Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Nick @nickhat.ch · 21h

Feels like NEC accessibility/serviceability rules would kill this in the US, regardless of mechanicals.

Nick @nickhat.ch · 4d

Is this private parking, adjacent to the ROW, but off of it?

Reposted by Nick

svart flagg @svartflagg.bsky.social · 6d

Today in Portland, a fed shooting pepper balls from the roof of the ICE facility was so eager to aim for people’s heads, that after shooting one photographer in the head and another in the upper arm, they accidentally shot a DHS agent in the head. This photo shows the moment of impact;

Riot cops standing a street with less-lethal weapons, and one in a gas mask has a cloud of pepper dust around his helmet.

430 3.3K 10K

Nick @nickhat.ch · 6d

Ironically, these are a female red maple cultivar... probably

Anyone know what species of trees these actually are? Elliott Bay Connector FAQ says Acer platanoides, Norway maples. City permit doc says A. Rubrum 'Bowhall'.

Nick @nickhat.ch · 6d

This situation reads more like a DOT wanting an inconvenient series of objects out of the way, more than anything about urban forestry or bad planning.

They're apparently Norway maples, which are disfavored now for good reasons, but seem to be relatively happy in the space all things considered.

1

Nick @nickhat.ch · 6d

Sure. I'm not arguing that trees along streets don't have a tougher life, or that there aren't trade offs. Merely pointing out that every time the city negotiates this issue, a bunch of non-arborists come out with snap reactions saying "the tree only had years left anyways."

1

Nick @nickhat.ch · 6d

People LOVE to pull out this line whenever street trees are imperiled by development. It's a bit of a trope.

Seattle has plenty of trees surviving without Silva cells.

You have an arborist report? Are an arborist? See specific signs of declines in these trees?

1 1

Nick @nickhat.ch · 6d

Many industries have those pressures. Would rather have a vision and the autonomy to grab a sleeping bag and marinate instead of being a cog with a timesheet and a 40hr/wk billable quota. But to each their own

1

Nick @nickhat.ch · 6d

People genuinely seem to really like Gas Works Park though. Which proportion of Haag's time spent was wasted, do you think?

1

Nick @nickhat.ch · 16d

Are any of the hypothetical cut and cover routes even remotely viable? The few vague crayon drawings I've seen are all "whoops BNSF" or "didn't know about that major east/west sewer tunnel there."

Nick @nickhat.ch · 18d

Interesting! Though, I'm a bit dubious after seeing Autogrid in that list, and the article being a couple years old. The economics of depreciation using auto batteries on a kWH basis is pretty horrible.

Very happy to let SCL tap my brick-veneer battery. A car not so much.

2

Nick @nickhat.ch · 18d

Tempwise was pretty cool! Communication wasn't great though, didn't even know I was enrolled until the cash bonus cards hit my inbox.

Realizing Nest was in a demand-curtailment play was a big Ahh-ha moment.

1 3

Nick @nickhat.ch · 18d

Seriously? SCL doesn't need to collude with other market participants to implement ToU pricing.

1

Nick @nickhat.ch · 18d

Seattle developers: The solution to a thriving urban canopy is more street trees, and people who claim to love trees are just anti-dev NIMBYs who love parking more.

Also developers: Can we rip out this street tree for more parking plz? www.treeactionseattle.org/campaigns/ba...

Ballard's Twin Oaks

A developer wants the City to let them destroy massive public oaks for private parking

www.treeactionseattle.org

Nick @nickhat.ch · 24d

City condemned an additional 30 feet to widen in 1907. I wonder when they rebuilt the road... took them long enough! Photos in 1976 look like they have the wide sidewalk still.

2

Nick @nickhat.ch · 26d

I don't understand why the Urbanist continues to state that 102 brings "new tree retention requirements" and that it "would expand the City’s definition of a tree preservation area and regulations relating to them."

102 allows SDCI to *shrink* the TPZ, adding flexibility for retention.

Nick @nickhat.ch · Sep 19

City is trying to get more multi-family to take underground service. Some people on here were complaining about cost www.seattle.gov/city-light/c...

Multifamily Building Design Standard Changes - City Light | seattle.gov

A new internal design practice for electric service connections of developments with four or more units. These properties will now be required to be served by underground infrastructure.

www.seattle.gov

2 1

Nick @nickhat.ch · Sep 19

That's basically how the city's existing fee-in-lieu program works.

Nick @nickhat.ch · Sep 19

I think it would be fun to see more stuff like this! Neighbors across the street would need to conspire though, as it's the adjoining lot owners who have reversionary rights to the land under the street upon vacation

Wonder how long it's been since Seattle has done a neighbor-petition vacation

1 1

Nick @nickhat.ch · Sep 19

It wasn't an overhaul, she struck the one bit critics found most objectionable.

Strange criticism vs just admitting you made a mistake about the contents of the amendment in your coverage.

Nick @nickhat.ch · Sep 19

You've got this backwards. 102 gives the city the ability to *relax* the protection zones to accommodate tree retention. Strauss was complaining about the unpredictability of loosening restrictions, not the proposal adding new ones.

Nick @nickhat.ch · Sep 16

Sorry, you're right about that. The important part is that there is no longer a basic tree protection area defined in a way that cannot be modified.

Nick @nickhat.ch · Sep 16

I think you're also confusing the "basic tree protection area" with "tree protection area". Amendment 102 doesn't depend on the "basic" definition you cite here.

The tree protection area is flexible based on ANSI A300 and arborist evaluation, the basic area cannot.

1

Nick @nickhat.ch · Sep 16

The problems with the formulaic and non-scientific basic tree protection area are well-known, and one of the things people are trying to address in amendment 93.

Nick @nickhat.ch · Sep 16

So ... is Amendment 93 the compromise we've all been waiting for?