As we all know, the views in Seattle can be spectacular, and some people will go to great lengths to create them or preserve them. Trees, even those on public land, can be cut down – as in this case in West Seattle back in March. (Here’s a very recent update to that story.) Some have even resorted to poisoning trees, as occurred along the Burke Gilman trail back in 2008. And there are a host of strictly legal means to contain rampant construction, some of which are reported on in a recent article in the Time’s Pacific Northwest Magazine.
Now a Wallingford neighbor has chosen a different tack in his efforts to clear a house from his view: buy the offending structure and rip the top off.
This story begins at nearly the start of the century. Those of us (myself included) who lived south of 40th back then may recall the small, single-story house at 2305 N. 39th St. on the southeast corner of 39th and Corliss. Across the street to the north at what is now 2304 and 2308 N. 39th, some new constructions took place. My search for building permits shows that, in 2003, a permit was issued for 2308 N. 39th to “REMOVE EXISTING PARTIAL 2ND FLOOR AND CONSTRUCT 2ND FLOOR ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PER PLAN.” Next door, at 2304 N. 39th, a permit had been issued back in 2002 to “DEMOLISH EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ESTABLISH USE AND OCCUPY AS SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCT ONE FAMILY DWELLING W/ ATTACHED GARAGE PER PLANS.” (Interestingly, the contact person for this permit was residing at 2302 N. 39th at that time, i.e. right next door.) Both of these houses had, and still have, very nice, south-facing balconies off the top floor, and with the small, single-story house across the street at 2305, the views down to Lake Union must have been great.
But they did not last long.
In September of 2004, a permit was issued for 2305 N. 39th St. to “DEMOLISH EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ESTABLISH USE AS EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CONSTRUCT NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PER PLANS.” Up went a huge, 2.5-story edifice. For those on the north side of 39th, it was goodbye Lake Union, hello cedar siding.
And there things stood until May of 2015 when 2305 N. 39th went on the market again according to Redfin. The buyers? The residents across the street at 2308.
Brian Robinson who, along with his wife, owns 2308 N. 39th (and, now, 2305) was kind enough to discuss his recent home purchase with me. Brian and his wife moved into 2308 almost 19 years ago, and remodeled their second floor in 2003 both to make room for a new addition to the family and to take advantage of the views of downtown and Lake Union. Needless to say, they were less than pleased with the new construction.
Their purchase last year of 2305 gives them the opportunity to restore what they lost back in 2004. As Brian wrote to me:
John [Trieger, architect] & I collaborated together to reduce the size and feel of the house. The size of the existing house lent itself to a modern design. We have always felt that the previous design was way out of scale for the neighborhood with its volume, a massive black roof and undersized bracketed eaves, over proportioned railings and dark brown stained cedar siding. By removing the whole roof and a portion of the 2nd floor (approx. 167 SF) we were able to reclaim our view and the view for our neighbors on the north side of N 39th St. We are also moving the entrance to N 39th St. by removing the NW corner of the 1st floor (approx. 167 SF). This area will now be a large covered front porch more conducive to the street and neighbors. Ditto for the east side of the first floor which will create a larger outdoor living space.
Barney Manor of Manor Construction, another Wallingford neighbor & friend, started deconstruction in April 2016. In July, when he removed the existing roof, all our neighbors that night were out on their 2nd floor balconies taking in their amazing views once again of downtown. We’ve had nothing but complements since we began work on the project from neighbors walking by.
If you’re in the market for a new home in Wallingford, expect to see a For Sale sign go up at 2305 sometime in early 2017. But also expect some restrictions on any additions you may have in mind!
Cue the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the upzone-at-any-cost crowd in 3-2-1….
Actually, cue the outrage from people ready to tell you what you should and should not spend your own money on.
The moral from this story is that Wallingford is becoming a place for people who can afford multiple million dollar houses to enjoy their views.
This is one, isolated instance of an inarguably unique situation — a bit small of a sample to start clanging the class warfare bells. There are many, many wealthy people in Wallingford, that’s not really news.
Well, without zone up, soon it would be only wealthy people left. Good thing that’s changing and we’ll have more shared rooftops. Better still the best views are in Gasworks where it’s open to all.
I support multiple income levels living in the same neighborhood. No argument there.
And with “zone up” and HALA it will be only wealthy people left ANYWAY, except for retirees aging in place. Or did you miss the part of the so-called “Grand Bargain” where it allows developers to just pay a fee to the city so it can build affordable housing elsewhere?
I thought urbanists supported ending any restrictions on what how property gets developed in urban villages? The moral of the story is, it’s HIS money. You people in the DIMBY movement have no business telling him how he should spend it. Not yet, anyway.
I think you completely misunderstood the situation, and what people want. This is not a story of people spending people the way the want. This is a story where the government has greatly restricted how people can spend money to construct houses, therefore some rich people can do it. If there are no government acting as single-family house protectors, and everybody can just spend money the way they want, you’d have all kind of funny building in the area blocking views of each other already. The 2305 house wouldn’t have been that small. It would have been something like a narrow 12-floor-tall building if we allow people to spend money the way they want. Then the 2308 people wouldn’t have been able to do anything about it, and probably wouldn’t be able to buy 2305 up.
Do you think Mr. Robinson should have been allowed to purchase that house and tear off the top floor like he did? Yes or no.
Yes, and he’s allowed to do that at such a price only because people lobbied so hard to put so much restrictions in place. He’s not doing it because of freedom. He’s doing it because of lack of freedom. A equivalent of that is how the prime wafer front properties in Wallingford has price suppressed so much that some lucky dudes in the marine industry can have water front offices at low price. That’s not freedom. That’s the city zoning codes subsidizing the guy.
He should also have been allowed to purchase that house and build a duplex in its place.
That’s a great win-win!
A few years back I owned a relatively new condo in Greenwood. The single family house next door had a mini bulldozer that lived on the property. As I was trying to sell my condo, many prospective buyers were worried about the mini bulldozer. Would the single family property be developed, they wondered.
My realtor contacted the homeowner to find out. The homeowner said: “Really, you’re worried about the view. That’s funny because before your condo was built, I had a really nice view of the mountains.”
That comment made me think. I was looking at myself as the victim when really I was the perpetrator.
This article doesn’t say if Brian’s remodel in 2003 affected his neighbors, but it’s a possibility. Sounds like he has more than made up for it with this project.
My main complaint with new construction in Wallingford is roof top decks. You cannot count on the persons who use these to be good neighbors. It’s not enough to talk well into the night in your hot tub on your rooftop deck anymore. You have to have keggers and whoop and holler at your privilege. It’s rude.
Very interesting! I remember touring what must have been the Robinson’s home several years ago on a Wallingford Homes tour. Most people coming through while I was there commented on the massive house across the street blocking their view. They were incredibly generous about it and explained how they had eventually come to live with it and be at peace with the neighbors who built it. That kind attitude really stuck with me. Very glad to hear that time and opportunity have been good to them!
To spend this much money for a view when people are hungry and homeless? Only in Seattle. This full post includes a story about a homeless man in the neighborhood. Wow. No ironic deficiency here.
Joanne, what have you bought recently? Anything less important than what that money could do at a homeless shelter?
Yeah, he should just give his money to the bums and addicts living at the I-5 off ramp who are stealing from citizens all over Wallingford. He owes it to them, right? However, there is a solution: I’m sure you have a spare room, or at least an empty couch to help, hmmm?
Let me see if I got this right. Some Seattle yuppie buys the house across the street from his for a ton of money just so he can reconstruct the house to afford himself a better view, then posits himself as performing a neighborhood public service?!? What am I missing here? Better yet, make that worse yet, one wonders what better use this money could have been spent on to improve the lives of others.
I’ll ask you, too, Michael: What have you been spending your money on lately? I’d like to judge you for your decisions on using your own money.
Hi Michael – I see you’re new here; welcome to the Wallyhood Message Board (judging by the fact that you haven’t ever commented through your Disqus profile ever, until now- maybe you signed up just to make this comment?). Just wondering; what gives you the right to say how someone else gets to spend their own money? How do you know this “Seattle yuppie” (as you purport to know) doesn’t already do more to improve the lives of others than you’ll ever do?
It’s his money, and it’s none of your business how he spends it. But of course, you have better ideas than he does, don’t you.
Actually the concept of “his money” is kind of interesting. Money is actually a abstract concept that’s only valuable because of government guarantee. It’s value is not from individuals, so is the concept of individual money really that simple? And there is never really something as simple as spending money as one wants. It’s not OK for a developer to just bought 10 houses in Wallingford and build a casino. Why is spending money not OK in that regard? It’s because the regulations. And where were the regulations from? A democratic process. Who put the democratic process there, and why should people follow it? Out of the sense of unity? Out of coercion by the society?
Well, I’m sure theft victims will be fascinated to learn more about how it’s not really their money that got stolen, because it’s just an “abstract concept.”
And I’m unclear on your second point. Are you actually suggesting people should not honor the democratic process?
I don’t think they can legally prevent the next owner from building the house out again.
I believe the Robinsons have put legal limitations on further development on that parcel. You’d have to ask a lawyer how enforceable that is, but I’m pretty sure it’s not a new concept.