From Sue Phillips
“Resident Reaction to Skyline II
Process: Over 100 Skyline residents attending the July 14, 2016, quarterly meeting were divided into 5 groups and asked to respond to the question “What is your reaction to the proposal for Skyline II?” Discussion leaders were residents who had participated in master planning sessions. They were Jim McClaine, Sue Phillips, Diane Stevens, Bob Terrell and Barb Williams. Group results were shared with those present. The following points summarize the reactions most frequently voiced by Skyline residents:
- Adequacy of the Terraces to meet the needs of the expanded population Residents understand that the current Terraces population includes a significant number of non-residents but would like to see actuarial studies which reflect the needs of the expanded population.
- Preservation of the Skyline Community
The sense of community in Skyline is one of its biggest assets. Many residents expressed concern that even with shared amenities, the new building would result in two separate populations, both physically and demographically.
- Financial issues
Residents are concerned about the impact of Skyline II on our current financial position. They are also concerned about increased liability for the current residents.
- Amenities
Many residents expressed a desire for specific amenities and would like to be consulted before allotted space has been decided upon. There is a general feeling that some of the current facilities in Skyline I would be inadequate for the enlarged population.
- Access to Skyline II
Residents strongly prefer covered access between the buildings.
Some residents expressed a desire to have access to vacated PRCN space and others are concerned about the impact of diminished views on resales in this building.”
With respect to “covered access” from Skyline I to Skyline II, we have heard that management is contemplating a skybridge. Last Tuesday’s First Hill Improvement Association general meeting included an update from a representative of Swedish Hospital concerning their forthcoming new construction between Boren and Minor. Their plan included a skybridge. This was actively discouraged by the City of Seattle until Swedish was able to document that the users of the bridge would include many patients in wheel chairs or on gurneys–whose health would be jeopardized by being moved at ground level, outdoors across a public street. I had the impression that Swedish regarded the obtaining of the ultimate city approval for the proposed skybridge as a very near run thing. One wonders whether our management would be able to offer such a compelling case? (A below the street tunnel is the only other option and elevation variations might offer some challenges as well–but let us not borrow trouble.