Two followups on Admiral Safeway project change

(Top, a “before” view of the building that’s changing; below, an “after” view)

Two followups on our story yesterday regarding the change in the Admiral Safeway site project – not the supermarket itself, but the building to its east that was to be residential units and flex-work spaces. As reported here, it’s now slated for 78 residential units, almost double the original number, because Safeway says financing was not available for flex-work space. Safeway’s Sara Corn has followed up with two things: First, she and architect Bill Fuller will be at the next Admiral Neighborhood Association meeting to talk about the project and answer questions; that’s 7 pm Tuesday, February 8th, at Admiral Congregational Church. Second, she had mentioned there would still be some office-type space in that building, abutting Safeway’s loading dock on the north end of that building (along the east edge of the store). Answering our followup question about how much of that space would be available, she replied: “4 office units on the ground floor. Approximately 489 SF each. Could be used for office or retail (like a gallery use or something of the sort that can fit in that type of space).” P.S. If you missed yesterday’s report, it also included a link to these “before/after” renderings regarding the project change, which the city is reviewing.

8 Replies to "Two followups on Admiral Safeway project change"

  • Paul January 28, 2011 (1:33 pm)

    I was hoping for a small teriyaki or mexican joint

  • DP January 28, 2011 (1:57 pm)

    Weird. I thought big projects like this had to go through several planning and approval stages, and approval was contingent on the developer actually building what they said they were going to build.
    Can developers unilaterally change the project specs by announcing that they’re putting in lots of new living units where they said there was gonna be office space?
    If that’s not against some planning law, I think it oughta be. I think the balance of space usage in WS needs to start tilting more towards people working/meeting/playing where they actually live.
    Isn’t this the “Urban Villages” idea?

  • M January 28, 2011 (2:42 pm)

    Can ANA also extend an invitation to Michael Dorcy with Department of Planning and Development?

  • Sonoma January 28, 2011 (8:33 pm)

    This is like one of those kids’ “can you spot the differences” games. OK, the second picture looks more washed out and has fewer windows. Who’s the creepy guy lurking in the corner? Duane, is that you?

  • bolo January 28, 2011 (10:02 pm)

    Louvers on the windows…

  • WS fan January 29, 2011 (12:20 am)

    I see no difference between the 1st photo and the 2nd one. Come on guys!!! Stop playing games with the readers! This doesn’t make for “good will”.

  • Keith January 29, 2011 (1:25 pm)

    Perhaps the attempt of the drawings is to assuage any concerns about such a radical change in plans. “Look, relax — you can barely tell the difference!”

    It will certainly feel and work different with the big changes. And as DP noted, WS could really use some more work-flex space, especially in that area. While it is true that work-flex spaces can be a little more challenging to finance, it’s hardly impossible. Mark Knoll is doing a great job with work-flex spaces in West Seattle and other communities. Wish other developers could follow his lead and example.

  • NotMe January 29, 2011 (5:14 pm)

    Well… there goes the neighborhood!
    Can’t wait to see what the added amount of traffic will do to the already bustling intersection of California and Admiral.

Sorry, comment time is over.