An early design guidance meeting for a four-story structure at 3636 Stone Way N. will be held on Monday, December 5 at 8pm at University Heights Center (5031 University Way NE, Room 209). The existing building is home to Stoneway Roofing. The manager wasn’t available for comment as to if and when Stoneway Roofing would be vacated.
The new structure would have 110 apartment units and 8 live work units above 4,500 sq. ft. of retail space. Plans also call for underground parking for 105 vehicles.
Click here for more information regarding the project.
Slippery slope. Soon Stone Way will have the same corridore feeling of the south side of the Aurora Bridge. 105 parking spaces. So, many units will not have spaces and/or the businesses will not have on-site parking available. Let us hope many do not own cars. And let’s hope there isn’t too much duel occupancy in units because that could potentially mean two cars or hunting around for street parking. Fun.
Don’t get me wrong, I realize the need for development. I question the reality of thinking people are really moving away from cars at this rate.
The people who live on that little stretch of Interlake behind this project are in for a rough ride. Nonetheless, increased population density is inevitable along Stone Way, so I see no point in trying to fight it.
Is there really such a high demand for housing in Wallingford? Why is that not reflected in higher house prices?
This is what drove me out of Ballard about 6-7 years ago. All the reasons I moved there (older buildings with a variety of building heights and uses, quiet street with established businesses and houses, good walking/decent parking) disappeared in this rash of building 5-6 story mixed use buildings that all pretty much looked the same. Traffic became awful, walking got more dangerous, and parking was a joke. Rents increased, and my teeny little apartment was overshadowed by tall buildings to the south, west, and east. I had no privacy and no sunlight. Then they put the proposal notice on my building…
Awesome news. Maybe some of the Brooks employees will choose to live here!
I live on that little stretch of Interlake directly behind Stoneway Roofing, and I am generally in support of this project and a more vibrant Stone Way.
There’s that word again – “vibrant”? A couple of meanings from the dictionary definition could apply here – “full of energy and enthusiasm”, or maybe “quivering, pulsating”? But it’s really the semantic equivalent of junk food – an impression, but little substance – the verbiage that comes with the architect’s renderings. To put it another way, places that are “vibrant” are far more often proposed places, than real places.
People have to live somewhere, including apartment renters, and if they can meet the zoning requirements, they ought to be able to build something. It does make you wonder where the rest of the cars are going to park, though.
There is a recording studio between my house and Stoneway Roofing that is also quite vibrant.
I guess we all have our ideas about what makes a great neighborhood and what doesn’t. Parking is not much of a concern for me, but I can see how it can be for others.
Parking will need to be addressed. My question is if they don’t provide enough parking and we decide to have permit parking in our neighborhood why do I have to buy a parking pass from the city to park in front of my house?
@Ralph: the city will tell you that you have no right to curbside parking unless you’re disabled and don’t have a driveway or other off-street parking option, hence the 3-day limit on street parking in zones without permits.
Yet it’s clear enough that in many parts of the city, the residents do feel that they have the right to park their cars on the street. If the city rigorously enforced that three day limit everywhere, I believe the city’s story would get changed right away, as it really should be changed anyway.
I understand the three day limit…. let’s talk about the frustration homeowners have when they have to park a block away from their house when the street is full of people who park for the day.
If you expect the city to think that’s a valid issue, then one of us doesn’t understand the three day limit. If I were legally entitled to keep a car on the curb near my residence, then there wouldn’t be any such limit. The limit implies that I’m supposed to have sufficient parking space off the street. While the city effectively recognizes the reality of the situation and doesn’t generally enforce this provision, the rationale behind it allows planners to treat neighborhood parking as a resource that’s provided for everyone but the neighborhood.
Donn… thank you for being patient. NOW I do understand!
It still comes down to ” why must one buy a parking pass from the city to park in front of their residence because the city panders to building developers who dont provide enough parking and cuts bus schedules which prevents new workers in the developed buildings made with variances so they are taller and have larger capacity fo rmor eout of area workers?”
How about the city charging the out of area workers to park in residential neighborhoods for day time business hours.. like different shits 645-4; 715-5; 8-6 etc etc
I do nto think the developers can make the street hold a greater numbe rof cars.. especialy when the city is rapidly making half blocks marked with red and no parking signs.