West Seattle development, mapped: 3,272 units planned, under construction, almost done, recently opened…

April 9, 2014 at 12:44 pm | In Development, West Seattle news | 43 Comments


View West Seattle Blog maps development projects of at least 15 units in a larger map

For those asking about “the big picture,” we’ve been promising for a LONG time to update the WSB map of planned (and recently completed) West Seattle development, and after a few weeks of on-and-off work have just finished it today, which happens to be the same day as the Seattle 2035 first West Seattle open house, an opportunity to start having a say in the city’s future planning – whatever you think about what’s happening (or not happening) right now, whatever you think about what should happen (or not) in the future.

What you see above are markers for every planned/under construction/almost done/recently opened (within the past year) development of 15 units or more that we know of – via the city Department of Planning and Development‘s maps and project pages, via our coverage of projects as they go through Design Review, via what’s under construction now, and so on. We count 3,272 units (of multiple types). If you find something wrong or missing, please let us know! We have a side story or two in the works. We recommend viewing the map full-page on the Google Maps site, which you can do by clicking the little blue link beneath it (or go here). The markers overlap in the Junction/Triangle/Avalon areas, so you have to zoom in if you want to see them all in the version above. As with any G-map, you can also grab it and pan around.

Meantime, if you missed it in our West Seattle Wednesday daily-highlights list, get the info here about tonight’s Seattle 2035 open house – 6-8 pm at Youngstown Cultural Arts Center, 4408 Delridge Way SW.

Another side note: Two of our fellow online-neighborhood-news publications have published similar maps for their neighborhoods. Just in case you’re interested, we’re linking them here:

*Capitol Hill development (from capitolhillseattle.com)
*Northeast Seattle development (from ravennablog.com)

43 Comments

  1. Thanks for doing this. Hard to imagine how this is going to impact the difficulties we already face when traveling out of west Seattle.

    Any idea why none of the development is at the admiral junction? Those projects at California and Hanford look to be some of the largest complexes, but they seem so out of place since they aren’t near the junctions…

    Comment by junctions — 1:10 pm April 9, 2014 #

  2. thank you; grateful you finally got enough of a break in your schedule to do this

    Comment by Diane — 1:34 pm April 9, 2014 #

  3. junctions: I don’t think it is all that hard to imagine. As long as residents of this peninsula labor under the illusion that they way we use our cars won’t have to change it is very easy to see that things are going to get much worse than they are now.

    Comment by cjboffoli — 1:47 pm April 9, 2014 #

  4. Junctions – Re: Admiral development. Multiple factors. One is zoning – The (Alaska) Junction has zoning up to 85 feet. Even right at the Admiral/California crossroads, it’s 40′. The city has closeup zoning maps here:
    .
    http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/toolsresources/zoningmapbooks/default.htm
    .
    Admiral is (west side) here http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/gis/webplots/k48w.pdf and (east side) here http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/gis/webplots/k48e.pdf
    .
    Also, it’s a matter of what the land owner(s) are doing or not doing. The rallying cry frequently mentions “out of town developers” as if they swooped in and held a gun to someone’s head and said “give me your land!” but in reality, somebody has to SELL the land to them first, and it’s usually somebody local. A sizable swath of land on the north side of the Admiral Junction is owned by one property owner. Just before we started WSB in the middle of last decade, there was a proposal to redevelop part of his holdings, on the northwest side of 42nd/Admiral, and it was rumored to maybe even have been planned for Trader Joe’s (obviously years before TJ’s wound up where it did). Like a ghost sign, you can still see the canceled project topline on the DPD site: http://web1.seattle.gov/DPD/permitstatus/Project.aspx?id=3003315
    .
    And then – a fair amount of land right by Admiral Junction is either recently redeveloped or not redevelopable. In the former category, just steps south of the Admiral Junction, remember, the Admiral Safeway redevelopment is only a couple years old, and that included the Element 42 project on its east side, as well as the commercial building fronting California to its north. In the latter category, you have Lafayette Elementary and Hiawatha.
    .
    TR

    Comment by WSB — 2:30 pm April 9, 2014 #

  5. so, in essence…nothing for sale here in the Admiral Junction. Businesses seem to be mostly happy. Only one change of ownership lately that I know of (or lessee, maybe) and that’s The Cask, which changed entities about a month ago. Yes, no more Matt and Rochelle :(

    Comment by JanS — 3:02 pm April 9, 2014 #

  6. Still…that cluster at the Alaska Junction is formidable…wow…if we’re not careful the island may sink ;->

    Comment by JanS — 3:03 pm April 9, 2014 #

  7. Jan – we did mention the former Brickyard site is for sale. It in fact had a development proposal just before the crash. Now it’s just for sale as a potential site.

    Comment by WSB — 3:15 pm April 9, 2014 #

  8. and the Admiral gas station changed owners

    Comment by Diane — 3:25 pm April 9, 2014 #

  9. the Heartland Cafe just changed owners

    Comment by Diane — 3:25 pm April 9, 2014 #

  10. I also don’t believe it’s just because people use their cars more than others think. There are many of us who utilize our cars wisely, only when we absolutely have to. I would like to ask all those who criticize drivers as being the cause of all the development to explain how often they take public transportation to work, to grocery store, to downtown shopping , to dinner other than in West Seattle, on trips, say to the peninsula or to E. Washington, to visit friends, to socialize, or to plays, etc. There are many more reasons for the development…..sellers who make a huge profit on their property, the city that endorses whatever developers want, and on and on…

    Comment by JanS — 3:34 pm April 9, 2014 #

  11. Diane…thanks for that. Brickyard has been shut down for so long, I don’t even remember it’s there…and by Adm. gas station, do you mean Barnecuts? Yeah, that was a bit ago, so forget…oh, and Shipwreck became Vidiot, too. Heartland..well, I’m looking forward to the new Admiral Benbow Inn…I never went to Heartland much since their opening.

    Sometimes it seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same ;-)

    Comment by JanS — 3:38 pm April 9, 2014 #

  12. TR…that whole corner from Brickyard down to and including Yen Wor could be redeveloped as far as I’m concerned :)

    Comment by JanS — 3:39 pm April 9, 2014 #

  13. Property growth here is no fault of the land owners. Land owners are just doing what the city allows them and in many cases forced on them by being taxed heavily. In order to keep properties they develop or sell to one that does. The city of Seattle has everything to with all growth in this city and could change things if they wanted easily by redoing the zoning codes or at least stopping all building for a year or two to get an idea of what’s going on. Right hand doesn’t know what left is doing and that’s an understatement. This city needs to step back and look at population numbers for areas then look at roads and infrastructure come up with a new game plan and then move forward if they are doing this now and their still allowing all this were really in trouble. There is a lot more in the works for W/S and until the city changes its ways they will keep building. The only fault here is Seattle government.

    Comment by wetone — 3:55 pm April 9, 2014 #

  14. south Admiral, the shuttered decades old tanning place, has changed hands a couple times; the latest is a fitness biz
    ~
    the long shuttered Blockbuster just north of Admiral junction, now a fitness place (moved from the south Admiral location)

    Comment by Diane — 4:12 pm April 9, 2014 #

  15. The businesses changed hands. The property did not.

    Comment by WSB — 4:27 pm April 9, 2014 #

  16. Very informative map, thank you.

    Comment by JVP — 4:33 pm April 9, 2014 #

  17. wetone, RIGHT ON! It seems the city is so interested in making money off the permit process, they don’t give a rats patooty about what the effect all this growth has on our neighborhoods.

    Comment by K'lo — 4:34 pm April 9, 2014 #

  18. I don’t see the apartments that are being built (almost finished) on Fauntleroy and Brandon (I think) listed–new construction across from Fairmont Park.

    Comment by SD — 4:35 pm April 9, 2014 #

  19. Those aren’t apartments. It’s a five-unit rowhouse, and we did report on it several times. (second photo in this December story was right after the house on the lot was torn down http://westseattleblog.com/2013/12/west-seattle-development-five-updates-including-site-sights/ )
    .
    This map is 15-unit-or-more developments. If I were able to easily pick out all the townhouses/single-family homes, it might add another 100-200 units, but this is just the bigger stuff.

    Comment by WSB — 4:38 pm April 9, 2014 #

  20. Could Seattle’s city planners comprehensive plan be more vague (parking, roadways, no specifics). This is why WS and other urban neighborhoods are in trouble: “Our plan’s urban village strategy supports the core values by:
    •Directing growth to existing urban centers and villages
    •Contributing to the vibrancy of our neighborhood centers
    •Reinforcing the benefits of City investments in transit, parks, utilities, community centers, and other infrastructures”

    Comment by Seattlite — 4:53 pm April 9, 2014 #

  21. Oops, just noticed that this is only developments of 15 units or more–the one on Fauntleroy & Brandon is probably smaller, so never mind!

    Comment by SD — 4:57 pm April 9, 2014 #

  22. The infrastructure is not in place to support unmanageable growth.

    Comment by West Seattle Hipster — 5:11 pm April 9, 2014 #

  23. This is awesome! I often feel like West Seattle is falling behind the rest of the city. Remember, a majority of you voted for district election, and the political influence of West Seattle is now directly tied to population. Thus, the more people we have, the better to have our needs addressed by the city.

    Comment by Peter — 5:20 pm April 9, 2014 #

  24. I don’t work from home. I have kids. The high horse perspective of my car illusion is getting old. And frankly, the idea of cars going away is delusional and it disregards how society and the economy function.

    Comment by High Horse — 5:54 pm April 9, 2014 #

  25. WSB, postings like this with your interactive map makes YOU far and above one of my favorites sites to watch. Better than FB for ease of use and returning to where you were just reading. consistently great and not changing formats all the time. I heart the West Seattle Blog!! And commenters are great too. Thanks for keeping the trolls at bay.

    Comment by Vanessa — 6:12 pm April 9, 2014 #

  26. I would really like see more strategically planned growth and infrastructure. The commute is an obvious concern. I commute by bus during the typical rush hour times but cannot use public transit outside of those times because bus access to my neighborhood was severely cut back and may get cut completely pushing more drivers on the road. And there’s the issue of not requiring parking for new housing developments. When bus options keep getting cut you can’t expect people to live in carless homes. I’ve tried it multiple times. I would love to go car free but it’s not sustainable for me.

    Comment by ws born&bred — 6:37 pm April 9, 2014 #

  27. What’s really delusional is the idea that we can keep adding people at the current levels of growth while maintaining the sense of entitlement that we can use our cars wherever and whenever we want in a city that seems already beyond the capacity to accommodate them. Anyone who sits in endless traffic around this city and thinks the economy or society is “functioning” really should pick up a dictionary and reference what the word means. The role of private vehicles in densely populated urban environments is fading. The world simply doesn’t have enough resources for every person who has a small child to go out and buy an SUV.

    Comment by cjboffoli — 6:39 pm April 9, 2014 #

  28. Very nice to see so much growth going on. More people mean more restaurants, more shops, more services, and (hopefully) more transit and commute choices. Excellent!

    Comment by Moose2 — 7:02 pm April 9, 2014 #

  29. So three crappy “micro” housing units within two blocks of one another on Avalon. Wonderful. The city planners are such geniuses. Why is WS getting dumped on?

    Comment by buckwheat — 7:36 pm April 9, 2014 #

  30. cjboffoli, Unfortunately your logic doesn’t mesh with King County Metro’s logic. Keep raising car tabs to subsidize and “save” our busses. So we keep increasing density with urban villages and no parking, force people to give up cars and then what? Oh, now we need to raise property, sales and business taxes to subsidize busses. Here’s an idea….how about we tax renters who choose to support these kinds of vehicle-less apodment developments and raise Metro’s fares to a reasonable level similar to European mass transit. After all, they will not drive cars so they will all utilize mass transit…right? I for one do not feel a sense of entitlement driving my 35 mpg vehicle 5 miles to work with my neighbor carpooling along side me.

    Comment by Born on Alki — 7:46 pm April 9, 2014 #

  31. please don’t blame the renters (again); it’s the developers who are running away with millions of dollars from building apts with zero or very little parking; and the developers pay zero to support our buses

    Comment by Diane — 8:36 pm April 9, 2014 #

  32. Born on Alki: Yes, it is unfortunate. Seattle deserves much better public transportation than it has. But we have to want to use it. And the 22% voter turnout in the last election doesn’t suggest that the electorate is as invested in driving this issue (pun unintended) with our so-called city leaders as it could be. I also don’t think that Seattle’s lack of public transportation options should be an excuse for the continued over-use of cars. At no point did I ever suggest an immediate and total ban on cars. This is not an issue with a solution that binary. I just think we can all be more flexible and innovative about how we approach transportation. Driving smaller, high-mileage cars is certainly part of a solution, as is car pooling. Increasing density in the Junctions of West Seattle will allow people to live close to services so that they have a CHOICE to be able to walk or bike in addition to using a car. I expect we could all do more to eliminate unnecessary trips, to organize errands in a way that it cuts down on extra mileage. We can have things delivered instead of driving to get them. We can carpool more. We can walk and bike to things more. Car rental and sharing programs (like Zipcar) could be made more convenient to use. We can be more mindful of living close to where we work. We’re a forward-thinking city in one of the most innovative countries in the world. This entitled, provincial attitude toward defending the status quo of car use is ridiculous. Big business and big oil would love for us to continue to be dependent on cars. They didn’t go to the trouble of ripping out Seattle’s streetcar system for nothing. I just think we can do better.

    Comment by cjboffoli — 8:41 pm April 9, 2014 #

  33. In just these developments, there will be a larger number of new residents than there are total residents in the entire city of Pullman during summer. :)

    Comment by Mike — 8:54 pm April 9, 2014 #

  34. Don’t forget cjboffoli owns a car or did as of a couple weeks ago from his prior comments. How hypocritical is that. He stated in prior comments that he doesn’t park on the street hum. So he must have parking somewhere. Maybe he lives in a place that provides parking. Funny how that works for some :0
    Diane, developers and property owners can only do what our city government allows them. Open eyes can only blame our city for what’s going on not property owners.

    Comment by wetone — 9:27 pm April 9, 2014 #

  35. But CJ, by not creating parking spaces, the city is trying to remove choice. Jesus man, you’re so pro density and anti-parking it makes me wonder if you don’t work for Smart Growth. You were even posting on a crime report about the benefits of density on crime prevention.

    Born on Alki has a great point, if the driving population of seattle doesn’t increase, and those who own cars goes down, Metro funding will again be in the red. What will they tax next? We can’t all afford to create a lobbying firm to hide behind like the Capital Investors who fund these projects… I bet they will be shielded from contributing to the mess they are creating.

    Comment by Civik — 8:13 am April 10, 2014 #

  36. Chris lives the meme, not the reality.

    Comment by Gatewooder — 8:43 am April 10, 2014 #

  37. Diane – how many multi family development projects have you worked on where you think all developers are making millions? Which deals have you been part of? I work in the industry and don’t know 95 percent of the time, as deal structures are intricate. Some actually have investors and a board that allocate those profits to various causes? Some make way more some make less and some lose everything. Like everything else in life. There is no specific answer so before you quote dollar amounts and unless you’ve been involved in some of these deals. You don’t know for sure do you?

    Comment by Happy to live ws — 9:07 am April 10, 2014 #

  38. Wow! 3,300 units in WS, 4,400 units in Cap Hill – Phew!
    Thanks for the map!!!!

    Comment by heather — 9:34 am April 10, 2014 #

  39. 3272 units with about 1200 parking spaces I’m sure.

    Comment by j — 9:48 am April 10, 2014 #

  40. At least 3153. A few projects (smaller ones) didn’t have parking info available and weren’t far enough along that I could find their plan sets, which usually get into that, at least on the cover sheet. You can count for yourself with the infoblurbs for each marker – all listed in the left margin of the full-page version on the Google Maps site, so you don’t have to try to count marker window by marker window.

    Comment by WSB — 9:56 am April 10, 2014 #

  41. 3272 units. 3153 parking spaces. Is two people average per unit fair? Some more some less. Roughly 6000 people. Let’s say some of them are really carless. I guess 4500 cars should be a good rough guess. Parking for 3153 with 4500 actual cars??? Let’s start being realistic.

    Comment by j — 10:05 am April 10, 2014 #

  42. “Happy to live ws”; I’ll be happy to respond if you use your real name, (which I always do)

    Comment by Diane — 11:11 am April 10, 2014 #

  43. This is a great way to see that the sky is not falling. The development is contained on only a few streets of all of WS. Most of WS is and will continue to be single family.

    Some of these projects have been planed for years and years and are finally just getting built. Some of these projects will never get built. This all happens in waves and in time we will see a 5 to 10 yr period where nothing will get built once again.

    This development will help WS by making mass transit actually work better because without density you can’t have good frequent transit service. We can’t afford to first build the transit system and then hope the density that makes it possible for people walk to shop and bus to work follows. It takes years for these projects to be planed, permitted, financed and then finally built.

    The shops and restaurants we all love in our neighborhood will be much better off with the increased number of customers. We still see some of our favorite places go out of business and it is not because of too much business or even parking. For example the Charlestown cafe had parking and it seems that some people loved it and miss it. We have seen other business come and go. We don’t seem to see the merchants in WS complaining in the blog about the new development.

    The new buildings are similar to other business in that they need to attract customers in order to be successful. If you don’t like the projects don’t rent there or buy a condo in one of them.

    If you like the idea of a vibrant commercial area like we have in the junction and want better transit quit complaining, shop local and vote yes on prop 1

    Comment by Jack Carson — 11:27 am April 10, 2014 #

Sorry, comment time is over.

All contents copyright 2014, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Header image by Nick Adams. ABSOLUTELY NO WSB PHOTO REUSE WITHOUT SITE OWNERS' PERMISSION.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^