West Seattle biznote: Styling Studio closing to make way for 3210 California development

June 20, 2014 at 3:38 pm | In Development, West Seattle businesses, West Seattle news | 14 Comments

That little building at 3230 California SW is about to end its 40+-year run as a West Seattle hair salon, according to the proprietor of the one there now, Styling Studio. It was built in 1945 and is on the South Admiral site where work will start this year on the 134-apartment 3210 California mixed-use project. Styling Studio proprietor Robert Lopez contacted WSB to let us know June 30th is its final day. He says, “I tried to find another space, but negotiations fell through, and I’ve joined the staff at Belli Capelli, at 3902 California Ave SW, another longtime West Seattle hair establishment.”

3210 California’s land-use approval came in a month ago, as reported here; this week, its developer, Intracorp, filed for the shoring/excavation permit. We have asked for an update on when they expect to start demolition and construction, and are checking with other businesses about their plans. (If yours is among them and you see this before we contact you, please e-mail editor@westseattleblog.com with info on where you are going, as Robert did – thank you.)

14 Comments

  1. so…how many small businesses have been killed by the development in WS in the last 2 years? 2? 3? 4? 5?

    Comment by JanS — 4:23 pm June 20, 2014 #

  2. Thanks for the mention in the blog ;)

    Comment by Robert Lopez — 4:34 pm June 20, 2014 #

  3. West Seattle… Death by a thousands cuts. (Pun intended)

    Comment by DTK — 4:50 pm June 20, 2014 #

  4. Another cool space gone. Good luck, Robert!

    Comment by Jason — 7:55 pm June 20, 2014 #

  5. Sad….. All of it as a lifetime West Seattle lover is just sad

    Comment by Kathi — 8:29 pm June 20, 2014 #

  6. 6 or 7 story buildings constructed without setbacks and virtually no parking isn’t conducive to creating better neighborhoods. Of course the people that approve and build these buildings don’t live anywhere near them. Seattle has over the last 20 years had it’s soul slowly removed.
    Asking residence to give up automobiles and use mass transit that doesn’t exist should give everyone a look at the mentality of those that are changing the zoning laws and approving them.
    I propose that we impose an annual parking tax on each unit built within walking distance to the business districts without at least one provided parking space. That money to be used to create public parking within the business district. How about a 6 story parking garage instead of a 6 story 200 unit condo without any parking?
    Just a thought? PS: Glad that Robert found a new home!

    Comment by Allen — 10:14 pm June 20, 2014 #

  7. A development company with a creepily generic name of “Intracorp” sounds like one of those “little-guy-versus-big-corporation” movies.

    Comment by Raye — 10:41 pm June 20, 2014 #

  8. More crap…

    Comment by buckwheat — 12:22 am June 21, 2014 #

  9. What sh*t!!

    I am afraid to come back to West Seattle (from my travels) and see what has become of it… :’(

    Comment by Tuesday — 1:08 am June 21, 2014 #

  10. Totally dislike seeing West Seattle being decimated to crap for greed and profit. Done with city life for good. More room for someone else I guess.

    Comment by T. — 9:41 am June 21, 2014 #

  11. great another development. clearly we don’t have enough of those already…

    Comment by ws10 — 12:07 am June 22, 2014 #

  12. Lots of pissing and moaning about people moving into “our” West Seattle but no one offers alternatives. I would bet most of the negative comments are very much for “affordable” housing. More supply means less expensive rents. Please someone propose an alternative and closing the bridge so as not to let anyone in is not a solution. Come on what do you have?

    Comment by WS since '66 — 8:41 am June 22, 2014 #

  13. @WS since ’66: so are we then to take it that you’re okay with the style of development that’s currently plaguing the peninsula? It’s understandable that long-time residents would bemoan the loss of a very quaint and friendly-looking one-story business such as this one, especially if the replacement is yet another huge, faceless neo-flophouse/commune (I’m lookin’ at YOU, “Footprint!”). I think there should be due consideration for how the look of new development will impact a neighborhood, as well as the impact of dropping 100 or 200 new residents into the area. Some setbacks from the sidewalk would be nice and at least one parking slot per resident would help to mitigate the impact of abruptly having lots more folks in the area, and would indirectly serve to pair down the size of such a development.
    .
    Throwing up whatever ugly crackerbox of a building a developer wants or an “urban planner” says is okay is a quick way to turn a nice neighborhood into a sterile people warehousing district. Or worse. This benighted “urban village” concept has GOT to go, and design approval for developments should be brought down to the neighborhood level. The government that governs best governs least, and the closer government control is to the people, the more the people run the government and not the other way around.

    Comment by DarkHawke — 11:41 am June 22, 2014 #

  14. DarkHawke: When did you move here? At one time we all moved here and the residents moaned about it. Do I like more people moving here is not the question? The real question is the one you didn’t bother to answer. What would you do with all the people who want to live here for all the same reasons you and I do? Just out of curiosity what is your problem with Urban Villages? Urban villages are a positive to the area. Case in point if one lives near, with easy walking distance, from and urban village the value of the property is higher. That has been proven time and time again. Don’t believe it then just check home values close to Urban Villages vs those farther away from them.

    Once more what are your solutions to housing more people? There is a whole other aspect that hasn’t even been brought into the conversation and that is “affordable housing”. I take it you are for more affordable housing and how would you go about it if the demand is much greater than the supply? How about some constructive solutions please?

    Btw, look at the different styles of homes in WS from the different eras. You will see different styles, i.e. when the war houses were built in the 1940s the look was radically different from the homes from the previous decades.

    Comment by WS since '66 — 12:16 pm June 22, 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^