West Seattle development: New apartment building proposed for Junction

42nd Avenue SW continues to be the busiest street for West Seattle Junction redevelopment. Newly filed documents show the local developers who built Junction Flats at 4433 42nd SW have a new early-stage proposal on the same block, between SW Genesee and SW Oregon. We just found the “site plan” for 4417 42nd SW in the city Department of Construction and Inspection files. The site plan filed less than a week ago proposes a four-story building with 55 apartments and an unspecified number of underground parking spaces. The site plan shows the new building replacing what county records say are three 1930s-built houses at 4417, 4421, and 4423 42nd SW, separated from Junction Flats by a parking lot owned by the West Seattle Eagles. No formal application filed yet, but this will have to go through the Design Review process.

41 Replies to "West Seattle development: New apartment building proposed for Junction"

  • Craig December 13, 2016 (11:52 am)

    FOR THE LOVE OF GOD…HERE’S TO HOPING THAT SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE HAS THE WORD NO IN THEIR VOCABULARY.  ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

    • Kathy December 13, 2016 (5:07 pm)

      Everyone needs to send a letter to the City Council members or e-mail them that we do not want our neighborhoods re-zoned  as the City is planning to do at the Morgan, Alaska, and Admiral Junctions.  Let them know we do not want our neighborhoods ruined.  The property taxes will go up and our neighborhoods will not be livable or affordable.  So much for housing affordability the City is trying to force on us.  This e-mail address will go to all council members, council@seattle.gov.  Also, e-mail Brennon Staley, Senior Planner for the City at brennon.staley@seattle.gov.  West Seattle residents must demand a community meeting with the City in a better location than the nightmare at Shelby’s Bistro last week.

      • CMT December 14, 2016 (5:13 pm)

        Absolutely agree.   The City is happy to take the developer fees for tearing down our neighborhoods and replacing them with apartments without any real planning for how West Seattle will support the increased density.

  • Mark Schletty December 13, 2016 (12:09 pm)

    Very simply put, West Seattle can not absorb any more units until better access/egress to and from our neighborhood is in place. The only proposal concerning more development that should be considered by the city is a complete moratorium on any new development entaiing more than one for one replacement.

  • B December 13, 2016 (12:34 pm)

    This is great news for those who are feeling the pain of the insane housing demand in Seattle.

    This is bad news for those who are feeling the pain of driving in/out of West Seattle during peak hours.

  • BJ December 13, 2016 (12:37 pm)

    Of course there is.  Only a small amount of time before the free parking in West Seattle is gone too.  

    • KM December 13, 2016 (6:56 pm)

      Here’s hoping!

  • sam-c December 13, 2016 (12:50 pm)

    stating the obvious here, but the zoning on those lots allow it.  HOWEVER, a developer wouldn’t be able to build  it without buying the lots, so get mad at your neighbors selling to developers too.  The people living in those houses (maybe the homeowners, maybe not, who knows if they were rentals ?) probably got tired of the Junction Flats right next door (save for the Eagles parking lot) , blocking the sunlight, creating more traffic, apartments with views down into their backyards….

    so, it’s almost like a domino effect.  Now the next people down the block will tire of living next to a big apartment building, sell to developers, and so on and so on.  (well maybe not, it’s all churches and apartments down the street)

  • ellipses December 13, 2016 (12:53 pm)

    I say bring on the density! It’s the only way renters will get even a modicum of relief.

    • BD December 13, 2016 (5:34 pm)

      Yes, ellipses, that’s exactly right, I agree. More housing means lower rent, more restaurants, and eventually more transit . 

      • Celina December 13, 2016 (10:36 pm)

         Actually, my guess is that rent will continue to rise, because these new buildings basically charge whatever they want, and then current landlords feel they can raise the rents to match. So don’t get too excited 

  • AMM December 13, 2016 (1:34 pm)

    You have GOT to be kidding me. Parents of Hope Lutheran and Holy Rosary students can’t get through that block as it is to drop kids off and pick them up. 

    • Jon December 13, 2016 (9:52 pm)

      Not that I’m excited about losing the single parking spot ever (sometimes) available on the street, but — why don’t you guys send your kids on busses? It’s always one mom in a giant SUV per kid.

      • AMM December 17, 2016 (7:37 pm)

        I wish! These private schools don’t have buses. And we do carpool. And lots of kids walk. And it’s still bad. It’s a very congested couple of blocks. 

  • old timer December 13, 2016 (1:36 pm)

    WSB –  I know you are busy, and I am grateful for all the work you do so tirelessly.

    BUT, could you explain why you identify “local developer?” and what that means?  Did these people just build the Junction Flats, or are they the owners?  Do they live here, in West Seattle?

    Do you know who is financing this transformation  of the neighborhood?  Is it our local “friendly” bank or credit union? 

    Do you know if the rents generated by this, and other “locally” developed buildings remain in West Seattle?  Or even in Seattle?  Or, will the money be shipped off to parts unknown in perpetuity?

    IMO, it seems that no matter where the money goes, the neighborhood is giving up too much just to maintain a rentier class.

  • Harriet Husbands December 13, 2016 (2:27 pm)

    This is what happens when the land becomes worth so much more than the house itself.  The owners of these homes sold out.  Go complain to them with their suitcases full of cash.

    Look at it from the perspective of the developers. How is it possible to “flip” a 1930’s home where half the square footage is in an unbearable attic or basement? You can only do so much before you need to tear down. Building these apartments is the only way for a buyer to recoup costs.

    Think about the renters who have little to no housing option. Something needs to give. You want things back the way things were? Go move to Nebraska and join the others who want to make America great again.

    • Captin December 13, 2016 (4:57 pm)

      Whoa whoa whoa! I have a rental house! I want to charge $4200 a month for it like my friend that just moved back here from the Bay Area had to pay for a 3br an hour from work. If we don’t do something that’s where we’ll be. I’ll make a lot of money on rent but it’s ridiculous. I agree that transportation and infrastructure should precede growth in a perfect world. Unfortunately that takes planning and a little less NIMBY’ism.  Also, who could have predicted the tech boom that has taken place over the last few years. Not enough housing and not enough transportation is the reality. So Seattle 2035 says the city will have 120,000 more people by then. West Seattle gets light rail in what 2030? What do we do? This seems like a lot of ostrich head in the sand stuff. This is happening, like it or not. It really is happening. It’s more housing or unbelievable prices for rent and mortgages your choice.

  • Gene December 13, 2016 (3:45 pm)

    Gosh  I’m tired of being told to move – or the other trite phrase I’ m seeing a lot- get over it-. Most of the objections are regarding getting infrastructure in place BEFORE building all these new apartments. Owners have the right to sell their property  to whoever they want at whatever price they can get- but that shouldn’t mean a builder can get the go ahead from the city before proper infrastructure is in place. Renters really get a modicum of relief from what exactly? They may have a place to live- good- but getting around is a joke. 

    • cjboffoli December 13, 2016 (5:39 pm)

      The infrastructure is absolutely in place.  The sidewalks, bike trails, water and sewer pipes, power lines, gas lines, Internet, local businesses, parks, etc. are more than adequate to accommodate a denser city.  And there are plenty of little, old single family houses surrounded by lawns that can be rebuilt to provide space for multiple households on the same plot of land.  Maybe go take a walk around Beacon Hill in Boston or in Greenwich Village in NYC and you might appreciate how ridiculous it is to say that West Seattle can’t accommodate more density.  

      Let’s just call out what that word ‘infrastructure’ is obscuring here:  CARS.  Cars, cars, cars.  People as usual are putting their cars above other people.  But cities are made for people.  And density makes cities work better, culturally and logistically. What gives any of us the right to tell other people they can’t come here because they’re threatening to impede our over-use of private cars?  The “we were here first” mantra didn’t seem to work out that well for the Native Americans. But good luck with trying that tack again.
      • East coast cynic December 13, 2016 (8:52 pm)

        The public transportation infrastructure is, unlike NYC and Boston, definitely not in place.  Therefore, some people have no choice, particularly if their employment is far from downtown, but to use the car as I suspect that is the case for those car queues on the WSB in the morning.

        • CMT December 14, 2016 (5:11 pm)

          I absolutely agree that the infrastructure is not in place.  Standing room only on peak hour buses as it is and light rail not projected to reach West Seattle for 15+ years.  Putting the cart before the horse is putting it mildly.

      • bolo December 13, 2016 (10:55 pm)

        Poor comparison CJ. Comparing W Seattle to Greenwich Village NYC? Think most W Seattle folks would rather live in Greenwich Village because it’s more “vibrant?” Could they even afford it? No, they prefer to live here because: Trees, clean air, cleaner environment, less claustrophobic, etc. Also, maybe you forgot NYC has subway? W Seattle has……. Rapid Ride? Poor comparison.

    • Meyer December 13, 2016 (6:01 pm)

      Often times cities don’t have the resources to build before the population density increases. More people, higher land values = more tax money = more transportation infrastructure. It seems backwards but that appears to be how it is.

      Luckily in about 20 years we will have light rail, so I guess this issue is temporary. 

      • WSB December 13, 2016 (6:05 pm)

        13 is the schedule. Talking recently with County Exec Constantine, he was hopeful that could accelerate a few years.

      • cjboffoli December 14, 2016 (8:18 am)

        There will be big changes in the way cars (and autonomous cars) are used in Seattle long before the trains arrive.

  • RJB December 13, 2016 (3:49 pm)

    If I am correct, the guys who built the flats were locals from W Seattle and recently just put the flats up for sale.

    Enough is enough and rentals are only going up in price…we manage three properties, it is insane.

    • WSB December 13, 2016 (4:33 pm)

      Sorry, been offline for a bit. Yes, the owners (BCK Investments) are West Seattleites. No, they did not put this building up for sale – the one that’s for sale has a similar name, The LOFTS at The Junction, different ownership.

  • ACG December 13, 2016 (4:51 pm)

    OMG- traffic is already a NIGHTMARE on that section of 42nd. Wow, just wow. 

    • Tsurly December 13, 2016 (7:13 pm)

      Not if you walk or bike in the area. It is actually quite pleasant.

      • ACG December 13, 2016 (8:11 pm)

        No, Tsurly, not really. I walk that exact street multiple times per week, and it isn’t “pleasant”. Riding a bike on that street would be a death wish, especially between 8:00-9:00 and 2:30-3:30. In fact, I have NEVER seen a bicyclist even attempt to ride on that street (on the block in question) during those times. I can’t vouch for 42nd elsewhere, and it may in fact be a lovely relaxing paradise elsewhere. But on that block at certain times of day, no way. 

      • bolo December 13, 2016 (10:58 pm)

        Biking in that area USED to be pleasant; not any more. Choked with cars with impatient drivers, construction barricades, torn up pavement.

  • NW December 13, 2016 (5:29 pm)

    This is no surprise and the more I look around California Ave ,north and south,  Fauntleroy way SW, 35th Ave the triangle there is a lot of single level businesses and houses on frequent transit routes.  Take for example the Firestone auto repair shop in the southend of the junction or just a few blocks south Rite aid.  There is so much more space that from my perspective of how things were here and are the direction it is going there is going to be massive more development in West Seattle. This project go south a block the free parking both east and west of the junction that’s not going to last either. Get use to it because it will only  increase. 

  • flimflam December 13, 2016 (5:48 pm)

     funny to hear people keep saying that all this wonderful density is going to somehow help renters needing “affordable” housing when even jail cell style apodments are almost $1000.

    why would anyone think this is for the common good? its only good if you are a developer. 

  • Captin December 13, 2016 (6:13 pm)

    It’s not about anything being wonderful. It’s a reality. I would move to say “pro density” means “realistic” to a lot of folks. As long as there are good jobs and lots of fun things to do people will move here. I’m a transplant that moved here in ’99. I stayed here because Seattle is awesome and offered a lot more than rural AZ where I grew up. I met a local and got married and settled down and had 2 children. So one local became a family of 4. I just think it’s unrealistic to pretend this isn’t happening and this city isnt already behind the 8 ball. It’s going to be San Francisco if we don’t do something. Of course developers will make money. That’s what they do, develop property for a profit. Let’s keep them in check and make sure they do it right. Won’t the new pie shop, boutique and coffee shop make a profit too? What about people spending 2hrs a day burning fossil fuels in their commute to get to their mini-mansion that took an acre of clear cut to build on the property? That’s not helping either. This is super complex but it would be nice to have transit first. I guess we can’t have our cake and eat it too. :-(

  • Crissy December 13, 2016 (9:18 pm)

    I had a small office in downtown until last year. The commercial rents are on the rise also. I wanted to relocate my office to West Seattle (still has a Seattle address, a requirement) but I couldn’t find a good solution for a lease. Why can’t some of this new development be commercial. Small suites, even a Regus or We Work option. Then hire local, take those cars off the bridge…win win. How many of you commuters would jump at a chance to work local?

    • bolo December 13, 2016 (11:02 pm)

      “How many of you commuters would jump at a chance to work local?”
      Agree, that is one of the BEST solutions!

    • cjboffoli December 14, 2016 (8:25 am)

      Crissy:  That’s exactly it.  We need to stop pretending like you can live where you like no matter where it is in relation to where you work. This country was ruined by zoning laws that clustered all of the commercial buildings in areas that are separate from residential areas. We have to continue to integrate commercial and residential areas so people can get to work more easily without relying on over-congested roadways.

    • South Park Sassy December 14, 2016 (8:53 am)

      One of the major reasons I stay at my less than ideal job is the 6 min commute.  Working and living in the same area Is a luxury.  Commuting robs 2 hrs a day of your life.  Sadly, the cost of living in West Seattle has skyrocketed in the last 2 years so I’ll have to take a downtown job for more money to pay for my overpriced apt that I’ll rarely be in because I’m working and commuting 12 hrs/days.

  • K8 December 13, 2016 (10:42 pm)

    I’m glad that they are building density where it is currently zoned for density. Until the rest of our urban village meets their density goals, I see no reason to expand it. 

    An no, as a narrow street flanked by cars, it’s not really nice for either pedestrians or bicyclists. I think that more 1 way streets are in our future.

  • WSGirl December 14, 2016 (11:53 am)

    People complain about high rents, but the more housing we have, the less rents will be. Property management companies will initially list the prices as high as they think they can make them, however once units don’t rent out, they are forced to lower them. This is good. This is even better for the “older” buildings (older than 5-7 years), because since they’re no longer “new” and don’t have some of the amenities that these new properties offer, they are forced to lower their rents as well. This is all positive! If you don’t like the traffic, don’t drive your car! Simple as that! 

    • CMT December 14, 2016 (5:16 pm)

      I don’t like traffic and I don’t drive my car.  I take the bus.  And there is not sufficient transit service for the existing population.

Sorry, comment time is over.

WP-Backgrounds by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann