This one may hit home

Robert February 19, 2007 (7:46 am)

On the flip side, there are plenty of Microsofties who live in West Seattle though.

If I had my way, Omni Construction would somehow be compelled to stop building the incredibly unimaginative homes they’ve been building for the past 10+ years. (With the exception of the $$$ new homes down near Hamilton Viewpoint Park (north end of California)

chet_desmond February 19, 2007 (8:20 am)

At the bottom of the article, the PI asks the reader if he/she thinks it’s a problem .. I think the fact that an article was written means that it is likely a problem. I feel that there are so many pros and cons on each side that no side will be happy .. kinda like discussing religion, sex, or politics with your inlaws. If anyone wants to discuss this in person, you will find me at the junction liquor store, wrestling Jiggers for the last bottle of Quintessential gin. Cheers mates!

K February 19, 2007 (10:06 am)

Let’s squander our natural resources by razing an existing house and cutting down our forests so we can live in a new 3,000 sq. ft. house. Learn to live with less. The most important things in life aren’t things!

eric February 19, 2007 (10:32 am)

If they are complying with the codes, then no problemo… you know, private property rights being what they are and all.

It’s part of city life. Growing up in north Admiral, we had a lovely house in our neighborhood that was painted in rainbow motif. Didn’t care for it myself, and I am sure the adult neighbors hated it, but hey, it IS their house.

Don’t like it? Move to the burbs where you can have a homeowners association tell you what color you can paint your house and how often you must edge your grass.

Katherine February 19, 2007 (11:47 am)

I’ll state where I’m coming from first off: I’m a single person living in a tiny house built around 1926. There’s not a lot of storage, and I store stuff in the garage out back, which is going to fall down any day. But it has a nice yard with trees, bushes, grass, birds. And I saw a newly minted bumblebee bumbling in the sun Saturday. I’m appalled at these huge new houses, which house only a few people. What about greenspace? How will we breathe? My neighbors built a huge house next door. Now my taxes have gone up.

Administrator February 19, 2007 (12:01 pm)

Apropos to K’s point, we like to think we are doing a good environmental deed by living in our dinky WW II bungalow, with many million-dollar ex-teardowns all around — though we find ourselves wondering how in the world the folks in the big houses afford the utility bills; ours are so much higher than they were when we bought the house, as if they just couldn’t help rising exponentially with the property values.

The House February 19, 2007 (1:45 pm)

I live in a dinky little rambler built in the 1950s. If I had the money to afford a new 3000 sq. feet in Seattle, I would buy it. Thinking that by living in a small older home that you’re doing the world good is a joke. May I remind you that many of the older homes are built with asbestos, lead based paints, don’t hold heat as well as updated homes (causing you to use more power), etc. Do you think that they’re good for the environment or for your families? As for K, who states “How will we breathe?”, you make development in WS sound cataclysmic. Give me a break….you sound like a cross between Chicken Little and Al Gore.

eric February 19, 2007 (2:01 pm)

They can afford their utility bills because their brand new homes are most likely incredibly more efficient than the old WWII bungalows. To each his own. I would prefer a new home (no, it doesn’t have to be a mansion) over an older home for the fact they are more efficient, probably have some nice modern conveniences (good cooks kitchen, more finished living space (as opposed to drab basements), etc. and likely will not require as much fixin’ as an older home.

McMansions and the like for the sake of vanity are one thing, but not everyone can live in a 1200 sq ft. bungalow – we have a grand piano that has been in our family for 3 generations – got to have a little room to put that thing.

Let’s not be quick to judge people by the size of their homes. Who gets to rule on what is too big for people to be no longer living responsibly??

Suppose no one has problems with the nice big old houses….

Ms_F February 19, 2007 (2:04 pm)

I live in an Omni house. I love the layout, quality of construction and “mod cons.” Yes, it’s bigger than my family needed (my husband and myself). And yes, the architectural design won’t win any awards. But we wanted newer construction. We had already gone through the hassle of repairing and rehabbing a 1930’s home in another state, and at this stage in our lives we did not have the patience or time to go through that again. (I understand from the neighbors that our house replaced a real “beater”, worthy of being torn-down.) If you want a newer single-family home in the city, there simply is no alternative than to buy a bigger-than-necessary house. It just doesn’t pencil out for the developers to build something small. I don’t know what the solution is, other than some sort of City “preservation subsidy,” and I doubt that would fly. I just wanted to share another perspective.

Ms_F February 19, 2007 (2:16 pm)

I’ll add that our power bills aren’t that bad because of the good insulation, and our gas fireplace isn’t polluting the air. (It also was a lifesaver for us during the recent power outages.) I’m not going to feel guilty for living in a nice house.

Chet Desmond February 19, 2007 (2:31 pm)

I’m anti development but see why it happens. It’s a free country, things change, zoning, etc.. Thanks Eric, you bring good points to the table that often lead me to question my strong beliefs on anti development. Yeah, “I don’t want no” covenants or grass blade measurers darkening my door or paint palette police.

I’m a conservative (I know, I’m in the wrong city and community for that matter) and I am certainly no tree hugger, however, I don’t want to clear cut for houses either.

Admin – my first house in Gatewood was like yours. I think it is still there. Hopefully.

Totally agree K and Katherine.

In general, it seems like the comments are argueably evenly split for and against development. I know if the area is zoned for it, there is nothing the average Joe can do but could someone explain why they think packing more people into an area is a good thing? Be nice please. I could maybe understand down town and maybe there was a time when W Seattle could have used more people. Today we seem to be full. I look around and just see crappy roads, traffic, crime, taxes, and utilities rising to name a few negative aspects of development/packing more people in. My house is worth more but if I hate living here what’s the point. Some people argue we need more people inorder to get mass transit. I’ve lived in many major metropolitan areas that have good mass transit and traffic is just as bad as Seattle. Bus and subway riders are crammed in like sardines. Americans love their cars, many who take mass transit still drive a car some days. Ever been cut off or stuck behind a bus on CA Ave or seen one with its rear end half way into the middle of a busy intersection like CA and Admiral Way? How is this a good thing?

Chet Desmond February 19, 2007 (2:34 pm)

House man, you are funny. LOL. Good point on some of the older homes and the green factor but a lot have been insulated, had replacement windows installed, and re-sided to be more efficient. Al Gore and Chicken Little.. funny!

WS Guy February 19, 2007 (3:04 pm)

OMNI’s houses are atrocious.

I loved WS when I moved to a small house (900 sq ft) here in 1997. Since then the infill of repulsive, oversized houses has destroyed the charm, along with the trees. I liked it better here 10 years ago, even though the Junction was far less robust.

I’m sure that people who buy those giants like to walk down my street and enjoy my trees and those of my neighbors — just like I used to enjoy the trees that were cut down for their house. People who keep their small, quaint homes up with nice trees and lawns are benefitting the community. Developers and people who buy from them are selfishly taking from the community.

I do think the housing codes should be revised to limit the size and lot coverage of these rebuilds.

Fortunately, when the viaduct goes down, the home values here will plummet. I’m guessing 20% or so. That will serve the buyers of those McMansions just right.

Administrator February 19, 2007 (3:08 pm)

Just a data point, our little old house is indeed energy-efficient. In the years we’ve owned it, we’ve replaced almost every window (with well-insulated double-panes), weatherstripped the doors, bought a new furnace that burns cleaner fuel, put in low-flow water fixtures, blah blah blah. Utility bills are still through the roof. Maybe it’s time for the windmill in the backyard.

Chet Desmond February 19, 2007 (3:41 pm)

Well put, WS Guy.

Ms_F February 19, 2007 (6:28 pm)

WSGuy, I have a huge old tree in my front yard and pretty landscaping (with drought tolerant plants, as opposed to a water-sucking lawn), which I’m sure the neighborhood enjoys — probably more than the crummy little run-down house and weed patch that was razed to build it. A 2,500 SF house (not including the basement) is hardly a McMansion. There are plenty of run-down “cottages” in West Seattle that are owned by absentee landlords that are pretty atrocious, too. I’m still not going to feel guilty because I didn’t want to face years of renovation again.

Jiggers February 19, 2007 (6:31 pm)

Chet—rotflmao!!

Jiggers February 19, 2007 (6:41 pm)

I moved into a new building on Hudson St a year ago. My electric bill is way down from when I used to live in a thirty year old piece of crap that couldn’t keep you warm during the summer. I moved because I can afford it but I don’t need much space. I just wanted to be in something modern and updated. That was rare in W.S ten years ago. I don’t need a yard and two garages I’m pretty simple.

lk February 19, 2007 (6:51 pm)

I’d have to say that I breathe 100 times better in my new some-what bigger house, than the previous mold-infested house on the lot. That accounted for thousands of dollars in medical bills, resulting in everyone telling you they have no idea what’s wrong with you. So, the most important thing in my life – health! But with that said – we could have gone crazy, built on every possible inch of our lot that was allowed. We didn’t however, because keeping our existing trees and landscaping was important to me. When faced with the opportunity to have a better view though, heck ya, I’ll take it. I’m sure most of you would. I mean, we do afterall live by the water because we want to enjoy it. I don’t always agree with some of the things going on around here, but I also know that I don’t know both sides of the story. Sometimes there’s more going on than you know.

WS Guy February 20, 2007 (7:05 am)

Sounds like Ms_F is from California.

2,500 sq ft + basement is out of scale for most parts of this neighborhood. I assume it’s a faux craftsman – basically a cube – that runs up to the 5 foot lot-line limit on either side with your neighbors. Homes like yours are a blight, and they’ve gotten worse in the last 3 years.

It’s not wrong to replace an old house, but it is inconsiderate to replace it with one the size of yours (or to buy it). There’s no need for builders to go with that size, it’s just an excuse for greed. If builders would put more money into quality and architecture, instead of square footage, then their projects could pencil and our neighborhood would flourish. It would require Ms_F to have different priorities however.

I live in this 900 sq. ft. house with a wife and infant; I love it and I hate to leave, but part of why I love it is the neighborhood. You live in a 3,200 sq ft house (with basement) with your husband. It’s such a waste. Welcome back to California.

Ms_F February 20, 2007 (4:38 pm)

Jealous.

Todd in Westwood February 20, 2007 (5:08 pm)

How come people and development companies are busy tearing down good usefull spaces , while the Schucks Auto Supply on California, north of the Junction and the 76 gas station on Roxbury are a blight on their respective neighborhoods???
I am sure there is others, those two came to mind first.

Joel February 20, 2007 (6:15 pm)

And people from California whine about how it used to be paradise down there at some particular point in time before Group X arrived. And people from here whine about how it was paradise 5 minutes ago until whoever went and f’d it all up. Most of them are people who arrived at some point in time and took a dump on someone else’s version of paradise.

Any members of the Duwamish tribe out there want to talk about the good ol’ days? That’s pretty much the only complaint I could stomach anymore.

You know what? It’s paradise here now. Look around you. Go for a walk in the park. Take a ride on the bus somewhere, an amenity most of the population of this country wouldn’t even begin to fathom. Same goes for actual sidewalks that actually lead to functioning businesses that are not Wal-mart. Look into the eyes of healthy, happy neighbors (or even those who are suffering) and think for a moment that they might have an ounce of humanity comparable to yours. It might make you feel like good ol’ Seattle hasn’t quite plummeted to hell quite yet.