DEVELOPMENT: 2 South Delridge mixed-use projects get Design Review Board dates

Coming up at online meetings of the Southwest Design Review Board, 2 South Delridge projects less than a block apart:

(Sketch from 9201 Delridge meeting packet by Atelier Drome)

9201 DELRIDGE WAY SW: Four months ago, we reported on the latest changes for this site – a new developer, new architect, and new plan. The current plan, described as “a 5-story, 71-unit apartment building with retail” and no offstreet vehicle parking, will go before the SWDRB at 4 pm Thursday, October 1st. This is the Early Design Guidance phase, so discussion will focus on the “massing” (size/shape) and other basic comments. The meeting packet is already online, here; details on how to attend the meeting (and how to comment) are here.

(Rendering from 9218 18th SW draft meeting packet by Caron Architecture)

9218 18TH SW: Two weeks later – at 4 pm Thursday, October 15th – the board will get its first look at this similar-size project, described as “a 5-story, 59-unit apartment building with [~5.242 square feet of] retail” and 25 offstreet vehicle-parking spaces. We first mentioned the plan for this site six months ago. The draft meeting packet is already online. Connection information for the meeting will appear here within a few weeks.

24 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: 2 South Delridge mixed-use projects get Design Review Board dates"

  • Jenny September 14, 2020 (6:47 am)

    No offstreet parking for a 71 unit building with retail?? Please tell me this won’t be approved. 25 spaces for 59 units is bad enough. The greed is out of control.

    • AMD September 14, 2020 (11:30 am)

      These buildings are walking distance from the 120 (soon to be RapidRide), the 125, the 60, the 128, the 560, and a slightly longer walk to the C Line.  That means from here you can take a single bus to get: downtown, the airport, Bellevue, Renton, First Hill hospitals, Broadway, South Park, the Admiral District, the WS Junction, South Seattle College, the Fauntleroy Ferry Terminal, Southcenter Mall, Lincoln Park, and Beacon Hill (to name a few).  You’re also walking distance to Westwood Village and downtown White Center.  As I’ve said before, this location is a GODSEND to people who don’t want to drive or own cars.  Please don’t make them pay more to live here by including car storage that is legitimately unnecessary.  Put that energy towards encouraging your car-owning neighbors to live somewhere that isn’t so walk-friendly and includes car storage.  Plenty of those places exist already.

      • East Coast Cynic September 14, 2020 (12:28 pm)

        The prospective tenants that like to drive their campers/suv’s out to the woods to hike and camp will either avoid it or hose the minimally available street parking.

        • AMD September 14, 2020 (1:41 pm)

          The Trailhead Direct bus connects to the 128 in Tukwila, so you can get to numerous hiking destinations with a single bus transfer from this location.  It really is a phenomenal location for people who prefer not to drive.  

  • DRW September 14, 2020 (8:38 am)

    Five story, 71 unit apartment building with no off street parking. Let that sink in.

    • WSB September 14, 2020 (9:43 am)

      None is required, nor is it for the other one, though they’re choosing to include some.

  • John W September 14, 2020 (9:53 am)

    Why so much expensive anachronistic vehicle storage? And why do people who of course park exclusively in their own garages have reason to complain?Do they support the solution or do they just complain?  The solution being  monetizing all street parking.

    • KM September 14, 2020 (4:29 pm)

      They don’t park exclusively in their own garages. They use those for storage, man caves, playrooms, art studios, home gyms, etc. They park their cars on the public street they think they own in front of their houses while chastising renters for doing the same. And they think it should be free because they’re homeowners, and renters are the stress on our infrastructure, not them. 

  • Jon Wright September 14, 2020 (10:39 am)

    “The greed is out of control” is code for “I don’t want to have to share the public right-of-way where I park MY car for free.”

    • Joseph September 14, 2020 (12:02 pm)

      You obviously don’t live (and park) around there. It means 71 to 142+ new residents parking their cars, trucks, and SUVs in front of homes and businesses that have been there for decades. It means blocked residential driveways, more congestion, and lost business as small retail customers give up on trying to find parking and start spending elsewhere. 

      • heartless September 14, 2020 (7:17 pm)


        Funny.  I thought you were vehemently opposed to the government telling us what we can and can’t do.  

        Now you want the government to dictate what can and can’t be built?  

        Bit of a discrepancy there my friend.  

    • Jenny September 14, 2020 (12:13 pm)

      No. The public right of way doesn’t seem like a reasonably sustainable choice for 71 residents to keep their vehicles daily while also allowing for retail parking. Does it?

  • JRR September 14, 2020 (10:57 am)

    Really glad to see something going into all these spaces, but also really wishing affordable options that fit the neighborhood were mandatory. Watching things change while recapitulating marginalization and the ongoing displacement are both very disheartening.

  • skeeter September 14, 2020 (12:19 pm)

    I’m glad we’re building higher-density residential in this area.  Folks will be able to use the new Rapidride transit offered in the Delridge Corridor.  For those folks complaining about lack of parking at these projects – have you lost your mind?  Our traffic is horrible and you want *more* parking spaces???  If it was up to me we’d make offstreet parking spaces illegal in new construction and we’d start removing free street parking.  I am tired of waiting in traffic.  I want fewer cars, not more cars.

    • spooled September 14, 2020 (7:08 pm)

      Fewer cars starts with fewer people.  This city needs to get over its density fetish.  We’re at reasonable population capacity in many neighborhoods.  Quality of life goes down for everyone the more people get crammed into a limited area.

      • heartless September 15, 2020 (7:58 am)


        I understand where you are coming from, and some of your points make sense at a surface level–but you’re mostly wrong.

        Fewer cars doesn’t start with fewer people.  For one, the number of cars  tends to correlate much more with income level than number of people in a household.  That spins out in this manner: families with lots of kids, for example, tend to have less disposable income, less money to spend on cars, and thus have fewer vehicles.  Smaller families tend to have more income, more disposable income, more money for cars.

        As for quality of life going down as density goes up…  May I ask, first, why you feel this way?  I feel quite different, and here are some of the reasons why: higher density means better access to public transit.  It means people are more likely to live near amenities such as libraries, bookstores, restaurants, schools, parks.  It means they tend to have better access to healthcare and emergency services.  I view all of these as considerable increases to quality of life…  Don’t you?

  • J September 14, 2020 (12:28 pm)

    There are lot of affordable older apartment buildings around here. Sometimes multiple adults living in one unit so while these older apartments have parking, some residence rely on available street parking for their cars because there are 2 or 3 adults per household. Some of my neighbors work night shifts or service and trade jobs that require a car or make it very difficult to get to work, daycare, hospitals etc. without. When newer, more expensive housing goes in with no parking, it can be one part of gentrification that pushes out people who can’t afford places with parking or garages. Many of my friends have moved further south for this reason and now spend 1.5 hours in highway traffic driving to work sites. Everyone complaining isn’t a homeowner with a private driveway. I sometimes think there should be street parking priority permits for low income parents, trade workers who carry tools, service workers who work odd shifts etc. That way, these groups won’t be pushed out by the lack of available parking when neighborhoods get denser. The last thing we need is the people who have to drive everyday for work spending hours on highways creating more congestion and pollution because they can’t live closer due to loss of parking options. They aren’t in the same position as people who, for example, are leaving their crossovers on the street unmoved for 6 days in a row because they only drive to hiking spots on Saturdays. 

  • Peter S. September 14, 2020 (2:37 pm)

    To AMD and others who think not requiring any off-street parking for this new development is a great idea, you are ignoring the reality that some, many, or perhaps even most of the prospective tenants will have at least one vehicle requiring parking somewhere.  In this case, it will be on the street, which will make it more difficult for EVERYONE in the neighborhood. The city is letting developers get away on the cheap. That is the referenced greed.   I’d be totally down with this if tenancy was contingent on NOT owning a car, but I’m not seeing that.   For those who can or choose to not own a car, completely rely on a bicycle or e-bike, etc,  I say congratulations and more power to you.  I’m honestly glad it works for you and the positive impact you’re making on the environment.  However, it’s not an option for many of us.  Regarding the Trailhead Direct bus connection:  curious how long it takes to get to one of the supported trailheads (and back), with the required bus transfer from West Seattle?  Although a great idea, It only goes to four of the more close-in trails and all of the easily accessible trails have been completely slammed with folks desperate to get out during COVID.  So much for social distancing.  Then add any concerns one might have with utilizing public transportation right now.

    • AMD September 14, 2020 (6:02 pm)

      I live in this neighborhood.  I’m well aware of the parking implications.  I still believe people who own cars should make responsible decisions about their housing that includes a plan to house their cars off-street.  There is plenty of housing that includes car storage for those who are not in a position to give up their cars.  Car owners are not in danger of being unable to find housing if this building exists without included car storage.   I do not believe the city should revise its code to accommodate car owners who do not make responsible choices when looking for housing.  People without cars do exist and deserve housing options that do not require them to pay extra for car storage they don’t need.  Side note: these units won’t be complete for at least a few years, so whatever the COVID and bridge situation are now, the situation will be wildly different when they’re done so those arguments aren’t really useful.

  • Joe Z September 14, 2020 (10:00 pm)

    One of my friends was looking for a studio/microhousing apt in West Seattle without car parking (he doesn’t own a car) and he couldn’t find anything available. It’s quite popular. 

  • John W September 15, 2020 (10:11 am)

    J seems to be making an unintentional argument for monetized parking when they somehow connect free street parking with gentrification.  Those weekend warriors with SUV taking up street parking and forcing working people with vehicle needing jobs that also expect to park free on the street to move an hour and a half away?  Simple, just monetize the street parking which would include enforcement of parking all week for the weekend which is already banned in the 72 hour limit.That way the workers requiring vehicles can park on the street, for a fee.  This would solve the street parking problem, but would not address the lack of any affordable housing.  The older affordable apartments are no longer affordable either, as rising property values and taxes always lead to rent increases.  

    • heartless September 15, 2020 (11:30 am)


      I think that monetizing street parking is not only a decent solution to many of these concerns, but also one of the only possible solutions.  That policy would address many of the concerns expressed in this comment section.  Well put.

  • skeeter September 15, 2020 (11:53 am)

    John W of course you are right.  If the city started charging money for street parking it would solve a lot of our problems.  It would also allow developers to use economics when deciding whether to include off- street parking or not.  As it is right now there is a huge market distortion because it’s hard to justify building expensive off-street parking spaces when the city is giving away car storage for free.  

  • Chris K September 16, 2020 (11:14 am)

    I always get a kick out of the car loving comments on these development posts.

Sorry, comment time is over.