SEATTLE | Downtown Projects: Completed, U/C, Proposed/Approved - Page 131

mhays · #**2601** Posted **Oct 2, 2012, 12:06 AM**

Yes, very helpful for that.

Not just the old units either. Some of the newer ones are also targeting lower rents than they used to. Areas like the U District and Capitol Hill in particular are seeing a lot of low parking ratios and quite a few with zero. They're also seeing a lot of "pod" units. I love the idea of a lot of market rate 250 sf units without parking, as an option for living close-in. It worked well for me once (ok, in a hotel). These won't serve the poorest people, but they're an option for the average cook making $12 as an alternative to having a roommate.

alki · #**2602** Posted **Oct 15, 2012, 5:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

West Seattle Junction I haven't been to lately, but based on posts from others, it probably has at least 700 units underway. This is sort of like Ballard in that it's gaining a critical mass in maybe 100 acres as well, though Ballard is ahead.

If you include Delridge, its more than 700 units...........at least two projects are proposed or underway on Delbridge. And now ground has been broken on a new project on Avalon Way as well as near the new QFC at the Junction. Another project proposed for Avalon is running into neighborhood opposition due to its shortage of parking spaces........only 77 spaces for 114 units.

mhays · #**2603** Posted **Oct 15, 2012, 5:12 AM**

That's a typical amount of parking for a neighborhood like that. I'm guessing that area just got the rules cut back in the last redo.

Life must really suck for people who worry about parking.

mSeattle · #**2604** Posted **Oct 15, 2012, 7:47 PM**

I was just in the area on the new Rapid Ride buses. First, that's significant because I'd never use the old slow and wandering Metro routes to travel that. I anticipate that more people won't need cars or parking for their own cars. I can see that it's already a potential Zipcar hub.

mhays · #**2605** Posted **Oct 15, 2012, 8:22 PM**

The Junction is already fine to go car-less. Developers agree, hence the moderate parking ratios. It has multiple supermarkets and decent bus service to Downtown as well as some routes going elsewhere.

alki · #**2606** Posted **Oct 17, 2012, 5:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

That's a typical amount of parking for a neighborhood like that. I'm guessing that area just got the rules cut back in the last redo.

Life must really suck for people who worry about parking.

Yeah, it does suck if you live adjacent to where that project is going. I lived on the street right behind it. Some of the houses don't have off street parking. On weekends, on street parking would become scarce when the tenants in the bldgs on Avalon would have friends spending the weekend.

The recent redo doesn't make sense for much of West Seattle except for the part immediately adjacent to the Junction. The residents surrounding this new bldg will fight it......and I don't blame them.

mhays · #**2607** Posted **Oct 17, 2012, 5:22 AM**

I would at least understand your point if we were talking about a building with fewer spaces than demand. But we aren't, at least in theory. Developers know they can't cut the parking shorter than the market wants. So they try to build just enough.

As for the street parking, I'm guessing that within a couple blocks there's something nearly 100% of the time. We don't even charge for it.

alki · #**2608** Posted **Oct 17, 2012, 6:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

I would at least understand your point if we were talking about a building with fewer spaces than demand. But we aren't, at least in theory. Developers know they can't cut the parking shorter than the market wants. So they try to build just enough.

How do you know that demand will be for just 77 spaces for 114 units on that site? The truth is you don't know. You are depending on the developer to do what's right and that's where the problem lies. The developer wants only to make money....period. Providing less spaces makes it easier for him or her to make the complex pencil. Why would s/he care if the bldg's overflow parking goes into the adjacent neigborhood? That's not the developer's concern. It should be the city's.

And a bldg on Avalon is in the middle of no where......not within reasonable walking distance of shops, restaurants, supermarkets and other facilities. Just because its near a Rapid Ride stop, a service which is very much in the early stages of operation, does not IMO justify reducing parking requirements on new apt construction.

Quote:

As for the street parking, I'm guessing that within a couple blocks there's something nearly 100% of the time.

I don't understand the statement.......you need to clarify what you mean.

Quote:

We don't even charge for it.

Huh? Why do you think people are paying property taxes? Of course the residents are paying for those streets and their upkeep.

mSeattle · #**2609** Posted **Oct 17, 2012, 6:14 PM**

Alki,

Do we yet have good numbers on the current or potential city population that doesn't/wouldn't have cars? From what I've heard, more young people are not buying their own cars but are using car-sharing. If we continue to build more compactly, a lot of services that once were spread out will be a lot closer and even families with kids might not need cars so much. A lot more people are being better served through trains, rapid buses, car-sharing and car-rental with less household expenses (gas, insurance, parking, maintenance).

mhays · #**2610** Posted **Oct 17, 2012, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alki

How do you know that demand will be for just 77 spaces for 114 units on that site? The truth is you don't know. You are depending on the developer to do what's right and that's where the problem lies. The developer wants only to make money....period. Providing less spaces makes it easier for him or her to make the complex pencil. Why would s/he care if the bldg's overflow parking goes into the adjacent neigborhood? That's not the developer's concern. It should be the city's.

And a bldg on Avalon is in the middle of no where......not within reasonable walking distance of shops, restaurants, supermarkets and other facilities. Just because its near a Rapid Ride stop, a service which is very much in the early stages of operation, does not IMO justify reducing parking requirements on new apt construction.

I don't understand the statement.......you need to clarify what you mean.

Huh? Why do you think people are paying property taxes? Of course the residents are paying for those streets and their upkeep.

Developers know their units won't rent if parking is too tight. Of course they want to get it right.

As for guessing about demand in the new building, you don't know either.

Regarding something being available within a block or two, I'm saying that I bet there are nearly always parking spaces available near your house.

Regarding taxes: Yes, we all pay them. But that doesn't equate to getting 200 square feet of public land for your exclusive use.

Of course you have no particular claim to that public land. If someone else (who probably pays taxes too) gets there first, so what. You can park a block or two away if necessary. Or three blocks if that's what it takes.

mhays · #**2611** Posted **Oct 17, 2012, 7:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mSeattle

Alki,

Do we yet have good numbers on the current or potential city population that doesn't/wouldn't have cars? From what I've heard, more young people are not buying their own cars but are using car-sharing. If we continue to build more compactly, a lot of services that once were spread out will be a lot closer and even families with kids might not need cars so much. A lot more people are being better served through trains, rapid buses, car-sharing and car-rental with less household expenses (gas, insurance, parking, maintenance).

I think the Census has numbers but I haven't seen them lately.

Either way, new housing is a small percentage of the total. The portion without parking, or street frontage adequate for 1:1, is basically a low average ratio in pre-war multifamily plus a low ratio in many new buildings, particularly those that focus on young people or seniors. It'll be several years before the overall ratio of parking spaces to housing stock lowers much.

alki · #**2612** Posted **Oct 18, 2012, 2:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mSeattle

Alki,
Do we yet have good numbers on the current or potential city population that doesn't/wouldn't have cars? From what I've heard, more young people are not buying their own cars but are using car-sharing. If we continue to build more compactly, a lot of services that once were spread out will be a lot closer and even families with kids might not need cars so much. A lot more people are being better served through trains, rapid buses, car-sharing and car-rental with less household expenses (gas, insurance, parking, maintenance).

We are in a transition that may take decades to execute. Yes, a single person may have less need for a car but as soon as you have kids, zipcar isn't going to cut it.

There are certain parts of Seattle that may make sense in terms of providing of less than 1:1 parking. The strip of Avalon between 35th and the West Seattle bridge is not one of them.

alki · #**2613** Posted **Oct 18, 2012, 2:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

Developers know their units won't rent if parking is too tight. Of course they want to get it right.

As for guessing about demand in the new building, you don't know either.

Regarding something being available within a block or two, I'm saying that I bet there are nearly always parking spaces available near your house.

Regarding taxes: Yes, we all pay them. But that doesn't equate to getting 200 square feet of public land for your exclusive use.

Of course you have no particular claim to that public land. If someone else (who probably pays taxes too) gets there first, so what. You can park a block or two away if necessary. Or three blocks if that's what it takes.

I have done development and property mgmt. Developers don't always get it right. In fact, on Avalon there is a bldg that has changed hands three times in the last 3 years because 2 developers have not gotten it right.

People on the street right behind Avalon probably won't appreciate your "betting" on their future. As property owners, they have rights too.........and they may not share your vision for Seattle.

mhays · #**2614** Posted **Oct 18, 2012, 4:59 AM**

If they're assuming "preferred" use of public streets, maybe they should rethink their assumptions. Everyone has equal access. (Edit: to clarify, I don't suggest that the idea of free parking on the street near the typical house go away. But I don't think the typical apartment building with a low parking ratio will add to demand substantially if at all, and I don't consider it a problem for the average house resident to have to parking a block or two away occasionally.)

Are you really saying property owners have rights to public land any more than, say, a renter?

I don't know the story on the other building you're talking about. But I'll take a wild guess that it might be related to purchase price or underestimation of current quality, and not be about parking ratios.

Developers/owners pay too much for buildings all the time. You "win" a bid based on outbidding the market. It's set up to reward the aggressive much of the time, and get the aggressive into hornets nests much of the time. Sometimes the buyer is whoever has the least understanding of a building's problems.

Development can be wrong too. But unlike purchases, while the process is extremely tough, there's no built-in trap. The incentives are aligned with the business proposition -- how can I build the most value for the least cost and risk.

mhays · #**2615** Posted **Oct 18, 2012, 7:55 PM**

I looked up the proposed building. There's an express bus to Downtown every what, 8 minutes? It's easy to understand their proposed parking ratio.

LosAngelesSportsFan · #**2616** Posted **Oct 18, 2012, 11:03 PM**

im currently in town for the first time... Beautiful city. Clean, lots of urbanity, retail and character and seems to be booming! ill definitely be coming back in the future. From my short time here (1 day) ive walked all over and it seems as though the area between the Needle and the retail core, mainly along the monorail, is ripe for a boom of 20 - 40 story residential. Great job by Seattle.

Vashon118 · #**2617** Posted **Oct 24, 2012, 3:30 AM**

225 Cedar (10/10):

225 Cedar 2012-10-10 by planet_lb, on Flickr

225 Cedar 2012-10-10 by planet_lb, on Flickr

815 Pine (10/13):

815 Pine 2012-10-13 by planet_lb, on Flickr

815 Pine 2012-10-13 by planet_lb, on Flickr

Colman Tower (09/15):

Colman Tower 2012-09-15 by planet_lb, on Flickr

Colman Tower 2012-09-15 by planet_lb, on Flickr

Insignia (10/10):

Insignia 2012-10-10 by planet_lb, on Flickr

Insignia 2012-10-10 by planet_lb, on Flickr

Stadium Place (10/13):

North Lot 2012-10-13 by planet_lb, on Flickr

North Lot 2012-10-13 by planet_lb, on Flickr

The Martin (10/10):

The Martin 2012-10-10 by planet_lb, on Flickr

The Martin 2012-10-10 by planet_lb, on Flickr

Via6 (09/14):

Via6 2012-09-14 by planet_lb, on Flickr

Via6 2012-09-14 by planet_lb, on Flickr

Viktoria Apartments (10/10):

Viktoria Apts 2012-10-10 by planet_lb, on Flickr

Syndic · #**2618** Posted **Oct 24, 2012, 9:33 AM**

Awesome. I love contemporary Cascadian architecture. It's the closest you can get to a regional style; something you don't see too much anymore in this globalist world. It's hard to define the elements of the style, but I know that if you showed me those pictures without telling me where they were from I would recognize them as coming from either Seattle or Vancouver. I can't help but think that this upper-Cascadia region is one of the best places in the world for architecture. It's a perfect blend of style and sound urban planning; the latter being something you don't find as often on other continents.

There are subtle design elements that differentiate it from the kind of developments taking place in other regions of America and the greater Anglo world. While we have sound urban planning principles, too, the kind of buildings going up in Austin just look different. More conservative. More Art Deco. Perhaps a little dated, in comparison.

Anyway, I appreciate both (I'm glad development has gotten going again, under Obama), but I really like the contemporary Cascadian architecture best. Our city council always uses Seattle and Vancouver as examples/models when talking about what we should do, but I can't help but feel like y'all are just really far ahead of us; and everyone else, for that matter. I'm sure at a later time, everyone else will realize it and it will be widely acknowledged.

mSeattle · #**2619** Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 12:52 AM**

This stuff is decades late by my clock but nice to see finally happening. Thanks for taking the time and the detail on all these photos Vashon!

Hoodrat · #**2620** Posted **Oct 25, 2012, 5:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndic

Awesome. I love contemporary Cascadian architecture.

There are subtle design elements that differentiate it from the kind of developments taking place in other regions of America and the greater Anglo world. While we have sound urban planning principles, too, the kind of buildings going up in Austin just look different. More conservative. More Art Deco. Perhaps a little dated, in comparison.

Perhaps, but I'm really quite envious of the Austonian. Sexier than any highrise resi ever built in Seattle.