The controversial plan to replace the current Fred Meyer on 85th Street with a much larger store, including groceries, along with other retail and hundreds of residential units, was presented to the Greenwood-Phinney Chamber of Commerce monthly breakfast meeting this morning.
Chamber meetings usually attract 20-30 people; today’s meeting had about 50. About 10 of those were associated with the Fred Meyer project, including architects, developers and public relations folks. The meeting was mostly civil, at times contentious, and at the very end devolved into a bit of incivility between two parties, before Chamber President Steve Giliberto cut them off and reminded everyone that the project was going to happen no matter what, and it was in everyone’s best interest to respectfully guide the outcome.
When we first reported on the project back in April, the initial proposal was for a big-box super center that would take over most of the space between 85th and 87th streets, and 1st and 3rd avenues, including the spot currently occupied by Greenwood Market.
While that is essentially still the case, architects at the firm GGLO have substantially redesigned the project to have much more of an urban village feel. The majority of Fred Meyer itself would be underground, with space for other retail tenants and 200-300 residential units above ground. The picture below is the view from 85th Street looking north.
Project planners stressed that these drawings are very preliminary and simply represent general ideas. They are so preliminary, in fact, that they are not yet providing the public or media with digital files or paper copies of the drawings. (I took these pictures of the drawings with my cell phone camera.)
Greenwood Shopping Center Inc., which owns a substantial portion of the land of downtown Greenwood, proposes giving Fred Meyer a 50-year lease for the site.
Depending on the final design, the Fred Meyer would be about 160,000-170,000 square feet (Fred Meyer says their Ballard store is approximately 200,000 square feet). Another 20,000 square feet would be retail for other tenants.
Fred Meyer hopes to start construction in late 2011 or early 2012; construction would take 18-24 months.
Geology plays an interesting role in the project, because of the Greenwood Bog and a grade change of 15 feet from 85th to 87th streets. Many nearby residents say development of the Safeway at 87th and Greenwood caused a permanent change to the hydration of the bog and ground, which made their houses, sidewalks and traffic circles sink several feet.
The plans call for excavating somewhat at the 87th Street end, where a three-story parking garage would be situated, with the project leveling out to street level by 85th Street.
If they can get a variance from the 40-foot height limit from the city, they’ll put residential units on top of that parking garage. (Current drawings show about 270 residential units.) Retail space for other tenants would buffer the view of parking from the 85th Street side. Cars would enter from three places: 85th St, 87th St., and 1st Ave.
A pedestrian plaza would be at the intersection of 1st Avenue and Morrow Lane, the new driving/pedestrian-friendly European-inspired road that winds through The Sedges at Piper Village, an apartment complex on the other side of 1st Avenue (and is also owned by Greenwood Shopping Center Inc.)
1st Avenue remains, but the architects hope to add traffic calming features, possibly different colored pavers, that would slow down traffic. Bike racks would be sprinkled throughout the site. There would be numerous sets of stairs for access to the site.
“This is a very exciting and innovative project,” GGLO Principal Chris Libby said. “It’s nothing like anything Fred Meyer has done before. We tried, through the design, to keep it as walkable and pedestrian friendly as we can.”
Parking also would be available on “the lid” by the Garden Center, as a loading area. But Ted Panton, project manager for GGLO, says that is a “programmable site,” where they can kick out the cars and use that area for a farmers market or other non-car use at various times. The picture below shows the Garden Center near the middle, with parking areas directly south and southwest.
The residential units fronting 3rd Avenue could be designed in the traditional East Coast style of front stoops set back a little from the sidewalk. The units fronting 87th would be walk-up flats.
Some people today seemed relieved that the current plans are much better than what had been previously presented. Others, however, were disgusted.
“Where do I start?” said Kate Martin, immediate past president of the Greenwood Community Council and a neighborhood activist who has worked on this project for the last seven years. Martin said it’s a better design than before, but it’s not even close to the “wonderful, walkable downtown Greenwood that really sets us free from car reliance.”
Tom Gibbons, director of real estate development for Fred Meyer, stressed that Fred Meyer is not a regional draw, but attracts customers who live within a one to three-mile radius of the store. Gibbons said while Fred Meyer would normally like to see more than the 800 parking stalls proposed in this plan, they realize the neighborhood wouldn’t support that.
Several people in the audience thought the proposed 800 parking stalls for the store and residential units were far too many, especially since the city wants to encourage transit use. They’d like to see less parking but better bus service. A better bus stop for the #48, which runs along 85th St., is incorporated into the design.
“This is such a wonderful plan compared to what was presented by Fred Meyer before,” Ed Medeiros, executive director of the Phinney Neighborhood Association, said, although he’s still worried about traffic on 85th Street and would like to see less parking on the lid by the Garden Center and more of a plaza area up there.
Neighborhood resident and business owner Abby Brockway said she was sad that Greenwood Market would have to go, because it’s very community-oriented in having neighborhood barbecues and getting involved. She said she had no idea if Fred Meyer gave money to the community or not, and said they need to do a better job putting a community face forward.
“Change is inevitable and it’s really unfortunate that Greenwood Market has to go,” Gibbons said. “Everybody’s watching this. It’s gotta work.”
Evan Bourquard, an architect and volunteer member of the Greater Greenwood Design and Development Advocacy Group, told me after the meeting that his group will write a memo in response to today’s presentation. As soon as we get it, we’ll post it here on PhinneyWood.
And nearby resident Austin King wrote his own blog post about today’s meeting, which really boils down a number of issues that people are concerned about.
Here’s a brief summary of positive points provided by Fred Meyer and its p.r. staff:
- The new Fred Meyer will employ about 300 people, almost triple the current number.
- Sixty-percent of current Greenwood Fred Meyer employees live within two miles of the store.
- Fred Meyer will offer priority consideration to Greenwood Market employees when the market closes.
- Wages range from 10 cents above minimum wage to $14.60 per hour, with some specialty positions such as meat cutters as high as $21.90 an hour.
- The $77 million project will employ more than 200 construction workers for more than 400,000 hours of labor.
- All Seattle-area Fred Meyer employees are members of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 21 or the Teamsters Local 117.
- Sales tax revenue of the new store is projected to be more than $4 million in its first year.
74 responses so far ↓
1 daniel // Jun 5, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I will greatly miss Greenwood Market and will get most of my groceries at Ballard Market when this happens.
2 Trix // Jun 5, 2009 at 4:29 pm
It’s sad they aren’t allowing the neighbors a voice in this. I know most would rather shop at the Greenwood Market than Fred Meyer any day. The one in Ballard that sells groceries is a mess. You need a map and a pith helmet to find what you went in there for and the produce is a joke.
Yep, I do my shopping at the Ballard Market instead.
3 jorge // Jun 5, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Looks like the QFC just north of 85th on 15th is going away. If Greenwood Market goes away from 3rd and 85th, it would be absolutely wonderful if Town and Country could move them into the former QFC. I love the people at Greenwood Market and T&C’s dedication to community support. Their markets Ballard Market and Central Market are great examples of a locally owned small chain operation and provide great product, service and very nice shopping experience.
4 Aka // Jun 5, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Will be soooo sorry to see Greenwood Market go. Can say for sure that I will not shop at the new grocery store if it’s anything like their other ones.
Will drive to Shoreline Central.
5 Mike // Jun 5, 2009 at 6:28 pm
“…the project was going to happen no matter what, and it was in everyone’s best interest to respectfully guide the outcome.”
If this monstrosity goes through, I’ve spent my last dime at Fred Meyer. There’s absolutely no need for a Ballard-sized big-box store here. We already have an excellent community-oriented market. The last time this was proposed (albeit a different design) the community made it clear that we would support the Greenwood Market and strongly oppose the Fred Meyer expansion plan.
Looks like we’ll have to either drive to Shoreline’s Central Market or the Ballard Market, but we plan on giving not one single cent to Freddies.
6 jm // Jun 5, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Thank you for covering this story.
7 Vocal // Jun 5, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Fred Meyer’s groceries are substandard. I will NOT shop there for groceries.
8 RR // Jun 5, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I hate the Ballard Fred Meyer. I waited in line so long on my last visit, my ice cream melted. Never again.
Greenwood market gets 80% of my grocery $ now; if they leave, instead of walking to the store, I’ll have to drive, because I won’t shop at a Fred Meyer grocery.
Plus, it’ll sink.
9 MM // Jun 5, 2009 at 9:16 pm
What is it going to do to the value of homes in a 2-3 block radius? Raise them or lower them?
10 Bill // Jun 5, 2009 at 9:30 pm
I will be very sad to see Greenwood Market go. They have such a great selection of organic vegetables and fruits.
I hope the residential development intended to replace it provides as much value to the community. The cynical side of me would guess “Fred Meyer + groceries” is just eliminating their competition.
11 Tiktok // Jun 5, 2009 at 9:52 pm
I do my shopping at the Greenwood Market because it’s a great store and in walking distance. But, if it goes away and Fred Meyer expands, I’ll shop there. There’s no way I’m driving to the Ballard Market.
12 Carolyn // Jun 5, 2009 at 10:21 pm
I just have to echo everyone’s sentiments about G.M. It is a great neighborhood store, the staff is friendly and helpful and the produce is outstanding, especially the organics. I am sure my grocery shopping will move to Ballard as well because no matter how hard Freddie’s tries they will never match the experience you get at Town and Country. Isn’t there some way to appeal this or is it way past that point?
13 Big Fan // Jun 5, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Sick made.
14 Austin King // Jun 6, 2009 at 12:16 am
Great article. Thanks for taking pictures.
There is a lot of energy around for saving the Greenwood Market. I shop there almost every day. If we could figure out what makes Gary tick and figure out a way to keep Greenwood Market in the plans…
@Tiktok
I see myself going to the PCC on Aurora if we lose it.
Rumor Mill:
I heard today that the QFC on holeman may not renew it’s lease. Hmm a big grocer that spent a bunch of money on a remodel (to capture customers while this construction project was going) is now finding it didn’t pay off…
15 Whopper // Jun 6, 2009 at 6:23 am
The whole are is a dump, nice to see it’s going to get spruced up. Greenwood can’t get cleaned up fast enough.
16 RR // Jun 6, 2009 at 6:37 am
A new development on the FM/GM site would be great–if it included a remodeled Greenwood Market, housing, street level easy access retail … it’s the huge box of one retailer that’s repugnant in our walkable neighborhood.
Big boxes have their place–I love Costco. But not in a neighborhood.
17 josephina // Jun 6, 2009 at 6:43 am
I love Greenwood Market and will be sad to see it go but, aesthetically, the area would be much improved by this project if they keep the design similar to what is shown. If it brings in more businesses and people it will improve that whole area. Seriously, take a look at how it looks now. Getting rid of the gigantic parking lot will be a huge improvement. The area is terrible and you all know petty crime is rampant near there.
Speaking of parking, it is unrealistic to think of a Fred Meyer store being free of car reliance. Is a mom with two kids going to hop on the bus with all of her groceries? No. The one other thing they do need to work on with the city is the traffic flow at 8oth and 85th and Greenwood. It is too slow and many people avoid those intersections by using residential streets.
As Mr. Giliberto said, it will be better to keep an open and respectful line of communication with the project team to guide the outcome rather than oppose it outright.
Also, the community can have an influence on the quality of products carried in the store and in the store’s community involvement. Let them know we want better produce and a larger organic section. If they hire G.M. employees, that will help, as they do have excellent produce and a great selection of organic and traditional dry goods. Work with them to develop community activities and events; don’t just complain because they don’t do enough.
For another shopping choice, Ken’s Market in Phinney is in the middle of expanding into a much larger store.
18 MM // Jun 6, 2009 at 7:08 am
What worries me just as much is 200-300 apartments popping up on the site. That change in population density is going to significantly impact the area. If the housing climate remains dismal for the next 5-10 years (which it most likely will), then we’re looking at high vacancy rates OR lower rent, attracting temporary residents without ownership or investment in the neighborhood.
19 Stupid Hippie // Jun 6, 2009 at 7:13 am
“The area is terrible and you all know petty crime is rampant near there.”
That’s a terrible thing to say, that’s what keeps the neighborhood affordable!
20 josephina // Jun 6, 2009 at 7:16 am
Oh Stupid Hippie, I love your sense of humor! I don’t think people appreciate you on this site.
21 Tiktok // Jun 6, 2009 at 7:23 am
No way I’m driving to PCC on Aurora either. The grocery store in walking distance is getting my business.
The solution to non car-reliant grocery stores is building more small ones spread through the neighborhood, not more megastores like Fred Meyer is proposing. However, the design of the already existing neighborhoods and the general Seattle resistance to car-light existence works against this.
22 josephina // Jun 6, 2009 at 7:33 am
Tiktok- I completely agree with the need for more smaller stores, but I think there is room for those and a big store. Ken’s is the first place I walk to when I need a few things, but there is no way I can do all of my shopping there, it would be way too expensive. Would it not also be beneficial to have a larger store nearby where one could do the majority of their shopping rather than driving x number of miles to another big store?
23 Whopper // Jun 6, 2009 at 7:53 am
“The solution to non car-reliant grocery stores is building more small ones spread through the neighborhood”
You mean expensive places. I’ll support anything that helps gentrify Greenwood.
24 Former Greenwoodian // Jun 6, 2009 at 7:53 am
Did they mention how they planned to avoid/minimize the issue of the surrounding land sinking like it did during the construction of the Safeway?
25 Pat // Jun 6, 2009 at 7:55 am
Can we get a report on what Town and Country’s plans for Greenwood Market may be? Relocation?
I do almost all my shopping there…prefer it to Ballard Market by far. More ‘real folks’, less yuppie. What about their employees?
26 Whopper // Jun 6, 2009 at 8:06 am
I’d love a PCC or Whole Foods.
27 Stupid Hippie // Jun 6, 2009 at 8:08 am
“More ‘real folks’, less yuppie.”
Yes, real folk. I hear yuppies are made from plastic. I hate them because I hate anyone with more money than me. I’m such a tolerant person.
28 dw // Jun 6, 2009 at 8:22 am
I heard today that the QFC on holeman may not renew it’s lease.
No, the one in Crown Hill (85th and 15th) isn’t renewing its lease. The Holman QFC (aka the old Art’s) is staying, c.f. http://www.myballard.com/2009/05/28/crown-hill-qfc-to-close-when-lease-is-up/
29 John C // Jun 6, 2009 at 8:24 am
I think Greenwood Market is over rated. The service is friendly, but I’ve always found the service at Fred Meyer in Ballard to be friendly too. And, the organic produce at Freddies is less expensive.
As with all change/development - there are positives and minuses to this one. Overall, I think more housing in the heart of Greenwood is good because we need more eyes on the street. Crime around here is way to high when people are getting their heads bashed in on the main drag. Also, the current site is an eyesore. There is no street presence - it’s a wasteland.
I agree with the head of the chamber. If it’s going to happen, then let’s help it happen so it’s a benefit to the community. I’m most worried about the water table. I hope they can design the runoff catchment system so it recharges groundwater and better than what happens today.
Let’s work toward positive change and not get “bogged” down in negative sniping.
30 dw // Jun 6, 2009 at 8:34 am
And honestly, bus transit north of 85th, from which Fred Meyer pulls half its customers, is pretty lousy. In order to have a customer base they’d need a lot of parking and customers living on top of the store, which is exactly what they’re doing.
As for neighborhood groceries, they’re nice and all, but again, north of 85th there’s not a lot of retail space to do that. And grocery stores just aren’t high margin businesses; you either need to go big or go niche to turn a profit.
Whole Foods won’t move into the neighborhood, even into the Crown Hill QFC, because they tend to be regional stores vs. neighborhood stores. With the one opening (eventually) in Interlake they’ll cover Ballard and the 15th corridor, and Greenwood is already closer to the Roosevelt one anyway. They had an opportunity to buy the Oaktree Larry’s and declined — too much competition with Roosevelt.
I’m more surprised that Freddies isn’t just walking away from the Greenwood store. Seems like between the Ballard FM and the Northgate Target their business has really fallen off.
31 Whopper // Jun 6, 2009 at 9:05 am
What’s with the yuppie bashing Pat? What are you, 17? And can u define ‘yuppie’ for us or is it a general epitaph you use for people you feel threatened by?
32 Kate Martin // Jun 6, 2009 at 9:24 am
Complete bombardment to the homesteading family landowner corporation about their poor decision to kill Greenwood Market could be very effective. It’s not just Gary Brunt who needs to hear it. Actually he will do nothing. It’s getting the message to the rest of the board of directors and trustees. At first through direct contact and then through the media? They, through Gary, declined an opportunity to see & hear a presentation / illustration of the ROI potential of a village over a box. It makes no sense because if their fiduciary duty to shareholders is to maximize return, they’re not doing their jobs turning 8 acres over to Fred Meyer. There is not a single case where that kind of decision has outperformed development of a walkable / bikeable compact mixed use village town center…especially ones with locally owned independent successful businesses in them. Most shareholders of that land do not have a vote or voice. It’s a small group of folks running the show with an extremely self-serving environmentally disastrous plan to pad their wallets in the short term. Real towns and villages built in response to a comprehensive sustainable vision return more money to investors and landowners than big box development everytime. Trying to fake it by throwing stuff including scads of surface parking up on a lid that is 20′ above grade at Morrow & 1st NW (and calling it Harbor Steps-like) won’t get it done. Stairways from hell to get up there from most directions crown the disastrous proposal.
A big box submerged in the bog sucking the watershed dry and enough square footage of retail and parking to kill anything in a 1 mile radius if not more. Ghost boxes they call them- the boxes left behind by the cannibalizing corporate empires.
The city completely chickened out to help rezone the site to neighborhood commercial NC2 which is the right zoning to get the village. Existing FM footprint could be a non-conforming existing size. Greenwood Market could grow as they wanted to with http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@publication/documents/web_informational/dpds_007440.pdf They left C1 zoning which makes you lick crumbs of walkable / bikeable / sustainable off the floor of an auto oriented big box. They left it in neighborhood planning and they continued to leave it over the last 10 years as FM continued to show crap designs that scared the heck out of everybody. Now with the “lid” - detached roof top accessories - we’re in no better shape.
I submitted a letter several weeks ago that got ZERO response asking for an opportunity to submit a rezone application. There was / is some value to starting a rezone process before they submit for a Master Use Permit. Seems that City Hall is not walking the talk.
Allowing the big boxes to rule gets dollars into the coffers in the near term as the city sees that it has a growth addiction because their revenues have been curtailed by Eyman initiatives. Only way to get revenue to run the city is levies and redevelopment so that’s what they push.
Not being the supercenter one stop big box makes FM them have to think about actual merchandising of goods in a smaller space and in competition with others instead of relying on their method of sucking them into a 3 football fields sized one-stop box with a massive low quality grocery store and one door (actually 2, but the same basic location) to make sure you keep customers in the box and captive and so tired when they’re done walking 600′ to this and 600′ to that so they just get back in their cars and drive home. That also packs it with an energy to kill anything in any of its categories in the radius.
Speaking of distance of the radii of the customers coming to the store, they like to say they serve 2 - 3 miles. Well take a map and draw a 3 mile radius around the Ballard FM and the Greenwood FM and you’ll see that those two stores will have built in cannibalizing tendencies. In the WalMart model FM has moved to, it’s normal to leave behind hundreds of ghost boxes (their own brand and others) on the quest and that’s just part of it. Sort of a large scale of what the same company, Kroger, did to the Crown Hill store by taking over Arts..the QFC at Arts will in turn take a pretty big hit from the FM groceries as it’s only 1 mile north.
Does contacting the decision makers seem like a good idea?
I don’t think any amount of paid for public relations can snuff out the voice of reason.
33 Whopper // Jun 6, 2009 at 9:40 am
Gotta agree. FM is cheap. That means lower class people. We need mixed use, high priced boutiques anchored by a PCC. That will keep the poor away!
34 MM // Jun 6, 2009 at 9:58 am
Kate, you have some great ideas! Who are the stakeholders in the corporation? Who is in charge of zoning for they city? How to put your ideas into action?
35 JB // Jun 6, 2009 at 10:05 am
Um…I talked to the Greenwood Market and they have a lease through 2011 and don’t intend to move. Where did you folks come up with the idea that the Greenwood Market “has to go?”
36 etta // Jun 6, 2009 at 10:18 am
JB, according to the above report, “Fred Meyer hopes to start construction in late 2011 or early 2012; construction would take 18-24 months.” This project wouldn’t start until after GM’s lease expires.
37 MM // Jun 6, 2009 at 10:42 am
The article specifically mentions GM’s lease expiring in 2011, and construction beginning after that time.
38 Tiktok // Jun 6, 2009 at 11:34 am
“You mean expensive places. I’ll support anything that helps gentrify Greenwood.”
Shopping at Fred Meyer is expensive…when you factor in the necessity of car-ownership to make it workable for most folks. But as long as most people have cars, they’ll continue to use them for immediate convenience while paying that convenience surcharge–gas, insurance, upkeep, car note, etc.
I also doubt that they’ll be able to build there without the sinkage problems that have been endemic in the bog north of 85th. But, they probably will. I just hope we don’t end up with a hole in the ground like that site over on Stoneway.
39 Tiktok // Jun 6, 2009 at 11:43 am
“Tiktok- I completely agree with the need for more smaller stores, but I think there is room for those and a big store.”
While I wish it were otherwise, I don’t believe history supports that theory. I can’t imagine that Greenwood Market would still be in business if the current Fred Meyer was a full grocery store. Big boxes kill the competition, by design.
40 motorrad // Jun 6, 2009 at 11:59 am
Whopper is on to something. You also need to make sure that the project has condos and NOT apartments to keep out the dreadful low life renters that MM mentioned. God forbid renters.
41 Kate Martin // Jun 6, 2009 at 4:05 pm
If this was NC2 zoning, we would not be worrying about big boxes. The store size is limited to 50,000 sf for general merchandise, 25,000 other uses. Completely reasonable sized stores in a residential urban village. Many business cannot deal with that much space. Greenwood Market is about 20,000 square feet now. Bartell’s is about 12,000 sf. Taproot Theatre is 7,500 sf and so is Top Ten. Romio’s is about 3,500 sf. Contract Rezones can be sought to exceed those restrictions or they can offer up incentives to the community to get something else, but in general, the scale would be manageable and we’d be much more in the drivers seat. All planning to-date indicates that this should be NC2 zoning. The city of Seattle should have responded to the letter I sent to initiate the process.
The natural evolution of the site would be to develop a long range site plan for the 8 acres with vision (the land use council has been working very hard on a “case study” example of this. Start redevelopment on the eastern and southern edge and leave the existing stores. Improve the 85th St streetscape and build new 3 - 5 story buildings (excellent solar exposure and mountain views) out on 85th St between 3rd and 1st and incentivize the same to happen across the street on the south side of 85th. At that point remove a bunch of surface parking and do some retail neutral shared structured parking to replace it but at a lower rate. Do the same in a later phase and tighten it up a bit more. Have a walkable street grid and service alleys that couple as pedestrian places as well. Meanwhile density builds with and around the convenience (more foot traffic / customers / neighbors), a meaningful heirarchy of people centered open spaces develop that got identified at the get go in the town center site plan, transit ramps up, bikes and pedestrians are given more rights, and it all comes together. Cars of course are part of it all, but they don’t rule like now, don’t get new capacity, and don’t get to speed. Modal shift move the trips to foot, transit, & bikes. Many don’t use them to do much of their shopping, but certainly can when they want / need to. I’m not making this up. This is very likely how it would progress if zoned NC2 and if the shopping center landowner developed it thoughtfully instead of turning it over to Fred Meyer who has NEVER done mixed use.
42 Bella // Jun 6, 2009 at 4:20 pm
If Fred Meyer’s current plans are blocked, and no compromise is reached (new plans with the kind of use that is more “friendly”), what happens to the FM that is there, and the Greenwood Market? Would they simply stay as is? Because that doesn’t seem like a good plan either. I like being able to “one stop shop” at Fred Meyer (rather than getting in my car to drive two or three other separate places every time I want some new socks or a few plants for the yard) but the one that is there now definitely needs an upgrade. I like Greenwood Market too, but not only does the store need a facelift, but it is certainly lacking in some areas, although it excels in others. And no matter what, all those acres of unused paved parking need to go. In the interest of our bog, I was hoping that the new development would be required to use pervious surfaces in the manner that the Piper’s Villages/Sedges next door was.
So although everyone has really good points on the current plans for this site, I’d really like to know what happens otherwise.
43 Tiktok // Jun 6, 2009 at 6:11 pm
“If Fred Meyer’s current plans are blocked, and no compromise is reached (new plans with the kind of use that is more “friendly”), what happens to the FM that is there, and the Greenwood Market?”
Oh, probably something like this:
http://www.fremontuniverse.com/images/qfc_pit.jpg
44 coffeegeek666 // Jun 6, 2009 at 8:03 pm
won’t buy groceries at fred meyers, ever
45 SAHulsizer // Jun 6, 2009 at 9:41 pm
It’s a close race to see who has the longest and slowest moving lines, Fred Meyer or the Post Office. Unlike the Post Office, Freddy is not cheap. And they have just enough stuff to get you in the store, but not enough to complete a job. So its off to another store.
46 Rob McMurtrie // Jun 7, 2009 at 6:45 am
I’ve have several problems with arguments of the opposition to this plan.
1. There is a big box store on this site today. It’s called Fred Meyer and it hasn’t had any of the detrimental effects noted.
2. There is a national chain grocery store in the neighborhood. It’s called Safeway and it hasn’t killed Greenwood Market.
3. There are plenty of other locations for Greenwood Market in Greenwood (DOL building, for example).
4. The reliance on the automobile has far less to do with Fred Meyer and far more with the benefits it provides the average American family. You can do all the rezoning you want and it won’t turn back the clock on automobile usage. Making it inconvenient to park will simply force cars to park on residential streets and/or drive business away from the Greenwood core.
5. The commercial vacancy rate in Greenwood and throughout the city is very high already. Where are these “successful, local small businesses” that are going to fill all this NC-2 space you envision?
6. Traffic is not that bad. Even at rush hour, it takes a maximum of 2 light cycles to clear the intersection at 85th and Greenwood. The new light by Bartell’s is a great traffic calming feature (which I suspect many of these same people fought for). Future volume can be handled by making 85th three lanes going west/1 going east and making 80th one-way going east.
The only real concern here is the enviro impact (let’s wait for the EIS to debate that) and some folks desire to control other people’s property. This isn’t some Sammamish Plateau community where we dictate the height of our neighbor’s grass. This seems to be a reasonable proposal on it’s face and Fred Meyer has shown a willingness to accommodate community input. We should continue that dialogue. In fact, Kate Martin seems to be the only one unwilling to compromise.
47 Tiktok // Jun 7, 2009 at 7:05 am
“2. There is a national chain grocery store in the neighborhood. It’s called Safeway and it hasn’t killed Greenwood Market.”
But Safeway doesn’t hold the lease that GM sits on. That’s what will kill GM.
“3. There are plenty of other locations for Greenwood Market in Greenwood (DOL building, for example).”
Converting a building to grocery store is an expensive proposition. Plus, parking access is horrible for the DOL building. And the DOL building is far enough away that people who walk to GM who live on the west side of Greenwood Avenue most likely won’t. Will the folks in between Greenwood and Aurora pick up the slack, or will they continue to go to Safeway?
“4. The reliance on the automobile has far less to do with Fred Meyer and far more with the benefits it provides the average American family. You can do all the rezoning you want and it won’t turn back the clock on automobile usage. Making it inconvenient to park will simply force cars to park on residential streets and/or drive business away from the Greenwood core.”
Discouraging automobile use through zoning isn’t “turning the clock back”, it’s turning the clock forward. And if a neighborhood goes RPZ and new buildings are not required to provide off-street parking, people’s car use in that area will change. Business at the Greenwood core would have to draw more of its support from people who live very nearby.
“6. Traffic is not that bad. Even at rush hour, it takes a maximum of 2 light cycles to clear the intersection at 85th and Greenwood. The new light by Bartell’s is a great traffic calming feature (which I suspect many of these same people fought for). Future volume can be handled by making 85th three lanes going west/1 going east and making 80th one-way going east.”
I can’t see three-lanes-west-one-lane-east working at all. Any one eastbound wanting to turn left would block everyone behind them, ditto for eastbound buses.
48 josephina // Jun 7, 2009 at 7:42 am
Rob M- Well said, thank you.
“Discouraging automobile use through zoning isn’t “turning the clock back”, it’s turning the clock forward. And if a neighborhood goes RPZ and new buildings are not required to provide off-street parking, people’s car use in that area will change. Business at the Greenwood core would have to draw more of its support from people who live very nearby.”
The main change in automobile use that will occur by not allowing for convenient parking is that people will drive farther to a place that does have parking.
TikTok -I’m guessing that you don’t have kids. Try to look at it from a family’s point of view. I will walk whenever I can but I cannot add one to two hours to my grocery shopping trip by walking or bussing whilst dragging my kids along. Be realistic.
49 Tiktok // Jun 7, 2009 at 8:08 am
“Try to look at it from a family’s point of view. I will walk whenever I can but I cannot add one to two hours to my grocery shopping trip by walking or bussing whilst dragging my kids along. Be realistic.”
Where there’s demand for grocery stores, stores will open. There are plenty of cities in the world where people with kids do their shopping without cars–those cities have stores within walking distance throughout their neighborhoods and a more usable public transit system. Seattle will either become one of those cities over the next few decades, or its citizens will spend more and more of their time and money living a car-centric lifestyle.
50 Stupid Hippie // Jun 7, 2009 at 8:31 am
“Try to look at it from a family’s point of view. I will walk whenever I can but I cannot add one to two hours to my grocery shopping trip by walking or bussing whilst dragging my kids along. Be realistic.”
Come on, enjoy those extra hours with the kids sitting on the bus listening to hobo tales and learning about the wondrous effects of meth on your fellow travelers in this wonderful adventure we call life on Seattle public buses.
Maybe you’ll make new friends in those extra hours you spend waiting at the bus stop and think about all those hours away from work! What could be better than working to save the planet rather than slaving for the man?
51 josephina // Jun 7, 2009 at 8:31 am
I have a great little store in walking distance, Ken’s Market. The problem is, as someone stated earlier, small stores are too expensive at which to do all of my grocery shopping. Walking or bussing to the store would mean buying smaller sizes of products like detergent for example, further driving up the cost and producing more waste than buying larger sizes.
I am all for a better public transit system, less car use, and supporting local businesses, but you have to balance that with cost; both the costs of extra time spent and extra dollars spent. I already saw your argument about the cost of owning a vehicle. The way this city is already laid out, a car is necessary for a family. We have only one car and try to drive it minimally, but we do still need to drive, as do almost all families.
52 Tiktok // Jun 7, 2009 at 9:08 am
“The way this city is already laid out, a car is necessary for a family. We have only one car and try to drive it minimally, but we do still need to drive, as do almost all families.”
In that case, you need to start budgeting for the cost of gasoline to vary by several dollars a gallon. As long as you can afford that, and the increasing amount of time spent in traffic, then you’ll be fine. The only factors you can control in that equation are the mileage of your vehicle and how far you live from where you need to go on a regular basis. After that, you dance to the oil company’s tune until you drop.
53 Stupid Hippie // Jun 7, 2009 at 9:23 am
“We have only one car and try to drive it minimally, but we do still need to drive, as do almost all families.”
What about bicycles?
Cars = genocide
54 Josephina // Jun 7, 2009 at 10:09 am
There you are Stupid Hippie! I was missing your sardonic wit in this conversation. Have a lovely Sunday TikTok and S.H.
55 josephina // Jun 7, 2009 at 10:30 am
I’m taking my kids to the fascist zoo. I left my Hummer idling in the driveway of my McMansion to cool it off so I can circle the zoo 5 times to find a parking spot along with all the east side families that would like to enjoy the zoo. I’ll end up parking two blocks from my house because the zoo wasn’t allowed to build a parking garage on it’s own property.
56 Heather // Jun 7, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Does Fred Meyer’s carry Top Pot Donuts?
And what about the coffee shop?
Boo!
57 Stupid Hippie // Jun 7, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Remember Josephina, everytime you drive your car a Bangleshi drowns! Stop the madness!
58 mb // Jun 7, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Rob M.- Great comments! A voice of reason. The hate and vitirol of the Kate M. factions take their arguments beyond reason. You hate the idea of a big box store coming in mostly because it means the loss of Greenwood Market and the enviro concerns of encouraging cars, yet out of the other side of your mouth you say you’ll drive to Ballard or Shoreline to shop now! Hypocrites!!!
59 jm // Jun 7, 2009 at 7:23 pm
To me, this looks like a good thing for the neighborhood. The surrounding area needs a face lift - especially the SW corner at 1st NW and 85th. What’s the deal with that vacant spray painted mess? It’s been an eyesore for many years.
60 kjell anderson // Jun 7, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Regarding the sustainability of transit and development - single family neighborhoods do not usually meet the density threshhold for decent bus service. Phinney-Greenwood as a neighboorhood is primarily single-family, with multi-story along some corridors. Density brings with it better bus service - more routes or more frequency. 160,000+ sf of retail plus 200-300 units of residential at 4-6 stories certainly provides more density with all of its ups and downs. The sustainability argument is for transit OPTIONS, not for only biking or walking. If we want to improve these options, intelligent density is the way.
The potential for our houses and roads to sink due to development should have a major weight to it, however; perhaps a large bond to cover road repairs could be taken out by the developer, which will likely ensure that design/construction is done with minimal negative effect on the water table.
If the water table is successfully dealt with, undergrounding the fred meyer is a good idea. Big retailers generally prefer to have no windows which can create poor pedestrian experiences if located at grade. Skylights have a good track record of improving retail sales and saving lighting energy and might be viable given the plan.
61 fallline // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:20 am
Will definitely miss the greenwood market.
I have serious doubts that the Fred Meyer grocery section will be able to take over as my primary store. Looks like I’ll be making the drive up to Central Market once this project gets underway.
62 Gregorio // Jun 8, 2009 at 9:13 am
1) Someone called this project is controversial. It is not controversial, it’s called progress.
2) The city does not need to improve bus lines to accommodate people who will be shopping there. The majority of people use the bus to get to work and back, not for a leisurely shopping trip.
3) And to that person who asks what does Fred Meyer give back to the community? They give jobs, convenience of shopping, taxes, etc, etc. Is it supposed to give off some warm, fuzzy feeling?
4) And yes, the old Dept. of Lic. building to the east would be ideal for the Greenwood market to move into. When I was a kid it was an A&P market, and it’s already got a built-in parking lot.
63 Tom Larsen // Jun 8, 2009 at 10:50 am
I am a Greenwood resident. I agree that the project is too big.
FYI: there was proposed a very large big box development planned for the Goodwill site on Dearborn near downtown. It took a couple of years, but community activists killed the project.
It is possible to stop the Fred Meyer project too.
64 Stupid Hippie // Jun 8, 2009 at 11:26 am
“It took a couple of years, but community activists killed the project.”
Yes, it’s great! Now they have the same old dumpy site as before, it’s so real, so true to the neighborhood.
65 josephina // Jun 8, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Why is it that in Seattle the first inclination is to oppose everything and offer no alternative? Have you seen the economic news lately? Someone is offering to build a huge project that will bring in hundreds of jobs, short and long term. Stupid Hippie is right, if we oppose this outright, it will remain the same crappy area that it is right now. Maybe even worse if FM pulls out of the area completely and leaves a very large building unoccupied. The group of architects opposed to this project as it is, including Kate Martin from above, has made some reasonable requests (see the new article on Phinneywood.com). Let’s work with FM and the architects to come up with a compromise. The architects actually want higher density housing. Either way this project will bring in PEOPLE to the area. People that will spend money in local shops and restaurants and probably creating the need for more small shops and restaurants. They’re not just going to live in Fred Meyer eating at the deli counter every night.
66 Bella // Jun 8, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Fred Meyer actually does do community support, including sponsoring the Phinney Neighborhood Association Fair, the Greenwood Seafair Parade, and the Phinney Ridge School Auction, as well as the Cancer Society, Junior Achievement and the Youth Soccer Association.
They donate to charitable organizations as well.
It’s all on the website.
And again, if this plan is blocked, what happens? Nothing? Everything stays exactly as is now? Or will Fred Meyer leave their existing site as someone else suggested, possibly making the situation worse? if the whole plan was blocked, would the Greenwood Market’s lease be renewed?
67 Stupid Hippie // Jun 8, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Not enough! FM should house the homeless, feed the hungry and cloth the naked!
Profits = genocide
68 Izzy // Jun 9, 2009 at 8:37 pm
This is the best news I’ve heard all day. I’m sorry, that part of town is a dump, the Greenwood Market is too expensive, I do not see any reason for such “loyalty” from a handful of folks, and despite the “outcry” It’s always empty of customers. Get over yourself! I can’t wait for FM to bury their eyesore and offer something truly unique to the town.
69 Dave // Jun 10, 2009 at 6:12 am
Hey folks, This much talked about Greenwood location is really in need of a big face lift. Let’s hope that before all the demolition starts that the people in charge (or the ones with the deepest pockets) really take a good look into what can be done to greatly improve this area, not just improve ones pocketbook. My main question for the FM people is why with the big store in Ballard, and the big store just north of this Greenwood area (more commonly called QFC Holman Road) would they really be better with another mega store? Take the QFC name off those buildings, replace them with the Fred Meyer name, make the employee pay scales the same, carry the same products at the same prices (many times the exact same product is priced considerably different at FM and QFC) and make this Greenwood area store a greatly improved one similar to the existing one.
I can hardly wait for a nice diversion of shops and restaurants coming into this nice neighborhood location.
70 MonkeyPilot // Jun 10, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Reading the comments here is really dispiriting. At once, people start painting each other as either no-progress NIMBYs or greedy profiteers.
I don’t think most people who have concerns about the new plan oppose it entirely, but it’s reasonable to have concerns about a HUGE development in the middle of the neighborhood. This isn’t one building or storefront. One thing I think everyone can agree on is that the mostly-empty sea of asphalt currently occupying that site is a terrible use for it. Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if there had been more public input or forethought when it was built.
Design by committee isn’t usually a great idea, but it seems to make little sense for a new big-box FM store, since there is an existing one 2 miles away in Ballard. And with Safeway, and QFC (currently 2 of each within 1.5miles!) nearby, there is not exactly a need for a new grocery, either. That doesn’t seem to be a question answered by the FM PR folks.
71 LB // Jun 12, 2009 at 10:23 am
I feel like it isn’t popular to say this, but I think this will be the best thing that could happen to Greenwood! And as a Greenwoodie myself - I’m thrilled!
72 Jason // Jun 25, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I just purchased a home in the Greenwood area and can see both costs and benefits to a revamped Freddie’s.
I would like an updated FM with grocery because I do like the convenience of ‘one stop shopping’, though I would hate the idea of losing the T&C because of it.
A bigger concern I have however, is that Greenwood is build on an old peat bog - an issue barely addressed in this dialogue.
One stroll a few blocks to the NW of Freddie’s shows the results of large-scale building in that area - look a the warped streets. There has been severe home settling all over in that neighborhood and that settling is greatly exaggerated by any serious construction as the vibrations and adjustments to the water table cause major shifts in the underlying material. There were several complaints in the neighborhood when the Safeway went up on Greenwood and 87th.
Pros and Cons of commercial growth set aside, the physical heath of that neighborhood is a legitimate concern as well. I would like to hear what is going to be done to minimalize the damage that the surrounding homeowners are likely to endure.
73 seattlejr // Jul 29, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I think some are forgetting that because of the zoning (that won’t be changed), FredMeyer and the private land owner(s) (remember this is privately owned land) could give everybody the finger and say to hell with it and build the biggest box store possible right up to the road - on top of the current land (without digging and very likely without affecting the bog) with towering blank walls on the streets and a single door entrance to a expansive parking lot. A gigantic single use building with a big ass flat parking lot that would leave everyone thunderstruck.
From my understanding the design committee can’t enforce anything and as long as the building meets code the developer can say thank you very much committee, that hurdle checked, let’s build our big box store. Voila big box with nothing else.
While I respect the heck out of Kate’s passion and activism I couldn’t disagree more with her comment “Now with the “lid” - detached roof top accessories - we’re in no better shape. ” It’s a bit disingenuous. The new plan has faults, but this is MUCH MUCH better than plans I saw several years ago. I will remind folks that many years ago FM and the developer came to the community design board with the big box only plan that I described above. A horrible horrible plan to be sure - talk about dead streets and turning a back on the neighborhood. But it was cheap and met code. At that point the community and activists said, give us housing, give us public spaces, don’t big box us. So they hide the big store fairly well, give some housing density, misc retail and some very modest public space.
So give some credit they are at least considering spending 10x what they typically spend on a store and hiding it and providing housing and other retail. Yes the private land owners aren’t planning a park, or sprawling public square, or re-establishing the street grid with small businesses and that isn’t what some folks envisioned (the land owners clearly didn’t). But at least we might not have a Sams club style building in our neighborhood.
74 jack // Oct 22, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Look around we need development in Greenwood we should Fred Meyers with open arms
Leave a Comment