The Ballardization of Stone Way continues with this beauty, located at the corner of 46th and Stone Way, by the Wallingford Post Office:
There’s not much information available yet, even through the Seattle Design Review, but keen-eyed observers may raise an eyebrow at the ratio of units to parking spaces. Some residents will argue it is ludicrous, whereas mathematicians will simply describe it as undefined.
This isn’t the first development near Wallingford to go up recently without parking spaces. The new project at Motor and Linden earned the ire of vandals for its lack of space allotted for the new residents’ cars:
That spraypaint reads “WTF! NOGARAGE!? NO GARAGE?” and is followed by a bull’s-eye.
As you can imagine, nearby residents are angry that finding parking near their own homes will become more difficult with the addition of 40 units and, presumably, 40 corresponding cars.
A common response to this anger in discussion forums has been something to the effect of “owning and operating a car in the city is detrimental to the environment and costs the city taxpayer money (i.e., non-car owning taxpayers subsidize car owners), so maybe this is a good thing.”
A common response to that has been (again, aggregating and paraphrasing): “lovely sentiment, but public transportation infrastructure in Wallingford isn’t good enough to comfortably support that lifestyle.” (Another thread degenerates into “Evil bicyclists are undermining the American way with their War on Cars,” but those wishing to pursue that line of “reasoning” can head to the FOX News and MAGA boards.)
To which the response is “It should!” And so on…
For me, what bugs me more about the Linden and Motor development, and so many similar ones in the neighborhood, is less the lack of parking and more the lack of friendly street interface. I believe that the high-frequency, low-effort interactions we have with our neighbors is a critical ingredient to building the relationships that are the substrate of community (the Proximity Principle). I can live with 40 more units if the people in them become a part of our community. Forget garages, I want front porches!
As well, I’ll add that developments like this, and the one going up on NE 40th Ave and 1st are just plain ugly.
Density is inevitable, and while I’d love to preserve my little idyl, the single-family craftsman bubble I live in, Seattle’s population is exploding, and I’d rather have people live closer to the city core than gushing out to the suburbs like an overflowing sewer. But please, developers, can we do it with some dignity? We can add housing without sacrificing character entirely.
Discover more from Wallyhood
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I appreciate this info. Have you looked inside the building and noticed there is a temporary (?) business? This development w/ a business indide during development/comment time is interesting. Is it similar to the occupancy of the old auto store which will be occuppied by an arts group? Can this idea be carried over to the empty store front in the 3 or more year old new apartment building on Stone Way N & 44th? ( Yes, vocab snitters—carried over might not be “your” best word choice.The point is that as we need places for people to lve and have businesseds that empty flor space could be utilized. Oh, yes and Kitaros ( we were asked to be a little more patient about 5 years ago) space could be razed and any number of new businesses or a single tall cube-it studio apartments in a tall stack ( no parking- on busline) could be constructed.
I agree with you about designing buildings which visually and functionally open the neighbourhood. Good design always makes a huge difference. This is where people should put their advocacy efforts.
Preventing urban sprawl is one very good reason for adding housing in Seattle. There are other positive reasons for us too. Adding more people along specific streets like Stone Way and 45th will actually improve the neighbourhood by adding people to support our local businesses and civic services. The rest of Wallingford can remain a single-family craftsman bubble.
The environmental impact of car use is not the only reason for not requiring parking spaces. Another very important reason is that requiring parking spaces places cost on the developer and future owners. You have to decide if this cost is justified.
As the number of people increases so too will transit. Sometimes they will get out of sync but we can get through these growing pains. My personal experience in Wallingford being a bus commuter and using ReachNow/Car2Go and Uber/Lyft for other trips is that this is a non-issue.
1. The current trend in Seattle is all about creating urban sprawl, in spite of record breaking housing construction. That will stop only when the trend of every employer in the region moving to Seattle is reversed, and they start moving to Tacoma etc., places where there could conceivably be room for employees to live (beyond just the upper crust incomes.) Until then, masses of employees will find places wherever they can within driving distance => sprawl. Efforts to build our way out of that will be futile if the corporate growth continues, and note that there’s little commercial motivation to solve the problem anyway – it’s more lucrative to build luxury housing, as 95% of what’s going up currently is.
2. The Wallingford Neighborhood Plan does indeed call for density along 45th and not in the single family areas, but it’s going to take a massive community effort to make city hall respect that. As far as we know, plans are to upzone all the single family areas within the urban village boundary.
3. Cost of housing here is market driven, and market prices are based on how much buyers/renters can pay. The cost of required on site parking, like the cost of construction in general, is not really reflected in market price. That isn’t to say units will be the same price with or without – insofar as it’s an amenity, it will be factored into price – but that again has little to do with cost of construction.
Ben, ask the former residents of the Central District if all that wonderful density you speak of improved their neighborhood.
WTF are you talking about? The rest of Wallingford is slated to NOT remain as what you pejoritatively call “a single-family craftsman bubble.”
“Single-family craftsman bubble” is a direct quote from the original post above. It’s not a criticism of the houses.
Plans and proposals and regulations come and go as people work out what is best for a community. They are not destiny. Sometimes a plan will go further that one group can accept. Then there is a big fuss and we change the plan. That’s what we are going through now.
We all know that what will happen in Wallingford, the areas around the major arterials will be build up and the areas in between will remain mostly singly family, although the craftsman style will gradually be replaced.
Welcome to the party! You can blame Rob Johnson, Mayor Murray and the HALA initiative which provides tremendous benefits to developers at the expense of existing, tax-paying Wallingford residents. Good by livability, sensible density growth, community character and, lets not forget, parking spaces.
Seattle has always been a town then city largely run by and for developers. The current growth boom began well before Rob Johnson left his supporting role at Transportation Choices to take on land use at the City Council. Regional planning was jettisoned in favor of up zones for Paul Allen (Vulcan) and Jeff Bezos (Amazon) in South Lake Union. Seattle voters reacted against the Commons proposal that would have provided a truly “world class” park in the midst of the SLU development craze; we got the craze anyway and no expansive park.
Ben, I echo your thoughts about encouraging good design that “visually and functionally open the neighborhoods”. Well said. Density is going to happen regardless of how people feel about it, so our energies are best used trying to create a livable, vibrant, aesthetically pleasing neighborhood. As long as these projects occur in areas already zoned to support them and along arterials, I can accept them,especially if well planned. However, I will be singing a different tune if “they” try to uproot our trees, pollute our lake with overflowing sewage and tear down beautiful vintage houses by upzoning areas zoned as single family homes.
Ben makes some good points about long term use, but that still doesn’t address the fact that none of these units will be “affordable” and that despite having transit options, each unit will be occupied by a young Amazon couple with two cars and a dog.
Well, I believe in living within your means. In order to avoid beating a dead horse, I will say no more. I think every subscriber of this blog is well aware of your thoughts on this issue.
Not having garages would help affordability. Double income families that have two good cars wouldn’t want to live in a unit with no garages. Parking space is typically a luxury in big cities, and removing that luxury would lower the price.
Big cities in which parking is a luxury typically have the public transit infrastructure to support that. We’re not there yet. Moving in the right direction, surely, but nothing at all like San Francisco, New York, Boston, etc. I’ve lived in those cities and we’re nothing like that in terms of transit, sadly. Talk to me in 2025! 🙂
We won’t be there for decades, if not a century. Heaven forbid the GMA should require actual mass transit concurrency WITHIN large cities. The current status quo is mass transit between cities, and even that will be very slow in coming. Given the current trajectory of growth Seattle is facing massive all day, Manhattenesque gridlock in the near future.
Several houses on Whitman above 43 are getting boarded up. What will they soon be/
Squatter domiciles. Who says we can’t have affordable housing in Wallingford?
I just found a newly boarded up one… my rent will go up another 100.00/month… maybe that would be better? Noot more than 2 blocks away.. still in Wallingford so I can keep on writing for y’all.
Yup. Just tell them you’re homeless, put some track marks on your arms, and the city will let you live there rent free for months while your neighbors complain in vain.
Well, it would be only fair for me to move over there.. I live in on eof the owner’s apartment buildings now. From rent increases to free.. would be a solution fo rme1
Is rme1 the name of your space ship?
Don’t you have anything better to do with your time? Oh, I guess not.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2013/09/language_bullies_pedants_and_grammar_nerds_who_correct_people_all_the_time.html
Speaking as a current Ballard resident, I can tell you that you won’t be “Ballardized” until you have the following:
* Big ugly apartment boxes around the neighborhood perimeter and along major arterials
* Difficulty driving anywhere in the city
* Lots of dumpy old small houses that get torn down when sold and replaced with reasonably attractive (YMMV) new construction priced very high
* Beautiful waterfront parks and beaches that do not have hazardous waste issues
* A sanctioned tent city for homeless residents and lots of RVs parked along streets
* A cultural identity (Scandinavian/marine industry) that contributes to community-building and fun (Syttende Mai, Seafood Festival, etc)
* Lots of major festivals that draw citywide audiences (see above + Burrito Fest, etc)
* A historical zone street with some of the best bars and restaurants in the city (Ballard Avenue)
* One of the largest farmers’ markets in the city
Wallingford, you’re not even CLOSE to Ballard, for better and for worse.
I agree that Wallingford got no personality comparing to Ballard. Even Fremont got much more of a character than Wallingford, with most of the southwest part of Wallingford more eager to be associated with Fremont. Right now Wallingford is just a place with takeout food and pharmacies for passing-by Ballard people on their way to I5.
From my point of view Wallingford has all but on of the bullet points you listed–ugly boxes, probs driving to and from, dumpy sold and reconstructed, Gasworks has hazardous wastes, unsanctioned homeless camping everywhere, a mostly caucasian identity w/ inclusiveness, major festivals & events which clog Gasworks & 45th. No, our farmers market is not so big.
Why do you have to post on the Wallyhood blog since you have moved away? Doesn’t that blog have enough of interest for you? People to pick on?
Somebody needs a hug!
Why do you have to post on the Wallyhood blog since you have moved away? Doesn’t that blog have enough of interest for you? People to pick on?
I am tired of your games, not-picking and rude comments. I do not need hugs from you.. I do not appreciate your consistent mean spirited words or attention. You are an intelligent person– exemplified by some of your lengthier posts. Pleasse use that intelligence to post content relevant to the topics.
Wallingford also doesn’t have obstructionist business-owners hellbent on making sure cyclists do not have a safe place to ride. The Ballard Chamber of Commerce blocked the completion of the Burke-Gilman Trail for years…and many Ballard business owners are still doing so.
DOUG, it is a shame that has gone on and on. I say that as a bike rider. However, just to paint the complete picture, there are two proposed routes under consideration: one along Shilshole which industry there does not support, and the other up Leary and then along a dedicated lane on Market which others oppose. My understanding is that the Shilshole businesses are concerned about truck traffic mowing down bikers as they exit their businesses and the Market Street opponents are concerned about parking being eliminated for businesses, etc.
I don’t have a dog in this hunt — either route is fine with me. But it’s important to point out that pretty much all the businesses in Ballard support completing the BG, they just cannot agree on how.
The city’s web site for this project suggests that the Leary route is no longer under consideration, though it does still appear in the final EIS. http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/BGT_Ballard.htm
That still leaves 3 alternatives, but they’re all on the diagonal stretch of Shilshole, and the route is almost certain to take the south waterfront industry side of Shilshole there.
Just to add a Wallingford relevant note – article in today’s Seattle Times about pedestrian and bicycle accidents involving motor vehicles, showed a very bad spot on N 45th with enough accidents to stand out – even though it isn’t really a major bicycle route. Right in front of Dick’s drive-in, of course. There’s a marked bicycle lane, but safe bicycling is about finding a safe route, not about painting magic lines on the street. We’ll see who was right, when BG traffic starts up on the south side of Shilshole.
Donn thanks – you’re more up to speed than I am!
In a town where you can’t get 86% of people to agree on anything, 86% of the people responding to the city’s Draft EIS preferred the South Shilshole route for the Missing Link. There might be “two sides” to this issue, but they are not equivalent.
DOUG, you appear to be looking for a fight where none exists. Please note I said I didn’t care what route won out. But extra points for folding “There might be ‘two sides’ to this issue, but they are not equivalent” into your answer. You’ve obviously been watching the news of late! 🙂
It is laughable to see you assert that Gas Works Park lacks “hazard waste issues.” Lake Union has some of the worst water quality in the entire State of Washington, especially near Gas Works Park.
It is laughable that you cannot understand my list is what we HAVE in Ballard and that you do NOT HAVE in Wallingford. I was calling out Gas Works Park as HAVING hazardous waste issues. Posting at 2 AM may not be doing you any favors. Read it ***s l o w l y*** again and it might make sense.
By proximity principle, you want more Apodment type of developments, since smaller units means people have to get out more. With no yards but a park next by, people would get to see each other more. With limited storage place and convenient grocery and eatery businesses near by, people would also get to see each other more.
TJ, on paper you are spot on. But in practice, parks that are intended to relieve density and provide respite for apartment dwellers and even those in houses with no yards too often end up filled with campers and illicit drug use. I’m NOT making a point one way or another on homelessness (so hoping this doesn’t turn in to a contentious thread), but just want to point out that Ballard Commons, the small park at the bottom of the Counterbalance and other city pocket parks are overrun with odd and even unsafe goings on. The city needs a stepped-up commitment to public safety and sheltering people in need if the “park next by” is going to serve anything like the purpose you suggest.
Even at their best, parks tend to be bleak landscapes compared to front yards, and they’re anonymous spaces that don’t take the place of a front porch for social connection. The drug campers issue illustrates that point.
Parks hold community activities, but not front porches. There are way more socializing in parks also. Not sure what bleak landscape you are talking about in parks. Which parks are you referring to? Parks in Wallingford in general are better than most yards in Wallingford. Drug users in parks is a result of parks being public spaces, and is a separate issue. There is no such a thing as having more parks would resulting in more homeless drug users. Seattle didn’t have less parks in the past, and homeless drug users in parks used to not be an issue.
Bleak as in South Lake Union Park and Counterbalance Park in Lower Queen Anne, to give just two examples.
Seattle is infamous for building bleak parks, especially those constructed in the recent past.
If there is one part of Wallingford where public transit and bike infrastructure can support a non-car-owning lifestyle, this is the place. It’s a block from the 16 and the 62, three blocks from the Rapid Ride E line, and six blocks from the 26 and 5.
Stone Way is a reasonable grade with a bike lane that connects to the Burke Gilman Trail to the south and Greenlake/Ravenna Ave trails to the north.
A study in Portland determined that rent in buildings that provide on-site parking and rent in supposed “car-less” buildings are no different (location, finishes, etc being equal). This is because nowadays rent for parking is no longer “bundled” in with rent for the apartment. The rent being charged in these places is far, far above what it costs to build the units… $800 to $1200 per month per unit higher than the amortized cost to build the unit. Rent is driven by what the market will bear. These are cash cows.
Builders do not want to provide on-site parking because they can pocket the savings from not building it and basically charge the same rent anyway. Providing 0.6 spaces per unit is reasonable and can be created by providing one floor of parking beneath the building in the foundation space that is being built anyway. The cost to the builder is relatively modest and easily recouped via rent only for those leasing a space. This is what the builder did for the complex at 45th and Woodlawn – thank you, builder! You are being a good neighbor!
Urbanist parking guru Donald Shoup recommends creating RPZs and blocking residents of supposed “car-less” from participating in them in order to “close the loop” on the market choice by the builder to not provide on-site parking.
Lobby your councilpersons to require a baseline of 0.6 spaces per unit of on-site parking and for blocking tenants of “car-less” buildings from participating in adjacent RPZs.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/156e3137d61d4c66b42165da3f3f24a140d90817bf2cb7920da6acb7e23b4425.png
Another developer who provided parking for some of the “efficiency unts” in their building is the one at 50th and 1st, where the old 50th Street Deli once stood. Neighbors spoke out strongly in feedback to the city about that.
Neighbors who spoke out strongly must not have enough parking spaces for themselves? Maybe they should also build more parking spaces on their own property? A solution for all this is to have the city start collecting parking fees on all city streets. RPZ should be auctioned.
TJ – The feedback is all public record and I had a covered parking space there so it wasn’t a huge deal for me, but I recall the maijor issues on 51st/52nd/53rd area were:
* Lots of commuters parked there during the day and bused into town
* Several King County van pool vans parked there overnight
* For a time there was a non-neighbor resident who had a number of cars and trucks he kept in the area
Over the years I noticed that friends had to park farther and farther from my house when they came to visit. I dont think it was a big deal for them but I guess if you were older and had to walk three blocks home, then that could be a pain.
You mean the study a few years ago that lead to the policy reverse of parking requirements, and then lead to lots of empty parking garages and raising development prices? Portland data on this is limited and noisy, and could be read whatever way you’d like to see it.
I support “closing the loop” and denying RPZ’s to newcomers, but the urbanists always cry that’s not fair.
Here is a timely article: http://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-might-rewrite-law-over-bus-ruling-that-stopped-housing-project
Jordan: “I believe that the high-frequency, low-effort interactions we have with our neighbors is a critical ingredient to building the relationships that are the substrate of community (the Proximity Principle). I can live with 40 more units if the people in them become a part of our community. Forget garages, I want front porches!”
That’s the problem, (well, one of the problems) with developments like the one proposed for 40th/Stone. They WON’T become part of the community. They will likely be people who just move in for some place to live in a desirable neighborhood, and then move on to nicer digs after a year or two. And, where’s the “family” part of the multi-family housing? it looks like these will all be studio-sized, and not conducive to families who want to settle down and become part of our neighborhood.
“…I’d rather have people live closer to the city core…”
Well, you can’t get much closer to the core than downtown and SLU. That’s why I support dramatically upzoning those areas and not the pathetic 1-2 additional stories with a 2% MHA requirement. We should concentrate growth where it belongs, in our downtown core, where there’s no neighborhoods to destroy. If people want density, keep building it downtown and move there!
Almost 20 years ago I moved into a small apartment in Wallingford. I’m still here. I now have a family and a porch. There are more like me.
So you have a porch? What kind of structure do you live in?
Single family house.
And you see no irony with your position? Where are all those families like yours going to live when the urbanist vision is realized?
Most of Wallingford will continue to be single family houses for a very long time.
For your agenda of density-everywhere-and-nevermind-“livability” to work, it requires you to speed up the destruction of SF neighborhoods as fast as possible. You YIMBY’s can’t keep saying, “Let’s tear down all the single family” in one breath, and in the next, say, “Don’t worry, your neighborhood will continue to be SF for a long time.” It’s akin to saying, “Sure, Trump may want to turn back the clock on abortion rights, but don’t worry, that won’t happen for a long time.”
No. Build on a few streets. Single family everywhere else, with a few duplex and mother-in-law units here and there.
Well I have to say I’m surprised, and I apologize for lumping you in with the HALA boosters. Unfortunately, HALA does more than that. Especially Option 3, which would allow Apodments everywhere.
And I assumed you were one of the “no apartments anywhere” people 🙂
Hah! Touche.
Grandfathered duplexes from yesteryear?
Lovely 1500sqft craftsman homes still do get torn down across the city though, and they’re replaced with $1.3m 4000sqft single family mansions. As homes gradually get torn down for whatever reason, three 1500 sqft row house units that sell for $550k each arguably are more in line with the neighborhood character and the historical wealth needed to live in the neighborhood than whats currently legal to build in single family zones. 95% of typical 100 year old houses in Seattle will probably remain a decade from now. What do you want to see the 5% that won’t become? Portland’s shown pretty good ability to build denser duplexes+ that even fit in with the architectural style of bungalow neighborhoods.
I would happily support lot coverage and height restrictions that would cut down on the widely reported mansion menace.
“They will likely be people who just move in for some place to live in a desirable neighborhood, and then move on to nicer digs after a year or two.”
All young people who don’t have enough money to buy their permanent dream home in exactly the place forever right out of college are bad neighbors.
Fascinating.
Where did I say they suck? I have no problem with young people moving here right out of college. I DO have a problem with the fact that all these “units,” rather than “people” the city is trying to build with HALA upzoning, aren’t for families.
I removed the word suck as that was a bit bombastic – but I didn’t interpret this as a compliment.
“They WON’T become part of the community. They will likely be people who just move in for some place to live in a desirable neighborhood, and then move on to nicer digs after a year or two.”
I’ve been watching it happen for many years. Hayduke speaks the truth on this point; most people in tiny apartments are not long term occupants and do not become part of the fabric of the community. And to the extent they do, then you find them gone; I’ve watched that happen repeatedly over the years as well. Renters often stick but not in overpriced 250 (or even 300) sq. ft. closets.
There surely aren’t enough tiny 2-bedroom or 3-bedroom units being built. Those are needed on top of the tiny studios.
I’m not sure what to make of this. For two years and change we lived in the first apartment that I can remember. My brother and I called the landlords (who lived dowstairs) “Auntie Laura” and “Uncle Milt.” I didn’t figure out until I was older they weren’t actually blood relatives.
And then my dad got a better job in another city.
I think we were part of the community. I don’t think Laura and Milt, god rest their souls. felt otherwise or would have traded that time with s just for the sake of having potentially permanent tenants.
Oh my gosh Bryan. The only way your dad could have been a worse person is if he got a tech job at Amazon.
I would put your not knowing what to make of that, to a dedicated avoidance of reality, and ignoring what he wrote. Note “tiny apartments”, and we’re talking about Seattle in 2017. Ask yourself if it’s reasonable to expect term of occupancy to be the same, for residents of tiny apartments, vs. Wallingford as a whole.
Bryan, I don’t know what I need to say to you to get you to understand it is no more an insult than it is a compliment when I say they won’t stay here long term and be a part of the neighborhood. It is simply a FACT. I’m making no judgment whatsoever on their character, so please stop inferring that I am.
Ok…sorry if I insulted or misrepresented you here, but I am not getting why someone who lives here for 1-2 years “WON’T” be a part of the community if they are otherwise fine people. Are my neighbors 2 doors down still on probation or something till they cross the 24 month mark? Seemed part of the community right when they moved in. Would be sad to see them go if life circumstances meant they had to move.
No Bryan, I wouldn’t suggest some sort of probation period, and I think you know that. And what I mean when I talk about people being part of a neighborhood and community.
So when you say you’d be sad to see your neighbors two doors down move because of circumstances, I would agree that yes, they are part of the community if you’ve gotten to know them and would miss them, regardless of how long they’ve lived here. Unless you’re saying that just to try to make a point and you don’t actually know them….
So no more talk about renters not becoming part of the community.
What is it with you guys? You keep putting words in my mouth or twisting the meaning of what I’m trying to say. Can you not argue fairly based on the merits of your point?
I’ve met quite a few long-term renters at WCC meetings and I also am friends with some as well. Note that I say “long-term,” because generally the longer someone lives in a neighborhood the more they become a part of it. Surely we can agree on that point? Or is that too difficult a concept to grasp? My next door neighbors are renters, and I consider them just as much a part of our community as anyone who owns a single-family house.
If were to use your logic, someone who rents an air B&B for a weekend in the neighborhood is just as much a part of that community is someone who’s lived here for twenty years.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Correct – disproving an assertion by showing that it leads to a ridiculous conclusion.
1. Lenght of time doesn’t matter.
2. Even if it does you don’t know how long people will stay.
Oh, okay. If you say so. By the way, my friend who owns a house across the street from me has some people staying in it right now as an Air B&B.
Since length of time apparently doesn’t matter and I don’t know how long they’ll be staying, should we bring them over a pie to welcome them to the neighborhood? Maybe ask if we could borrow a cup of sugar?
You should bring them a pie.
You have a sense of humor but your statement is still wrong; “length of time” matters a great deal. For cultures as well as individuals and communities.
Whether someone is a member of the community (i.e. a good neighbourhood) is not a function of how long they have lived in a place.
And who are we to judge?
I’m sorry you took what I wrote to imply that. It’s not what I said. Let me spell it out for you: Some people become engaged and part of the community they’re in immediately upon arrival. Some never become engaged. However, on average people who make a commitment to live in a community for more than a short time are more engaged.
Furthermore, when a culture is in a place for a long time (generations) they become part of that place. People who are traveling through, no matter how long they stay, even years such as was common for traveling merchants before fossil fuels drove the speed of movement off the dial, do not readily become part of the culture of a place. “Length of time” matters.
So no difference between renters and owners, so long as they have a commitment to stay here.
If it wasn’t too long ago since you were a renter, you may recall that renters stay here at the pleasure of their landlords.
Of course that’s likely never an issue with the 300 sq ft dorm rooms we’re talking about here, and those renters who are inspired to settle down there for the long term are just what we’re talking about. He might be right, though, the duration there might on average be not quite the same as Wallingford as a whole.
Please excuse first early morning misread. Yes, exactly. Land tenure status is (or should be) irrelevant.
Whether or not someone is committed to stay in a place is a factor but not the only one. Many people engage deeply in the place they are in “in the moment” even if they know that moment is not long. Like college students.
Jordan, I absolutely agree with you. Parking should be optional, but the building should be outward facing. I would think that leaving out the parking would give them the flexibility to do so, but I guess not.
This was the most interesting and important part of Jordan’s post.
Well, they can all park in the Post Office parking lot. What is the problem?
He also nailed the esthetic: “just plain ugly.”
What would outward facing mean here? The plan set from 7/26 shows street front commercial on Stone. Most of the residential units are on floors 3 and 4, hanging a bit over the commercial and looking more like an office building. The units are almost all under 300 sq ft, some under 200. Their door opens into a corridor on one end, and they have a window on the other end.
I would hope for some kind of porch or courtyard like Jordan described (sort of like Smith & Burns, on the east side), but it is hard doing other stuff with the units so small.
Exactly, minimal everything. But residential floors above street level isn’t an issue, because you aren’t talking about individual units connecting to the outside, but rather some space that they have common access to? There’s a small outdoor area on the southeast corner.
Real connection is a sort of conundrum. Most commercial development doesn’t make even a token attempt at that, because the cultural basis for it seems to be missing. We don’t hang out in front by the sidewalk.
Whatever business fills the space should put in a parklet. Or two, the street frontage seems plenty long enough,
I believe some cities actually require front porches, to encourage neighborliness. It’s sure be nice to have some porches 46th/Stone than the bunker-like monstrosity in the rendering above.
Perhaps the city could start a “MFP” program, where they mandate that 5% to 10% of their units are required to have front porches. They could even make allowances if the developer throws in a free rocking chair. And then, they could sit there and glower with shotguns in their laps and yell, “Get off my lawn!”
As I understand it, the premise behind permitting 0 parking is that in these urban villages there are adequate public transportation options. Many/most of these urban villages also have resident-only parking restrictions. So it just seems we need to close the logical circle – you live in a building that was approved for 0 parking, you can’t get an RPZ permit. Then the theory would match the practice.
How about a building with 40 units and 1 parking stall?
This pic from 8/16/2017 shows asterisk and arrows, added by a clearly concerned citizen (not me) re: lack of parking.
I took this pic last Wed (8/16/2017): note the asterisk and arrows added by a clearly concerned citizen re lack of parking. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a382cbe46e433e3c3a9513d94481bb079d029f7b7ac9be923c1e3b37306e8ba.jpg
Apartment haters do like graffiti.
I wish the action suggested – send comment about parking – had a chance of making any difference, but a good number of our neighbors have sent letters anyway, and good for them.
DCI publishes all the letters in the documents associated with the site permitting. Regarding that “apartment haters” crack – in a casual sample, more than a few writers went out of their way to express approval of an apartment building, just not 0 parking. The Phinney Flats appeal has drawn the same kind of thing – attempts to discount the issue claiming that they’re just opposed to development, when their clear objective and the only thing they could possibly hope to accomplish is to get parking on site.
(Phinney Flats is a development just north of the community center, 0 parking based on a No. 5 schedule that shows it coming every 15 minutes. A neighborhood organization appealed on grounds that the No 5 schedule is fiction, and reality is that it doesn’t by any means come every 15 minutes, and the hearing examiner agreed. The developer has taken it to Superior Court, and the neighborhood could use some help. https://livablephinney.org )
Metro and SDOT should work together to fix the punctuality of the 5 bus route.
Sure, I’ve been a little disappointed in it myself. But who honestly thinks, if they could only get that No. 5 to run every 15 minutes, then Phinney Flats residents wouldn’t have cars? It’s baloney, and both sides know that. The neighborhood is fighting bad policy on the basis of a technicality.
Sure, some residents of Phinney Flats will have cars. What matters is that as car ownership alternatives increase the number of cars parked by all residencies in the area will reduce.
It is all a technicality. If parking wasn’t an issue then apartment haters would find something else to object to.
There are plenty of apartment buildings up and down the street from there, some of them new or under construction. There is absolutely no question there’s going to be an apartment building at the Phinney Flats site. The only question, the only reason for the neighborhood to spend all that time and money on this fight, is whether the developer needs to provide parking on site. And of course the course of this legal battle has ramifications for the rest of the city – 46th & Stone isn’t going to be the last apartment building in Wallingford where the developers would like to provide no parking on site.
Link to Seattle In Progress 31-page proposal, detailed information, and renderings:
https://www.seattleinprogress.com/project/3027069/page/1
These row houses have practically the same community interactivity as classic brownstones beloved in east coast cities, just in the current architectural style. A kitchen window and front door right at the sidewalk. When they do put a garage in, there’s basically no lived first floor, just a blank wall of the garage’s back side and door facing stairs that never gets used because the person enters through the back where the garage is. Not to mention adding $50k to the pricetag to build the garage.
“These row houses”? This project is 3 floors of tiny apartments on top of 1 floor of commercial.
As for Seattle’s “rowhouse” standard, I’d be a little surprised to find anything like it in older housing on the east coast or elsewhere. The key feature, for the developer, is that there’s no “density limit”, so they squeeze them in as narrow as they can reasonably be – and subdivide the lot to make a new lot behind them, where they can squeeze in one or two townhouses, subject to density limit with a round-up factor of 0.8. By subdividing and applying different standards, they squeeze in more units per lot than the standards appear to intend.
I’m talking about the picture of the vandalized nearly complete rowhouses in the article, not the land use action sign for the apartment building. You just have a hatred of modern architecture, the only difference between these row houses and ones built in the 1880s in Boston, Brooklyn, and the UK is the exterior texture and safety standards. My uncle’s 1840 place in Baltimore was this amazing 10 split 5 storey tall rowhouse – 11″ wide. Same as these. Unlike modern rowhouses built in Seattle, there actually was no density limit when both craftsman homes in Seattle and rowhouses in Baltimore were built – zoning was established in the 1920s, and SF5000 minimums a couple decades after that. There are 20′ tall houses and detached single family on the same block as he lived worth double. Naturally mixed income by allowing it to be. Most houses in Seattle would be illegally dense to build today – the one I grew up in was a 1500sqft 3bd 1ba house on 3200sqft lot in a 5000sqft zone built in 1914. Certainly didn’t feel like inhumanely small of a yard. It’s now worth $700k, way more than my family could’ve afforded. But within the block is the urban village boundary that allowed 8 rowhouses to be built. Each are 1500sqft 3bd 2ba homes on 700sqft of land and sell for $500k brand new. More doable for a middle class family. Especially compared to the new houses in the neighborhood on 5,000sqft lots that sell for $1.2m+. You’re seeing dense affordable homes through subdivision of lots in urban villages as a problem. It’s what made Seattle great. And now we ban it in 2/3rds of the city.
OK, if your uncle’s rowhouse was really 11 inches wide, that’s something else.
The point I wanted to make is that our “rowhouses” are just the front row of a group of units. Are there units around back of your uncle’s rowhouse, with addresses on the same street?
Modern architecture is a lot like modern anything else – every era produces good and bad, but in the course of time, survival favors the good stuff to some extent. We have a lot of that here in Wallingford, good stuff that has survived for about a century, and you can expect us to care about that.
11 inch wide houses?
You typed “5 storey tall rowhouse – 11″ wide” —that’s usually read as “11 inches”. Typo?
Ben did not type that. Tyler did.
Shades of Spinal Tap! 🙂
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/01/25-best-scenes-comedy-spoof-movies/this-is-spinal-tap-stonehenge
OK, I’ll admit it. That was funny.