VIDEO: After ‘long and winding road,’ groundbreaking celebration kicks off 4448 California SW construction

(WSB photo: STS Construction Services team with ceremonial shovel-turning)

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

“See you back here in 21 months for the grand opening!”

With that, Craig Haveson of West Seattle’s STS Construction Services (WSB sponsor) ended the speeches and moved on to the shovel-turning at this afternoon’s groundbreaking ceremony for the mixed-use project that his company and Housing Diversity Corporation are about to start building at 4448 California Avenue SW in the heart of The Junction.

During the event, we learned more about the project, including the status of the “lodging” mentioned in pre-construction documents, and the financing that has made this team the only one doing major construction in West Seattle right now (they’re also building Keystone at 9201 Delridge Way SW, near STS HQ, and recently opened Harbor Flats at 3417 Harbor Avenue SW, and have a 17th/Roxbury site in reserve).

We first reported on plans for 4448 California back in 2021. The project got final Southwest Design Review Board approval in August 2022. Demolition happened last week, and after today’s celebration, Haveson told WSB that construction will begin immediately.

Though for now they’re constructing the building as “88 units of new workforce housing” – explained as a type of housing that hasn’t been built much in recent years, which have been dominated by either “luxury apartments” or “government-funded affordable housing.” Without this type of housing in the mix too, Housing Diversity Corporation’s Bobby Tiscareno contended, “Seattle has tragically not come close to meeting demand.” (18 of the apartments will be rent-restricted because, like most other midsize-to-large developments in the area, this one is participating in the city’s Multi-Family Tax Exemption program.)

Speakers also exhorted the location as a reason why it made sense to build without including off-street parking: You don’t need a car to live in the area. The location’s “walk score” is 98 of 100. Frequent bus service is close, and the planned Junction light-rail station is a few blocks away. “We’re building housing for people, not cars,” declared HDC’s Tiscareno. The development firm’s CEO Brad Padden talked about Seattle rule changes, including parking requirements, that are enabling this kind of project:

About the “lodging” that is mentioned in project documents, as reported here previously: It was explained today that the eight-story building was designed and submitted for permits so that would be possible, but, STS’s Haveson said, they are still seeking a partner to operate part of the building as a “boutique hotel.” That’s part of what he explained during his time at the podium, also noting the path to construction had been a “long and winding road”:

As an all-apartment building, the unit mix is listed as 75 one-bedrooms, four two-bedrooms, five three-bedrooms, and four studios. They also are actively working to sign commercial tenants for 3,100+ square feet of space on the ground floor.

The financing that’s allowing this to go forward, despite what project-team members note is a “difficult” climate for building, is summarized in the project announcement as:

An innovative financing structure combines C-PACER green financing with traditional construction debt from First Fed Bank. The C-PACER financing will support sustainability initiatives, including energy efficiency, renewable energy implementation, water conservation measures, and resilience improvements.

Financial partners include Nuveen Green Capital and “private market impact investment platform” Citizen Mint (also partners on the Delridge project). Nuveen Green’s Aidan McLaughlin observed that it took a lot “to get two deals done in this environment,” with market factors such as construction costs and rents being perceived as “Kryptonite to lenders,” but the project team’s creativity, problem-solving, and belief in the region helped them achieve what others couldn’t.

Another development partner: Longtime local entrepreneur Rich Bianchi, whose family has long owned the site, where his real-estate firm operated for decades. He spoke at this afternoon’s event too, primarily providing some history:

Bianchi and his family took their turn with the ceremonial shovels too:

And now it’s on to the future, with the project – designed by Atelier Drome (WSB sponsor) – expected to be complete in a little over a year and a half. Here’s the latest rendering:

40 Replies to "VIDEO: After 'long and winding road,' groundbreaking celebration kicks off 4448 California SW construction"

  • Rob March 7, 2025 (5:15 am)

    It would be a really interesting study to see how many of these residents end up with a car, a year after opening.  

    • walkerws March 7, 2025 (9:29 am)

      It would be a really interesting study to see how many people ditch their cars if they were forced to pay for the actual value of the subsidized roads, bridges, and parking that their cars use.

      • CarDriver March 7, 2025 (10:51 am)

        So, car drivers don’t help pay for bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure with their taxes and fees? 

        • Nolan March 7, 2025 (1:02 pm)

          They don’t help as much as they hurt, no.

          • CarDriver March 7, 2025 (3:27 pm)

            So who actually pays the full cost of bike/pedestrian/bus lane only construction and maintenance? In case you’re concerned I’m NOT against any of that infrastructure but am simply being honest about owning and using my car. Will add I walk 6 1/2 to 7 miles a day around WS.

      • WS Urbanist March 7, 2025 (11:35 am)

        Right! So many people do not realize how expensive it is to own, maintain, insure, and fuel up their cars.
        Annual (Average) cost of owning a car
        Car Payment/Lease – $5000
        Insurance – $1800
        Maintenance – $400
        Registration – $100 (this is probably low for seattle)
        Parking – $85 (also probably low for seattle)
        Gas – $2148 (this is dependent on your cars fuel efficiency and how many miles you drive)
        Total – $9533
        Annual cost of taking transit
        PugetPass (the monthly transit pass) – $1200
        Paying per trip (assuming 2x a day every day) – 2.75*2*365=$5520

        • Mellow Kitty March 7, 2025 (12:10 pm)

          Not to mention routine tune ups, fluid & tire replacement and inevitable emergency repairs. Then there’s the cost of parking garages, spaces, etc. 

      • Rob March 7, 2025 (12:56 pm)

        You are aware that people with cars pay huge taxes, registration costs, toll passes, etc, etc.  All of that pays for cars.  

        • k March 7, 2025 (1:45 pm)

          Yeah, but that’s like pointing our bus riders pay fare.  Fare collection doesn’t come close to covering the cost of buses, and the amount it costs to build and maintain our road and highway systems outpace what car owners are paying into it by an even wider margin.  Cars are the most heavily subsidized transport method in the country.  The infrastructure is very expensive.

          • Ex-Westwood Resident March 10, 2025 (12:24 pm)

            I am ESTATIC that you have the ability to live and work where you can take a bus. That you have the ability to shop for groceries, take your kids to school, basically do EVERYTHING by bus/mass transit.

            I’m sick of the “holier than thou” attitude of the anti-car activists. NONE of them have kids that need rides to schools. NONE of them shop for multiple people at a grocery store. I’d pay money to see ONE of them head out on a bus from the store with six FULL bags of groceries by themselves.

            Some of us are not able to do that. I live eight miles from work. It would take me a mile walk, three busses and a LLR ride EACH way to get there and back. I would give up five plus HOURS per day on top of the 10 shifts I work.

            Oh…that is if they were even running at 3:30 AM which they are not.

            ANYONE who rents these apartments should be made to sign an agreement that they will forfeit their lease if they purchase or already have a car.

  • CarDriver March 7, 2025 (6:18 am)

    The car reality is that most people DO own and use a car. Why? Because most people want to go places that either have NO transit options (or are too far to ride a bike or walk) or takes too long to get there by transit. 

    • My two cents March 7, 2025 (9:17 am)

      Look at it this way; this new development can be for only those that don’t go anywhere – after all we can’t have someone living with a parking spot, garage, permit to NOT have a car. 

    • walkerws March 7, 2025 (9:28 am)

      Most people DO indeed own and use a car. Some people do not. This building is great for those people who do not. More options never hurt anybody.

    • Yes March 7, 2025 (9:29 am)

      Here, here to this. 

    • Jake March 7, 2025 (10:33 am)

      They can choose to not own a car or park on the street or public garage. It’s fine actually. Making use of the space in the AIR being UNUSED is a good thing.

    • Platypus March 7, 2025 (1:00 pm)

      Genuine question, if someone had/wanted a car in the junction but their building doesn’t have parking, are their long term parking spots they can rent?Maybe in the garage at safeway or the parking lot behind well fargo?

      • WS Urbanist March 7, 2025 (3:41 pm)

        Looks like there’s at least 3 in the Junction that let you pay for monthly parking. One by Holy Rosary, one across the street from US bank, and then the bank of america lot.

        • WSB March 7, 2025 (4:02 pm)

          The vastly underutilized Rite Aid lot just south of The Junction offers monthly rentals too.

    • Cote March 7, 2025 (6:08 pm)

      We could have more choices get more places by bike, bus, and train if the CarDrivers of the world didn’t dedicate all their time to opposing any improvement in non-car options.

  • jack March 7, 2025 (8:40 am)

    “Speakers also exhorted the location as a reason why it made sense to build without including off-street parking: You don’t need a car to live in the area.” I would wager all those ‘speakers’ have cars.

    • walkerws March 7, 2025 (9:27 am)

      And those speakers aren’t the same people living in the building. This is a great location to build without parking.

    • k March 7, 2025 (9:47 am)

      Not sure what point you’re trying to make.  If they own cars, and live in a place with included car storage to responsibly manage that vehicle, who cares?  You don’t need a car to live in that area, and you don’t need to live in that area if you have a car.

  • Jeff March 7, 2025 (9:09 am)

    20% of households in Seattle have zero cars.   Where should they live if not in the heart of a dense commercial district with good transit options?Bonus question:  If 20% of households in Seattle own zero cars, what percentage of the transportation budget ought to be directed to non car infrastructure?

  • wetone March 7, 2025 (9:17 am)

    Seattle gov allows these huge impacting builds to area’s without true infrastructure to handle. City knows most people moving to these units will have vehicles, city knows traffic will be an issue but doesn’t care. Their answer is Sound Transit is coming and it’s the cure all at a cost of $2 billion per mile ha ha. Areas like WS will have serious problems down in road with this building style and continued road diets. Really bad government planning…. add huge population growth to areas and take away ingress/ egress. Social Engineering at its best. Just remember the bridges for accessing WS will need replacement in next 30yrs, what ya going to do then……

    • walkerws March 7, 2025 (10:34 am)

      “City knows most people moving to these units will have vehicles” Prove it. 20% of households in Seattle don’t have a car, and it is logical that those households would tend to choose a building like this that doesn’t cost more due to included parking (which is incredibly expensive).

    • Kyle March 7, 2025 (1:01 pm)

      The junction has the variety of businesses, rapid transit, and scale where this is a good thing. The city needs to grow, where do you want it to grow? Do you want the peanut butter upzone everywhere, or do you want it strategically placed where the infrastructure and businesses are in place?

  • anonyme March 7, 2025 (9:42 am)

    As someone who has never owned a car, I can say that it is sometimes difficult, but not at all impossible, to live without a car.  You plan errands wisely, pay for deliveries (which is a minor cost compared to owning and maintaining a vehicle) and occasionally rent, carshare, or carpool for special excursions, like hikes or long trips.  It’s not the end of the world.  Do these options also involve vehicles?  Of course they do.  But compared to constant, individual use of a gas-powered vehicle for largely unnecessary trips there is a huge savings, both to the individual, the community, and the planet.

  • WS Urbanist March 7, 2025 (10:35 am)

    It’s refreshing to see a project focused on housing people, not cars. As someone who shares a single car with my partner and rarely uses it, I can attest that car-light living in Seattle is not only possible but often preferable. With ever-improving public transit and walkable neighborhoods, projects like this are paving the way for a more sustainable and livable city.

  • Justmy2C March 7, 2025 (11:29 am)

    The lack of parking IS a problem.  Of course people can get by without a vehicle, but most will own one.  If you made these buildings a no car policy, it would work but it won’t and the cars will come and be parked in the neighborhoods that are already congested and made into one lane streets with all the vehicles parked on both sides.  A lot of which are not owned by the residents of that street.  Many residents have their driveways blocked and hydrants blocked due to desperation of finding a spot.  West Seattle is not equipped for all this population growth.  

    • Nolan March 7, 2025 (1:05 pm)

      The city never should have been in the business of subsidizing private parking with public land to begin with. I, for one, am glad that they’re willing to start correcting that colossal mistake.

  • David March 7, 2025 (11:45 am)

    Seattle is an expensive city to live in – I don’t think it will ever have affordable housing for people making less than six figures – what I see as a result of adding the 80 some units is street parking issues – over taxed sewers, electrical supply and schools – none of these large type housing buildings were here when we bought our house in 1984 and West Seattle was a lot nicer place to live

  • Justhefax March 7, 2025 (12:58 pm)

    Having been in the commercial construction industry for 30+ years, I can say that the real reason for this project not offering an off street parking option isn’t as noble as this developer claims. It all boils down to the additional cost that a  below or above ground parking garage would add to the project, which is significant. Just telling it like it is. Currently, most people who do park a car in this area are customers of one of the many great restaurants and shops in the neighborhood. Adding 70 or 80 cars parked by residents of this new multi unit development will likely impact business for many of these establishments.

    • k March 7, 2025 (1:41 pm)

      The people living in those apartments and staying at the hotel will visit the restaurants.  The impact of this building will be a boon to all local businesses.

    • Jake March 7, 2025 (2:16 pm)

      Adding density improves foot traffic and is always a positive for businesses. 

    • Wout March 7, 2025 (4:11 pm)

      To be sure, are all of those other establishments providing “free” parking for their customers that choose to drive to Junction?  
      No.  
      Then why should any other establishment be expected to?

  • Patrick March 7, 2025 (9:01 pm)

    Two things can be true at once.I like how this topic has sort of turned into a discussion or debate on the pro/cons of car ownership versus alternative transportation.I agree that car ownership is really expensive and with hidden costs. I also agree that car ownership is very helpful when you need it for many reasons. Agree that alternative transportation is ideal in terms of value and minimal overhead. It’s far less expensive to use mass transit, train, bike, walk, or even ride share (e.g. Uber) and has other benefits as well. For example, exercise, mindfulness, less environmental impact, etcI mostly use alternative transportation and only drive when necessary or otherwise convenient.

  • Joe C March 8, 2025 (11:17 pm)

    For a city whose economy is dependent on package deliveries, it’s anti car rhetoric is baffling. 

  • Admiral-2009 March 9, 2025 (5:14 pm)

    Unbundling parking fees from the apartment rental cost literally should be a NO BRAINER.  

Sorry, comment time is over.