DEVELOPMENT: New design packet for 3084 SW Avalon Way microapartments

| Development | West Seattle housing | West Seattle news

(From the packet by Cone Architecture)

New on the city website today: The updated design packet for 3084 SW Avalon Way [map], planned as a 7-story building with 37 “small efficiency dwelling units” (microapartments) and no offstreet (vehicle) parking spaces. This project is going through Administrative Design Review, which means no public meetings, but you can send feedback to the project’s city-assigned planner, Joe Hurley, at joseph.hurley@seattle.gov. This is the second and final review phase for this proposal; you can find the first-phase report by going here.

Unbelievable December 28, 2018 (7:29 pm)

And everyone living there will take the bus!

Kalo December 28, 2018 (7:40 pm)

Yep! Just like all the other micro/apodments that have been built throughout this area. Streets that used to be two way, are now barely passable due to all the cars now parked at the curb.

Cbj December 28, 2018 (7:48 pm)

Of course every single one of them will not own a car, will never park their car for intractable period of time in the neighborhoods surrounding their dorm style living, oh west Seattle it just keeps getting better and better.

JayDee December 28, 2018 (7:48 pm)

“Welcome to your new dwelling unit. We hope the hike from your car was not too far or that you weren’t given the stinkeye on the way. Sorry. That being said, there is a Rapid Ride and transit service somewhere nearby. While you will be near the end of the bus lines in West Seattle we are sure you will have no problem wedging yourself onto the C Line or the 21 which may stop nearby if other car-less (wink-wink) microapartment denizens haven’t got on before you. There is another nearly full bus coming on it’s way maybe soon…You have flex-time, correct?”

Chris December 28, 2018 (9:10 pm)

These should be illegal. It’s BS for the poor people that have to live there, the neighbors that have to deal with their cars and the inevitable parking rules and tickets that come next.

Ted December 29, 2018 (3:43 pm)

Only money prevails. Payoffs at every layer of this corruption. Somebody should follow the money. Why are we sooo naive and helpless?

Glass House December 28, 2018 (9:16 pm)

And none of the above commenters own cars that they park on the street?But that is different, they park in THEIR street, in front of their house, because their garage is full of their stuff.If people were actually concerned about (lack of) parking, they would be insisting on monetizing all street parking.

Peter December 28, 2018 (10:24 pm)

They don’t really care about parking, theyre just trying to make up a cover story for being anti-housing, so they put housing against the convenience of parking their pollutiin machines in the public right of way.
Jon Wright December 28, 2018 (11:50 pm)

Totally agree with the notion of monetizing street parking (at market rates, not token RPZ rates). Public right of way is a resource that shouldn’t just be given away for private property storage.
Volume Game December 29, 2018 (8:20 am)

It’s ok to be sarcastic if that makes you feel better, but buildings like this do pose a problem for neighborhoods. Maybe some single-family home dwellers park on the street, but in the neighborhood surrounding Avalon, most park in their driveway or garage. This building is adding 37 units on a very small parcel. That adds probably between 30 & 50 new cars to an already saturated neighborhood, while Avalon is about to undergo a repaving project that is actually going to reduce the number of parking spots. It’s not the fault of the people who live in the building, but it does seem like city planners are allowing a concept to move forward for which the reality hasn’t panned out the way the carless micro-housing idea intended.
- AMD December 29, 2018 (11:36 pm)
  
  I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. If most SF homeowners are already parking in their driveways or garage, the only people the limited parking will impact is those in the new apartments. Who will know what the street parking situation is when they decide to (or not to) live there. The city is not responsible for providing anyone with free car storage, period. Anyone who decides to live in a place without dedicated off-street parking knowing full well they own a vehicle signed up for a parking crapshoot. They are the only ones who are to blame when they lose.
  - Volume Game December 30, 2018 (11:31 am)
    
    Crowded, harder to navigate narrow streets. Guests who have to park blocks away when they visit. Cars parked days at a time without moving. These ate just a few reasons the new people moving in aren’t the only ones affected by new constriction with no parking.
Pete December 29, 2018 (12:02 pm)

Providence, RI parking ban….what are you talking about?!? It’s called a parking permit, any vehicles below 6500lbs (which is most vehicles, e.g. a 4Runner is less than 6500).The Permit @ $100 each (resident), $200 (non-resident) & two vehicles per household..you can also get a guest pass if you live only occasionally park or visit PVD.

TJ December 28, 2018 (10:38 pm)

Well Glass House, homeowners that park on the street park right in front. These dorm dwellers park 2 blocks away sometimes. And monetizing street parking is a ridiculous idea. After all the taxes and fees we have been hit with, why in the world would we want yet another one. And is this what affordable housing is? Glorifyed jail cells? Here is an economics 101 fact; it will never be affordable in the city unless of a severe recession. The bar has been set high on developer return. It is going down and I know that they are already leery of speculating on future developments.

Glass House December 29, 2018 (1:06 pm)

TJ, the renters are paying the same taxes and fees as the homeowners, so why should they be prohibited from parking?The ridiculously easy and successful monetizing of all street parking would level the field having those who actually use it (in front of their single family house or not), pay for it. Monetizing allows rates to adjust to always allow some parking availability. After all, it is parking availability that we vehicle users demand. Just to correct the current situation, with so many drivers complaining about terrible parking that already exists, we need to monetize all street parking. Believe it or not, the statistics show that there are people who do not own or operate cars. And it is clearly not fair that the car-free crowd should pay for homeowners to keep free parking on the city streets they live on as well as pay for (unused) parking in the apartments and homes they live in.

Delridger December 28, 2018 (11:05 pm)

I know I’m probably just shouting into the void, but I’d like to add a voice of welcome to our new neighbors.

Zach December 29, 2018 (10:16 am)

Ditto!

Scott December 29, 2018 (3:41 am)

I think this is great news. We need more housing options. I welcome the new neighbors this will bring.

JayDee December 29, 2018 (6:08 am)

Frankly, I am not anti-housing. I am anti-developer. The City, in it’s questionable wisdom, decided to eliminate parking from developments so basically gave the developers $10,000 per parking spot (the approximate cost per spot to include them in the building) and got nothing in return for it. No fees for giving away what they used to require of all multi-family developments. No fees for subsidizing low-income housing, no fees for improving transit, and saddling the neighbors with the cars that are owned by the people who move into the podments and then scrum onto overcrowded buses or worse yet drive to work.

Glass House December 29, 2018 (12:10 pm)

JAYDEE’s cost of (10,000) parking spots is refuted by Seattle Times reporting in 2016 the cost to be $35,000. It is likely considerably higher now. “It costs about $35,000 to build the average underground space in Seattle, and even if each stall is occupied and paid for by tenants, the building owner often takes a financial loss. Some researchers have argued that developers make up the cost by adding to rents across the board — even to tenants without parking.” Seattle Times
- Kevin December 29, 2018 (6:53 pm)
  
  Rent is driven by supply and demand. Parking construction cost is a red herring. If you believe otherwise, you’re either getting a piece of the cut or in serious need of an Econ 101 class.
  - Glass House December 29, 2018 (8:25 pm)
    
    So in this case, 37 units times $35,000 at one parking space per unit = $1,295,000.00And a million-plus dollar ‘red herring’ would have no effect on the Econ 101 supply vs. demand curve?I only wish I were getting a piece of that cut!

Mj December 29, 2018 (9:02 am)

I want to know from the detractors their angst against the project? The apartments are more affordable to rent and being next to frequent transit facilitates lower car ownership rates.And I am with Jon that street parking should be monetized, not everyone is well served by transit. All Seattle residents should be allowed to park on the street throughout the City. The only areas that should be time restricted are commercial areas where customer turnover is desired, not residential areas.

NE to PNW December 29, 2018 (9:24 am)

What if….no one could park on the street….even if you lived on that street….overnight?!?!?!Anyone ever live in Providence RI….The entire city has an overnight parking ban. Granted…the entire city parking restriction is only from two am to five am…. Everyone squeezes the cars into driveways or parking lots and garages. Seems to work….there.

WSB December 29, 2018 (11:23 am)

Interesting. I just looked that up. It appears they’ve changed the law and instead, the city is more like an RPZ – you can apply for a permit.
http://www.providenceri.gov/public-works/overnight-parking/
Glass House December 29, 2018 (11:33 am)

Anyone ever drive around Fauntleroy near the ferry dock? The city caved in to the neighborhood’s demands after Vashon/Southworth commuters wstarted keeping cars parked there to avoid car ferry fees and waits. Now with a RPZ that few homeowners pony up to pay, the street parking is always available.
Pete December 29, 2018 (12:21 pm)

Providence, RI parking ban….what are you talking about?!? It’s called a parking permit, any vehicles below 6500lbs (which is most vehicles, e.g. a 4Runner is less than 6500).The Permit @ $100 each (resident), $200 (non-resident) & two vehicles per household..you can also get a guest pass if you live only occasionally park or visit PVD. So what parking ban are you referring to?
- WSB December 29, 2018 (1:45 pm)
  
  Researching this further (hadn’t heard of it, and have only visited RI very briefly, a quick drive-through 30+ years ago):
  
  The first paragraph here mentions an 82-year ban on overnight parking (since ended by the permit program)
  http://thefederalhillgazette.com/sign-up-for-overnight-parking-in-providence/

Eric December 29, 2018 (10:22 am)

Here is a link to your story from last month about the city removing about 80 parking spots on Avalon Way https://westseattleblog.com/2018/11/followup-sdots-new-information-on-how-avalon-35th-alaska-repaving-and-rechannelization-will-change-parking/hahahaha not funny, great work city planners!

Joe December 29, 2018 (1:17 pm)

I live on 32nd Ave SW. There’s plenty of excess parking at the north end, dozens of spots that are unused 90% of the time. They only get used on weekdays when people park and ride the C-line to downtown. The whole parking argument is silly anyway, this is an urban village and will eventually be walking distance from the Avalon/35th light rail station. There shouldn’t be any street parking on arterials like Avalon. It’s a nice spot to live since you get the benefits of West Seattle while still having good transit access to the rest of the city. Makes perfect sense to add density here.

Glass House December 29, 2018 (8:28 pm)

When all is said and done about vehicle storage, I rather appreciate the design and do already enjoy the look of the proposed building.

Seaspade December 29, 2018 (11:18 pm)

I think the principle here is – if a developer is going to create 78 new residences, they should either create the parking spaces for them, or pay an appropriate fee commensurate with the impact they’re creating on existing facilities (parking, transit or otherwise). It’s pretty clear at this point that developers have gotten a sweetheart deal from the city while we residents pick up the tab – quite literally as I just paid the $400 ST3 bill for a very pedestrian 2016 Subaru Forester. Anything in the name of affordable housing – just wonder what the quid pro quo is (not really).

AlkiMark December 29, 2018 (11:22 pm)

I d go for no street parking IF it was enforced equally to the derelict RVs. However I saw this on the Alki strip about 15 years ago when the city complained about the parking for a short time. Residents converted their front yard to parking strips. Is that what we want?

Susan December 30, 2018 (6:17 pm)

According to SPD records, car prowlers target cars on the street much more often than cars parked in driveways or carports/garages. Increasing on-street parking density speaks to increased car prowls. The City has made NO provision for beefing up police presence to address increasing traffic or crime. Go figure. Perhaps if we just don’t talk about it, it won’t happen?

Sorry, comment time is over.