As a buyer-focused realtor in Seattle, I’ve heard many concerns from home shoppers during open houses. Most recently, one tour stands out. The width of a brand new townhouse with its many stairs and tight corners made some prospective buyers question whether the primary bedroom could fit its namesake—a bed—into the room. I tried to reach a better understanding of their housing needs by asking them, “If you could live in any style of house, what would you choose?” to which the wife replied, “My favorite type of home is a Craftsman.”
I had recently produced a video about the historic Craftsman bungalows of Wallingford, and as I began to explain my project, which was a collaborative effort alongside the Historic Wallingford organization, the tenor of the conversation shifted. “I just don’t like what they did,” the wife interjected.
What Historic Wallingford “did” was build a case to designate roughly 700 of Wallingford’s 7,700 housing units as “historically significant,” landing the Wallingford-Meridian Streetcar Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places.
Though there are different motives among members in the group, Historic Wallingford’s Sarah Martin justified the designation, saying, “The district, in my mind, is a way to take a really great inventory and snapshot of this neighborhood before it transitions into something completely different. [Since it’s] changing very rapidly, let’s document it and tell the story of this place.”
This comes at a time when many are noticing Seattle’s rapid evolution into a city some no longer recognize — an inevitable change as the city’s population grows. For instance, @vanishingseattle, an Instagram page that chronicles the history of buildings before their demolition, was rated one of the top local accounts of 2022.
On one hand, there is clearly investment in Seattle’s history. The Vanishing Seattle page would not get high traffic if people were not affected by seeing their favorite businesses, restaurants and landmarks shutter their doors forever only to be replaced by apartment buildings and townhouses -– developments which are oftentimes hardly more affordable than the buildings that stood before them. For those invested in such “history” the designation is appealing for the perceived potential it has to thwart lax design review boards from okay-ing gentrification towers under the auspices of historic designation.
On the other hand, the designation of the district has been met with vocal backlash from members of the community who feel it’s an exclusionary practice. Whose history is being preserved? And to what end? After all, “where’s the streetcar” that is apparently so important that they named a group of houses after it? Many felt that there would be no other way to implement housing density into Wallingford after the designation was passed, a fear that ignored other methods of increasing housing units-per-acre, like basement ADUs and subdividing lots.
It must be acknowledged that Wallingford’s homes may be more readily designatable by something like the National Register of Historic Place. Its racial demographic of predominantly white homeowners and the socio-economic scale that is often tipped in their favor leaves their homes in a condition more conducive to be designated. I look at a neighborhood in East Oakland with equally historic homes, and there are no efforts to designate it… and maybe there should be.
Add to this the claims that historic districts like the one in Wallingford raise the value of homes within its boundaries by up to 15%, making it harder for lower income families to move into the neighborhood. The argument hinges on the use of a logarithmic math equation, which immediately brings to mind similar pricing models like Zillow’s infamous Zestimate, notorious for its inability to value homes properly.
The equation itself shows that the homes that are affected most by this price increase are the ones that are already at high values. If this is true, it’s worth questioning which attribute came first: a home’s value or its historic designation?
Even Jim Hall, King County’s Chief Appraiser and Appeals Division Director, claimed in a public forum that in Seattle, homes within historic districts did not appreciate faster than homes outside of those districts.
The most common misconception about Wallingford’s designation is that it was an attempt to preserve a group of homes in time, halting the development of the land within its boundaries forever. There are different types of designations that seek to do this, but the Wallingford-Meridian Streetcar Historic District is not one of them.
Whether they are officially designated or not, historically significant buildings have development ramifications associated with them. The federal government would need to determine their significance when faced with tearing down homes through eminent domain. It could be said that Historic Wallingford did the legwork for determining these buildings’ historic nature, the same type of study that would need to be conducted before projects like widening roads, building highways, protecting fish and wildlife habitats… or maybe building social housing
Initiative-135, which you’ve seen signs, stickers and canvassers for in Wallingford, is being voted on until February 14th. The initiative intends to start the discussion of allocating funding for publicly funded housing developers.
The most likely implementation would have the developer build residential buildings that puts a cap on rent at an affordable percentage of the tenant’s income. Each unit would be on a case-by-case basis and it is an attempt to help not only the poorest of the poor, but the people who are one emergency payment away from being houseless — the type that’s not as commonly spoken about or seen.
In Seattle, including Wallingford, it’s not uncommon for a person to spend 30% to 50% of their income on rent. How did those numbers get so high, when homeowners spend an average of 16% of their income on housing?
Though the historic district doesn’t directly limit future upzones or the ability to implement social housing, due to the nature of the designation it may cause city planners to avoid focusing on Wallingford for these changes, if for no reason other than to avoid a headache.
A common question people have is whether we can trust the city to solve the housing crisis through this idea of social housing? After all, behind every entity that has a stake in Wallingford’s past, present and future, lies people, and people are fallible. Just like the people on design review boards who greenlight the construction of townhouses. Just like historic organizations who see historic significance within their neighborhoods. And just like activists who find exclusionary practices in places they wished they called home.
Ultimately, we must ask ourselves what does a historic designation of homes mean for those of us living on land that was once home to Coast Salish tribes? Wallingford as we know it today exists through a complex history of engagement between the Coast Salish people and white settlers.
In the end, the spirit of the streetcar that led to Wallingford’s development is within us all, and the stakes are thus: if you live in a home that was deemed historic by this designation and feel you might benefit from a potential equity increase associated with the designation, consider donating to www.realrentduwamish.org or www.realchangenews.org and, before February 14th, vote to pass I-135.
Because to do nothing is to accept things as the way they are now, and that way is no longer working.
“Because to do nothing is to accept things as the way they are now, and that way is no longer working.”
Well said.
I see that as a vapid, dangerous platitude.
“Let’s justify making things worse, because we can say ‘we tried!'”
Or, we could interpret it this way: our tax burden adds massive costs onto living here. That’s no longer working. Let’s not increase the cost of living by, for once, not raising taxes to fund inefficient programs.
We need more affordable housing not more frozen zones that don’t accommodate multiple small housing dwellings. And we hope that would increase diversity in Wallingford. My husband and I would prefer more diversity in our neighborhood vs more white middle class folks like us.
I certainly agree with your clients who don’t want townhouses; narrow houses with stairs seems an ill-advised use of square footage. But I wonder how many of those who want a Craftsman love, say, the Arts & Crafts woodwork, and how many just mean they want most of the living space on a single floor.
My point being that we need a greater variety of housing types; the conversation shouldn’t have as the only choices old detached single-family vs townhouses or small apartments.
We need to consider encouraging further options, such as three flats (three large apartments in the footprint of a bungalow–preserving open yard space while increasing density) and small and midsized condo apartment buildings with larger units.
“Don’t just stand there, do something.” Whether it’s any good or not.
I didn’t try very hard to sort out what’s likely to happen if I-135 – I think that may be a mystery to everyone – but it was enough for me to read the arguments against it from John Fox, Displacement Coalition. You can find them in a Seattle Times editorial he co-wrote with a couple other people who know this scene.
Whether it has anything to do with the historic designation, I’m unable to say.
I would argue that the housing in the section of Wallingford that has been designated as historic is less interesting and historic than the area to the south of it (former gas works employee homes) and to the west (the Woodland Park trolley area). People want the “Craftsman” look without the knob and tube wiring and ancient plumbing, the beat up fir paneling that can’t be sanded, only painted, and the very tiny rooms and steep stairwells. Fruitbat is correct: we need a variety of housing types. I would be happy to turn my craftsman into a duplex.
I’m the parent of two kids under 4 and a renter in Wallingford.
I want more housing in the neighborhood, but the townhouses being built all across Seattle since 2011 or so are ridiculous. I don’t know who the market for those is, my best guess is a high-salary single man or woman. They seem like a townhome equivalent of a luxury condo.
What we need more of are townhouses like those that were being built in Seattle around the early-2000s. These are much more dense then single-family houses and allow more people, but they also typically have at least a small yard and a reasonable floor-plan that a decent-size family could live in. As an example, something like these: https://www.redfin.com/WA/Seattle/1922-N-46th-St-98103/home/8190429 (townhomes from this era are also very common in Ballard)
I don’t know what regulation change got us to these ridiculously narrow townhouses that are being built today, but in my opinion it needs to change.
There’s a Twitter thread by an architect on this:
https://twitter.com/holz_bau/status/1622829767799209984?s=20&t=J7QzilTusZcSMyZJI_EVRQ
I agree, there’s a reason we ended up in a ca 2003 townhouse rather than one of the more modern ones. All the ones we toured made me claustrophobic and felt more like living on a ship than a house. That said, there’s clearly a market for them and I don’t see it as a reason to avoid new building or redevelopment, but certainly is something I hope builders and our council members take into account.
Currently, what I see is that developers seem to own the conversation and the situation. And those of us who live here are left to fight among ourselves and call each other names.
I suspect that what people mean by “historical” and “character is many different things, including: A hard-to-define sense of being human-sized. Not looking like generic office buildings. Not looking like some sort of soulless suburban subdivision. A neighborhood that includes a lot of green space and gardens. And, importantly, being friendly to those who aren’t as physically-abled as others.
I think there needs to be more of a conversation about affordable density vs. high-priced density. What we are getting now is high-priced density not affordable density. Building more and more high-priced housing in our neighborhood pushes the folks who need affordable housing farther and father away. Trickle-down housing does not work. Just as trickle-down economics has been determined not to work.
There seems to be no room in the conversation for folks like us who want to maintain some sense of “character” but who *also* want to see more affordable density.
Developers seem to own the conversation and the situation. And those of us who live here are left to fight among ourselves and call each other names.
Just building expensive and characterless housing (mostly vertical townhouses)–which is what we are seeing in Wallingford–is not going to solve the housing crisis, yet that is what we seem to be left with. I attend meeting after meeting with developers who won’t build affordable units here because they aren’t money-making ventures for them. This means that they are paying less than they should into the “magical” fund that doesn’t seem to be enough to building affordable units anywhere. This means that non-wealthy folks can’t move here unless you already bought years ago when the neighborhood was affordable. And this means that non-wealthy people can’t live near our touted amenities, and are pushed further and further out. Trickle down housing doesn’t work–just as trickle down economics doesn’t work.
There seems to be no room in the conversation for folks who want to maintain some sense of “character” (vs. vertical filing boxes) but who *also* want to see more density. The second you say you like older-type buildings, you get labeled racist and anti-density. I would love to have an affordable building built next to me–but I am less sanguine about yet more expensive filing boxes for uber-wealthy folks.
Well said. Thank you. I also disagree with the City incentivizing the 12-ft-wide vertical townhouse format with no yard, no trees, and no regard for the surrounding built environment. Density limits help mitigate adverse impacts. A reasonable figure of 1 unit per 1300 sq ft of lot area can serve to encourage that what is built is reflective of the size of the parcel being developed. Most cities have density limits.
Flexible and future-friendly ownership opportunity can be achieved via cottages and flats. However, stacked flats are discouraged by City policy because such buildings are required to form an HOA, while vertical townhouse developers are not asked to address shared-maintenance via an HOA. Buyer beware.
If the City wishes to encourage seniors to downsize, build homes that are senior-friendly rather than incentivizing a dead-end townhouse form that provides no avenue to remain in the City that we love. Vertical townhomes do not provide a form that is senior-friendly or family-friendly, but City policy favors the townhouse with no avenue for maintenance.
Current MHA policy wrongly favors speculative development of vertical townhomes by corporate landlords, REITs, and Wall Street, rather than helping families that seek a starter home. MHA inflamed housing prices by encouraging an influx of speculative dollars. Look to Canada for examples of limits on outside corporate investment dollars that attempt to help the individual buyer who will actually live in the home. Home ownership has historically been a primary means to increase generational wealth.
I completely agree with you that stacked flats are an excellent form of housing and that city policy should be encouraging rather than discouraging them.
But as far as starter homes go, attached townhomes are the starter homes of today in Wallingford.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87210e37addad1abb0f8636456ec59650cb70ecba2c41f32f5afd76dee19c080.jpg
I think people tend to forget that a decent percentage of older houses are rentals, either for families or in Wallingford often college students, and that can be much cheaper than getting an apartment.
I wish we could see the government provide more rent vouchers and build more publically owned low income housing, including here in Wallingford.
“build more publically owned low income housing, including here in Wallingford.”
Vote for I-135
I think it is laughable. People talk about diversity and density. It used to be just density, and “a housing shortage”, and “affordability” “as if”
As if, placing more housing, so called, on a particular postage stamp, is some how intelligent. Then, attacking single family zoning, and or historical declarations. This idea that more people per sq, or cubic whatever is necessarily “better”
Density, so called, in fact is not better, it is worse indeed. “Relatively”
“I think” that every other high rise building, down town, should be removed, hauled way out over the ocean somewhere and dropped. In between should be all green space. In fact, much less density.
Neighborhoods, single family zones, should be fully protected from the violent destruction of what is termed density. All structures should be built where “land” is required to be part of the build, scope, scale, light.
All this “wanting” “just because” I want.
Housing shortage, so called, is a myth. There is no such thing. It is everywhere. Building yet more, is, has never, lowered the cost. You get a lot less sq ft for either the same price, or more.
What we are really talking about is “jobs'” and commute were one not to live near their job etc.
Changing, or building more housing, upward etc, with zero set backs, no land whatsoever, where the new cost is massive still, does nothing for the land, or the area, but to excuse an extreme misuse of the ground, where, doing nothing, and leaving the ground empty, is much better, because this is all pretend.
The cost is going skyward, due to income. Income at high paying jobs in the area. “That” is driving gentrification by way of salary.
“Wealth” destroyed Fremont. Those idiotic buildings near the Fremont bridge. Right at the Cut. Violent. Look at the 318. Another form of idiocy.
So..we can build and build and build and build. The price will be, more and more and more and more..with “density” being the “thing to traverse” while you try to get anything done.
25 years, right here in the area, watching this. Not “against” building…but I am saying, there is a myth, that this is a myth. Etc. And..sometimes, “doing something” is the very worst thing you can do. Scope, Scale..there should be an Asian aspect added, garden aspect added, green space added, to these really prostituted builds. That..is all I am saying.
Your comment is so very very inaccurate. Do you actually live in this neighborhood? There are new townhomes all over the place, apartments on Wallingford, Stoneway (counted 5 or was it 6 new apartment projects in various stages on Stoneway yesterday), and 45th (no groundbreaking yet but they’re coming). In terms of young people renting, you should be more concerned about the folks being displaced when rental housing is torn down to be replaced by townhouses – like the $700,000 to $1,000,000+ ones that Bryan K is so happy about.
“In terms of young people renting, you should be more concerned about the folks being displaced when rental housing is torn down to be replaced by townhouses ”
Unfortunately the alternative is not that they get to stay. On our block, for example, 1 rundown rental has been replaced by townhomes since the rezone.
Prior to the rezone, 3 rundown rentals were sold to new owner occupants, the most recent one selling in 2018 for $1M despite needing work.
(And the worst case for affordability of all, also prior to the rezone, was a large lot teardown that could have easily held multiple homes of whatever type that’s instead now 1 ginormous multi million dollar house.)
Do you hallucinate this stuff on your own? If not, your sources are giving you bad info.
– WCC/Historic Wallingford isn’t a thing. Those are two unrelated organizations.
– I really doubt any members of those organizations are pleased by removal of rental housing and its replacement by townhome boxes.
– If there were a Wallingford anti-renter lobby, I think I’d know about it. There isn’t.
– The Fremont/Wallingford naming ambiguity west of Stone Way is a somewhat weird historic conflict, where residents in those blocks in some cases insist that they’re in Fremont, while others see it as Wallingford. Between the two, the Fremont partisans seem more bitter about allegations of Wallingford-ness, which to me just reinforces the theory that it’s really Wallingford – but for me this applies only north of Bridge Way. From the blocks to the south, Fremont is more accessible. Neighborhood boundaries are essentially meaningless anyway, and no one’s in a position to “try to rename” any area. For what it’s worth, I recall back in 2012 or so, the city considered the site of currently the Brooks building to be in Fremont, I believe on the basis of the boundary of the Fremont Hub Urban Village. But for most purposes, neighborhoods are better modeled by a set of distance functions, rather than bounded areas.
The only stalled project that I happen to be aware of on N 45th, is where the sushi place burned up. It’s a preposterously small lot, with access limited so they’d have to build it from the inside.
” If there were a Wallingford anti-renter lobby, I think I’d know about it. There isn’t.”
Stop more renters for the sake of street parking and single family home buyers, seems to be the gist of the Wallingford Community Council’s position here:
General concerns regarding the combination of proposed changes
The 2010 Multi-family code revisions created what the author, former Councilmember Sally Clark, called “unanticipated problems” when developers combined multiple new exceptions written into the code. The cumulative effects of combining the proposed changes to backyard cottages could create an entirely new housing form in single family zones.
The HALA Strategy SF.2 proposes allowing more variety of housing types in single family zones, including duplexes and triplexes. By allowing a principal dwelling and an ADU and a DADU on a single family lot, this proposal moves towards the HALA goal of allowing multi-family dwellings on single family lots.
If the owner occupancy requirement is removed, and both an ADU and a DADU are allowed on the same lot, there is a strong potential for three-unit rental properties in single family zones.
Allowing a principal dwelling and an ADU and a DADU, plus non-owner occupancy, plus up to 12 unrelated occupants, plus no parking, would make it possible to create 12-unit rental compounds with no parking. This result in no way resembles the current backyard cottage legislation, and increases the likelihood of investor speculation that will raise the purchase price for single family homes.
https://www.wallingfordcc.org/backyard-cottages/
I think in general both sides of Stone Way south of 40th are gradually becoming Fremont, with all the condos and shops slowly forming a continuation from Fremont urban center. Stores on the Wallingford side of Stone way often refer to their locations as Fremont. I think for people who are not living in the neighborhood, Wallingford refers only to the stretch of 45th between i-5 and 99. Not Tangle Town, Stone Way, or North Lake.
I do. that’s why I know what’s going on with the apartment situation. I also know there are several new apartment buildings on Stoneway above 40th. one is 1/2 block south of 45th, there’s another coming at the Fathom site about a block south of that. What’s stalling multi family construction right now has nothing to do with parking – it’s financing. by the way, I work in a construction related field, with engineers, architects, and contractors. where do you get your information?
“WCC/Historic Wallingford are delighted when a rental is torn down to make way for a townhouse because that’s one less renter”
Yeah, pretty hard to square this with “rental houses are good” – from the WCC on ADUs:
“The City’s proposal to remove the owner-occupancy requirement increases the likelihood of potential livability issues typically associated with absentee landlords, such excessive noise, trash, and lack of maintenance.”
https://www.wallingfordcc.org/backyard-cottages/
I notice you consistently avoid the fact that the MHA is not producing the affordable units in the neighborhood that you and your buddies claimed it would. Supposedly was going to create a more diverse and affordable area. Instead we get pricey townhomes. It is also pretty evasive to ignore the destruction of existing rentals on the grounds that they were “crumbling” and would get torn down anyway. Plenty of good buildings are demolished in the interest of making a profit. the more units a developer can put on a lot, the more $ they can pay for something they’re going to tear down. that’s how the upzones have incentivized the demolition of smaller rental properties.
I am personally not a fan of MHA as it is designed, but according to the city’s report, there were $6.5M in MHA payments from Fremont, Green Lake, and Wallingford through 12/31/21 and $15.5M in investments, so that seems like something.
(https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/Housing/Footer%20Pages/Data%20and%20Reports/2021%20OH%20MHA%20IZ%20Annual%20Report.pdf)
“Plenty of good buildings are demolished in the interest of making a profit. the more units a developer can put on a lot, the more $ they can pay for something they’re going to tear down. ”
Crumbling is what made the rental houses relatively affordable.
A good building is going to be pricey either to buy or rent. If a higher end house is replaced by a bunch of lower end townhomes, that’s an obvious win for affordability for either purchase or rent (townhomes can be rented too – one of our young relatives is living in a rental townhome now).
The narrow, vertical townhomes are being built primarily because they are the most profitable for builders. Understand that the form is one of the least flexible for use (forget it for seniors or families) and an atrocious waste of materials, making it one of the least green housing forms.
The interior stair consumes anywhere from 22-percent to 28-percent of the floor area. There is no open space and most projects mow down the trees, if they can. Few people would choose to buy one, but that it is all that is currently being offered. The City’s dash to “incentivize turnover” by goosing the profits for builders has done nothing to improve affordability.
Immediately after MHA was passed, land prices doubled. Five years later, and land values have now tripled. Fixers that solid for $800k before MHA were put “on contract” to builders for $1.2 million (and sit empty for two years when they could be someone’s home). Young people interested in owning a home cannot compete with developers and are priced out of the market. This is not a good thing.
“Young people interested in owning a home cannot compete with developers and are priced out of the market.”
The opposite, really: young people interested in owning a home are priced in to the market by new and net more numerous townhomes that cost less than (sometimes well less than) those $800k teardowns.
“Few people would choose to buy one”
I would be the first to agree that the current crop of townhomes are not the best designed townhomes or rowhouses I’ve seen, but you do know that some form of townhome or rowhouse has been one of the most popular and enduring form of urban housing? Folks have been raising families in them in Baltimore, DC, and Philadelphia (among many other places of course, but those US cities stand out as exemplars of the form) for literally hundreds of years.
Hi Bryan, I suppose it does come down to preferences. As a purchaser of one of those “fixers”, it got my foot in the door with a yard, for the dog, a front porch for chatting with neighbors, a couple trees for free cooling during the summer, and a little more style than the new stuff being “incentivized” by the City.
Guess I would rather put my $800k and some sweat-equity into that than one of the new 12×30 “climbers” with a stairway consuming a quarter of the floor space and zero yard.
I really do not feel the two are equivalent. As the author says, given a choice many folks would pick a fixer Craftsman.
Well I appreciate that answer, as indeed tastes differ.
There was for example in the past a vocal segment who vilified stacked flats, a form of housing I think we both agree doesn’t deserve opprobrium.
There’s no reason to dispute your preferences, at the same time ours (for example) are the opposite: our house is 15′ wide and we wouldn’t want the 3 story separation of areas by floor (utility / public space / private space) in classic rowhouse style any other way.
Beyond preference. Those 12x30s won’t be fixers someday, they’ll be tear-downs for another developer to make a bundle on. Each day of ownership brings that day closer, and of course there are financial consequences.
We can talk in somewhat abstract terms about rowhouses and so forth, but there’s also a concrete reality here, an unfortunate one for both the owners and the community. For the sake of economy we build junk that looks OK when new.
We speak to “building” in and of all kinds of forms. What I see happening is, when property is a fixer at 1.1, and a 2 income couple brings 210k to close, their down payment…guess what the payment is every month? 5900.00 dollars. Roughly 72,000 dollars a year.
That does not include approx, let’s say 8k in taxes. Water Sewer Garbage..perhaps another 3k. Insurance, a policy without a deductible, 1,400, so..we are looking at about 80,000 a year..without eating etc.
I did say, a “fixer”
What I am saying is..”income” is inherently “competitive” and or a causation of the slow “gentrification” of anywhere..wherever. The UW is a huge employer, University and Hospital. “That” alone, can cause the rise in income..and or an “eventual” rise in everything all around it..as it were. “Housing” alone..is parts and pieces of construction materials, assembled.
High salary jobs, income..often 2 of those. Rise stuff.
I was just looking at Deland Florida. A fine, very fine, craftsman, fully restored, with land and an out building..top dollar, 486,000.
All the houses around it are 280k
I do think we are kidding ourselves when we do not take raw, high income, into consideration. This is coming from someone who knows, remembers when a fine craftsman in wallingford cost about 300k, max
No none cared. Not at all. Housing was not a thing..and jobs were 50k max, at Microsoft by the way. With stock options. I know a guy who bought a house in madison park..150k, and that was a lot. It is all relative. Income floods in..wealth as it were..everything tends to go up and up and up.
“scarcity” always wants density. Density means, what used to be 2400 sq ft, sales, is now 800 sq ft. Though with a much higher price per sq ft. Rentals that used to be 1200 sq ft, are now 548 sq ft.
Apartments, 1 br used to be 450.00 are now 1750.00
Studio, hard to say. Not cheap though. I do not know the answer. I do not like what I see.