DEVELOPMENT: Microhousing project site for sale; demolition docket

Development-related notes…
(WSB photo)

MICROHOUSING PROJECT SITE FOR SALE: There’s a new commercial-real-estate listing this week for 5952 California SW, which – as first reported here in May 2016 – is planned for a microhousing project. The listing itself is titled simply “SEDU Site”; as you might recall, SEDU is the city’s official name for microhousing, small efficiency dwelling units. The last official description on the city website says the project will have 29 microunits and 6 apartments, which is also what the listing’s online notes say: “Property in process of being permitted to build 35 units (Small Efficiency Dwelling Units) and also being approved to go up 5 stories …” County records show the site was sold last December for less than half its current $2 million listing price.

DEMOLITION PLANS: The following list shows West Seattle demolition permits/applications dated within the past two weeks, as found in the city’s online files:

(King County Assessor’s Office photo, 3276 California SW)

-3276 California SW, one-story commercial building to be replaced by live-work units
-3045 California SW, one-story commercial building to be replaced by building with ground-level commercial under 3 apartments
-9211 15th SW, house to be replaced by townhouses
-2950 Alki SW, house to be replaced by 3 townhouses
-4214-4218 30th SW, two houses to be replaced by 8 townhouses
-5033-5035 Delridge Way SW, houses to be replaced by townhouses
-5016 Fauntleroy Way SW, house to be replaced by two new houses
-8802 9th SW, house to be replaced by 8 townhouses
-7926 34th SW, house to be replaced by new house
-4725 SW Dawson, house to be replaced by new house
-6314 49th SW, house to be replaced by new house
-4415 48th SW, house to be replaced by new house

28 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: Microhousing project site for sale; demolition docket"

  • Swede. August 31, 2017 (5:23 pm)

    From $935k to $2 million in seven months is fast cash (if it sells) ! 

    Converting one house lot to eight townhouses is however even more, but a bit actually work. Crazy times… 

    • Matt August 31, 2017 (6:27 pm)

      Basically, Design Review is such a risky, expensive and painful process, someone is willing to pay a million dollars for someone else to go through it for them.  Are we going to get a better designed building? By a committee of planners? No. Will it be more affordable? No. Next time someone mentions how we need to expand Design Review, think about what a useless waste of resources it is and how sad it is that anyone who ends up living there is going to be paying for it in rent.   

      • Matt August 31, 2017 (6:30 pm)

        We’d be way better off saying if a developer provides some higher rate of affordable housing, they could skip design review. you’d generate hundreds more affordable homes than the MHA program! 

  • Just Wondering August 31, 2017 (6:30 pm)

    3276 California ave SW has been vacant it seems 25 years +.

    • NW August 31, 2017 (6:53 pm)

      Was West Seattle’s only porn shop there for a number yrs. . I can’t seem to recall much about it the facade or name of it. 

      • miws August 31, 2017 (7:22 pm)

        NW, yes, it was a porn shop for years. Don’t recall the name either. Also, that place housed a piano sales and/or repair shop for years,  and back in the ’60’s, Joe Banana’s Pizza. 


  • AMD August 31, 2017 (7:13 pm)

    Well, that list is a good start.  Still plenty of other abandoned/derelict properties in the neighborhood that need to be torn down.  Seems like the worst of the worst stand forever.  Or until they’ve had three fires.

  • JayDee August 31, 2017 (7:14 pm)

    So conversion to 35 units with 5 parking spots. So 30 of these residents are car-less?

    • Swede. September 1, 2017 (12:06 am)

      Off course they are. Nobody can afford to own a car in Seattle with our car tabs the city figures, so build permits for all! 

  • TJ August 31, 2017 (7:55 pm)

    Porn shop was called Spanky’s, and if you think the outside was a dump you should have seen the inside. 

    • Swede. September 1, 2017 (12:04 am)

      …a friend said so, right?


  • Erithan August 31, 2017 (8:14 pm)

    Wish they’d fill the built things before starting more.. :/ *sigh*

    • matt August 31, 2017 (10:13 pm)

      Seattle’s vacancy rate over the last year has be 3.5% ( according to the US Census).  A healthy vacancy rate, ie where demand doesn’t drive rents thru the roof, is 6 or 7%.   Our apartment buildings are not empty, and even though there are a lot going up, they are getting filled. 

      • Erithan September 1, 2017 (10:08 am)

        Not as much as you’d think, at least not in my area(junction), I’ve personally seen it, and spoken to people who move in temporarily.

        not trying to argue, statistics vs actually seeing the buildings built and never filled again at least in my area is my only thought. Half asleep right now, sorry for wording.

        • CAM September 1, 2017 (5:34 pm)

          Both buildings I’ve lived in in the junction have been at or near capacity the entire time I’ve lived in them. It’s still only anecdotal data but the last time I went looking most buildings had only one or two units currently available and those were typically the larger (more expensive) two bedroom units. 

  • Gee August 31, 2017 (9:39 pm)

    I believe it was actually “Uncle Spanky’s”.  Because just Spankys wasn’t creepy enough.

  • a neighbor August 31, 2017 (9:51 pm)

    The project at 5952 and another project by the same architect half a block down had a public hearing earlier this year, with a notable turnout by neighbors opposed to the project for a wide variety of reasons. You have to wonder why the developer abandoned this when it is so close to permitting. 

    • Matt September 1, 2017 (6:35 am)

      When people complain about “foot traffic” on public sidewalks as a reason to stop development, I guess they threw up their hands.  

      • KM September 1, 2017 (7:46 am)

        Hah! I went to a greenways meeting a few months back where a man complained that people were walking down his (public) street too much.

        • Matt September 1, 2017 (9:22 am)

          :) People love neighborhood but hate neighbors.  

      • a neighbor September 2, 2017 (1:40 pm)

        That comment makes me think you were at that meeting, and no one said foot traffic would be a reason to stop development. The suggestion was made that development like this, which puts hundreds of people into a half-block space, ostensibly without cars, should be required to work with SDOT and Metro to make sure there is sufficient transit capacity and installation of crosswalks to make it safe for all those people to walk and bike in the neighborhood.  This isn’t an issue of hating anyone.  The meeting was an opportunity to raise concerns to the city planners tasked with approving the project, and make sure that the total impact of the development is considered.

  • Gina September 1, 2017 (8:15 am)

    Uncle Spanky’s. Closed Sunday’s to observe the Lord’s day. I think it started as a head shop, and morphed into porn after city permit issues and hassles.

    • Jon Wright September 1, 2017 (10:59 am)

      Choose a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life!

  • Question Mark September 2, 2017 (4:02 pm)

    One assumes the current owner, GEC Properties LLC, purchased the property to develop as SEDU/Apartments since the original land use application is dated February 2017. Current residents have a lease until 2018 according to commercial property records. $2 million seems high for what, in essence, will be a 7500 square foot lot pending development, even in Seattle …

    • WSB September 2, 2017 (5:23 pm)

      One thing to keep in mind is that perhaps the asking price includes the plans for the new development, which required the work of architects and other professionals.

      • Matt September 4, 2017 (8:17 pm)

        Which takes us back to the beginning. No wonder there is a housing shortage- in order to develop homes in west seattle, it may take near two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars just to navigate permits for a single small simple building. No wonder we are seeing only big operations undertake this–no one else can afford the risk of having so much money out there subject to the whim of Design Review.  

Sorry, comment time is over.