News of Madison Valley

Revised Designs for PCC


The revised Early Design Guidance (EDG) packet is available for review. To download the packet to your computer, click here (it's an 85MB file, and may take a minute or two). Here are the renderings of the architect’s preferred design option:


Madison Street Looking Southeast

Madison Street Level Looking North Northeast

Madison Street Looking Northeast

Dewey Pl. E. Looking Southwest

Dewey Pl. E. Looking Northwest

Dewey Pl. E. Looking Northwest


As is customary, the packet includes three concept options for the design review board to consider. Detailed information about each design, including pros and cons are in the EDG packet. To see all the photos and read the details, you can download the packet to your computer: click here (it's an 85MB file, and may take a minute or two). 




Option 3 — This is the architect’s preferred option. SUMMARY: Terraced in the back with courtyard. See rendering below. Mass of building pushed toward Madison Street. Vehicular entrance to the commercial parking garage and loading dock is located on E. Madison St. Vehicular entrance to the residential parking garage is located on Dewey Pl. E.


Option 2 — SUMMARY: Courtyard on Madison Street. Mass of building pushed toward Dewey Pl. E. Vehicular entrance to the parking structure garage and loading dock is located on E. Madison St.


Option 1 — SUMMARY: Courtyard in the middle. Mass of building pushed toward both Madison Street and Dewey Pl. E. Vehicular entrance to the parking structure garage and loading dock is located off Dewey Pl. E.


Email your public comments to the Design Review Board: [email protected]. Reference project number 3020338. For more details regarding the design review process and various ways to comment visit: Deadline for comments is July 13th.


Topics: Construction
Also Anonymous (9:21 am Jul 16)
Will there be an update about the proposal being sent back?
Sandra (4:27 pm Jul 13)
Will there be a time for public comment at the meeting tonight?
Reg newbeck (2:25 pm Jul 12)
Whether your FOR or AGAINST this project, please email your public comments to the Design Review Board: [email protected]. Reference project number 3020338. For more details regarding the design review process and various ways to comment visit: The deadline for comments is Wednesday, July 13th.
Peg Cheirrett (12:45 pm Jul 12)
I agree that a courtyard entry on Madison would be a big plus for humanizing the scale of the project and providing opportunities for community socializing. My husband and I are very excited at the prospect of a PCC coming into the neighborhood!
MS (8:50 am Jul 12)
Without any attempt by the architect to preserve the open space recess to preserve the existing Madison valley and erect this continuous wall end to end is unacceptable and criminal. While "option 2" is a feeble attempt toward that end; the architect has at the same time raised the height of the east end of the property instead of tapering off towards the adjacent land use. The design solutions by the arcitect are refection of the architect's lack of sensibility to the genius locus of the site and the site's surrounding and natural amenty. It appears that the design was inspired by the cargo containers piled along the Port of Seattle Container facility! What a shame!
Laura Bernstein (12:58 pm Jul 11)
Please... It would be good to have an op ed from a Madison Valley resident in PCC's paper. Please email [email protected] TODAY.
MV (9:04 pm Jul 10)
Has the developer released a Traffic Study yet? One that shows the amount of traffic that will be generated on both Madison and Dewey per day and at peak travel times? I assume this is a requirement of the application.
Also Anonymous (12:32 pm Jul 8)
To Anonymous-I have read it, hence the questions. The resident garage entrance is now on Dewey, which some would argue is not a concession. I ask again, what are these multiple concessions and victory of which you speak?
Anonymous (6:08 pm Jul 7)
The LINK for the revised Early Design Guidance (EDG) packet is available in Lindy's post above. May I suggest that you download and read it.
Teri Rutherford (5:55 pm Jul 7)
Not everyone would agree with anonymous, who thinks that this canopied hillside is unattractive. Lots of people would rather not destroy an urban forest and replace it with concrete. I personally treasure trees and green space, (especially old trees that cannot be replaced), and I consider this hillside to be beautiful and necessary. There should be a way to keep the canopy and still build.
Also Anonymous (5:01 pm Jul 7)
To Anonymous - what multiple concessions has the developer given? And what "victory" has occurred?
Anonymous (2:21 pm Jul 7)
There is a good reason that supporters use "anonymous", and that is because they don't wish to be attacked by the opponents of this project. BTW, the developer has given multiple concession to the community, and again, SMV does not represent everyone in the community, Accept victory and let's get on with the project.
Julius Schorzman (12:59 pm Jul 7)
Isn't it funny how supporters are always anonymous? It's no secret that the developer is paying a PR firm to try and push this project through without any changes for the community.
Anonymous (12:07 pm Jul 7)
SMV doesn't seem how to accept victory from the jaws of defeat! They've gotten a lot of concessions, and it's time to stop complaining about everything. SMV must accept that they do not represent everyone in the valley, and others have the right to speak.
Anonymous (11:00 am Jul 7)
This looks great. Am glad they are making sure there is enough parking to not spill over into the neighborhood as well as keeping some greenery on the back side of the hill - can't wait for PCC to arrive!
Kevin Murphy (9:43 am Jul 7)
The images are very misleading. Hidden behind a non-existing tree in the Dewey Pl. E. Looking Northwest photo is a parking garage entrance on Dewey Place. This is outrageous and irresponsible by the developer and architect! This is an alley in a residential neighborhood and they are bringing commercial traffic to it.
Michael Von Korff (5:51 am Jul 7)
We have lived in this neighborhood for 33 years. We are enthusiastic about having a good grocery store in the neighborhood. It makes sense for Madison Street to have high density (it is a transportation core). The proposed design is consistent with the apartment building across the street. The developer is going the extra mile to address neighborhood concerns. While everyone loves Seattle People's, the steep hill side that it sits on is NOT particularly attractive, it is overgrown with a "do not dump" sign prominently posted on it, there are large concrete pilings embedded in it to prevent erosion, the City Peoples parks many trucks on the narrow street below the hill. The proposed development will stabilize the hill, which would likely slide in a major earthquake. I understand that some people like overgrown land that no one maintains, but I tend to think that the development will be a big improvement over what is there now. The latest proposal to have the PCC parking and the apartment parking enter from different sides seems like an intelligent and creative solution to a difficult problem. I think we are lucky that this difficult site is being developed by a responsible and forward thinking design group that has taken the trouble to reach out to a community that sometimes feels that change is inherently bad. While I was sorry to see CP go, having a good grocery store in the neighborhood is a tremendously positive outcome.