23 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: No-meeting Design Review for 4515 44th SW"

• NW August 31, 2020 (6:03 pm)

  Sure hope some serious effort goes into saving the beautiful mature maple tree. 

• workdownton August 31, 2020 (6:52 pm)

  37 units.  No parking? Why not? The bridge will be fixed some day!

  • Stevie J August 31, 2020 (8:16 pm)

    it’s close to frequent transit so no mandatory car storage is required. The more parking that is built results in more people driving in general. If you are concerned about traffic and climate change you should demand maximum parking requirements from the city council. 

  • Vic August 31, 2020 (8:18 pm)

    The C-Line a block away is my guess.

    • WSB August 31, 2020 (8:46 pm)

      The 128 also stops steps away on Oregon, too.

      • Vic September 1, 2020 (9:38 am)

        The elusive 128! A good route when you can catch it.

  • Matt P August 31, 2020 (9:05 pm)

    Much quicker to take the bus to downtown these days unless you cheat and take the lower bridge when you’re not supposed to.

    • Tsurly September 1, 2020 (8:28 am)

      Riding a bicycle is a piece of cake as well, particularly this time of year.

      • Also John September 1, 2020 (9:20 am)

        Riding a bike is definitely the way to get downtown.  25 minutes from the Alaska Junction to the Aquarium.  Super simple ride.  Even faster and easier with an electric bike.

• LuLuBelle August 31, 2020 (8:36 pm)

  Stevie J .  About a year ago there was an article here on the blog. A “no parking” building on Delridge was the focus. Turn’s out 90% of the renter’s owned cars. They simply parked wherever they could.  People didn’t move there because they didn’t want or need a car. They moved there because of the (relatively)cheap rent cost.  A good friend works just south of the junction. When a new apartment building was built  he noticed a BIG increase in car’s parked around it(made it hard for him to park close to work) The high cost of parking in the building had them parking where they could. Sure didn’t get them to sell-even with the bus stop right there.

  • Duffy September 1, 2020 (4:02 am)

    This is the reality but folks rarely look into it and developers are even more rarely on the hook to build parking. And why is the City still allowing microapartments? That is some fancy name they came up with…

  • AMD September 1, 2020 (8:51 am)

    I don’t think we should have our development criteria cater to the lowest common denominator.  We should not be asking the city to accommodate irresponsible car owners who don’t consider their car storage needs when looking for housing.  I’m okay with the city assuming that residents will be responsible with their cars and other belongings; I like to be treated like an adult.  When too many residents act irresponsibly and don’t find housing with the level of car storage they require, the city-provided car storage runs low.  And that’s a problem that’s pretty much limited to the people who don’t take responsibility for their own car storage anyway, so asking the city to accommodate bad decisions that only hurt the people making bad decisions is just not something I’m going to get behind.

  • Also John September 1, 2020 (9:25 am)

    There was an article here or in the Seattle Times a few years ago on the same subject.  The article focused on microapartments.   That article said 60+% of those living in microapartmets had vehicles that end up parked on the street.   The City thought those renting microapartmets wouldn’t have vehicles.

    • John W September 1, 2020 (10:32 am)

      Anecdotally,  on our 36th  Ave block solely of single family residences,  90% of the homes store vehicles on the street.  All of these SFRs have off-street parking but they also enjoy the same convenient free parking as those in new micro-units who choose to own vehicles. But that is different?There was another article in  The Seattle Times about a study that showed 40%  parking vacancy in Seattle apartments.  The required expensive parking stalls were empty.The city never thought nor expected all apartment dwellers without included parking would eschew vehicles.  The city did realize correctly that there is no future for the car culture we have become entitled to.  It is too late.  The road system is fully built out and far above capacity.  Change is our only option.  

  • Stevie J September 1, 2020 (1:59 pm)

    This sounds like a supply and demand problem. If the building management is charging $200/month for a parking spot, and the government is charging $0 (or $5.50/month if you are in an RPZ), why would an economical person pay the larger amount? If gasoline was being offered for $5/gallon, and next door it was $10/gallon, I imagine there would be a longer line at the first business. The city should charge market rates for street parking such that 15% of parking spots are always available, so that those willing to pay for a resource they use (just like we pay for gasoline, bread, electricity, etc) can always find a spot. This idea is based on the work of Donald Shoup, an urban planning professor at UCLA. You can read a bit about it here: https://transfersmagazine.org/2018/07/19/donald-shoups-three-parking-reforms/

• LK September 1, 2020 (8:22 am)

  Stevie J, that’s magical thinking; see Lulubelle’s comment above.  Building a 37 unit structure in a semi-residential area without parking is irresponsible on the developer’s part, and the city should demand better. As much as we all ought to taking advantage of public transport, cars aren’t going away.  Some of us are responsible for pets, elderly folks and have circumstances and/or disabilities that don’t always allow public transport to be the first option. That said, would rather ride a bike in the rain than the covid express to downtown.  

• John W September 1, 2020 (9:38 am)

  All of these complaints and anecdotal reports regarding street  parking shortages can easily be resolved by monetizing all street parking.  This would address all of our concerns about residents in apartments, mini/micro  housing taking up  on street parking.   No additional and expensive car storage would need be built into dwellings.  If people chose to own or are in the “must have” category  for car ownership and storage they would pay exactly  what the apartment dwellers do.  If you drive to work here and your employer does not provide off street parking why should the employer benefit by getting  free parking  for their employees?  The same goes for all of us homeowners who have filled our garages with stuff and feel entitled to free street parking in front of our homes.   People that chose to or have a “necessity” for vehicles should not be given free parking any more than the new apartment dwellers.  If you park it on the street, you pay.  That is fair to all and rates can  be demand driven like on express lanes.

• GAM September 1, 2020 (11:00 am)

  A box.   How creative.  

• vanessa September 1, 2020 (11:42 am)

  Is this from the magazine from my kid’s dentist’s office, where you’re supposed to find the differences in one picture from the next?

• John W September 1, 2020 (12:54 pm)

  A box, how efficient!

• 1994 September 1, 2020 (10:35 pm)

  I like Option A. Denial that people residing in this building will not have cars will get us no where but  clogged streets with bumper to bumper parked cars. Where will the residents guests or service providers park? Better to have the cars parked off the street for many reasons. 

  • John W September 2, 2020 (9:15 am)

    There is no denial that people in this building will not have cars.  There is also no denial that some people may not have cars.Our streets are already clogged beyond capacity.  Building more storage for an anachronistic vehicle is just burying our heads in the sand.  As soon as lift our heads, emerge from our garages, we are gridlocked.

    • 1994 September 2, 2020 (8:50 pm)

      WS streets are only clogged, at times, since the WS bridge was shut down. Otherwise getting around by car is fine. 

Sorry, comment time is over.