More details are emerging on the new development project slated for the corner of 45th St and Woodlawn Ave, stretching from Sutra’s yoga studio to the corner, and a three houses down Woodlawn (see 1601 N. 45th Development Project Design Review here on Wallyhood for background).
A Traffic and Parking Study produced by Transportation Engineers/Planners William Popp Associates describes some key departures from the earlier proposal, which described 38 apartment units with three townhouse units, plus 4,500 sq ft of commercial space.:
This project is a 4-story above grade mixed-use multi-family residential apartment / commercial building with one below grade floor. The project is taking 5 parcels in the Wallingford neighborhood and combining them into 1 structure. It will be a 49- to 50- unit, market-rate, apartment building, all 1-bedroom units averaging about 565 sf, with no on-site parking. Adjacent to N 45th St, there will be approximately 4,000 gsf of commercial/retail use divvied into multiple uses. The exact use of the areas has not been determined.
Yes, that’s our emphasis added: no on-site parking.
There’s a great tension between those who believe that depriving our retail core of parking will damage its ability to draw customers and flourish, and those who decry the car and believe that by making driving more difficult, we push people into other, greener modes of transportation (walking, biking, bussing, etc.)
I’m not sure which view I side with (there is truth is both points of view, and the best path is likely at neither extreme), but no matter what you believe, you have to agree that a new, 50-unit apartment building plus retailright on 45th Street with no provided parking is going to have a huge impact both on nearby neighbors who use their cars and on retail shops up and down 45th Street.
The report estimates that the 30 one-bedroom apartments will generate an overnight need for 32 parking spots, but notes that “apartment complex without on-site parking is likely to attract more tenants without vehicles than an apartment complex with parking provisions. Thus, parking demand is anticipated to be lower than typical for a project without any significant on-site parking provisions.”
There, don’t you feel better?
It’s a surprise to me that the zoning regulations don’t require any on-site parking for the project, “because the site is in an urban village,” but that’s the rule, it seems.
As for additional traffic, the report estimates “382 daily, 19 AM and 31 PM peak hour trips.”
People wishing to comment to the city on this application should reference DPD Permit #3017663. Comments must be submitted by February 8th, per the Land Use Bulletin.
(Thanks for the tip, Sharon Scherer!)
There will be parking…60 covered and secured bike spaces.
If you own a car and are concerned about projects such as these impacting storing, er, parking your car on the street, then you should lobby city and county government for better bicycling infrastructure, plus expansion of bike- and car-sharing programs (and, of course, more frequent bus service). The fewer Wallingford residents who own cars, the better we all are.
My bigger concern about this project is: will it be ugly?
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Providing just bike parking is not going to force the people living in the apartments to just own bikes. NO, they should not be able to take up already sparse retail parking with their cars. People like me who live in Wallingford with kids need to be able to park if they want us to shop in the 45th street area.
There are those starry-eyed people who think that everyone, no matter of age, ability or need, should ride a bike or take the bus, but the reality of the situation is that having an apartment house with no parking will just push on-street parking out further into the neighborhood. And I am one who wants better bus service, too. It benefits us all. But apartment houses with no parking? We do need to get the zoning changed.
If there were actually a parking-crunch on 45th, all of the pay-for-parking lots would be expensive & full, and the street parking would be metered (and also expensive).
I want more people taking the 44/16, so that bus will come more often. I want Sound Transit to put a light-rail station at 45th/Wallingford. I want a top-flight cocktail bar to move into Wallingford. None of this is likely to happen if we keep prioritizing cars over people.
This is crazy. When even half of those units park their cars (most will own at least one even if they take the bus to work or school each day) on the streets in Wallingford, I’ll be forced to shop somewhere else. So the woman who cuts my hair will lose my business. The shop that does my pedicures will lose my business. Forget dining at Bordum’s on a wet evening. No more stops for dessert at Molly Moons or Faiting Goat. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
I’d like to see fewer cars as well, but that’s not the current reality. There is no light rail in Wallingford, is it coming here? 45th street can be hopelessly congested. I happen to need my car for work, and each day, no matter what route I choose, it takes more time to get to the i-5 on ramp. I can’t imagine what it will become when all the new buildings are occupied. I’m all for density in the city, it just makes sense. But density combined with what appears to be little or no planning for increased public transportation options in Wallingford, Fremont and Ballard will make getting around much more of a challenge.
Marion Peters, you really need your car to do all those things? We’ll probably just get more zoned street parking like in Fremont.
We only use our car in Wallingford to get groceries because with 2 kids, walking is just ridiculous. These are all one bedrooms, though, and will likely attract bike riders, bus riders, and car sharers. They should put in a couple dedicated zip car spots to really encourage car free tenants.
There is already a parking crunch in Wallingford. What pay lots? The last one by the former Tully’s is gone. The area is full of several RPZs and proposed RPZs. I’m a little surprised any of you are just noticing this matter; I’ve been signed on to this for updates for months since filing a question about the parking for the townhouse and handicapped access. Apparently this is a building for non-handicapped people who ride bikes and enjoy overbuilt environments.
I want more crosstown buses, better bike lanes, and a pony. I’m more likely to get the pony. We have cars. We have electric cars. We have ride sharing services. The car isn’t done with us, and pretending it’s done is foolish. We can talk about the cars and bikes and parking and the ugly building in the same conversation.
Let’s not forget that Molly Moons ripped out a space last year.
My god, that evil Mollie Moon!
Not only that; Marion Peters comment makes it seem that Moon is also self-destructive.
Holy Cow! This is pretty crazy. I walk and bus almost everywhere I need to go. Easy to walk to Tangletown area, easy to get to the main drag. (I am probably the oldest poster here!) But I appreciate the fact that it is more difficult for people with small kids, and people who have mobility problems. One thing that really is continuing to frustrate and puzzle me, is the dumb, ugly, occupies-two-valuable parking spaces…that Molly Moon did. How in the heck did THIS HAPPEN? Can anything be done about it now? Well, maybe everyone can park in CVS’s parking lot, and go elsewhere! I really do not understand how anyone land use permit can be granted to an apartment building with no parking for cars! Yes, this will push parking in the neighborhoods, and there is precious little room there. I feel sorry for the businesses on 45th.
I rarely drive my car; but I do own one. I don’t anticipate getting rid of it anytime soon. It often is parked on the street.
I’m glad to see this is happening. Fewer parking spaces _does_ translate into fewer cars. It also will create a stronger pedestrian environment, which will help local businesses. Molly Moon is a visionary. She knows the value of giving pedestrians priority over cars, and she’s been able to create a fun, compelling space for her customers. I can’t wait to see more parklets in Wallingford as other businesses catch on.
I haven’t seen anyone saying we’re done with cars, so nice straw man there.
We _are_ getting better bike lanes, bit by bit, throughout Seattle. If you don’t know this, you haven’t been paying attention.
I live down on N. Nothlake Way and have a car that I’m going to keep. I carpool with my husband to work in Mukilteo. I have a bike that I ride in the summer but don’t ride in the dark and rain, I don’t feel safe on the street. Due to the traffic situation, I don’t shop in Wallingford anymore. I don’t go down 45th anymore unless I’m on my way to work at 5:50 a.m.
I appreciate the “get a bike movement”, but I think that a 30 bedroom complex needs to have some parking spaces.
Yes I agree!
We need more space for more cars in our neighborhood! That way we can have more cars on the road to make our traffic worse!
We can have less people being active in our neighborhood by walking or biking to a store (and god forbid they get wet if it’s raining out).
More cars getting stuck in traffic and spewing exhaust! I want more exhaust for my kids to breathe while they walk (gasp! you mean not in an automobile?!) to school.
Get used to it.
This project is being built very near our place:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/AppDocs/GroupMeetings/DRProposal3014898AgendaID4802.pdf
17 units with no parking, crammed in on a lot smaller than the one my single house sits on.
I am sure none of the 20+ people that will be living there will own cars or apply for zone 22 permits.
One way to ensure greater availability of parking spaces is to make drivers pay high enough parking fees to discourage those who don’t want to pay.
Perhaps someone can explain how the City can justify providing free on-street parking for those who contribute to traffic woes, pollute our environment, make crossing the street hazardous for pedestrians, cause visual blight, generate unwanted noise, etc., but make riders pay for using our buses.
The developers own study cites a projected need for 30 spaces… and that was AFTER the firm already discounted “traditional” parking demand to account for the complex not providing off-street parking. The City’s bright idea to not require parking for developments on a bus line MIGHT make sense in an area such as Capital Hill, where single family properties are a distance away, or where residents pay to park on the street, or the business district is thriving. In Wallingford, where single family properties are 1/2 block away, where our business district is struggling, and where parking is already 90% utilized in the area around Lincoln (subject to be made worse when Lincoln becomes a high school again), this approach does not make sense.
Further, I do not believe that there is anything prohibiting residents of the complex from purchasing an RPZ sticker for the auto they “will never have”. This is insane because there is then no “market mechanism” placing a “cost” on not providing parking. The developer is simply dumping the “cost” of his impacts onto nearby properties.
Parking and traffic impacts are a portion of the SEPA checklist. The developer’s traffic analysis dodges the issue by identifying a need 30 spaces, but then completely ignores the second half of the issue – availability! Please submit a comment to DPD and the City Council requesting the residents of “no auto” buildings be banned from getting an RPZ permit. Point out that the developer identified a need for parking, yet completely dodged the analysis of availability.
This project is either a “no auto” project, in which case residents should not be able to apply for an RPZ permit, or it is a quasi-auto project, where some off-street parking should be required due to the current lack of availability, impact to businesses, and the simple fact that even bus-riding, biking folks often own cars for use on weekends and to simply get out of town to enjoy the great outdoors.
It is fine to want transit-only housing, but it either is or it isn’t. In this case, there is no mechanism to make owning a car at this complex “market-driven”. Providing 1/2 spot per unit of off-street parking seems a reasonable compromise to mitigate the impact.
Yeah, I feel sorry for Solid Ground, the Library, and that health clinic on Densmore. It’s their parking spots that these new apartment dwellers are going to be using/stealing. Lincoln High’s too.
Based on the last three high schools to use Lincoln, typical demand was for approximately 75 spaces of on-street parking during their stay. Residents were not allowed to use the parking lot at either Solid Ground or Lincoln.
I’m not a huge we must create more parking fan; however, let’s be clear what is happening here: the developer is making money by transferring the cost of creating parking to the homeowners, businesses and city. They are literally extracting value from the homeowners and the businesses.
This is insane! Sure, we’d like to think that all the renters in that proposed building will be walkers, bikers and bus riders, but this isn’t New York City, it’s the West, where we enjoy our freedom to roam. In reality, the majority of these people will own cars, and they will have visitors who bring their cars. Parking around 45th has been difficult for years. This will make it impossible.
And another thought…. if this is considered an “Urban Village,” why are all the units at “market rate?” Why is there no requirement for a certain number of low income units?
@BAW, as a Wallingford resident without a car, I need to be able to access busses if I’m to shop in the 45th street area. I’m expected to pay for my transportation needs (bus fare), and if drivers paid for theirs, the shortage would disappear. A parking benefits district that covers Wallingford could put money into amentities like a central parking structure that would alleviate any parking shortage, and also making 45th a much more pleasant street to walk, bike, or drive down.
@Old_Hickory – that was a voluntary decision on the part of Molly Moon’s ownership. If anything, business at Molly Moon’s is even more booming now than before the parklet. Maybe the answer to fewer big-box stores in Wallingford like CVS and Walgreens is to take away what they depend on – free parking.
Or one could just park their car along N.Northlakwe way( with the ratty RV’s and converted school busses) and live in same. Problem solved,no rent, free parking for YEARS even. SPD parking enforcement scooters are scurrying all around Stone Way and both streets E&W of Stoneway, pencils sharpened and ticket books ready. All the scofflaw junk on Northlake way is off limits it seems. High violent crime rates and lack of enough street parking,even with high rates has killed Pioneer Square and Bell Town. Pretty much all of downtown too. To build such a building without parking is insane and should not be permitted.
N
Part of the welcoming pedestrian charm of Wallingford has been the low buildings and room for people and trees to share the sidewalks. The new buildings are not planned to allow room for trees on their sidewalks. There is little space in front of or next to them for good size trees to flourish. Eliminating cars cannot correct this loss.
Helenb, that’s just what I was thinking – what about affordable housing? It’s a disgrace that all these new developments can go up without affordable units AND parking. Both are needed. Even if the residents use a bus to commute to work, I’d be very surprised if they didn’t also own a car for those weekend hiking/ski/bike trips.
Its real easy, require the new tenants to sign a legal document stating they will not own a car. And if they do own or use a car, the builder and the tenant will be liable for a civil lawsuit for a set amount per unit up to 30 years after the building is built. The money raised will be kept in trust for the destruction of the building if all said tenants at some point have all cars!
@Doug B – Why should it matter whether the tenants own cars or not? They have as much right to the free, publicly-provided parking in Wallingford as anyone else. After all, they paid the same taxes you paid for them. Of course, they have to expect to compete for those spots like everyone else.
If you care about maintaining unoccupied parking spots, then you should instead be advocating for paid parking, preferably market-rate parking.
If you care about advocating for the poor, then you should be advocating for building like this one, where tenants aren’t forced to subsidize a car culture whether they want to (or need to) or not.
Skylar, this has nothing to do with the poor. If one participates in the car culture, they should contribute to help mitigate their impacts, just as every single-family property owner is required to provide one off-street spot. Yes, providing half a parking spot per unit could add about $20 to the monthly rent, but that will substantially improve the quality of life for neighboring businesses and residents. If the intent is for this building to be “auto-less” as stated, there should be no problem with not being allowed an RPZ permit for residents of the complex. Otherwise, there is no market cost associated with the developer choosing to not provide parking for his clients and no way to mitigate the impact. The owner is simply pocketing the money and dumping the impact on his neighbors.
“just as every single-family property owner is required to provide one off-street spot.”
Could you explain what you mean by that statement? I see plenty of single-family homes without off-street parking in Wallingford – several exist on my block.
Look closely and you should see a garage, driveway, or alley access to a place to park a car in back… even those dating back to 1920’s. Current code requires at least one off-street spot per single family unit as well as, I believe, one off-street spot for anyone considering a DADU.
Further, the SMC currently dictates that any vehicle stored for more than 72 hours must be parked in garages or other off-street facilities. In other words, if you park you vehicle on the street, you can be ticketed for not moving your car every 72 hours.
@nisida: They aren’t scofflaws, it’s a zoning issue. That’s an industrial zone, which doesn’t have the 72-hour parking restriction.
Looks like parking is required on single family lots greater than 3000sq: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds021570.pdf
However, that doesn’t mean single family homes actually use their parking: http://seattletransitblog.com/2014/05/05/a-garage-intervention/
Stacey, if your block happens to be my block, note that it isn’t actually a single family residential zone, though it was all sf houses until a few years ago. Including mine, which has no off street parking/garage/driveway/alley.
The 72 hour thing is a good example of a law that’s normally used to enforce something else. Lots of cars stay out there past 72 hours, really could be weeks, at no risk to their owners, but if a car should look unsightly on a nice residential street, then this law can be used to take it out, without any need to have an awkward discussion about esthetics. The point is, it isn’t as relevant to discussions like this as it would be if it were rigorously enforced. I don’t think it wouldn’t last long if that happened.
Parking-less housing is affordable housing. Buying extra land, or building an underground lot is expensive!
As for required off-street parking for single-family houses, most houses in Wallingford take a public spot (on the curb), and convert it into a private spot (with a driveway you can’t park in front of). So, how is it suddenly new residents without a driveway that are the selfish ones?
You don’t have a right to ample free street parking right next to your house. Maybe it was a plus when you bought your house, but it was never something you should’ve relied on.
I don’t think anyone said anything a “right to ample free street parking right next to your house” before this, but I’m glad you brought up “rights”. It seems pretty clear to me that we get these “rights” from a city government that in theory represents us, so it’s up to us to think about what our rights ought to be.
“Its real easy, require the new tenants to sign a legal document stating they will not own a car. And if they do own or use a car, the builder and the tenant will be liable for a civil lawsuit for a set amount per unit up to 30 years after the building is built. The money raised will be kept in trust for the destruction of the building if all said tenants at some point have all cars”
Sorry, I thought you all knew this was in jest! We are in such a sue happy country!
The developer sure didn’t seem to take it very seriously. But … seriously – if there’s any way to bring this idea into the real world, it’s the best possible outcome.
I mean, the part where residents declare that they won’t own a car while they live there. That makes everyone happy.
It solves the neighbors’ problem.
The bane of local street-parking-dependent businesses turns into an asset (population more likely to shop and dine locally.)
The city, and community, gets its reduction in auto traffic.
The developer is sure that there will be enough don’t-want-cars young people to fill his building, so it’s fine for him, and it’s good for morale – I mean honestly, making do without a car is challenging and frustrating at times, and it’s bound to be encouraging to know that all of your neighbors are doing the same.
I do think this would have to forced on the developers, which is unfortunate because it means it would have to go through the city council, who are highly unlikely to displease developers. So any way to avoid that and get some kind of semi-voluntary compliance directly from developers would be excellent.
I do not think it needs to be air tight and strictly enforceable, though. Just make sure it isn’t coming strictly from the outside (neighbors limiting what they can do), but rather an internal community pledge that’s cast in positive terms. Enforcement is great if it’s feasible, but not if it comes at the expense of social pressure.
donn, That’s the missing piece – whether it’s zoned single family residential or not! Thanks.
That being said, I don’t understand why we would ask newcomers not to own cars when people currently live in houses/apartments/townhouses own cars without off-street parking. Or they have more cars than off-street spots. Or they have converted their off-street parking spot to expand their house or use it for storage.
You know, if you look around Wallingford, you’ll see that it already has lots and lots of apartment houses with no parking. I think we’ll survive.
“The more parking spaces you provide, the more cars will come to fill them. It is like feeding pigeons.” – Hugh Casson
If you believe that the people who occupy these apartments are like everyone else, then between this one, and the one on Meridian with no parking, and the others that are bound to come as developers calculate whether it’s to their financial advantage to provide parking that the city doesn’t require, we’re talking about a couple dozen more cars parked on the street for each building, several such buildings easily could get to 100 more. Added to the current street parking load in the Wallingford central retail area, which is already pretty tight. If you believe that these people will be like many of us and use alternative transit for commuting etc and have cars only for other travel needs that aren’t supported by public transit, then those extra cars will be there more or less around the clock, day in and day out.
That’s a disaster for everyone, particularly local retail business. It really comes down to what you suppose those people will do. On one side, we dinosaurs who grew up in an auto oriented culture obviously suppose that over the years, every single one of them is going to get a car. On the other, the developers who stand to profit from it and a few ideological true believers think those days have come to an end. If we could simply make it a fact, instead of a supposition, the whole problem would go away.
Also, as someone who comes into and out of the immediate area every day, often more than once, I can tell you that the parking conundrum is entirely due to restaurants. Every evening, the blocks north of 45th and east of Stone Way are absolutely crawling with nimrods seeking parking (and stopping in the middle of the street, turning without signaling, turning the OPPOSITE WAY of their signal, pulling into driveways, backing down streets the wrong way, cruising at 3 MPH, etc. etc.)
The parking shortage could be entirely eased if the owners of the large lots in the neighborhood — Lincoln, Solid Ground (parking lot owned by Lincoln), St. Benedict’s, etc. — all converted their lots, which are empty at night, to pay-after-six like the Chase Bank is.
There is LOADS of parking in the neighborhood, it’s just not being used.
Several suggestions;
Require permitted ($) parking for all neighborhood streets. If you already own a $400k+ home, paying a couple hundred dollars a year to park shouldn’t be a problem. If you’re younger and looking for affordable apt housing, you might think twice about parking/owning a car in a very walk/bike-able neighborhood
Build a multi-story parking parking garage with free 1, or even 2, hour parking, and then charge beyond that, for all the business traffic that everyone seems so worried about.
Owning (and parking) a vehicle is a privilege not a right. It comes at a huge cost to our environment, and our government/taxpayers (maintaining infrastructure). We need to incentivize people to consider their lifestyle choices and the true costs associated with it. If you want the convenience of polluting the air we breathe to make your daily life easier you should pay heavily for it.
Everyone should pay for parking
Are people submitting comments as described at the end of the article? Talking among ourselves is interesting and a good communal experience, but doesn’t do anything about the issue. Be sure to comment where it matters.
As was pointed out, there are plenty of apartment buildings without parking. The city must have done some research (I’d hope so, anyway) about what percentage of recently built non-vehicle parking apartment dwellers actually have cars. Is this urban village concept of more density with fewer cars (people using bicycles and transit) actually working? Or is it just creating more congestion?
My anecdotal two cents worth: I live across the street from a small day care center operated by a church. I don’t know the number of children who attend, but there are at least six additional cars belonging to staff who park around the church on city streets and causes some inconvenient congestion.i It seems that few, if any, of these workers ride bicycles or use transit to get to their jobs. Is a day care enter analogous to small apartments? I suspect it is.
Someone has requested 2 more weeks to comment on the 1601 N 45th project. The comment period now ends February 22nd. Share your thoughts on Project#3017663 at seattle.gov.
When Lincoln returns to being used as a high school, there will be another 75 cars added to the same streets as this complex. Having lived through three other high schools there, I can report that you can expect to walk 2 to 3 blocks for your car if you ever leave during the day, particularly impacting families with young kids and elderly, hence the RPZ.
The cost to provide parking for 1/2 of the units would add about $25 to the rent for the units. Most folks would feel this is still affordable, not a deal breaker.
I am all for a transit-centric complex. It just seems that if this is truly intended to be a no-auto building, a caveat should be that you may not purchase a permit for the RPZ if you live there. Otherwise there is no market cost to the owner for not providing parking and they are simply pocketing the savings and dumping the impact on adjacent businesses and residences. That is not exactly neighborly.
Seems downright wrong. Good luck trying to get through to the city commenting. What, or who do you call? I called several numbers to get transferred to someone wanting to transfer me back to the same number. Catch 22
Follow the second link at the end of the article (“Land use bulletin”) It brings you to a Land Use Information Bulletin, Notice of Application. Right under where it says Notice of Application” is a link “comment on application” which brings you to a direct form that already references the project number.
Or write a letter on good ol’ paper. (Department of Planning and Development; 700 Fifth Ave., Suite 2000; P.O. Box 34019; Seattle, WA 98124-4019)
A phone call will not be productive or leave a record.
DOUG’s question in #1: “My bigger concern about this project is: will it be ugly?”
Yes, it will be ugly. I said in my complaint to the DPD that it looks like three Latin American shanty town shacks made by different people from discarded materials. That might be a little harsh, but DPD doesn’t care anyway.
My immediate neighborhood has sprouted a handful of new condo apartments/townhouses in recent years. Big change from the single family house with a yard look, but the new developments fit in at least a little – the exterior materials and finishes, gabled roofs, etc. But now there’s a new generation of developer, and a new style that looks like little PVC plastic apartment towers, because that’s how you maximize the floor area and minimize construction costs. Both of them, in my neighborhood, happen to be Blueprint Capital (Duffus.) The basic philosophical principles work at any scale: spend less/make more, DPD will say yes, buyers will pay more than the asking price, quality is irrelevant.
I heard from a neighbor of the micro-housing complex on 46th & Meridian that the residents were provided with RPZ permits for their vehicles and guests. This is how the city can track how many vehicles are associated with an address. Residents may not have vehicles, however they probably have friends and family who will visit. In addition to the parked cars there will be Amazon Fresh, UPS, FedEx, DHL, OnTrack, USPS delivery vehicles during the day because there is only so much stuff you can transport on a bus or bicycle.
Thanks for the info about this exciting project. I am fed up with people having to move out of Seattle because other people think they are entitled to free parking. I’ve lived in Seattle since the early 70’s, I rode the bus with my son to work and to day care, we walked to the grocery store and carried our groceries home. People now have access to the handy zipcars and similar innovative ideas that we didn’t have. It was my personal choice to live without a car, but I’m tired of people not waking up and continuing to subsidize other people’s lifestyles. Just buck up.
I wish I could just “buck up” and take the bus. But I’m a pet sitter who covers a large area. I can’t run my business and take the bus. I would have to lose my of my customers just to make it to a few per day, and then I would be out of business.
I happen to live near this site, and with the school, there is very little parking available during the day, as I come and go all day.
There are many legitimate reasons people have and use cars. Many businesses rely on cars for their business. I don’t see them going away, and unfortunately businesses can’t “buck up” and get their work done without them.
I get that many people have different philosophies on urban living and transportation, but I get so tired of shaming people who don’t see things the way you do.
Also, the issue isn’t about free parking, or paid parking. It’s about available parking. I lose money when I have clients in parts of the Ballard area, because I spend most of my time driving around looking for parking, when I should be spending time doing my work, and caring for people’s animals.
Wallingford is split between the future City Council Districts 4 and 6. In the future there will be 2 City Councilmembes who may respond to Wallingford concerns, RATHER than responding to the developers, their attorneys, and their family members who fund their campaigns. Don’t vote for candidates who accept contributions from developers of projects that are ugly and too big for the parcel.
Reality check – we live on a single-family residential block with an apartment house that does not have any usable off-street parking (a pre-existing, non-conforming use). There are 9 units in the apartment house. I am familiar with the cars that belong to our neighbors other than the apartment house. Early Saturday morning and Sunday morning there were 10 cars and trucks that do not belong to our neighbors parked on our block (many with out-of-state licenses). Looking at it now (about 9 am on Monday) there are 6 parked cars and trucks that must belong to residents of the apartment house. I’m guessing those are the folks who took a bus to work.
Relax everyone. Go to the sign..then get the contact info. Then submit a an objection to their project. The more people who do this the better. I made the new construction next to me provide a space for every tenant. They couldn’t build unless they complied.
Dana Hannon
Smash Wine Bar
I’m fine with the “we’ll force you to use public transit by taking away your “free” parking” strategy. Just point me in the direction of that easy to use, reliable, public transit and I’ll jump on board.
Wait, I have to walk 6 blocks up hill in the rain to get to my bus stop? And the bus is on time maybe 30% of the time? Oh, well then I’ll head over to the closest light rail/subway station. Oh wait, that doesn’t exist and even when it does it’ll be a hike to the U and then I’m good so long as I want to go to Cap Hill or the South End. How do I get to Ballard in under an hour?
Biking isn’t a solution for everyone and until we have a workable transit system up and running (or even a plan that appears to be feasible and executable in the near future) allowing developers to push the cost of their project off on the neighbors is just poor city planning. Would any of the “this is a great idea, parking sucks” folks have major concerns if the developers included parking? Unlikely. But since they aren’t the developers have created animosity between neighbors in order to increase profits and the city stands by and does nothing.
Don’t worry about divisive effects in the neighborhood – I think they’re minimal, but the important thing is, it doesn’t matter. The neighborhood discontent that would successfully reform city government all the way into the “planning” department would be unprecedented (and too late.) City politicians and their backers might as well worry about armed revolt.