(Photos via King County Assessor’s Office)
Just filed with the city, an early-stage plan for an 8-story apartment building to replace those two houses at 3010 and 3014 SW Avalon Way. The site plan shows a proposal with 87 apartments, 78 off-street spaces for bicycles, no off-street parking for cars. Since it’s an early-stage plan, that’s all the detail on the document, which is by architecture firm Studio 19.
No one I know who commutes via bike will store their bike outside of their house/condo/apartment. Their bikes are too valuable to risk being stolen or parts being removed. No off-street parking is crazy. I guess they assume people will use the parking under the bridge.
Even if the developer put in off-street parking, the relatively new city parking ordinance requires the parking spot be priced separately from the apartment. I would expect most renters would look to the neighborhood to accommodate their cars instead of paying the landlord for an offstreet spot.
Exactly. Mine was stolen from my apartment’s “secured” garage not far from this proposed development.
Annoyance over bike parking in new, multi-family housing is one of my favorite concern troll posts on this website. Are we not building structures now because someone might break into them? Does this apply to Garages? Sheds? Driveways? Or is it really just secured bike parking that shouldn’t be built so we can…build secured car parking? I guess cars don’t get stolen.
Alex is right. Most-if not all of the renters will have a car. They will simply park as near as they can. Resident’s who live around this building can expect to see a lot of new car’s in the ‘hood. I’m also certain these renters will have friends and family that visit. I’m betting the vast majority,if not all of them will drive.
Hopefully those residents aka homeowners have a driveway in which to park their vehicles. If they don’t, or they don’t have enough rom for all of their vehicles, that’s on them. Renters have as much right to the street parking as us homeowners.
That’s cool. I’ll be buying a beater or two to hold my parking spot(s) on the street during the day near my house.
That’s cool. Please let us know how that works out for you. Just make sure to be a law abiding citizen and move your junk every 72 hours.
You’d think they’d at least match the bike spaces to the number of units?
Why? Apartments can house more than one person. With no car parking it makes sense to have room for everyone to have a bicycle, they are going to need it. Matching parking to number of possible tenants seems reasonable.
The site plan hyperlink is directing us to a photo of the house.
That’s a lot of street parking, just like all of the other buildings right next door. Of course none of these new renters are going to have cars…
Not sure if it’s just me, but the ‘site plan’ link leads to a copy of the 2nd photo in the story
Anything happening with the forgotten former church in the next block across the street?
Nope, absolutely nothing in the files for that address except periodic complaints (most recently for overgrowth)…
Who cares if these buildings don’t have parking? If someone wants off-street parking then wouldn’t said person rent somewhere else? Are folks upset that cars would be parked on a public street? Please advise.
RR, exactly right! I rent and have to own a car for my job and I would never even look at a place that didn’t have parking. And yes, a good chunk of the commenters here are deeply troubled that anyone would park on a public street (especially in front of their residence).
So weird. That’s really the issue here? “I parked on the street before you moved here, so you can’t”? I think there must be more to this.
RR, it’s really not that mysterious. It’s basic supply and demand and the knowledge based on experience and common sense that the demand will grow with more residential units and the supply will not be adequate. And we know by our traffic woes that many people moving into the newer residences in West Seattle have cars.
As long as the city gives away street parking for free there’s very little chance developers are going to build expensive off-street parking spaces. If you really want off-street parking to be economically viable you need to convince the city to start charging money for street parking.
Yes! We need to be charging fair market rate for street parking. Or using that space for transportation. Giving away this valuable space for free, private storage is insane.
I know a lot about developing commercial real estate, just as all of you do, and let me tell you, nothing sways big design decisions like wacky internet commenters talking about street parking rights and car elevators. Talk to us when we can park an Airstream in the spot and rent it out to hipster urbanoids.
Jethro, you know about as much about developing commercial real estate as the hobby developer who built a small apartment complex next door during the recent housing boom. The first time I called the city on him, his brother-in-law was trying to break out solid concrete basement walls with a front loader. And it just got worse from there. I wish everyone living next to new construction the best of luck during the next earthquake.
I thought there was a minimum number of off-street spots required for buildings above a certain size.
In a “frequent transit” zone – and this certainly is, right on the C Line – there is no minimum parking requirement.
Yes it’s a frequent transit zone that is missing nearby commercial businesses in particular a grocery store.
I can appreciate your thinking outside the box! This new proposed development is on the c line which takes you right up to Alaska & Fauntleroy to Trader Joe’s & Whole Foods for grocery stores …go another 3 blocks & you have access to QFC & Safeway plus a plethora of other foodstuffs (Bakery Nouveau, Husky Deli etc). Am sure y’all have heard of climate change. Its real, it’s here. Get out of your car or better yet, get rid of your car (eliminates that frustration of street parking, potential cost of that parking, your concern about the stuff in your neighbors garage that forces them to park on the street etc, no car expenses: payments, insurance, gas, maintenance). It’ll reduce your carbon footprint, the stress of sitting in traffic & you’ll get healthy(ier) (walking, riding a bike), meet your neighbors, discover your neighborhood. People are simplifying, and getting more enjoyment out of their lives without that albatross called a car. These new developments without car parking are good for the future state of our environment & our well being overall. (I gave up my car 10 years ago & if really need one, I use a car service, UBER/LYFT, Zipcar). I’m of the “baby-boomer” generation (i.e. no spring chicken but I identify as a formerly corporate cog, modified “tree hugger”) & am doing what I can to leave this earth a better place for future generations. The “me” generation is over. It’s evolved to “us”. Lets look at the big picture & take care of all.
I’m not sure that being off RR route in itself should be the only reason to allow no parking. Other items like proximity to businesses, restaurants and grocery need to be factored in. A person living at the Junction for example can more easily forego a car because everything is right there.
There are 7 grocery stores within biking distance of this spot but I would never bike to a single one of them due to a lack of safe biking infrastructure. It’s sad.
Avalon —> 36th—->Alaska Lots of folks ride this daily, including myself. With the new bike lane on Avalon, relatively low traffic on 36th, and a bus lane bikes can use on Alaska, this is a pretty bike-friendly route to get you where you need to go.
Re: biking to Junction. I see people doing it but you have to cut over 2 lanes of traffic and make a dangerous left with cars coming quickly around the bend. Doesn’t feel safe to me. Also not safe to bike on California Ave. Or Fauntleroy. Or 35th. Basically all the roads that lead to places you might want to go. Not sure what disabled people have to do with this…if you get able-bodied folks like me out of their cars then it opens up space for those who actually need cars.
Joe Z,Even if there were decent biking infrastructure, biking is not an option for disabled people and many older senior citizens.
*some* disabled people. There are people with disabilities who are not able to drive and use bikes (and feet) for transportation. There are a broad range of disabilities. Biking is still an option for many, many people of all ages and abilities.
My father is a T4 paraplegic who fought with the local government of the town he lives in for years for them to make mobility improvements, including bike lanes, to the main road near his home. Since they’ve made these upgrades, entire parts of town have become far more accessible to him. Bike lanes help people with mobility issues immensely because they make the road safer for everyone. There is quite a bit of data to prove this. People with mobility challenges are the most vulnerable to dangerous roads so safety upgrades will help them the most. On top of that, when bike lanes are put in, the rest of the road is usually brought up to ADA standards with things like cut curbs, ETC. Bike lanes also provide a buffer from traffic and an extra bit of road to use if the sidewalk is compromised or otherwise unavailable. Bikes, wheelchairs, walkers and strollers should all be allies, not rivals, in the battle against dangerous streets and sidewalks.
What do y’all think happens in Capitol Hill and other older neighborhoods where there are buildings built before everyone had cars? When I rented, since I needed a parking space for my car, I didn’t look at places that couldn’t provide some sort of parking spot. And I made comparisons based on whether it was an outside spot or in a secure garage and what the extra cost of the space was. Why do so many commenters in West Seattle seem to think no one is capable of making rational economic decisions? If someone is fine with parking their car unsecured on the street, and remembering where, and moving it every 72 hours, that’s really NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
One thing that happened in Capitol Hill is that it got SO crowded and had so little on street parking that people were forced to drive around and around and around in circles waiting for someone to leave so they could park and go home. It sucked, it created even more crappy traffic, and some seriously frustrated residents. I remember people just giving up, double parking and not even caring if they were towed, it got that bad. Nobody will ever ride bikes in Seattle in any meaningful numbers. Bike commuting is declining in Seattle, and 2017 was a 10 year low for bike commuters. Fremont bridge bike counter has shown roughly the same numbers for like 6 years. This isn’t a biking city. It’s not going to be a biking city. Nobody here wants to ride a bike to work because it sucks. Nobody rides a bike for errands because it’s too hilly, wet, and cold. Biking will never be a viable transportation option for Seattle. Bike commuting is declining nation wide despite lots of money spent on more lanes, trails and improvements.
More recent data does not support your arguments: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-sees-nations-biggest-drop-in-solo-car-commuters-as-transit-walking-surge/?amp=1
KAI. So you use a car service. Hate to tell you but they are CAR’S. Driven by ONE person,looking to pick up one or two people, drive them someplace then drive around ALONE untill they pick someone else up. Explain how that help’s the “carbon footprint” how does it help traffic???? Why are’nt you suggesting they get rid of their car’s?
In the event you are looking for a serious answer: 1) reduces the number of cars needed in general by the population (less waste in the production and maintenance of vehicles and less physical space taken up on the road and parked on a daily basis), 2) reduces the carbon footprint because when NOT driving a carshare vehicle the individual is instead using some form of public transportation (shared transport is more efficient than solo transport), 3) reduces the number of used cars the world has to find ways to dispose of at the end of their life cycle, 4) reduces the need for parts and parts production which produce waste in their production and in the need to dispose of them after they are no longer usable. I’m sure there are even more ways but I think that’s probably enough to justify the argument that car share is a more environmentally sound choice than owning a car. (This opinion brought to you by a car owner.)
Sorry, comment time is over.
| 47 COMMENTS