Regardless of whether DHS holds a certain position or not, there are two realities. First, this is not law, but guidelines. Second, the position as applied here and as raised by Olympia is internally inconsistent and hypocritical. The very design of the arena structure, so highly touted by Olympia, includes offices retail and residential ON SITE and surrounding it across the street.

So yeah, they can build new schlock right on top of the arena, but, as to comparable uses in an older building across the street, well, now, that just wouldn't be safe.

The Free Press coverage of parking this morning is scaring the shit out of me. Sounds like "THE DISTRICT" is primarily going to be a surface parking district. I don't understand why Olympia is not providing more structure parking or underground parking on site, or why they aren't being forced to. Alternatively, they should be forced to choose 2 or 3 of their, what, 50 vacant blocks nearby and develop a few mega-garages. Problem solved. If the City council acquiesces to a plan that continues to lock up that whole area for parking rather than neighborhood development, we've got big problems.

I wish the Freep and others would more intelligenty raise and ask questions about surface v. garages/underground. Only a consolidated approach will leave room for the developers to develop actual buildings. This, more than anything, calls into question whether a neighborhood will be built. And the same article that covers this needs to examine Olympia's pattern with Comerica-- again, under-provision of garages and over-provision of surface lots which have made our cityscape look like shit and which have cockblocked any potential development of those sites. It is the SINGLE most unintelligent thing about these stadium developments.