Post navigation

Prev: (02/02/21) | Next: (02/02/21)

Central District project from Capitol Hill developer Liz Dunn takes shape on E Cherry

(Image: Build, LLC)

A long-planned project from popular Capitol Hill developer Liz Dunn to reshape a block of the Central District is moving forward.

The four-story, 38-unit, mixed-use building will rise on E Cherry replacing the 1920s era spaces home to the Twilight Exit and Tana Market.

The early design proposal for Dunn’s Cherry Valley, LLC project was approved after an administrative review by the city in November. Tuesday is the deadline for comment on the land use proposal for the project. Comments on the building’s environmental impact can be submitted to PRC@seattle.gov referencing Project 3033413-LU.

During November’s design review, officials report receiving no public comment about the Build, LLC-designed project save for one complaint not germane to the proposal’s elements of bulk and scale. That commenter was complaining about the project’s parking. The developer is proposing none.

CHS helped prepare neighbors, customers of Tana, and lovers of the Twilight Exit for the coming development way back in 2018 when we first reported on Dunn’s project. “Two existing buildings will be demolished,” the developer wrote at the time. “The team is working with existing retail tenants to facilitate the option of moving back into the completed project.”

“Two existing building will be demolished, but existing tenants may occupy the new project,” the latest proposal reads.

In 2019, CHS marked 20 years of the Twilight, the dive bar born and uprooted by development on E Madison. Tana Market has served the neighborhood and the East African community for years — the current ownership dates back to at least 2002, according to state records.


THANKS! WE DID IT! 1,000 CHS SUBSCRIBERS -- We asked, you answered. Thanks for stepping up!
Support local journalism dedicated to your neighborhood. SUBSCRIBE HERE. Join to become a subscriber at $1/$5/$10 a month to help CHS provide community news with NO PAYWALL. You can also sign up for a one-time annual payment.


Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TrustButVerify
TrustButVerify
3 months ago

Didn’t you post an article a couple of weeks ago about how tough things were for Liz Dunn and her tenants??

Would be great to get a comment from her about why moving forward with another project is important now when she claimed she needed forebearance from her lenders for the existing buildings she owns….

Jeff Zanatta
Jeff Zanatta
3 months ago

Come on. Again, another development without any parking requirements? This is getting ridiculous.

Elizabeth
Elizabeth
3 months ago
Reply to  Jeff Zanatta

Parking makes buildings extremely expensive to build and often takes spaces that could otherwise be more units. Maybe someone can spot me a link here, but I believe it can be like 50% more expensive to build a building with underground parking.

I live in the city because I don’t want to drive. That’s the whole point. I want there to be less traffic, and density of cool things to do that we can’t all have cars.

If people want a parking spot to come with their apartment, then the units with parking spots should reflect the true cost of building the parking spot (Would you still want a $1K/mo parking spot on a $2K/mo apartment?). I don’t want to subsidize it with my rent being higher and have people only pay $150/mo.

andy
andy
3 months ago
Reply to  Jeff Zanatta

The city of Seattle has no parking requirements. Single family, townhomes, commercial, etc., nothing has parking requirements. Great incentive for people to ditch their cars and rely on transit and car share.

Axx
Axx
2 months ago
Reply to  andy

Hi, That’s all great, but here’s another view.

For those of us that own single-family homes with access to on-street parking only (as I have had for 20 something years and also taken the bus), we are finding it harder and harder to park outside our own homes. Some of these new apartment goers who have access to parking but don’t want to pay are now taking up valuable street parking spaces because they do have cars. Yeah, yeah, I don’t own the street, but it’s not cool. If you do not have access to parking (paid or not) I get it, you’ll park where you want, but my experience is that the majority of developers (and tenants) don’t really care and the people that have lived in the community the longest shouldn’t be penalized (or gentrified) unnecessarily. IF you have a car and access to parking PAY or don’t park on our streets. Don’t want to subsidize someone else in your bldg? Put that back on the developer.

I guess it’ll all get permitted soon enough taking more money out of my/our pockets. We all have to share this city losing a vast majority of its charm and character every day.

And there will never be less traffic. Just more buses and bikes and scooters and motorcycles and electric bikes and light trail and foot traffic ETC. Not everyone can (or wants to) ditch their cars.

RossB
RossB
2 months ago
Reply to  Axx

As mentioned, requiring parking pushes up the cost of apartments. As a result, all apartments are more expensive. Thus a parking requirement means that all apartment dwellers have to pay for parking, while you (and all other home owners) don’t pay a thing. That hardly seems fair.

The alternative, of course, is to simply buy parking. Yes, it is expensive, but so is requiring apartment buildings to have parking. The difference is that those who really want it (like you) just pay for it.

Ryan A
Ryan A
3 months ago

My understanding is that Dunn’s group is also renovating a nearby existing commercial building on the north side of Cherry, a block east of the Tana/Twilight site.

Karl Liebknecht
Karl Liebknecht
3 months ago

Gentrifisatan sucking the blood from the CD! She’s undead! /s