Possible / Idea 01 / Working draft 0.2
The Warm
Tower
Could data-center income help turn Seattle’s empty office towers into affordable homes?
Fourth & Blanchard · 2101 Fourth Avenue · Belltown
Urban Acupuncture research draft · October 2026
Find this place on the Seattle map ↗01 / The argument
A tower with two kinds of work.
Place a small data center on the lower floors of an existing office tower and convert the floors above to apartments. A computing operator’s lease could help finance the homes; recovered heat could supply their heating and hot water.
The Warm Tower tests that idea using the Fourth & Blanchard Building. It asks whether Seattle could reuse a difficult office building while securing lasting housing benefits—and what that would require of the city’s electricity system.
02 / The tradeoffs
Less shortfall. Fewer homes. More power.
The draft’s default case reduces the estimated financing shortfall by about $41 million. It also uses three floors that could otherwise hold homes. The remaining shortfall is substantial.
| Scenario | Homes | Income-restricted | Electric demand | Financing shortfall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Housing only | 376 | 150 | 1.5 MVA | $183.1M |
| Three compute floors · default | 316 | 126 | 10.3 MVA | $142.4M |
| Three floors · compute rent 20% lower | 316 | 126 | 10.3 MVA | $168.2M |
| Five compute floors · default | 276 | 110 | 16.2 MVA | $116.0M |
Shortfall means modeled project cost plus the required developer margin minus estimated property value. These are not established requests for public funding. MVA measures electric service demand; it is not confirmed available service.
The public bargain has to be real.
The draft proposes at least 40% income-restricted homes for at least 50 years, project-funded utility upgrades, protection for housing operations if compute income falls, backup heating and public reporting. These are proposed terms to test, rather than agreements already secured.
A fair comparison includes housing-only conversion, continued office use and affordable housing elsewhere. The hybrid’s case depends on the value of downtown reuse as well as homes; the draft has not quantified a carbon benefit against a defined alternative.
03 / Explore the model
Change the assumptions. Watch the bargain change.
The original v0.2 model is preserved here. Start with compute floors, the income-restricted share and the assumption set. Default assumptions exclude surplus heat sales. The full input schedule and physical test fit remain in the complete study.
Research model · no input has been confirmed by project investigation. Changing an assumption explores a scenario; it does not establish feasibility.
Open the interactive model
04 / The next tests
Earn the next step.
The draft proposes a 90-day feasibility study with a public decision to proceed, redesign or stop. Participants and funding have yet to be secured.
- Power and building · weeks 1–4
Seek utility guidance on capacity, timing and cost. Obtain original drawings and investigate structure, floor heights, the existing water loop and the mixed-use code path.
- Prices and commitments · weeks 5–8
Seek operator lease terms, construction and facade estimates, and credible heat buyers. Establish who carries each cost and risk.
- Public decision · weeks 9–12
Publish a revised model and a comparable account of the alternatives. Stop or redesign if power is unavailable, operators will not commit, retrofit costs erase the benefit, or durable affordability cannot be secured.