DEVELOPMENT: 8-story apartment building moving ahead for 3010 SW Avalon Way

ORIGINAL SUNDAY REPORT: We first reported in November 2019 that an early-stage plan was on file for an 8-story, 78-unit apartment building at 3010 SW Avalon Way [map]. Three months later, an “early outreach” meeting was held. But nothing public happened with the proposal in the ensuing year and a half – until now, with the plan showing up on the city website for the “early design guidance” phase of Administrative Design Review. That means feedback mostly on massing – the building’s size and shape. Three options are proposed:

More early design details are in Studio 19 Architects‘ draft design packet uploaded to the city website (no direct link yet, so we downloaded it for access here – 73 MB file); all three massing options would have 78 apartments and four offstreet vehicle-parking spaces. If you have feedback, the assigned city planner is Theresa is where to send comments.

ADDED MONDAY: Today’s Land Use Information Bulletin included the formal notice that a two-week comment period is open for Early Design Guidance – here it is.

37 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: 8-story apartment building moving ahead for 3010 SW Avalon Way"

  • Auntie August 22, 2021 (5:56 pm)

    Four parking spaces for 78 units? Why bother with any at all? (unless they are designated handicapped spots)

  • Al King August 22, 2021 (6:56 pm)

    I can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE  more than 4 tenants will have cars. Probably more like 75+ will. 

  • Mike August 22, 2021 (7:01 pm)

    Another tear in the urban fabric.  70 more vehicles looking for a place to park.  

    • Jay August 23, 2021 (10:36 am)

      This isn’t the final design, make a public comment to Theresa that large developments need offstreet parking.

  • Jtk August 22, 2021 (7:23 pm)

    WOW… its literally no wonder the WS Bridge is broken… ridiculous …. WS used to be awesome 10 years ago, now its just over populated like downtown is….. sad really.. 

    • wsresident August 23, 2021 (7:50 am)

      This is absolutely not true, in downtown Seattle proper probably a two mile radius, there are close to 100k people. In West Seattle which includes; 98116, 23. 36, 46 (yes four zip codes) there are around 80k and that is probably minimum minimum 100 square miles. 

      • WSB August 23, 2021 (9:45 am)

        West Seattle also includes part of 98106 (as well as all of three that you mentioned, 98116, 98126, 98136, and part of the fourth you mentioned, 98146). Waiting for the new census data but we have been quoting WS at ~100,000 for years.

        • Kb August 23, 2021 (5:27 pm)

          Thanks for adding our zip code. As usual, people who now race through Highland Park and SW Seattle neighborhoods to get to the 1st Ave Bridge and back again can’t even be bothered to consider them part of the larger community. 

  • StopCuttingDownTrees August 22, 2021 (7:25 pm)

    Oh, well. Those 100+ residents will just park in front of other residences, in the Habit Burger and Taco Time lots, etc. I guess they can all arm wrestle each other to see who wins those 4 covered spots.

    • S.A. August 23, 2021 (12:08 pm)

      More opportunities for the catalytic converter theft brigades!

  • Just wondering August 22, 2021 (7:36 pm)

    Only 4 off street parking spaces?  Really?

  • Sue T. August 22, 2021 (8:09 pm)

    According to the circulation maps on page 9 of the proposal, West Seattle Blog is main owner or  main tenant of a  building on SW Yancy Street, a few blocks east of Avalon Way.  When did that happen?

    • WSB August 22, 2021 (8:25 pm)

      No, we’re not an owner or tenant of anything (besides our house in Upper Fauntleroy). Our mail drop for all 14 years of running WSB has been at what used to be Stor-Mor and is now LifeStorage (Yancy just east of Avalon), so I’d assume that’s what you’re looking at. – TR

  • West Seattle Mad Sci Guy August 22, 2021 (8:28 pm)

    Is it implying that it will actually be yellow? Or does that symbolize something else?

    • WSB August 22, 2021 (8:57 pm)

      Those are massing renderings, size/shape, not anything remotely resembling final design details like materials and colors.

  • Joe Z August 22, 2021 (8:41 pm)

    I live a half block from this development and I do not care if people use the street parking in front of my house. Isn’t that the point of street parking, to park cars? And even if I did care, last time I checked I do not own the street that I live on. 

    • Jay August 23, 2021 (9:18 am)

      The issue is that it puts more pressure on street parking, and it saves the developer a relatively small amount of money to eliminate the parking garage while increasing long-term costs for the community dealing with parking issues. It’s not about one building and fifty cars, it’s about building codes and public policy and planning for 10-20 years down the road when density has increased dramatically and a couple thousand extra cars need spaces. We need to develop sustainably to avoid problems down the road. Letting the developer save a little money today isn’t worth the price kids today will have to pay dealing with our short-term planning decisions down the road. Urban development is a long game.

      • JohnW August 23, 2021 (10:48 am)

        Once again, Administrative Design Review  regards the proposed massing of the building and has no purview of parking places.But it is remarkable to describe $100,000 storage places for  the anachronistic  automobile as a “sustainable” solution  to Seattle’s street parking.The simple solution is to monetize all street parking.  Paid parking on all public streets would eliminate the need for people without cars to be paying for parking they don’t use and maintain parking availability.Any encouragement of vehicle ownership in a city with too many vehicles already is not sustainable, now or in the future.

        • Jay August 23, 2021 (12:52 pm)

          We’re over a generation or two away from having the type of transit that would support weekend recreation or casually traveling to other cities for the evening. Probably 50-70 years at the earliest. The idea that active people and families won’t need cars within the lifetime of these buildings is not realistic. If we design for the transit system we’ll have in 2070 or 2100, it’s going to create serious issues for people living here in the next fifty years. It’s not sustainable to keep putting pressure on street parking to force people to ditch their cars because the future where you don’t need a car is way further off than anti-car-ownership proponents claim. And I say that as a five day a week bike commuter who mountain bikes and hikes on the weekend. We need to discourage cars as the primary method of commuting of course, anti-car regulations all the way. But advocating that lower income people who will live in these new apartments condos ditch their cars ASAP while rich people enjoy their driveways and garages is not the way. This isn’t Seoul or Tokyo. West Seattle is suburban and the ONLY transit options for the next generation or two will only focus on commuting, not transit.

          • skeeter August 23, 2021 (2:51 pm)

            Jay, I agree with much of your post.  I think cars are really useful.  My family has a car and we enjoy using it.  But your statement:  “It’s not sustainable to keep putting pressure on street parking.”  I do not agree with that.  Right now there is plenty of free street parking all over West Seattle.  Once people get tired of having to walk too far to go between their car and their home they will move to a place with off-street parking.  Just look at other dense neighborhoods like Queen Anne and Capitol Hill.  People flock to those neighborhoods even though street parking is a hassle.   Developers know this.  

          • Joe Z August 23, 2021 (3:20 pm)

            Jay, you’re wrong. 20% of Seattle households do not own cars. They do not need parking. The city has done study after study to confirm this. The parking rules were created after years of public forums and debate. Everything that you could possibly need to live in a city is accessible from a 15-minute or less ride on the C-line from Avalon. It sounds like you only use your car to drive to the mountains on weekends. Some people do not drive places on weekends, they stay at home or enjoy local activities. I hope you find the empathy to understand that some people live different lives than you. 

          • KM August 23, 2021 (4:55 pm)

            There always seems to be a lot of conflating of “need a car to get the mountains or occasionally leave town” with “must own a car so I can occasionally go camping and expect storage to be built for it when it’s not in use.” You can occasionally drive and not own a car, we did it for years!

      • Mike August 23, 2021 (12:38 pm)

        If density has increased dramatically, hopefully most folks won’t want cars. I already don’t, and I’m glad to see forward-thinking developers not wasting space.

        • Jill Loblaw August 23, 2021 (8:03 pm)

          Mike, those developers love people like you. They get out of being held accountable for the 1,000’s of residents they’ve attracted here for less expense to their (the developers) bottom line. Forward thinking is not their goal, but selfish monetary gain for these projects. I’d love to not need a car but I commute to Issaquah every day for work.

          • bill August 23, 2021 (10:42 pm)

            It’s not as if the people who will live in this building are being tricked. Or that car owners will be forced to live in it against their will. It’s up-front clear that parking is not provided and that street parking on Avalon is a hassle. If that doesn’t fit with your lifestyle then look elsewhere. 

  • Thomas August 22, 2021 (10:58 pm)

    Genuinely excited for more car-light neighbors. Bring it on!

  • Entitled person August 22, 2021 (11:43 pm)


  • Mark Schletty August 23, 2021 (8:56 am)

    All three are ugly.

  • Jansen August 23, 2021 (9:01 am)

    This is going to block my new house’s view. Cool.

  • Chris August 23, 2021 (1:26 pm)

    Keep pretending these people won’t have cars, while they make all the parking in the surrounding area miserable.

    • JenT August 24, 2021 (8:02 am)

      Exactly.  What a fantasy land people are living in.  Until we have light rail/a real subway system a la BART in the Bay Area, we will be car-dependent in this region.

  • skeeter August 23, 2021 (2:36 pm)

    How much does street parking around there cost?  Because if it is free, there is no way the developer and/or future owners will want to pay $80,000 –  $100,000 for an off-street parking spot.  Or put this another way.  How well would a business do selling a bottle of drinking water for $200 in Westwood shopping center?  When pretty much everyone knows that Target has a free drinking fountain.  Folks – if you want developers to include off-street parking, you simply have to insist the city charges market rate for car parking in the public right of way.  

  • Chris K August 23, 2021 (4:37 pm)

    For those complaining about the lack of parking spaces, please understand that once light rail is built it will no longer be necessary to own an automobile in this area.  It may be a little inconvenient in the interim, but transportation utopia is on the horizon. 

  • Auntie August 23, 2021 (11:06 pm)

    Your theory only holds water if the light rail is convenient. If I have to drive to the light rail station, then I need to park, which defeats the purpose. If I have to take a bus (if there was one close) to the light rail station, then why wouldn’t I just stay on the bus? And we all know that the bus service in this town is less than stellar. I am just not seeing your utopia in my future because I don’t live close to the bus line or the future light rail.

    • Chris K August 24, 2021 (8:00 am)

      That’s why I said, “in this area.”  If you have to drive to a future light rail station, then you’re not in the area affected by this building.

  • Ice August 24, 2021 (12:00 pm)

    There is no incentive to build parking for this building because there is free street parking. Why would a developer spend an exorbitant amount of money to build something that people can just get for free instead if they look on the street? If you want parking to be built, you have to be willing to pay for it. If people want something, and it is given away for free, there is going to be a shortage.

    For those of you saying that parking should be built because people will own cars anyways, you are completely ignoring the incentives/disincentives of parking on an individual level.Having to park on the street in a city is a quite a disincentive. Using (free) street parking to store your vehicle on a daily basis is a pain in the ass, and for a non-zero amount of people, it’s probably just easier not to own a car. For many people who own cars, it’s worth the hassle to park on the street for free rather than to pay for a designated parking space, but it is still a pain in the ass none-the-less, and a disincentive. I guarantee that the car ownership in this building will be less than an equal building with more parking.

Sorry, comment time is over.