DEVELOPMENT: See proposed ‘early design’ for apartments at 9038 21st SW

That rendering from Atelier Drome Architecture is part of the “early design” proposal for 9038 21st SW [map], an apartment building planned for rapidly redeveloping South Delridge. It’s on a site that’s been upzoned from single-family to lowrise. We first mentioned the plan last September. Now it’s going through the city’s Streamlined Design Review process, which means public comments are accepted but no public meeting will be held. As part of that, the design packet is available (90 MB document). The plan is for a 3-stories-plus-basement building with about 24 apartments, no offstreet vehicle-parking spaces (none are required because of transit proximity), 24 long-term bicycle-parking spaces. The formal notice isn’t out yet but if you have comments on the project, send them to

21 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: See proposed 'early design' for apartments at 9038 21st SW"

  • Just wondering June 7, 2021 (1:04 pm)

    So 24 apartments with 24 bycycle-parking spaces but no off street parking for cars? Yeah right!

    • WSB June 7, 2021 (1:23 pm)

      The bicycle spaces are required by the city. Car parking is not.

    • Frog June 7, 2021 (3:16 pm)

      Speaking of just wondering — how do they plan to squeeze 24 apartments into a lot that currently has a single family house?  Answer:  most of them are micro-apartments around 350 SF, with six apartments on a basement level with very little light.  But they meet city code regarding provision of built-in fluoxetine dispensers.  (Ha ha, just kidding about that part.)

  • John June 7, 2021 (2:08 pm)

    Parking be damned, I think it looks cheap and ugly from the renderings in the packet.  

  • AMD June 7, 2021 (3:08 pm)

    Thank goodness they didn’t add car storage.  Other apartments in the area have parking lots that are never more than half full.  You don’t need a car to live in South Delridge, and it will make these units more affordable if they don’t include the unnecessary space.

    • skeeter June 7, 2021 (4:47 pm)

      Agree!  No new parking spaces.  There are way too many cars in West Seattle already.  We should be removing car parking, not adding it.  

    • East Coast Cynic June 8, 2021 (6:40 am)

      If one commutes to places far and wide outside of South Delridge, e.g., Eastside, Snohomish County, you do need one.  We don’t have light rail, yet, like people in Capitol Hill and like people in the U District and Northgate in the near future, that will get us to places beyond West Seattle in a timely fashion, so cars are necessary for many households.

      • Lagartija Nick June 8, 2021 (9:56 am)

        Cynic, two points: 1) I own a car and I rent, I would never even consider looking at a place that didn’t include off street parking. 2) I highly doubt that people who need to commute to Snohomish county are looking to rent in West Seattle. I am sure there are homeowners here who commute to the counties but renters have many more options that are closer and cheaper so the amount of people this affects is minimal and frankly they choose that burden.

        • Rick June 8, 2021 (11:10 am)

          I commuted from Roslyn for 3 years and Port Orchard for 12 years. 5 days a week. Reality. Ya gotta eat. Now I live a mile from work. Whoopee for me

        • East Coast Cynic June 8, 2021 (4:02 pm)

          A West Seattle renter may want to go to snohomish county for things other than work, e.g., Everett Junior Hockey and live music at the Everett arena, the casino that hosts comics and live music, and if it ever resumes post pandemic, female flat track roller derby in Edmonds-Jet City and Rat City.

  • Al King June 7, 2021 (4:40 pm)

    AMD. The other half are parked on the street.  The vast majority of renters there WILL  have cars as they won’t be living/ working/ shopping/recreating solely in s Delridge . Inconvenient truth for some but it is reality.

    • AMD June 7, 2021 (7:24 pm)

      So if they’re going to park on the street instead of the empty spaces in the parking lot, why do they need a parking lot?  I’m not sold on this “half empty parking lots are better than housing” theory you’re running with here.  (Also, I live in this neighborhood.  I know what I’m talking about,  and those cars do not belong to the people in the apartments–since we’re discussing inconvenient truths.)

      • Rick June 8, 2021 (11:14 am)

        Yes, take people’s choices away. It will make their lives so much better.

  • Kram June 7, 2021 (5:22 pm)

    Noooooooooo! Not MORE housing! We need less housing, not more of it people! We also need parking for EVERY car so rent can be as expensive as possible to pay for it! Less housing that is more expensive. That’s the winning formula for solving our cities housing problems. Why can’t we just have a single family house for every person? /s

    • Frog June 7, 2021 (6:17 pm)

      Finally some common sense.  It’s refreshing to see.  Lesser Seattle, that’s what I am for also.  All these newcomers from Texas and Joisey can move to Centralia.  It’s nice there and they have plenty of space for residences designed for human beings instead of rabbits.  By the way you made a typo — couple of extraneous characters at the end of your comment.

  • Al King June 7, 2021 (6:41 pm)

    KRAM. I take it tiny apartments or sedu’s are what people are really yearning for????  Are you lobbying the city to get these buildings put on your street??? Oh, if you do get rid of cars how do you propose to make up the lost tab and gas tax revenue?? Income tax? raise property tax(which will raise rent)???

    • Kram June 7, 2021 (9:20 pm)

      Wow Al, I’ll answer in order; some people are but SEDU’s make up a very small percent of apartments in this market. I live in a city, an apartment can go up in my street. Many of our current problems are due to the high amount of single family zoning. I don’t want to get rid of cars at all and don’t worry about losing tab or gas tax. Seattle has the second highest car ownership rate of major cities, even higher than LA.  Seattle is adding 15k – 20k people a year on average. Maybe it’s okay to have 24 small units be built (in place of a singe home) for people who may be okay with those or live experience based lives, not material ones. 

    • Ice June 7, 2021 (11:23 pm)

      Gas tax revenue? What are you talking about? The gas tax doesn’t even cover the basic road upkeep completely. If drivers were actually paying for maintaining and building new roads with the gas tax they’d be paying a lot more money.

      • KM June 8, 2021 (8:40 am)

        Ice gets it. It’s not uncommon that people don’t know how much their car habits are subsidized (hint: it’s much more than transit, biking or walking!)

      • skeeter June 8, 2021 (9:40 am)

        ICE is correct.  Gas tax revenue is very, very small.  The majority of SDOT’s revenue comes from property tax, sales tax, and B&O tax.  In fact, the Levy to Move Seattle is funded 100% by property tax and most of the spending goes towards roads.  Car drivers are being subsidized by pedestrians, transit riders, and bicyclists.  

  • Al King June 8, 2021 (11:22 am)

    So, sound transit would be fine without the car tab revenue? Brother in law retired from a long Metro career 10 years ago. At that time farebox revenue provided 10% of Metro’s revenue. The rest was “subsidized”. PLEASE understand that i DO “get it” More roads/parking lots will not be built. Alternate forms of transportation should be promoted.  My REAL annoyance is reading all the “we must restrict cars/parking ” comments from people that own/use cars when it works for them but think nobody else should have the same right. 

Sorry, comment time is over.