West Seattle development: New 80-apartment proposal for 2222 SW Barton

IMG_3442

A new development proposal has just turned up in the city files for a site southeast of the north side of Westwood Village: It’s an early-stage proposal to replace a fourplex at 2222 SW Barton with an 80-unit complex. This would require Design Review, according to an online notation. Last year, we reported an early-stage 32-unit proposal for what was in the system at the time as 2221 SW Barton Place, but that project seems to have vanished from the files, and the preliminary site plan for this project appears to encompass that adjacent site, under the name (or at least, working title) Barton Terrace Apartments. The project is proposed for four stories “with partial basement” and no offstreet parking (not required, given the nearby transit). The architect identified on the site plan is Playhouse Design Group.

27 Replies to "West Seattle development: New 80-apartment proposal for 2222 SW Barton"

  • Bill May 2, 2016 (5:24 pm)

    32 units — no parking — total BS —

    • Bill May 2, 2016 (6:00 pm)

      Hey — I missed the 80 unit BS — that is a total crap — actually they probably put in the 80 for review so they could negotiate down to 30-40 >>> knowing full well they would not be able to get that amount of units without going in at some absurdly high number.

  • unknown May 2, 2016 (5:24 pm)

    REALLY replace a 4-plex with an 80 unit apartment?!?!?!? The partial basement is going to hold up to 160 cars then?

  • Double Dub Resident May 2, 2016 (5:33 pm)

    Three words.    Oh hell no!

  • Nancy May 2, 2016 (6:34 pm)

    Why don’t you check with the nearby residents who end up with tenants parking all up and down the street.  If you want to build an apt house at least provide parking.   However,  my impression of developers is that they are not exactly caring people.   Would they like to have that situation where they live?  I rather doubt that.

    • KM May 2, 2016 (11:32 pm)

      Street parking is open to the public, not privately owned by nearby residents. There would be little to no development if we allowed local resident to block projects due to annoyance of more people parking on “their” street, but perhaps that is what some people want, unfortunately.

    • Bradely May 14, 2016 (4:48 pm)

      It’s not the developers who don’t want to build parking. It’s the moronic city “leaders” and automobile-phobics  who run the city planning offices who pressure the developers to leave out parking. It is far easier and profitable to rent apartments when you can offer parking than without.

  • Ruth paulson May 2, 2016 (7:13 pm)

    No parking and no sidewalk. Why not?

  • Steve May 2, 2016 (7:35 pm)

    Do you really think the mayor or the city council care?  Elections have serious consequences!

  • AMD May 2, 2016 (9:31 pm)

    This is walking distance to a transit hub (not just one line, a whole hub).  If you want developers to provide parking no matter what, the underlying rule that they don’t have to when they’re so close to transit needs to be changed.
    Although, to be frank, at some point someone’s going to need to just take the bus.  Adding more parking to buildings does not add more capacity to streets.  

  • Joe Bags May 2, 2016 (9:36 pm)

    Spreading the love to all areas of WS.

  • New thinking needed May 2, 2016 (10:09 pm)

    Per WSB above, “The project is proposed for four stories ā€œwith partial basementā€ and no offstreet parking (not required, given the nearby transit). “

    Someone out of 80 units will have vehicles. Transit being nearby won’t meet everyone’s needs.  I sure hope the city will demand off street parking be included in the plan.  

    • WSB May 2, 2016 (10:31 pm)

      Seattle city code has for several years not required offstreet parking in areas within a quarter-mile of “frequent transit.” RapidRide is considered frequent transit, and this is nearby. So no, the city will not demand offstreet parking.

  • dsa May 2, 2016 (10:31 pm)

    It looks like the existing four plex has off street parking.

  • MsD May 2, 2016 (11:50 pm)

    So they’ve finally run out of places in the Junction with “nearby transit” to tear down and have moved on to Westwood.  Good luck, neighbors.  Your life is going to be a living hell once they start and there’s absolutely nothing you can do.

  • Double Dub Resident May 3, 2016 (4:57 am)

    Thanks for pointing that out AMD. I’m sure everyone was unaware of that. When Martin Shkreli raised the cost of a pharmaceutical drug by 5000% did you remind people that it is free market and capitalism at work?  The point being, just because there is a rule (a rather ridiculous one BTW  that benefits developers extremely well without having to worry about this extra cost, thanks to the morons who probably drive and implemented this rule) doesn’t make it right. 

      The idea that out of 80 units almost all of them will not have a car is ridiculous! But my “Oh hell no!” doesn’t have as much to do with the lack of parking as it does with the idea of building an 80 unit complex. Living in Westwood, I don’t want to see the same over- development that is happening in the northern part of West Seattle, because while some people may parrot that this means progress, I see it as just over population and sad.

    • Joe Szilagyi May 3, 2016 (5:55 am)

      “I see it as just over population and sad.”

      Where are all the new people born or those who move here for work supposed to live? You know that even if we somehow blocked all immigration to Seattle, the net population will still grow year over year and we’ll still need more housing, right? I just looked at the WA department of health, and there are at least 25,000 births each year in King County. The majority of those are going to be in Seattle.

  • John May 3, 2016 (9:22 am)

    Adding more parking in buildings does nothing to improve traffic demands, but it does add greatly to spiraling housing costs.

    Recent studies show that close to 1/3 of off-street parking in residential apartments is unused.   

    “According to a King County study, 30 percent of off-street parking in residential buildings ā€œwas not being utilizedā€ in the eveningsā€”and about 70 percent during the day. And CHH found about 30 percent vacancy in the evenings and more than 50 percent during the day in the mixed-use residential and commercial buildings it surveyed. (The King County study only looked at residential buildings.) http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2016/4/29/my-guerrilla-shared-parking-pilot-project 

    Why require expensive underused car storage be built into buildings when the future clearly cannot be as car centric as we have come to expect.

    It is now a proven and accepted practice that street parking capacity can be managed simply by requiring payments for all street parking.  

    Pay parking on all streets would level the playing field and lessen homeowners perception of “my parking space in the street front of my house”.  It would encourage homeowners to utilize their garages and off-street parking.

    A close example is provided by Fauntleroy’s RPZ. Nearly all the overnight street parking in Fauntleroy is vacant as homeowners prefer to save the RPZ fees and park off-street.

    With such underutilization of expensive parking space , apartment owners should rightly view parking as an add-on of fees.

    It is simply unfair to require renters to pay for off street parking that they do not use.

    If the renters do have cars and don’t pay for apartments with parking, then they would be in the boat as everyone else, paying for street parking.  Charging for all street parking is the only forward looking fair and practical solution.

     No other options provide any practical solution, much less a fair one.

  • Charles May 3, 2016 (10:15 am)

     I’ve seen people dodge for their lives when crossing the street in the vicinity of the proposed development, apparently in an attempt to avoid the extra steps to marked crosswalks further west on Barton.   I sure hope the city will make improvements to improve pedestrian and auto safety. 

  • Double Dub Resident May 3, 2016 (12:30 pm)

    Pay parking on all streets does not level the playing field for everyone. It’s a regressive tax/payment system that would definitely affect lower income families  negatively and would benefit the people who are more financially well off.

    And if you think an all payment street is a good idea, then go move to one of the over populated areas of Seattle where that’s the norm, but don’t suggest it’s a good idea for West Seattle to be part of that BS

    • KM May 3, 2016 (2:18 pm)

      As a former resident of a neighborhood with these types of parking restrictions, I cannot wait until they expand this “BS” to my neighborhood and citywide. 

  • Double Dub Resident May 3, 2016 (5:08 pm)

    @ KM, if you’re referring to a neighborhood in which has already been over developed and thus over populated, thus making parking a premium to the point where one needs to buy zoning stickers in order to park in certain places within the neighborhood, you’re more than free to move back to one of those if that is your desire. 

    Welcoming this kind of paid parking to Westwood is ridiculous as there is no need for this type of parking restrictions…..yet.  Welcoming this type of parking to Westwood is like welcoming getting headaches so one can then take medication to get rid of it. I’m saying we don’t need to get headaches.

    But some people are under the delusion that over-development and over-population is synonymous with “progress”.

    • M. Boyle May 14, 2016 (1:44 pm)

      What!  80 units with no parking?  The city must get a clue!  Make the developers add at least 1/2 a parking space per unit.  We moved from California Ave because a 16 unit apartment was built with no parking. Without that place we had to sometimes park a block away from our townhouse. What is it like now?  I don’t know, we moved out of Seattle.

  • dcn May 3, 2016 (7:33 pm)

    On the good side, maybe more residents near Westwood Village will enable that mall to be more successful at retaining tenants and getting new ones. The Hollywood Video site has been empty since I moved here over 5 years ago. I’d like to see some non-fast food restaurants open up here. 

  • John May 3, 2016 (7:48 pm)

    Double Dub,

    You are wrong to claim it is regressive tax/payment system.

    First, it is not a tax.  

    It is a parking fee, the same as drivers pay everywhere parking is in short supply.  That is why parking is charged for downtown and in many other neighborhoods.

    Lower income people without cars currently subsidize the free street parking.  And more lower income people are without cars that need storing on streets.

    Sales tax and gas taxes are far more harmful to lower income households.

    And, just how would you suggest solving parking shortages?

  • AmandaKH May 4, 2016 (8:11 am)

    My question is, what are the rents of the 11 (I think) apartments in there now, and what will the rents be in the 80 units they are replacing?  Displacement in the Westwood/Highland Park Urban Village is very real.  More development yes, let’s replace the crack houses, and abandoned properties.  But tearing down a perfectly good apartment (scaled perfectly for that lot BTW) in order to fit 80 units at unaffordable prices – No Thank You.

    • John May 4, 2016 (1:19 pm)

      Amanda,

      Have  you considered a few facts regarding your assumptions?

      Are the existing apartments up to current code?

      Do they have new energy efficient appliances?

      Are they  lead and asbestos free?

      Are they accessible?

      How much did they  recently sell for?

      Now take the sales price, estimate the mortgage ,  small margin and updates, then divide  by four (# units).  The result  indicates the minimum rent per unit of the four plex.  It should be clear why the building is being replaced.

      Of course, it would not be feasible to rebuild a four plex.

      There is a critical shortage of housing. 

      Seattle needs  density in designated zoning.

      This is appropriate and will add to the vitality of Westwood.

Sorry, comment time is over.