DEVELOPMENT NOTES: 5249 California; 3507 Webster; 2236 Alki; Admiral Church

Four development notes this afternoon:

5249 CALIFORNIA: We noticed new signage today at this long-mostly-idle site just south of the past-and-possibly-future Ephesus: “New Homes Coming Soon!” A check of city files shows that permits are still under review for the latest proposal here, two 3-story buildings with nine townhouses, same project we last mentioned in early 2023. The website for J&T Development, which bought the site two years ago, says the units will all be 3 bedrooms, 3 baths.

3507 SW WEBSTER: This 4-story townhouse project, replacing a 2-story building, is in the “early design review” stage and a community survey closes after tomorrow (Monday, May 27). Project information is on a webpage the developers set up here; the survey is here.

2236 ALKI SW: This site also has a townhouse project in “early design review,” and an outreach webpage set up by the developers. It says they’re planning a community “site walk” for Q&A and info, 4-6 pm on Thursday, June 6.

ADMIRAL CHURCH AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP: Also coming up, Homestead Community Land Trust and Admiral Church plan an update meeting at the church (4320 SW Hill) 2-4 pm next Sunday (June 2) with “concepts” for their affordable-homeownership project. (Here’s our most-recent coverage.)

9 Replies to "DEVELOPMENT NOTES: 5249 California; 3507 Webster; 2236 Alki; Admiral Church"

  • CarDriver May 26, 2024 (4:14 pm)

    WSB. I’m assuming no selling prices given for any of these properties 

    • WSB May 26, 2024 (4:23 pm)

      You can look all that up in Parcel Viewer. This is a very quick roundup of notes.

      • G June 7, 2024 (6:44 pm)

        These are all in the early community outreach stage, not even close to being listed. 

        • WSB June 7, 2024 (6:52 pm)

          My interpretation is that the OP was asking about the price paid by whoever bought these parcels to develop them, not the price at which they’ll be listed once the new projects are done. Not all sites change hands before redevelopment, but many do (at least that’s my anecdotal observation after 15+ years of covering redevelopment), and that’s what they can look up in Parcel Viewer. If I interpreted incorrectly, yes, of course there’s no selling price for the future units yet, not even building permits yet, impossible to predict where the market will be in a year or more … TR

  • Griz May 26, 2024 (7:36 pm)

    One-for-one unit off-street parking.The WSB Crime Watch story today highlights how it’s less and less safe to park your vehicle on the street.  More thefts, more vandalism and – gasp!- gun shots through the windshield.  The population of Seattle is expected to grow 20% by 2035.  There’s this asinine trend of forcing residents to search like cockroaches for parking on streets losing safety three blocks from where they live (Yes.  Personal experience.  Sometimes four or five to find parking that isn’t in a zoned area).  I’ve also had the distinct privilege of vandalism three times to my vehicle—which I used for work—:  theft of catalytic converter; holes drilled into the gas tank; tail light lenses smashed with a hammer (left lying by my vehicle).  The argument can be made:  “Don’t like it here?  Move.”  Message received.  Thanks.

    • Bbron May 26, 2024 (10:59 pm)

      cars are not scalable transportation. to actually support the increase in pop, you need public transit and less car infrastructure such as parking. as it turns out (from experience) folks do live without cars. they should be able to find housing that doesn’t unnecessarily cost them more for an empty rectangle of asphalt.

    • heartless May 27, 2024 (7:35 am)

      Gotta ask the obvious question here, Griz: If all that keeps happening to your vehicle, how come you don’t park in your garage? 

      • WSKW May 27, 2024 (9:35 am)

        Because Griz was there first! 

    • AMD May 27, 2024 (9:50 am)

      Responsible car owners choose housing that meets their parking needs.  My family chose a smaller home in a less desirable neighborhood in exchange for the amount of off-street parking we needed.  Those who choose homes that require them to use city-subsidized street parking have made that choice with the full knowledge that city-subsidized parking does not come with the security and availability of off-street parking, and they have accepted that tradeoff in exchange for the financial benefits.  TLDR; Cry me a river.  The city doesn’t need to change their building codes because some people make bad housing decisions.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.