i think our claim is pretty clear now (thanks in part to you pushing the issue). so at this juncture i’m reasonably happy to agree to disagree.

however, i’m left wondering about your strong defense of developers and your apparent disdain for buyers. care to explain?

Re the city and the web – a quick Google turned up the website right off the bat. One can even subscribe to email lists of reviews, meetings, etc. for property changes, approvals. I don’t know if this was true at the time of the Cosmo pre-sale, but it does provide pre-buyers with a convenient means for keeping tabs on the area around their pre-buy independently of their developer.

But also looking through the info on the site, I’m even more convinced that the Cosmo pre-buyers wouldn’t have been able to stop the changes to the building across the alley unless they were willing to pay for the air-rights. Your neighbor is simply a developer exercising its rights to maximize the value it can get from a site within the bounds of the zoning restrictions. And those zoning restrictions don’t appear to do much for view-related issues like privacy and sunlight in that part of downtown.

I think your real “enemy” (if you will) was the broader downtown zoning change process. That was well-publicized and dates back to even before I got here in 2002, and it continued to get a lot of attention until the changes were finalized. Clearly most developers were paying attention, given the number of signs that popped up around the area within a couple weeks after the changes were finalized. The end result sure doesn’t look like the Vancouver model they talked about, but that’s the city’s doing, not the developer across the alley. And I take it that Cosmo pre-buyers probably did not participate in the feedback process for that.

Mark W- i’m glad you decided to join this discussion. your comments were particularly thoughtful and challenging. thanks again for pushing. let me know if you still disagree with the specific issues noted at cosmo seattle.

Sure the 18 months is a long time, but that’s a buyer’s choice. If a buyer isn’t prepared to keep tabs on his or her investment for 18 months, I’m not sure why they would commit to such a purchase. But agreeing to 18 months to close instead of one to three is a buyer’s choice. The amount of time is irrelevant.

As for your being comfortable with a POS at the time you signed it in which you agreed to absolve the developer from communicating “even if the seller may know about developments…”, well you got exactly what you agreed to from the developer, apparently. Lesson learned – carefully consider any developer-favoring language in anything one signs.

As for what the government should have done. Well, it should have followed the laws and established procedures in place, given that we can’t go back and change the past. Lesson learned – buyers need to make sure they know what what those procedures are, because the government and developers most likely do.

Did the government communicate the changes? Well, the downtown zoning changes were widely reported in the new, and I assume they were properly publshed when they were formally adopted. And proper signage did go up on the adjacent property for anyone to see, not just owners and residents within 300 feet. Maybe someone who tracks these sorts of things can answer whether the government actually publishes such requests as well (I would assume that they do, perhaps on the web).

And since Cosmo is within 300, it’s probably certain that the government properly notified the owners and any actual residents there. The government, however, has no idea who the prospective buyers are. But there already exists a perfectly reasonable channel for that information to reach the prospective buyers – in addition to the property signage and government publication. And that is through the developer.

Unless of course the buyer lets the developer off the hook by not requiring that the developer nofify buyers about developments in the area.

Lesson learned – especially for purchases that are as far out as 18 months, put a contingency in the POS that identifies key changes that would cause the buyer to reconsider his or her purchase. And if the developer is unwilling to agree to the contingency, then don’t buy from that developer.

This is actually better than merely having the government notify more people directly – even if dozens of Cosmo buyers had shown up at the appropriate meeting, I doubt you’d have gotten a different outcome, since the privacy and light issues are still fundamentally view issues (views are what you see outside your window, even if it’s just a bunch of office workers looking back at you). The contingency gives you an out, and it is entirely between you and the developer, and thus doesn’t need any further government notification.

There’s no reason why your developer couldn’t have passed along the information that the government provided it, except that you were comfortable agreeing to a POS that didn’t oblige them to do so.

The obligation should be the same as when buying a house in queen anne or a pre-owned condo. rather than list the obligations, perhaps it would be more productive to talk about the differences involved in our situation. key differences are a) time to close is 18 months instead of just one or two, b) the obligation of the seller to file a form 17 disclosure statement–this doesn’t apply to a developer, apparently, and c) there were massive zoning changes introduced during our 18-months to close.

i don’t know the history of public notice requirements, but the city (and citizens) decided somewhere along the way that it would be important to provide notification of potential impact due to new development. so in a way, the city already “baby sits investments” as well as potential impact to quality of life. our argument is about where they draw the line for who to notify of potential impact—-not whether to notify.

the new density legislation gave developers expanded (and necessary in my opinion) freedoms in what they develop as well as significant incentive to develop. what they failed to do is provide notification requirements commensurate to the degree of change. we think that the line drawn for who the city is obligated to notify should be moved a little closer to the side of consumers.

later in your comment you wrote, “And yet, if things change it’s somehow now the government’s responsibility to communicate it – which they have to do through the developer whom the prospective buyer released from communicating such things when they agreed to the language of the contract.”

things did change and the government is who changed them. i was comfortable with the POS at the time of signing. after signing, during the 18-months, the zoning context changed. yes, i think the gov had an obligation to notify us. they probably spent 5 years crafting the new legislation, which included active dialog with developers. i think it’s unreasonable to oblige consumers and residents to figure out not only what material changes are in play but also how this might impact them.

re 8th & stewart: i have heard two stories (both from schnitzer) about the residential building proposed for the watermark parcel. Schnitzer originally proposed this as a condo building at the same time they submitted the bigger 1918 8th ave plan (circa april 2006). initially, they told me that the condo building was rejected by DPD because it exceeded a maximum density for the entire block. more recently they told me that they chose not to pursue it due to the softening condo market. in any event, they are no longer planning to develop that parcel as residential. as a commercial space they indicated that would be the same height as watermark.

with respect to adequate tower spacing, there is a difference between a 5/1 and a 500-foot tower. the city recognizes this difference and developed an appropriate spacing regulation for building above 160 feet and for most of downtown. what’s unusual about the comso is that it’s in the only zone that was excluded from these residential tower spacing regulations.

Gosh, I sure wish people would build more condotels…like we don’t have four already?

Also saw a new zoning sign at Icon Grill (5th & Virginia) for hotel/residences just across the alley from Escala.

But back to the Cosmo…

re (2) – In my Meridian example, I meant the person is pretty far along in the process, but hasn’t closed. (In my limited buying/selling experiences, there was earnest money involved before the actual closing.)

The fact is, you weren’t residents or owners. It is a grey area, to be sure, but this is one that I think the government should stick with actual owners and residences – that’s a black & white, easy to define segment. That doesn’t mean that the developer shouldn’t pass the information along to prospective residents, but that’s between the developer and the prospects.

And as for keeping tabs on it for 18 months… Absolutely the buyers should keep tabs on their own investments. There are plenty of existing condos on the market, so it’s not like the 18 month wait is mandatory to buy a condo in this town. People who pre-commit like this are making that choice. There’s no reason for the city to have to babysit their investment for them just because the closing is further off for them them than for others.

(3) Re absolving themselves… Earlier you wrote, ““even though seller may know of developments” (quote is from POS).”
The developer is off the communications hook here *only* if the buyer agrees to this condition. It is the buyer agreeing to this that absolves them. The buyer who agrees to this provision is not a victim here, except perhaps by their own choice. It’s not like anyone had to buy at Cosmo, and given the number of units for sale at 2200, Carbon 56 and Cosmo, it’s not like there are hoardes of people clammoring to get into that section of the Triangle.

A prospective buyer can negotiate any terms of a contract that are not mandated by law. If the developer balks, the buyer can walk. The language in question – “developments” – certainly suggests that changes are possible.

The gist of your comments here is that buyers shouldn’t have to keep track of their own investment for 18 months out, and it’s okay if they sign an agreement that releases the developer from having to communicate anything about nearby zoning changes that might affect their decision. And yet, if things change it’s somehow now the government’s responsibility to communicate it – which they have to do through the developer whom the prospective buyer released from communicating such things when they agreed to the language of the contract.

What exactly do you think are the buyers’ obligations here?

This actually gets at the crux of what bugged me about the open letter, and even more as the thread has continued – and why this is the first thread I’ve participated in here. It just doesn’t seem like you think the buyers have any responsibility for minding what for most people is the biggest investment they make. I check out the neighborhood pretty regularly – I’m still get a kick out of watching the construction process for these places. But that said, I’d hate to think that I paid more attention to Cosmo than most of those buyers did.

Re (4) the 5/1s are the 6 story boxes – often a concrete ground floor with 5 wood construction floors above. In a discussion of privacy, light and views, my point with them is that there are a lot of places around here with alley views of other buildings and windows. I don’t like windows that close myself – I don’t envy the Cosmo folks on what’s coming – but it just isn’t that unusual in a downtown area where the proximity of buildings creates all kinds of light and privacy impacts. The Cosmo situation isn’t unusual in that regard – except for its height.

As for the Urban Growth Committee and the density in the downtown core… Conceptually I like the idea of greater downtown density, but they got carried away from a residential standpoint, IMO. Having come here from the Dayton Ohio area where there has been exactly one new downtown building in the last 21 years, it was amazing to me to see how many tower proposals popped up all over the Triangle once the committee finished their work.

1) yep, just one. it was me. with more people and in physical presence at design review meetings (i was working abroad then, so all correspondence was via email), the board has the authority to trade off on other regulations as incentives for developers to make costly adjustments. in other words, they can help find a balance among stakeholder interests, provided that key stakeholder voices are heard.

2) in most zoning issues DPD is required to notify current residents (by mail) within a 300 foot radius of the change. we were not residents at the time of the change. but we were not “perspective” buyers either. we were in that in-between space of being contractually bound to close but not yet owners. not only did the land use for 1918 change but the whole of seattle’s land use code changed during that 18-month in-between time.

looking beyond the cosmo, the 18-month-to-close duration requires that you “keep tabs” of any changes to land use around your new home. in my opinion, this is an unreasonable expectation. just finding the where DPD keeps and updates this info is difficult enough. understanding the specialized vernacular is nearly impossible for someone not in the urban planning industry. more importantly, the ability to know when your rights have been trampled on requires a legal team of the sort that developers keep. if residential supply and demand dictate pre-sales as a continuing mode of home buying, i think the DPD notification rules should be revised to make this a more reasonable transaction process.

3) continental did “absolve themselves from any responsibility to inform”. the issue is (as above) that the land use/zoning code changed after we signed and locked in. naive on our part? perhaps. however, when both parties with all the knowledge and all the power (the developer and the city), absolve themselves of all responsibility to inform, who are they serving? each other, of course. is it legal? probably. is it right? as tax payers and consumers of urban density, what should we expect from our public servants in this regard?

4) i’m not sure what a 5/1 is (a 5 story bldg?) but as i noted in a comment above, there are specific tower spacing requirements for residential towers in all of the new zoning codes, except for the denny triangle (DOC2) zone. for example, in belltown there is a 60ft separation required for buildings above 125 ft and 80ft separation for buildings above 300ft.

in the 11th hour of the density legislation debate, the city council’s urban growth committee (chaired by Steinbrueck) excluded denny triangle residential towers from “any” tower spacing requirements.

5) re JCricket and the setbacks/vancouver – a couple years ago there sure was a lot of rhetoric about vancouver-style tall and skinny residential towers, open spaces, and family oriented density. i’m not so impressed with how the reality measures up to the rhetoric.