Development on the downtown isthmus holds great potential

THE OLYMPIAN | • Published July 23, 2008

Comments (0)

Just when I think I’ve heard enough about development on the isthmus, I hear more.

“Don’t wall off our waterfront” and “Save our waterfront views” read the yard signs, yet I can’t see how development on the isthmus would block one of these homeowners’ views.

As I continue to read the paper, I wonder if there is more to this subject that I just don’t understand.

Each week I see the Capitol Center Building from the Olympia Senior Center boutique windows. I always remember when my mom worked there for the Department of Social and Health Services and the occasional bomb threats they would receive.

When I look at the lonely building now, I wonder if a bomb blast would have hurt the looks much.

The city of Olympia held hearings and received comments on building heights on the isthmus. The resulting decision to allow buildings taller than five stories was Olympia’s to make.

I appreciate the views from the Capitol Campus or the marina, but it has been marred for over 40 years. Where were the legislatures before the nine-story privately-owned building occupied by state offices was constructed?

We’re told, “Six former governors see the vista of statewide significance.” So where was this admiration for the view so long ago when those governors were in office?

It amazes me there is such negative focus on Triway Enterprises and the buildings he proposes. Whenever I see the significant vista, my eyes get stuck on a 130-foot building and nearby cranes. Maybe it’s similar to the opposition of a big-box store like Wal-Mart in Tumwater while Costco is embraced.

Wal-Mart and Costco are both large warehouse stores with yards of concrete poured over permeable ground. What’s the difference?

It is nice that the owners of Viewpoint Tower (Capitol Center Building) are willing to sell their property for a park. I’m glad to see the decision to buy new park space will go to the Olympia voters.

Olympia is such an environmentally conscious city. So I don’t understand how the citizens can justify tearing down a potentially useful building in exchange for a small footprint of green grass.

Where is the sustainability in that?

The redevelopment of Viewpoint Tower appeared to make the best of the current situation.

In today’s environment, it seems like urban sprawl — not density — is the enemy. This development of the Viewpoint Tower and Triway Enterprises would create a sustainable neighborhood.

There is a real grocery store within walking distance and catching the bus for work or shopping would be simple. Parks, restaurants, and outdoor activities are close by for instant community.

“Quality design with density is an essential element of community formation and urbanity. New, infill, and renovated residences can reach a high level of energy conservation ... ” (Washington State University, School of Architecture).

The most popular definition of sustainability can be traced to a 1987 United Nations conference. It defines sustainable developments as those that “meet present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” (WECD, 1987).

I think development on the isthmus holds great potential to meet the present needs by creating a sustainable community without compromising the needs of future generations.

Sustainability is about needs not wants. Maybe a pristine view is more of a want than a need.

Jamie Kenny, a member of The Olympian’s Board of Contributors, lives in Tenino with her husband and two teenage children. She can be reached at kpraise2him@scattercreek.com.