Oregon 42 project followup: Renderings from the architect

One week from tonight, the new architect/developer for Oregon 42 – the official name for the revived development plan for 42nd/Oregon in The Junction – will meet with interested community members (all welcome) to discuss its revised plan. We’ve been covering it here, including, on Monday, a then/now comparison with renderings from the 2008-2009 Design Review process compared to hard-copy versions from the current revisions on file with the city. Since then, new architect JBDG has provided a PDF document with two views of the project, then/now (the one you see above is a current view), as well as their toplines on what’s changed – more ahead:

Here’s the comparison, with the then/now views facing east and the then/now views facing west. From architect Joe Giampietro, the toplines (which have been reported here previously, but this time, it’s a direct quote in the words of a project point person):


1. From a design perspective, the building height, scale, setbacks and character have not changed.

2. Changes to the interior allocation of uses include:

a. Along 42nd Ave (SW), the street front use for the previously approved design had 100% commercial retail use. The current design now includes Loft living units at the street level for the south half of the project, and commercial retail use at the north half of the project.

b. The previously approved design includes approximately 20,000 SF commercial/retail space, 89 residential units, and 9 live/work units. Staying within the same design parameters, the current design significantly reduces the commercial/retail to 3,000 SF, and includes 135 residential units.

c. The project proposes 137 parking spaces, which is 28 more spaces than the City requires.

We are confident that you will find the new design to be in many ways
indistinguishable from the one originally approved.

As also reported here Monday, the Junction Neighborhood Organization says the city has agreed to extend the period for public comments on the changes. The new deadline is June 29th; the notice of those changes explains how to get your comments to the city, which has to sign off on the changes before the project can proceed. Meantime, next Wednesday’s meeting is at 6 pm at the Senior Center of West Seattle (Oregon/California).

21 Replies to "Oregon 42 project followup: Renderings from the architect"

  • Jimmy June 8, 2011 (7:50 am)

    Yeah, that doesn’t look completely out of place or anything in that residential neighborhood.

    Ugh. FWSL.

  • Donn June 8, 2011 (8:40 am)

    The link to the architect’s website is incorrect. http://www.jbdg.com

  • WSJEEP June 8, 2011 (9:59 am)

    So boring.

  • RobertSeattle June 8, 2011 (10:05 am)

    It should be called “The building North of QFC”. :-)

  • GiveMeABreak June 8, 2011 (11:00 am)

    Seriously!? Let’s cram MORE people in an already over saturated area. Don’t we already have enough traffic that our roads can’t sustain? How about enough crime we can’t stay in front of? I guess, building four grocery stores within three blocks of each other, you have to build living spaces to move people in to keep those business afloat! This city is so screwed up. What’s happening to our established single family neighborhoods? Why do we insist on eating up and stacking more and more on top of any tiny amount of space left? Oh, that’s right. It’s the 2000 thing to do: high density, multi-use buildings crammed into every single, tiny “zoneable” corner. (just like they did in California and it continues to fail). Ever wonder why people move “out of the city”; they can’t take it anymore! DO NOT ruin West Seattle. It is not a “big city” so stop trying to make it so uncomfortable and crowded that you can’t even move. It’s almost too bad we’re part of the big debacle called Seattle. This project, among others (still incomplete in West Seattle) has GREED written all over it.

  • GiveMeABreak June 8, 2011 (11:13 am)

    P.S. And, I’m sure they’re going to plant and maintain all those trees, too!

  • I Wonder June 8, 2011 (11:16 am)

    Waiting for the obligatory “you live in the city, get used to it”, “why shouldn’t developers make money too” comments to log in. I agree. WS WAS a charming little community. It appears to be moving towards the Ballard/Bellevue/Mercer Island zone.

  • Stephanie June 8, 2011 (11:17 am)

    EEW – I hate it, I just bought a house in that area…and this is just going to make the residential area even more crowded. BLAH – hope this does not pass!

  • Herman June 8, 2011 (12:08 pm)

    Yes, we should call this area West Bellevue.

  • KBear June 8, 2011 (2:30 pm)

    Stephanie, the proposed land use signs for this project have been up for years. If you bought a house nearby, surely you noticed the big signs?

  • dotty June 8, 2011 (2:39 pm)

    too bad those cute houses will go away too.

  • destinyabound June 8, 2011 (3:55 pm)

    Just wondering, is that medical/dental office bldg in between going to stay put? Or will that go to? just wondering i know many families that go to DR Tweedy (WS pediatric dentist).

    • WSB June 8, 2011 (4:00 pm)

      This project is proposed only for the sites of the four houses (the fourth is the one that was sold and removed in the much-covered overnight journey last year). There also is a stalled project site on the other side of the medical-dental building which had gone at least partway (I haven’t revisited the archives) through the Design Review process but has not shown signs of life since then … TR

  • kirsty June 8, 2011 (4:11 pm)

    I agree that getting all of us over the bridge each day is a growing problem (ahem, *light rail!*) but expecting little cute houses only 1 block off the junction? (facing a parking lot!) We need this kind of density near our urban villages to keep them vibrant, and this seems like a reasonable and appropriate use of space to me.

  • Peter on Fauntleroy June 8, 2011 (5:55 pm)

    @ I Wonder: here ya go: You DO live in a city. And it’s a BIG city.

    @ GiveMeABreak: You also live in a big city. It’s silly to pretend it’s not. If you don’t want to live in a city, then you have the option of moving out of the city, but you can’t make the city not be a city. And by the way, there is zero eveidence that density increases crime. You’re trying to use that as a scare tactic, and it’s laughable.

    Personally, I think it’s a good looking building, and having more people in walking distance to the Junction will be a boon for businesses.

  • JayDee June 8, 2011 (7:01 pm)

    I think placing the commercial part at the north end is a bad idea (why not next to QFC?–that part is shaded by the big building across the street The north end might have more sun and views). Also, dropping the commercial footage to 3,000 from 20,000?. I suspect this is because they don’t want to have to worry about leasing it which would take awhile. My two cents.

  • ttt June 8, 2011 (8:34 pm)

    Ugly building. I wonder if all the new commercial spaces in the area will be filled in…

  • I Wonder June 8, 2011 (10:59 pm)

    Thank you Peter. Why do you hate open spaces in the city?

  • Paul June 9, 2011 (3:31 am)

    Thank god I didn’t sell my house in skagit county…see ya! I mean cmon you can’t even walk down the sidewalk anymore without bumping into someone or there stroller.. At least we enjoyed it while it lasted

  • Peter on Fauntleroy June 9, 2011 (8:40 am)

    @ I Wonder: Why are you putting words in my mouth? Your intentional misrepresentation of my comments is offensive and unacceptable. I’m expecting your apology.

  • Peter on Fauntleroy June 9, 2011 (8:42 am)

    @ I Wonder: It is not valid in a debate to make up something someone never said and argue against that. That’s called a straw man. It’s a tactic only used by people who don’t have any substantial point to make.

    PS – I guess you didn’t notice this site is not open space, it is already built on and has been for a long time.

Sorry, comment time is over.