Design Review encores set: California/Alaska/42nd, 3811 California

| Development | Neighborhoods | West Seattle news

Now that the brick fourplex at 3811 California is officially deemed unqualified for city-landmark status, the project to replace it with a 4-story apartment/retail building is proceeding. Next step, a Design Review Board meeting just set for June 12, 8 pm, Madison Middle School (following the 6:30 pm meeting, same place, same date, for 4532 42nd SW, as reported here last week). A much bigger West Seattle project has also just reappeared on the city’s “upcoming Design Review meetings” page — the 6- and 7-story Conner Homes buildings at California/Alaska/42nd in The Junction, which drew a lot of constructive criticism at their first DRB meeting exactly one month ago (WSB coverage here) — this project is now tentatively set to return before design reviewers at 6:30 pm May 29 in the Southwest Precinct meeting room. (As mentioned here earlier today, Conner Homes reps are scheduled to speak to the Junction Neighborhood Organization, along with reps from BlueStar — developing Fauntleroy Place (Whole Foods project) and Gateway Center (old Huling showroom) — tomorrow night, 6:30 pm in the community room @ Ginomai, southwest corner of 42nd/Genesee.)

WS Native May 12, 2008 (8:24 pm)

Omni Construction’s graceless, schlocky buildings are a blight on our neighborhood. Destroying this graceful old lady just compounds the sin.

celeste17 May 12, 2008 (9:32 pm)

I wish instead of tear down and replace that we could get some builders who are interested in renovating these buildings to make them beautiful like they once were. Why does everything have to be destroyed and be replaced with faceless boring buildings that have room for retail. Don’t we have enough of these buildings?

Todd May 12, 2008 (9:37 pm)

BOHICA

Frank May 12, 2008 (9:45 pm)

They keep going up because the city figures that they get a hell of alot more tax money from these types of buildings that they would from keeping homes like those around.
Greg “It’s your” Nickles “not mine” will do nothing to stop this type of developement, only encourage it.
1. It increases traffic in the area.
2. It strains the parking situation in the area
3. It removes the uniqueness of West Seattle and soon we will look just like every neighborhood in town.
This all fits in to the city’s plan to force people in to high density areas and makes it impossible for people to commute without taking the bus or some other form of public tranportation. Anything but personal vehicles.
Look for MANY MANY more types of this developement and the tear down of single family homes to place 4 townhomes in the same space. This has already been done next to Holy Rosary Church and School and in the Gatewood area.

rjb May 12, 2008 (9:55 pm)

Great. West Seattle will get some blandly built “luxury” townhouses nextdoor to a 7-11. Thank god we’ll be getting at least 6 more $700,000 units no one can afford, during a recession.
.

Never mind the 4 families that are screwed.
.
Oh, and never mind the original structures that will be bulldozed along with anything else that has just the tiniest drop of history to it.
.
This is getting way out of control.

PSPS May 12, 2008 (10:52 pm)

What I’m wondering is where the financing is coming from for these projects these days.
.
If a developer thinks he’s going to get, as rjb opined, $700K for a 950SF condo, he’s insane.
.
A friend visited an open house in Ballard a couple of weeks ago where they had a new building full of 950 SF or less condos priced at $650K, and not a single one was sold. It’s easy to see why when you find identical accomodations on a rental basis that work out to a value of about $350K. They have since decided to … rent them as apartments! The same thing has happened in many of these new buildings all around town, including many yet-to-be-completed buildings downtown.
.
Now that you have to actually qualify for a mortgage, the days of these artifically inflated prices have come to an end. Despite the spin the NAR and its cheerleaders in the “press” (on whose shows they purchase advertising, natch) try to sell you, this price correction probably won’t stop until 2011, when the largest bubble of toxic “option ARM” loans has gone through their reset period and have become REO’s, short sales or foreclosures.

toomanyratsinacageakaWS May 13, 2008 (7:37 am)

It’s frustrating to get involved to try to save a piece of history only to end up back where we started with a proposed land action use as if nothing ever happened. Not very motivating for when the next “proposed” land action use (a/k/a this building is being torn down like it or not) comes along.
I also find it interesting that there are condo units in WS that have been open for a year or so and still do not have all of the units sold.

chris May 13, 2008 (7:55 am)

I am in agreement with the previous comments. The other Omni buildings are poorly designed and built, and I am sure this one will be the same. towering crap piles.

WSB May 13, 2008 (8:08 am)

Reminder that these are proposed as apartments, not condos. At least for starters. Follow the link on the phrase “4-story apartment/retail building” to see the city project page.

GP May 13, 2008 (9:03 am)

Ivory Tower?

I hope none of you live in a new construction home, or anything built after 1940 – when progress was acceptable.

Don’t forget- high density is “green”, we all want a “green” West Seattle with lots of people walking and taking buses…

rjb May 13, 2008 (9:18 am)

Also, how does that gross old Denny’s in Ballard get historical status and this building doesn’t?

MiniBeeLP May 13, 2008 (9:23 am)

Seriously?! This is a cryin’ shame. Those brick duplexes are so charming. I walked by them often when I was a kid. Just another casualty in the rapidly fraying fabric that was old West Seattle.

kittylove May 13, 2008 (9:42 am)

and just how much do you suppose they will be charging for their “apartments”?

there was an apartment building downtown that i was considering moving to (i love west seattle, but am keeping an open mind about moving closer to work, especially with the viaduct’s future questionable). the building advertised itself as having “affordable” units. well, their idea of affordable is $950 a month for a TINY studio.

toomanyratsinacageakaWS May 13, 2008 (10:20 am)

GP- Mine is a 1926 Tudor, thanks

toomanyratsinacageakaWS May 13, 2008 (10:33 am)

Towering crap piles is right. I like that description.

Affordable is a relative term, like nice. It seems to be used as an excuse or in such a way as to get people to buy off on change. As in, “Yeah but we are building affordable housing, look at me, aint I great?!” On one hand, I say live where you can afford to live but on the other hand don’t act like you are doing us a favor charging what everyone else is or more and calling it affordable .. It’s like a car dealer saying we’ll make you a deal. Full sticker price!

And green is cool but not everyone builds green or can walk or take the bus.. Buses seem to spend more time polluting, driving slow, cutting people off because it’s legal to, running red lights, blocking intersections like Adm and CA, and clogging the roads than improving the environment/commute.

flipjack May 13, 2008 (11:33 am)

I wish somebody would do an in depth investigative report on Greg Nickels relationship to private developers. I’ve heard that he has close family that are developers and he’s basically feeding their fortunes. It’s got to stop. without any mass transit infrastructure we are destroying this city. Making it difficult for people to get around.

Jack Flanders May 13, 2008 (12:48 pm)

I’m not against progress. There are TONS of boring generic buildings we can tear down and rebuild. But this is one of the VERY few buildings along that stretch of California that looks unique. You drive by and it stands out compared to the little box houses and retail outlets. There’s just no need to tear THAT down…there’s plenty of other junk you could get rid of first.

As for being affordable. Remember, no one really lives in the majority of these $800k 900sqft buildings. Just like the 2200 Westlake project, it’s mostly just investors who buy these and try to flip them for a profit in 6 months. No one with a job could afford any of these and pay a mortgage for 30 years. My partner and I EACH make nearly $100k a year, and WE couldn’t afford these. I look at the charts and our household income is far above median, yet there isn’t a single “new” home in West Seattle we can afford. Where is a normal person making $50K a year supposed to live? No where in Seattle that’s for sure. It seems Seattle consists of 450,000 CEOs and Vice Presidents who can supposedly afford this stuff, and everyone else lives ‘somewhere else’.

toomanyratsinacageakaWS May 13, 2008 (1:02 pm)

Amen flipjack, sumthin’ smells!

chet May 13, 2008 (1:07 pm)

Where y’all been all my life!?

celeste17 May 13, 2008 (3:08 pm)

I feel that they are doing a diservice to WS by tearing down some of these buildings. Yeah they might not be brand spanking new and shinny but they are someones home (apartment) and they are probably paying a reasonable rent but now where do they go? Not to High Point after all they deemed all of those people and not making enough money to live in those units now that they are mixed income. I still say instead of tearing down how about fixing them up!

toomanyratsinacageakaWS May 13, 2008 (3:17 pm)

I like that idea too celeste17.

Folks, just say no to the death star trench.. ooops we already got one :)

willow May 13, 2008 (3:46 pm)

You know – YOU ALL may to hark back where this started – Dear old Mayor Norm Rice.

This did not start, nor will it end, with Gregg Nichols.

CMP May 13, 2008 (3:52 pm)

The land use application says that the existing front two units will be renovated and retained…I’m curious to see how the design will accommodate 12 apartments and four live/work units. Why aren’t the ugly 70’s style apartments being sold and torn down instead? It makes me worry that my landlord will sell my 1920’s era building for it to eventually be torn down too.

Aim May 13, 2008 (4:24 pm)

Great example of a unit like this being converted to condos but still retaining its integrity can be seen in the 9000 block of 16th Ave SW over in the Highland Park/White Center border. It’s a similar, little U-shaped building. They upgraded everything. One bedrooms are $150k and 2-brs are $250k. If we could buy now, we would absolutely snap up one of the 2brs. They are really well done.

Elikapeka May 13, 2008 (10:00 pm)

Another re-do that I think turned out well is the building down on Alki Ave – can’t remember the name of it – but they left the first story brick elements of the building and built above and behind, keeping the original design intact. I seem to remember them being fairly generic inside, but at least the exterior maintained some relationship to the neighborhood character.

Frank May 14, 2008 (9:39 am)

Is it time it SERIOUSLY look at becoming our own city, like Mercer Island???
Afterall, wasn’t Mercer Island once East Seattle??
At least if we do, we can decide on our own developments and not be at the mercy of Seattle City Hall and their IDIOTIC Urban Villages.
Yes, this started with Rice and the council at that time “deciding” that the placement of 5 UVs in WS and 1 in (iirc) Northgate was a fair and equatable distribution of these types of projects.
Now with the two projects in the Jefferson Square that are on going now, and the Whole Foods project starting soon, there will an influx of a VAST amount of cars on roads that can’t support the added traffic and parking. The days of me going to “The Junction” are quickly coming to an end. I’ll just take my business to Westwood Village or head to Burien.

AlkiResident May 14, 2008 (2:26 pm)

This looks to be a trend that isn’t changing anytime soon. Things are changing, higher density is the direction the City (and Nickels) is going. It can’t be stopped, but there must be a way where we can direct it to the benefit of West Seattle residents. With more people, there are more cars needing to park, more traffic on the streets and bridge – which were not designed for the volume, etc. West Seattle had a ton a charm (and still does), but it is slowly being chipped away. As mentioned above “going green” and giving up cars isn’t feasible for everyone, so let’s figure out a way to accommodate the increase in development to the needs/wants of West Seattle residents. How do we start? The only way the City and DPD will take our wants/needs into consideration is if we are a loud and strong enough voice to be heard -(or to come up with more than what Nickels is paying the developers). Is there anything being done to form a coalition of West Seattle residents in total?

Chet May 14, 2008 (3:07 pm)

I’ve been attending design review board meetings which are worthless pretty much .. I mean you can state concerns but not ask questions and they certainly are not a venue for preservationists.. Look at what happened to the apartment building near Charlestown and CA.. But I think you hit the nail on the head when you said there is nothing we can do about it. I’ve gotten letters from Nickels staff that state this is the direction he wants to go. If it’s zoned for it, then that’s that. I think people should have property rights and all that but it’s just painful to live near it and see so much history go the wayside. Renters are being squeezed out, property taxes and utilities keep rising, etc .. I struggle with this because I am a homeowner and can afford all of these increases, knock on wood, and will likely stand to profit from WS becoming a more attractive place but all of this development and population influx just rubs me the wrong way. I am not a NIMBY either. It’s nice to see others feel this way as I was the only one, aside from WSguy and flipjack, when I started reading/commenting on this blog in 2005.

Sorry, comment time is over.