DEVELOPMENT: 4 notes, including another project site for sale

4 development-related notes today:

REMINDER – CONCRETE POUR AT 1250 ALKI: As previewed here, traffic is down to one lane, alternating, past the 1250 Alki SW condo project today.

Thanks to Lynn Hall (top photo) and Stewart L. (second photo) for sending pics of the big pouring operation that’s under way.

Meantime – another redevelopment site has gone up for sale:

MICROAPARTMENT PROJECT SITE FOR SALE: The 22-microapartment plan for 4807 41st SW – just south of Jefferson Square – got key approvals last year. Now, though, it’s on the market as a “planned/permitted” development site, listed for just under $1.5 million.

TOWNHOUSE PROPOSAL: From the most-recent city Public Notices Summary, eight townhouses on two adjacent sites, 9238 20th SW and 9240 20th SW, are in Streamlined Design Review – click the addresses for the notices. Deadline for comments: August 10th.

NEW CITY MAP: The city has upgraded its Shaping Seattle map, which you can use to find out more about building/land-use activity. It’s explained here.

12 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: 4 notes, including another project site for sale"

  • Rick July 28, 2020 (1:41 pm)

    Maybe if we could get all of these concrete trucks on the West Seattle Bridge at the same time we could just finish it off and expedite the replacement. Or the “death of a thousand cuts” strategy. 

    • Bill July 29, 2020 (8:05 pm)

      Or the death of “how many truck drivers”?

  • Stevie J July 28, 2020 (4:27 pm)

    I was curious why the “22-microapartment plan for 4807 41st SW” plan didn’t involve another nearby property. 4807 41st Ave SW is 0.13 acres, and it seems like they could have expanded to the parcel to the south to maximize efficiency. However, I looked at the zoning data in GIS, and it seems the zoning goes from Low-rise 2 to SFH just to the south of the 4807 41st Ave SW parcel. This is ridiculous. Apartments should be legal on every residential parcel in the city.

    People shouldn’t be excluded from neighborhoods because they aren’t able to afford a single-family home. I once lived in a beautiful 33-unit brick building built in the 1930s that is on a 0.23 acre lot. Every neighborhood should have a few of these on every block. The city would be a much better place if we could have more neighbors to keep an eye on the street and frequent our local businesses, and start businesses of their own if the apartment buildings are allowed to have ground-level retail and dining. 

    • Anne July 29, 2020 (9:05 am)

      No

    • Paradise July 29, 2020 (9:34 am)

      My lot is 0.37 acres & my closest neighbor is 100 yards away, I can barely see their houses this time of year.  The variety of wildlife that I enjoy in my yard is amazing, from barred owls to raccoons & opossum.  We especially enjoy the robins & other birds taking baths in the two streams that run thru our property.

      Multi-family dwellings are necessary in a large, growing city but not everyone wants to live in a concrete jungle & not every neighborhood needs apartment buildings.

  • Bummer July 28, 2020 (4:50 pm)

    I was hoping the micro-apartments on 41st was cancelled.  That location is already bumper to bumper parking on both sides.   The Safeway employees and all the apartment dwellers use that section of 41st.

    • MW July 28, 2020 (10:50 pm)

      Life in the Covid era has changed how micro-apartments are seen.  Working at home, limitations on places to go, having to stay home a lot means you  need more space at home to set up your office, workout space,  etc.  Micro-apts are essentially sleeping cells, meant for living outside of them.   They don’t work well under the last several months’ conditions  and I pity anyone who got stuck in one when the restrictions and closures hit.   I can’t imagine developer interested in such a project now. Unless, idk, they turn them into little air-bnbs?

      • J July 29, 2020 (10:57 am)

        Speaking for myself, I am downsizing from our 3,000 sq ft house and 9,000 sq ft lot  in Gatewood to a 421 sq ft studio apartment on California Ave.  I have long proselytized on WSB in support of density and now being single with our daughter in college, I am facing the reality.   We too, have long enjoyed sound, mountain and tree views with incredible privacy.  Now our formerly wide-screen views have been grown away by “exceptional” trees.   Our home has 40% tree coverage and our adjoining 10,600 sq ft lot is covered with 90% tree coverage. I feel it is not viable or environmentally responsible for one or two people to inhabit our home, even if they can afford it.  The fact that 19,600 sq ft of the city is taken up by one home is indicative of the challenges of urbanization and West Seattle’s tradition of SFRs.  Nevertheless we will be selling to the highest offer.

  • Rico July 29, 2020 (9:26 am)

     Micro apartments are for developer profits, nothing else.  Study and study has shown those living  in these units are in transition –  temporary housing until they move on.   Residents have no investment in the local neighborhoods  The units are literally smaller than a prison cell and are dehumanizing.    There should be a  minimum unit size statute.  

  • Rick July 29, 2020 (12:01 pm)

    I like the concept of “sleeping lockers” that was proposed years ago.  I mean, that’s all ya really need, right? Because if you own a home that you have built and have a family, you are evil, right?  Spoiled little brats.

  • j July 29, 2020 (3:49 pm)

    Incredible is the need for homeowners to decry small, efficient  apartments in this changing world.  Since they choose to live in larger, more environmentally detrimental homes with many underutilized rooms and  large yards covered with lawns, they are insulted that others may be more concerned about our environment.These units they complain about are some of the lowest cost per unit  and actually available.  So what if they are rented by some in transition and others for cost and others for efficiency and a smaller carbon footprint?  Some drive cars which Seattle’s subsidized street parking for all accommodates (just like all of the SFRs that park on the street).  What’s the problem?

    • Alkimark July 30, 2020 (8:39 pm)

      The neighborhood integrity is what the locals want to preserve.  But with no bridge this is a moot point the micro apt. Biz case fails. Glad I’m not an investor….

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.