One of my regular running routes from Wallingford to Green Lake is along Wallingford Avenue. It’s an easy mile from here to there and the street is, for the most part, pretty quiet with roundabouts aplenty above N. 50th St. Over the years, I’ve seen houses for sale, houses under renovation, and houses painted and repainted. But what I’m most impressed about this stretch of Wallingford is that it’s very neighborly. During the warmer months, it’s not uncommon to see neighbors chatting with one another on the sidewalk.
One of the homes I’ve passed along the way sat on a point of a triangle, on the intersection of Wallingford with Canfield Place, which looked like it had been occupied by the same family for a long, long time. To me it just had that “Grandma’s House” charm to it, you know? Well, back in November, I noticed the “For Sale” sign, followed by the “Sold” sign, followed by the permit sign, and then one day around Thanksgiving, the home had disappeared clear off the foundation.
Coincidentally, that same day, reader Amy emailed us with the news about a community meeting concerning the tear-down. She wrote:
Not a new house on a subdivided lot, but a tear-down and rebuild at 5542 Wallingford Ave N. Builder is greencanopy.com and a guy from there was going door to door handing out postcards about a meeting regarding the project at noon on Monday at the location.
It’s a spec house. They are at least trying to have a transparent process about what they are doing. This is just the pointy end of the triangle block that has a huge new construction spec house on a subdivided lot that has some neighbors hackles up.
So, I contacted Green Canopy Homes to get some more information about the new project. You may remember, we did a post on them last year, when they were renovating a home on Latona, and they asked the community to vote on the exterior paint color. But Tangletown neighbors were very wary of a new development, since they’ve been dealing with another builder’s disturbing development, only blocks away from the lot on Wallingford Ave.
I met with Green Canopy CEO, Aaron Fairchild, who gave me some background on the company. He also stressed the importance of community engagement, noting a few mistakes they made along they way; moreover, he told me why the little home on Wallingford Avenue ultimately had to be demolished.
Most of Green Canopy’s projects are remodels and not tear-downs; but the house on Wallingford was a 1,090 sq. ft. 2 bedroom, one bathroom home–not really optimized for today’s market. They had only planned to enlarge it by one story and increase the square footage from 1,090 to 2,600; but once they took a closer look at the home, they realized that enlarging the footprint, even marginally, on its 1921 foundation would be too costly. Moreover, there was a safety issue involved since it was likely the existing foundation couldn’t support a larger structure.
“We did the underwriting meeting at the house, and looked at all aspects of the property,” Aaron said. “We bought the house from mid to low 4’s [$419,000], and there’s no way you can just afford to remodel this house.”
Aaron also explained that the Department of Planning and Development’s (DPD) Priority Green Program has a pathway for the living building, which includes changes to code and expansion to inspire more commercial builders. On the residential side, the “green” is new construction. “There’s no program targeting exisiting to inspire homeowners to green build,” he said. People are left asking the question “How can DPD incentivize remodeling my kitchen to make the permitting process easier?”
So Green Canopy applied for a full intake permit, also thinking they would have a little bit of time before they planned a neighborhood meeting to discuss plans for the lot which they nicknamed “Georgia” (after Georgia O’Keefe). When complete, “Georgia” will be LEED certified.
But permits came back immediately, while Aaron was in a meeting San Francisco. “I emailed the office on a Thursday about the neighborhood meeting which read, ‘we cannot demo the house prior to the neighborhood meeting…’. What I got back was strange radio silence at first. Then, our Controller emailed me, saying, ‘Aaron, we can’t really stop the project until the community meeting.’ So, demolition began on Thursday, and by Friday, the rest of the house came down.”
When Aaron returned to the office on Friday, they had an internal meeting to discuss the project and planned the neighborhood meeting for the following Monday.
“The project manager told me they already had people in the neighborhood pushing back saying, ‘There’s nothing green about your business.’ Neighbors complained about workers smoking onsite and the fact that the crew’s trucks didn’t run on biofuels.”
An hour before the meeting on Monday, they received a stop work order from the DPD because it had received too many calls over the weekend complaining about the project. “We couldn’t understand why at first, but when we got to the site, the description (on the site notice) was highlighted with a note to “Revise plans to correct the description of work”. “The original description included rebuilding language, as we had planned to rebuild on top of the existing foundation. So we went back to the DPD and changed it, and the stop work order was lifted the next day.”
When Aaron arrived at the meeting, it was pouring rain, and there were about 8 or 9 people onsite. “Their rain umbrellas were doubled as pitchforks,” Aaron recalls. “Someone was upset because we didn’t provide a tent.” Luckily, a next door neighbor provided shelter in his garage.
One of the first questions during the meeting was how they were able to get their permits so fast. But another neighbor (who happened to be a contractor) reviewed the plans and said, “No, this is code. They’re up to code.” Aaron added, “Well, just so you understand, we have to work to code.”
When he showed the group the plans for a modern structure, Aaron recalls, there were a lot of long faces. Someone whispered, “This sucks.” He gave them enough time to review the plans and then addressed their concerns, one of which was the fact that the proposed structure had a flat roof. Aaron explained that a flat roof can accomodate solar much easier. The contractor in the group asked if there would be a rooftop deck, and when Aaron said ‘yes’ the contractor said that that was the real reason why the rooftop was going to be flat. But after Aaron explained that the new building would be one story higher than the old house, and the square footage would be 2,600 on the 3,918 square foot lot, the group’s stance began to soften a little.
“You can’t design by committee because it won’t make everyone happy,” Aaron said, acknowledging that while builders design to market, it’s important for community integration before breaking ground. “We don’t want to build with blinders on,” he added.
But the hardest news came when someone in the group explained that the original home belonged to woman named Winnie, who had been well-known in the neighborhood for a very long time. Since her home sat on the point between two streets, the curb in front of her home became a natural meeting spot for neighbors to stop and chat with one another. What was worse was that a neighbor had hoped to claim the light fixture on the home’s front porch before it was demolished, but when she came to the site, the fixture had already been chucked in the dumpster. Aaron left the meeting wishing they had planned the neighborhood meeting much earlier and that they had learned about Winnie earlier.
After the meeting, the project manager started a community blog to post updates, and keeps in constant contact with the neighbors. “Our project manager has gotten email and he handles things ASAP.”
“We actually are trying,” Aaron said. “We’re learning. We are in the adolesence of our life.”
“What I got back was strange radio silence at first. Then, our Controller emailed me, saying, ‘Aaron, we can’t really stop the project until the community meeting.’ So, demolition began on Thursday, and by Friday, the rest of the house came down.”
Who is “our Controller?” That is a lot of prose to explain a very neighbors and neighborhood disdaining process to far. Way not to put themselves in the shoes of the people living next door or across the street for starters.
As someone who genuinely likes modern and contemporary design, but also appreciates the historical craftsmanship of the neighborhood’s older homes, what I mourn in so many of these transformations is the loss of green space. Where a small bungalow sat among trees and bushes and plants and flowers that offered refuge and eye appeal and nourishment to wildlife and neighbors alike, many of these new residences seem to abut the sidewalk and boundary lines and take up virtually ALL the space on the lot. We need to live smaller and simpler, not bigger. That said, cramming people into maximized living units without allowing breathing room is not the answer either.
What’s interesting is the sense of entitlement a lot of people have, as if they have a right to dictate to neighbors how their homes should be designed and built, as if their own aesthetic values automatically trump someone else’s.
It would probably be easier for builders and homeowners to include more community elements if their neighbors weren’t busy throwing temper tantrums over the new construction. If I were renovating or doing a teardown and rebuild of a house, and my first interaction with neighbors was them denouncing me because I have different design preferences than they do, I would not be much inclined to listen favorably to any other ideas they had.
The other irony here is that there were no building codes when most of Wallingford was settled. It just so happened to be built during a time when the Craftsman was popular. 10 years earlier and it might be full of Victorians. 10 years later and it might be full of faux Tudor and quasi-Mission style homes. Things change. What makes a good neighborhood isn’t the design of the houses, but the quality of its residents.
No one said they have any “rights” in the matter (I’m not saying they don’t, just that it isn’t the point.)
As you say, neighborhoods are about people. The people who purchase and occupy the new house will be among those people. If the whole thing is conducted according to the principles you seem to espouse, and the result reflects this utter disregard for the surrounding neighbors, what does that say about the people who choose to live there? If the developers manage to deal with the neighbors in a positive way, that adds value to the house.
I have never heard of someone buying a house and rebuilding who called a community meeting. Seriously?
@junipero welcome to Wallingford, home to a lot of entitled people live.
Actually, it is good neighbors and good design and shared community and good public infrastructure and respectful personal/private boundaries that make good neighborhoods. In the above case Margaret chronicled with care and detail the push/pull/pace of change and transition, loss and promise in one special neighborhood.
While I’m sorry to see the old house go, I also tend to be impressed by the developer’s outreach to the community.
We’ve got a Dan Duffus 4-story monstrosity going up a 1/2 block from our house; everything about it was done as quickly and secretly as possible. Compared to that, the project described in this article sounds pretty reasonable.
It’s not entitlement or the look of the house. We have had so many new homes pop up around us. It’s the fact that these companies claim “green” but avoid many simple steps that could truly make them green. In fact, the non-green company that tore down recently around the corner did a MUCH greener job of demolition.
Yesterday, their delivery trucks idled outside for 35 minutes AFTER they unloaded the digger. The driver was sweeping and smoking and talking with the other guy onsite during this time. I know that some trucks must stay on, but this looked like pure convenience.
The demo crew threw 100% of the house, fixtures, etc. in the dumpster. The neighbor was not trying to “claim the light fixture”. She planned to ask ReStore or 2nd Source if they wanted all the items. Such wastefulness and so much could have been saved from landfills.
If Green Canopy is truly striving to be green, there is a lot of low hanging fruit to pick. So many very simple ways to be more green. So far, I have not seen an effort. Even the guy driving the small digger said he doesn’t understand why they throw it all away and pointed out only one pile of old concrete that would be reclaimed somehow.
BTW, I like modern homes, too. And, my house view will not be effected by this change. I also knew the owner and still plan to meet with neighbors on the corner. They may be covering the entire lot with the new home, but the little triangle at the corner is sidewalk and should remain.
I was present at that rain-soaked garage community meeting. What struck me was that, while Green Canopy talks a lot about community involvement in the project, the truth is this is largely lip service. Maybe I’m nitpicking– I know that even getting the opportunity to be heard by the company’s managers in a situation like this is unusual. But what was presented to the neighborhood wasn’t a series of options or a even a give and take. All the decisions had been made: project scope, footprint, height, design language and style, everything. Green Canopy wanted to have a conversation with the neighbors so they could check that box. And when people were unhappy, they apologized but changed nothing.
I understand the reality of the situation. The property was sold. I didn’t buy it, so I have no right to expect a vote in what happens to it. I live very nearby, and it will absolutely affect my view and my immediate surroundings. But I chose to live in the city and that’s the way it goes.
What bothers me is that Green Canopy expects to have it both ways: they make all the decisions on the basis of cost and profitability, AND the neighbors think and speak well of them because they “discuss” things. But if they’re not going to involve us all for real, I would appreciate they not pretend.
Maybe you should talk with the neighbors before writing the piece. I was the one who commented about “not providing a tent.” The truth is, Green Canopy sent an employee around on Friday to ask the neighbors to come to a meeting on Monday during the work day (short notice). At that time, the employee said it would occur on site, but with the house demolished I asked where and what if it was raining. The response was we will put a canopy up where the garage was. My disappointment was not in the rain, but the lack of follow through by the company: promising something and executing it. This seems indicative of their process: say one thing do another, which applies to the being Green as other neighbors mentioned above.
Further, I think it is condescending to have a “neighborhood meeting” for community outreach when their only intent is to tell us we are sorry this didn’t happen earlier, we are sorry the demo wasn’t green and that they are building a 3 story square on this tiny lot that had a one story bungalow. To be green and fit in with the neighborhood they could have done a lot more towards ascetics and not maximized the lot in the way that sticks out like a sore thumb.
I think it would be a lot different if it was a private owner building for their own use, rather than a construction company building on spec and not caring about what they leave behind.
“Umbrellas doubled as pitchforks” oh come on! There is no point in writing a purposefully inflammatory piece. How can we take any of it seriously or truthfully?
It is one not very well coordinated attempt at greenwashing what is simply a tear down and build up, completely legal, but don’t assume all this neighborcommunityspeak will fly.
What a gig harsher for the surrounding folks who will eventually get over it but, from personal experience, it takes a LONG time.
Any follow-up on the Duffus story?
I agree that the new owner has the right to do what he likes as the owner and developer. It’s the “green” part I have my doubts about, and this story about neighborhood meetings run amuck.
Why wasn’t everything in and inthe house salvaged by Second Use oe ReStore before demolition? That would be green. A light fixture to the dumpster is not green.
Also, honestly, this person is simply a developer. New development is absolutely necessary, however salvaging and using an old building, regardless of th increased efficiencies of the new building, is still the real green deal.
I am sorry to see the character of the neighborhood change o drastically, but that is still very much the prerogative of the developers who buy up houses to flip.
The story doesn’t sound genuine to me.
yes, yes – someone buys the property, they can do as they choose with it.
however, i’d say many folks have had it with these wonderful developers who blow through a neighborhood, build out to the exact limits, impose giant shadows across others’ yards with three story builds where one story used to be, etc.
these guys are out for a quick $, and care little about anything or anyone else. its their right, but its obnoxious as hell.
It’s not their fault – those inadequate little structures of yesteryear are “not optimized for today’s market.” It’s evidently we who demand the great big house that won’t fit so comfortably on its lot.
Sounds ridiculous, but maybe there’s some truth in it. The absurdly high cost of real estate in the area would have something to do with it – who will spend that kind of money to live in a “modest” house?
I guess the next question is, how many more people are there who will spend that kind of money to live in the new “house bloats”? Walking around the neighborhood I see what looks to me like a lot of evidence of marginal occupants – might be elderly, but for whatever reason it looks like upkeep isn’t keeping up, the grass is knee high and so forth. When they go on the market, will each one of these properties be “optimized for today’s market”?
We’re another neighbor up the street. I find it difficult to believe there’s much of a “green” argument to be made for tearing down a decent house and rebuilding it, regardless of the materials used. The waste created and energy expended in the process far outweigh any so-called “green” advantage. This is strictly a marketing ploy – and a misleading one.
As for the issue of neighborhood sensitivity, we’re all smarting over the spec house still being completed just a block up the street, which is non-compliant with the neighborhood zoning. The city admits that the permit was issued erroneously, but says that it’s too late to correct their error. If the city can’t properly oversee its own zoning regulations, designed to preserve the character of neighborhoods, you can bet that neighbors are going to be upset – and they should be.
I am a bit surprised the house can achieve LEED status without the points from salvage and recycling at demo.