Tis the season to put a bow on things and get them wrapped up for the year. Before we dig in on the big design review this week for the Capitol Hill Station development, a loose end in the CHS universe was the tale of one of the few major developments on Capitol Hill to get tied up with the Hearing Examiner this year. Given the amount of blowback Capitol Hill’s “waves of development” get from people who would like to see growth in the city slowed, you might expect more of the neighborhood’s big projects to face appeals over decisions from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.
We reported earlier this year on one appeal seeking to halt the development of a four-story, 50 or so unit project slated for the northwest corner of 19th and Mercer. The appeal from a group of neighbors spearheaded by nearby homeowner Dr. Suzanne Lasser was an example of the kinds of project that seem mostly likely to end up facing appeals — smaller, in-fill apartments in the intertidal zones abutting Capitol Hill’s single-family home neighborhoods.
The appeal is also an example of how difficult it can be for a grassroots group of neighbors to stop the city’s various development processes. According to Hearing Examiner records, the case against the Epic Property Management development was dismissed this fall because the appellants didn’t make a key filing in the case by a significant deadline:
With a design approved in spring, the project is now finalizing permits for construction.
Bummer. Another monstrosity in a mostly residential neighborhood. And parking will get a lot worse with 50 new apartments while providing only 10 parking spots.
…….Dollars are still louder than voices.
Monstrosity? It’s a 4 story building Dan. Good grief.
that’s nimbyism for ya. they’d only be happy if no new housing and people moved in their Back Yard.
Who cares about parking. My next Tesla will drop me off and pick me up later when I’m ready.
Yeah, 19th is an arterial on a bus line with shops, restaurants, and old apartment buildings. More development is completely appropriate there.
“Appropriate.”? Let’s see…..A bus line the city cut once already and wants to do away with. An apartment that won’t manage parking in a city that pretends people don’t actually have cars. a street without crosswalks, etc. Just building more apartment buildings is not the answer to manage density. Between regulations and construction costs, it’s too expensive to build reasonable housing, and builders are forced to ask exorbitant rents. As a result, we’re only building for the elite who make $100,000+ per year. Simply “building more density is not the answer. Find me ONE new building, not classified as low income exempt, renting for anything close to affordable rents, and I’ll show you a developer who wants to lose money. By the way, Seattle owns more cars per person than even Atlanta (streetsblog.org). At 1.39/household, a 3 apts to 1 parking spot ratio means another 10-20 cars dumped on the street. And to everyone who shouts “NIMBY” at my comments, just wait until something affects your neighborhood that you don’t like. A jail, a drug rehab center, a walmart? You will complain and be accused of the same thing. But that’s the fundamental principal behind community activism and civic pride. Advocate for quality of life and responsible development. I’m proud to say, “don’t do that crap in my hood. Go do it in somewhere people don’t care.” Capital Hill is an awesome place primarily because of people who cared to make it that way and keep it that way.
It’s all lovely to talk about how apartments on a bus line *should* not need parking. But given how expensive apartments are now, the likelihood is huge that way more than 10 of the people living in these probably-expensive apartments WILL have cars anyway, whether you try to wish them away or not. So the point about them vacuuming up scarce neighborhood parking isn’t without merit. If the city really wants to discourage cars and encourage bldgs w/o parking, that’s fine. But going forward, those bldgs shouldn’t qualify for RPZ decals.
The cost of commuting from this area to SLU or downtown is about $8 each way via Uber, or about $300 a month. The cost of owning a car, even before paying to park it in one of those 10 off-street parking spaces, is higher than that. Stop clinging to the idea that everyone moving to Seattle is going to own a car and park it in front of your house. First of all, they have just as much right to your curb as you do. Secondly, they’re less likely to exercise that right than you are.
First of all, I don’t live in this neighborhood, so I don’t give a crap. Secondly, while your example is lovely, it assumes all you ever want to do is go to SLU or downtown. Shockingly enough, *some people* who own cars don’t work in SLU, or go only downtown. Or might not even be single. So should everyone just Uber themselves and their families everywhere? The point of not requiring parking in new bldgs is to discourage cars. To say it’s about enabling affordability is a joke, when apodments cost $800; and most apartments will charge the max the market will bear, the more affluent with cars will mostly monopolize these apartments anyway. So there goes the joke of affordability. If you want to discourage cars, you can’t just make it expensive, because there will always be people who can pay it. You need to do more, like make it difficult.
@Jim98122x
The point of not requiring parking is explicitly not to discourage cars.
No one is preventing the developer from building parking spots.
The developer building them because, economically speaking, they don’t pay for their cost of construction. People don’t value them highly enough.
If they did, you bet they’d build them!
Because parking spots don’t pay for themselves, requiring them means that the people who choose not to own cars wind up subsidizing people who do.
Second, there’s a big movement of people who choose not to own cars anymore. If they’re commuting by walking, biking or public transportation, they’ll rent a car on occasion to get out of town.
Your assumption that “way more than 10 of the people living in these probably-expensive apartments WILL have cars anyway” may not be true already, and is very likely not to be true in 10 years if current trends continue.
“…And to everyone who shouts “NIMBY” at my comments, just wait until something affects your neighborhood that you don’t like. A jail, a drug rehab center, a walmart? You will complain and be accused of the same thing. …”
There’s a big difference between this apartment building in “your” neighborhood, and a jail, rehab center, or walmart, no matter where it’s built.
Dan.
Rent isn’t determined by how much things cost.
It’s determined by how much people will pay. By demand.
The reason rents keep rising is because far more people move here than leave.
For a case in point — have you noticed how much the rents in 70 year-old apartment buildings have risen?
Those buildings didn’t get more expensive to maintain; there was greater demand for the apartments, so the price rose.
Building more supply does hold the price down. It’s economics 101.
The problem in seattle now is that we’re not building fast enough to keep up with demand. So prices keep rising.
—
To your question of NIMBYism:
I’ve personally borne witness to FOUR (count ’em) six story buildings that have been erected within 75 yards of my bed in the last five years. One of them blocked my view of the western sky, the mountains and the space needle.
Was I crazy about losing my view? Of course not. Did I try to fight it? No. More housing is good for the neighborhood. It’s good for the city.
—
finally – I’m not going to repeat my point below about the market price for parking, and how it doesn’t make economic sense for developers to put it in. But, humbly, I think it’s also worth considering.
Thanks for your input d reeves. Well said. But just one correction. The cost to maintain older buildings (with utilities) has gone up faster than rents over the past 15 years. (Dupre+Scott) Hard to believe, but true.
@Dan – I hear you about rising costs of maintenance. Makes sense.
Still doesn’t change my point about the relationship between rent and cost.
Looking forward to this nice-looking addition to the neighborhood! More apartments means more folks can live in this great place.
Nice looking? It’s a black box.
wow, it’s almost like attractiveness of a building is an opinion and shouldn’t be mandated by law! :O
Dan, in my family we have a commonly-used saying:
“De gustibus non est disputandum”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_gustibus_non_est_disputandum
looks like a nice design
Where are you people getting “nice looking” and “nice design” from ? Are we looking at the same picture? It’s a black box. It’s in a neighborhood of Craftsman houses, a classic brick building with style elements and another relatively new…silver box.
@Dan
one person’s black box is another’s nice looking. not everything in seattle should be cookie cutter same.
I wonder if they’ll have the current rates for capital hill rent.
Studio – 1650
1 bedroom – 2000
2 bedroom – 3000
I don’t know of a single person that can “afford” those rates. To afford a 1650 mortgage you need to make $100,000 to afford a studio in Seattle. Seriously…. Maybe lots of new construction the overall prices will come down.
You’re right. Unfortunately, there is only a small niche of the market getting paid those salaries, mostly Amazon and it’s related services. However, apartment prices will come down when people stop moving here. That will happen when everywhere else is a more desirable place to live. I’m not sure we want to become that version of Seattle.
I don’t know if I like the current overpriced version of Seattle where the person that is serving you your latte has to commute 50 miles just to do that. Seattle should be a work/live city for everyone.
The guideline for rent is “1/3 of gross income.” Three times $1650 is $4950 gross income per month, or $59,400 per year.
That said, yes, we do need much more construction. The next time Amazon pauses hiring, rents will go down because of all that extra supply.
While you’re correct that it’s difficult for many to afford to live here, your math is way, way off.
$100K a year has a take home pay of nearly $6,000/month. That’s closer to that two bedroom example than the studio, assuming you’re not crazy in debt. Someone making $100K/year can also afford to own.
Well, that’s hideous, ain’t it? Bet it will look even better in about 20 years.
You got that right! Happens every 20 years!
We can repaint hideous, or plant vines, or change our tastes, or be affectionate towards hideous buildings that are comfy to live in…
I’m worried the new “economically efficient” panel systems are going to *leak*.
Smaller, in-fill apartments are exactly what we need more of, if we’re ever going to slow the pace of skyrocketing rents in Seattle. This building is decent, has attractive, open retail space on the ground level, and slots in nicely with the buildings already there. It’s also very much in a dense, central area of the city that needs more development like this. Glad this NIMBY group got shut out and the project can move forward.
Yes, exactly. 19th Ave is an ideal location for more housing–centrally-located, pedestrian-friendly, close to restaurants and grocery stores. It’s ridiculous to attempt to keep it exclusively for people who bought houses decades ago.
It mystifies me why people keep claiming that we are not building new apartments “fast enough.” Just look around….there are new buildings going up on practically every block!
We aren’t, Bob. There are literally thousands of people moving to Seattle and we’re not building enough to serve them.
For example, read this article about the 19 new apartment buildings of 8+ units planned in 2016, which will have 2,100 bedrooms in total: http://www.sightline.org/2016/08/17/seattle-1764-new-homes-21-demolitions-in-2016-displacement/
Now, 2,100 new bedrooms sounds like a lot, but our city is expecting 120,000 residents to move here in the next 20 years. (http://crosscut.com/2015/12/despite-perceptions-housing-production-down-in-2015-single-family-home-construction-up/ ).
According to Google, 120,000 / 2,100 is 57.1428571429. In other words, it would take 57.1428571429 years to build the number of bedrooms we need for 20 years of residential growth. Continued underbuilding means that existing Seattle residents will see their property values and rents rise because demand outstrips supply.
In conclusion, Bob, we aren’t building enough. We need to build more, and faster, to prevent even more displacement from happening.
Bob these new developments are small 30, 50, 75ish unit buildings. Sure, you see lots of them but they don’t add up to much as pointed out.
You know what the solution is but you’re against it going up in your backyard.