DEVELOPMENT: Microapartments proposed for Junction 7-11 site

(King County Assessor website photo)

Thanks to Scott for spotting this early-stage proposal in city files: We reported back in late July that the Junction 7-11 site (4800 Erskine Way) was for sale. No sale on record yet, but now there’s a redevelopment proposal, summarized on the city website as “a six-story apartment building with approximately 65 small efficiency dwelling units. No parking provided.” The site plan shows prolific Blueprint Capital, headquartered a few blocks north, as the prospective developer, with Cone Architecture designing the project. Again, this is an early-stage proposal, so there’s no formal application yet, and official comment periods are some ways out.

96 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: Microapartments proposed for Junction 7-11 site"

  • just wondering September 12, 2018 (3:33 pm)

    So parking for cars will not be required in the design because everyone living there will be taking the bus or riding a bike to work?

    • WSB September 12, 2018 (3:43 pm)

      Because it’s in the frequent transit zone. (Rapid Ride is steps away.)

      • Diane September 12, 2018 (4:18 pm)

        “steps away”?  isn’t closest Rapid Ride stop actually couple blocks (or really long block) away?  I know it still qualifies for stinking “zero-parking” requirement 

        • WSB September 12, 2018 (4:22 pm)

          OK, to be precise, the RapidRide *passes* right in front of the site.

          • Beckyjo September 12, 2018 (5:07 pm)

            But the rapid ride does not stop in front of 7-11

        • Jort September 12, 2018 (10:07 pm)

          The stop is one block away…. it’s fine.

  • Dawson September 12, 2018 (3:45 pm)

    There was a crew out drilling a monitoring well on that site a week and a half ago. Seems if they have to excavate down to load bearing soil, why not include some parking within the site as a result?

    • KW September 12, 2018 (4:10 pm)

      Likely an environmental monitoring well. Also, piles are cheaper than below grade parking. 

    • HappyCamper September 12, 2018 (4:10 pm)

      They were probably “potholing”. It’s an exploratory method to attempt to locate underground utilities and other obstructions prior to excavation

    • Mike September 13, 2018 (12:28 am)

      Dawson, shoring work to support a garage will cost extra and the city incentivizes developers to NOT add parking.  It’s in the developers best financial interest to not add parking.

  • Cbj September 12, 2018 (4:13 pm)

    Just wondering, of course everyone of those folks don’t have a car and use public transportation, if anyone is not sure that parking is not needed, just  askthe the neighborhoods with single family homes that  unfortunately bump up to these architectural beauitful buildings,  with most if not all have cars that sit for weeks in the street. These decisions are just stupid and based on faulty assumptions that just are not based in reality, 

    • 4thGenWestSide September 12, 2018 (4:28 pm)

      CBJ speaks the truth.  It is terrible.  There are a few folks on the other side of California that are also buying (but not reallly selling) cars as an at-home dealership.  Their fleet sits forever.  **PRO TIP***   The City of Seattle has a mobile app (not sure if can be done online, but I assume so) called Find It Fix It.  It is great.  You can report all sorts of things, from cars parked for long periods of time, to potholes, garbage, etc.  And they are proactive about getting back to you if you leave an e mail address.  I believe you can be anonymous as well.  Worth a look.  

      • T September 12, 2018 (4:58 pm)

        Find it fix it is a resource but not a very timely one imo. I have had vehicles sit in open status for a month or longer. This is after they have already sat 2-4 weeks with expired tabs in some cases. I think the volume of reports is too high to get quick resolution. I talked to Peter Ahlstrom (a PEO manager) who says to use the app but community policing officer Todd Weibke has vocalized its drawbacks on social media.

        • WSB September 12, 2018 (5:07 pm)

          You’re the first person to mention Officer Wiebke lately – so I should mention, he has recently retired from SPD. They are still deciding at the precinct who will be the next point person on issues he handled such as RVs.

          • T September 12, 2018 (5:24 pm)

            Thanks I didn’t know that. Great guy.

          • ACG September 12, 2018 (5:28 pm)

            Oh no. I am so sad to hear Officer Wiebke is retiring. He was a really good man and officer. I am really sad that we will lose him as an officer in our community. Best wishes to him. 

        • Seabruce September 14, 2018 (11:08 am)

          If they have been parked more than 72 hours, you can call the Seattle PD non-emergency number: (206) 625-5011 to report them.

    • Peter September 12, 2018 (5:03 pm)

      Of course all the SFH dwellers always park in their garages and never on the streets. There couldn’t possibly be any double standard here …

    • Rick September 13, 2018 (9:24 am)

       Single family neighborhoods near RR stops have turned into park and rides.

  • Diane September 12, 2018 (4:19 pm)

    argh, prolific infamous Blueprint Capital

    • Babs September 12, 2018 (11:57 pm)

      Agree! Blueprint are horrible builders with NO ethics. Greed.

  • matt September 12, 2018 (4:21 pm)

    I’m not opposed to the use, but please advocate for ground floor retail here. We need streets to be engaging and offer community retail amenities otherwise we just become a boring bedroom community.  

  • 4thGenWestSide September 12, 2018 (4:41 pm)

    It is zoned NC2-65 (neighborhood commercial) so they most likely will have to honor that zoning requirement, but I would imagine that like other new and older apartments / condos, they will opt for offices.  So I wouldn’t expect anything exciting.  Unless an accounting office or something similar floats your boat. 

  • Cbj September 12, 2018 (4:53 pm)

    Matt it’s not a boreing bedroom project but dorm living minus the studentsagain totally ridiculous and this will continue to contribute to the demise of our neighborhoods

    • CatLady September 13, 2018 (1:04 am)

      More housing contributes to the demise of the neighborhood? That’s honestly not very neighborly of you. Like it or not, people are going to keep moving to Seattle, and they have to have somewhere to live. Not everyone needs or wants a house, so if this works for people, fine. 

  • JayDee September 12, 2018 (5:16 pm)

    Yep young people don’t own cars and other fictions will be brought up. If these new residents board the C at Alaska and California, expect even bigger scrums and SRO or no seats for the unlucky carless folk who bought/rent near the stops from here to Avalon. The rule of the 5 Ps is applicable here. Prior planning prevents _____ poor performance. Was there any thought given to the RR C capacity and it’s current ridership levels? Just having a full bus run past your new efficiency (i.e. small overpriced apartment) doesn’t mean you can get onboard. Another instance of the City giving developers a freebie while extracting nothing of value in return for the lack of parking. 

  • flimflam September 12, 2018 (5:39 pm)

    another spot to get a sweet 200 sq ft dorm room for $1000?do these units all have shared bathrooms and kitchen spaces? i’m genuinely curious about how that works – heath/safety wise, and just in general. i remember sharing kitchens and bathrooms and it wasn’t pretty…anyone have any 1st hand experience with this?

  • TJ September 12, 2018 (5:55 pm)

    Well Peter, those SFH dwellers at worst park in front of their homes. 65 units with ZERO parking? These people will be parking 3 blocks away at that location. Development like this does nothing to help West Seattle. To anyone that supports these jokes, what benefit do we residents already here get? Like Cbj said above, they are dorm units at a per square foot price higher than any other multi family. The city has completely thrown in the towel on our roads and helping to accompdate more cars, which most of these units will own. 

    • heartless September 12, 2018 (7:25 pm)

      “What benefits do we residents already here get?”

      TJ…  If your first thought is always “what do I get out of it?” then you and me ain’t never going to happen.  A new neighbor moves in?  “What benefit do I get out of it?!”  Really? 

      Why is it all about you?  Trick question: it’s not.  

    • CAM September 12, 2018 (8:22 pm)

      Sometimes it’s not about you or your needs. 

      • Jort September 12, 2018 (10:09 pm)

        But wait, I thought TJ WASN’T a liberal?    

    • WS Guy September 12, 2018 (8:35 pm)

      If you and your neighbors care enough to take action, you can prepare a legal appeal for any aspect of the project or its impact study that you think is inadequate.  With concerns like yours, Phinney took on the developer for Phinney Flats (and the City’s own stooges) and won several parts of its legal challenge. know that the Junction neighborhood is now also active in fighting the City’s lack of sensible impact planning.  You’ll find allies easily.  Try contacting JuNO.  ( also suggest firing the entire City Council.

  • Rick September 12, 2018 (6:24 pm)

    As I’ve said before, “rats in a cage”.  And it always proves true.

  • LJ September 12, 2018 (6:29 pm)

    Sad news I really don’t want that type of housing even close  to  my Seaview neighborhood.  I  remember when that location had a dry cleaner and a drive thru soft serve ice cream place. I miss the old and less improved WS

    • heartless September 12, 2018 (9:49 pm)

      Good news: I think you can still procure ice cream and get clothes dry-cleaned in West Seattle.

    • JVP September 13, 2018 (7:54 pm)

      Wow, really? The drug dealers that loiter around the current 7-11 are better than some folks that can’t happen to afford a huge apartment right now?I live 2 blocks away in a SFH.  I welcome the change, that 7-11 has some sketchy business going on in the lot. 

  • Quora September 12, 2018 (6:50 pm)

    How are “micro apartments” even legal still?

  • CarlessApartmentDweller September 12, 2018 (6:52 pm)

    I’m one of those carless apartment dwellers. We do exist!Despite not owning a car the comments here often surprise me on this issue.  Don’t homeowners have driveways?  That’s 1-2 cars and if you use your garage there is even more room.You don’t have a right to street parking in front of your house. It’s there for everyone to use. I grew up in suburbia and get that it’s convenient to have. And change sucks. But that’s everywhere. My suburbia used to be a farm town when I grew up and now it’s as expensive and crowded as Seattle (despite still not being urban). And I definitely can’t afford to buy there any more than here. It’s just the world now…

    • CatLady September 12, 2018 (8:18 pm)

      I feel you, Carless! I’m also a car free apartment dweller (I actually live in the giant apartment building right behind the 7-11). I’ve been car free for over a decade now, and the looks I get when I tell people that are hilarious – it’s like they can’t conceive of such a thing.If people here are want to live in a place with lots of parking and no public transportation, they are welcome to move to the Midwest. But this is how the West Coast is going to be from now on – it’s crowded, and people have to live somewhere. 

    • BigMama September 12, 2018 (8:38 pm)

      I’m another invisible car-less person who has lived here almost 20 years. And I could happily fit into 200 sq ft of space. I don’t own a lot of stuff and have very space-efficient hobbies. And I’m not a millennial – I’m 56 years old and have been a homeowner in other places (and with plenty acreage around a spacious house!)I’m no rat. And cages come in all sizes. Some cages have 3-car garages attached.

    • BigMama September 12, 2018 (8:42 pm)

      I’m another invisible person who has lived here almost 20 years without a car. And I could happily fit into 200 sq ft of space. I don’t own a lot of stuff and have very space-efficient hobbies. And I’m not a millennial – I’m 56 years old and have been a homeowner in other places (and with plenty acreage around a spacious house!)I’m no rat. And cages come in all sizes. Some cages have 3-car garages attached.

    • westerly September 13, 2018 (8:22 am)

      Hi Carless, I would venture that no, most houses in West Seattle do not have driveways. Most have alleys behind them used to access a garage (which, when they exist, are generally single car–anecdotally speaking). The ones with driveways seem to be either grandfathered in, or are allowed to because they lack alley access (I could be wrong, please correct me if so). That said, I agree that there is an assumption that carless people don’t exist. I disagree with that, and don’t think it would be hard for people who are physically able.  If I didn’t drive to races in far flung places on weekends, I could be as well, since I ride my bike to work every day, and can walk/ride for most shopping.

    • HS September 13, 2018 (12:18 pm)

      Another carless person here also living in a pretty awesome smaller space. A working and contributing member of the community yet older than a millennial. My request would be for a design that has high traffic commercial below and allows light onto California (west to east) as the neighboring buildings have made that area visually darker by blocking light.

  • Chib September 12, 2018 (6:58 pm)

    The drilling is probably discovery and contamination measures.   Old dry cleaning chemicals are really nasty stuff.

  • Cbj September 12, 2018 (8:27 pm)

    Apartment dwellerdont have a drive way or a garage, many of the older homes in west Seattle dontinteresting im responsible for the parking strip in front of my house but someone who lives in the apartments behind me can leave their car in front of my house for weeks on end, was told they have 3 vehicles and use their underground parking for their toys,  this is not unusual and sorry I should have preference to park in front of my own home, ou park in front of yours

    • heartless September 12, 2018 (9:52 pm)

      Are you okay?  It reads like you’re having a seizure. 

      I’m not sure what you mean when you say you “should have preference to park in front of” your home, but if I’m reading you right, I guess my response is: Why? 

      If you want a reserved and special spot, live in a place with designated off-street parking.  If you don’t care about a reserved spot, then don’t. 

      It is REALLY SIMPLE FOLKS. Let me repeat it: if you want a special spot to park, live in a place that gives you a special spot. Done!

      • Rick September 13, 2018 (9:51 am)

        Your seizure reference is really cute. You ought to try several. They’re a riot!

  • BJG September 12, 2018 (8:32 pm)

    The last car able to make it up my driveway was a Model T. We don’t own one.  We live in a neighborhood of 1920’s homes. I too can’t find parking in front of my house by the Junction because commuters and shop trucks have that staked out from corner to corner at least twelve hours a day.  So where are these new renters going to put the cars they certainly will have? If one has a Model T, I can make him a deal on a driveway. This just gets crazier.

    • heartless September 12, 2018 (9:56 pm)

      Um, so you have a driveway that you never use?  You do know that you are completely wasting a couple parking spots, right?  By having a driveway that nobody can park in front of but that doesn’t actually remove a car from parking on the street?  And you have the audacity to complain about parking?  

      • BJG September 14, 2018 (7:55 am)

        We didn’t build the unusable driveway. The city built the street and unusually elevated sidewalk. Both have been around since 1926. Your petty comment is pointless! Give this a rest!

    • just wondering September 13, 2018 (6:15 pm)

      Width of model T (including hubcaps) is 68″.  My Subaru is 70.70″ and fits nicely in my 1931 driveway!

      • BJG September 13, 2018 (8:53 pm)

        Not the width although narrow. It’s the steep rise off the street. You’d be high-centered on the sidewalk. Watch unfortunates rip their bumpers off trying to turn around occasionally.

  • Bradley September 12, 2018 (8:54 pm)

    Beehive microhousing should be outlawed.

    • heartless September 12, 2018 (9:59 pm)

      I still can’t beelieve the city of Seattle in its infinite wisdom crammed that beehive microhousing over on Graham in High Point down our throats.  Talk about micro!

  • KM September 12, 2018 (9:05 pm)

    Just wanted to pipe in here and say that living style and use of public streets by other people is terrible, but mine is correct and good.

    • AW September 13, 2018 (11:33 am)

      I would like to respond to your comment without comprehension, because your opinion is terrible but mine is correct and good. Also, I’d like to point out how long I’ve lived in West Seattle, because numbers. 

    • HS September 13, 2018 (12:20 pm)


  • Nick Schroedel September 12, 2018 (9:09 pm)

    No parking requirement is problematic.  It overloads the public good of street parking.  One way to make it work it is make the neighborhood a parking permit zone and not allow residents of buildings like this to get a permit.

    • CAM September 12, 2018 (10:08 pm)

      Yes. Because some types of people are better than others and should have more rights. Particularly if you can make that distinction based on net worth. 

      • Rick September 13, 2018 (9:47 am)

        So the city should eliminate all RPZ’s? 

        • Jon Wright September 13, 2018 (11:00 pm)

          RPZs, as they exist today, are a total giveaway of a public resource. $96 for two years’ worth of parking*  is a joke. Street parking is a public resource and the city should monetize it. A pass should cost the market price for parking and should be available to anyone willing to pay, not limited to residents of a certain geographic area. Opposition to developments without on-site parking basically comes from people in the adjacent neighborhoods who seem to feel they should be allowed to store their private property in the public right-of-way but nobody else should.* I think that is what SDOT wants to start charging

  • TJ September 12, 2018 (9:28 pm)

    Heartless, if you are going to quote me, at least get it right. I said “we”, not “I”. And I have no problem with new construction of apartment buildings on California Avenue. Just not 65 units where there is currently zero, with no parking. Yes, there will be some without cars, but you can guarantee most will. That development does not contribute positively to West Seattle. Parking 3 blocks away. And these will not be my neighbors. My house I had built down by the ferry dock has a 2 car garage, and the 3 vehicles I own do not sit on the street, so I am no hypocrite. I question what density is for those who say we need more?

  • JMM September 12, 2018 (10:20 pm)

    Small efficiency dwelling units? Right! Just a different way of saying that another big ugly apartment building is going up.I’m so sad for the beautiful West Seattle that I grew up in. Unfortunately, the people ruining our area (and moving in here) don’t care about preserving the Junction or West Seattle history. It will never be the same again. A few people are getting rich developing the area, while taking away quality of life for most other residents. Disgusting!

  • Jennifer Scarlett September 12, 2018 (10:31 pm)

    Apparently 30 percent of apodment dwellers on cap hill still have cars.  They are close to transit.Other cities have data driven ways of assessing parking need.  Seattle is all ideology, no real planning.Have you noticed everyone uses Amazon, Uber, Lyft, etc.  Those workers need a place to park, they live in this city too.I hear a lot of people making excuses for bad (or NO) planning.  There’s really no excuse for bad planning, and we all live with the results for decades to come.Seattle needs to do better, and stop putting the burden on communities to fight bad development, fix flawed plans for them.

  • yes September 12, 2018 (10:48 pm)

    Blueprint and Dan Dufus are the ones behind most of theses developments with no regard for the surrounding neighborhoods. Of course they say the city lets them do it, however nobody is forcing the developers to ruin the whole feel and liviability of our beloved West Seattle. Supposedly Dan Dufus is  West Seattle native but I doubt any of these developments are on his street or close to where he lives. His next development will be next to Cafe Ladro with you guessed it, no parking. Thanks to all you wonderful socially concerned developers, hope you choke on your profits.

    • Ryan Thomas caple September 13, 2018 (11:58 am)

      Dan Dufus and everyone at Blueprint are amazing people. 

    • clamdigger September 13, 2018 (1:59 pm)

      Maybe organize a “park-in” demonstration around the Blueprint Office on the other end of the Junction. Or at the Dufus residence. Show them the impact of having even 20 additional cars (30% of 65 proposed units) parking on what they quite possibly view as “their street.”

  • Huck September 13, 2018 (6:32 am)

    The soil under the 7-11 site has been contaminated, so they are likely drilling to understand the scope of the contamination. They will be required to clean it up before they can build anything there.

  • Wsresident September 13, 2018 (9:22 am)

    To your surprise some of the people living in these smaller units CHOOSE to, for a simpler life not measured by the size of one’s house.  We are adults, some with families, even West Seattle business owners (!!!!) with NO CARS. We care about the environment and our footprint, we support the community, bring in income for the community, support your local events (farmers markets, music festivals etc) and associations and WE PAY FOR YOUR FREE PARKING LOTS. Imagine that. Think outside your small-minded boxes that not everything is as you see it. In my opinion we need more young, open-minded individuals in our community, based on this thread. Have you ever used car sharing? Or riden a bike? Or walked to your local business? That’s what people do in CITIES. Get over it, get used to it, stop judging and move if you hate it so much. And yes, I’m third generation West Seattle in case anyone intends to ask. 

  • anonyme September 13, 2018 (10:09 am)

    WS Resident: good for you and your choices.  I mean that.  However, I don’t think that the majority of the tenants of microhousing share your dedication.  As a matter of fact, I’ve spoken with several microhousing residents who claim that they are willing to skimp on housing square footage in order to invest in a posh car instead.  A simple fix would be to require as part of the lease that tenants not be car owners.  Some of the pushback from those in single family homes is simply not wanting neighborhoods turned into parking lots.  Nor are single family neighborhood unsustainable or evil; many of us grow much of our own food, keeping it local.   Also, to YOUR surprise, it might benefit you to know that the “young” did not invent the environmental movement, nor is there an age limit on open-mindedness.  I am close to entering my seventh decade having never owned a vehicle and having lived according to strict environmental standards for at least five of them.  Stereotyping is never helpful.

    • Wsresident September 13, 2018 (10:25 am)

      I agree! I never once mentioned that “young started the environmental movement” I’m 40, I also own a home in WS where I grow food so i understand your sentiment about  “keeping it local.” You day you don’t want WS to turn into a parking lot, no issue there because this building won’t have ya parking.  There’s isn’t a single person in my 65 unit building, owned by blueprint, without parking that would purchase a car with extra money. Everyone here walks to transit, professionals, mostly over 35. Thanks for your comments. I personally would rather have a microhousing (my building is beautiful) versus a 7-11 eye soar where crime happens on the regular. I’m welcomed to my opinions, as are you. 🙏🏻

  • peoplefarms September 13, 2018 (10:16 am)

    The urban planning in Seattle is abysmal with the priority given to developers maximizing profits, period. There is no regard for design, livability, sustainability, and creating innovative affordable housing solutions. Putting someone in a single-room unit and force fitting a tiny kitchen and bathroom is not a step forward. It’s giving up. Given the intellectual capital in this city, as one of the most educated populations of any city in this country, one would think we’d have the capacity to do better for ourselves but instead, residents city council and the mayor turn a blind eye while developers exploit their laziness and incompetence. What you end up with is a city where the wealthy live in large, beautiful homes in neighborhoods “gated” by  ridiculous single-family zoning restriction. They have the waterfront, the green space, the safe neighborhoods, that create quality of life, while the rest of us are housed in increasingly smaller boxes on densely packed blocks with supposed access to a public transportation system that fails at every level when compared to other first-world cities. We had a chance to make something great of this latest surge of wealth but have instead chosen to sell our city to Bezos and others like him who are guided only by unlimited greed. 

  • Urban Villager September 13, 2018 (10:28 am)

    The latest rendering for the possible 44th St elevated ST station shows the track run off going basically right over that lot.   Do they know something we don’t?

  • Plf September 13, 2018 (10:55 am)

    anyome, thank you, wise comments, wsresident hopefully will be open to your commentsas a child of the 60s   I find it silly that youngings, think they are the first generation that has been committed to the environment, the gift of aging is to realize that as in most things solutions are complicated. And honest well meaning individuals can have different perspectives and finding middle ground is the only way to find sustainable solutions, the push back from SFH is we feel unheard , condensending our perspectives, and taxed to death for changes we feel are not the correct ones, you might disagree ,  I respect that can you do the same?

  • gh September 13, 2018 (11:10 am)

    Why would anyone want to live there; it’s certainly not the American dream…

    • JVP September 13, 2018 (10:39 pm)

      When you put it that way, why would anyone want to live in Seattle?  Bellevue is much more the American dream.  Way bigger homes and nice cul de sacs.  /sarc

  • LK September 13, 2018 (11:10 am)

    This is very problematic for future parking of all cars in the Junction area.  Developers have been eyeing the ‘free’ spaces behind Husky Deli and the block North behind businesses on California for development.  If these lots go away and a 65 unit building with no parking goes up at the 7-11 spot, you can imagine the huge increase in parking chaos that will ensue.  Parking should a be required aspect of this plan; not necessary a spot for each unit, but some reasonable fraction. 

  • I. Ponder September 13, 2018 (11:10 am)

    SAVE THE 7-11! Where else am I going to get a hot dog at 4AM? It’s historic. Eddie Vedder and other Pearl Jam members shopped there. Losing the essential character of the neighborhood.

  • I. Ponder September 13, 2018 (11:29 am)

    A commenter wrote “A simple fix would be to require as part of the lease that tenants not be car owners.”I’m always shocked at how many people have no issues casually constraining OTHER people’s rights. How about we make the neighborhood car-free? You want a car, move. It’s ridiculous of course.

  • Plf September 13, 2018 (12:02 pm)

    I think the comment that folks should agree not to have a car is problematic however the premise that folks in high density housing don’t own cars is fundamental to the developers not required to provide parking.  Clearly that is not reality, if that was in fact the case the overflow into neighborhood s would not be happeningagain the city’s thought process and decision making is terribly flawed

  • I. Ponder September 13, 2018 (1:17 pm)

    To read many of the comments you’d think the number one issue facing the city is availability of free parking. As opposed to availability of cheaper housing options which will relieve demand pressure on overall housing availability and allow more people to live and work in Seattle. Higher density and less free parking are the future, like it or not. Lamenting the good ole days isn’t smart policy. 

  • I. Ponder September 13, 2018 (1:45 pm)

    I’ve heard it costs $35,000-$50,000 to build each parking space in apartment buildings. That $ must be amortized into the cost of rent. By not building parking the cost of housing will be cheaper for the renter. Housing affordability is the number one issue in Seattle. People who own multiple vehicles and houses shouldn’t be complaining about whether or not someone else might own a car. Small apartment dwellers work a lot and will be eating out a lot. Expect more restaurants. If you bought your house 30 years ago consider yourself lucky. When Seattle no longer suits you, you can sell and move to a place that suits you better. I used to be one of the new people but I’ve lived in West Seattle for 29 years. The old-timers thought they owned the place even back then. Now I’m an old-timer. I thing the changes are exciting. I love living in a vibrant city. 

    • Rico Dynamite September 13, 2018 (2:14 pm)

      Cost to build and cost to rent don’t really have a relationship.  The market determines the cost of rent.  Nothing else.     Otherwise, apartments built years ago would practically be free.    No developer will reduce rents because there was no requirement for a garage.    I used to work in the MDU industry (finance and accounting) I assure you these tactics have been used for years to out-source costs.    Cost for schools, infrastructure, police, etc will have to be paid for in the form of lower quality of life or higher taxes.   Not by those who profit from the development though.    I am just sorry our piss-pour city leadership fell for it.     The net result is higher cost per square foot for rent, higher return for developers, and greater tax revenue from the additional parcels, and a certain type of voter in populace.      Cost per square foot is a better measurement of affordability.   

      • John September 13, 2018 (8:39 pm)

        RICO,Those are wildly inaccurate statements.Cost to build does have a relationship to rent.  The market does determine the cost to rent.  And a costly built apartment will attract a  different and higher rent occupant. Apartments built years ago have change hands and increased manyfold in value and the market reflects that.  It is the current market value that determines the rent, not how much it cost build last century.And your point about a developer not reducing the rent for  units without parking contradicts your ‘market determines cost’ edict.    Example- 2 identical units in same building one with parking and one without, which would command higher rent?

  • anonyme September 13, 2018 (2:03 pm)

    PLF, good point.  You can’t have it both ways.  If developers get a pass on providing parking due to access to public transit, then why should a provision not be made to offset the impact of extra vehicles on the neighborhood?  Another approach would be to have all street parking be paid parking.  Car ownership is a privilege –  it is not a right, as some would assert.  WSResident, my comment (which did not purport to quote you) was based on your statement “In my opinion we need more young, open-minded individuals in our community, based on this thread.”  I don’t know how to interpret that sentence other than as a suggestion that those older than you couldn’t possibly understand the issues of sustainability and lifestyle to which you subscribe.  We actually don’t disagree on substance.  My main concern is the abysmal way the city of Seattle has dealt with issues of growth and development.  And, well, just about everything else.

  • John September 13, 2018 (2:07 pm)

    A simple Solution to the street parking problem.—-Simply level the play field by Monetizing  All Street Parking.You park you pay.No exceptions.

  • skeeter September 13, 2018 (3:00 pm)


    I can’t believe people are asking for more car parking
    spaces in new construction.  That seems
    insane to me.  Our streets are severely
    clogged at rush hour.  And some people
    want new housing to include MORE spaces to park cars?  More parking leads to more cars.    

    As for blaming the lack of parking on short-sighted and “greedy”
    developers I’m again at a loss. 
    Developers build whatever people are willing to pay for.  If customers want off-street parking and are
    willing to pay for it, then that is what developers will build.  As it stands now, the city gives away free
    parking spaces on SDOT right-of-way. 
    There is really no way developers can compete with free when it comes to
    parking.  Of course (most) people will
    choose free street parking over paid off-street parking.   If you want to create an incentive for construction
    of off-street parking the first thing you have to do is stop giving away street
    parking for free.

Sorry, comment time is over.