Seattle developer Harbor Urban is planning a new mixed use/apartment building for 1321 N. 45th Street (corner of Interlake Avenue and N. 45th). Plans call for 150 apartments with ground level retail space and below grade parking for 100-140 vehicles, totaling 168,000 square feet. You can review the plans here, including design sketches.
According to the plans, the site comprises 8 tax parcels “located on the approximate eastern half of the block bounded by North 45th Street on the north, Interlake Ave North on the east and North Allen Place on the south.” This means that the two story building (formerly owned by Dr. Jenefer Huntoon) and seven single-family homes would be demolished.
Wallingford resident and Harbor Urban Development Manager, T.J. Lehman, will be at Chocolati Café (1716 N. 45th St.) tomorrow night (Wednesday, January 9), from 5:00pm – 8:00pm to discuss the project and answer questions from the community. If you’re unable to attend, he and his colleague, Emiko McKittrick, have offered to schedule future meetings in the neighborhood. You can reach them at [email protected] and [email protected].
The project’s first design review is scheduled for next Monday, January 14, at 8pm, at the University Heights Community Center (5031 University Way NE).
Let’s go to the meeting and ask for adequate parking, bus bulbs and non-car using resident incentives.
I’ll miss those little houses, which seem to be the only remaining single family houses left on 45th, as most of the others that remain have been turned to businesses.
@mood Seriously? There are bus bulbs already right across the street on 45th. What they solve besides delaying car traffic is another question.
Looks pretty good. I like the little houses too but I’ll be happy to see more retail along there.
Those bus bulbs also send non-residential traffic on to residential streets. That traffic doesn’t tend to be mindful of the residents who actually live on those streets. It becomes very dangerous.
More housing density? I find this so depressing. Ditto to moodenhancedthruexercise’s remarks.
I live near the project site and I’m happy to see those houses get replaced by retail. Those houses have been getting more run down lately. Note sure if its because they were bought out and knew they’d be demolished, but it was getting ridiculous. I’d also love to see some more pedestrian friendly retail on that corner. Not sure what’s going to go in the retail level at the new building across from Stone Way Hardware, but between these two recent projects, it is good news for the businesses and new and existing residents on this end of 45th. Maybe we’ll actually start seeing people in the new Walgreens too.
needs more parking.
i am not sure of the occupancy of the place on 39th and stone but know that neighborhood/street parking is at an all time high since they’ve opened and charge their residents to park.
Oh they charge their residents to park? Have you ever gone to Bastyr and had to park 3 blocks away?
How about the new apartment building across from Stoneway Hardware.. on Stone? it’s a huge building.. and business on the ground floor to succeed will need parking.
How about the new develpoment on 45th N and Woodland Park N? Another old house ot be demolished to become an 8 plex.
yes, you have to pay to park. i can’t count 6 cars that are now parking in the neighborhood that are residents.
no, i don’t go to bastyr but if i did, i would/could walk.
wait until brooks arrives, i believe there are something like 60 parking spots for 400 people,
That won’t matter because Brooks promised to hire in the neighborhood. I am going to work there, aren’t you? Then I won’t have to drive anywhere as I am in walking distance to all stores and Brooks.. or biking, or skateboard.
What is Brooks?
Why is it that project planners will propose 150 units and only 100-140 parking spaces? Do they seriously expect on-street parking to make up the difference? I would like to see a revision to city building codes that would REQUIRE one full-sized parking space for EACH unit.
This is more reasonable than expecting people to swear off driving. Any unused parking spaces could be used for bicycle maintenance, marijuana growing or hypodermic syringe autoclaving…
Let’s insist that only tetraplegics can live there!
Yani, Brooks is the athletic shoe mfr who will be in the new bldg @ Stoneway N & N35th.
Those “cute little houses” are anachronisms in the Eye of the Urbane Village. A pox on them!
I’d HATE to be the lone hold-out owner of a cute house stuck forever betwixt Scylla and Charybdis.
I believe it’s typical of new construction – there are fewer parking spaces than units, and if you want one, you pay extra. The implicit assumption seems to be that, on the average, you won’t want one, because these areas are served by transit (that’s the official policy distinction that allows fewer parking spaces, if I remember right.)
In reality, even people who can easily commute to work can’t manage very well without a car, because our system is built to serve commuters. Yes, I know people who do it; no, I don’t think it’s going to be very common in the near future. If that’s true, the reality is going to be built-in overflow street parking. Take a development the size of the one at the roofing place, ca. 100 units, and assume double occupancy etc., you might have something like 40 cars cruising for a spot somewhere nearby. In the Stone corridor we’re looking at a lot of these, maybe 2000 units if they fill all the proposed developments? I haven’t really done the arithmetic.
If you think apartments should provide adequate parking on site, talk to your representatives on the council, but don’t expect to feel very represented by the outcome. What they have for you is an RPZ, so you can pay for “your” spot on the street.
In response to all the comments about insufficient parking… developers typically decide on number of parking spots based on a ratio of X building sqft to 1 spot. Hence not really number of units = number of spots. Furthermore, the established urban trend is that more and more people these days are preferring neither to own nor to drive a car, even if it means taking multiple transit transfers to get to work or to do other things. So… I think you’re speaking against the social trend as well as the norm of how things work in real estate here, which are fine. But for you to speak up for cars and driving, even in the face of the reality that the American built environment is geared for cars, is still unfortunate for the collective human effort to move away from this unsustainable form of transportation (as the commercialized technology stands). As for the impact on street parking, while it’s undesirable that private developments are potentially affecting public access roads by spillover of parking demand, bottom line still is — 1. people don’t drive as much these days 2. people shouldn’t drive (especially single occupancy) as much as possible 3. 45th is an improving transit corridor so there are other options.
I’m fine with fewer cars. I got along without one myself, here in Seattle, until I was near 40. If people have fewer cars, excellent. The question is whether that’s true, now or in the near future. I don’t see it, but maybe someone has numbers? If it isn’t true, then you can’t expect surrounding residential areas to cheerfully make up for the city council’s fantasies.
Donn is right. The Seattle City Council recently reduced the minimum requirement for parking spaces in new multi-family construction for areas served by public transit.
Still, that is a MINIMUM requirement, meaning that builders can put in as many parking spots as they wish. But not everyone requires a parking space, so why require every apartment to have one? It is becoming more and more common for people to NOT own a car, especially in neighborhoods (like Wallingford) served well by public transit.
That assertion again. Would there be numbers for it? I see Seattle is on the list of 50 cities with no-car households – at the very bottom, number 50, with 16%. Is that a trend? I wouldn’t bet on it – per capita ownership went up significantly in the last 40 years, despite transit improvements.
DOUG asked, “…not everyone requires a parking space, so why require every apartment to have one?”
I didn’t mean that every apartment would be ASSIGNED a space, but that there would be a minimum number of spaces equal to the number of units. Building managers could schedule weekly fisticuffs between tenants to determine WHO gets HOW MANY parking spaces. Four adjacent parking spaces could be enclosed with appropriate fencing material to provide a sort of mini-Thunderdome. Now, THERE’S a futuristic concept!
I heard once, long ago, of a place – I cannot now recall where – in which the groups of people sharing a living space did not all go to the same destination at one time. I think the archaic term for this was “two-car-families”. How quaint!
If our Collectivist Urban Overlords saw fit to permit it, perhaps some of the units could be occupied by similar multipartite micro-tribes.
@23: Perhaps the five bus lines (16, 26X, 31, 32, 44) within five blocks of this development could help those micro-tribes get from Point A to Point B sans automobile (the bike lane to/from the Burke Gilman Trail might help as well).
While I support density, I would like to see it happen with buildings that were less bland than the one pictured. Or most of the 4-6 story hunks of beige going up around here.
there is a way to rapidly decrease the anti-social practice of operating a motor vehicle:
remove the paving from the streets.
neighborhood radish patches could be planted on the exposed soil, and downtown seattle will again enjoy the deathtrap mud-holes that made the city famous.
FRUITBAT, I feel your pain. Experts have proved that Architecture, like Quality, does not contribute to the bottom line.
Utilitarian crates with all the comfort and distinction of a Mi-Go Brain Cylinder are adequate for the masses. The 1960s will soon be viewed with nostalgia as “the golden age.”
Might leave the paving in place about 8 feet wide in the middle, to keep the bicycles off the sidewalk. On 28 foot streets; wider streets could have two bicycle paths separated by mud.
In summary, Agenda 21, as many of you are well aware.
Brave New World, 1984, Looking Backwards.. its all coming faste rthan you think.
group think is the way to think determined by the power and reinforced thru technology, traffic control, mass media, food sources controlled (GMOs) and marketing of pharmaceuticals..
bus bulbs are good
cubed buildings with no trees, grass sky are good
texting while crossing a street good
taking lots of pills good
chain stores good
Double-plus good!
The march of density continues. Eben Fodor has an interesting take on smartgrowth: http://www.fodorandassociates.com/Reports/Myth_of_Smart_Growth.pdf
Thanks, very interesting. Depressing though, as it looks like a tough fight at the state/regional level, pitted against industry interests with money to spend on politics at every level.
You do not have a right to park on the street. It’s fine to act like you do, but you don’t. If you want to live in a place where there is plenty of street parking, then Wallingford, as with most places in Seattle built before 1945, is simply not for you. There’s just no way it can happen.
Besides, why should I subsidize your parking? I park off street. I don’t ask you all to subsidize my book storage. I don’t ask you to subsidize my laptop case. I don’t ask you to subsidize my skis and snowboard in my garage.
As to new construction, I’ve seen estimates that the construction cost of parking in a new multifamily complex is between $40,000 and $50,000 per space. That money gets passed on to a tenant in the form of higher rent or a buyer in the form of a higher purchase price. In turn, that makes a new apartment or condo less affordable. So again, why should we force builders and residents to pay more money so you can have more on-street parking?
I’m glad @29 brought up Agenda 21, because that reference shows the Tea Party nature of all this whining about parking.
Hey transplants take your urban village to Bellevue. Leave what is left of old Seattle to those of us who grew up here and love it. It was a wonderful place before all the pretense arrived.
Woah! Let’s consider other issues, like traffic and pedestrian safety and parking:
1. There is a school on Interlake in the block next to the proposed building. Kids cross the street there. Parents pick up their kids there, and school buses line up on N. Allen to load and unload students.
2. There is a retirement residence with a side entrance on North Allen across from the proposed building. Approximately 175 elders are in residence, some of whom use walkers or canes. Others are visually compromised. The entrance gets a lot of use because it is the one closest to the public library, the market, Bartells, two banks, etc. Family members need to park on North Adams to pick up and drop off residents.
3. Of great importance, many emergency service vehicles park by the N. Allen entrance in response to 911 calls, and sometimes have to load injured or ill residents on gurneys into ambulances.
4. University House residents in North Allen apartments across from the proposed building would be subject to the constant noise of both pedestrian and automobile traffic.
In sum, the concentration of both children and elders in the area makes it inappropriate for a building proposed to have 150 apartments and a 100-car garage, with extra cars competing for parking space. The location is clearly wrong for a structure of the magnitude of the one proposed!
Watson–The Suquamish, Duamish, Salish, etc. would like to know how you get to decide who builds what on the land.
The city says you don’t have a right to park on the street – out of one side of its mouth. Out of the other side, it accepts money to secure that right with police force, in RPZ fees.
The real city is us. The city authorities don’t rigorously enforce their rules and policies on street parking, so those rules have never been effectively ratified by public acceptance and don’t mean that much.
Emmett Watson it is so go to hear from you again. How is Tiger? I’m afraid that Lesser Seattle has sadly floundered since you moved to the great beyond. I hope that you can come back and visit from time to time and remind us of what we have lost.
I find it incredibly odd when people complain that new construction has insufficient off-street parking. If you must use street parking, then by this criterion clearly your own residences do not have sufficient off-street parking. Otherwise it is immaterial.
The streets are public property, belonging to everyone in the city of Seattle, not just those fortunate enough to live in Wallingford already. We have to share.
@40–Michael, nicely said.
donn, ih you get a parking ticket for 39.00 you have to do something about it.
In my neighborhood we don’t share, we pay up for RPZ enforcement. It’s public property, but its use is clearly prioritized for adjacent lots. You can take whatever personal position on it you like, but the real question is whether a 150 unit apartment with room for 100 cars is going to generate a lot of parking overflow, like 60 extra cars in the surrounding neighborhood at peak parking hours, or as some people here seem to believe, it isn’t going to be a problem due to dwindling car ownership.