West Seattle development: Microhousing on the move

| Development | West Seattle housing | West Seattle news

Updates tonight on three in-the-works West Seattle microhousing projects:

5949 CALIFORNIA: WORK EXPECTED TO BEGIN – The smallest of the three, at 5949 California SW in north Morgan Junction, has had its permits for a while, and now, Morgan Community Association president Deb Barker says she’s learned that construction is about to begin. The house in our photo above is to be replaced with a five-story micro-apartment building with ~38 “sleeping rooms” and no offstreet-parking spaces; we first reported on the project in May 2013.

The next two projects were considered to be more or less on hold because of a city letter sent in September, as reported here. That letter sent to these and other projects around the city referenced a court decision, saying that their current plans meant each room would have to be counted as a separate dwelling unit, so either those plans would have to change or the projects would need to go through Design Review.. But we’ve discovered new developments on both projects:

3268 SW AVALON WAY: Just before the city memo in late September, the start of work on this 50+-unit project (next door to an already-complete microhousing building) was considered to be imminent – a temporary power tower had gone up. But nothing happened until Friday, when we noticed toward day’s end that the old multiplex on the site next to the 35th/Avalon 7-11 had been torn down. The file shows that the construction and demolition permits were issued three weeks ago. But we haven’t yet found anything online indicating what might have changed, if anything, in relation to the city memo.

Different story down the street …

3050 SW AVALON WAY: This 100+-unit, no-offstreet-parking-spaces project also appears to be proceeding. After seeing the demolition work up the street, we checked the file for this project and found a memo from architect Jay Janette, dated Friday, responding directly to the September letter from the city, by saying:

So rooms are not counted as separate dwelling units, per the City of Seattle DPD letter dated September 22, 2014, all sinks, refrigeration equipment, built-in cabinet and counters outside the bathrooms have been removed from each room.

That’s followed by, “If there are any remaining issues that we need to resolve, please don’t hesitate to contact me directly to resolve over the phone or email in lieu of another review cycle.”

Future microhousing projects will be reviewed under the city’s new rules passed a month ago.

hc November 2, 2014 (9:46 pm)

Ridiculous

BMC November 2, 2014 (9:58 pm)

Unfreaking sad….. goodbye WSeattle as we knew it.

K'lo November 2, 2014 (10:02 pm)

What a nightmare!

drahcir61 November 2, 2014 (10:13 pm)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

AmandaKH November 2, 2014 (10:44 pm)

Wow, that is really ballsy. How can they get away with that?

Mike November 2, 2014 (10:48 pm)

Who would want to live there? They are basically building prison cells

pupsarebest November 2, 2014 (10:55 pm)

Yep, let’s tear down a charming single-family home and replace it with a glorified flophouse.
As the Robber Barons’ hands tighten around all our necks, I’ll feel fortunate to have lived through, what in retrospect, was a brief, shining moment of middle-class glory.

cj November 2, 2014 (11:01 pm)

It sounds kind of scary. I’m afraid for our future.

Mike November 2, 2014 (11:03 pm)

It’s really pathetic when my college dorm room was bigger and had more amenities than these things. Hell, I didn’t even have to share the same ROOM as my roomate, we shared a common door to the hallway.
.
Anyone ever been on a submarine, these are like that.

Diane November 3, 2014 (2:24 am)

so, Jay Janette, Micro Housing LLC, is the architect/developer who was sued by the Eastlake Community Council just a few months ago, May 2014; interesting read here:
~
http://www.eastlakeseattle.org/fp-content/attachs/ecc-5-23-14-petition-to-superior-court-about-2820-eastlake-ave-project.pdf

anonyme November 3, 2014 (6:09 am)

That’s a cute house, soon to be replaced by a flimsy piece of crap that will be an eyesore and a neighborhood nuisance. This is an appalling development.

Rick November 3, 2014 (6:28 am)

Yeah, I remember West Seattle.

QS November 3, 2014 (7:17 am)

In these small living quarters, will families be living in them? With rising rents it seems like whole families could be forced into these. I’m not sure how, once built, they lease them.

Welcoming new neighbors November 3, 2014 (7:27 am)

These developers are the only group that are effective in building affordable housing in Seattle. Frankly, I think all the hatred of affordable housing in Seattle reeks of elitism and snobbery. Everyone wants workers to cook their food, clean their buildings, wash their cars, staff their day cares, etc, just as long as they don’t have to live around them. Get over it. This city should be open to people if all income levels.

John November 3, 2014 (7:30 am)

Last month WSB wrote about the Avalon projects, “on hold because of a court decision that would require them to go through Design Review, or undergo a significant redesign.”
–
What gives? Does this mean that they have not complied as AmandaKH writes? These projects must have permits to proceed as they have. If not, a complaint should be filed with DPD @ 684-8600.
–
If these projects are permitted, then they are not allowed to proceed.
–
I truly don’t understand the reactions like these posts above;
–
Mike – relax, no one is making you or anyone else live in a micro. Others obviously do, and this is without regard to the high cost per square foot, lack of conveniences and parking.
But Mike, have you ever been in one or talked to any one who did choose to live in one?
–
BMC – relax West Seattle is still overwhelmingly working and middleclass turn of the century (last) and post war SFRs. A few buildings addressing our new residential demand will not change the fabric of our community.
–
pupasarebest – “Robber Barons?” Laughable. Please refer to any tome on history for a definition of ‘robber baron’. The phrase has to do with immense wealth. Our robber barons are the billionaire sorts those who own Starbucks, Amazon, Microsoft etc, not penny ante apartment developers.

WSB November 3, 2014 (8:02 am)

As noted in the story:
.
5949 California has had permits for months. The city did not include it in the list of projects that received the memo in September. We reported that back then, too.
.
I hadn’t checked the file for 3268 Avalon in a while. As noted in the story above, its construction and demolition permits were issued October 10th. Nothing I can find in the file suggests what transpired in the two weeks following the city memo, but I’ll be checking today (government agencies were closed for the weekend by the time we noticed the demolition on Friday).
.
3050 Avalon is not that far along but, as also noted in the story, its architect responded to the city memo this past Friday, saying they had changed the plans so that the rooms would no longer each constitute a “dwelling unit” in the city’s interpretation of the court decision.
.
Regarding “affordable housing” and ongoing suggestions that microhousing = flophouses … actually, the rent’s not what most would call “cheap” … For example, the newest ad for Footprint Avalon (the months-old microhousing building next door to 3268) on CL lists units from $850-$1150. http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/apa/4723727964.html
.
Comparable to many other studio prices listed when I pulled this general search (edit: although, ostensibly, the older studios have their own kitchens): http://seattle.craigslist.org/search/hhh?sort=rel&query=west+seattle+studio
.
Don’t have time right now to dive deeper and compare the prices to other, older available apartments on Avalon.
.
TR

AmandaKH November 3, 2014 (8:04 am)

@Welcoming New Neighbors. I am all for affordable housing in the City, especially West Seattle.
*
“So rooms are not counted as separate dwelling units, per the City of Seattle DPD letter dated September 22, 2014, all sinks, refrigeration equipment, built-in cabinet and counters outside the bathrooms have been removed from each room.”
*
Does this developer care about affordable housing in the City? Or his bottom line? Your argument that people “against affordable housing” are elite or snobby in any way is not true in my case. Creating “living units” with no way to preserve, wash or cook food for instance does not conjure up the image of “living” in my mind. It conjures up a boarding room. I for one do NOT want people living like this Just so they can live in the City. Affordable housing can be studio, 1-bed, or 2-bed apartments. It’s possible. Accepting this style of affordable housing is just not something I want West Seattle to do.

Jeff November 3, 2014 (8:21 am)

New construction is never “affordable” and isn’t really supposed to be. Wait 15-20 years, and the stuff going up today will become outdated and affordable. Wait another 15-20 and it will all get torn down or remodeled, and become unaffordable again.

coffee November 3, 2014 (8:31 am)

So I have a furnished MIL studio in my house and a roommate in an unused bedroom, I am clearly charging WAY under what these are going for! Shocked. And I would wonder how a 100 plus “room” building can pass? What would that building be considered? I find this disturbing that an architect/developer would simply make this change and say, pass it. It seems to me that this person is clearly only looking at the bottom line.

datamuse November 3, 2014 (8:55 am)

A friend of mine lives in one of these (in Capitol Hill, not West Seattle). She really likes it. She doesn’t have a lot of stuff, doesn’t drive, is able to live close to her job and school (she’s in software), and because the building is new, it doesn’t have the dust and mold problems that her last several apartments had.
.
The one thing that does bother me here is the architect on the 3050 project taking out amenities to avoid having to comply with the new regulations. The result sounds like it’s just a bedroom and I really wonder who’s going to want to pay for that.

RT November 3, 2014 (8:57 am)

Agree with AmandaKH. Affordable housing does not have to exclude basic amenities. If we really care about accessible,
affordable housing options that contribute positively to, and encourage a sense of community, why not build apartments that enable singles and families to live economically in civilized environments? It can be done.

Another issue that current concerns about public health bring to mind: in the light of the need to quarantine people every so often (Ebola example) : How would we deal with the situation where a resident of one of the microhousing communities comes down with a serious, communicable disease?? Sharing kitchen facilities and bathrooms is a nightmare for infectious disease control. Hello.

ChefJoe November 3, 2014 (8:57 am)

all sinks, refrigeration equipment, built-in cabinet and counters outside the bathrooms have been removed from each room

Lol, and in other news they have partnered with Home Depot to offer you a special “new home” package of freestanding cabinets, mini fridge, and a kitchenette/microwave cart in your choice of colors for $50 ? Fill out the form when you sign your lease and it can be delivered the day before you move in ?

Seaview November 3, 2014 (9:02 am)

I used to live in such a dwelling in the pike place market, when I was 20-22 yrs old. I lived there, shared a bathroom but had my own 250 sqft. It was bliss and I think these housing units will provide those getting out on their own a place to start. Not everyone can afford a condo or need a larger apartment. I didn’t have a car, walked to my job on cap hill and consider those years some of the best of my life. West Seattle commenters here may need to put the clutch in and know not everyone needs or wants the same things- just because there will be density, doesn’t mean you can’t still enjoy the neighborhood.

Steve November 3, 2014 (9:13 am)

The people who are freaking out about this are using so many logical fallacies it’s comical. Because the developer might care about the bottom line (which one doesn’t?), it does not mean he/she also doesn’t care about the community, so there goes that argument. The comments about it not being “living” in your mind, or the “Who’d want to live in these tiny units?” are absurd. Who’d want to live there? People. The developer wouldn’t build them unless there was demand. Not everyone wants a yard to maintain, and some people actually like the idea of sharing a kitchen with their neighbors. I get that many of you don’t want more people in your neighborhood, especially low-income people. Well, you live in a city that values density. Move to Issaquah or some other sprawling suburb if you don’t want to see these people. It’s not just YOUR city.

I actually live on this block, and the parking is going to be more difficult, but that’s what I get for living in a community that has increasing levels of density.

If you don’t want it in your backyard, move away, there’s plenty of other people who actually want to live here.

Brian November 3, 2014 (9:28 am)

@AmandaKH: Isn’t it obvious what is happening here?
.
1) Developer tries to build 100 unit flophouse and the community balks.
.
2) City passes new regulations requiring “individual dwellings” to have certain amenities.
.
3) Developer says “Ok, I’ll play ball. In order to circumvent these regulations, I’ll just take everything out of the units that could qualify them as individual dwelling units. And guess what? People will rent them anyway and it’ll be cheaper for us!”
.
The net result is that the units will offer an even worse quality of life for their residents than if the community hadn’t spoken up at all.
.
I’m not saying that this means we shouldn’t speak out about irresponsible development, but it surely illustrates how the developers have this city and its residents by the short and curlies. They will do what makes them the most money and they’ll do whatever they have to in order to meet that goal.

dsa November 3, 2014 (9:33 am)

Sounds like a motel with no parking.

datamuse November 3, 2014 (10:08 am)

Steve, is the 3050 project doing shared kitchens then? Sounds kinda like cohousing.

WSB November 3, 2014 (10:09 am)

Microhousing = shared kitchens. 3050 certainly. I don’t know about 3268, trying to find out what they did to qualify to move beyond the Sept. memo. Was originally planned with shared kitchens, like its “twin” next door.

datamuse November 3, 2014 (10:31 am)

Thanks WSB! That makes more sense.

John November 3, 2014 (10:51 am)

TR,
Thanks for the clarification.
–
New construction apartments in Seattle currently command a whopping 40% increase in rents over older units.
–
‘affordable’, nothing is affordable in Seattle.
Even those college dorms at the UW are not affordable with a single in the $1000 range.
–
I believe some posts conflate affordable with subsidized housing. Subsidized housing can be affordable because it is subsidized. As such subsidized rents do not represent the true market value, while the rents people pay does.
–
If you are paying $1,500 for an older unit that is large, would it be more ‘affordable’ or desirable to move into a $1,000 new apartment? Without a doubt it is cheaper.
–
coffee,
If your house is zoned multi-family, has a legally established and registered MIL, is new construction with new furnishings and located within 1,000 feet of transit, I would like to know what you are charging?
Also I wonder about the legality of a ‘rooming house’ and a MIL studio in one single family residence? Are all required safety codes being met?
Unless yes on all the above – apples to oranges.

Diane November 3, 2014 (10:52 am)

fyi, the “twin” next door; I toured in August; the bathrooms have no sink, just a tiny stand-up shower & toilet; and the rooms are super tiny and EXPENSIVE; these are not affordable at all; that is one of the biggest issues; these got through DPD as supposedly affordable housing options, but charging $1200 for a 200 sf room exemplifies greed; these guys are experts at finding loopholes and manipulating city rules

Steve November 3, 2014 (10:54 am)

Just to clarify, I’m not trying to come off as callous to the notion that it is disappointing when one’s neighborhood goes through changes, but the tone of the complaints that I see here smacks of privilege and elitism, as another commenter suggested. In a city that values environmental policies as well as income diversity, microhousing provides one of the most “market-friendly” solutions to both of those issues.

Let’s look at the positive. More density means even more likelihood of transit improvements, and the increased foot traffic in the neighborhood will hopefully mean more investment in local businesses. Hopefully…

Making it more difficult to find affordable housing here is the same logic as just putting up a bigger fence on the Mexico border. It doesn’t keep people out, it just alienates them and undermines any real attempts at building a livable community for all of us.

Not to sound facetious, but the suburbs are always available. Seriously – move there if you don’t like increased density, but that’s what’s happening here – like it or not…

Diane November 3, 2014 (10:56 am)

Seaview, how much did you pay for your 250sf Pike Place unit? these units are less than 200sf and renting for $900 to $1200; that is not affordable

AmandaKH November 3, 2014 (11:00 am)

@Steve. Correct, there is a need for Some housing like this. Some being the key word. How many communal apartment buildings should West Seattle have? Especially without any supporting infrastructure. My main concern is that young singles make up a percentage of the Seattle population, but what about couples? With children? Where should they live in the City? Should Seattle’s density just be for young singles who like to live communally? I am pro density. I am pro communal living, but it should not make up the majority of new builds. You are mixing up your demographics. These apodments (classic ToD – transit oriented development) are being marketed to young singles just out of college, working in tech . Do you consider them low income? The problem here is that you think it is acceptable to force people to live in a box, communally, in order to afford to live in Seattle. Building density before infrastructure is what got Ballard into the mess they are in now. Once the buildings go up, you can’t Move them to put in transit, Cart before the horse never works.

Wendell November 3, 2014 (11:20 am)

Sharing a kitchen with 99 of your best friends. All of a sudden, my office kitchen doesn’t seem so bad.

Diane November 3, 2014 (11:31 am)

Steve, if these REALLY were affordable, at least 50% of the outrage might dissipate; developers all over the city are demolishing affordable housing (older apts and rental houses, similar to the one depicted here) forcing long time renters out, with no options, and then the developers are building new projects that the city’s working poor cannot afford; my rent is $925 for 750sf apt (after recent rent increase) in a 1957 bldg; these tiny microhousing rooms, all < 200sf, are renting for $900-$1200; my kitchen alone is nearly as big as one of these micro-units; and where shall the low income families who are displaced move? new apt buildings are way too expensive, and there are very few 2 bedroom apts, zero 3 bedroom apts for families
~
there are many other issues with these micro units, like ageism and disabilities discrimination (no elevators) and unsafe (very narrow stairways with only one way out in case of fire); if you had a child (say college age) who rented one of these units on the 5th or 6th floor, and the one next to 7/11 has common kitchens on a middle floor; kitchens are where most fires start; the only way out is all the way down the stairs; if there is a fire in the kitchen, and your young adult (that’s really who these are marketed to) needs to run down 5 floors of stairs, can they even get past the mid-rise kitchen fire; THAT is one of the many issues advocates have fought for, safety, healthy, humane living conditions
~
and the comment about infectious disease; yes, I’ve been saying this for couple years; 50 – 100 rooms sharing common kitchens and/or bathrooms during flu season, and many of those room have 2 people; omg, flu nightmare
~
re elitist comments; I have seen some (thankfully, not the majority); as a lifelong renter, who is more active in community than 99% of WS citizens, whenever I hear comments demonizing renters as transients, drug addicts, etc, I also find those comments highly offensive

jj November 3, 2014 (11:36 am)

I’m really mixed on this type of building, but I do draw the line if it doesn’t have basic things like a bathroom sink. There is so much undeveloped real estate in sodo and georgetown that there is no reason to keep shoving it up here in West Seattle. I’m quickly coming to the realization that West Seattle isn’t what I fell in love with and once all that stuff is done up at the junction, it will get twice as worse and twice as crowded. (enjoy the morning jump onto the WS bridge in 2 years)

Welcoming new neighbors November 3, 2014 (11:40 am)

AmadaKH, it is not reasonable to expect all housing types to accommodate all needs (in fact, that’s impossible), and so criticizing these just because they won’t fit couples with kids is not a reasonable argument. You’re basically saying housing built to accommodate population A doesn’t work for population B, so it’s wrong, which makes no logical sense. You’re also implying that there is an either/or going on, such as we have to build housing either for singles or for families, and that’s also false logic. Also, you allegation that micro-housing makes up a majority of new buildings is absolutely not true by any measure. The fact that there is a need for family housing is in no way a legitimate argument against housing that is appropriate for singles.

Diane November 3, 2014 (11:46 am)

@John, re “nothing is affordable in Seattle”
~
there are still some affordable; I live in Admiral, in family owned older apt building, super affordable when I moved in 7 yrs ago, still very reasonable by comparison to the majority that are jumping on the “market rate” bandwagon, by raising rents $200, $400, or more, without even making any positive changes to the units
~
I have several friends in WS junction and Admiral who are also long-time renters, with reasonable rents, but these are becoming all the more rare; and that is a sad
~
the city has supposedly been working on this 10 yr plan to end homelessness (what is it, 7yrs now?); we have even more homeless now, because the city keeps approving expensive apts to replace affordable apts and displacing low income renters; many renters have to move south (Kent, Burien) or north (Shoreline, Lake City) for affordable apts, or they become the new face of homeless

coffee November 3, 2014 (12:12 pm)

John, I would say it is not up to code, and I also reside outside of the city of seattle limits. It was put in by the previous owner, who btw, was a Seattle Fireman, and my house did not pass electrical inspection! At any rate, I rent it out to a family member, who cannot afford housing while they are attending college. I would say that almost every studio that is a MIL in the city, in an older home is most likely not up to code. Just my own opinion. And I could get almost 1K a month for the space, but I get significantly less. I have a friend who has 4 roommates, and he pays no mortgage, as his roommates cover his house payment. They all have it way better than these micro units.

Chris November 3, 2014 (12:16 pm)

The frustration and anger and resentment here is misplaced. All of those feelings should be directed at solving transit problems. This type of housing is good for walkability, it’s good for climate, it’s good for small business, it’s good for housing affordability, it’s good for diversity, etc. But – it also relies on great public transit. Perhaps it’s the chicken and the egg… but, we must have more and better transit. And the two issues here rely on the other.

Diane November 3, 2014 (12:34 pm)

agree with coffee, most MIL’s are likely illegal/not up to code; I lived in one of those horrible illegal MIL/basement apts for a year at height of last real estate bubble, 2006; my unit was above ground with a ton of windows, but not one single window could be opened; that is so illegal; all of the windows were sealed shut; I don’t know why; it was hot as hell in the summer; I had to leave the door open to get any relief, which was scary at night; the owner lived upstairs, remodeled her kitchen, but refused to install even one window that could be opened for fresh air; there were several other illegal issues, but that was the worst; and what is a renter who is desperate for affordable housing to do? report it? and get evicted?

KM November 3, 2014 (12:44 pm)

I know this isn’t how it “works” but it would be great to see some of our vacant, decrepit properties being converted first and foremost–this house looks like it’s still a great home. Luckily we’ve received a lot of improvement in converting rundown properties recently, so I remain hopeful. I’m excited about the change in West Seattle 80% of the time, transit aside.

John, “affordable” is a subjective term. There are plenty of things affordable for some here. It’s not that cut and dry.

AmandaKH November 3, 2014 (12:54 pm)

@WNN – Okay, your point is valid. What works for one population, might not work for another. That is true.

Diane November 3, 2014 (1:34 pm)

John, sorry, that’s ridiculous; no, this family has owned the property for decades, and making quite sufficient profit; I do applaud them for NOT jumping on the greed bandwagon of raising rents to exorbitant rates
~
I can assure you this neighborhood is highly desirable, with plentiful street parking, and very walkable; when the rare apt goes up for rent here, it’s snapped up in a day or 2
~
and yes, my rent includes utilities

jwright November 3, 2014 (1:58 pm)

Yes, it means more people, more traffic, more parking challenges. But that is the downside of living in a place where people want to live. If there wasn’t demand, they wouldn’t be built. And it is elitist when people say that the neighborhood should remain single family houses (now that they have their own single family house. The upside is that it should be the catalyst for more transit, more businesses, and more services. We live in a thriving community. People in a city in decline like Detroit would love to have our so-called problems.

debra November 3, 2014 (2:38 pm)

This email thread seems to continue from the issues WSB posted on transpertation
Jwright why am I being elitist when I want my single family home neighborhood to remain so? Not every place has to have density, and when it does occur should it not blend with the neighborhood. Those of us who participated in the urban village design in the 90s were very clear that we and we thought we had been heard, that the design and execuation is what was critical. Dorm living was not ever discussed and developers have been able to skirt issues to get these monsters built. The public decided it did not want the monorail yet we voted and the government went ahead purchased land, evicted folks changed their mind and made a profit
Most of us understand the need for density. however we do have a right to ask that the neighborhoods needs and wants be paramount over developers…it is the assumption that govenrment and big business knows better what a community wants.
I for one do one want a bulky poorly designed building peering down into my back yard..that does not make me an elities …I worked pretty damn hard as a single mom for my little house and resent anyone telling me my needs don’t matter
Again, when did it become a “right” to live exactly where you want …If you can’t afford west Seattle find a area you can afford..do I need to subsidize your wants…no one seems to give a rip about what the community agreed to and the changes that have occured under the table.

CanDo November 3, 2014 (3:56 pm)

What “debra” said… And how long before we become the next Detroit with aged and rundown flop houses? We’ll be having all those density problems with a transient population and accompanying issues as well, way sooner than imagined.

jwright November 3, 2014 (4:20 pm)

debra, I just think it is naive to expect that continued growth is not going to lead to increased density. I also think it sounds a bit like “I’ve got mine so everybody else be damned.” Seattle is growing; the people are going to live somewhere. If you want to ensure your single-family neighborhood remains as is, all you have to do is convince your neighbors not to sell. Sorry that West Seattle is changing, but the whole world is changing in a variety of ways and we all have to adapt.

4thGenWS November 3, 2014 (5:28 pm)

Seattle is growing like crazy so higher density is inevitable. However, the decisions being made by the city are troubling. Micro Housing is just crazy, but if there is demand for it than so be it. The fact that they can allow this and not add parking is just ridiculous. This will just impact the surrounding neighborhood and pretty soon, people won’t be able to park in front of their own house in West Seattle. Face it people, this is no longer a small community. West is the next Ballard.

West Seattle Hipster November 3, 2014 (6:25 pm)

Great comments Debra, well stated.

Mike November 3, 2014 (8:45 pm)

Since when is it elitist to be lower middle class buying a home? We’re not Capitol Hill or Magnolia, definitely not Clyde Hill. Seems to me there are a lot of elitist developers and entitled people who would rather everything be paid for by the working middle class.

Max November 3, 2014 (9:04 pm)

The cost that these rent for, for what they are, is too high.

Also, no parking!? I love the idea of not owning a car. The reality for Seattle and the greater Seattle area is a lack of vehicle is going to make it very difficult to get around. Just what we need on the WS bridge is more people. Along with fuller side streets that are also too full. These “apodments” just are too much.

That’s not even to state the issues of it affecting the idea and atmosphere of what west Seattle is.

Full disclosure: I am a resident in a new apartment building (not a new resident to WS though) in WS however it’s a full apartment, and has parking. I realize that still brings more cars.

flimlam November 3, 2014 (9:12 pm)

oh come on now! who wouldn’t want 100 neighbors where there used to be a single family home? sooooooooooo mean!

John November 3, 2014 (9:31 pm)

Max,
Good to hear your input.
It’s reassuring to see so many people like Max, KM, Diane and her friends reporting affordable housing.
–
Perhaps some of you could weigh in on what you think would be affordable rent for these tiny units?

WsEd November 3, 2014 (10:07 pm)

And exactly why is it a negative to be an elitist? Being part of an elite class because you worked for it is completely different from being an heiress who inherited a social position. The people of the community have worked hard, often bought homes they can barely afford, built a nice community and now the heiress wants to ensure the unwanted development doesn’t happen to close to her home. Call me elitist, try to break my heart go ahead. I am elitist because I am elite just as our WS community is socially, intellectually, and artistically. Go ahead call me an elitist and get out if my back yard before you stink the place up.

KM November 3, 2014 (10:20 pm)

John, it doesn’t matter what I think would be affordable rent, I don’t dictate rent prices, nor am I looking to rent a place (and it’s been quite some time since I rented). If it’s priced right for the people looking for housing, so be it. That could be cheap for you, or cost-prohibitive. If it’s cost-prohibitive for people, they move on.
.
I’ve lived in a tiny unit before, a studio, for $1150 while others paid around $1400 for the similar studios units in the same neighborhood, about 9 years ago. That worked for me at the time. However, it was a much smaller, more “expensive” city as well. And for me, it was TOTALLY worth it and I felt it was a much more livable city than Seattle in many ways.

skeeter November 4, 2014 (8:45 am)

I have a different take on the concern about what is “affordable.” The landlord does not determine the rent. The tenants determine the rent. Even if it is $5,000/mo for a 180 square foot room with no sink. If someone comes along and pays then it is affordable.

I can afford to live in West Seattle now – I’m in my peak earning years. But I realize that will probably someday come to an end and I’ll no longer be able to afford to live here. That’s part of life. I’ll move out of my living space that was once affordable to me, but is no longer affordable to me, but is affordable to the next person with more money than me.

I’ll adjust and move along. Just like we’ve done for the past couple hundred years.

debra November 4, 2014 (9:58 am)

amen WsEd…I worked very hard to buy my modest home just a couple of blocks off California..if you can’t afford to live here (just like I can’t afford Medina) find somewhere else to live or figure out how you make more money to live in that neighborhood. I for one am pretty tired of the middle class shouldering everything..
You think if I want to live on Mercer Island or Clyde Hill the taxbase is going to find me housing and subsidize what I can’t afford.
The mirco housing and the execuation of density will be the demise of West Seattle…the overbuilding will come back to haunt us as a community
Does anyone know the occupancy rate of all apartments in west seattle…seems like with all the building there will be a glut on the market

au November 4, 2014 (12:33 pm)

wow! so wanting developers to build units in a safe manner with the basic necessities provided while fitting within the structure of the current neighborhood is elitist and privileged. hear that everybody, only the privileged and the elite get to enjoy the basics that have heretofore been provided for the masses. because its just too much to ask of development. i mean, they can’t possibly be required to provide so many amenities such as running water, refrigeration and safe exits. that’s asking way too much. I mean, not everybody really wants that kind of stuff in there home anyway right? They can just meet at the shared toilets and create community. You silly NIMBY people how dare you care. Don’t you know humane housing is only for those who can ‘afford’ it. Oh and screw your neighborhoods too.

au November 4, 2014 (12:38 pm)

ok toilets aren’t really shared i know but that’s how it feels. if they could, they would…

Wes C. Addle November 4, 2014 (12:57 pm)

My first apt. in the Junction in 2010 was a studio. I lived there for about a year and half then wen to Arbor Heights for a bit and am now in the Admiral junction. I looked at my old studio that I rented to see what the price was and it went up by almost $300. This was studio less than 600 sq ft.
.
My place in Admiral is about the same price as the studio is now and I have much more space but less amenities (nice rooftop decks, community rooms etc . . )
Both of these units are around $1300-1400 per month w/ parking.
.
I think the price for these new apodments coming up should realistically be about $600-$700 since they will house 1 person typically where as my 1 bedroom fits me and my other half.

hp November 4, 2014 (1:37 pm)

Right on Debra. It’s overbuilding like this that drove me from Fremont/Ballard to West Seattle. I can’t stand to even be up north anymore and I loved it there before all the huge buildings sprouted up on every corner.

Kathy November 4, 2014 (3:05 pm)

The demise of West Seattle will be climate change, not lack of places to store/operate your car on the roads or having too many neighbors. To quote Chris: “the frustration, anger and resentment here is misplaced”.

Mike November 4, 2014 (10:53 pm)

Kathy, density is directly related to climate change. Cities produce more toxins. Cars and busses are a fraction of the reason, industry is most of it. Those HVAC systems, the factories, plants to make stuff, ports burning crude (luckily we shifted to operate ships on electricity while AT port but not floating in Puget Sound). One container ship burning crude cranks out more green house gasses than you can fathom. http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

jamjets November 4, 2014 (11:08 pm)

I totally understand the parking issues that the developers are skirting with the microhousing units. And I think its crappy how they are responding by eliminating basic needs from the units. I have been watching/looking at rents in WS for a while… I have a niece that needs a fresh start and am considering setting her up here in WS. The footprint units IMO should be priced at 500-600 bucks. There is no safe affordable housing in WS. I understand there are a few affordable small units on occasion but they are rare. Cost/sq ft is mostly irrelevant in my case. Small, safe, affordable in WS? Mostly nonexistent. That’s just the way it is ;))

Chris November 4, 2014 (11:16 pm)

Mike – you are correct, density is directly related to climate change because urban density reduces carbon emissions. It’s about per capita emissions, not total emissions.

Mike November 5, 2014 (8:07 am)

Chris, you’re hilarious, totally wrong, but hilarious. Chona, Japan, Philippines, just a few examples for you to chew on.

formerresident November 5, 2014 (7:31 pm)

I just moved from right next door to this project–thank god! Last summer, they tore down the garage on the double lot and built the monstrous town homes to the rear. I think they sold in the neighborhood of 400k. I’m all for responding to demand and the need for new living spaces but this is not the answer. And they aren’t affordable. And living next to constant construction noise absolutely sucks! I feel sorry for my old neighbors.

John November 6, 2014 (8:13 am)

Mike,
Once again you are wrong and provide a link that proves nothing but the fact that ships pollute.
–
Is it sheer ignorance that allows such a claim as “density is directly related to climate change”?
–
Actually density lessens climate change by increasing efficiency and reducing pollution.
–
Population is directly connected to climate change would be more accurate. The more people the more stress on the planet.
–
If you emptied the cities and spread all of the people out over the countryside, you would have far greater inefficiency and multiplication of polluting sources.

Kathy November 6, 2014 (2:22 pm)

Mike, since China is the problem, not us (even though their industries are furiously manufacturing items to export to us), we are already doomed so we might as well cling to our old lifestyle? We should waste energy and create pollution heating larger than necessary living spaces? Waste limited real estate to store and operate larger than necessary cars for trips that would be served more efficiently by better mass transit and human powered transportation? I guess if one is nearing the end of their stay on this planet they could be cynical and say too bad for the next generation, at least I got mine.

Sorry, comment time is over.