Comments on: West Seattle development, mapped: 2,000+ planned units

By: Ky

Ky — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:43:54 +0000

The more the merrier! 2,000+ units will bring more people, more vitality, better transit, and better neighborhoods. Embrace the change Seattle! Embrace density and all it has to offer!

By: sam-c

sam-c — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 18:03:01 +0000

we went to Talarico’s last night for happy hour pizza. when we left at 6:30, I was surprised by all the people on the sidewalk waiting for tables there and at EBB.

yes it was a Friday, but wow, when Talarico’s and EBB are socked in by giant new towering developments, I’ll really miss 2 of WS’s great restaurants; it’ll be so crowded, why bother?

By: Mark Johnson

Mark Johnson — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:30:25 +0000

West Seattle, WA! Has a nice ring to it.

By: Mark Johnson

Mark Johnson — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:29:19 +0000

It may be time to secede from the union and control our property taxes and tax dollars. Think about it…

By: Creekside

Creekside — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 04:49:17 +0000

@ Kgdlg @ 6:56 am December 30, 2012 – Delridge has been struggling for decades, but not for the reason(s) you cite. It is struggling due to the direct result of a decades long record of being the City’s dumping ground, West Seattle branch, of those in poverty. Delridge”s dreary status is also a result of the complete unwillingness on the part of the City to move Delridge forward with an update to our Neighborhood Plan and the MONEY implement it. The DESC is now piling-on to the decades long dumping of poverty, poverty that is so concentrated in the specific census tract that the DESC just HAD to build that a waiver was granted by Rick Hooper at the Office of Housing to allow the DESC to muscle its way in. The Brandon area of Delridge Way has a temporary school, under the guise of Boren-STEM/Sealth/Cleveland/Madison/etc., and gobs of SHA or Section 8 housing. There has also been a boatload of foreclosures and short sales. All of this contributes to resident instability and leaves any effort to try and improve the area’s stability/business climate to a small handful of martyrs on the North Delridge Neighborhood Council. And gawd bless them for doing what they do.
=
High Point was redeveloped to disperse poverty via mixing in market rate housing as it was finally acknowledged that concentrations of poverty is not good for anyone, especially the people in poverty. Yet here the City is actively making the exact opposite occur in the Brandon area of Delridge. Watching this whole debacle in Delridge has convinced me that ‘low-income’ housing projects, and especially ‘supportive housing’, is anything but feel-good-politics, backslapping, and work for Architects, Non-Profit Developers, General Contractors and their crews. It is not about helping the people in need. If it were, they would not be plopped down in bad-news-central and have multiple opportunities to buy booze, drugs and crap food right outside the door of their newly built digs.
=
Delridge Way is no more of an arterial than Rainer Avenue is. In fact, Delridge Way has two less travel lanes than Rainer Avenue. Yet, Rainier Avenue at Columbia City is thriving and Delridge Way is Crudsville. Why? Because there were good bones in Columbia City, but more importantly, private capital came in and invested. The only substantial structures at Delridge and Brandon is a bunch of non-profit or public facilities. Not that these are a bad thing, but the DESC is yet another non-profit and will be THE defining building and characteristic of the entire Brandon area. It will take a long, long time before any private capital will want to risk investing in anything decent or substantial in area that has such a concentration of poverty and people with ‘issues’. And ‘issues’, is putting it mildly as it pertains to the DESC cliental. Do not start lecturing or attempting to guilt trip me of how we need to blah, blah, blah for the homeless, mentally ill or addicted. I do not want to hear it because I live with PLENTY of it all around me.
=
You state you are a non-profit housing provider, then tell me, is it all about creating those type of housing units at any cost? Costs that include further damaging a messed up neighborhood? Costs that increase instability in an already incredibly unstable neighborhood? Or are areas like Delridge and parts of the Rainier Valley just unstated ‘sacrifice zones’ so that self-centered, phony Seattle Liberals can sleep good in their beds in Viewridge, Admiral, Magnolia, Gatewood and _____? (Insert your favorite White Liberal neighborhood)
=
If the answers to any of these questions are what I suspect, I will be actively campaigning against any future housing levy’s unless serious standards of city wide dispersal are attached to the money shoveled into non-profits hands and that the crown be taken off of the head of the DESC as it has become nothing but a bully and has lost its course, if in fact it ever had one.

By: ROBERT

ROBERT — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 06:43:02 +0000

DON’T SAY ANYTHING TO SDOT,THEY MIGHT TURN DELRIDGE INTO A ONE LANE ROAD…

By: rudy

rudy — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 17:33:11 +0000

Thanks for more info TR. I knew it was a lower street number/down the hill but in my mind it turned into 29, not 26.

It seems like quite a few houses to put on such a location and yes, Sylvan Ridge has room to expand. Sylvan’s original plans were what initially formed our neighborhood association and they worked HARD to make sure Sylvan was congruent with the neighborhood as much as possible. Probably not a bad idea to keep this newer project on the radar…..

By: wetone

wetone — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:38:47 +0000

500k is pretty cheap for 100 units = $5k unit . What does it cost to hook up a single family home, more $$ and it has a lot smaller impact per lot size on the sewer infrastructure. What is and will be the cost for the upgrades to support these large projects. Same goes with the cost of water and power hook ups as well as usage, and infrastructure build up to support these types of projects. The developers are getting off cheap for the impacts they are leaving in these areas. Leaving the area with higher taxes and soon tolls. But as I have said before it is not the developers fault, it is the City of Seattle that is allowing them to do so and in return get maximum tax monies per sq. ft. off the properties. For a sort term solution and very long term impacts.
The bridge is a big problem built 1984 almost 30yrs old. The design won’t allow a rail system without taking a lane or two of traffic away. How long before talk of a new one comes up that can handle a rail system ? How will a new build or rebuild be payed for. Coming soon folks Tolls, and you will be still be sitting in traffic if I-5 is not moving.

By: WSB

WSB — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:05:35 +0000

In reply to SaveWestSeattle.

Datapoint, West Seattle has four “urban villages” – Admiral, Junction, Morgan, Westwood/Highland Park. Here’s the citywide map:
.
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds_008063.pdf
.
The Junction “village” (which also includes Avalon and The Triangle) is the only one with some 85′ zoning. Admiral and Morgan, I believe, are maxed out around four stories (someone correct me if I’m wrong, I’ll look at the zoning maps in a bit), aside from the grandfathered Cal-Mor Circle … TR

By: SaveWestSeattle

SaveWestSeattle — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 05:38:19 +0000

Kdglg, I confess that I have been involved with true urban construction since ’62 and made a fortune. Urban high rise buildings belong in core urban areas, not neighborhoods. Were you living here when the social engineers lied about what would happen if WS had two urban villiages while most “neighborhoods” had zero? They said it would just allow more MIL building and perhaps an extra level for apartments. They made it seem like we’d have little coffe shops on villiage squares not 7 story sun stealing mega-toad buildings adding probably over 10,000 extra residents or more already. As for affordable living…Is not the rule essentially that a low % of what is built has to be “affordable” thus allowing the remainder to be priced at market. Forgive me, but I see rentals $$ for the abonimations currently built and these are far from “affordable” in my opinion. Is it “affordable” for developers to make $$ and run leaving WS citizens to pay more in School levies, infrastructure repairs, loss of life quality due to total gridlock while the developers dance away? DNDA at least builds in areas most builders ignore and do provide homes for low income people. Developers come to WS because we have girly guys and gitrls who just take the rape of their neighborhood then whine in the crime report. WS has been screwed by THREE UV’s and corresponding added density and we are beyond the breaking point. No amount of new buses will help the commute.

By: Kgdlg

Kgdlg — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 04:53:04 +0000

SaveWestSeattle, I am a resident of West Seattle and like most residents here, I cannot be characterized by one stereotype, and I am assuming, neither can you. I am an affordable housing developer, so know what it is like to build in this town. However, I don’t build the typical market rate stuff that is going up all over town. I don’t think all “5 over 1” is great. I think much of it is underwhelming architecturally. I wasn’t arguing against impact fees. I think they would be one way to improve urban village amenitites. But the consequence of them will be that rents will be that much more expensive, further driving the working poor out of the most amenitiy rich areas of town, urban villages. I am concerned mostly about transit and affordability in Seattle. And I hardly think density is the solution to everything!

By: SaveWestSeattle

SaveWestSeattle — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 04:38:25 +0000

Hi Kgdlg,
You must be amoung those who think that the new buildings are an improvement to this neighborhood. Remember, we in WS initially were cursed with two so called “Urban Villiages” (false “New Speak”)THEN years later the City and Developers snuck in yet a THIRD UV. Initiually we in WS were promised there would be no apartment buiuldings over 3 stories or 40′. Then little by little the scumbags changed and upped the density allowed. People who live here do not want to live in sun starved urban jungles with ever increasing crime…we do not want to be the next Capitol Hill or Fremont. As you well know, there is not enough parking in any of these developments to allow for resident and customer parking. I would not follow my hair stylist to Capitol Hill because of the complete lack of parking on Broadway. All the junctions are experiencing loss due to this factor. Now I avoid the junctions due to traffic. Down my way we are impacted as traffic tries to move around the junctions. Two days ago I had to wait 8 minutes to turn left from 106th SW to 21st SW! If Developers had to pay for the infrastructure impacts caused by this INSANE development of urban center sized buildings over single family infrastructure and don’t care about the ever mounting loss of value we will continue to experience due to over density. If Developers had to pay for the negative or more costly impacts perhaps they would decide NOT TO BUILD. Victory for the poeple! There would still be the true, ethical improvement people who wiulkl update older dwellings without RAPING the entire population, taking the $$ and running. How about paying the salaries of __# new police officers and vehicles per new sq’ to help as density and it correlating crime increase. IMHO ALL future construction should cease until the proper monetary impacts are assessed to the builders and developers, banks and so on. Why don’t you go to Magnolia and build 7 story buildings there?! Oh, Sorry, they are allowed to be a family neighborhood and not akin to 4th and Pike…WS gets to have three UV’s. Developers build here because we are among the few cities stupid enough not to require impact fees.

By: datamuse

datamuse — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 01:13:46 +0000

Sorry Kgdlg, I should’ve been clearer. My comment was intended more in reference to the argument I occasionally see that wanting to turn a profit automatically makes a developer evil and worthy of overthrow. Because, I mean, don’t most companies want to turn a profit? As a stockholder I’m certainly hoping that the companies I’ve invested in do.
.
I appreciate your elaboration of just what’s involved in getting a project approved, though. Indeed, I’ve never had the impression that getting a development project approved in Seattle was a cakewalk. I’d like to see some in Highland Park, because honestly some of the apartment complexes down here look like they’ll fall over in the next earthquake. Some of the houses too for that matter.

By: Diane

Diane — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 22:58:32 +0000

Amazon’s two megadeals net $24 million for city, state governments
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2012/12/amazons-two-mega-buys-net-city-state.html?ana=e_tf&s=newsletter&ed=2012-12-27
~
“In a 24-hour period last week, Clise Properties and Vulcan Inc., with help from Amazon.com, deposited more than $24.2 million in tax revenue into the coffers of the city of Seattle and state of Washington.”
~
zero to Metro
~
we need more Rapid Ride buses; every developer in this transit hub should buy one new Rapid Ride bus per 100 new apartments AND pay transit/road impact fees

By: Kgdlg

Kgdlg — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:29:27 +0000

Datamuse, I was originally pointing out the profit aspect of market development because wetone made it sound above like developers come here because of some City incentive when she or he said “the city makes it easy for them.” I don’t agree with this, although of course there are some incentives such as the multi family tax exemption. Others than that, the city makes it, in my opinion, very arduous to develop here. My hope is that the design review process produces some changes that better serve urban villages, but I am not 100 percent sold on this idea either. Some boards are better than others, and west seattle’s is generally pretty good.

I actually think most people don’t realize how much profit does matter when it comes to real estate investment. The days of mom and pops building buildings are over. Most buildings now are built by institutional or national investors, not families. This is actually a big deal for Seattle, because it means that the Owners have very little connection to neighborhoods, and will likely only be Owners of the building for 10 years or less. The WSB just recently covered how the buildings built recently in the junction were just flipped to new investors (Capco plaza being an obvious aberration as locally owned).