FOLLOWUP: Comment time for new 79-unit Lam Bow Apartments proposal

(‘Preferred’ massing option, from project packet by SMR Architects)

As first reported here two weeks ago, the Seattle Housing Authority has a new plan for the Lam Bow Apartments at 6935/6955 Delridge Way SW. Instead of just replacing the building destroyed in a 2016 fire, they’re going to demolish the remaining building too, and build a new ~79-unit building – almost 30 more apartments than the two original buildings had. The project is going through Administrative Design Review, and the design packet is now online for your review and comment (see it here, 68 pages, PDF). This is the Early Design Guidance phase, so the packet shows massing (size/shape/placement on site) options and lists these project goals:

• Replace the 21 units lost in the October 2016 fire and increase the total number of units on the site.
• Create a mixed-income community with units serving residents at or below 30% of Area Median Income (AMI) and 60% of AMI.
• Increase the supply of affordable homes, especially larger apartments (2BD+) for families with children. Our target unit count and mix is:
1-Bedroom Units: 22
2-Bedroom Units: 42
3-Bedroom Units: 15
Total Units: 79

One note – today’s notice published by the city erroneously refers to it as a 50-unit project, which it was previously, but we’ve confirmed with SHA that was a error by the Department of Construction and Inspections. The notice explains how to comment in this stage of Design Review – deadline April 8th.

4 Replies to "FOLLOWUP: Comment time for new 79-unit Lam Bow Apartments proposal"

  • Also John March 25, 2019 (2:51 pm)

    Wow….. Is that a parking lot my eyes are seeing?  It’s like a Coelacanth;  alive…extinct…and now back again.

    • WSB March 25, 2019 (2:55 pm)

      As described in our first report, linked in the story, underground parking would add too much cost to the project, SHA says, so they are proposing surface parking instead.

      • Matt P March 25, 2019 (8:39 pm)

        Why not a multi level above ground garage?   Then they could add more units.  Seems like a waste of space otherwise.

      • John March 26, 2019 (9:33 am)

        SHA just confirms the often disputed reports of the high cost of providing car storage within a structure.  Here that cost results in something a private developer  could not afford to do.  And the results are less density, more hard surface (concrete) and less green.  Unfortunate legacy.

Sorry, comment time is over.