As seen by Eric Matza on Woodlawn off 45th:
Soon to be replaced by:
For project details, see here. For prior coverage, see here.
As seen by Eric Matza on Woodlawn off 45th:
Soon to be replaced by:
For project details, see here. For prior coverage, see here.
© 2009 - 2023 Wallyhood
So a single-family residence along a major arterial whose public transit will soon connect with the premier light-rail line in the state and will soon be upgraded with some bus-rapid transit features, within a couple miles of the largest employer in a city with skyrocketing housing costs, is going to be replaced by 40 apartments, allowing that many more people access to the neighborhood?
Sounds great to me. Hopefully we can see more of this in the near future.
And where are the residents of these 40 apartments going to park? Is the developer being made to provide underground parking? Or is that an external cost they happily pass on to the neighborhood? You know, because people living on that block would be so happy to do their part to encourage more density, they’d love to give up their on street parking, right?
Wait, don’t tell me, all these new residents will just bike and bus everywhere, no need for a car?
@hayduke, don’t get your undies in a twist – the project has underground parking.
Parking for 20, which is better than none. However, the public notice says it’s 48, and not 40 apartments. You think a large majority of dwellers will stay carless? Why should developers get away with passing that cost of not providing parking in their buildings onto the greater community?
@hayduke, this isn’t ideal, but feels to me like a victory for neighborhood input on development projects. The original proposal had no parking places (despite the fact that there’s ground floor retail and already no place for users/shoppers to park), to be mitigated by 30 bike storage spaces, or some such. After neighborhood input, the city required the developer to add 20 underground parking spaces. Still probably not enough, but a big step.
Take a tip from the bear family, don’t get in the way of the future.
I actually called these developers to ask that they take care of the Bears. The one that is being hung is not what I want my 7yr old seeing as we walk by to go home. I also think it is ashame that people have been dumping their garbage in the back of these empty homes. In fact I saw a man in a truck doing so. Very ironic that those of us that fought the building g coming now can’t wait for it to be turn down so that it can be cleaned up.
Hi Jan, I’d love to chat with you about your reaction to these bears and the site in general for an article. Please contact me at [email protected] or 206-726-6840.
The linked project plan says the building will have space for 20 vehicles. Remember that the building will be directly adjacent to the 44, one block from the Wallingford greenway, and two blocks from QFC and Bartell’s. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect at least some residents not to own a car.
If you really are concerned about your *free* *publicly-paid-for* on-street parking in front of your house, you have a couple options:
1. Build/clean out your private garage.
2. Petition the city to create a permit parking district in Wallingford. Ideally the permit prices would be market-driven, and at least some of the revenue would flow back to the neighborhood in the form of sidewalk, transit, and public space improvements.
Free? We pay $5500 a year in property taxes for our small place here in Wallingford and every year the bill goes up. How much do you pay, Skylar, that you consider things free? “Publicly paid for” *if you happen to own* so we do pay.
@evon,
“Free” refers to the cost of parking in most of Wallingford, aside from the few RPZs already in place. When something is free, you shouldn’t be surprised to find it in short supply.
Of course, those on-street parking spaces have actual cost, and that cost is borne by the everyone in the city, regardless of who uses them. A good rule of thumb is that a single on-street parking spot has a 30-year cost of about $20,000. Since a single parking space on a block basically means that lane can’t be used for anything else, the true cost can be magnified considerably.
Finally, once again on this blog, I’ll have to address the misconception that renters don’t pay property tax. Do you think landlords don’t pass through the cost of property tax to their tenants? Renters pay the cost of property tax, and moreover don’t get any of the tax preferences that owners get.
We rent, and I would guess we pay $1500/year indirectly in property tax. We don’t own a car, so by your logic should we be requesting a refund for the parking spaces we don’t use?
If “permit parking” means a Restricted Parking Zone, they don’t create any parking space, nor do they reserve any parking space for long time residents, and they sure don’t help the retail storefronts along 45th, which have a real hard time when available parking dries up.
The number of vehicles registered to that address should be limited to how many off street parking spots are provided.
This should be a requirement for all new construction and remodels.
Steve
I love this idea, but it’s never going to happen!
in the interest of fairness, shouldn’t that be the case with every address, not just “new construction and remodels?”
my street is full of residents who park on the street, with or without off-street parking.
we have one car in the driveway and one on the street, even though technically we could cram about four cars in our long driveway.
hmm…, maybe I should rent out my driveway space…
Rent a space: a 100% coherent and fair way for those upset about lack of street parking to solve their problem, as opposed to lobbying to impose a tax of tens of thousands of dollars on others’ homes or potential homes.
I would rather see fewer driveways, especially if they’re not used for their intended purpose. If people aren’t using their garage or driveway to park a car, the curb cut should be filled in, to make an on-street parking space that’s available to everyone.
True enough.
There is a start-up that tries to do AirBnB for parking in people’s driveways. Although it is illegal to park in front of a driveway in Seattle (under any circumstances, including if it is your own, which is absurd – we always do 1 in driveway 1 in front of it) creating a way for “authorized blocking” of the apron is a solvable problem, assuming public policy comes along for the ride (so to speak).
Unfortunately it’s overly optimistic to think that a large number of these residents won’t have cars. As soon as you have a serious hobby/interest/child you pretty much need a car. In a band? Skier? Visit clients in different locations? Volunteer with Big Brothers of King County? You’re going to need a car. It’s nice to use the green belt/light rail, etc. as a selling point but it’s not realistic to think that very many people will live the car free lifestyle. And as long as you have a car you might as well drive it. Why spend $6 round trip on a bus when you can park for free in the car you’re already paying for. And in the evening you’ll be parking in the spots that those businesses you mention rely on for their customers. Hard to park in Wallingford = fewer outside customers. Will that slack be taken up by the 20(?) units of people in the new development?
And there are differences in these developments. There are some that are set back from the sidewalk a bit, create some public space and encourage a retail business at street level that can be a positive for the community. I’m thinking of the one on the NW corner of Stone and 45th or the one on 65th that has Portage Bay Cafe at ground level. Then there are the ones that build right out to the sidewalk (more dollars per sq foot) and make no effort to part of the community. Those units attract the people who likewise don’t want to be part of the community.
Until cars are very expensive they will continue to be used by the vast majority of Seattlites regardless of where they live.
I’d like to see a 4 story, city owned, relatively cheap parking structure behind the library. It would serve that building and also nearby residents for a monthly rate and shoppers/diners for an hourly rate. Heck, put Zipcars and Pronto bikes in there.
Oh, and the idea of RELYING on the 44 is a pipe dream.
For many people, lack of money is a constraint on their activities. Not “shall I indulge in my skiing hobby?” but rather, say, “can I get my dental problem taken care of?” A decision process for someone looking for an apartment without a parking space in Wallingford is more likely to be along the lines of “can I get out from under the burden of owning and maintaining a car by being able to live where I can get to work without one–and [if they have kid], where they can get to and from a good school without being driven?”
On both counts Wallingford is an excellent option.
Looks like another building full of studio and one-bedroom units, so don’t worry about people needing to haul the kiddies around.
I lived twenty years of adult life without a car in a big city. It’s financially liberating. Given the cost of rent in the area, plus alternatives like Car2go and Zip car, as well as Uber and Lyft (in addition to Metro, cabs, bikes and feet) and not being burdened by car ownership is an increasingly attractive choice.
“Not being burdened by car ownership is an increasingly attractive choice.”
Well said.
And all the car companies know this. (BMW has a car-to-go like service, Ford and GM are heavily invested in developing autonomous vehicles and fleet management as a business.)
I suspect many readers of this blog will respond with total incredulity that we’re past “peak car ownership” and will in fact need vastly fewer parking spaces in a decade or so so I’ve never brought it up, but I do actually talk to these people and they all know individual car ownership will be a declining business.
As has been suggested a couple of times in these discussions, if the supposedly carless residents could be required to be carless as a condition of living in this place, then I think everyone would be delighted. As it is, though, it’s a fraudulent excuse to externalize the cost of parking space.
And the existing houses that lack private parking somehow aren’t?
By your logic it’s exactly the same thing.
If older house don’t include on-site parking, it isn’t because anyone pretended that the residents wouldn’t have cars. Street parking works fine for one family per lot, not so fine for multifamily densities.
Developers who happened to be born a long time ago built homes without parking.
People who happened to be born a long time ago occupy those homes and have cars, while benefiting from the home’s lower price.
This is all good and holy,
Developers who happen to have been born more recently want to build homes without parking.
People who happen to have been born more recently would like to benefit from the lower price made possible by a home not having private parking.
This is evil and must be banned.
Ah, Wallingford’s charm!
I can just imagine the reaction it would get from Wallingford if the city proposed a 4-story parking garage. Oy, my ears are blistering just thinking about it.
@Bollywood,
I agree with most of what you have to say. The 44 is a big problem right now, and the RapidRide-style improvements is almost guaranteed to require taking the parking lanes on 45th in Wallingford to use as BAT lanes. I certainly wouldn’t have a problem with a parking structure by the library, in the Wallingford Center parking lot, or at the Velvet Foam parking lot, to make up the loss, if it meant a somewhat-reliable 44. Assuming paid-for street parking in the rest of Wallingford, it probably wouldn’t even need a subsidy from the city.
I would like to suggest that everyone consider that there are still elderly people still living in Wallingford. Most of the people saying “ride a bike / take the bus, etc.” must be young, fit, hale and hearty. I am older and disabled. Those are not options for me.
when i ride the bus, there are plenty of riders who are not “young, fit, hale and hearty.” and if you look at all the people parking cars on the streets, plenty of them are.
if we reserve the parking for citizens who really need it like yourself, there will be plenty for you and others in need.
I think there should be at least one parking space for each apartment. This might allow for a few people to have two cars (which will happen) and a very few people who do not own a car. I am hoping, in the future,that there will be less car ownership. But this is probably an optimistic hope.
Excellent point about cleaning out a garage, using it for a car. But it will not happen, for some legitimate reasons. They become storage units or work space.
I shoehorn my car into my garage, but it is a very tight fit. If other cars in the ally “half-park,” with their car sticking out int he alley, I don’t have enough turning radius to use my own garage. It takes a bit more effort to basically parallel park, but that is what is needed when parking in an alley.
I hope people lamenting the lack of on-street parking will lobby their local government for expansion of car share and bike share. If we’re going to subsidize on-street parking with our sales and property taxes, perhaps we should also subsidize transportation options for people who choose not to own a car.
I’m pretty sure there are still people squatting in that building, and I’m pretty sure they’re cooking meth. I also would note that when they were evicted by the cops, they hauled about a hundred stolen bicycles out of there in a big police van.
The gigantic parking lot next to the Lincoln High School building is mostly empty most of the time, even when school’s in session. Most of the parking crunch comes from nighttime restaurant goers, not residents, anyways. The side streets (especially 46th) is absolutely crawling with 2 MPH creepers looking for a space after 6 PM or so.
These are not low income apartments, they’re going to be occupied by young professionals. Many of them will be couples. Many of them will have two cars. It’s absolutely stunning to me to watch probably well-meaning people eat double helpings of the utter BS being presented by developers who fundamentally don’t give a flying shit about the neighborhood or its function and are simply trying to cram as much profit into as small a place as possible, under the auspices of “helpful density” as if it’s some great charity work. If the nonsense marketing by our mayor’s developer chums were actually true, I’d be all for it, but it’s horseshit and the city has zero plans to increase or improve the infrastructure in any meaningful way. In fact most of their current plans for Wallingford will actually just make traffic and parking worse.
Good to see BK inferring any dissent or rational discussion if from evil NIMBYs though. I think BK is actually genuinely well meaning and literally believes that this stuff is all for the best. But he’s completely and demonstrably wrong. As anyone who can count parking spaces or add up rents would know. I guess I’ll have to punch a homeless orphan in the throat on the way home.
If I remember right, the developers said exactly that, at a WCC presentation – the young professionals part, anyway. Some of the other parts came across too, though they didn’t use exactly the same language.
Well said, agreed!
You folks do realize that there are already lots of apartments in the neighborhood with no parking, right? It’s not that big a deal. If you don’t like it, don’t move there.
Indeed, for instance, the 1940s-era building I’m living in now. Reading this blog you’d think I would have to worry about torches and pitchforks.
And as for being built before the auto age, this building came after forty years of automobile. What it didn’t come after was functional public transit (i.e. street car up Stone Way and Woodlawn).
I am a firm believer in transit, biking, and walking. The last time I put gas in my car was in July… but I still own a car. I have one so that I can relish in the wonderful mountains, skiing, the coast, you-name-it. I live in Seattle because of the great recreational opportunities in nature plus that I can park the car and forget it during the week. It seems unrealistic to expect that everyone living in Seattle will forgo “getting out of town” and give up their car. It is naive to believe that people living in this building will not have friends drive to visit them.
The apartments with no parking were built before the “auto age”, when it was common for an entire household to have zero or one auto. If this developer was sincere about it being a “car-free” building, as they are telling DPD and the community, there should be no problem waiving participation in the RPZ. There needs to be a market connection for buildings constructed without parking. Otherwise, don’t kid yourself, the developer is pocketing the money and rents will be no less expensive than for an apartment with parking… and the impact dumped on the neighborhood businesses and residences.
If you bought a home without its own parking (whenever, long ago, recently, doesn’t matter) you made a bet.
A bet along the lines of: “I benefit from a cheaper home, on the assumption that parking will never be a problem for me.”
The right answer if you’ve lost your bet is not “how do I foist the consequences by my bad bet onto others?” but “how can I solve my problem without doing that?”
For those suffering from adverse circumstances such shaving become disabled, it raises some policy questions, including some I hadn’t thought about before, Perhaps as parking become more scarce we need to reserve more street spots as “disabled only.”
A bad bet, that future development would be responsible for its consequences? I guess so, but only if we collectively accept that.
“Making the choice that I made (to my benefit at the time) of buying a house without parking an inconvenient one” is not something future development has a responsibility to mitigate.
BK, that is a straw man argument. Older and newer single family homes ARE provided with parking and new apartments without parking are not cheaper because the developer pockets the savings. Talk to a realtor!
That might be true right now, where there is a huge housing shortage and insufficient competition among landlords. Let’s see how it looks next year, when thousands of new units will available.
Seattle doesn’t really have a housing affordability problem; it has a housing shortage problem. This development chips away at that problem. Any development that provides any parking does so at the expense of providing housing to more people. This might be a fair trade off but it is a trade off nonetheless.
It is almost impossible for units without parking and with parking to clear at exactly the same price, if only for the obvious reason that if someone didn’t need a space but could get it for nothing they would take the unit with the space and sublet it themselves to someone else…
See for example (what I happened to be able to find online): parking at the Prescott costs $125/mo in addition to base rent
Considering that those will be 2k a month apartments I doubt many of them will not own a car.