A fine mess: City to detour E. Madison Street through Madison Valley beginning Monday

One-week closure has merchants up in arms

It wasn't supposed to happen this way.  When the Madison Valley Stormwater Project was conceived, nothing other than the intermittent blockage of E. Madison St. was anticipated.  That was then, this is now.

Next week, due to "unavoidable" circumstances, Madison Street will be closed to traffic through the Martin Luther King, Jr. Way E./28th Avenue E. intersection (the red area shown on the map below). The 18,000 vehicles that transit the area daily will be channelled through side streets for five straight days,  beginning Monday morning and continuing at least until sometime Friday afternoon.

The purpose of this temporary closure is to repave the intersection, which happens to be the location where four large boulders were discovered by the tunneling machine near the end of last year.  The machine was boring an underground tunnel for the pipeline that will be used to divert stormwater into the new high-capacity tank being constructed near the ball field in Washington Park.  The boulders, however, proved to be immovable objects, other than through above-ground excavation.  As a result, the intersection had to be torn up--and this caused, in the parlance of Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), "a differing site condition." Meaning, therefore, the implementation of a "street restoration plan." In other words, big-time repaving.

According to Grace Manzano, SPU's project manager, Madison Street's repaving will involve a significant amount of concrete pouring and the integration of steel rebar into the works.  This is in order to properly distribute traffic loads on E Madison.  It's "unfortunate," she tells us, that the area will be further disrupted by this additional work, but it's all in a good cause.  "SPU wants to complete the work as quickly as possible so the merchants can return to earning their livelihoods," she says.  "This is the end phase."

When the City announced the detour plan earlier this week, Madison Parkers may have detected a wailing sound coming from the Valley. Those were the Madison Valley merchants, whose general response to this unexpected challenge seems to be "You're killing us!!!"  Anger and frustration boiled over in an email sent by Marie Harris of Veritables earlier this week.  Accusing SPU of being "tone deaf" she railed, "We were assured you would be out of our business district by the end of summer...We have cooperated to the point of rolling over and playing dead."  She requested that the project be put on hold at least until January, after the holiday selling season is ended.

Madison Valley Merchants Association (MVMA) president Larry Levine, meanwhile, sent the Mayor a letter on behalf of the Association.  In it he stated that "many merchants have given up publicly expressing their concerns or contacting SPU with their concerns.  They feel that their concerns fall on deaf ears."  A later meeting at Cafe Flora between SPU and some of the merchants did not result in a delay of the repaving, however.  It is moving forward as planned.

In here (28th E. )

Here's the rundown of how the detour will work.  Westbound traffic will be detoured onto 28th Avenue E. (at the corner where the restaurant Luc is located), it will be channeled onto E. Mercer Street after one block, and then be routed onto 27th Avenue E. for one block back to E. Madison Street.

Out here (27th E.)

Traffic moving in the opposite direction will be detoured off E. Madison at 27th E. and head eastbound on E. Arthur Place for a block before being re-routed back onto E. Madison.  There will be limited parking, if any, on these detour streets, although parking will still be allowed on E. Madison St., other than in the area of the intersection repaving. There is a separate truck detour route which is a far longer, more cumbersome way into and out of Madison Park:

The Madison Valley Community Council has come out with an announcement encouraging all area residents to patronize the Valley's merchants during the construction period.  Signs will be posted reminding everyone that the district is still open for business.  It is hoped that all paving will be completed before the dinner crowd arrives in the Valley on Friday evening.

For what it's worth, SPU's Manzano tells us that everyone on the project understands the merchants' frustration.  We're giving the last word, however, to Madison Valley resident Richard Winsler II, who in an email to the MVMA summed up the frustrations of people living in the construction zone.  He said he opposed any efforts by neighborhood businesses to have the repaving delayed until next year. "While we may sympathize with the local businesses," he wrote, "we will do everything we possibly can to have the construction over with ASAP. We will NOT allow for it to be put on hold."

"Please don't forget," he added, "that the residents agreed to have the night work happen to help out the merchants back in March. While all the business owners were home sleeping soundly, nearly every single resident was kept up every night for two weeks during the night time construction. The residents have had enough and want this construction to be done with promptly and with no interruptions."

The road end: is it a done deal?

Several readers took exception to my posting earlier this month (“A parking lot no more”) in which I claimed that the question of park versus parking lot at the Madison Street road end had been resolved. Some observers who attended the community meetings on the subject believed the story was exaggerated or just plain wrong. Based on what they had heard, they felt it was not at all evident that parking will be eliminated in the area beyond the intersection of Madison and 43rd.

So I decided to investigate the situation further. I put a call in to Donald Harris, Seattle Parks Department’s Property and Acquisition Services Manager. I had quoted him as telling the Madison Park Community Council and the attendees at the community forum that the City intended to remove parking from the area that’s being considered for the new LOLA (Love Our Lake Access) park. Did I quote him correctly? “Yes,” he told me. But does the City’s Department of Parks & Recreation have the legal authority to take this action? “Yes,” again.

At least one park opponent doesn’t buy that. Mark Long, owner of The Attic, says that “Donald Harris does not have the final say.” He argues that the Seattle Municipal Code would prevent the Parks Department from taking action without jumping through legal hoops. And Long claims that he has an attorney’s opinion to back him up. So I asked Harris about this. “Despite what his attorney may think,” said Harris, “I don’t think that there is anything in the Code that requires us to retain this piece of Park property as parking.”

So is that the end of the story? Not quite. While it is clearly the City’s official goal to eliminate parking at the road end, it certainly won’t be happening any time soon. As Harris admits, there no money currently allocated to develop the road end into a park. “It would be stupid if we didn’t replace what’s there now with something else,” he told me. Just chaining off the road end will not accomplish anything worthwhile, he added.

And then there’s the additional complication posed by the controversy between park proponents and those who favor the status quo. “I think the City has to be responsive to a variety of needs,” he said. It is clear, he told me, that a lot more work needs to be done on the parking issue in Madison Park, and he is glad to see the business owners now engaged in the process. “We’ll need to work together to get this right,” he said.

As noted in my last posting on the subject, the LOLA committee has been looking at ways to mitigate the loss of parking spaces at the road end if LOLA is approved (that’s 17-30 spaces, depending on which side you’re talking to). And according to Community Council President Ken Myrabo, a special committee will be established to make recommendations on ways to improve the parking situation throughout the business district. The Madison Park Business Association is expected to be involved. Getting some kind of plan in place on the parking issue may now be a precursor to having the City approve funds to build the park, but that's not clear.

Meanwhile, planning for LOLA is moving forward, according to Myrabo, with the understanding that parking at the road end will not be part of the design. And Harris confirmed to me his earlier statement to the Council on the subject: “There will be absolutely no parking on this site. That was the starting point for the development of the park project.”

Sounds pretty conclusive, but stay tuned.

[Satellite photo of Madison Park business district and Madison Park from Google Earth]

A parking lot no more

It’s all but official. The Madison Street road end is going to end its long life as a picturesque spot for parked cars and garbage receptacles. At most, it will become a park. And at least, it will not be parked on any more.

That’s the word from the City’s Department of Parks and Recreation, as conveyed by Donald Harris, the Department’s Property and Acquisition Services Manager. He delivered the news at the Madison Park Community Council meeting earlier this month, and I understand that he repeated the news last week at the community forum at which the “final schematic design” for the LOLA project was unveiled.

Harris’s message was this: “We don’t think that Park property being parked on is good public usage. Regardless of the outcome of the [LOLA design process], we are going to reclaim the parkland.” He said that the State’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which owns the area of the road closest to the water, is in total agreement with the City and will also reclaim its property for use as parkland. That means that the cars and waste receptacles will have to go. The only question is when.

Technically the area in question is not a road end, though it sure looks like one. Although E. Madison Street appears to end at the barrier in front of the pier, the street actually ends at 43rd Avenue E. The area beyond 43rd is not a City street. The Parks Department therefore has the authority to cordon off the area, making it car free.

As previously reported, area merchants are none too happy about the situation, and several of them made their opposition known at the community forum last week. The purpose of the meeting was to get public input on the design for the planned park on the site, but the focus of the meeting turned instead into a discussion of parking. In the end, however, it was made clear that if there is to be any additional parking created in the neighborhood, it will not be on the site of the new LOLA park.

About fifty people showed up at the community forum for an opportunity to see and comment on the new park plan, designed by Murase Associates. The meeting was the last step in the schematic design phase for the park. The next phase is design development, according to Murase’s Liz Wreford Taylor.

The design, shown above, has been significantly scaled back from the original three design options presented by Murase at an earlier community meeting. Taylor says that final design incorporates the best elements of the initial designs and reflects the input given at the previous community meetings. The site plan features a sloping “hardscape” surface, a flat terrace area, a ramp to the pier, and no decking.

The water feature, which was a prominent element in the previous designs, is also out. Additionally, the current plan eliminates the cherry trees. They, like the wooden decking and water feature, presented a potential maintenance problem for the City, according to Taylor. It’s possible, however, that one or more of these elements might be reintroduced as the design development phase of the park moves forward. “I think the community wants cherry trees,” Taylor notes, for example. “We just need to find a way to fit them in.”

This design is by no means final, in other words. Changes in the configuration of the spaces and the materials may still occur. Taylor notes that the design team is still open to suggestions from the community. Those interested in giving their input may do so by emailing Taylor (ltaylor@murase.com), or by contacting the Madison Park Community Council (council@madisonparkcouncil.org).

[Graphics courtesy of Murase Associates. Click on images to enlarge.]

Madison Park merchants say “NO!” to LOLA

The plan to develop a park at the end of Madison Street has suddenly become controversial, with one part of the Madison Park Establishment squaring off against another. In one corner is the Madison Park Community Council (MPCC), which is busily promoting public involvement in support of its LOLA (Love our Lake Access) project; and in the other corner are the merchants of Madison Park—including those of the Madison Park Business Association (MPBA)—who are busily signing petitions and sending emails in opposition to the Council’s grand scheme. This division appears to be a rare fracture of the “powers that be” in Madison Park. As recently as last year, the two organizations (MPCC and the MPBA) found themselves so much in alignment that they agreed to merge their websites into one (http://madisonparkseattle.com/). Now their unanimity, assuming it was ever real, has been torn asunder over an unlikely issue: parking.

What supporters of LOLA describe as a potential community “jewel” and scenic focal point at the very heart of Madison Park, the merchants see as potential threat to their livelihood. For the fact is that the area at the end of Madison Street currently serves principally as a parking lot, and the creation of a park in that space will lower the amount of close-in business district parking.

Mark Long, owner of The Attic and a leading opponent of LOLA, estimates that 25 or more parking spaces will be lost at the road end if a park is constructed at that location. And it’s parking that will not—and really cannot—be replaced anywhere in proximity to the businesses along Madison Street. Eliminating the existing parking will force people to park further away from the businesses they patronize, he says, and will result in some people deciding to forgo making the trip to Madison Park.

“Everyone that lives in the Park enjoys the benefit of a varied retail area with wide sidewalks,” he says. “However, not all realize the costs and time needed to keep the doors open. Parking is a paramount problem.” This is a position that many other area merchants support. Stan Moshier, co-owner of Bing’s, summed up the concern this way in an email to other business owners: “Parking is most necessary to our existence as a viable business, proven by the countless times we have heard ‘it takes forever to find a place to park around here’ from our patrons, both young and old.”

A similar refrain comes from Madison Park Bakery owners Karen and Terry Hofman, who emailed “In our 17 years of operation, not a week has gone by without someone mentioning or complaining about parking difficulties. On occasion, [we’ve] had to telephone some elderly customers who pre-ordered baked goods but didn’t pick up their order. The response has too often been ‘Sorry, drove down but couldn’t find anywhere to park.’”

While Long is adamant that the whole LOLA idea be dropped, other business owners, including the Hofmans, are a bit more circumspect: “We only ask that the issue of parking be seriously addressed before rapidly proceeding only on the wishes of individuals representing LOLA.”

LOLA committee members say they are attempting to address the parking concerns of the merchants. “We can collaborate with the MPBA,” says LOLA’s Kathleen Stearns, “but we are not the decision makers. The Department of Parks and Recreation is.” She notes that the land belongs to the parks department and simply is not designated for use as a parking lot. “Madison Street ends at 43rd Avenue E.,” she notes, and the area beyond 43rd down to the pier is not controlled by the City’s transportation department. Effectively, vehicle drivers who park in the area are encroaching on City parkland, since it is technically not a city street.
.
Ownership of the property is shown on this graphic (click to enlarge):

.

For LOLA supporters, the issue therefore appears to be pretty straightforward. The land is park land and should be restored to park use. This is not to say, however, that LOLA is opposed to discussing the issue with concerned business owners or working with them to find creative solutions. Stearns notes that focus groups were held (including one where the parking issue was specifically on the agenda) and the business owners also were invited to meet with the MPCC by its president Ken Myrabo. But in spite of this outreach the business owners opposing the project did not come forward, she says; and as a result, some LOLA committee members sought out various Madison Park business owners to solicit their input.

Among the ideas being floated to improve parking in the business district are these, she says:

1) Encourage more employees of these businesses to use public transportation to get to work.
2) Ask employees (as well as business owners) to park further from their places of business.
3) Limit street parking to 2 hours (versus the 1, 2 and 4-hour designations that currently exist in different parts of the business district) and have it enforced to optimize usage.
4) Ask residents to volunteer spaces in their driveways or in front of their houses for the daytime use of employees (Kathleen Stearns reports she has agreed to do this on her property).
5) Make better use of existing alley parking spaces for employees and owners.

Stearns says she believes that collaboration will solve the parking problem, and she’s dismissive of the merchants who are not interested in working with LOLA on the issue. “Their vision is a parking lot. Our competing vision is for it to be restored to public use as a garden park. These are the competing interests for this public space.” To which she adds, “We are not opposed to bringing commerce to the Park.”

"Not impressed,” says Mark Long. “There are already three parks along 43rd. Parking is the Number One need here, not more parks. I know [the current situation] is not perfect and beautiful, but it’s functional. I think LOLA is a waste of time and effort just to get one to two percent more green space.” Among the other merchants supporting this anti-LOLA position, says Long, are the owners of McGilvra’s, Tina’s on Madison, Madison Park Jewelers, Cookin’, and Martha Harris.

Cactus! owner Bret Chatalas, meanwhile, sent an email to City Council members and the parks department last month in which he expressed his support for parks but added that “I can’t imagine anyone, while thinking it through, would think that more parks in Madison Park is a better idea than providing parking for those already coming to the local three parks and beach, let alone the local businesses that rely on customers’ ability to easily access them. The ratio of parks to parking is way out of balance down here already, in my opinion.”

Unfortunately, there is no real room for compromise here. Succinctly, the question is this: park or parking lot? The area at the end of Madison Street can’t be both.

So which is it to be?

Given both the controversy and the uncertainty of funding, it's probably going to be quite awhile before we find out which faction of the Madison Park Establishment will ultimately have its way.

.

[Everyone, Madison Park business owners included, will get another opportunity to give their input when, on May 26, the final schematic design for LOLA will be presented at a community meeting to be held at Park Shore Retirement Community (1630 43rd Avenue E.) at 7:00 pm.]

Why a park?

KING-TV last week used the proposed park for the E. Madison Street road end (the LOLA project) as a jumping off point for a story asking why the City is going ahead with plans for new parks when it can’t even afford the upkeep on some of the ones it currently operates. It’s pretty well known that plans are afoot to reduce staffing this year in Seattle’s Parks & Recreation Department due to budget constraints. This means fewer people working maintenance and operations in the parks. Noting, in addition, that the Department is considering closing certain swimming pools, community centers, and wading pools, correspondent Linda Brill interviewed three Madison Park residents (Reg Newbeck, Jane Carter, and Ginny Thomas) who each sounded* as if they agreed that it doesn’t make sense to build a new park if the City can’t pay for proper maintenance of the existing ones.

Brill, however, may have been a bit off base in using the Madison Street park project as a cause célèbre for her story about the City’s dilemma in having a $15 million from a 2008 parks bond issue that it must spend on new parks but can’t legally use for park operations. First of all, the Madison Street park project is not moving forward, as Brill implied, simply because there is a bunch of money that’s sitting in a kitty awaiting park projects to fund. The LOLA project has been developed organically within the neighborhood and is being spearheaded by the Madison Park Community Council. The Council does plan to apply for grants from the City, including money from the bond issue, but efforts to create a park at the road end predate this potential funding source.

Secondly, it’s certainly not true that “the plan would be to cover over the concrete with grass” at our road end, as Brill reported. Far from it.

Three possible road end plans, in fact, were presented to a community meeting held last month at Park Shore. And none of them involved much, if any, grass. Murase Associates, at the behest of the LOLA (Love Our Lake Access) Committee, developed the multiple options after getting the input of several focus groups during the past few months. Here is an overview of the concepts, as presented:

Option One: Focus on the View

This proposed plan (click to enlarge) features active lookouts with terraces, small garden patches, concrete or stone pavers, a trellis, and decking. There is also a prominent water feature: a stormwater runnal down the middle of the space, which will empty into the Lake.

These are illustrations of some similar design elements as used in other installations, not necessarily ones designed by Murase:

Option Two: The Step-Down

This proposed plan features a sloped transition into the existing lawn at the right of the road end, so there would be some additional grass added to the site. A major element of this plan is a curving stone wall, with a stormwater runnel alongside. There is also a profusion of cherry trees, some wood benches, and stone steps leading down to an overlook area.

Here are some illustrations of design elements from this plan:

.

.

Option Three: Intimacy and Privacy

This proposed plan features a shallow stormwater reflecting pool and a cascading stormwater feature enclosed in stone blocks. There would be some additional lawn in this plan, as well as cherry trees, stone boulders, and some stepped terrace seating.

Here are some illustrations of design elements from this plan:

As presented by Murase Associates, these plans each reflect what the LOLA Committee felt were the “big ideas” arising from the various forums held to solicit input: 1) green space, 2) public access, 3) passive recreation, and 4) an opportunity to interpret history.

Because the site was for 80 or more years a ferry dock, the Committee felt that any design should incorporate a nod to the past with some kind of historic element. Additionally, the Committee concluded that any final plan should emphasize these three design concepts: gardens, views, and seating. And according to LOLA Committee member Kathleen Stearns, the road end park is also intended to be low maintenance.

The audience of 40 or 50 Madison Parkers who heard the presentation seemed enthusiastic about the designs, and plenty of input was provided about what seemed to work and not work in each of the plans. It is now up to Murase to create a final proposed site design which incorporates the best elements of the three options. This final schematic design will be unveiled at another community meeting to be held at Park Shore (1630 43rd Avenue E.) on May 26 (7:00 pm). If you have input you would like to make concerning these conceptual plans you may direct your comments to lolawatersidepark@gmail.com.

We will be following up with another blog posting next week on one of the most controversial aspects of the LOLA project: the impact on parking in the vicinity. Let’s just say that not everyone is too happy with the idea of taking out all of that concrete. More to follow…

.

[*At least one of those interviewed, Reg Newbeck, reports that his quote was taken out of context and that he actually supports the idea of a road end park.]

.

Graphics courtesy of Murase Associates

Road end design concepts to be unveiled

Surely Madison Park can do better than what currently exists at the end of E. Madison Street: a waterside parking lot with an excellent view. What could have been a lovely amenity for the community has been left for almost 60 years as just an afterthought.

But that’s about to change.

On Thursday evening Murase Associates, the landscape architectural firm hired earlier this year by the Madison Park Community Council, will be presenting the community with its preliminary designs for a revitalized space at the end of the road. The Council’s LOLA (Love Our Lake Access) Committee is sponsoring a community meeting Thursday night at 7:00 p.m. at the Park Shore Retirement Community (1630 43rd Avenue E.) at which Murase’s preliminary concepts will be reviewed and discussed.

This is the community’s opportunity to weigh in on the proposed designs and give input on what we’d like to see replace the cars, concrete, and trash receptacles that now clutter up this prime neighborhood location. The designs are too hush hush for me to be able to present them on this blog (that’s Murase’s design concept for Counterbalance Park shown above). So if you’re interested you’ll just have to attend the meeting to see the illustrations for yourself.

Everyone will get another chance to weigh in when the final designs are presented at a similar public forum, May 26 at 7:00 pm at Park Shore. For more background on LOLA’s efforts, click here.

Here is what the Madison Street road end looked like in the 1930s:

[Graphic courtesy of Murase Associates. Ferry dock photo from the collection of MOHI.]

What next for the “notorious” Deano’s site?

It’s been a solid year since Madison Park resident Jeff Mueller and his partners permanently leveled the blighted Madison Street block that had housed the skuzzy Deano’s nightclub (aka Club Chocolate City). In undertaking this “public service” demolition, Mueller and his company, JC Mueller LLC, earned both the thanks of those of us who regularly drive through the area and, presumably, the undying gratitude of those who actually live there.

Before its implosion, Deano’s--almost universally referred to in press reports as “notorious” or “infamous”--was the scene of police activity virtually daily. The alternative newspaper, The Stranger, described the site as a “convergence zone for drug sellers and crack addicts.” According to the Madison Park Times, the block was a “magnet for criminal activity,” known for its drugs, prostitution, loitering and the occasional shooting. In preparation for the upcoming redevelopment, both Deano’s Grocery and Club Chocolate City were closed in 2007, leading to a decline in criminal activity in the area.

When Mueller rescued the neighborhood (which is called Miller Park by area residents), it was not altogether an altruistic exercise. The plan in 2008 was to follow the demolition with construction of a mixed-use residential building on the 2026 E. Madison Street site. Construction was to begin next month. Mueller’s companion project across the street at 2051 E. Madison Street (former site of the Twilight Exit) was originally scheduled to get underway even earlier. Obviously, construction has not begun; and what we have at the intersection of E. Madison and E. Denny Way is a giant fenced-off dirt lot on one side of the street and a group of vacant buildings on the other, not that anyone is really complaining.

Most of us probably do not have so expansive a view of Madison Park’s reach as to believe (like the landlord of The Summit at Madison Park, which houses the Safeway store) that our community actually reaches up into the Miller Park neighborhood. Because of its proximity, however, I suspect most of us in Madison Park probably are interested in knowing the current status of both Mueller projects. So I decided to find out what’s happening.

As recently as last October, Mueller was being quoted as saying he didn’t expect the national credit crunch to delay either project. That was then. By early 2009, the markets had drastically changed and it was apparent that financing was far from assured. Mueller tells me that both projects are on track in every way except for the financing. “In October we had sources for the financing,” he says, “but they sort of vaporized. Now we’re waiting for the financial markets to stabilize. We could get a loan today, but the terms would be onerous.”

Mueller believes that both projects continue to be economically viable, especially if the costs of construction come down. These had been high relative to historic levels, he says, but expectations are that the financial downturn will lead to lower construction expenses as contractors compete more fiercely for the work that’s available.

In the meantime, both projects continue to move forward on the pre-construction track. In May the City issued a permit for development of the Twilight Exit site. This project, designed by the Mithun architectural firm, is a 95-unit apartment building which will also have about 6,500 feet of retail space:

Unless the existing buildings were to deteriorate in some way, Mueller says, it is not the plan to tear them down before project financing is in place.

Across the street on the Deano’s site, cleanup continues on what was a very contaminated site. Most of that work has been completed, Mueller says, and he expects the City to issue a master use permit for the site late this summer or early fall. On this, the larger site, a 222-unit apartment building, designed by Weinstein AU, will be constructed:

The building will have 9,500 sq. ft. of retail space and, like the companion project across the street, underground parking.

Both projects are designed to provide “workforce” housing, apparently consistent with the target market for The Summit at Madison Park, across the street. Mueller reiterated to me what he’s said elsewhere about never having felt that the sites could support condos, a market he believed was about to implode—which it did.

But what about adding 317 new apartment units at these sites (plus another 92 units at 2203 E. Union St., Mueller’s third area project)? Mueller believes the economics of all three buildings still work. He notes that about 400 new residential units are currently under construction and will soon be coming on the market in the general vicinity. (There are also 48 brand new “rooming house” units coming on line, about which The Stranger has an interesting article: “Thinking Small”).

To date, the apartment market has held up surprisingly well in Seattle, he notes, and he believes that the location on Madison is excellent in terms of access to Downtown and the now-trendy Pike/Pine neighborhood. It’s a fact, nevertheless, that several already-completed apartment buildings not far from Mueller’s sites (including The Summit) are not yet fully leased. If the economics still work, as Mueller believes, it probably won't be at anytime in the immediate future.

So what’s his best guess for when construction will begin? “I can’t say it’ll be next year,” he says, but it could easily be the following year. “We would begin building as quickly as the markets will let us,” he adds, “but I can’t say we’re in a hurry.”

.

[Photo of the 2026 E. Madison building courtesy of Mithun; photo of the 2051 E. Madison building courtesy of JCMueller LLC, via the Miller Park Neighborhood Association site .]