A rendering of the planned new building and the neighboring landmark La Quinta
Thanks — and sorry — to the La Quinta resident who alerted CHS to the notice
Residents of Capitol Hill’s La Quinta apartments have been issued a 90-day notice to vacate as a planned redevelopment of the landmarked property including plans for a new twin apartment building behind the old one at 17th and Denny moves forward.
The March 5th issued notice cites “Substantial Rehabilitation” for the order. Permits to enable demolition of two neighboring houses to make way for the new construction are also in motion.
CHS reported here in 2022 as DEP Homes, a small real estate investment firm that lists an address near Judkins Park in the Central District, purchased the property including the landmarked building and the two neighboring houses for $4.2 million and set about a planned redevelopment that would add a twin five-story apartment building behind the 98-year-old La Quinta structure.
DEP Homes did not respond to CHS’s messages about the notice and the company has not responded to any of our inquiries over the past three years. DEP owner developer Cao Huynh is a prolific Seattle real estate investor. Capitol Hill firm S+H Works is DEP’s architect on the project.
(Image: Viva La Quinta/Jesse L. Young)
The planned clearance of the La Quinta is a blow to residents of the building who organized to try to purchase the historic property before DEP stepped in.
Though the group was ultimately unable to purchase the building before it was sold by longtime family ownership, they were successful in pushing for La Quinta to gain historic landmark protections in collaboration with local development authority Historic Seattle.
According to paperwork related to the rehabilitation and development work, Seattle Landmarks officials are reviewing and have signed off on the submitted construction plans.
It is not clear what the timeline for work on the property will be but the 90-day notice clears the way for work to begin including demolition of the two old houses behind the landmarked Frederick Anhalt-designed La Quinta and its clay tile roof, its dozen two-story apartments, and its large central Mediterranean Revival courtyard.
Construction of the new building might take longer to begin. Tracking down permits and paperwork related to the project is a challenge. The developer has submitted information on the work across three different addresses for the parcel.
Renderings of the “1700 E Denny Way” project on the DEP Homes website show a five-story apartment building with options including wood and composite, brick and composite materials, or a mix with brick and composite corners, with either large or small windows.
It is not specified how many units the new building will include but the plans do call for a storage room of the original La Quinta to be converted into a “sprinkler riser room.”
A fire sprinkler installation permit CHS dug up shows the planned unit count at 84.
The new building, meanwhile, won’t need to pass through the city’s design review process under an exemption created to boost Seattle’s Mandatory Housing Affordability program.
According to a March letter from the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, the project is planned to include five units under the city’s Mandatory Housing Affordability program and will pay $212,000 into the program “for a fraction of a unit not provided through the performance option.”
As for La Quinta residents, the city includes efforts to “substantially remodel your unit or the building where you live displacing you permanently” on its roster of “just cause evictions.”
“This requires your landlord to apply to the City for a relocation license which is approximately a 6-month process,” the city writes. “The license requirements include giving you an information packet and paying you relocation assistance if your income is at or below 50 percent of the median income for King County.”
More details on the city’s Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance for “displaced by development” are available here.
$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 🖤
I’m sure the problem with buying the building is that the ROI is so poor on Seattle multi family even the residents don’t want to own it. Vast expenses on property tax, water sewer and garbage, and insurance. Then need to maintain an aging structure. Probably the only way it old penciled out is to build the new block and increase density.
We would absolutely buy and co-op this building. It’s an incredibly special place.
It’s really too bad that residents weren’t able to buy. I assume the really poor state of the structure/overgrown landscaping is due to the buyer neglecting maintenance?
This also seems like a really poor time to be building a substantial amount of housing as we’re entering a recession.
That said, demoing the adjacent homes and building something with more units is absolutely the best use of these parcels, it’s just too bad a coop couldn’t undertake the project and not a scummy operator, as this guy seems to be.
The current residents DID try to buy it, though. Sounds like this developer just swooped in and snagged it at the last minute.
I am sure you are totally wrong,”Mrman”.
This is one of those times I miss Kshama Sawant.
We need to ramp up our new public developer ASAP and stop overpowering developers who care about nothing but profits. This especially crap city council is impotent and largely clueless. We need one that continues the first work done to give tenants better rights so this crap cannot happen.
A public developer with proper leadership could have built a lot more housing, with more affordable units while leaving the La Quinta building tenants alone. Seattle Housing Authority should have bought La Quinta but they are largely impotent and clueless, too. We need bolder action. No more control of “real estate” (housing) by corporates and greed mongers.
so why aren’t we improving SHA and instead just creating another new public developer while leaving the impotent and clueless one in place?
We have multiple public housing developers, not just SHA. SHA focuses primarily on federal HUD programs that target the very lowest incomes and make building for 60-120% AMI very difficult. The social housing developer will have funds tied more directly to local growth and therefore hopefully expand when the city does. They are bringing on experts in execution and people with lived experience, and have ran two very successful campaigns. I’m really starting to have hope that this can be executed well!
Why does each need a separate focus? That seems like we’re simply setting up SHA to fail even more.
They each have their own charter document with different focuses. I think it’s a fair argument, The Urbanist did an article on how the large number of development authorities (dozens I believe in Seattle) can possibly create barriers and competing objectives.
SHA, Community Roots, and now the Social Housing Developer all have similar goals but slightly different methodologies. Community Roots just did its own big rebrand/pivot, we’ll see how it goes. SHA’s biggest development has been the Yesler Terrace project, which looks great now but I think is pretty shortsighted to give away most of the land when we’ll need more affordable housing in the future. SHA and Community Roots largely represents the status quo of affordable housing using decades old methods that have gotten us to this point. Social Housing Developer provides a whole new model that brings way more of the people living in the buildings into the process. SHA and Community Roots were each formed because something in the process wasn’t working and a dramatically different solution was needed. I think we’re in that situation again.
The solution to building affordable is to do it outside of the most expensive place in Seattle. Now that light rail makes the entire city accessible, northgate and beyond or down south are much more logical and cheaper places to build. The dated building and land was $4.5m – you could build a lot of affordable units for that !
Landlords pass the water, sewer, garbage, and utilities costs on to tenants – in addition to rent. I am billed for these costs monthly in addition to rent.
Gross 🤮
NOOOOOO WHY IS IT SO UGLYYYYY
Buy the building screw the renters. A tale as old as time. The only way to ride out the cycle is to own. Easier said than done for many.
That’s the solution of the social housing developer, strength in numbers and public ownership!
Remind me who funds public ownership – ah the property tax bill which then increases rent and cost for everyone else.
Please show one social housing developer that has worked and has not produced sub-standard living conditions for the renters.
There are literally two examples out of the hundreds that have been tried in cities around the world that you can point to.
Singapore succeeds through an ownership model; renters are actually buying their apartments and building wealth that way over time. Eventually the city (country) cedes ownership to the residents as in a condominium here. The renters are also massively screened in ways that would be illegal here (they enforce integration at the cultural level to ensure the building doesn’t become homogeneous).
Vienna works because the city itself does not own or operate the buildings, but acts as a self-sustaining (read: profitable) lender for developers of social housing. These developers are for-profit entities and have to abide by a huge list of tenant requirements and protections in order to qualify for public-money loans from the housing authority.
If we want this to work, we need to study the places where it has worked and incorporate their learnings into our plans. Not just fund a huge new bureaucracy and likely not achieve its goals.
Ummm, the Singapore Housing Development Board. Ummm, ya know, the entity that houses millions of Singaporeans in high quality, affordable flats.
You, “MrMan” act like our current “Free Market” mess is better than. It is not. It is a greed-based money grab for almost all involved -except those who aren’t wealthy and need decent or better shelter.
Stop being a clown. Evolve. You defend the status quo that ruins lives. And, even if there were no good examples (see Atlanta, too), Seattle can and does innovate where others do not. Maybe, move to Texas’s, where a lot more folks think like you do. Lordy.
You seem clueless and whine-y with zero better solutions. May the crusty old white guys zip it.
This is so messed up!
This is a retaliatory move on the part of the developer for the construction to the north of the LaQ. He owns all 3 parcels but joined them as one so his new building can benefit from the landmark benefits while he lets the LaQ further crumble. The residents here have fought his every shady move and he wants us out.
Are you suggesting the new building will receive landmark status benefits after construction?
They merged all 3 parcel lines so that the new construction will be on the same parcel as the historic building. This will enable them to receive various funding for the parcel based on the fact the LaQ is landmarked. The new building will not have status – it will just save $$$ on the building costs
What are the landmark benefits in terms of funding?
https://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/historic-preservation/preservation-incentives#stateandlocalincentives
The Dep homes folks are the worst – I’m so sad the residents couldn’t figure out a way to buy the building
Love to hear more about DEP..
I’m all for redevelopment and am generally pretty pro-landlord, but I gotta side with you all on this one. That new design is ugly and boring, and the original is charming. Talk about an aesthetic downgrade.
So far as I can see, the new apartment building is not replacing the La Quinta apartment building – it’s going to be built adjacent, just to the north, replacing two single-family houses.
I just emailed my city council people and y’all should too! You have to give 180 days notice for a rent increase, but still just 90 days to get kicked out?? Makes no sense.
If you qualify for the relocation assistance you get an additional 90 days.
A lot of good that landmark protection did…
The lLaQuinta is still protected.
True, although it sounds like the tax exemptions from landmarking is at least partially driving the neighboring development.
I’m curious, did Historic Seattle help with the Co-Op/purchase efforts at all or just the landmarking?
We were in touch with Historic Seattle but honestly we were essentially shut out of the buying process because they accepted the all cash developer offer within days. We just didn’t have the time to coordinate with other interested parties. Seattle does not have strong tenant opportunity to purchase laws. Some cities, like DC, have a strict process that enables tenants the first right of refusal. In Seattle’s case the seller just pays a small fine for not giving tenants the first right of refusal.
Thanks for that detailed follow up and a great action item for what to press the council on!
The La Quinta will be staying BUT landmark protection is feeble here… plenty of landmark buildings have been torn down.
from the Historic Seattle website
Landmarking does not necessarily guarantee that a building is safe from the wrecking ball. After the Landmarks Preservation Board (LPB) designates a landmark, LPB staff enter “Controls and Incentives” negotiations with the property owner. Controls are what protect a landmark’s designated features. If no controls are agreed upon, then the building is essentially a landmark in name only – there are no protections against insensitive alterations or demolition.
Additional time line details
+ 2021 -building and two houses to the north purchased by DEP Homes after long time owner passes away
+ all three lots merged to one parcel and landmark designation lines adjusted to exclude the backyard.
+2022 -planning starts for 100+ SEDU units and no parking to replace the two SFH to the north. As it’s now one parcel, the developer circumvents the rules around outside space by including the courtyard. Tenants reach out to commuity and many statements opposing the construction are submitted. Hugh Schaeffer with local firm SHW argues with everyone on the zoom calls.
+early 2024 – permit is filed and granted to build a sprinkler room in the basement. No tenant displacement noted. Construction value less than 20k
+summer 2024 – massive new building will require a storm drain to run to Denny way from the mid point of 17th. Trenching the street is a VERY expensive project. Developer proposes drilling though the walls of the LaQuinta which triggers landmark board involvement
+summer 2024 -tenants send in statements – current owner does only the absolute bare minimum to upkeep the historical building including refusing to clean gutters and subsequent interior flooding. Developer representative, Michael Pollard (shelter homes) admits on zoom with the city the only purpose of this building is to earmark the landmark grants for the new construction. Landmark board unanimously shuts down proposal to drill through the walls.
+fall 2024 – the sprinkler riser permit is modified to a 100K project and full tenant displacement.
We believe this is retaliation. They’d rather have an empty building than a bunch of preservation focused tenants watching their every move.
Here we are. 90 day notice delivered on 3/5
None of us want to move. This building is like a child to us and our neighbors like a family. All of us wish we could co-op it and take care of the building.
A child that you didn’t want to pay for….
Clearly whoever bought it was going to have to do something to make back the $4.5m they paid and rehab expenses.
You can see a more elegant version of the same thing by the other Anhault building next to the hospital where a new build was added as well.
We tried to buy the building for the asking price. We needed one or two weeks to form an LLC and pull together financing. We were already in touch with banks. The previous owners sold within days to DEP and wouldn’t consider our offer. We were more than willing to pay for the space and invest the likely 3-4m required in repairs.
yes, but the project near Kaiser/Group Health was designed by a good architecture firm, Public47. Dep doesn’t typically work w firms of their caliber. It shows in their projects
Yes, but the precedent of adding a new building next to one which is landmarked (and of higher quality) is obvious to see, so not sure all of the can’t do it here is about.
People above seem to suggest they would spend $4.5m buying it, then $m more on rehab. If you have all that money just buy a condo ? No more landlords.
For us the La Quinta is “not just a condo”, that’s why we worked very hard to protect it with the landmarking designation, and why we were ready to make an offer. And comparing the Dep project to the Anhalt project on John is ridiculous to say the least. Not everything is reduced to $$.
They were going to purchase it as a co-op.
And if you live your life just seeing dollar signs on everything, that’s your business, but many people choose to live places based on other factors, like history and community.
Did you read the article or just immediately hop into the comments just to be a contrarian…? The residents DID try and purchase it, they weren’t given the time.
The other Anhalt project you mention IS nice, yes–because it actually takes the original building into consideration in design. This one pretty clearly does not.
You have reading comprehension issues, don’t you? It’s been stated more than once on this thread they wanted to buy LQ.
For months, possibly years, one of the La Quinta residents set out a crockpot with free nutrition for neighbors. Warmed my heart to see this level of community, which seems less common as our city becomes increasingly harder to call a long-term home. Kinda sad to see this pocket of old-school goodness displaced.
No doubt we need more housing but this one hurts. Wish they could have succeeded in turning it into a coop.
This sorta reminds me of what happened to the Anhalt on the corner of 16th & John… the quaint historic building was saved by the ugly modern blocky building constructed just north of it. Different situation in many ways, but this kind of quaint+ugly combo pack has a precedent a couple blocks away.
I think that new building is quite beautiful and of very high quality. As noted by others, it was designed by Public47 Architects, a quality firm, and utilized very high end materials throughout. Better yet, I believe it compliments it’s older neighbor. I consider that project, which resulted in a tasteful new building and a renovated older building, a perfect example of good development for historical properties. Sorry you do not agree.
It’s so-so, I agree they seemed to use nicer materials but also that it’s kind of ugly. It looks like a stack of giant grey duplo legos. It just goes to show that beauty is subjective, whereas housing is just a need and a right.
Can you give me an example of a newer building that you like and appreciate on Capitol Hill?
It’s more about the people and what’s happening in the space than the building for me. I think a lot of things that have gone up look just fine, but I also like a bunch of the tacky stuff, both newer and things from the past few decades. I really like when people get creative with spaces and decorations rather than clean and classic.
But again, it’s much more about the people and activity.
It aint the cutest, yeah, but it doesn’t fuck with the Anhalt visually anywhere NEAR as much as this one does. It’s like they went out of their way to make the ugliest building possible just to screw over the neighbors.
It’s subjective I guess. I highly doubt it was vindictive and can only presume whatever architect(s) worked on this earnestly tried to design something appealing with the constraints they were given.
The new building is a huge ugly blob which doesn’t fit the scale of the neighborhood. It’s an abomination.
I’m all for new development and infill but it’s a shame design review is exempt so we are stuck with these hideous disposable box apartment buildings by cut rate architects that design the exact same garbage. Another Hardie box with random windows and trendy colors.
Design review would tell them to add a pop of color like orange
I was told that the LR3 zoning around LQ allows for building heights up to 4 stories but because DEP owns LQ which they are prevented from building up on per Landmark status they were able to transfer an extra story of “air space” from LQ to the new structure making it 5 stories.