DEVELOPMENT: Next round of comments for 2236 Alki SW

| Development | West Seattle news

West Seattle’s been fairly quiet for development applications lately. One project appeared on today’s Land Use Information Bulletin – the six townhouses (with nine parking spaces, as required by the Alki Parking Overlay) planned for 2236 Alki SW [map], replacing the 108-year-old triplex shown above. We reported briefly in May when the project was in early stages; now the project team has formally applied for a Shoreline Substantial Development permit (since it’s across the street from the bay), and that opens a comment period. Today’s notice explains how to send your comment in, deadline November 5.

Derek October 7, 2024 (6:59 pm)

Just build it. Density now.

Daniel October 7, 2024 (11:28 pm)

Hopefully up to enough density to warrant a bus more than once an hour down Harbor / Alki
- CarDriver October 8, 2024 (4:36 pm)
  
  Daniel. Considering the number of people already living on Beach Drive and Alki/Harbor Ave it’s clear Metro has no interest or desire in reintroducing actual bus service.
- T-dot October 8, 2024 (5:16 pm)
  
  This, please. Can we have the 37 back?!

Jim October 8, 2024 (10:53 am)

This has to change! Increasing urban density isn’t solving the problem—it’s only making things worse. It’s pushing up property values and replacing affordable options with new developments that are often more expensive than the original properties they replace.

K October 8, 2024 (5:35 pm)

Density does solve the problem of not enough housing, without destroying as much tree canopy as we’d need to in order to build the same amount of housing in the suburbs. What’s pushing up property values is scarcity.

Gary Richardson October 8, 2024 (2:26 pm)

When I think of view properties I try to think of how can functional amenities keep pace with property values and affordability.Are there ways that developers be incentivized to build in growth friendly ways that limit property devaluation while also setting a tax lowering standard that is dependant on a functionality calculation.For instance, a commuter/mobility tax would lower property taxes based on a traffic density and congestion index that rates the relative ease and distance that can be travelled multiplied by a safety index.The problem is, how do you increase traffic and transportation mobility without impacting property values?If a builder blocks a view, there would be a tax imposed for the devaluation of affected properties until solutions remedy the property investment loss.Maybe as a kickback income to offset a loss and transportation improvement fund, encouraged by matching federal dollars.If you look at Mercer Island, a park was placed over the I-90 tunnel and utilities hidden underground. Additionally, soundproofing from the highway noise and high speed accessibility played a part in making property values higher.So what kind of funded projects can and tax offsets can encourage participation in value added features?Promenades and capped green spaces?Tourist attracting Boardwalks?Gondolas for high end attractions and shortcuts to important hubs?Underground transportation?Vertical bike and E-bike stations and parking?Terraced elevated pedestrian paths and bikeways?Water taxi stations?Seamless multi-modal commuting and resident discounts? 55+ senior living availability near major hubs and attractions?Low income grants and mandates?

Viewlessin Seattle October 9, 2024 (6:21 am)

Although I agree with some of Mr. Richardson’s ideas, his use of the term “property devaluation” is unfortunate, since all properties have risen dramatically.
Property devaluation was a common “concern” decades ago, but with the trippling of property values this century has mooted that concern.
“A rising tide lifts all boats..”
The other concern about views from one’s property being “theirs” is not protected by laws in Seattle.
The only way to get view protection is to buy waterfront property.
Even if there were protections from development view blocking, required trees and their protections will grow-away your view.

20years here October 8, 2024 (4:03 pm)

None of the women who lived in the Saltaire’s apartments will be able to afford any of the 6 townhomes proposed to replace them. If you’re opposed to density as a false solution to affordability, which it is, then you should make a public comment before 11/5: https://services.seattle.gov/Portal/Customization/comments/default.aspxOther reasons to express concern: Priority on quality of life for current residents sacrificed to the profit of a non-local developer (INTRACORP at intracorphomes.com). Design eliminates trees and greenery for more cars (as per city code). Sensitive shoreline location adjacent to recent sewer issues at Bonair Dr & Alki Ave SW. Pile driving recommended for this development will disturb The Friedlander, a legacy Alki structure that provides affordable living (at least until it also sells). All of this so we can have another set of stacked boxes with views.

Scarlett October 8, 2024 (6:45 pm)

Count housing as another casualty of our myopic and panicked response to the pandemic, roughly analagous to unleashing the immune system on a virus that also causes tremendous damage to healthy tissue. The pandemic was the accelerant in an already unffordable housing market and supply and demand is not going to fix it unless we have a serious economic downturn or massive government intervention as we have at certain junctures in the past.

Techbrah October 9, 2024 (8:43 am)

The pandemic actually provided an indirect solution through remote work. People started moving to far off places to buy homes, which they would never do if they had to commute to office. It reduced traffic on the road everywhere making everyone happy: NIMBYs as well as Bike Pundits. This would have kept housing affordable had it not been for the ultra low interest rates which also got private companies buying homes. The root cause of unaffordability is all jobs being created in a small area causing artificial scarcity.

Sorry, comment time is over.