A new development is popping up in Lower Wallingford, replacing 2 bungalows with 7 town homes. The bungalows there now look great and it is too bad they will be demolished:
This will be the new view of the site:
Getting building materials for the project will be simple, the location is 1 block from Dunn Lumber:
All the new units include parking and roof top decks- looks like standard modern box architecture. Unfortunately, some of the 7 town homes don’t face the street or have front yards. It is good that the large tree on the property will be maintained (on the NW Corner of the lot):
The entire area is zoned lowrise 2 so a change like this was inevitable. The days remaining for neighboring houses are also limited:
There will be an upcoming public meeting on Jan. 1, 2016. See the City of Seattle’s list of upcoming meetings for details. Comment on the project by emailing [email protected]. To view the full site proposal, see here.
The cyclist in the rendering should really be wearing a helmet. That’s a very steep hill with uneven pavement.
Heh…be careful with your compliments, Eric, the blue house is a duplex and thus can’t possibly look great and must be having some sort of terrible effect on its poor neighbors. (Per King County land use records – you can see the door and mailbox by the garage in the KC assessment photo).
it is also not a bungalow. every house is not a craftsman masterpiece.
the new condos will undoubtedly be better insulated and more energy and resource efficient than the two houses they are replacing. hooray for carbon footprint!
For carbon footprint, consider the impact of spraying in some insulation and replacing windows with the carbon footprint of destroying and rebuilding entire housing blocks.
It only works if people do it – and most homeowners who aren’t seriously dedicated (like I am) aren’t willing to pay for it. Besides, with seven units replacing two, it’s a guaranteed improvement in energy efficiency.
Why does single family zoned craftsman bungalows on leafy lots drive you to dyspepsia? Why did you even move to Wallingford? Are you a developer?
(I think you’re replying to my post.)
When we bought a SFH in Wallingford we assumed that the zoning was small-scale residential. There are pre-1957 small scale multi-family buildings all around us: duplex at end of block, row houses at 48th and Wallingford. The bungalow 2 doors down has a second floor walk up apartment. Two blocks away is a bungalow that has been triplexed (2 stories up and daylight basement home).
We learned that the 1957 downzone imposed exclusionary single family on this area of Wallingford. I have nothing against single family homes on 3,000 SF lots. Or against duplexes and triplexes on 3,000 SF lots, The 1957 downzone mandated that only single family detached homes on 5,000 SF lots could be built (lucky split lot infill opportunities excepted, thank goodness).
We can pretty much buy anything within reason we want, but most people can’t. So a needless “single family detached home wealth test” in order live in an area is what drives me to dyspepsia. Give folks a shot at living here who can afford 1/2 of a duplex or 1/3 of a triplex.
Why are you bragging about how rich you are?
Much in the same way that I try to find photographs of multi-family next to single family as a reality check, I think it is important to provide a reality check about who and what is driving the real estate market in the city.
By tech standards our assets and lifestyle are relatively modest (which is in itself kind of crazy).
There is a tidal wave of money flowing into the area, and I am trying to ensure people grok its magnitude and the fact that “muddling through” under the status quo is going to doom affordability and diversity: the options are become like San Francisco (or worse) or do something differently.
Sigh. Rooftop decks. I feel bad for the neighbors.
Looks like 4426 4th Ave NE (Next to Slave to the Needle) is progressing as well. They are demolisihing a triplex to build 8 townhomes and no parking…
http://web6.seattle.gov/DPD/permitstatus/project.aspx?id=3021273
I understand lamenting the loss of neighborhood “character”, but I’d much rather see higher-density housing here in Seattle than more sprawl encroaching on the forested foothills of the Cascades. That said, would’t it be nice to increase density via more retro-fitting/re-use of existing buildings rather than new construction!
That’s why exclusionary zoning breaks my heart.
A couple blocks aways is a grandfathered bungalow that has been triplexed (main floor+ second floor+daylight basement).
Our immediate neighbor–total gut job bungalow–came on the market a few years ago.
We have relatives who–thanks to their admirable but poorly paying choice of career–will certainly never be able to own here.
If we could have triplexed it we would have bought it (and to our own benefit) hived off a bit of the yard and then had them in effect purchase the main floor with a mortgage payment they could afford, with the “sweat equity” of being landlords for the other units subsidizing the cost of the whole that there was no way in hell they could afford. (And while we’re doing very well, thanks very much, we’re still not in a position to give away homes.)
No other way to make the numbers work without a couple units they could rent.
But banned because ???
What is with the town house obsession? Don’t people want flats anymore? I would rather not go up or down stairs to get to a different room. Nor have so much cubic footage lost to stairs. I guess townhouses sell, but is that just because there’s a lot on the market?.
In Lowrise 1 zones, Density limits are stricter on apartments.
1 unit /per 2,000 sf of lot for apartments, 1 unit / 1,600 sf for townhouses and no limit for rowhouses. There are other limits like floor area ratio to lot sizes approximately 1:1. So you would need 4,000 sf lot to build a 2 unit apartment and only 3,200 lot to build a townhouse.
In lowrise 2 zones. The Density limits favor apartments, but all units need emergency egress by using stairs, and elevators are expensive for a limited number of apartments.
Townhouses are NOT good for seniors who want to downsize.
Just curious, not being incendiary/ combative, what do people think the price tag of “1/2 of a duplex or 1/3 of a triplex” in Wallingford will be? I’m thinking around $550,000, because this is what some of them (in Wallingford) were priced at in 2011 when I was home hunting.
Prices have gone up. I’m not any expert in the market, but some scabby units near us went for up to $700K; just going by a fuzzy drawing and the vague notion that they may have a view of Lake Union, I am going to guess $950K. I don’t claim to understand it.
Excuse me, I was pricing the townhouses, the ones in front. (The ones in back sure won’t be $950.) If the blue house is a duplex, value of one of the units if they saved it instead of tearing it down? No idea, $550 could be a good guess.
It’s nice that they already have two little lots, here. That may save them the trouble of bogus subdivision, to put the 7 units on more than one lot for fewer units per lot, standard procedure to evade city development standards..
I think 550 is a good guess – but also that it is hard to say because most of the “comparable stock” are townhouses in LR1s and some are quite large (e.g., 1,8oo SF). There are certainly lots of those in the 7s and 8s.
A tiny slightly odd older home sold near us for 650 so that seems to be the price of entry to an SFH.
An older townhouse that looks like duplex, 1,000 SF is listed in Ballard for 435. An older duplex was listed nearby for 8, which would put you at 4 per unit. Which is of course why they should never have been banned, because then we’d have lots of older stock like them providing a more affordable option.
My best guess on a triplex is based on an SFH that sold recently: it was either infill or a teardown site, a straight-up rectangle with 3 stories of about 1,000 SF each -$1.2M. So as an alternative $500k for each of 3 stacked units would be a compelling proposition to developers and buyers alike.
Our house is similarly symmetrical, and could pretty easily be renovated to 3 stacked units of about 800SF each. I find it plausible folks would pay $500k each, hand ard to believe they would pay more.
(But if they would, my goodness, we reeeeeaaally have to get this zoning changed so we can do it!)
I am not sure what you are asking exactly. If you want to sell 1/3 or 1/2 of a craftsman duplex or triplex you would have to condominiumize the units, which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is a triplex pending at 4322 Winslow at $835k or $278k/unit. A property at 404 N 48th St is pending at $979k or $326k/unit. A property at 4426 4th just sold for $950k or $317k per unit, but they are demolishing it to build 8 townhomes.
Do you know if the concept of a co-op exists here? I continue to be surprised by the hostility of policy/code to shared / mf housing…sigh.
Perpetuating the fiction that higher density units will be affordable and create more diversity in our neighborhood is a cruel joke. The notion that these units will somehow save our green lands and forests out there somewhere is another cruel joke. The idea that replacing single family zoning will enable “same footprint” higher density with lower energy/environmental costs is another. The only folks laughing are the ones on their way to the bank.
I couldn’t agree with you more!
Many people being displaced will just move on out to the farmland and forests. There are just too many people/consumers in the world and they are needed to drive our economy because we must expand, or so they say….
regardless of how one feels about density or neighborhood preservation, it is fact, not fiction, that modern energy codes for new construction far exceed the energy performance of a bungalow built in the 20’s.
Ongoing resource use that increases with each unit and each user within each unit – water, power, electricity, infrastructures, and the loss of greenspaces, trees, animal habitat, affects not only our quality of life, but strains water retention capabilities and our ability to offset pollution. An energy upgrade to a single family home is one thing, but replacing a single family home with multiple units, taking out all the trees and opportunities for wildlife habitats, building curb to curb, and increasing by many multiples the number of resource users negates any benefit from their modern energy codes.
Walkinroun, you said it!!!
@walkinroun,
Unless I’m really missing what those developers are developing, they’re not making new people. They’re making denser housing, which allows for more efficient utility delivery. Rather than having these people sprawl up the slopes of the Cascades, with each home needing to be served with its own dedicated quarter-mile-long sewage and electric lines, they can be served with the existing city of Seattle infrastructure, which is already some of the most efficient in the nation.
Walkinroun, do you have any facts to back up this assertion?
Just my pain, fruitbat. just my pain.
What? No front yards!! What will these people do with their free time?
I’m 30 years old and my husband and I just bought a single family home in Wallingford this past summer for $590K which needs no work done on it at all, has a beautiful kitchen, fruit trees in the yard and a park across the street. If you save your pennies instead or get a job that pays, you can afford a house here, too. And if you don’t want to do that then buy a house in Rainier Valley and invest in making that a great neighborhood instead! It’s closer to downtown with better public transportation anyways. I sacrificed nice cars, vacations abroad, dining out all the time, owning the latest gadgets, and being a teacher to get this house.
The second point I’d like to make is that a lot of people seem to think there are only two development options – increase density in Wallingford or else all the Pacific Northwest Forests are going to be chopped down due to urban sprawl! This is NOT true. This is exactly what developers want you to think (that there are only two options) because developers know they can buy a lot like mine for $600K, build four units on it and then sell them for $900K a pop. They make a FORTUNE off of rezoning Wallingford! But there are plenty of other areas in Seattle where increasing density makes better sense like SoDo or Montlake or Magnolia since these are closer to downtown or otherwise under-developed. However, developers are less likely to make as much profit there (property values are higher or, just the opposite, there is less demand for that area of town) which is why you are hearing NOTHING about these areas in the city plans. If the city pushed developers into these areas instead, I think the city would be much better off (puts density closer to downtown oand uses up existing under-utilized city space) and saves Wallingford from being pillaged. The only way this will happen though is if we say no to the developers and the city’s current proposals like HALA and 2030, get smart, and encourage our city council representatives to push developers closer to downtown. I’m all for density! I just don’t think it’s right to increase where developers make the most bang for their buck (like Wallingford) instead of where it makes the best sense for Seattle.
Oh, Erin, where to start? How about with your assertion that development should be in someone else’s neighborhood, not in your–oh, you know.
I would guess that residents of Magnolia and Montlake would be as un-thrilled about density as many Wallingford residents are. Neither area is much more more convenient to downtown than Wallingford (possibly less so in terms of buses). Both may also be more difficult to build seismically-sound larges structures on. But the fact remains that–as you say–there is more demand for Wallingford. You can get in and try to close the door behind you, but whatever attracted you to Wallingford attracts others, too.
Sodo is a different matter entirely. Sodo is light industrial. We need that in the local economy. We cannot survive on writing code and selling each other coffee; the economy needs balance. Start heavy residential development in Sodo, and there goes the port and the industry. Thank goodness SoDo is not in any city plans for residential density.
Oh Fruitbat, where to start?! There are as many bus routes going by Magnolia as there are my house in Wallingford (http://metro.kingcounty.gov/maps/system/pdf/low-res/metro-system-map-northwest-low-res.pdf). The new Earthquake maps show the whole city is in bad shape, but we seem to manage anyways with technology these days. SoDo is under utilized. I agree we need to keep light industrial, but if we can’t fill the space and there is high demand for residential, then perhaps we should consider expanding downtown apartments into some of that space. I’m not saying all of SoDo should go, just that some of it could be rezoned. And I can’t see why we couldn’t have mix-use there with all those furniture shops that are there today being on the first floor of otherwise residential buildings.
Have you ever actually tried to go to Magnolia or get there from downtown? It’s a giant PITA. Magnolia has really weird geography and infrequent bus service that snakes through the neighborhood. It’s not realistically closer to downtown. Wallingford is a straight shot.
You can’t add residential to an industrial zone, because it drives out the industry.
First, people who moved into an industrial zone start complaining about noise, trucks, railroad tracks, smells, etc. The residents might not prevail in any decisions, but the constant need to defend the business wears on the owners.
Plus, if the area gentrifies, land costs go up, and small businesses take a big hit.
More (for example) teachers being able to live in duplexes like this one and Wallingford would be “pillaged”
http://1drv.ms/1UfmB5K
By pillaged, I meant Wallingford being taken over by new boxy town homes and condoplexes that will only be consumed by techies and the prices will still be unaffordable. If you put the density closer to downtown, the techies will go there, then it’s likely demand for Wallingford will go down and a teacher COULD afford a whole single family home to raise his/her kids instead of a duplex or condo. The single family homes of Wallingford are more affordable than the homes of Montlake and Magnolia. We need to protect these! We need to protect the middle class which is quickly being wiped out by proposals like HALA and 2030.
“The single family homes of Wallingford are more affordable than the homes of Montlake and Magnolia.”
The (sadly few) duplexes of Wallingford are more affordable than the single family homes of Wallingford.
Wallingford IS close to downtown. Wedgwood, North Beach, Haller Lake, West Seattle, Seward Park–these are not close to Downtown. If you want “the density closer to downtown,” here it is.
I’m not in favor of razing all of Wallingford for high-rises, either, but rather than fight all density, it is better to be able to shape it.
I would prefer to frame the struggle in terms of control, and fight for areas of density and non-density in the neighborhood, and most of all for meaningful code changes to bring better design (e.g., setbacks)
Here’s an overhead view of a neighborhood folks I know still live in that’s mixed 3 flats, duplexes, and SFHs. (The longer rectangular ones perpendicular to the street are almost all 3 flats.) Walkable to the town’s (very nice & busy) CBD that’s the equal of many n’hood CBDs in Seattle. Lots of trees, lots of families, no canyons of darkness, no pillaging, no zombie plagues: http://binged.it/1Oyj5Fy
Thanks BK; your example demonstrates that to avoid “canyons of darkness” and other plagues of development, the buildings in West Hartford neighborhood are set well back from the street and do not rise straight up to three stories with roof decks above that…. I agree that adding density is needed and appropriate in Seattle; just wish/hope that it comes with some sense of scale to what is around it, so that we do not have multi-family units towering over single-family houses, but have some ability to transition between types of housing. And if density is to continue to be pushed into particular neighborhoods (the urban villages, etc.), rather than letting the market really drive where density occurs, then the city (perhaps through fees on the developers) need to address the impacts of more people trying to use city services and amenities (transit, parks, schools) on those particular neighborhoods).
Yeah but just to put that picture into what’s being debated here: the minimum lot size in that area is 3,000 SF (not Seattle’s 5,000) and I emailed my friend who lives in a single family there, who says:
“Immediately next door to us is a two family house with an attic that could be a legal third unit (the owner uses it as an office right now). Just past that are two three family houses, then a single family followed by a number of 2 and 3 family houses.”
The arterial nearby is a bus route but our bus transit completely kicks the a** of bus transit back East, as do our parks.
There is plenty of land to be developed in Columbia City/Rainier Valley. Developers want Wallingford because they can charge the maximum and get it.
As for the townhouses, I have now worked (I am a carpenter) in four of these “new” townhouses and I was unimpressed with the quality of the workmanship. In my opinion, our rush to build shortcuts have been made and the homeowners are the ones who will pay again and again.
I hope I am wrong