Jenny Brailey wrote to tell us she spoke with the CVS/Velmeir spokesperson today and this information comes from her as well as the local architect they hired:
What CVS is now planning in Wallingford is to keep the existing building in place, remodel the inside and make improvements to the outside to ‘restore its grandeur.’
CVS/Velmeir is NOT interested in a multi-story building with housing on top. They say this is per the wishes of the property owner, who I’m told is a longtime Wallingford family.
The building would continue to be 1 story, possibly with some extra height in a new portion of the building (the part in the middle of the current “u” shape). Besides restoring the building, they are talking about improving the bus stop area, greening the parking, and improving the general appeal of the corner/intersection.
For those trying to understand more about this project, Velmeir is the developer for the project in Wallingford, and also for the other two store sites in Queen Anne and West Seattle. CVS is the tenant who will occupy the buildings. I think Velmeir would lease the land from the owner.
They also have retained a local PR firm to help them “engage the community.” Clearly they’ve gotten the message that cookie-cutter stores don’t belong in our urban neighborhoods. The Wallingford project, like the Queen Anne one, is NOT required to be multi-story, despite recent legislation by the city council setting minimum density requirements in urban centers (because they were started before the legislation passed.)
In Queen Anne, despite making lots of nice improvements to the proposed building there, including making it two stories instead of one, Velmeir/CVS have declined to make the building any taller or put housing on top.
I’m curious what people think about this new path in Wallingford…? Would you:
- Be satisfied with keeping the building 1-story with some restoration and improvements (and having CVS there) or
- Push for a multi-story building with apartments on top, even if CVS is saying that option is off the table?
- Something else?
What does Wallingford want?
Discover more from Wallyhood
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If Wallingford does not want CVS in the ‘hood and the property is being leased rather than sold (this needs to be verified), it seems effective advocacy should include pressuring the property owner into terminating the deal. In other words, CVS may negotiate improvements but not its absence, and I rather suspect its absence is what most of us want.
Awkward question. Reviewing the comments already on various threads, I think it’s fair to say the most universal sentiment is that we don’t want CVS.
That said, in terms of the design … N 45th & Meridian N is right in the heart of Wallingford, in the usual sense where we identify a neighborhood primarily with its retail business core. In an era where the commercial / light industry lots on the fringe of Wallingford are being turned into apartment housing for thousands of units, it’s important to keep things happening in the core, to keep a sense that Wallingford isn’t like Oakland a place where “there’s no `there’ there.”
That’s not just about adding some greenery. If it’s a problem for CVS, well … so much the better.
Agreeing with Donn, its true. Most of us don’t want CVS there at all. I’ve have a problem with the new Walgreens over on Stone taking away from local family run Bartells, and I find it irritating that there should be yet a third pharmacy store within a quarter mile. How many does 45th need? I understand this is America in the 21 Century though, and this is the creature Capitolism has created, for better or worse. That said, I appreciate that Wallingford still has a sensibility of outspoken community with my mindset (unlike what is happening on Capitol Hill, Ballard, etc)
What is Wallingford’s community like? Primarily residential. A taller (even one more story) would be unappealing to me. Then again, this whole thing is.
According to the tax records, this building is owned by Pohl Properties, 5248 California Ave SW, Seattle Wa 98136
My preference is a building with limited height (3 story max) and multiple retail spaces – or, minimally, easy ability to change back to multiple retailers. My main concern is to the viability retail opportunities when 3 drugstores turn out to be a couple too many. But, I’d also like to keep the Ballard monoliths east of Aurora as much as possible.
Thanks for this update! I agree that CVS isn’t the tenant I’d like, but that’s the purview of the owner. So if we can influence the design . . .
What is offered in the original post is a good start. I’d like to see some additional height, ideally for apartments/condos or perhaps work/live lofts. I’d also like to see some additional retail or restaurant space rather than a single use building. And I totally agree with Sam–they should make sure the retail space can easily/quickly be converted if the anchor tenant doesn’t work out. We do not need this to become a totally empty space long term if/when CVS doesn’t work out!
Not in favor of this national chain at all. Not appropriate for our neighborhood. But if such is inevitable, keep the building as it is on the exterior. I will not be shopping at CVS once it is there.
My preference is no CVS at all. But I am glad that no one is planning to tear down the building and build something bigger. I don’t care much for the Walgreen’s down on the corner of Stoneway and I’m prefectly satisfied with the Bartell’s that we have had longer than I remember.
I agree with everything Monica said. I will not be shopping at CVS, nor will I enjoy having to walk by it every day. We do not need anymore pharmacies in the area, Walgreens was bad enough!
Is the developer willing to preserve the decorative cornice?
Not a fan of CVS either. Having said that, I believe the movement from the developer in response to the community conversation is good. Retaining the charm and essence of the neighborhood, even externally, is one I would take vs a multi story eyesore. No to 2nd story and apartments causing more parking constraints and congestion on 45th. If they ever vacate we still have the longevity of the exterior and public parking space in the back for the existing retailera
Why can’t Bartells take over that space? I would love them to have a parking lot!
Queen Anne did not want benches (loitering, drug dealing) or planters (cause they are never taken care of or watered, then they die.
I wonder if Pohl Properties is a person? Any chance they’d consider two stories? But 9803 has a good point, too. If they leave, that might give a chance for small retail in the space.
I don’t think CVS cares, they are doing it on Queen Anne. I sat through that meeting for three hours!
We need small retail around. What is CVS pulls out? I heard they have a 65 or 70 year lease (heard it at Queen Anne)
I don’t see much movement at Walgren’s, maybe I am looking at the wrong times of day. Never been in there.
Sam had a great comment, re flexibility if CVS decides they can’t make the numbers work in Wallingford. Then we want small retail.
I will never walk in CVS..or Walgren’s.
When is the next meeting? Is there one?
If the tax records are correct, you can look up the management/ownership of the property here:
http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/Default.aspx
All that cosmetic crap means nothing. The only thing that “improves the general appeal” of a stretch of storefronts is attractive stores. You can put all the benches and plantings and murals and rhinestones you want, but if it’s a CVS, it’s still not attractive. It’s still a damn chain drugstore.
The problem for the owner is that retail is dead. Everybody complains, but then they go home and buy everything online, or at a big-box store somewhere. Look at all the retail spaces that are empty, especially the ones in new construction. But that’s what attracts people. But the only thing that’s expanding its presence is Chase Bank and crappy drugstores (maybe they’ll bring back Rite Aid across the street, go for the quadrifecta).
Wallingford isn’t hip enough for a record store, or smart enough for a bookstore, and it’s not upscale enough for more pricey boutiques. It’s just ordinary. And the ordinary shops are all hanging on for dear life.
Your choices are: (a) chain drugs, (b) overpriced bars, or (c) empty forever. This is the new streetscape in Seattle.
no CVS.
we don’t need a FOURTH drug store, and one that isn’t locally owned, thank you. the ones that i have been to in other cities are super ugly too.
i don’t think the neighborhood needs to settle for this tenant and focus instead on design. the entire neighborhood should boycott this business and tell their PR firm this will happen. before this new law passes, we don’t need to let the last one squeeze into OUR neighborhood where we will have to deal with the business squeezing out local businesses/the consequences.
Well, I’m encouraged to hear that they want to stay at one story, because I don’t think we need any more density. And, please — we really don’t need a fourth pharmacy. We’ve got our beloved Bartells, the sweet hippie-dippie Pharmaca, and the somehow creepy Walgreens (not that I’m opposed to Walgreen’s in other locations — there’s just something weird about this particular store).
I do still hope they’ll keep the lovely terracotta decorations near the top of the building.
We can certainly boycott, but otherwise, I don’t think we get much of a vote on who the new tenant is.
I wanted to support bartells. I went there many years and put up with the crappy service because they were local. Finally i had enough and started going to pharmaca. They are so much better. I am talking about the pharmacy in particular.
I love Bartell’s. prefer it to Pharmaca. But Pharmaca is nice. Never purchased anything there, though. The one thing they have going that CVS and most pharmacies don’t have, is the compound drugs, primarily for animals. But it is a good business.
To get back to the original question–keeping the current 1-story building is far better than the original plan to tear it down for an different one-story building. There’s not a pressing need to tear it down for a bigger building. So, yeah, improvements on the current building.
CVS is not really an “improvement”
I do wonder what market research on Wallingford CVS has done beside something like “we could take Walgreen’s customers.”
Keeping the original building is a big improvement over the suburban piece of garbage that Velmier/CVS had proposed erecting. However, count me as another Wallingford resident who will never step foot in CVS if they set up shop there.
45th Street has the market cornered on Asian eateries, but there are so many other types of retail that could thrive in that corridor. I hope the building’s owners will be good stewards for the community, take a step back, say “No” to CVS and get a little creative on new tenants.
And, frankly, is Moon Temple itching to go out of business, or are they just a casualty of the CVS machine?
What does Wallingford want? HUH?
Has this become a communal project? If the information posted above is accurate, Pohl Properties is the owner of the property. You are familiar with the term “owner,” aren’t you? You want Bartell’s in that space? Are you going to give them the property for Xmas? Bartell’s has expressed no interest in the property, CVS did. Try to influence the SELLER of the property, not the BUYER. Do you really think that if CVS buys the property you’ll be able to convince them not to put a CVS store on the property that they now own? If the SELLER has only one bid, you won’t be able to stop the deal.
I personally prefer Bartell’s; I don’t shop at Pharmaca. That is irrelevant to this discussion.
This is about the “march of time.” Did you know that once upon a time this was a forest? Things change.
What can you change?
What can’t you change?
Can you tell the difference?
IF you don’t like CVS, don’t shop there. They will leave and a “payday loan” shop can move right in, next to a needle-recycler, next to a head shop.
Next stop: Apocalypse.
The proposed changes sound good to me, especially if they will keep the stone cornice. I look forward to seeing drawings of the new design. I couldn’t care less if it’s one story or a few. The initial designs just looked out of place here to me.
I find many of the comments here unproductive because people somehow believe Wallingfordians have more legal power than we do, specifically:
– a legal basis to force the owner to build higher
– a legal basis to force CVS not to locate here
Keep in mind that the point of the city’s process is about the building design. We can have a strong effect in that up to a point.
Trying to convince CVS to change its decision about opening here is an entirely different matter. Good luck with that, but I doubt that’ll be successful. However if the area does boycott it once it opens it will obviously go out of business and the building put to another use.
@evon: I don’t see anyone on this thread implying that residents have “a legal basis to force CVS not to locate here”. Advocacy is often more productive and more expedient when practiced outside of the law.
Suggesting to CVS that it might be in their best interest to not locate in the middle of our neighborhood can be productive. There’s a reason there is no WalMart in Seattle—they know that it is not worth the headache to attempt to penetrate a market where they are not wanted. The same might hold true for CVS.
It’s true, we’re only trying to help! It would be cruel to pretend that we’re all about shopping at CVS, and let them waste a bunch of money putting in a store.
@ evon. I do realize we have no legal force for anything. But the degree of our citizen contributions, may result in a more tolerable presence. I wish they would go away. I wish someone else had purchased the property. A great used or new book store, combined with a bakery (we could use a great bakery)
I have learned from this conversation that apparently it is the owner who does not want more than one story. If it were a choice, it would be worth a discussion of the pros and cons for the community.
Is the a chance for more public input at a meeting? Anyone know?
Boycott the new drugstore? Y’all are missing the point.
With a huge surface parking lot, CVS couldn’t care less about local shoppers. This store is for people commuting on 45th, largely in single-passenger vehicles. That, and those of us unable to resist the siren-song of free parking. Is a single-storey building with a 10,000 square foot parking lot an appropriate design for this site? I don’t think so. If this was 1957, it would at least be understandable. But in 2013, its unconscionable.
Keep the building? Great. Bring yet another pharmacy to the neighborhood? No thanks. I’ve never set foot in Walgreens (though four blocks from me, I walked to Bartells for medicine when I was sick) and will not go in CVS.
I want a burger place! (With organic beef, of course.) Uneeda? Blue Moon? Rain City? Come on — let’s get more casual food in our neighborhood. I don’t always want the table-service experience, but would like to walk into Wallingford instead of Fremont.
Add me to the list of Wallingford residents who will not set foot inside CVS if they open up there due to existing business that I do with Bartell and Pharmaca. I walk by that building every day and wish there was a unique food option there that Wallingford doesn’t have now. High-end burgers were mentioned above which would be fantastic, but I’m craving a good sandwich place along 45th.
This reminds me of a cheat code I used in SimCity 2000 as a kid that would turn all residential buildings in my city into churches if you typed a curse word. Similar thing happening here with commercial zones morphing into national pharmacy chains 😛
When my 88-yr. old mom was visiting from California I learned that her prescription medicine coverage included a substantial discount if she bought from CVS. It was a chilling “aha” moment. Like someone else said, CVS doesn’t give a rip if the neighborhood boycotts. They will out-compete by making these kind of deals with insurance providers and getting their tentacles in our heath care wallets.
Agree with previous three comments, the info Nancy wrote is concerning, and probably true. Scary. I am not sure of my facts, but I think the new health care system is trying to get rid of that very thing regarding meds and RX’s
If they leave the building exterior as is, I won’t fight them having a CVS inside of it.
However, I will never shop there. CVS can pound rocks as long as there’s a local option like Bartell available.
agree, chris! i will never go there
Why can’t we have a nice cocktail bar or restaurant, something proven, there’s not one nice place to get a good drink in Wallingford, don’t get me wrong- Al’s has it’s place but where else is there to go? And a cool, casual eatery would be great too, love the idea of Uneeda, a Woody’s, Carta Oaxaca, something proven, would be awesome. NOTHING will get me to shop at that CVS, on principle alone, Bartell’s might not have everything I need but it’s just fine, and Pharmaca complements it perfectly. Walgreens- awful, CVS- we do not need and they’ll hopefully figure that out soon enough.
Fine location for the new branch of the Wallingford Wilmot Library. Frank C. Has been interested in reclaiming the space at the FPA building. Wallingford has the smallest (well, maybe second smallest) library in the City. Would the Pohls be interested in a long term lease with the City? It’s campaign time and we have mayoral candidates and several Council candidates that might be highly motivate-able.
Let’s get back to work on that library/community center that the School District torpedoed 🙂