Demolition for Dakota Place Park expansion

dakotapile
(WSB photo)

Thanks to Bill for the tip: Almost two years after the City Council approved the purchase of 5,750 square feet of land to expand Dakota Place Park, a milestone for the project has finally happened – the demolition of old structures to clear most of the site.

When councilmembers approved the $715,000 purchase in March 2014 – using money from the Parks and Green Spaces Levy – Parks had said it would demolish the three 1927-built houses, plus a garage and shed, “as soon as possible” but that the California-fronting commercial building would stay for now.

We talked today with Donald Harris from Parks. He says the tenants in the commercial building could be there for up to five more years, under terms of the lease they had worked out with the property’s previous owner, so “you’re not going to see any full redevelopment of the property for a while.” (He says there’s a chance the building’s tenant might be interested in leaving sooner.)

They’re talking with neighbors about what they’ll be doing in the meantime with the area that’s now being cleared – Harris says they’ll likely “plant some grass, do a little landscaping, make it usable, at least.” Before anything more is done with it, money would have to be found and a design process would follow. It’s not in the budget right now, not even with the Park District funding approved by voters – “this addition occurred after the work program was in place,” Harris told WSB.

Dakota Place Park itself, centered on a city-landmark substation building, opened in 2009.

17 Replies to "Demolition for Dakota Place Park expansion"

  • carole January 25, 2016 (2:51 pm)

    A tree or two would be nice so we can maybe sit and read in filtered sun during good days.  The few benches there are in full sun most of the day. Too hot to sit and enjoy.

  • John January 25, 2016 (7:44 pm)

    Another tragic loss of three old houses with  absolutely no replacement housing.  How many families were displaced?   How much did their rents go up? Why were these homes not moved or recycled rather than being reduced to a toxic mess?

    • SeattleGrrl January 25, 2016 (8:18 pm)

      To be fair John, we live a block away and the houses that were taken down were in SEVERE disrepair. One of them was literally tilted, the entire house. They were all rotting and in very bad shape, and the properties were a total mess. I’m sure they actually did well in selling the property to the city and hopefully were able to move into housing that didn’t probably need to be condemned. Not that I wouldn’t love to have kept three houses there for nice families. I would, but no one is going to build those in this part of the neighborhood anymore. At least it’s being turned into park space rather than another horrible Lego block building of mini-studio apartments. Which is what we’re pretty much surrounded by on all sides now.

      • WSB January 25, 2016 (9:32 pm)

        The full history of this is nested in our past coverage; the city bought the site from a builder/developer who had bought it months earlier. The online files, while missing details, say it was ruled last July that there was “no displacement.”

    • RDA January 26, 2016 (5:47 am)

      Trust me, those houses were NOT salvageable. They were a bit of a toxic mess while they were houses. Also, the previous owner told tenants, as they moved in, about plans to sell to a developer and have them turned into condos. While the current building trends may have helped drive us from W. Seattle, this spot is better off becoming a public park than another set of baby-poop colored condos.

  • John January 25, 2016 (9:42 pm)

    “no displacement.”  Displace several units of housing  that have been lived in as homes  for nearly  a century  and replace them with nothing equals “no displacement?” Or a clever turn of bureaucratese?

    • AMD January 25, 2016 (9:49 pm)

      If no one is living there before the decision and no one is living there after, there’s no displacement.

  • Martha January 26, 2016 (12:26 am)

    How about a small spray park? There isn’t one close to the junction/Admiral at all. 

  • Cainipoo January 26, 2016 (6:33 am)

    They all had tenets until they were forced to move out. One guy even built a deck/fence on his house (I always viewed them more as cottages) right before this. 

  • seaBruce January 26, 2016 (7:54 am)

    I kinda wonder if an organization like Habitat for Humanity, could have rehabilitated the toxic houses, if a house moving company could donate the move to another location?

  • pjmanley January 26, 2016 (10:04 am)

    Those houses were absolute hell-hole wrecks blighting the area for years.  The public needs to grab whatever open space it can before everything is developed and the young and old have no outdoors whatsoever left to enjoy.  Enough of the “affordable housing”/poverty card narrative already. Upzoning is increasing density everywhere.  Let’s allow nature or open space to get a win once in awhile.    

  • john January 26, 2016 (10:57 am)

    PJ, I would be happy to pay an attorney to draw up legal documents  for you to donate your house  for open space?

    • pjmanley January 26, 2016 (11:07 am)

      @John:  So clever you are.  The houses weren’t “donated.”  The taxpayers paid 715k to the seller.  Did you vote for, or against, the park levies, John?  

  • Jon Wright January 26, 2016 (4:32 pm)

    Grateful to have more public open space in what is a rapidly-urbanizing area.

  • Brian January 26, 2016 (5:47 pm)

    It’d be great if they installed some type of sports & games aka activity oriented facilities.  Another pocket park for loitering and drug dealing is not exactly what we need. People in this neighborhood need to be inspired to move around a little bit more. “In King County, 54% of adults are overweight or obese, 20% are obese, and 5.4% have been diagnosed with diabetes.” –  http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/partnerships/CPPW/kcprofile.aspx

  • john January 27, 2016 (7:41 am)

    PJ, I support park and green space maintenance, not new unfunded un-affordable acquisitions that the city cannot maintain.  The report card on Seattle’s tree care is abysmal, with homeowners doing a much better job of maintaining their greens. Here in Gatewood, someone did donate their home/property to the city as a open space/park.  They put their money where their mouth was.  If you are someone who so actively demands  the public “grab whatever open space it can before everything is developed” you might consider offering your already developed property to turn back the tide. 

  • pjmanley January 27, 2016 (2:00 pm)

    @Brian:  I’m with you 100% on that.  A well-used space, even with some noise, will be a much better use than the under-used grass slope that sits there now.  Looking forward to working with folks like you and Jon-not-John to bring it about.  

Sorry, comment time is over.