Lynn wrote asking us to ensure we got the word out about a public meeting on Wallingford construction several weeks ago. Our apologies for posting it so late, the meeting is tomorrow night. Click the image at right for the official SDPD announcement.
There’s an important hearing coming up Tuesday, June 4 at 7 pm at Hamilton Middle School auditorium on the proposed new housing on Wallingford and Burke avenues. Lots of neighbors are concerned about the lack of parking and the plan to route traffic from the new parking garage onto Burke Ave. N, a residential street, even though the project sits on Wallingford Ave., our main thoroughfare. There’s also concern about a lack of ground-level retail space in a growing neighborhood that could use more services and amenities.
Please join your neighbors in making your voice heard.
This concerns the development projects at 3400 Wallingford Ave N ( 4-story, 176 unit residential building with 8 live-work units, 8,000 sq. ft. total) and 3326 Wallingford Ave N (4-story, 90 unit residential building with 4 live-work units, 4,000 sq. ft. total).
Meanwhile, I understand there will be a design review presentation for the development between N 36th & 38th, on the east side of Stone N (was Stone Way Roofing), at University Heights, 6:30 –> tonight <–, Monday June 3. (Hope I didn't misremember the date.)
Wallingford will become condo-ville and sooner than you think.
Don’t like it but no doubt it’s coming.
This is a show – another big ugly box is coming.
300 beds and 160 parking places.
The other 140 cars will park in the neighborhood.
The Ballardification of Wallingford has arrived.
Does anyone know the projected start date for this?
Ballardification indeed
I’m sure all the retailers who were unable to get their projects into the building at 40th and Stone will just flock to 34th and Wallingford. Oh, wait . . .
This is the 3rd public meeting brought to your attention Wallyhood!
You totally dis-regarded the second, and now post one day before.
Your stated goal is to foster community and communication between Wallingford residents by creating a voice and storyline for residents to follow and to participate in. We cover local personalities, events, daily life…anything and everything relevant to our neighbors.
Where does this community effort for Wallingford fail to meet the test of your goals?
@jandl, perhaps you’re more likely to get your money’s worth from mywallingford.com.
Huh? Wouldn’t *all* public meetings need to brought to Wallyhood’s attention? I mean, it’s not like they drive around all day in a Wally-mobile searching for proposed-land-use signs and missing cat posters, right? People send this stuff in.
well, its happening, concrete box land.
Save your energy against these money grubbing smart financial planners.
Ive been told on this forum a few times”if you dont like it leave’.
I can not help another ‘think before you build’ group.
I’m not sure why there are concerns “about the lack of parking.” These buildings have essentially one parking space per unit, which at 34th and Wallingford (where there are at least 4 bus routes within a few blocks) should be more than enough.
The biggest parking impacts in lower Western Wallymont have been businesses. Bastyr. EVO. Joule/Whale. At least these condo developments actually have a large amount of parking. Enough parking? Well, it will have to be..as there isn’t a lot of street parking remaining.
sure they have parking, but the tenants have to pay extra so what do they do? they park on the street.
I welcome new folks to our wonderful neighborhood but my main concern is about the parking issue. We have one car and one parking spot in our building so all is good there but when friends and family come to visit parking for them keeps getting more difficult. Under the mayor’s reign there seems to be a war on cars which is expressed in fewer parking spaces required of developers which just widens their pockets. Parking garage sizes should be more realistic rather than putting the burden on families that have lived in the neighborhood for many years.
The heads of the city departments, including DPD, are appointed by the Mayor and, although he often tries to distance himself from unpopular decisions, they are executing his agenda. His dep’t reps are paid to listen to our comments at meetings, but any decisions are effectively made by their boss-the Mayor. (City Council often addresses his egregiously disrespectful decisions, eg. small-lot development.)
We have the opportunity to elect a mayor this fall. We can whine about details until the cows come home, but be assured our only opportunity for real influence lies in electing competent leadership. You can bet those candidates have my attention!
RIght. It isn’t unreasonable to expect a department like Planning and Development to serve city residents, and if their boss the current mayor isn’t making that happen then hopefully there’s someone else who will.
But after a little experience with the current City Council, in my opinion a good share of the blame can be laid at their door as well, as they work pretty closely with that department, and their ability to swing big deals leads to generous campaign funding. So a mayor with real change in mind is going to have a fight on his or her hands.
If a “war on cars” means automobile owners and drivers finally paying close to their fair share for the infrastructure they use and the damage done to the environment, then sign me up for the front lines. The right to cheap roads and free parking is not in the Constitution.
I’m fine with that myself, but that is not what it means. What it means is planners who all drive themselves, and have no realistic vision of an alternative to the car, using a pie in the sky vision of reduced motor vehicle ownership as an excuse to let developers off the hook for responsibility for their tenants’ vehicles.
The 26 bus stops literally in front of these buildings. The 16, 31 and 32 are just a few blocks away. How is the bus not a realistic alternative to the car? Combine that with car2go, FlexCar and car rental companies, and it is very easy to live in Wallingford without owning an automobile.
Why should developers be responsible for tenants’ vehicles in the first place? The notion that a living space must be tied to automobile storage needs to go the way of the horse and buggy.
As a matter of fact, I lived in Wallingford without owning a car for years, so I know a lot about what it’s like. I’m sure it works for some people, I just don’t see that number getting a lot larger in a hurry. If city residents really don’t feel strongly about street parking, they can let developers do what they want. If they do feel strongly about it, then they should take action. In some parts of Wallingford that has meant Restricted Parking Zones, which is basically a way of paying for the right that we supposedly don’t have to park on the street. (Paying in yearly fees, and paying in tickets from the increased parking enforcement presence that the yearly fees pay for.) This sort of pits block against block, though, since the problem you solve on your block just moves to the next. A more organized approach would be worth thinking about.
The Restricted Parking Zones are incredibly distorted, as near Lincoln High School they only cost $65 per YEAR. As a result, many folks with workable (if not currently cleaned out, etc.) garages use their garages for storage and the street for their vehicles, all at a huge cost to the community’s access to neighborhoods, parking, etc.
Figure what it would cost to need to transfer all the stuff you keep to a storage unit, and your car to the garage, and it is way, way more than $65 per year. As yes, second and third permits only cost $65 each as well. If your car doesn’t have a garage, you should have access to an RPZ permit. If you have a garage and don’t use it for your vehicle, you are just using up public space for personal use and paying almost zero for the privilege.
Are people here really buying into that idiotic, right-wing “war on cars” nonsense? So depressing to see it.
Unlike probably everybody else commenting here, I will be directly impacted by this proposal. I am looking out over the AV Tech site as I write this. My awesome view of Lake Union and the Space Needle will likely vanish. I’ll get over a hundred new neighbors, maybe more. There may be more cars around. There’ll definitely be more people standing at the bus stop at 35th and Wallingford every morning.
And I am OK with all of that. Unlike some others here, I do not oppose affordable housing. I don’t oppose letting more people live in our amazing neighborhood. I don’t oppose change. After all, I live here because someone was able to build new density in the 1980s. The rest of you live here because someone was able to build new density in the 1960s, or the 1920s, or at some other point when any new house cut out of the forest was bringing new density and change to the ‘hood.
I don’t believe in right-wing conspiracy theories, and I also realize that I live in an urban city. If I wanted to live in a place that would be single-family homes forever I’d be in Mill Creek or North Bend. But I’m not. I’m in Wallingford, in the middle of a prosperous and growing city. I welcome that.
I hope others living here do too.
Any time there’s talk about holding developers responsible for the impact on the surrounding neighborhood, we hear from a handful of people like you who seem to be well armed with labels like “right-wing”, “oppose affordable housing”, “opposed to change”, blah blah. Is this really how you think, or is it just how you write?
OHMIGOD, Junipero used rhetoric in his argument! Donn is so right. Of course, Junipero also made cogent arguments that were completely unanswered in Donn’s comment, which relies on the idea of “holding developers responsible for the impact on the surrounding neighborhood”, which entirely begs the question. The basis for Donn’s belief that a “developer”, who is after all just a property owner, has some responsibility to the owner-occupied housing and tenant-occupied housing that exists at the time that other property owner builds (or, in this case, rebuilds) in a neighborhood is not stated, it is simply assumed. Junipero explained why he didn’t believe in that argument, but Donn obviously wins because Junipero USED RHETORIC. Think of the children!
How about you, are you interested in putting down your rocks and coming out to discuss that point like a grown-up?
I believe it’s a fairly commonplace notion that one does indeed have some responsibilities to one’s neighbors. All kinds of things, from maintaining a presentable appearance to not operating a 24-hour cement crushing facility. At the latter end of the scale, you could expect some things to be seen as pretty unambiguous problems and rigorously enforced by law; at the other end of the scale, there’s hardly a block in Wallingford that doesn’t have a long-unmowed lawn, and I suppose usually no one complains.
That brings us to an interesting philosophical difference between the way I put it — “holding developers responsible” — and the way you put it — “[a developer] has some responsibility”. Where does this responsibility come from? Given that we’re aware of the extent to which the neighbors have any legal protection in the present case, is there any a priori code beyond that, that we all understand to impose further responsibilities?
I don’t think that’s really how it works. If we want our neighbors to mow their lawns, or provide parking for their tenants, we have to fight to make that happen. If we don’t, then naturally it isn’t something we can expect. Maybe even if we do, but at least we can try.
Why only place this burden on people with tenants? None of us are entitled to on-street parking, no one owns the curbs. So why do only people who have tenants have a responsibility to provide offstreet parking (and why would you impose it at one space per bedroom, mandatory)? I’ve ridden my bike down the block in question at all hours of the day or night, and I’ve never seen a big parking problem (the car driving westbound on 35th at the corner of Burke at 35 miles per hour is of course another matter). Why do you believe there will have to be one, and if there is one, why are you imposing the burden of solving it only on those who don’t live here yet?
Honestly, you know the neighborhood better than I. I’m over more towards Stone Way, where we’re watching the proposals for a couple other developments – but we already have an RPZ. Nor do I know how many cars to expect in a development. Number of bedrooms might be a good guess, and that’s how I understood john’s comment above – he’s the one who mentioned beds – but usually the numbers I hear are stalls vs. units. If there really are 278 units and 160 spaces, then clearly there will be many more cars than can be accommodated even if the pricing is reasonable. The point is not that there’s a big parking problem now. Street parking can more or less accommodate the demand at existing densities; if developers propose to add an overflow parking demand that it can’t accommodate, then it seems they’re going to hear about it from the neighbors.
I’ve heard here many times that we aren’t entitled to park on the street, but we clearly do it and the notion of an RPZ seems to recognize that in fact we are so entitled. In the end it’s up to us, as with any city policy. If the city were to really rigorously enforce a no-long-term-parking policy, that wouldn’t last a month. By rarely enforcing it, the city gets to pretend that it’s a real, viable policy when it serves their purposes even though it doesn’t reflect reality. Don’t be fooled.
Donn: Where are you getting the 278 units and 160 spaces numbers?
Hi, I was not able to make the meeting. Did anyone attend, and if so, how did it go?
Also, I believe the total number of units is 278 (266 + 12 live/work), and the total number of parking spaces is 271 (164 + 107). Has that changed?
There are two buildings, either side of 34th; according to the article, one with 90 and the other 176, and 12 “live/work” units between them (a concept that deserves to be looked at a little harder – conceived as a substitute for street retail? is it really effectively a substitute?) That does add up to 278; if the live/works were already counted in the units, it’s 266. The parking spaces number comes from comment #3.
Hmm, the Project Descriptions (per the link) add up to 278, including the 12 “live/work” units…and I agree that concept merits further inquiry.
And the parking spaces, per the same info source, total 271…I think comment #3 may have missed the spaces allocated to the second building.
Ah, I guess from a concurrent post that the 160 number must have been for only the north building. 271 is more like the kind of numbers we’ve been seeing over here – i.e., only slightly fewer than units. My vague impression has been that the number tends to go up a little in successive design reviews, so it’s worth speaking up about it. If developers are concerned that the parking space they’ve built will sit empty after we’ve all abandoned motor vehicles, this is the time to think about designing it so that it can easily be repurposed for bowling or something.
The project as proposed is approx. 300 beds and 160 parking spaces.
How many tenants will have no motor vehicle (though they may ride their bike or take the bus sometimes) – very few.
That leaves 100+ cars parked on the street. And if they charge for parking as the Prescott (40th and Stone) apparently does, there will be many more.
Mayor McSchwinn and his minions (and the Bicycle Club) think that if the building doesn’t provide parking (or enough), the cars will simply vanish.
And rumor has it that the #26 bus (now comes down Wallingford and then on 35th toward Fremont and downtown) is going away once the light rail to Husky Stadium is running – bus will go from Greenlake to the stadium. I asked Metro about the status of the plan, this but of course, have heard nothing.
That will mean a 6 block walk to the nearest bus service.
Yes, it’s an issue – at least for those homeowners like me who live nearby. And expect no support from the mayor or council (other than a ‘show’ meeting or two) whatsoever – they’re looking for property tax revenues only.
John, I think I’m missing something here. I looked at the DPD web site for the two projects which are combined for this development: 134 units, 13 live/work, and 154 parking spaces for the first, and 86 units, 7 live/work, and 106 parking spaces for the second.
So that does look to be an update from the May 16th announcement included in the original post, but can you point me/us to your info source for numbers you’re citing? I do want to comment on the project, and it would help to have the most current info available. Thanks!
You’re using a lot of conjecture there, John. Beds do not equal cars. Between our three homes, my next door neighbors and I have 8 beds and 3 cars.
I’m hardly a free market Libertarian, but I do think the availability of parking is something that the market decides pretty well. If a couple with two cars decides that these buildings do not provide adequate parking, they will likely choose not to live there. Or perhaps will get rid of one (or both) of their cars.
The market problem is that condo residents with cars that they use only occasionally will leave them on the street, for free, rather than pay for parking on site, if a stall is expensive.
As for bicycles – this doesn’t have anything to do with bicycles, bicyclists, or bicyclist organizations. McGinn gets credit/blame for everything bicycle related in the city, because he isn’t too fat to ride a bicycle, but a lot of it actually got started under Nickels. The present case has nothing to do with bicycles, it’s about letting developers dump parking space onto the street because it’s unprofitable to them. Bicyclists hate cars parked on the street, they’re very dangerous.
I am curious what the net parking gain/loss is for this development when you factor in Avtech. How much parking did Avtech supply for it’s 200 employees? How many of them parked on the street?