DEVELOPMENT: 28 townhouses, houses planned on southeast edge of The Junction

| Development | West Seattle housing | West Seattle news

(WSB photo)

Checking the city’s online files for notable development proposals hasn’t yielded much lately, but we keep checking anyway, and found one this week: An early-stage proposal that has four old brick duplexes on the east edge of The Junction, west side of the 5000 block of Fauntleroy Way SW, slated for demolition, to be replaced on the 31,785-sf site by 28 new residential units – 20 townhouse duplexes and eight standalone houses. Off-street parking would be along the alley to the west. The stretch of Fauntleroy Way between The Junction and Morgan Junction has been slowly redeveloping for years, primarily into townhouses, but mostly a few units at a time; the size and scale of this makes it noteworthy. County Assessor files do not yet show a record of sale for the parcels, whose addresses range from 5029 Fauntleroy to 5045 Fauntleroy [vicinity map], but the developer is listed on the site plan as IS Property Investments and the architect is listed as David Cone. Again, this is an early-stage proposal, so it’s not in any official review phase yet.

Al King December 24, 2024 (12:26 pm)

No doubt, if built that they’ll be priced reasonably and affordable to the average prospective homebuyer……………

WSB December 24, 2024 (12:57 pm)

The site plan says they plan on “MHA performance,” which would suggest some of the units will be “affordable homeownership.”
https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/codes/codes-we-enforce-(a-z)/mandatory-housing-affordability-(mha)-program
my two cents December 24, 2024 (1:13 pm)

Al King – what is the answer? Should all of the previous owners been required to sell below market rate? Should the developer be required to lower the sales prices for the respective units? This will be a net gain in housing – more units available, though more ‘expensive’ compared to what? Previous iterations of the neighborhood (1960 version – 1990 version – 2010 version)? Compared to ‘average prospective homebuyer’ – what is that supposed to signify – average based on wage? What is the definition/function or “prospective”. Someone who ‘wants’ to buy a house, or someone who wants a house? My point is that lobbing stuff over the fence and ascribing things to “greedy” property owners & developers is not the complete picture.
- Boon December 25, 2024 (5:55 pm)
  
  The answer is treating housing as a public good, and engaging in a large scale project of building high quality social housing that will be desirable to middle class as well as working class people. They do this successfully in Vienna and elsewhere, it’s a proven model.
NoDoubt December 24, 2024 (1:15 pm)

No doubt, when it comes time for Al King to sell, his home will be “priced reasonably and affordable to average prospective homebuyer”!

Lacking a rant about the provided parking, I guess commenters can sip their $6 coffee while reading WSB on their $800 iPhones, before complaining about affordability of housing they oppose.

We do indeed live rich lives, (as commenters).
- WSB December 24, 2024 (1:20 pm)
  
  SIX? I found myself in possession of an EIGHT-dollar latte yesterday. Been drinking home drip coffee for so long, that was startling.
- Al King December 24, 2024 (2:17 pm)
  
  NoDoubt. Hate to burst your-and my2cents bubble but i’m a renter on a fixed income. My point is that all the people wanting more homes to be built as a “fix” to the “housing crisis” never question what these newbuilds cost and who actually can afford them. I certainly can’t. Can you? And by the way, I don’t drink coffee and if I did my budget would be drip and certainly not an expensive “trendy coffee place priced coffee” Oh, and NO I don’t have an $800 phone. You do?
- Alki resident December 24, 2024 (2:38 pm)
  
  Not sure why anyone drinks coffee much less buys a cup for $6-10 including tip everyday. I for one don’t go out and buy the IPhone each year like many people still living at home. I know many people like me who don’t splurge either so don’t think everyone does this. There’s more people out there than you think that have common sense.
k December 24, 2024 (1:30 pm)

Increasing supply reduces demand and helps to bring prices down overall. Like, yes, MHA, because people need homes as soon as possible, but there’s also a long-term benefit to building more homes and we need a LOT more of them to correct the market.
- Jethro Marx December 24, 2024 (8:53 pm)
  
  “…helps to bring prices down overall.”
  
  Sorry to harp on this, but I will just mention again that this is not true.
  - k December 25, 2024 (1:39 am)
    
    It is, because that’s how supply and demand works.
  - Nodoubt December 25, 2024 (10:44 am)
    
    Yes Jethro, please do harp on how supply has no effect on demand and demand has no effect on prices?
    - Jethro Marx December 25, 2024 (5:46 pm)
      
      Well that’s not what I said; I will say I can’t find any examples of for-profit development increasing supply of housing, leading to a decrease in overall housing prices in a major city like Seattle, can you?
    - k December 25, 2024 (7:16 pm)
      
      Jethro Marx, look at Houston. Nashville as well. For an extreme example, look at what happened to housing prices in Detroit when the jobs dried up and people moved away. When supply equals demand, prices stabilize. When supply exceeds demand, prices fall. It’s going to be a LONG time before supply in Seattle is equal to demand, but everything helps push that needle in the right direction. including this 28-unit project.
- WS Guy December 25, 2024 (12:41 am)
  
  False. Induced demand. The more you build, the more people will move here. Until the quality of life falls below other options. The path to affordable housing is bad schools, graffiti, crime, traffic, and driving out employers.
  - Frog December 25, 2024 (10:31 am)
    
    Exactly right. Plenty of affordable housing in Baltimore, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Detroit. The housing “crisis” occurs because everyone wants to live in certain coastal cities, and no one wants to live where affordable housing is abundant. Also, the cost of new construction sets a floor under housing prices, at a level that’s not affordable to most people. No amount of supply can fix that.
    - K December 25, 2024 (1:23 pm)
      
      People want to live where jobs are. Remember during COVID when everyone was working remote, how many people moved out to the country, to the places they wanted to live but couldn’t because there were no jobs? People are moving here in droves because we have a lot of jobs.
  - Nodoubt December 25, 2024 (10:47 am)
    
    If that were true, WS Guy, we would have had a crash in housing prices over the last four years.
    
    Instead we have had price increases based on housing shortage and robust demand.

Meeee December 24, 2024 (1:52 pm)

So will Metro ever restart buses running on Fauntleroy?

Al King December 25, 2024 (5:48 am)

Meeee. Just as soon as Genesee Hill and Alki Ave/Beach Drive get their bus back.

Derek December 24, 2024 (6:39 pm)

Love to see it! More housing is always good!

Jay December 24, 2024 (10:52 pm)

In Korea you’ve got to build one affordable unit for every luxury unit, full stop. No buyout. No permit if you don’t build mixed income neighborhoods. And developers happily sign on because it’s still insanely profitable to build multifamily housing. Wall Street private equity firms shouldn’t have free reign to extract wealth from our communities.

anonyme December 25, 2024 (9:54 am)

At least it’s in a reasonable area for more density. Of course, the infrastructure won’t be able to handle it, but let’s kick that can down the road.

Nodoubtt December 25, 2024 (1:52 pm)

Correct our single passenger car based infrastructure is already unable to handle it.

Once again, we are too late in confronting the unsustainable problem caused by automobiles.

Other infrastructure is easily addressed, much of it by the developments which are required to build more efficient and less polluting housing than existing SFRs.
- anonyme December 26, 2024 (5:20 am)
  
  “Other” infrastructure is not so easily addressed. You left out utilities, which is what I was referring to. Nor do I agree that new development is more efficient and less polluting. The demo process itself is wasteful, toxic, and polluting, and as long as news structures use wood, they are harmful to forests. This is a separate topic aside from the suitability of this location for density.
  - k December 26, 2024 (8:30 am)
    
    Seattleites consistently fight infrastructure projects arguing that current populations don’t support the need (yes, there was complaining about the sewer upgrades on Delridge… it’s not just transportation). Your neighbors chose the route of don’t-fix-it-til-there’s-a-crisis and that choice should absolutely not be used as an argument against housing. If you want the infrastructure, say yes to the funding packages when they’re proposed, or sit down and stop complaining about it.
  - Bbron December 26, 2024 (10:56 am)
    
    “Nor do I agree that new development is more efficient and less polluting.” it empirically is, though… imagine an equivalent about of housing as SFH out in a suburb; it’d be at least a magnitude more impactful for the construction alone, not accounting for the impact from future maintenance, utilities usage, and forced lifestyle (e.g. commuting for jobs, groceries). this is always true.
  - Nodoubt December 26, 2024 (11:00 am)
    
    @ Anonyme,
    I was referring to all utilities.
    Facts not opinions.
    New toilets use 2-3 gallons vs. old 5 or more.
    Glazing (widows), insulation and heating systems now have efficiency standards.
    Appliances like dishwashers, washing machines are required energy savers.
    New construction is not allowed to hardline storm runoff into the sewer causing sewer overflows into Puget Sound like old housing.
    New homes do not generally have wood burning, carcinogenic smoke generating fireplaces or the chimneys that pour it into the atmosphere.
    New homes are engineered to survive earthquakes (the bigger ones Seattle is expecting).
    Once built, new construction is far less polluting and more efficient than old.
    Even comparing new wood construction with old is problematic, new being less harmful to forests than old houses that utilized (and wiped) out old growth forests and cedar.
    Plywood and composites are stronger, safer, longer lasting and require less maintenance than older homes.
    Gas and oil burning and polluting forced air heating is being surpassed by clean high efficiency heat pumps.
    
    The logic of your opinions applied to old cars vs new, would produce the same arguments about resource extraction verses the environment, but I doubt you would make that point.

Sorry, comment time is over.