West Seattle, Washington

19 Tuesday

39℉

DEVELOPMENT: It’s all about the rowhouses – including a project inspired by tiny houses

June 14, 2018 2:43 pm
|      74 COMMENTS
 |   Development | West Seattle housing | West Seattle news

Two rowhouse reports today:

PIGEON POINT PROJECT: The eight-unit rowhouse project on the former City Light substation site at 21st/Andover has taken shape in an eye-catching way. An inquiry into a neighbor’s question led us to look more closely at the project, and we found the site plan noting that each of the eight units would be 600 square feet – far smaller than the average for-sale project, so we sought further details from the designer, Cleave Architecture and Design, whose Justin Kliewer replied:

As you mention, they will be small units, but the slope of the site allows them to be spread over two floors and a mezzanine, each of which looks out over a maple grove and includes a small deck. The developer is planning to integrate some clever built-in storage ideas, spiral stairs, and other ways of making the small space livable. We approached the project with a similar mindset as a tiny house, and are excited to try out these smaller units as a way of providing a lower-cost home ownership option.

The project’s on-the-record address is 3855 21st SW [map]. County records show Greenstream Investments bought the 8,000-sf ex-substation site for $185,000 in October 2016; it was originally listed as seeking “a minimum bid of $400,000” until the broker selling it for the city changed that to a “major price reduction” a few months before the sale.

And from today’s Land Use Information Bulletin:

NORTH DELRIDGE ROWHOUSES: Today’s notice opens a comment period for a 9-unit rowhouse proposed to replace a 113-year-old house 4308 26th SW, in the rapidly redeveloping neighborhood north of the Delridge Community Center Park. 9 offstreet parking spaces are proposed. The notice (PDF) explains how to send a comment; the deadline is June 27th.

Share This

74 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: It's all about the rowhouses - including a project inspired by tiny houses"

  • Nuudy June 14, 2018 (3:04 pm)

    And they’ll charge a fortune for these 600 sqft places. It’s not about building affordable housing, it’s about squeezing people into smaller spaces for the same price.

    • FedUp June 14, 2018 (3:29 pm)

      Yup, it’s all about increased returns for the investors.  They picked up the land for <$200K and I am sure those sheds will sell for more than that a piece! Seattle is a city for investors. 

    • My two cents ... June 15, 2018 (6:54 am)

      You can’t necessarily equate the size with the cost; you might be surprised about the base costs of construction for a home. Incremental costs provide the higher profit margins for homes (can also see the same with automobiles).

  • KM June 14, 2018 (3:05 pm)

    This is great–love to see a diversity of homes on the market. 

  • Also John June 14, 2018 (3:18 pm)

    That is going to be an eyesore……  You better really like your neighbors. 

    • heartless June 15, 2018 (9:52 am)

      Bet you a beer they won’t be uglier than any of the new condos/apartments sprouting up along California Ave, you know the ones with that sadly common orange/beige/gray scheme.

  • FedUp June 14, 2018 (3:24 pm)

    Great – Now we’re going to start moving people into sheds and calling it a new way to home ownership. 

    • Westside Original June 15, 2018 (7:01 am)

      @fedup Do you realize just how much of West Seattle was developed originally with 2 bedroom/1 bathroom 800 square feet homes?

    • heartless June 15, 2018 (9:54 am)

      Nope, “we’re” not “moving people” anywhere.  Somebody bought a lot and built housing. 

      There will be homes where there did not used to be homes.  People who want to might buy these homes.  

      And you have a problem with this because…?

      • HappyOnAlki June 15, 2018 (9:19 pm)

        Exactly! More homes = more homes. Why be so snobby about size?

  • WSB June 14, 2018 (3:40 pm)

    Well, when they go up for sale we’ll have something of a comparison … via our archives I found the one-bedroom apartments, smaller than 600 feet, that were converted to condos a decade ago. One of them just resold for $300,000+.

    https://www.redfin.com/WA/Seattle/7106-California-Ave-SW-98136/unit-101/home/11904948

    • Erithan June 14, 2018 (7:29 pm)

      Just to add if I’m correct studio apartments traditionally run around 400sqf, despite the look of these so far seems like they’ll be a decent size.

      • LiouxLioux June 15, 2018 (5:13 pm)

        most studio apartments are a single level, these are chopped up in 3 levels. Not even enough room for real stairs: circular down to first level and a ladder up to a loft. PS-they are 10 feet wide

        • heartless June 15, 2018 (6:38 pm)

          I’m not sure you understand how many people in the world (hint: the majority) live in small spaces and don’t think anything at all of it.

          As others in these comments have mentioned, housing sizes in the US have been going up and up and up, and are now ridiculously large on average.  

          I know you think comments like “PS-they are 10 feet wide” are slurs and insults, but you know what?  That’s PERFECT for lots of people. 

          And if it’s perfect for them, what the hell do you care? 

          Live and let live.

  • JRR June 14, 2018 (3:44 pm)

    I live in a war box built in 1941 that’s a 620 square foot masterpiece of efficient, great living for a small family. Most people in the world don’t live in 3500 sf. If we want to talk about personal responsibility and lessening our impact, having a small, resource-efficient home on transit can be a great way to make a big dent, especially as more of us realize what matters more is our community. I resent the idea that small living is new. America, as usual, is just catching up.

    • KM June 14, 2018 (4:24 pm)

      Great point, JRR. In the US, The average size of a single family home has been ballooning for decades (not to mention the increase in off-site storage facilities), while the average family size has been holding steady/shrinking. A variety of housing is great for this exact reason. Not everyone wants or needs a craftsman or 3-car garage for their family. I embrace the diversity in housing, especially in areas generally dedicated to SF homes, hope to see more of these (and multi-unit housing) in my own neighborhood. I love to see people embracing a smaller footprint.

      • H June 15, 2018 (12:43 pm)

        I think what isn’t being considered in your comments is occupation. A SF house is designed for the usage of 8 people. Smaller homes, although dense within a single lot generally house 1-2 people. So 4 small homes on a single lot, housing 8 people in total versus one larger SF home planned for 8 people… very similar waste production.

        • H June 15, 2018 (1:27 pm)

          My comment is in reply to Mike below.

    • HappyOnAlki June 14, 2018 (5:02 pm)

      Hear, hear! “Less is more” is actually true!

    • Mike June 15, 2018 (7:15 am)

      So here’s the problem with more in less space.  More requires more infrastructure.  Like sewage and electrical.  The more people, the more infrastructure needed to support them.  Where there used to be a house with 1 toilet, we see complexes with 20+.  That one family house now using 20x the amount of electricity.  There’s a flip side to density, one which is not being accounted for.  It’s great, until it fails and you have no sewer or electrical working.  I’m sure nobody wanted 50 million gallons per day of untreated raw sewage to go into Puget Sound when the treatment plant in Magnolia failed recently, but that’s what happens when we don’t update infrastructure and maintain what we have currently.

      • heartless June 15, 2018 (9:57 am)

        Hi Mike, I’d love to hear why you are worried about the sewer (and electrical?  Really?) infrastructure.

        Any information you could share?  

        I am curious because I have never heard anything that suggests Seattle will run into sewer problems (or run out of electricity?  Really?) anytime in the near future. 

        Thanks!

        • M.B. June 15, 2018 (11:29 am)

          Seattle’s sewer infrastructure is stretched thin. West Point has had trouble for years, and was severely damaged in February of 2017 which resulted in 235 million gallons of untreated water, including 30 million gallons of untreated raw sewage being dumped into Puget Sound.You may find this of interest: https://www.wateronline.com/doc/seattle-to-shell-out-million-for-record-cso-problems-0001

          • heartless June 15, 2018 (12:05 pm)

            Thank you for the excellent source, much appreciated.

            I had no idea it was so bad that in 2013 Seattle got busted by the feds for polluting. It’s also interesting that the sewer systems were designed to move both rain water runoff AND sewage in the same pipes, seems like a recipe for disaster in the rainy PNW.

            ps
            I also found this neat article which talks about some of the history of the sewers (from 1891 on!), fun stuff (well, or a slow and boring morning for me…).

      • Pigeon Hill In-Phil June 15, 2018 (7:04 pm)

        Then sewer infrastructure in relation to new housing is a red herring.  it is not due to increased sewer.  It is a result of environmental concerns.  When I grew up in West Seattle all of the sewer was just piped into Puget Sound and Lake Washington, making them hazardous for swimming. The Feds came in and required us to clean up our bodies of water.  This required  piping and pumping our wastes to treatment plants.   Because much of Seattle has combined sewers with sanitary waste combined with street drains and storm run-off during big storm events the systems is overwhelmed with the storm water.  The household sanitary sewer remained constant but the storm run-off is what causes the overload.  The same situation would exist if no new housing was brought on-line.  Interestingly, it is new construction and new plumbing codes that have reduced  the sewer loads.  New low flow toilets, showers and faucets, energy and water saving dishwashers, washing machines have greatly reduced household sewage.  Storm run-off from hard surfaces and home gutters in new construction are no longer allowed into the sanitary sewers  as in existing homes.  Each new house is required to manage the storm run-off by infiltration or detention.  King county also bills new   sewer customers $10,000 for infrastructure improvements that helps defray the impact of all of the existing housing that is grandfathered in to still allow high flow appliances, plumbing and gutters.As for electricity, if there is a looming shortage of electricity, why would City Light be closing down and getting rid of sub-stations like the one where this development is?  And  energy codes have greatly reduced household  energy requirements.

        • heartless June 15, 2018 (7:57 pm)

          Well, I guess that takes care of that issue.  Seems to address all of the “problems” that Mike raised in his concerns about density.

          Mike?  Satisfied, or is there something that has been overlooked?

          Thanks Pigeon.

  • Sam-c June 14, 2018 (4:15 pm)

    With the city in a housing afforability crisis, the price for those tiny units really should reflect their tiny-ness.

  • Pigeon Hill In-Phil June 14, 2018 (4:49 pm)

    This was the abandoned  power station site that the City of Seattle chose to sell after being rejected by the Parks Department and lobbying by the Greenspace Coalition.  It was located in an ECA Steep Slope and unwanted by the city, but was zoned Multi-Family and close to transit and directly on the Bike Path.  The City was able to funnel the funds from this sale to address Public affordable housing.  Despite such an excellent mass transit and bike path location, I believe there are 4 parking spots on site.  The price for these units should be fair market determined as they are a private developers risk and investment.  They most likely will be higher per square foot like other small units because the expense of bathrooms, kitchens and parking becomes more significant in relation to size.  As an investor and long time owner and Pigeon Point infill supporter, I am please with this development that adds density where it is intended.  Think of this as addressing the problem of sprawling suburbs, greenway destruction and road capacity of ever longer distance commutes.

  • THF June 14, 2018 (5:16 pm)

    These look so amazing!  I love the whole concept!  I hope more and more of these get built so I have an option like this when it’s down to my husband and I later down the road.  This is my dream retirement home!  Right on the bus, not too much upkeep…  This is the first development I’ve seen in a while that actually really excites me.  Please, please, build more!

  • Delridger June 14, 2018 (5:16 pm)

    It’s nice to see the neighborhood filling in with a diversity of housing types. 

  • Chuck Jacobs June 14, 2018 (5:27 pm)

    Whatever you think about these types of units and their likely eye watering price per square foot, keep in mind that each of these eight units will be inhabited by one or two people with jobs. They will pay taxes and spend money in the community. As a park or green space it would be a net financial liability for the city, requiring improvements, maintenance, and patrol.

  • Fedup June 14, 2018 (6:58 pm)

    You want to bet these kind of sheds will never be built in north admiral, beach drive, etcslum housing that will only be developed in areas that can’t afford attorneys on retainer, this city is for developers, and I can assure you not on e of those rich developers would want this crap in their neighborhood wake up folk

    • My two cents ... June 15, 2018 (7:13 am)

      @fedup – your statements need to factor in the following: 1) zoning for the two areas what/how many dwellings can be placed on a lot, 2) land cost – please find a lot in Admiral for $200,000. THOSE are the drivers for development.

      • HappyCamper June 15, 2018 (8:41 am)

        I agree. Also, kinda tired of hearing about “greedy” developers. They are a business just like any other. What about “greedy” chipotle or “greedy” Zeke’s pizza. There is a lot of inherent risk with developing property just like with any other business. It does not make any sense financially or otherwise to develop a property well under its maximum allowable zoned capacity and it has to pencil out.Also, utility infrastructure is upgraded on an as needed basis. It is aging though for sure and high is a concern.

  • Rico Maloney June 14, 2018 (7:47 pm)

    Rat boxes for humans.

    • heartless June 15, 2018 (10:01 am)

      What a nasty thing to say.

  • flimflam June 14, 2018 (7:48 pm)

    so wonderful that the “tiny house” homeless camp motif has finally caught on! this is modern living!the edginess and compassion of being almost homeless with the righteousness of paying a lot of money! this is a great idea.

    • WSB June 14, 2018 (8:04 pm)

      We don’t know what they’ll be listed for so “a lot of money” is premature speculation. Hard to find townhouses of this size anywhere in the city but I pulled a search and came up with one in the Central Area, 590 sf, going for $600K – and one in North Seattle, 700 sf, listed for $410K.

  • Raised in WS June 14, 2018 (8:40 pm)

    I legit thought these were chicken coops

    • Milvia June 15, 2018 (5:56 am)

      Why?  Is 600 really unusually small?  There are houses in West Seattle that size. 

  • Mamasuze June 14, 2018 (10:03 pm)

    These things are in my neighborhood. One day I took a measuring tape up there to see how “wide” they are…… barely 7 feet. Tiny, tiny, tiny.I can not believe anyone would buy something like this….. rent, maybe….. the only way two people could live in one is if they REALLY liked one another.  Meh.

  • Mike in Delridge June 15, 2018 (6:33 am)

    My home is a 2bdrm 1 bath, 680 sq feet. It is not a shed. The idea that it’s unlivable because its small is an outdated way of thinking about housing. And if it has spiral staircases and a deck overlooking a maple grove in one of the most beautiful neighborhoods and cities in America, it will fetch a good, large, fair price. I do, though, hope the walls are soundproof!

  • JeffK June 15, 2018 (7:50 am)

    I drove by the ‘coops’ last weekend for the first time and was initially a bit shocked by the size of the units.  But if they provide a mix of affordability and some diversity of people then I’m for it.  I’d rather see this than one 5,000 square foot home.  Of course it’d be great if these were $99k each but we all know they are going to be something like $300k.

  • Momo June 15, 2018 (8:08 am)

    I live in this neighborhood. I do not mind the diversity of these tiny tow homes.  The problem I have is where are these people going to park?? This intersection is already crowded and bottlenecks with nearly head on collisions.  We ALL know the developer will make out profitability while the neighborhood deals with lack of parking for years to come.  There is no reason besides cost why a shallow underground parking was not placed below the structure.  This should be the norm if we are densifying our city.   No parking, no permit.  

    • AMD June 15, 2018 (8:54 am)

      I was wondering how long it would take someone to bring up parking.  The slope of the lot may not have allowed for such.  It might not be economics.  It’s three blocks from frequent transit (soon to be the RapidRide, potentially walking distance from the light rail down the road) so it is genuinely unlikely everyone who lives there will have a car.But most importantly, street parking is a public resource, not an entitlement for people who choose to buy houses without off street parking despite owning cars.  If it is hard to find parking on the street, it is equally the fault of the existing homeowners who planned to use a public right-of-way to store their vehicles in perpetuity as it is the newcomers on the block.  The developers aren’t at fault here–they’re providing housing for people who don’t need parking.  They can’t force people who do need parking to make better choices.

      • heartless June 15, 2018 (9:40 am)

        Yeah.  When playing WSB comments bingo the center of the sheet, the freebie, is always “concerned comments about parking”.

        What gets me is that most of the time people seem (on the surface) really worried about where future residents are going to park–as if they know these people and are actually concerned about them and their decisions.  When you think about it, how weird is that?

        “The problem I have is where are these people going to park??”

        That, for example, is a very odd problem to have: what the hell do you care?  Why not let people figure out for themselves where to park (if they even have to park) or where to buy a home or how to commute or how big a house they want? 

        I know comment sections tend to bring out the worst, but really this is ridiculous.

      • gorillita June 15, 2018 (6:48 pm)

        Uh, I read that they will have one off-street parking space per unit.

    • JanS June 15, 2018 (4:45 pm)

      affordable housing…affordable to you? to people on the east side? to the developers? to me? that last one…well, no, not affordable to me. There are many people in this city who will not be able to afford even the lower prices on these. But…that’s Seattle.  Now, having said that, I’m going to show where I grew up …when I was an infant, I live in a sharecroppers house in rural Virginia…lots of dry dirt and cows around…drank raw milk, , survived.  Then we moved…another state..a row house…in a city of row houses…everywhere… https://goo.gl/maps/1ACJivutHsw&nbsp; mine was the one with the fire hydrant. And, yes, we definitely knew our neighbors. It’s 5 bedrooms, 1.5 baths, a full  basement, living, dining, kitchen..a postage stamp yard in back, joined to all the other yards. It would sell for about 65K today.  West Seattle could be like that. Try to imagine.  And here’s one of a typical neighborhood, surrounding the high school (and nary a garage…all street parking)…so, nine tiny houses are really not that big a deal…if someone wants to buy them, that’s their business.

      Perspective

  • MJ June 15, 2018 (9:32 am)

    The City is screaming for affordable housing.  Developing small efficiency type housing is the way to help answer the scream.  

    • heartless June 15, 2018 (9:44 am)

      Exactly so.

      (I also hope Seattle continues trying to make backyard cottages more feasible–I think that will help too, especially in West Seattle.)

    • HelperMonkey June 15, 2018 (9:51 am)

      that’s the problem with this city, they keep screaming for “affordable housing” and then refuse to build it. build more apodments? – just because they’re small, doesn’t mean they’re not renting for $1000+/month. that is *not* affordable housing, and neither is paying upwards of $300k for a small townhome. 

  • Chemist June 15, 2018 (10:07 am)

    This new services portal is really tricky to look up records from prior to the transition.  I found site plans, eventually, to see how they’re incorporating a lot for 4 surface parking spots and their trash services.https://cosaccela.seattle.gov/portal/Cap/GlobalSearchResults.aspx?QueryText=3855+21ST+AVE+SWhttps://cosaccela.seattle.gov/portal/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=DPDPermits&TabName=DPDPermits&capID1=17HST&capID2=00000&capID3=23928&agencyCode=SEATTLE

  • Sarah June 15, 2018 (10:08 am)

    I live in a <750 sq. ft. house. Such small spaces certainly aren’t unusual in West Seattle, so I’m not sure what all the uproar is about. I suppose it’s not for everyone, but I personally love my small space. I do not miss keeping up with cleaning a larger home. 

    • LiouxLioux June 15, 2018 (5:17 pm)

      Is your small space 10 feet wide? Does it only have windows on 2 of its four sides?  I also love well designed small spaces, but this is not one of those.

      • heartless June 15, 2018 (6:31 pm)

        Sorry,  just failing at trying to find some way to gauge whether or not these dwellings are well designed. 

        What information are you finding that leads you to conclude this?  I am genuinely curious, I’d love to see plans, designs, etc., but can’t seem to find any.

        What did you use to base your decision of these being poorly designed?

        Thanks!

  • pjmanley June 15, 2018 (10:33 am)

    Another article about growth, another polarized debate.  It IS possible that even good things can generate valid concerns or generate negative impacts.  But it takes a little thought and consideration to realize that, and few here demonstrate the patience and awareness that requires.  Mike’s concern about stressed infrastructure is probably the most valid concern raised in this entire thread, but you gotta understand how the world works and what goes on under your feet and above your head to appreciate that.     

    • Pigeon Hill In-Phil June 16, 2018 (11:26 am)

      PJMANLEY,Thanks for your measured response.  I hope I dispelled the false trope of overburdens on our sewer and electric services.   Mike’s false concern  about  “stressed infrastructure” does raise a valid issue.  It is how many of the vast majority, the existing homes in West Seattle like mine and yours have not upgraded to low flow toilets, shower heads and faucets?  How many of us are still using wasteful electrical energy and water hog appliances that cost us additional money each month while contributing to degradation of our planet?  How many of us still rely on incandescent light bulbs when LEDs are so superior and money saving?  How many of us still run our hard surface and roof/gutter drains directly into the sanitary sewer as allowed by archaic grandfathered codes?  If every owner of these antiquated drainage pipes established  rain garden infiltration and detention, wherever allowed by geography, the storm stress on  our combined sewer systems would be relieved.You are right in suggesting an understanding  what goes on under your feet and above your head.  But the question is, what do you do on a personal level to address the part you play?  

  • Pigeon Hill In-Phil June 15, 2018 (10:53 am)

    MOMO must be aware as a resident that there is no lack parking on 21st where  this development is.  If the WSB photo were wider, it would likely show construction vehicles only.  I doubt WSB had to park a block away for the shot?As for traffic, MOMO must also be aware that there is little traffic outside two specific times.  Before and after school, last minute and late Pathfinder parents consistently speed, roll through the newly established stop signs and travel in packs failing to yield the right of way on 21st.  On the return from dropping students drivers openly use cell phones as they speed down the 20 mph neighborhood streets apparently busy arranging their day.  School zones are posted, but different from 35th Ave @ OLG, Roxbury St @Roxbury School and Fauntleroy Way @ Gatewood School, SPD NEVER enforces the Pathfinder School Zones.MOMO must also have experienced the irate response of any delay for these rushed parents as they honk horns with frustration of any delay caused by delivery vehicles, mail carriers, and tradespeople parking legally.  The SPD absolutely refuses to address the widespread and demanded practice of parking on and blocking the sidewalks along 21st South of Andover.  Students walking to school must dangerously navigate around blocked sidewalks.The more and more frequent bicycle commuters along this designated Bike Path face multiple safety threats from these impatient drivers and the multiple speed bumps SDOT installed to slow scofflaw  vehicles.There is also considerable neighborhood pass-through of commuting vehicles speeding down 21st as a shortcut/bi-pass to Delridge and the West Seattle Bridge.As to the site of the row houses, this section of 21st is so vacant and private that it regularly has homeless car camping as well as abandoned and stolen cars.  No neighbors park there.Additionally, MOMO apparently is not aware of the parking for the rowhouse located on the Western side of the building not shown in WSB photo.MOMO is clearly not aware of Seattle’s notorious Critical Areas Code that prohibits “shallow underground parking” on such ECA Steep Slope and designated ECA Possible Slide areas.  Even if it were allowed such underground parking would be astronomically expensive for such developments, with the cost of car storage approaching the cost of each housing unit.I am pleased to see such appropriate development throughout Pigeon Hill and hope that the  influx of so many  new residents finally bring about needed change to this wonderfully quirky neighborhood that I have grown to love and hate.

    • WSB June 15, 2018 (11:22 am)

      Here is a 2-week-old photo of the site from a different angle. We noticed it while headed to/from covering Lou Cutler’s run at Pathfinder and it’s been on my followup list since then.

      https://twitter.com/westseattleblog/status/1002589531428642821

      • PhilPigeon Hill In-Phil June 15, 2018 (11:59 am)

        Thanks to WSB for the additional photo that does show only one car on an otherwise empty street.

        • Chemist June 15, 2018 (2:31 pm)

            Wow, I can’t recall the last time I’d seen an area of Seattle with curbside residential mail boxes. google maps

          I am surprised by large trees removed somewhere between 2011 and 2015 on that site. Seems like something normally not allowed.

          • WSB June 15, 2018 (2:44 pm)

            https://westseattleblog.com/2014/01/west-seattle-green-space-coalition-asks-city-light-to-stop-treeplant-removal-at-ex-substations/

          • Pigeon Hill In-Phil June 15, 2018 (3:09 pm)

            @Chemist,WSB story reveals that the trees were removed due hazardous materials and outlawed pesticides City Light had used at the substations.  There soil was tested and revealed unsafe levels which required the the vegetation removal to access and remove the soil at the sites.This raises questions about other sites such as the Genesee sub- station that the Greenspace Coalition has lobbied for. As far as tree removal for construction in ECA sites such as this one, developers are required to submit and carry out a mitigation plan for restoration with native  plants and new trees to make up for all that are removed.

  • H June 15, 2018 (12:58 pm)

    Smaller homes are fantastic! I’m a huge proponent of living in a smaller, quality spaces mainly resulting from my experiences with different types of accommodations when traveling. I own and live in 400sqft home with a 2000sqft yard and rent out a 900sqft home with a 3000sqft yard. Smaller homes are exceptionally comfortable, quick to clean, less expensive to run and a great option for singles or a couple. I do think natural light and having access to outdoor space is paramount.

  • G. June 16, 2018 (6:27 am)

    People, size is not the issue, build quality is! Spending any kind of money on these cardboard-boxes sounds ridiculous to me – unless you’re a passionate admirer of your neighbor’s body noises…

  • Mark Schletty June 16, 2018 (12:55 pm)

    Kiro 7, i think, had a story on this project last night. They said the developer told them they were going to ask $400,000 a piece for them. That is $666.666 ( devil’s due) per square foot. Most absolutely top of the line fitted housing sells for around $300-400 per square foot, and that includes very high land costs. Land costs here are about $23,000 per unit. Usually unheard of in Seattle. This project represents developer greed at its worst and buyers are being totally ripped off. The City should have simply turned this property over to a nonprofit community developer for a dollar more than this developer paid and had truly affordable housing built.

    • WSB June 16, 2018 (1:00 pm)

      Did they credit us for the original story? This is not even remotely a new project so only reason anyone else would be covering it is having seen our story, and it’s ethical to credit who broke it.

      • Mark Schletty June 16, 2018 (1:03 pm)

        Tracy— I’m not positive, but I don’t recall them mentioning the WSB.

    • AMD June 16, 2018 (3:49 pm)

      You are very much wrong, my friend.The 720 sq. ft. single-family house at 14th & Barton just sold for $681.94 per sq. ft.Another 810 sq. ft. single-family home in Gatewood sold for $718.52 per sq. ft. a year ago.An 860 sq. ft. single-family home in the Morgan Junction sold for $720.87 per foot a few months ago.A 720 sq. ft. house on Alki sold a couple weeks ago for $1248.61 per sq. ft. a couple weeks ago.I’m guessing by “top-of-the-line” you’re comparing the price-per-foot to very large mansions (the largest price tags), which has little relation to the market for small homes.  Small homes fetch much higher prices per foot than their larger counterparts.  That’s true in every neighborhood.  Four hundred thousand is a price point you don’t see in new construction any more.  You barely see it anywhere else within the city for a home that’s not new but at least move-in ready.  He will have buyers lining up at that price.  It’s on par if not below market rate.I’ll also echo Happycamper’s sentiments above.  Can we retire the old “developers are greedy” nonsense?  They’re running a business.  It’s for profit.  That’s the point of owning a business.  Developers are no more “greedy” than any other business owner.  If Burger Boss isn’t greedy for passing the two-cent sugar tax onto customers, this developer isn’t greedy for looking at his bottom line either.Enough already.

  • CarDriver June 16, 2018 (3:42 pm)

    Saw the KIRO story also. No WSB mention. What the developer said when asked is that the initial guess is “low $400K.” (meaning at least 425k)  Actual price would be set closer to opening.

  • CarDriver June 16, 2018 (4:18 pm)

    AMD. The issue with developers is that they’re presented as a “benefit” to us by building the dwellings we want.  Lot’s of comments here on the blog pointing out they often can and do build in way’s a private person would have difficulty doing. You are correct that they’re in business to make money. Nothing wrong with that. Just wish they were honest in saying they’re not building to be affordable or good looking or infrastructure compatable they’re building to make the most profit-period.        

    • Pigeon Hill In-Phil June 16, 2018 (8:54 pm)

      CARDRIVER has quite high standards when it  comes to private developments and developers. We can agree that businesses are in the business to make money.But what other business is required to be honest in proclaiming they are selling at a loss,  receive universal praise that they are making a good looking product and are infrastructure compatible? Where does such a business exist?

Sorry, comment time is over.