See the newest design for 3210 California SW, with special meeting this Wednesday & fourth Design Review next week

(Click image to see larger view)
Does that look enough like three separate buildings to satisfy the Southwest Design Review Board? It’s the newest design proposal for the biggest project currently in the works north of The Junction, 3210 California SW, the block-long, ~149-apartment, ~168-parking-space South Admiral proposal with two public meetings coming up – the special neighbor-requested meeting (announced last week) this Wednesday, 6:30 pm at the Senior Center of West Seattle, and, at the same location, its fourth session before the SWDRB, 9 pm February 6th.

The rendering is from the new design packet, just made public and viewable here. Developer Intracorp and architects Nicholson Kovalchick were also asked to show more of how the back (east) side of the building will interact with the single-family-home neighborhood behind it, and this is one of the depictions:

Hard to tell unless you click for the larger view, but that is an overlay of how and where windows on the back of 3210 California SW will face the homes right behind it. Note: The new design proposal will be formally presented at the February 6th board meeting; this Wednesday’s special public meeting is mostly for the public to voice other concerns, including aspects covered by the State Environmental Policy Act such as traffic and noise.

WSB coverage of previous meetings about the project:
3rd SWDRB meeting (“recommendations” phase), November 2013
2nd SWDRB meeting (“early design guidance” phase), summer 2013
1st SWDRB meeting (“early design guidance” phase), spring 2013

24 Replies to "See the newest design for 3210 California SW, with special meeting this Wednesday & fourth Design Review next week"

  • NeighborZoo January 27, 2014 (3:45 pm)

    Does it look like three different buildings? Not really. It’s better than it was, though. I like the color variation and the fact that the facade has more dimension. I’ll bow to the eastern neighbors on whether this is good enough, though.

    California Ave is terribly represented here. It looks like a big, wide boulevard with very little traffic/parking density. Which we know it is not. I suspect the designers did that to make their structure look less like a hulking behemoth.

  • Ex-42nd January 27, 2014 (4:22 pm)

    The lower image is the first I have seen that accurately shows the relative height of the building in comparison to the homes on 42nd. Those people will be facing a five-story wall that starts 20 feet from their back doors. The developer is certainly entitled to do whatever it wishes with its property, consistent with building regulations, but this is an example of what happens when the zoning process is manipulated. (It’s no big deal to upzone these parcels from 30 to 40 feet, right? It’s only ten more feet! Oh wait, the building will actually be 50-70 feet tall, and 450 feet long? Yeah, that’s no big deal at all. Thanks very much, city council.)

  • anonyme January 27, 2014 (4:37 pm)

    No, it doesn’t. It looks like what it is – a monolithic monstrosity reminiscent of the massive, inner city housing projects that filled blocks of poor neighborhoods in the 50’s and 60’s. Painting some of them a different color changes nothing.

  • Lura January 27, 2014 (4:44 pm)

    Mount Rainier is too far north.

  • bill January 27, 2014 (5:18 pm)

    Looks good…more density, more people, more to do in west seattle…it’s been getting better every year I’ve lived here…

  • Gordon January 27, 2014 (5:20 pm)

    Thanks, WSB, for the coverage. You’re awesome!

    “East neighbor privacy.” Really?

  • dsa January 27, 2014 (5:43 pm)

    Both of the above representations show how the closest western neighbors will be impacted by the hulking building, or string of continuous buildings.
    The first one appears to be a vantage point from a roof on the west side of California. Even at the additional height of the roof, the long existing homes that were protected by zoning, do not show.
    The second drawing shows why. The string of new buildings would be much taller than the views from the homes.

  • Genesee Hill January 27, 2014 (5:53 pm)

    That is a nice improvement to that stretch of California. Quite gorgeous.

    Might even help our area get light rail.

  • WS Born&Bred January 27, 2014 (6:04 pm)

    I will not panic at the thought of more population density, more traffic congestion and less buses. Life is dandy. I will not panic. I will not…

  • old timer January 27, 2014 (6:15 pm)

    What would really help would be to vary the height of the building components. Like that’s going to happen-NOT!

  • Eric January 27, 2014 (6:24 pm)

    If they are going to attempt to show the building from a vantage point up above the buildings across California, they need to show what it will look like from the sidewalk. I’m thinking it will be a very different feel.

    • WSB January 27, 2014 (6:40 pm)

      There are many more graphics in the linked “packet” – I just pulled these two for this; the window overlay was a response to something specifically asked at the last meeting, so I thought it would be interesting to show here.

  • heather January 27, 2014 (7:22 pm)

    Hmmm. That Glazing Diagram is very interesting. Could provide some interesting landscaping and sculptural opportunities.

  • Dylan January 27, 2014 (9:41 pm)

    All of these new-construction buildings have horrible looking architecture.

  • Mark January 27, 2014 (10:15 pm)

    It does appear that California Ave was created to look like it is much wider to give the appearance that the building would not appears as close to the ones its faces.

  • Robin January 27, 2014 (10:16 pm)

    The only karma points the homeowners have on 42nd is that the same ilk that builds this and those who buy it, will be of the same ilk that will put one across the street and block and devalue their investment. Look at the Alaska Junction projects. All central, until they move west. Already started with some of those monsters. West side of California will be the place to be…

    • WSB January 27, 2014 (10:25 pm)

      There are already projects proposed across the street – we’ve reported on them. 3211 California SW, four-story apartment building, 65 units – not nearly as far along as 3210, and hasn’t been scheduled for Design Review. A few doors down, 4 three-story single-family houses. None of these plans are final, so they could change.

  • Seattlite January 27, 2014 (10:25 pm)

    149 units and 168 parking spaces. There will probably be double the amount of cars that will belong to this massive apt.bldg. What a crappy mess the city politicians/developers have made of WS and other good neighborhoods.

  • MellyMel January 28, 2014 (12:04 am)

    The packets depiction of the 8 foot “buffer landscaping” they will do for privacy with east neighbors is interesting.

    It shows a young trees planting rendering which screens the 1st floor and a mature tress planting rendering which screens all three floors.

    It is a shame that this project wasn’t considered “viable” (profitable) enough with one less floor.

    Thanks Mr Cayce and Mr. Gain for pursing that upzoning!

  • GT January 28, 2014 (2:05 am)

    With the FAR interpretation request to exclude the first floor from being counted, questionable average grade calculation over 500 ft, bonus height request, and height departure request for lower ceilings the developer has really pulled out all the stops to get a 5 story building, upto 75ft tall, in a NC2-40 zone. This flies in the face of the rezone request by Cayce and Gain to only build a 4 story structure if the land was upzoned from NC1-30.

    If you live on Walnut or 41st your views will be affected as well but they aren’t currently being considered by the developer.

    Come out to the Senior Center for the zoning meeting this Wed at 1830 to voice your concerns.

  • MellyMel January 28, 2014 (3:47 pm)

    GT, sorry to be ignorant — what is the topic for the zoning meeting? This area in articular or more generally? Edited to add — nevermind I found it in the events page. I’ve never been to one, but I will give this a shot.

  • Nieghbor January 28, 2014 (6:14 pm)

    This looks like the project housing on Rainer at Dearborn. This is not being built for the surrounding neighborhood. It’s beyond insulting.

  • kittyno January 28, 2014 (9:13 pm)

    Start GoogleSketchup: manipulate some blocks (stack it this way, then that way) congratulate yourself on your building’s dimensional flavor while sipping coffee and adjusting those awesome glasses of yours, stroke beard, add some colored Hardie panel for the hipsters, add your mandatory bottom-level storefronts (Hello, Subway, I’m talking to you!), stroke beard again, market your no-parking zones as a pedestrian-friendly/biking commuter village, and throw in landscaped buffer zone! BAM! New housing development!

    No need to thank me, I just live here. (No offense to the bearded-types. Pure hyperbole.)

  • WS resident January 28, 2014 (9:34 pm)

    To all those who think this is a good idea, how about we put it in your back yard? This is going to completely change the view, feel and solar exposure of our immediate neighborhood. This is an extreme example of a developer manipulating loopholes in order to maximize profits. I understand that is the end goal of any project such as this, however the re-zone that took place that allowed this left us totally unprepared for a project like this.

Sorry, comment time is over.

WP-Backgrounds by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann