The view from 15th Ave E (Images: Runberg Architecture Group)
A draft proposal for the project’s planned design review shows what the mixed-use redevelopment of Capitol Hill’s 15th Ave E QFC block could look like if city officials sign off on a sixth floor for the structure.
The design proposal for the project’s final “recommendation” phase of the city’s design review process was planned to be considered by the East Design Board in August but the complicated review has been delayed until September.
In addition to agreement on the overall massing, design elements, and materials planned for the building, developer Hunters Capital is also hoping the board’s approval will clear the way for it to build the project six stories tall.
CHS reported here in February as the city held a public hearing on the proposal triggered by opposition from neighbors over the requested zoning exception as Hunters Capital said it would need to build higher in order to preserve a prized European hornbeam tree while also transitionitioning the project to the adjacent lower areas surrounding to the north.
Hunters and Runberg Architecture Group are envisioning a “S” design for the project including a 15th Ave E plaza to break up the retail facade and provide additional corner retail space, a north podium deck, a “pedestrian through block” breezeway on the south end of the project next to the old firehouse building. The building would include 172 residential units and market-rate rents in a mix of studios, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and townhouse lofts lining the back alley plus nearly 10,000 square feet of commercial space along 15th Ave E. The project includes planned underground parking for 101 vehicles.
The construction will require the demolition of the existing block including the old QFC grocery store and parking lot and the adjacent 1904-built Moore Family building’s mix of a handful of apartments and small businesses. Though there are no announced plans for a groundbreaking, changes are already afoot. Much-loved neighborhood convenience store ShopRite announced its closure and the block’s Rudy’s is making preparations to move into the just-completed Hunters Capital development across the street — ground was broke on the five-story, nearly 70-unit mixed-use Capitol Hilltop Apartments in 2022.
In the meantime, the former QFC has been put back into temporary motion. The Punk Rock Flea Market is set to use the space as a venue for markets and events through at least the end of the year.
With the proposal for the upcoming September review, Hunters Capital is including updated plans for materials on the building including new concepts for the development’s windows that will “break down the scale of the building” and help to distinguish “the different massings” in the concept. The proposal also includes a shadow analysis that shows what the developer says will be the effect of adding the sixth story to the project in terms of sunlight reaching nearby streets and houses.
$5 A MONTH TO HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
🌈🐣🌼🌷🌱🌳🌾🍀🍃🦔🐇🐝🐑🌞🌻
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for $5 a month -- or choose your level of support 👍
Even for Seattle, this is one ugly ass box. Big ooof. Those businesses on the other side will love looking at that thing as it blocks the sun no doubt.
Would it kill us to design something that doesn’t look like this? They almost all do on the Hill.
It costs more.
On top of that it appears to me they intentionally made the 5 story proposal even less aesthetically viable. Some manipulation going on here to partly explain your reaction.
The way to pass design review is to submit something like what has been approved before. If you want innovative design, get rid of design review.
SIGH – I was really hoping that Hunters Capital would hire an amazing design firm for this project or even set their architects free to design something compelling and forward looking. This looks like it could be anywhere in the country. One needn’t go far to see projects that look very similar. Its both dull and massive, not a very compelling combination. Should you have an opinion consider commenting on this project that we’ll all be looking at for the rest of our lives.
its housing not an art piece
If they saw the price increases for their “designers” they’d scream bloody murder.
its possible to have good design and housing – Hunters is asking for an extra floor of housing wh/ is extra income for them. The City often gets a trade for an exception outside of code. Asking for something less generic isn’t a stretch and has been done many times.
Hunters Capitol has good intentions but they hire shitty architects. This is a critical site for the long-term success of 15th ave that should have an exceptional design. I am sure the design firm is skilled at delivering a profitable asset for the client, but they don’t live here and they don’t care about the neighborhood. If the developer wants an exemption to add another floor $$$$, then they should put a lot more on the table in terms of retail spaces, design and materials. People in Seattle need to demand a higher bar rather than rubber stamping basic, boring projects.
Runberg is a Seattle firm and they’ve done more interesting work than this elsewhere. that said, they aren’t my favorite firm by a long shot and they have a history of not really listening to neighborhood input.
Looks great. I look forward to the new restaurant space with sidewalk dining on the corner of 15th and Republican.
The Design Review for this project has been pushed back to September https://web.seattle.gov/dpd/aboutus/news/events/DesignReview/Detail/default.aspx?id=16680
Wooo hoooo more vacant housing that won’t be affordable. I cannot WAIT!
whats hard about supply and demand? more housing = lower housing cost. it doesnt matter if it’s marked as ‘affordable’ or not. building more housing supply in general will lower the cost.
More housing = lower housing cost only if you have a perfect free market with no other variables influencing the dynamics and no collusion, which we know is not the case. It is a shame that young urbanists with such a simplistic understanding of markets and capitalism have been manipulated into doing the bidding of corporate developers that prioritize profit margins over everything else. It is making for a shitty, unaffordable, ugly city. Seattle for Everyone! Lol
ok dude. go google ‘austin rent decrease’. more housing overall decreases rents
Yes, Austin rents have declined recently, but builders have now greatly reduced the number of new projects because the profits aren’t there (source: Austin Monitor):
And the decline in average rent is small compared to increases in recent years:
Average Austin rent in
2020: $1288
2021: $1512
2022: $1695
2023: $1616
So despite all the new units, rents are still 25% higher than they were in 2020. The rent decrease was probably also spurred by fewer people moving to Austin. As mentioned above, cities are not closed systems. Rents may continue to decline, which may encourage more people to move to Austin.
While the concept of more housing = lower housing cost sounds great in theory, but in reality developers want a return on their investment. They don’t lower the rent just because an apartment is empty…. So the math becomes the most cheaply built housing with tiny apartments and higher rents. Go and look at the websites for ANY of the new developments and you’ll see that the average cost for a 700 sq ft 1 bedroom is around $2,500.00. The min wage in Seattle is $19.97 per hour. So a min wage worker would need to spend about 78% of their gross income on rent. So yeah, I would say that’s NOT affordable housing.
New developments don’t lower their own rents; they take over the top end of the market, and thereby prevent all the less-new buildings from raising *their* rents. Yes of course the shiny new building with the cutting-edge appliances and the never-touched finishes costs more – but that’s good, because it gives the people with lots of money somewhere to go. Older apartments don’t get to compete for the wealthier folks, so they can’t jack up their rents to compete, and that’s how rents stay affordable for the rest of us.
Do you not live in older buildings because this isn’t really true. I’ve lived in older apartment buildings for 20 years and my rent has been jacked up almost every year sans the pandemic years.
If you have lived in Seattle for those 20 years, the reason your rent has kept getting jacked up is that new jobs have kept drawing in new Seattleites who can afford those higher rents, but our strict zoning codes have made it impossible for developers to keep up with demand. Yes, there has been some new development, but far less than the number of people arriving. New residents therefore compete with existing residents for existing housing stock, and rents go up. And this is why we have all lost friends to the faraway wildlands of Burien, White Center, Renton, etc.
Good! So you agree the model is flawed. Simply building new buildings did not lower rent anywhere because there have been a plethora of new buildings built the past few decades. We can’t just build our way out of this problem. Not going to work if there is a so called zoning crisis. Maybe start by fixing the zoning crisis otherwise building new buildings is like putting lipstick on a pig.
Either I don’t understand the distinction you are trying to make, or you are arguing against a position other than the one I expressed.
The person I replied to had complained that the new housing would not be “affordable”. I explained that it is not the function of new housing to be affordable, but to accommodate the top of the growing market. Building sufficient housing would result in greater affordability not because the new buildings are supposed to be inexpensive, but because they compete with older buildings and prevent them from becoming expensive.
There has not been a plethora of new buildings, not compared to population growth! If you look at population statistics over the last 20 years you can clearly see that the number of people living in Seattle has grown in lock-step with the number of new units built, while the number of jobs has grown much more quickly. How can that be? Obviously people have been getting priced out and must now commute in from the suburbs. Restrictive zoning creates sprawl.
Building our way out of the problem is exactly what we ought to do, and restrictive zoning is what prevents that from happening. The whole point of fixing the zoning crisis is that we would then be able to build our way out of the problem, as we currently cannot.
^^ what Mars said
Ummm… where do you get 78% from? My calculation is bottoms up.
It is preposterous to assume all humans need to have a partner and/or roommate to supplement income. It is also preposterous to force everyone to work over 40 hours a week? That doesn’t align with most people I know and highly doubt many people want to work that much.
It is preposterous to assume that someone working full time in a minimum wage job should be able to afford a 700 sf new, swanky apartment in a top notch neighborhood of an international technology focused city. It is reasonable to assume that people will make arrangements to afford the places they want to live. Those arrangements could include a roommate, a romantic partner, or choosing a cheaper apartment (GASP!) outside the chosen neighborhood or city altogether. Where is it written that everyone should be able to live wherever they choose?
That’s not what I was saying and you’ve misinterpreted and made assumptions. I agree that people making less money shouldn’t be entitled to luxury apartments. I have lived in smaller older apartments for 20+ years and make over 70k a year and still live paycheck to paycheck. What I’m saying is I don’t understand how creating more luxury apartments is going to help minimum wage and those of struggling financially be able to afford more housing. We need more AFFORDABLE housing.
Exactly Glenn.
So you gotta work 60 hours a week and have a roommate to afford a 700 sqft apartment? That’s uh…. not great. I would certainly hope people don’t have to work that much to afford basic housing.
don’t have to. I’m not advocating for that. I’d prefer people stop working and live smaller, where they can afford it. There is nothing the city offers a single income of $19.98/hour that they can’t get outside the city.
This isn’t basic housing. This is a large 1br in a brand new luxury building in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in one of the most expensive cities in the country.
Basic? There’s great places to live down near Othello station that are reasonably new and have some amenities. Plus they have a light rail stop for commuting.
Two bedrooms in Wenatchee are going for $1500-$1800. $2500 for 700sqft on Capitol Hill in Seattle is reasonable in comparison. Inflation sucks, property taxes just went up 5% and interest rates are a bunch higher. Developers have to make a profit, and it’s not as much as you’d think.
I have always been skeptical of the urbanist’s mantra that more housing = lower housing costs. There is a real-life example in Seattle that this is not true. We have built numerous new apartment/condo buildings in the last decade or so, and rents have gone up, and up…and up.
And what would the rents have increased to without the additional housing? See San Francisco.
The myth. IRL, competition doesn’t lower costs. It encourages more aberrant behavior.
If you hold constant the number of people looking for housing, more housing — any kind — will lower the average and median costs for housing. Unfortunately not only didn’t we have enough housing in the past, we’ve continued to add more and more high payed people who are putting tremendous pressure on the system.
Why would it be vacant? Do we have vacant new housing elsewhere?
Yes. Quite a lot.
Link? I’d be quite surprised if our vacancy rate was lower than other peer cities (or really any major cities?). In fact I know that it’s not.
really? wow okay’…I’m gonna say facts no longer matter to you? It’s simply wrong.
The design is inspiring and breathtaking. It’s like the rigid form of a Star Wars sandcrawler met the grace and elegance of a downtown Fresno Embassy Suites and made sweet, passionate love. It’s so original. I have not seen this exquisite architectural form anywhere else on Capitol Hill. Bravo!
Definitely not as amazing as stunning masterpieces that its replacing, especially the QFC. It also isn’t up to the standards of the hospital a couple blocks away. That thing is pure artwork.
So a shit building is being replaced by another shit building and that’s fine with you? Maybe we could aim higher?
I care about housing people, not building art.
It’s such a bummer that we’ve decided those things are mutually exclusive.
When art delays housing for people, I’m going to put it lower on my priorities. If we can remove process/veto points and speed up or eliminate review slowdowns, I’m all for it.
Why not both Boris? See European and Scandinavian projects except not the old Eastern European projects which you would seem to find hunky-dory .
“LOL” is too frequently used as a hyperbole, but in this particular case I did indeed laugh out loud at this comment. Thank you for that, my neighbor!
there was a BOGO offer on the design
looks great
build it
I don’t think it’s fair to call ShopRite much-loved given the very mixed feedback on them in the comments on previous blog posts and the very low foot traffic I see when I go in.
Looks great! Let’s get it started and then work on getting the Safeway site going asap as well.
There’s absolutely no reason for a 6th floor to be approved. The development capacity “lost” by the tree they are electing to save is 1-2%. They want a 6th floor to make more money, not because it results in a better project.
Nor does adding the 6th floor add any units as the 5 story design had the same number of units
This is completely untrue. Read the docs – a 6th floor adds 30-40 units.
The developer states that it could result in an added 30-40 units but doesn’t mention that with a slight change in the plan such as by eliminating the ten foot setback on the south side of the building which connects the sidewalk to an alley. WHY? And the bulk of the tree they are using as an excuse to get around the zoning rules is mostly on public land. A little honesty, a minor change to the design and you have the same number of units. Originally it was 150 units, take out the S walkway and add 20 units there instead of at the top.
And you know, to give more people a roof over their heads…
It costs less to put floors on buildings than the cost of the first floor.
exactly – a 6th floor is playing into their plan. They get everything. More square footage so higher gross sales (average per unit), while getting to draw at the plan simply paying a depressed property tax $ while waiting out better interest rates for building carrying costs and in hopes of improved consumer buying power (increased demand)
We all get 30+ more units added to the housing available in Seattle.
Good enough for me, and needless to say, way more aesthetically pleasing than the existing building (and parking lot).
Hunters Capitol is local and cares about the neighborhood, so it gives me hope that they will fill the retail spaces with small businesses.
They are far better than many of the large developers that let retail spaces sit vacant for years as a tax right-off and to artificially inflate the value of the building with a bogus cost-per-square-foot estimate for the vacant retail spaces. We as a city unfortunately allow these large national development trusts to get away with it.
It would be great to see Joy and other members of the council step up with regulations such as a tax on vacant storefronts in new buildings to stop this destructive corporate capitalist sleight of hand that enriches institutional investors at the cost of neighborhood vibrancy. It is not dissimilar to the practices of the Trump Organization. The revenue of such a tax could be used to subsidize first time entrepreneurs and arts organizations in buildout of vacant spaces.
You literally know nothing of how developers finance or value their buildings, or how the county and federal govt tax them. If a retail space is vacant it’s not a tax write-off, and in fact the developer is paying property taxes for the square footage that is normally paid by the tenant in a typical commercial NNN lease.
Inflate the value of a building? If they did that the county would charge even more for property taxes, and since all these new buildings are financed with loans from banks, they come with covenants about %age of space leased. Not having tenants puts them in more danger of having their loans pulled.
+1 to earlier comments. It’s housing, not a work of art. Rent is only going to continue to increase sharply unless we build more housing. Build it to 6 stories and move on.
It’d be approved already if they didn’t ask for unnecessary and unwarranted departures to line their own pockets.
Looks great!! Much needed
It’s not a beauty contest. We needed 10K units yesterday and another 10K today and tomorrow. Cheap, fast and affordable is the mission.
Looks great. The street needs a refresh!
It is a disappointing design, but even still, way better than the Safeway project. I do think the neighborhood deserves a bit better from this local developer who is seeking an additional floor on this project.
Of course there will not be adequate parking for the building, which will additional burdens on an already overcrowded neighborhood.
It’s in a transit-rich neighborhood that is also very walkable and bikeable. It will be very attractive to folks who don’t want or need to own a car.
Dream on. In reality we all know that doesn’t happen.
Actually it does happen. It really does.
AKA it will be attractive to the crew who can afford to Uber everywhere and don’t have kids.
Anyone who requires easy access to parking is free to choose to live in the 95% of the Seattle area that offers a car-oriented lifestyle.
why do they have to be ugly?
People do not object to density, but they do object to ugliness. See Europe; particularly the Nordic cities. And yes, I have a background in architecture.
People are literally objecting to an additional floor. The shorter design is not prettier.