This post was written by Heather Snavely, a Wallingford resident and an employee of Brooks Sports, the running shoe company that will relocate to Wallingford once the 3400 Stone Way project is complete. Heather has lived in Wallingford since 2007 and has worked at Brooks since March 2011, and she asked if we could post her point-of-view about the Brooks relocation and the 3400 Stone Way project.

Several years ago, Cantinetta Italian restaurant opened in an unexpected place: the highly residential corner of 37th and Wallingford, just a block from my home. Before Cantinetta opened, there was concern among some community members. What hassles would this new neighbor bring? But, the owners of the restaurant made an effort to add to, not take away from, what makes Wallingford special.

Now, the well-reviewed restaurant is a gathering place for locals and a cornerstone of the Wallingford community. It changed our neighborhood for the better, and I’m certain that, like me, many people can’t imagine not having it on that corner.

At first glance, to compare Brooks Sports, Inc. and the 3400 Stone Way project to Cantinetta may seem outlandish. Brooks is a $300M corporation dedicated to creating performance running gear. Cantinetta is a small Italian restaurant. Cantinetta used existing space. Brooks hopes to build something new.

But at the heart of it, they are really quite similar.

Like Cantinetta, Brooks selected an unexpected place to build its new headquarters (a nearly empty lot at the corner of N 34th and Stone Way N); neighbors wonder how this new addition will impact our community; and, the company hopes to become a cornerstone of our neighborhood. In fact, it was this desire to make a long-lasting, positive impact that influenced Brooks selecting 3400 Stone Way over many other prospects. “Why 3400 Stone Way?” for Brooks it really comes down to three things:

One is the proximity to the Burke Gilman trail. More than anything, Brooks is “run happy”—dedicated to becoming a trailhead on the Burke, a gathering place for the active, outdoors community.

Two is the opportunity to grow into, not out of, a building. You see, once Brooks puts down roots, it has no plans to leave in the foreseeable future. They are investing in our neighborhood for the long haul.

Three is the ability to take root in a deep green building and rise to the challenge of maintaining that commitment. For Brooks, sustainability and environmental impact aren’t just buzz words. They are a vital part of the business strategy because these things are important to runners, and runners are who fuel Brooks.

Imagine what that stretch of 34th and Stone – now very industrial and disconnected – could look like in one, 10, even 20 years with Brooks’ positive influence. How will Brooks, with its dedication to inspiring people to be active and run happy, positively change how we interact with and enjoy the Burke?

As a Brooks employee, I – like many of my fellow employees—am ecstatic at the prospect of our new home in Seattle. It puts us closer than ever to runners and presents the added perk of empowering us to minimize our carbon footprint by working in the very community where many of us live, shop and run. We are excited to be thought leaders in green building practices.

As a Seattleite, I love the idea of a vibrant, thriving company moving to Seattle rather than the Eastside. It is a sign that Seattle is good for business and can only serve to bolster our local economy.

And as a Wallingford resident, I am thrilled not only with the idea of a running company in our backyard, but a company dedicated to staying in our backyard and helping us make our backyard even better.

Now is the time to rally together to show support for this project, to transform our neighborhood into something even more special and take the opportunity to grow together with Brooks, the same way we’ve done happily, successfully, and deliciously with Cantinetta.

  1. DOUG. said,

    What’s a “thought leader”?

    Sat, March 10 at 10:17 am
  2. Donn said,

    A thought leader should, among other things, employ skilled propagandists.

    I would ask about the nature of community opposition to Cantinetta, but in the end it’s hard to see how that has anything to do with this office building.

    Sat, March 10 at 10:31 am
  3. Jen Good said,

    What a great and perfect analogy.
    Our neighborhood has got to stop the fear of change.

    Sat, March 10 at 10:32 am
  4. Miss Ruby said,

    Thanks, Heather! I’m really excited about having Brooks in the neighborhood!

    Sat, March 10 at 10:40 am
  5. ally said,

    Change is not a problem. It would be great to have Brooks in the neighborhood. Perhaps Brooks could look into the Touchstone property at the location of the old tank farm. The site appears much larger than the Stone property. There appear to be several larger properties available for development these days. With a larger site, Brooks could find the square footage it needs without having to seek the additional 20′ of height required in the proposed land use code changes. Brooks would move to Wallingford, next to the B-G, a deep green building could still be born.

    I don’t think concern about the cohesion of our built environment should be misconstrued as fear of change. With the code changes, the proposed building could be 65′ tall with additional rooftop development that could have no max height. The building would sit across an intersection from buildings that could be no taller than 30′. That is a big drop.

    Sat, March 10 at 11:12 am
  6. coolio said,

    To me, it’s about another tall building blocking sky with increased traffic and parking problems. Brooks is well known for their running gear and Wallingford is mostly affluent, but some of us are not. I challenge Brooks to having senior discounts; free workshops; ‘seconds’, foot health talks; and to sponsor community events and needs.

    Progress is going to happen no matter what is said or printed. However, this author is asking us to be glad of Brooks’ prescient presence.. I can only think thus if they provide something which reaches into the community, not just sell 140$+ running shoes, 50$+ t-shirts and undercuts some already established sports small businesses- the bike store, Always Running and the 2 new bike stores: Fat Tire and the recycled one.

    Sat, March 10 at 12:36 pm
  7. Diane Dane said,

    I have to admit that I was worried about the building at this site when I saw the earlier images. I could not envision how it would “fit” into the character of the neighborhoods there (Fremont and/or Wallingford). But the picture at the website now ( looks much different and very cool! It will change the area, of course, but I think for the better.

    Sat, March 10 at 2:18 pm
  8. John said,

    Good summary Heather. I like many are thrilled that Brooks is coming to Wallingford-Fremont. Although a handful are loud in expressing their opposition, I am pretty certain most support it.

    Rock on!

    Sat, March 10 at 2:23 pm
  9. coolio said,

    how can you be certain that people who do not speak up think or care one way or another?
    I could surmise that since the majority of those who speak up are against it then most people are.

    Sat, March 10 at 3:14 pm
  10. Donn said,

    If there weren’t significant opposition, you wouldn’t be seeing such a campaign to drum up support. This is encouraging – maybe they don’t have enough backing from the city to just push it through.

    Sat, March 10 at 4:54 pm
  11. iyqtoo said,

    whoa, coolio! not so sure I’d jump to the same conclusion. Folks who are OK with a proposal are typically a lot less vociferous than those who oppose it. The quiet ones are called the silent majority for a reason.

    Welcome Brooks! I’m glad you’re coming to the ‘hood and grateful for the positive change in Wallymont.

    Sat, March 10 at 5:24 pm
  12. Diane said,

    Good neighbors should abide by neighborhood standards,imho. Most of the concern I’ve heard about this building is related to its out-of-code size. The project needs to fit the space — get smaller, or find a larger lot.

    Sat, March 10 at 5:48 pm
  13. coolio said,

    No one knows what a silent group thinks for sure.
    Many people live by a live and let live credo.. thus nto necessarily for or against something like new buildings.
    I did nto say unilaterally that people think one way or another. I am responding to John’s comment that he is pretty certain that most people are for it. This statement made wiht no reason or evidence.

    Sat, March 10 at 6:12 pm
  14. Janice said,

    I would definitely agree with Diane. Those concerned about the project are concerned because of the height and bulk of the proposed building, not because of the change to that lot or this neighborhood. Obviously the current buildings at the site aren’t all that wonderful to look at and Brooks would be a fantastic company to have in the area. With that being said, the building they create needs to fit into the landscape. A building 20+ feet taller than everything around it, does not fit into the landscape. There has been a great suggestion made to help scale back the height by bumping out the floors over the drive lane on the East side of the property. It would provide the square footage required by Brooks for future growth while working with the concerns of the neighborhood. Yet Brooks has not addressed this possibility. I would challenge them to create such an example for the next Design Board meeting on March 19th.

    Sat, March 10 at 6:19 pm
  15. john said,

    Thanks for the sales pitch on this project.
    The operative word is “if”.

    Sat, March 10 at 6:22 pm
  16. Frickfrack said,

    Everyone’s a back seat architect! :)

    Sat, March 10 at 6:23 pm
  17. Dennis said,

    I don’t have a problem with the 3400 proposal but I do think this post sounds like PR 101. The author is making it sound like the controversy is over the company moving to the area when the actual controversy is about the proposed additional height – the classic strategy of trying to reframe a discussion.

    Sat, March 10 at 11:48 pm
  18. coolio said,

    sooo we have a renegade PRer… a sweeping generalizer.. and a large business which would cut into the business of 5 small shops within less than a mile..
    wanting to break city zoning laws

    whne is that meeting again?

    Sun, March 11 at 7:53 am
  19. Michael H. said,

    As someone who supports this project, I think this blog post was poorly conceived.

    Sun, March 11 at 8:34 am
  20. Judy said,

    I think the building and Brooks as a tenant are a great addition to Wallingford, where I live. The additional height granted results from the building’s unusual internal recycling–making it a “living building”. Heights of rooftop screened systems are not unlimited. The developers have provided setbacks from the original design and are open to talking to neighbors.

    I have no connection to the project besides being a welcoming neighbor.

    Sun, March 11 at 8:53 am
  21. Fruitbat said,

    How tall is this monster building supposed to be? 12 stories? 20? 40?

    Oh, 5.

    Aren’t there plenty of 4-story buildings on 34th, Pacific and Stone Way? How painfully out of character is an extra story? It’s hardly going to make Stone Way look like Manhattan.

    Agree that this particular post is silly–running shoes will not make Wallingford Utopia–but a five story building will not make it the Inferno.

    Sun, March 11 at 10:07 am
  22. Diane Dane said,

    Post isn’t silly at all – it’s a perspective that I haven’t heard before (from Brooks), and reminds us that sometimes something that seems detrimental (a tall building) can actually end up being very positive – particularly when pared with a wonderful neighbors that add value to the community.

    Sun, March 11 at 10:35 am
  23. coolio said,

    Is it an official Brooks company statement or a posit?

    No one has nmentione dhow they will cut into 5 small local already established businesses.We all saw the demise of Not-a-Numbe rwith incoming of Archie McPhee and Izilla.

    Sun, March 11 at 11:18 am
  24. Diane said,

    an additional twenty feet may not seem like a lot in the abstract, but this is a lot at the edge of lake, and it has a big effect on the light and views of neighbors and those traveling through the neighborhood. When I moved to this neighborhood, 35 years ago, I derived a lot of delight from the many times a day the lake would sparkle into view as I went to work or to do neighborhood chores. That just doesn’t happen so much any more. Each mega-project sees itself as “just a little” blockage, but over time they add up. How long until the folks in the big buildings are the only ones who get those delightful unplanned glimpses of the lake each day?

    Sun, March 11 at 1:01 pm
  25. coolio said,

    Thank you Diane. Remember when approaching and crossing the Fremont was a completely open view of the water.?
    Development ‘sold’ us out.

    Sun, March 11 at 1:07 pm
  26. chuck said,

    Coolio, I fail to see how this is going to negatively impact Recycled Cycles. Always Running is 3 miles away by Green Lake and I’ve never heard of a place called Fat Tire.
    Speedy Reedy is a triathlon-focused store that attracts those specific kinds of athletes from around the region. Not really a competitor.
    What are these 5 small businesses you’re talking about?
    Seems a lot of other businesses stand to gain by having an office building nearby actually.

    Sun, March 11 at 1:24 pm
  27. walkinroun said,

    You are so right, Diane. Witness the dead zones in Fremont along the Canal and the divorce between the Fremont core and the water. It is a little painful to experience the unrelenting and stealthy boosterism for this project using tactics such as accusations of nimbism, unwillingness to “change”, obstructionism, and drawing artificial parallels between small treasures like Cantinetta and neighborhood zone-busting projects like this. In fact, it worries me not a little that the proponents of this project have seemed so dismissive and sometimes hostile toward the neighborhood’s concerns. No one other than the living residents of this neighborhood can save or preserve the special qualities here that enhance our daily lives. If it is not just around the block from you today, it could well be just around the block from you tomorrow.

    Sun, March 11 at 1:32 pm
  28. Miss Ruby said,

    Interesting little trip down memory lane, but those kind of blinders will get us a big 45′ high box from property line to property line instead of a beautiful plaza, restaurants, shops, and a living building – something we can really be proud of in our backyard.

    Sun, March 11 at 1:33 pm
  29. Dennis said,

    Who’s “proud” of office buildings? Seriously, tone it down a bit. It seems like a lot of the folks commenting would prefer the lower-height box than the higher box with the bonus features. I personally could go either way but I live far enough away that it won’t impact me either way.

    Sun, March 11 at 1:51 pm
  30. Miss Ruby said,

    I think we certainly can be “proud” to have one of the first living buildings in our neighborhood – and set an example for other builders/communities.

    Sun, March 11 at 2:14 pm
  31. Dennis said,

    “Proud” still seems like a weird word. It does seem like a lot of the conversation is about Brooks and the developer and not about the owner of the property (Fremont Dock/Suzie Burke) who seems to have found a way to start increasing the height in this area. Remember that Brooks is only a tenant. The building is likely to outlast their tenancy.

    Sun, March 11 at 3:19 pm
  32. coolio said,

    Speedy Reedy is what I meant .- triathalons have running
    The new recycle bike shop
    Fat Tire bikes on 42 and Stone
    the bike shop on 34th 2 blocks east of stone way
    and yes, 3 are bike shops who also sell water bottles, gatorade and other fuel products, shirts and accessories which will be sold at Brooks.
    greenlake already has 3 running shoe stores and is quite close.

    Sun, March 11 at 4:21 pm
  33. Donn said,

    I spoke briefly with the Skanska guy at the open house, and the one rise I got out of him was by lumping this project in with other Suzie development in the area. To his credit, I suppose. But if they manage to build this thing, they’ll take their money and move on. When the tenants eventually leave, they won’t take the building with them. Fremont Dock is calling the tune on this project, it’s her building, and it’s fair to look at what that has meant in the past.

    Sun, March 11 at 7:05 pm
  34. chuck said,

    Oh, you’re talking about Big Tree Bikes, not Fat Tire.

    Listen, Brooks only makes running stuff. The water bottles, clothing, gear you need for biking are different than is needed for running. They are not in competition.

    Greenlake is 3 miles away, there’s plenty of room for someone else selling running gear.
    Furthermore, this is primarily an office building, a corporate headquarters. The shop is a small part of it, only selling ONE brand. Hardly competition for a comprehensive running store like Super Jock n Jill or Title 9 – which by the way are a block from each other and seem to do fine.

    What about all the other businesses that stand to gain? Have you heard from the owners of the PI or Solsticio or Gypsy Cafe or Fremont Brewery or RoRo? Cantinetta re-posted this letter on their Facebook page yesterday and thanked the author for writing it. I’d be interested in what the rest of the businesses think.

    Sun, March 11 at 7:53 pm
  35. Ryan said,

    coolio,lets be perfectly clear about how you support local businesses — you give them access to more customers. In fact its probably worth talking to the owners of the businesses on Stone, all of them that I have spoken to are really looking forward to the possibility of a greatly expanded customer base. And I’m sure restaraunts like Ro-Ro and Cantinetta are just crushed at the thought of having 300+ additional customers to eat their ridiculously delicious food. Especially Cantinetta’s Nutella filled donuts.

    And even if they do compete, since when is competition a bad thing? Competition is how consumers get better products, better service, and lower prices.

    I am also finding it harder to understand the perspective of the “too big” group given the size of the developments currently under construction up the street. No one has said boo about any of them — and not one of them is even paying lip service to any level of LEED, much less the living building project.

    Sun, March 11 at 8:25 pm
  36. Michael H. said,

    That’s because the people leading the charge against 3400 Stone Way live south of those other buildings, so it’s not between them and Lake Union.

    Sun, March 11 at 9:39 pm
  37. Donn said,

    Access to more customers is good if you’re short on customers. A business that rents its space finds a balance between revenue and rent, and rents could go up a lot, maybe enough to force some of them out. “Let’s be clear”, but not overly simplistic, OK?

    The developments up the street manage to conform to building codes, thus mostly avoiding controversy. That might be something to try at 3400.

    Sun, March 11 at 9:47 pm
  38. Dave said,

    Hang on…”Especially Cantinetta’s Nutella filled donuts.” How am I just now hearing about this? Can it be true? Or am I dreaming?

    Sun, March 11 at 10:50 pm
  39. KTC said,

    Neighbors have not complained about the buildings further up Stone Way because they remain within current zoning. If Skanska/Brooks will agree to build their building within current zoning like any other developer then there would be no opposition. As proposed, the Skanska/Brooks building would rise 20 feet above current zoning (plus 15 feet of rooftop features) just feet from the designated Lake Union Shoreline which is zoned for 35 feet.

    To get an idea of the magnitude of this building, take a look at the telephone pole at 35th and Stone Way. That’s 45 feet high. The Skanska/Brooks building would loom 20 feet above that telephone pole. Also the new building at 40th and Stone Way is 45 feet. Again the Skanska building would be 20 feet higher than that building plus another 15 feet.

    That’s the problem. The Skanska/Brooks building completely violates years of neighborhood planning. Plus it directly violates the policies in the City of Seattle’s own Comprehensive Plan, including those limiting building height: see below for some selected excerpts.

    Height limits in the Shoreline Zone are specifically limited to 35′ to preserve views, and building heights in IC zones adjacent to the Shoreline Zone were accordingly kept to 45′ to similarly respect and preserve views; this is a pattern that can be found around Lake Union. The city established lower heights, closer to Lake Union, to respect and follow the bowl of Seattle’s natural topography. Interrruption of this pattern can significantly impact the character of this neighborhood.

    The size of the building is simply not appropriate for the location they chose. Every single foot above 45 feet belongs to the public not to a corporation. Clearly Brooks is after the very views that city planners and neighbors have worked so hard to protect for the benefit of the city and of the public.

    Here are the above-referenced excerpts from City of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan:

    LU81 Limit building heights to establish predictable maximum heights, maintain scale relationships with adjacent buildings, and limit view blockage.

    LU119 Manage the bulk of structures in commercial areas to maintain compatibility with the scale and character of commercial areas and their surroundings, to limit the impact on views, and to provide light, air, and open space amenities for occupants.

    LU152 Allow certain additional view corridor standards to be applied outside of the shoreline district to preserve views of the water obtained through view corridors required in the shoreline district. Apply these standards to developments located on a waterfront lot (between the water and the nearest public road) adjacent to, but outside, the shoreline district.

    Mon, March 12 at 12:07 am
  40. Winn said,

    Wow, the updated design on their website is fantastic.
    20 feet is looming? Seriously folks, the worst thing that can happen to this site is a 45 foot public storage building built like a concrete block (say just 2 blocks up the street) at the corner. What precedent would that set? wait, that’s what we already have.

    I’m eager to see how that setback from the street is planned and being used as my community precedent.

    Mon, March 12 at 9:22 am
  41. walkinroun said,

    Thank you, KTC, for so clearly stating the reason that this project has met with opposition in our neighborhood.

    Mon, March 12 at 10:49 am
  42. Abdul Alhazred said,

    Corporations are getting something that is not available to the rest of us citizens. They get help from the city in exceeding limits, at the same time not meeting the intent of the pilot program goals that make their proposal possible. We don’t want 60% of Living Building (e.g., Lvg Bldng).

    And I’m not encouraged by the fact Skanska was not forthcoming and didn’t advertise their February open house in advance. Publicize openly, widely, and in a timely manner.

    I’m the gullible one here. I willing to believe the best of the developer and their prime tenant, but I want written ‘walk-the-talk’ commitment there’s substantial public benefit coming, before granting preferential treatment and departures otherwise not available.

    So far assurance is as insubstantial as the architect’s transparent building rendering.

    To be pragmatic, do you really think Brooks is putting all their eggs in one basket? If the developer’s ambitious schedule is substantially delayed, for instance by the need for a Council contract rezone, Brooks will have an alternative lined up that does meet THEIR schedule.

    Oh, and good luck working with Parks to make changes to the Burke-Gilman Trail head to divert traffic to the proposed building. They are not as easy to sway as DPD.

    Mon, March 12 at 11:10 am
  43. Miss Ruby said,

    You’ve got an outdated script, Abdul. New building drawings are at the website (, and I knew about the Open House a good month before. Saw it in email, on FCC and other fb pages, etc. Skanska was also on the agenda for the WCC meeting last week, though I couldn’t make that.

    I don’t understand your comments re the Living Building. The building is signed up for and WILL meet the criteria of the Seattle Living Building Pilot Program (min of 60% of national Living Building Challenge program). Skanska has stated their intention to beat the 60% min criteria and honestly, even if they don’t make it, that’s better than the highest LEED standard.

    Mon, March 12 at 11:41 am
  44. Thomas said,

    From an outside perspective, I have to say that it seems reasonable that neighbors want the city to respect their own plan that was put in place for a reason.

    And looming seems to be a fair description in this context. If my math is correct, adding 20 feet is a 44% jump which is rather significant when only one building in the vicinity would be this height. It would surely stick out.

    Mon, March 12 at 11:47 am
  45. Katherine said,

    Skanska has been very forthcoming with their plan to only meet 70% of the criteria of the Seattle Living Building Pilot program. Even a city official said in writing that they were trying to impress upon Skanska that the goal for participants should be to meet all the criteria not just the bare minimum to avoid fines.

    Mon, March 12 at 11:53 am
  46. coolio said,

    well, instead of building another building how about using the building recently( 6-8 mo) left vacant by some bio-tech company across from essential Bakery. It’s a large, tall building with a view of water, on the lake and access to runners and the Burke Gilman and closer to Gasworks to be involved in the community. It’s already built!

    Mon, March 12 at 12:03 pm
  47. Miss Ruby said,

    70% of the Living Building Challenge IS the Seattle Living Building Pilot Program – and what Skanska has said they will do, maybe better.

    Pretty hard to retrofit an existing building to that criteria, Coolio.

    Mon, March 12 at 12:22 pm
  48. Abdul Alhazred said,

    Hey Ruby, you’re right! I just checked and the same transparent building was there. Guess that makes me and their website outdated. Thanks, I’ll get my info from the city website showing the updated drawings as submitted by the appplicant.

    I recognize Lvg Bldng is 60% and I’m gently suggesting that for a pilot project, shooting for the minimum goal is not the direction to head in. I worked on a LEED for Home Gold pilot project and we did the best possible job for our client.

    Love the discussion and involvement. You mentioned you missed the Wallingford Community Council meeting on March 7, 2012. To that end here’s an update all may find interesting:

    (Excerpted from Wallingford Neighborhood Association 3/8/12 Enews)

    Skanska presented an update on their “Stone 34″ Living Building project. Skanska has applied for Design Review related to development of this site. There was a long discussion about it. Brooks Shoes will be the anchor tenant. 75% of the retail space has tentative tenants.

    The public may offer comments regarding the proposed design; and the Design Review Board members will offer to the Director of the Department of Planning and Development their recommendations regarding the design.


    Date: Monday, March 19,2012

    Time: 6:30p.m. and 08:00 p.m.

    Location: University Heights Center
    5031 University Way NE Room 209

    At the Design Review Board meeting the applicant will present information about the design and how it responds to the Design Review Guideline priorities established at the Early Design Guidance Board meeting on September 19th and November 21, 2011, regarding this site.

    Perhaps someone else will post the city’s URL for the updated DR drawings.

    Mon, March 12 at 12:50 pm
  49. Miss Ruby said,

    It’s on the front page of the website:

    Mon, March 12 at 1:15 pm
  50. Katherine said,

    Again, Skanska will only meet 70% of the Seattle Living Building Pilot Program.

    Mon, March 12 at 2:39 pm
  51. Neighbor2You said,

    Hi, and thanks for the informative posts on this subject. And a question I hope someone can answer: I was under the impression that participating in the Living Building Pilot Program meant meeting a minimum of 60% of the “Living Building Challenge” prerequisites.

    Does the 70% being cited for Skanska relate to that standard or to something else?


    Mon, March 12 at 3:34 pm
  52. Miss Ruby said,

    oops, you’re right Neighbor – 60%.

    Mon, March 12 at 3:52 pm
  53. Katherine said,

    To avoid fines, participants need to reach 60% of the criteria of Seattle Living Building Pilot Program. Skanska is aiming to meet 70%. Again, a city official within DPD wrote in an email that they were trying to impress upon Skanska that their goal should be to meet all of the criteria not just reach the bare minimum to avoid fines.

    For more information about the criteria, go to:

    Mon, March 12 at 4:32 pm
  54. Miss Ruby said,

    I’m sure that the City, and all of us, would LOVE it if Skanska could hit 100%, but that’s different than implying that they won’t qualify if they hit the minimum required. The pilot project minimum is still very ambitious!

    Mon, March 12 at 5:01 pm
  55. coolio said,

    so can they do a living building in a shorter building?
    Like, oh, say, within cutrrent and long developed standards? Without getting a variance?
    it could be so simple.

    Mon, March 12 at 5:10 pm
  56. KTC said,

    That’s right, they could do their 70% of a living building within current zoning but it wouldn’t “pencil out” — they wouldn’t make enough profit to make it worth it to them. But, yes, wouldn’t it be nice if they stayed within the city’s long-developed standards OR relocate to a place that is more appropriate, onethat is already zoned for 65 feet.

    Mon, March 12 at 6:18 pm
  57. coolio said,

    oh my godsakes KTC
    things are possible

    Mon, March 12 at 6:36 pm
  58. JDM said,

    Wow, so a new beautiful building bringing a corporate HQ to our neighborhood is a travesty. What about some of the dumps here already. There is a house on Meridian that has a blue tarp on the roof and it’s been there almost two years!

    I am excited this is coming, some of Wallingford is charming, still a big chunk of it is a disaster. Projects like these help bring more customers in, more potential residential property buyers, etc. Everyone will benefit, just not the folks who start arguments with, “Remember when…”

    Wallingford is the next Magnolia or Madison Park, get over it, if you don’t like it, feel free to move, but you can’t stop it and there are plenty of people here who are happy it’s going that direction.

    Mon, March 12 at 8:13 pm
  59. coolio said,

    a corporate HQ has intelligence to design a building within city restrictions.. its not just being agains tit.. its aobut the ‘better than’ attitude about getting restrictions overlooked

    Mon, March 12 at 8:46 pm
  60. Abdul Alhazred said,

    Applicants must provide a .pdf file of their design proposals to DPD ten calendar days in advance of a board meeting.

    Download Design Proposal (49 pages)

    Northeast Design Review Board
    Project: 3400 Stone Way N map
    Report not yet available
    Design Proposal available (12.3 MB)
    Review Meeting: March 19, 2012
    Review Phase: Recommendation
    Project Number: 3012601 permit status
    Planner: Lisa Rutzick

    Note this is not the applican’ts website

    Tue, March 13 at 12:27 pm
  61. brady said,

    can’t wait to have Brooks in the neighborhood!

    Wed, March 14 at 11:30 am
Read previous post:
Anyone up for buying a liquor store?

Reader Doug pointed us to the Washington State Liquor Control Board's online auction of its stores, which kicked-off on Thursday...