West Seattle development: Comment time for projects in Morgan Junction, South Delridge

Two projects in West Seattle are going through Design Review, but at the levels that don’t require public meetings, so if either or both interest you, you’ll want to send in comments ASAP. First one is in north Morgan Junction:

6016 CALIFORNIA SW: This project [map] is going through “administrative design review.” It’s proposed for 36 apartments – thirty of them “small efficiency dwelling units,” formerly known as microhousing – plus three live-work units. No offstreet vehicle parking; 28 spaces for bicycles. Through December 21st, you can comment on “early design guidance,” which focuses on the size and shape of the project. The EDG “packet” by architecture firm Hybrid is here, including this roughed-out concept:

The official notice explains how to comment. We first wrote about redevelopment plans for this site back in August.

Now, the South Delridge project:

9217 and 9223 16TH SW: December 21st also is the comment deadline for this eight-unit, four-building townhouse project [map], which is going through “streamlined design review.”

See the full “packet” by Ryan Rhodes Designs by going here. It says the project proposes one offstreet-parking space per unit. The official notice shows how to comment.

Sarah December 12, 2016 (8:09 am)

Can these boxes get any uglier? What architectural programs did these designers “attend?” Online special mail-in work-at-home offers from the back of tabloid magazines?

Hey developers: there ARE wonderfully talented architects around!

Some good design sense could really help offset the developers’ greedy need to fill every possible square inch. Frank Lloyd Wright, Palladio, and all other great building designers must be rolling in their graves.

cjboffoli December 12, 2016 (8:34 am)

I doubt a mini Guggenheim or Neoclassical porticos would make very much sense in these small projects in West Seattle. I happen to like these Modernist structures. They’re always much more attractive than the cheap, junky architecture they’re replacing. If there are some bland modern apartment buildings in West Seattle it is likely the result of architects having their designs watered down by the “design by committee” public process which eschews bold designs and color. It might also have something to do with developers – who are perhaps already lacking in taste – focusing on maximizing profit. But with all that said I can never understand why people attack the aesthetics of new construction in West Seattle, especially when bad architecture and design on our peninsula is so ubiquitous. In my experience, criticism of aesthetics is a classic proxy for angst over density, parking, traffic, and a range of other things related to change.
- John December 12, 2016 (10:19 am)
  
  Thank you Mr. Boffoli. Your comments are appreciated. I too, believe that these new buildings are not as ubiquitous or as bad or justify the derision they receive.
  
  The vast majority of West Seattle housing stock remains unremarkable, inexpensive for its time and highly varied.
  
  If only the chorus of complainers and architecture critics could focus on their own properties.
  
  It is unfortunate, that the current fad of house buyers and developers has generated such a negative take on modernism.
  
  Ironically these structures do reference Frank Loyd Wright more than the mishmash of architecture so prevalent in West Seattle. I was born and raised in a mid-century modern home my parents built in West Seattle. I had no idea that a flat roof and open floor plan was so radical.
  
  I have returned again and again to modernism after living in, and enjoying,
  
  conventional, ‘craftsmans’, ‘bungalows’ and cottages with classic lines and formal room divisions.
  
  These choices of myself, Christopher and many newcomers should not be disparaged as they are destined to eventually meld into the smorgasbord of housing choices in our city, just as my parents house in Fauntleroy, now 70 years old. These ‘ugly boxes’ will house people that contribute to the community, raise families and will likely become acquaintances, even friends of these harsh critics.
AMD December 12, 2016 (10:21 am)

They build what’s going to sell. They aren’t going to build homes with silhouettes most people hate because that affects their ability to sell for top dollar. You may hate it (it’s not my favorite either), but the majority of buyers really do like the style. It’s very trendy. And as long as that remains so, they’ll keep building them.
JanS December 12, 2016 (11:41 am)

Hear! Hear!

pjk December 12, 2016 (8:55 am)

Again, no parking. People living in these units do use cars even if they don’t own one which then takes up street parking – Smart Cars/Zip cars become much more prevalent in the neighborhoods surrounding these buildings!! Most people who own and ride bicycles also have a car!!

Azimuth December 12, 2016 (10:10 am)

I could be OK with maybe 0.5 parking per living space, or maybe some scaling factor based on the total number of units. But the 0 spaces within X distance of transit policy is silly and not realistic. Maybe the policy is OK in isolated developments, but density is catching up with underutilized (by some measures) street parking. I don’t believe that street parking is a right like the “war on cars” crowd, and support quality mass transit (like ST3), but auto and truck dependence is the realistic norm we live in and will continue to live in for decades to come. Making it difficult to park will affect business throughput and quality of life for existing residents. I think increasing density overall is a positive to Seattle, but we need to be smart about the neighborhood-level aspects
- justin December 12, 2016 (10:58 am)
  
  100% agree. I commented to reduce the number of units or add sufficient parking. I live a block away from this where they build small efficiency blah blah blahs and the parking is horrendous now. Lets be smart about this, density is good but not in the way these policies are set-up.
WsEd December 12, 2016 (12:33 pm)

I totally agree. Developers have put forth this fantasy to the city that these people won’t be driving cars. They will, at least a portion of the residents will be parking a vehicle somewhere. And that will be on side streets in front of other peoples houses. People who move to West Seattle are going to need to get off the island at some point and transit is in no way a solution for every need. It’s a fallacy and a money grab that the city needs to stand up to and regulate appropriately.

Kimbee2 December 12, 2016 (9:04 am)

WSB: As always, thank so much for posting these development notices. Your services gives our community a chance to be aware and to comment.

Peter December 12, 2016 (9:36 am)

“… plus three live-work units.”

I think “live work” units are way overdone in Seattle. I really don’t understand the city’s infatuation with them. In trying to be some kind of hybrid, most end up being not very good spaces for business or for residential use. Seattle needs more reasonable spaces for active small businesses; what Seattle does NOT need are more opaque blinds with little “By appointment only” signs on the door that tend to be the hallmark of most “live work” units. They do not contribute to housing supply or the vibrancy of business districts. Why not just normal small retail spaces ?

wetone December 12, 2016 (9:41 am)

” It’s proposed for 36 apartments – thirty of them “small efficiency dwelling units,” formerly known as microhousing – plus three live-work units. No offstreet vehicle parking; 28 spaces for bicycles. “

Cracks me up on how many times city has changed names of these dorm rooms. From apodments, microhousing and now “small efficiency dwelling units”. Does city even know how many of these types of units they have allowed with all the name changing going on ? Then to think none of the occupants won’t have a motor vehicle shows how bad and non-realistic Mayor Murray and city council are by continuing these builds and not requiring some parking. Impacts to surrounding neighborhoods is terrible. Absolutely zero common sense and shows just how much pull original HALA board, Investors and builders have over Mayor Murray, Dow Constantine and city council. These type of builds/units set standards for rent prices as anything with larger sqft. will be more $$. Has anyone that is NOT INVOLVED with city government or bicycle groups done a survey on these builds to see percentage of occupants that don’t have a motor vehicle in their name ? or if they use bicycle for main transportation or bus ? might be good info on how and where money is spent for future improvements, along with whether Investors/builders should be required to provide parking at their cost as their the ones collecting good money per sqft. on these units ? Not pushing impacts into surrounding neighborhoods and devaluing neighboring property’s from the added noise and traffic.

Gatewooder December 12, 2016 (9:59 am)

If developers are going to be allowed to exploit the housing shortage for financial gain, at least they should reinvest some of those profits in a nice building. Is that too much to ask?

Craig December 12, 2016 (11:37 am)

Love the mini cars they placed. Park a modern SUV and it would be almost as long as the building. So, I suppose living there is like sleeping in your car except with a toilet.

Rick Cook December 12, 2016 (12:43 pm)

They have a toilet too?
Peter December 12, 2016 (5:42 pm)

Huge SUVs are a way bigger problem for our city and environment than any building. Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous big SUVs are!

JanS December 12, 2016 (11:51 am)

I posted a “Hear! Hear! above. That was for the OP. These buildings are downright ugly. Modernist? That’s nice…but it’s “trendy”…and trendy goes away, and we’re left with ugly boxes that will be torn down time and time again to suit the next developer who is out to make a buck. If nothing else , use brick, for goodness sake, instead of the industrial, warehouse looking material and ugly paint colors you use now. Drab is putting it mildly. I don’t like modernistic…so there. It’s not the be all, end all. It’s like living in a doctor’s office. And it’s cold looking, not inviting. It’s functional. That’s about it. And that’s my opinion…just as good as some of the defenders of the new above. Whatever happened to imagination?

Captin December 12, 2016 (1:00 pm)

I think it has more to do with the vertical plane allowing more sqft inside and allowing more dwellings on the same lot than anything else.

nw December 12, 2016 (2:01 pm)

I find myself more and more not caring about it now I made the decisions I made in life and financially Seattle is slowly or more pushing me out. So why should a person like me born and raised here living in West Seattle his whole life care about design review when I will never be able to afford a place here?

TheKing December 12, 2016 (10:06 pm)

Your comment puts it into perspective. I have about another 15 years to retirement. By then the taxes on my house will have almost equaled my original mortgage payment. I have no desire to hand over that much money a month in taxes from my retirement funds to a bunch of free spending drunken sailors.

TheKing December 12, 2016 (4:35 pm)

Are these new buildings designed with a very advanced etch a sketch?

Peter December 12, 2016 (5:39 pm)

People who live in houses with walls all at right angles complaining about building with the same … LOL!

Meyer December 12, 2016 (7:05 pm)

I know it’s an unpopular opinion around here but I do believe in density and up-zoning and I am a fan of the modern look. That said, the building proposed for California is by far the ugliest one I have seen and I won’t be too happy to see it everyday on my commute. I really hope at sometime during the review process some more color or features get added to it because it looks very spartan. The units proposed for 16th st look pretty nice IMO.

I guess on the bright side Harry’s Chicken Joint, The Bridge and New Luck Toy (all great places) will likely see an uptick in business.

WSB December 12, 2016 (8:20 pm)

Please note that as explained, the Morgan project is in “early design guidance” for massing (size/shape) and that’s why the rendering looks fairly spartan. The other one is further along the line. The types of design review, for anyone interested, are on the pages linked to the respective terms (administrative design review, streamlined design review). – TR
- Meyer December 13, 2016 (6:04 pm)
  
  Whew good to know, thanks! I sent an email to the comment address as well about it but maybe that was unnecessary.
56bricks December 13, 2016 (9:42 am)

And my business will have move once again for “progress”. WooHoo!

millie December 12, 2016 (10:32 pm)

While this new construction looks great at the beginning – what will it look like 5, 10, 20 years down the line? It doesn’t appear (at least to me) that quality materials are used by the developers. Yes, perhaps, the older homes in West Seattle do not have the “lines” of the new construction – the one thing they usually have is “character”. A well-built house (example Log House occupied by Ventana Construction on California Ave SW) has proven its’ value through longevity. Will the new construction projects?

MsD December 12, 2016 (11:52 pm)

I live in one of the ubiquitous townhouses built in the mid-2000s. I’ve kept up with maintenance inside and outside, but the place is not holding up well at all. This is with no kids or rambunctious pets or unusual wear and tear. It looked very nice when it was new, but everything is falling apart now, less than 10 years in. I’ve lost count of all the shoddy shortcuts the builder took (who, of course, disappeared during the recession) that repair persons have found. I’d say it will be ready for demo around the time I finish paying off the mortgage.
- John December 13, 2016 (7:43 am)
  
  These are absolute myths about buildings being torn down after 15 or 20 years.
  
  People are ignorant about the structural aspects of buildings which are basically all the same. The same building codes apply to cheap townhouses as custom homes.
  
  It is the older homes, like those mentioned above that were built before building codes that can be too expensive to upgrade, because they are not structurally sound.
  
  MSD is vague about what is not holding up. Cheap fixtures and finishes are the items that can be skimped on. They have a life of 15-20 years and are easily updated.
  
  But the structure itself will last a century. Even the incredibly cheaply constructed temporary World War 2 worker housing in Highpoint lasted half a century.
  
  Houses such as the Ventana Construction one have not necessarily ‘proven its value through longevity’ . Rather, it has outlived its original purpose and configuration. The actual reason many older buildings are demolished is that they are no longer environmentally viable in the economic sense.
  - MsD December 13, 2016 (11:26 am)
    
    Yes, John, you obviously know more about the home that I live in than I do. Just like you knew more about the conditions and violations of one of the developments in my block on another thread. And you are correct – the fixtures and finishes are absolutely falling apart and wearing out after less than 10 years. However, I’m way more concerned about, and have spent way more money on, things like the roofing materials that split apart, the incorrectly installed hot water heater/hydronic heating system, incorrectly installed venting, the ceiling and walls separating, and the subfloors that creak like a haunted house. Whether you want to believe it or not, there are shady builders out there who cut corners, just as I’m sure there were 100 years ago. I am commenting on things that I’ve directly seen or experienced, and have been told by licensed professionals, “this was done dangerously wrong”.
  - bolo December 13, 2016 (11:21 pm)
    
    Yes and there are several newer large apt bldgs along California that, soon after construction, had to be cover draped and siding replaced, windows, sliding glass windows replaced, etc. because shoddy materials/construction caused damaging leaks. Walking by a few months after construction complete, I laughed upon seeing this, but it wasn’t funny. No excuse, but it happens. More common than you would like to admit, John. I have seen it with my own eyes– don’t try to explain your way out of it.

pjk December 13, 2016 (7:51 am)

If you’re old enough to remember this song (note, it was written in 1962, so this issue existed 50+ years ago too) and this is problem continues to grow!!

Little Boxes

Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky,¹
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same.
There’s a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they’re all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

John December 13, 2016 (10:23 am)

Add this last line to the lyrics;

1960’s boxes on the hillside,

Ticky tacky they all look the same,

Ticky tackys they all still remain.

The lyrics applied to the vast housing developments of the suburbs during the post war boom.

West Seattle has little of that type of construcion.
- wetone December 13, 2016 (12:24 pm)
  
  If your talking about war boxes, common name for small under 1000sqft post war built homes in WS, there are many left here. As one who has had a few and lives in one today, I can look out widow of my war box and see 6 more on our block along with many newer homes. Funny thing is when the neighbors living in the new big homes visit they can’t believe how light/sunny our yard is. I guess that’s from not having a 30′ wall built 5′ from property line ;) This is 6 blocks from WS junction. There are some torn down replaced with new builds, but I see more remodeled. High Point is only large area I know that had face lift removing many of these type of homes. There are many pockets today with these homes all with-in 2 mile radius of junction . Which is great giving people on affordable choice to living in area. I do see these going away soon with HALA and new landlord laws coming online soon : ( As far as quality of the war boxes and other much older homes I have owned in WS, I would take them over 90% of the new builds I see and work around today. I see many water penetration issues with builds less than 15yrs. old leading to $$$$$ fixes….
- RayWest December 14, 2016 (5:26 am)
  
  That was true, but the implication is that all the new development in West Seattle is just a new version “ticky tacky,” Every new condo/apartment building is just a generic-looking box squeezed into too small of a space.

JRR December 13, 2016 (12:33 pm)

Massing isn’t design. That being said, the average age of new car buyers in this country is creeping up (https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2016/the-young-and-the-carless-the-demographics-of-new-vehicle-purchases-20160624.html), so I think it’s silly to build infrastructure out to accommodate something that seems to be skewing a different direction than the demographics of the Junction. Yay to building so the transit will come.

millie December 13, 2016 (9:59 pm)

In the spirit of transparency – I am not an architect, developer, land use or transportation planner, however, I do know (from experience) the cyclical nature of most things. We are assuming the economy in this area will continue to grow and continue to provide well-paying jobs to support all the new construction underway and in the future. Will the County’s/City’s population forecast for 2020 and beyond prove realistic? The truth is our infrastructure (electricity, water, sewer, and, yes, roads)is inadequate for our current population growth (witness the number of water main breaks, power outages, vault electrical fires and, so many, non-maintained roads/sidewalks/bridges). Yes, we may have wonderful bike paths, transit and light rail with no place to go. What do you suppose all these new townhouses, apodments, affordable rentals look like in 2025? Will they be occupied? These are some of my observations and thoughts.

bolo December 13, 2016 (11:40 pm)

Need to consider the cyclical nature of the RE market for sure. Rents went way down after the 2007 financial meltdown. Also, the last big earthquake (Nisqually) scared many into moving away, but I’m not sure that that was enough to affect RE pricing.

Sorry, comment time is over.