HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2014, 5:40 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by alki View Post
Excuse me...........when did it become wrong to have single family homes in Seattle? I don't know about you but I like a city with a diversity of housing stock. As for me, despite the fact that I am from W. Seattle, I like it all.
Nothing, of course. But SFR areas shouldn't be kept as preserves either. We ought to allow accessory units basically everywhere, and also expand (a bit) the areas where multifamily is allowed, which is currently a small percentage of the city.
__________________
When did people starting thinking "alot" was a word?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2014, 8:00 PM
alki alki is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by mSeattle View Post
I think the picture shows it pre-paint. One of their latest projects also included some textured siding.
Its actually the finished product..........and its metal cladding. I got up close to some on my lunch break yesterday. Its cheap looking and everywhere here. I would kill to get some of the quality projects that are on Capitol Hill.......W. Seattle has very few.

Edit. Actually, there are some nice newer projects in W. Seattle. That cheap siding is the exception not the rule these days.

Last edited by alki; Mar 3, 2014 at 5:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2014, 8:42 PM
mSeattle's Avatar
mSeattle mSeattle is offline
Socialism 4 Extreme Rich?
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: here
Posts: 9,825
Well in that case, I cannot help.

This one off Olive turned out nice.

Blue one in the back.

Apodment by mSeattle, on Flickr


Apodment by mSeattle, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2014, 9:20 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,025
I really, really love the pod/micro trend. It addresses affordability for a significant number of people (mostly singles with jobs, not too much stuff, and no cars) and does it without subsidy. It also adds great critical mass in a lot of districts. What looks like 15 units might be 40. And all pedestrians!
__________________
When did people starting thinking "alot" was a word?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2014, 1:41 AM
alki alki is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Nothing, of course. But SFR areas shouldn't be kept as preserves either. .
What do you mean by preserves? Most single family homes in W. Seattle are occupied by families. Not everyone is single in Seattle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2014, 2:36 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,025
About 2/3 of Seattle is zoned single-family only, and contain strong NIMBY proponents that try to keep it that way. That's what I mean by "preserves."

I'm not sure what your family point refers to. Obviously a lot of families live outside of that 2/3 too...in houses, in townhouses, in apartments and condos....

As for the majority-family thing, that might be true in small areas but is unlikely citywide. There are what, 80,000 kids in Seattle? Maybe 50,000 households with kids? We have something like 140,000 single-family houses. Maybe 90% of both (kids and houses) are in those preserves, vs. the other 15% or so that also have significant residential.
__________________
When did people starting thinking "alot" was a word?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2014, 3:08 AM
mSeattle's Avatar
mSeattle mSeattle is offline
Socialism 4 Extreme Rich?
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: here
Posts: 9,825
I took a bus over to West Seattle a couple of years ago and the route meandered through what felt like rural area. I swear. I think/hope a lot more town homes and small apartment buildings have been built there since.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2014, 3:12 AM
mSeattle's Avatar
mSeattle mSeattle is offline
Socialism 4 Extreme Rich?
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: here
Posts: 9,825
I think this is the first TOD at the Beacon Hill Station since the trains started.


Photo: Seasun at SSC
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2014, 12:18 AM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by mSeattle View Post
This is from a walk back in January on a tense night... I worked at a small independent postal shop on the ground floor of this building for a minute back in the 1990s.
This is 12th and Pike. Any leads on what's going in here?

Post Option I by mSeattle, on Flickr
They are building a sales center for VIK condos on NW 20th & 56th in Ballard.

(sorry. I took down the rendering for now. Am waiting for more official news to be published. But, in the meantime, here's a link: http://www.urbnlivn.com/2014/02/12/vik-ballard-condos, and here's an older rendering: )

Last edited by Orlando; Mar 5, 2014 at 6:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2014, 2:45 AM
mSeattle's Avatar
mSeattle mSeattle is offline
Socialism 4 Extreme Rich?
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: here
Posts: 9,825
Orlando, do you work in development or news? You have detailed knowledge. Is that rendering you just posted the site of the old Ballard library?

Check out the question I posted in the Portland development page, a few links down from this thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2014, 5:54 AM
alki alki is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
About 2/3 of Seattle is zoned single-family only, and contain strong NIMBY proponents that try to keep it that way. That's what I mean by "preserves."
Preserves is a strange term to use..........all I can think of is game preserves. Ignoring that rather odd description......even the single family neighborhoods are experiencing change becoming more dense without having to tear down the houses themselves.

BTW I believe your 2/3 figure is high:

Percent of the city in single-family zoning (excluding parks and rights-of-way): 54%

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cityplann...se/default.htm

Quote:
I'm not sure what your family point refers to. Obviously a lot of families live outside of that 2/3 too...in houses, in townhouses, in apartments and condos....
Families occupy those single family homes. They prefer living in a home rather than an apartment. I see no reason why that choice should not be available to Seattle residents. Do you?

Quote:
As for the majority-family thing, that might be true in small areas but is unlikely citywide. There are what, 80,000 kids in Seattle? Maybe 50,000 households with kids? We have something like 140,000 single-family houses. Maybe 90% of both (kids and houses) are in those preserves, vs. the other 15% or so that also have significant residential.
I said nothing about 'the majority-family thing'. Are you opposed to families too? And there's that preserve term again. Do you imagine SF areas to be like human zoos?

Last edited by alki; Mar 3, 2014 at 6:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2014, 5:58 AM
alki alki is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by mSeattle View Post
I think this is the first TOD at the Beacon Hill Station since the trains started.
Yes, it is. I am surprised its taken so long for TOD construction on Beacon Hill. I would think its a natural given the changes going on in the neighborhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2014, 6:05 AM
alki alki is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by mSeattle View Post
I took a bus over to West Seattle a couple of years ago and the route meandered through what felt like rural area. I swear. I think/hope a lot more town homes and small apartment buildings have been built there since.
What part of West Seattle were you in? There are parts of West Seattle that are very forested. I like it. At the same time we are getting a lot of new apt construction in the Junction, along CA Ave, near Admiral, along Delridge and other smaller nodes. Density has increased noticeably in West Seattle since I've moved here. Nonetheless, as a resident of the area, I would hate to see the forested areas paved over with new construction. There is absolutely no reason the different densities can't co exist.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2014, 6:09 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by alki View Post
Preserves is a strange term to use..........all I can think of is game preserves. Ignoring that rather odd description......even the single family neighborhoods are experiencing change becoming more dense without having to tear down the houses themselves.

Families occupy those single family homes. They prefer living in a home rather than an apartment. I see no reason why that choice should not be available to Seattle residents. Do you?

I said nothing about 'the majority-family thing'. Are you opposed to families too? And there's that preserve term again. Do you imagine SF areas to be like human zoos?
Most house neighborhoods aren't changing much.

Most SFRs aren't occupied by families.

Keep that choice available? Of course. Did I say anything about reducing the number of houses? Obviously not. In fact I'd like to increase the number of SFRs in Seattle...accessory units, four packs, and so on. Lots of families live in those places? Do you dislike families, and if not why are you working against them?

I'll quote you directly: "Most single family homes in W. Seattle are occupied by families." I replied "As for the majority-family thing, that might be true in small areas but is unlikely citywide." Want to rethink your reply?
__________________
When did people starting thinking "alot" was a word?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2014, 6:13 AM
Orlando's Avatar
Orlando Orlando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by mSeattle View Post
Orlando, do you work in development or news? You have detailed knowledge. Is that rendering you just posted the site of the old Ballard library?

Check out the question I posted in the Portland development page, a few links down from this thread.
I'm a little tentative to give any more information until more of it is publicly published. I posted a link from another website regarding it. I'm not sure if it is the site of the old Ballard library.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2014, 6:27 AM
alki alki is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,647
Some projects coming up for design review in West Seattle:

http://westseattleblog.com/2014/03/w...-4505-42nd-sw/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2014, 6:47 AM
alki alki is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Most house neighborhoods aren't changing much.
Not a lot but they are changing........accessory units going up on back portions of lots.

Quote:
Most SFRs aren't occupied by families.
In W. Seattle, they are.

Quote:
Keep that choice available? Of course. Did I say anything about reducing the number of houses? Obviously not. In fact I'd like to increase the number of SFRs in Seattle...accessory units, four packs, and so on. Lots of families live in those places?
Not familiar with the term 4 pack but if you're talking 4 units on a lot that's zoned single family. That ain't selling in W. Seattle. Sorry, dude.

Quote:
Do you dislike families, and if not why are you working against them?
Cute.

Quote:
I'll quote you directly: "Most single family homes in W. Seattle are occupied by families." I replied "As for the majority-family thing, that might be true in small areas but is unlikely citywide." Want to rethink your reply?
Once again, single family homes in W. Seattle are mostly occupied by families. I am sure there are exceptions but they are few in nature.

Its just like your pod people..........not all pod people walk or bus everywhere or use Car2Go. Surprise, surprise.....some actually own cars.

And since we're talking ideology here, I hope you're not one of those guys who believes that if you build and build and build housing that that will keep housing affordable in Seattle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2014, 2:08 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 16,025
I can buy that maybe half of the houses in West Seattle have families, which would be way over the city average for houses. What's your source?

We're talking in circles, and I don't think you're reading. Did I suggest reducing the number of houses, or anything that would reduce the number of cars?

Four packs won't sell in WS? They do get built and they do sell, so you're wrong. They currently happen in multifamily zones, hence much of their high price.

Yes, supply is a huge part of affordability, though obviously not a panacea. Things like not requiring parking and continuing/enlarging the voted levy are also factors.
__________________
When did people starting thinking "alot" was a word?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2014, 6:11 AM
alki alki is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
I can buy that maybe half of the houses in West Seattle have families, which would be way over the city average for houses. What's your source?

We're talking in circles, and I don't think you're reading. Did I suggest reducing the number of houses, or anything that would reduce the number of cars?

Four packs won't sell in WS? They do get built and they do sell, so you're wrong. They currently happen in multifamily zones, hence much of their high price.

Yes, supply is a huge part of affordability, though obviously not a panacea. Things like not requiring parking and continuing/enlarging the voted levy are also factors.
Look.......lets get clear what's going on here.........you don't want to hear that your ideas may not be as popular as you think. You want to believe all pod people walk or bus. You want to believe that bldg a 4 pack in SFR neighborhood will be accepted in W. Seattle. You want to believe that building lots and lots of units will improve affordability; that reducing parking requirements will increase affordability.

Surprisingly enough, Seattle is doing exactly that..........its experiencing the biggest bldg boom in decades and has relaxed parking requirements........even allowing apodment developments all over the city. And yet, rents are skyrocketing.........Seattle is in the top five cities for rent increases since the Great Recession.

Why? Because land and labor costs here are going up as demand has increased. Construction costs are high here because labor gets paid well. Land is dear because there is no west side except for Elliot Bay and the east side is constricted by Lake Washington. If it were feasible to get 20K units built in 2014, rents may go down temporarily while the units get absorbed. However once they got absorbed, rents would resume their climb. But not to worry, there is no way in hell lenders would approve 20K units in one year in Seattle.

Density doesn't create affordability. Significant production creates affordability only temporarily. You want affordability go to a metro on the open prairies..........Dallas, Kansas City, OK City etc. Those cities are surrounded by lots of flat land. Land prices are very cheap and labor costs more reasonable.

In the meantime, read the reaction to the latest proposed development in W. Seattle..........40 units with 5 parking spaces. Read the comments carefully.........people are getting more and more pissed:

http://westseattleblog.com/2014/03/w...-4439-41st-sw/

I am not opposed to reduced parking requirements but Seattle planners are pushing the concept too much too soon.

Last edited by alki; Mar 7, 2014 at 6:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2014, 11:13 AM
mSeattle's Avatar
mSeattle mSeattle is offline
Socialism 4 Extreme Rich?
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: here
Posts: 9,825
Alki, I hear and agree with some of your points. However, I also think that some of the "growth angst" that is being expressed is due to people forgetting that some of this development was to have already happened before the Great Recession hit. Instead the log-jam is being cleared and it feels like excess development when it's still barely making up ground. The pent-up demand is moving into slow-to-come-online units nearly faster than they can be completed.

I'm curious what happened to the talk about modular construction that drastically speeds up start-to-finish construction times? I think we've seen just one example of this with a Belltown project. But there was supposed to have been one or two projects like this in the U. District before the GR. Those projects still haven't started, meanwhile slow woodframe construction is still the only game in town as far as I can see.

Regarding access to and from WS to other parts of the city, I think this can be handled through more frequent rapid-ride buses and eventually (ideally) a rail construction that is fast start-to-finish. There could also be streetcar just in WS if density supports it. On that note, I don't know why streetcar construction here takes so long and doesn't seem to take as long in other cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:59 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.