DEVELOPMENT: Land-use approval for long-planned SW Orchard development

It’s been four years since we last mentioned the 18-townhouse plan for 2000-2050 SW Orchard, along the north side of the street, east of Delridge Way. They resurfaced in the latest twice-weekly city-circulated bulletin with the latest land-use notices. Land-use approvals have been given for both parcels, each of which would hold nine 3-story townhouses and nine offstreet-parking spaces. The approvals open a two-week appeal period, until June 8th; that process is explained on the public notices – here’s the 2000 SW Orchard decision and notice; here’s the 2050 SW Orchard decision and notice.

24 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT: Land-use approval for long-planned SW Orchard development"

  • John May 27, 2023 (1:21 am)

    Can we just stop this before there’s no green spaces left in the city?!

    • Joe Z May 27, 2023 (7:27 am)

      That’s not a green space, it’s an impenetrable mass of blackberry and other invasive plants. If it was valuable to the community it would have been maintained. 

    • Kersti Elisabeth Muul May 27, 2023 (7:39 am)

      Exactly 

    • D-Ridge May 27, 2023 (7:55 am)

      I like trees as much as anyone but these are privately owned parcels, always have been. Unless the city feels this land is worth the value to purchase and set aside using (very limited) funds provided by taxpayers, there is a long history of land use law in this country that prevents a regulatory body from arbitrarily preventing development of a property (“takings” claims”).

    • Evergreen State no more May 27, 2023 (8:28 am)

      Agree!!!! 

    • New Deal May 27, 2023 (9:17 am)

      Exactly what I thought when I saw this post.  But no, modern society is intent on creating urban density in pursuit of affordable housing.  Not everyone needs to live in the City.  The work from home pandemic culture proved that.  But now we are back to business as usual.   Concentrate people and services in the core.  Tear down every greenspace so that people have to take the bus downtown to sit in a cubicle and buy lunch from a downtown shop owner.   This way, the bus drivers, Sound Transit workers and barristas remain employed.  But wait, we don’t have enough workers.  Unemployment is at an all time low and wage inflation is setting in.  Perhaps it is time we come up with a new strategy.  

      • WestSeattleBadTakes May 27, 2023 (11:09 am)

        You think this lot is the core of West Seattle?

      • Bus May 27, 2023 (11:29 am)

        Pray tell, how is having people live in suburbs instead of the city preserving tree canopy?  Or are green spaces only worthwhile to you if they’re in the city, and thereby accessible to you?  I guess you never did claim your opinion was based on concern for the environment.

    • Bus May 27, 2023 (10:00 am)

      I know, right?  Get rid of the parking so we have more room for trees!  Otherwise, thank goodness we’re getting more housing built in this city.

      • New Deal May 27, 2023 (11:43 am)

        Perhaps some novel approaches.  How about we rethink our work spaces, convert some of the unused/unnecessary office space downtown into affordable housing and leave the greenspaces alone.  Bring services to the places people live and want to be rather than concentrating them in a concrete jungle. Heck, that way we wouldn’t have to plant trees in the parking spaces.  Win Win.

        • heartless May 27, 2023 (1:45 pm)

          “Bring services to the places people live and want to be rather than concentrating them in a concrete jungle.”

          Yeah, that’s quantifiably worse for the environment. 

          Like it or not, housing people in dense urban centers is one of the best things we can do for the environment–that’s no longer even up for debate, it’s just the way it is.

          Grumble all you want about housing being built where plants used to be, but don’t claim you’re doing so because you love trees–because, I’ll say it again in case you missed it, housing people in cities saves trees, saves energy, reduces pollution, and results in more unmolested areas of nature.  

          • New Deal May 27, 2023 (2:20 pm)

            Gotcha.  So, people working from home, walking to their local barrista, eating lunch in West Seattle is worse for the envirnoment than shuffling them all off downtown on the bus and back everday to sit in an office building that could be used for housing.  I think you missed my point. I didn’t miss a thing.  

          • Tired of Delridge May 28, 2023 (11:56 pm)

            You’re upset about a development in West Seattle but want people to live in West Seattle and go to their local barista? Contradiction much?

          • heartless May 27, 2023 (5:09 pm)

            You wrote “Not everyone needs to live in the City.”

            I’m pointing out, sure, but when people DO live in a city, it’s a lot better for all the green things you purport to care about.  

            You rant about removing green spaces but, as others have pointed out, if you really care about green space per se, then you should be happy with turning this one into housing–because city density is really quite good for the environment and green spaces in general.  I really can’t put it more simply, sorry…

          • WSB May 27, 2023 (6:45 pm)

            As reported above, yes.

  • Develop Nature May 27, 2023 (9:50 am)

    Agree John. At this point it should be illegal to cut down trees. We need to let nature thrive wherever possible. A livable planet requires it. 

    • WestSeattleBadTakes May 27, 2023 (11:06 am)

      Let’s reclaim the street parking and parking lots first.

    • Rhonda May 27, 2023 (7:34 pm)

      Develop Nature, Amen! 

  • Rhonda May 27, 2023 (12:29 pm)

    🎵 “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot…”🎶

  • JW May 27, 2023 (1:20 pm)

    Respect to Joni.
    But I doubt she intended her line to become a misused cliche.
    In this case, it is a private Delridge parcel covered with invasives, that is the “paradise.”  
    And there is no parking lot to pave over this “paradise.”
    Needed housing deserves more respect.   

    • Rhonda May 27, 2023 (3:35 pm)

      We don’t need more housing, we need more AFFORDABLE and sustainable housing. Another development of a couple of expensive rowhouses isn’t even going to scratch the surface of the housing affordability issue.

  • Bee May 27, 2023 (10:31 pm)

    So am I the only one that got extremely excited because they thought this meant a West Sea orchard was going to be developed?! 😑😒😒😒 was like an Onion 🧅 headline 🫢

  • PDiddy May 28, 2023 (1:42 pm)

    Everyone assumes this will be affordable housing but I doubt that. Its probably going to be pricey tiny townhouses with a fat price tag. And no dont kill off the parking spaces. Things are bad enough already.

    • Tired of Delridge May 28, 2023 (11:54 pm)

      The Delridge area needs more residents, preferably at market rate developments. 

Sorry, comment time is over.