SEATTLE | CITY Activity (non-downtown)

[mSeattle]

Just saw this while browsing the Sound Transit web site.

http://www.soundtransit.org/Projects...-Station-72014



When you eat at Annapurna Café, 1833 Broadway, you can enter to win a Sound Transit all-access tour of the University of Washington Station before it opens in 2016.

To be eligible, you must spend at least $10 at Annapurna Café and fill out an entry form at the restaurant. You can enter every time you visit. You must be at least 18 and able to walk up and down several flights of stairs and through an active construction site. No entry information will be sold to an outside party.

A drawing in mid-September will determine the winners. Win bragging rights and see the University of Washington Station take shape before it opens to everyone in 2016.

[mSeattle]

On another ST note, I thought that the route from shortly north of the U District station to Northgate was to be above ground. I'm reading that one tunnel machine is already headed south from Maple Leaf and a second one will start in late summer/fall. Was hoping there would be scenic view opportunity on the north end.

[mhays]

On the hill just south of Northgate it goes into a tunnel (or is it just north of Southgate?).

True, we seem to be putting it in tunnels in some of the most scenic places, which also tend to be the places with topographic barriers and without excess rights of way.

[mSeattle]

I thought the thing was going from Northgate down the freeway to Roosevelt/65th before going underground. I'm disappointed. Transit and government agencies sure know how to rain on showcasing this city/metro area via transit.

[mSeattle]

Snapped a couple of shots of activity on Capitol Hill at 12th and Pike (northeast corner).


12th & Pike by mSeattle, on Flickr


12th & Pike by mSeattle, on Flickr

[alki]

If anyone knows someone at microsoft and knows how the layoff is going down, let us know.


The Five Most Anticipated New Parks Seattleites Can't Wait For

http://seattle.curbed.com/archives/2...t-wait-for.php

[alki]

'Luma' Condo Tower Breaks Ground this August in First Hill



http://seattle.curbed.com/index.php?page=3

[mSeattle]

^It'll be nice to finally be rid of the gravel parking lot currently on that site! Hopefully that other project closer to Madison/Broadway that was stalled during the initial station location planning will get a restart or a new taller project get built there.

[mSeattle]

Did a walk around

Troy Laundry block - May 4, 2014


IMG_0085 by mSeattle, on Flickr


IMG_0086 by mSeattle, on Flickr


IMG_0087 by mSeattle, on Flickr

[mSeattle]

One of the SLU projects - April 2014


DSC04972 by mSeattle, on Flickr


DSC04973 by mSeattle, on Flickr


DSC04974 by mSeattle, on Flickr

[mSeattle]

July 22, 2014
Higher fees or new approaches needed to get more affordable housing: report
By NAT LEVY
Journal Staff Reporter
http://www.djc.com/news/re/12067956.html?cgi=yes

Two consulting firms released reports yesterday that could play a big role in the debate over how the city gets developers to build more affordable housing.

The reports were from Cornerstone Partnership and David Paul Rosen & Associates, which are both based in Oakland, California.

[mhays]

My impression is these consultants (at least one of them) were hired to provide a pre-determined perspective.

The whole concept of addressing affordability by making housing way more expensive is mind-bogglingly stupid.

It's about helping a few people at the low end via making housing more expensive for everyone else. Development fees can seriously restrict supply, until rents rise enough due to scarcity to justify paying the fees.

[mSeattle]

:-) Something told me that you might like to comment on that study. Didn't developers already come up with some kind of study saying that the fees were not helping to bring affordable units? Maybe that study was just about the fee-based height bonuses.

[mhays]

I don't recall a study by developers. They simply don't take advantage of the added height and pay the fees, except in certain locations, because it's frequently not worth it. It turns out.... (drum roll)....market rate projects have to meet financial parameters too.

We'll see whether rents and condo values have risen enough to make a wave of projects pencil despite the fees. So far we've seen maybe 20 of the 440' variety proposed but only 4 started. Lots of woodframes are going up or about to in highrise districts, particularly SLU and the ID.

The bigger question is why you'd like to make market rate housing substantially more expensive.

[alki]

Originally Posted by mSeattle

On another ST note, I thought that the route from shortly north of the U District station to Northgate was to be above ground. I'm reading that one tunnel machine is already headed south from Maple Leaf and a second one will start in late summer/fall. Was hoping there would be scenic view opportunity on the north end.

I thought so too. I also don't get why there is only one stop on Capitol Hill, given its density. I guess that's why they are putting in a streetcar.

I forgot to mention.......the project on 35th in W. Seattle is going like gang busters. They've started working on Saturdays.

[alki]

Originally Posted by mhays

It's about helping a few people at the low end via making housing more expensive for everyone else. Development fees can seriously restrict supply, until rents rise enough due to scarcity to justify paying the fees.

I don't know if you have noticed but there is little affordable housing getting built these days. Developers are going for the hi end.

[mhays]

The only way developers can build at the low end is micros. The City has been putting roadblocks up for those too.

As for the rest, yes the standard 600 sf, $1,700 one-bedroom in West Seattle isn't cheap. But when development outpaces demand, older buildings tend to stay cheaper. Seattle will never be truly cheap, but buildings from the 70s and 20s are usually a lot cheaper than new construction.

What does any of this have to do with my point? Adding fees makes new construction more expensive, which means less of it, which means more competition and higher prices for those older units too.

[alki]

Originally Posted by mhays

The only way developers can build at the low end is micros. The City has been putting roadblocks up for those too.

Who told you micropods the only way to get affordable housing? Please provide a link.

As for the rest, yes the standard 600 sf, $1,700 one-bedroom in West Seattle isn't cheap. But when development outpaces demand, older buildings tend to stay cheaper.

New construction raises the rent ceiling. Old bldgs mostly follow suit. That's why rents are rising overall in the Seattle rental market.

Seattle will never be truly cheap, but buildings from the 70s and 20s are usually a lot cheaper than new construction. What does any of this have to do with my point? Adding fees makes new construction more expensive, which means less of it, which means more competition and higher prices for those older units too.

Adding fees allows a fund to be created and leveraged. Its one way to get affordable housing built.

[mhays]

You have some odd ideas!

Have you seen affordable developer-built housing that isn't micros? Not subsidized? Have a link? You said (today!) "Developers are going for the hi end." Which is it? Assuming a fairly typical definition of affordable, the market for new units is basically subsidized or micro.

"New construction raises the rent ceiling. Old bldgs mostly follow suit. That's why rents are rising overall in the Seattle rental market." Other than on a very localized basis, this is pure delusion. If supply stays ahead of demand, building owners will compete on price. On the flip side, if you're right, then even the low end of the market would be more expensive due to your fees.

I've covered the third one ad nauseum already.

Fourth, you've argued against micros. Not very consistent are you?

[alki]

Originally Posted by mhays

You have some odd ideas!

Have you seen affordable developer-built housing that isn't micros? Not subsidized? Have a link? You said (today!) "Developers are going for the hi end." Which is it? Assuming a fairly typical definition of affordable, the market for new units is basically subsidized or micro.

Yes, I have seen affordable units developed by developers. For an example there are affordable units in High Point.

BTW micropods are hardly considered affordable housing. They are transitional housing for singles.

"New construction raises the rent ceiling. Old bldgs mostly follow suit. That's why rents are rising overall in the Seattle rental market."

Other than on a very localized basis, this is pure delusion. If supply stays ahead of demand, building owners will compete on price.

And if supply does not stay ahead of demand, then all rents rise. And that is what's happening to the Seattle market.

On the flip side, if you're right, then even the low end of the market would be more expensive due to your fees.

How so? The fees usually are charged on developments producing non affordable units.

I've covered the third one ad nauseum already.

Fourth, you've argued against micros. Not very consistent are you?

What third point have you covered ad nauseum?

As for micropods, I am unclear why you see them as a significant solution to Seattle's affordable housing issue. At best they are transitional housing between a dorm room and a complete apt. And frankly, they are not all that affordable given their amenities. I suspect as their novelty wears off they will experience higher than normal turnover, resulting in higher than normal maintenance costs that will hurt an owner's bottom line and negatively impact future development.