpy not usable because of the homeless overtaking the area. The grass around the King County Courthouse, the plazas along Olive and Stewart near 5th, and the green space at the conventention center all are not working well, in my opinion.

    I’d love more of this, as a resident (own a condo in denny triangle/downtown), but I fear more homeless invasion. Thoughts?

    1. I think this is a very important dicussion that often isn’t touched on because it is a sensitive topic.

      I’m of the opinion that diffensive design of openspace (removal of benches, cover, etc) is the wrong approach. By degrading the environment of a place those that have the ability (and money in this case) to go somewhere nicer will. Only when you make places that are attractive and enjoyable for everyone does this change.

      I think Cal Anderson is a perfect example. When I was young that park wasn’t nice, but since the redesign it is one of the most dynamic parks I have been in (in the US at least). Yes there are still homeless people (and some drug user and alcoholic) but there are so many other people in the park it feels safe and enjoyable.

      Good public places are all about makeing places *everyone* wants to be.

    2. Check out William Whyte. They used to have the film “The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces” on YouTube but it is no longer there.

      The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces [Paperback]
      http://www.amazon.com/Social-Life-Small-Urban-Spaces/dp/097063241X/

      City: Rediscovering the Center [Paperback]
      http://www.amazon.com/City-Rediscovering-William-H-Whyte/dp/0812220749/

      Jan Gehl is another urbanist to look into.

      Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space [Paperback]
      http://www.amazon.com/Life-Between-Buildings-Using-Public/dp/8774073605/

      Cities for People [Hardcover]
      http://www.amazon.com/Cities-People-Jan-Gehl/dp/159726573X/

      The key is to create a place that attracts all people so that the “undesirables” (the term used) are only a small percent of the space users and not the only users.

      There is an outstanding organization called Project for Public Spaces that continues the work of William Whyte (many worked with him). They go around the world working with communities to improve their failed dead spaces and turning them into thriving places, all of their work is based on what attracts people.

      Here is another video worth watching…

      How to Live in a City (1964)

    3. The homeless stay in the parks because they have no place else to go. If the city developed a couple of homeless plazas (preferably with services next door), it could attract/shoo people out of the parks and libraries.

    4. I think having these mini-parks next to restaurants would solve this. That brings with it a type of ownership of the space (hey, we could charge these restaurants rent, equal to what we make from parking).

  3. With respect to the seating in the parking strip, I’m not sure I’d want to sit so close to traffic.

      1. Thanks for sharing that. I think a lot of it depends on how active the street life is, how fast cars are going, how nice the barrier is (ie well planted).

  4. “homeless from invading these plazas”

    Because obviously homeless are not people, so they don’t count as users of “public” space. Vs the space is now utilized 100% of the time.

    It’s not that I want drug users, and crazy people bugging me or the shops around them, but really many homeless are also jobless, or waiting on the fishing jobs that come up. And many of them behave themselves while in the street very well.

    2. except when they take over it pretty much stops being public space for all and starts becoming their private shantytown that everyone else avoids at all costs.

      i’m all for helping those in need, but we need to be careful we dont let them takeover our cities by bending over backwards for them like san francisco has done.

  5. I’d like to see more amenity zones in places like Sounder Stations.

    There is very minimal seating at King and Kent Station.

    Also, for people who want to use netbooks, there is no comfortable working area.

    Even a stand up style table would be welcome.

    1. I never understood why commuter rail stations have such little seating. It seems like the perfect place to set up a coffee shop with a large plaza. Especially now that flextime has really started to take off, I can imagine getting to the train station early, picking out a table at the coffee shop and getting some work done on the laptop for an hour or so, then hopping an emptier train to get into the office.

      1. I’m in Dallas right now and despite there being many design flaws in this city that’s one benefit I noticed. The green light rail line only comes by every 20 min on off-peak hours, and I just missed the train. Luckily, right next to the rails was a coffee shop. This allowed me to step out of the 100+ weather and sip on an iced coffee while I waited for the next train.

        Of course in Seattle we surround our stops with parking lots (I’m looking at you, Tukwilla). Hey, if you’re going to do the park-and-ride thing (and everyone knows my thoughts on that), at least put pedestrian areas closer to the station than parking areas.

  6. I went and visited this project in San Francisco when I was there last month. It’s awesome, I really love the idea of creating quality space without spending a huge amount of money. We should definitely look into making spaces like this around Seattle.

  7. What’s great about this is that the main advocate for on-street parking is retail. But if we allow retail to use their on-street parking for something else (for a fee of course), they’ll be the first ones to support us. After this is a massive success (and it will be if we let it), let’s let them convert an entire side street to restaurant space in the summer just like a European city would do.

  8. I’m probably considered a party pooper, old fart or worse, but I quite resent that some businesses have taken over sidewalks and made it nearly impossible to navigate them since they often take up 3/4 of the width of sidewalks. Some businesses have taken over sidewalks and put up permanent stanchions drilled into the concrete and never use the space. 13th Avenue between E Pine and E Pike among the places where this happens.

    1. I think that’s a valid and common complaint. It comes from sidewalk restaurant seating being an imperfect compromise between bringing life to the street and having adequate sidewalk space. Maybe this parking idea is the solution. Or we increase the width of the sidewalk and get rid of the parking.

    2. If a business is actually making a sidewalk “nearly impossible to navigate” you should call SDOT. Anything on the sidewalk has to be ADA compliant, and from what I’ve seen SDOT takes that responsibility seriously.

    3. theres a great cuban restaurant in portland called ‘Pambiche’ that has pretty much taken over the sidewalk in front and about 75-80% of their entire seating is outside on the sidewalk. a big complaint is that they have pretty much been able to get away with taking over the public sidewalk as free rent. the sidewalk is covered like an arcade which makes it practically a room, plus they got the on-street auto parking in front made into on-street bike corral parking.

      when you are in portland, i highly recommend the restaurant, its great food and great urban atmosphere.

      photo

      on the #19-glisan and temporarily the #20-burnside – at NE 28th/glisan

  9. What would be some places in Seattle that you think would be ideal candidates to turn into “partlets”?

    I think that 5th and Denny is a candidate (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=5th+and+denny&sll=47.60621,-122.332071&sspn=0.440731,1.226349&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=5th+Ave+%26+Denny+Way,+Seattle,+King,+Washington&ll=47.618534,-122.347075&spn=0.00043,0.001198&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=47.618441,-122.347177&panoid=T1q69aSKMl7Um4o34C6qNg&cbp=12,44.86,,0,26.16)

    Others?

    1. Anywhere on 15th Ave on Capitol Hill. I think the big key is not to take space just because there is space. Take space for a specific need. So while a restaurant might want outdoor seating, a clothing store next probably wont. This ensures that these spaces are well used and looked after.

  10. Ive never been to San Francisco, despite being a lifelong PNW resident (I know, I know, its ridiculous). From pictures and movies it looks like a denser, more urban and walkable Seattle, with a lot less trees and lot more rowhouses. Is that about right?

    Anyway, it would be great if Seattle would have a similar Pavement to Parks program. I can think of a hundred great spots across the city. Of course, the Seattle Times crowd would be up in arms.

    1. Yeah, it’s the second densest city in the US after New York. It’s a great city, and the whole northern half of the city is basically on the order of the walkability and density of our couple very densest neighborhoods (west slope of Capitol Hill, Lower Queen Anne, Belltown, etc). I would highly recommend a visit.

      1. Aside from those differences, though, it seems to look and feel a lot like Seattle. Of course Im guessing since Ive never been there, but…

    2. Except downtown San Francisco has a lot of crack addicts, mentally ill people and petty crooks who run wild with no consequences in some neighborhoods.

      San Francisco has the largest homeless population in America, and they don’t have the political will to do anything about it. As a result, whole sections of the city are less than desirable places to live or walk through, and other parts where there is cheap housing are borderline unlivable.

  11. Youre right, they are similar.

    But one of the reasons SF is able to get more things done is the city is part of a much larger urban area and a much larger state in general. There isnt the same “Seattle vs the rest of the State” tension that brings so much pressure to Olympia to “keep Seattle in check”. SFs neighbors are other urban areas like Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, etc. It shares the state with LA & San Diego as well. Overall in SF there are less complaints from nearby suburban NIMBYs when the city wants to get something done and use state funds. There is much less animosity between the funding mechanisms and the city itself! You dont have an entity like the Seattle Times writing ridiculously biased articles to sway the general public in a certain anti-density, anti-transit direction.

    Whew. Sorry for the rant, but the nonsense we have to deal with here to get things done is ridiculous!

    1. Having lived in the Bay Area for a while, I’d argue SF actually has it worse than Seattle does. The state is in much worse financial shape, the city is proportionally less important in the urban area, and some of the governance entities (e.g. the BART board) take a ton of money from SF and consistently screw it over. And don’t even get me started on the Caltrain/High Speed Rail/Transbay terminal nonsense.

      Furthermore, though SF is more dense, the density doesn’t necessarily lead to urbanism advocates. Consider, for example, the plan to build a Geary BRT, which is largely being watered down to the point of being almost meaningless by neighborhood merchants who can’t stand the idea of losing parking.

      SF has a more active hipster cyclist community, but that’s about it.

      1. SF has much better public transit (2nd highest light rail ridership in the country, BART heavy rail regional transit, etc.), it is a much more walkable city, they have had far more road diets, they have pavements to parks, etc. I dont know how you can say SF isn’t more active in creating a city that is much easier to walk/bike/ride in. Sure, the urban form plays a big role in that too, but the city gets more done, without a doubt.

Comments are closed.