The building planned at the site of Wallingford’s only field of fenced-off wildflowers, where the storied Guild 45th Theatre once stood, has undergone its final design review.
On October 21, the Seattle Design Review Board met with architects from Clark | Barnes who presented their final draft for the currently unnamed multi-family building at 2115 North 45th Street. This online meeting was a follow-up to an initial design review in February, where the architects presented three designs, none remarkable, but one solidly preferred over the other two. A few recommendations were made by the board to this preferred design and small changes were implemented by the architects, leading to this final design presentation, which was approved unanimously by the board.
The building will pretty much look like other new construction in the area, which I guess is the idea—to blend in with the other new multi-family buildings in this neighborhood…and the neighborhood next door…and the one next to that.
The structure will be five stories, with retail on the bottom. The most interesting design aspect will be a “pass-through” corridor (which doesn’t actually pass through) at the center of the building. While the initial idea to have this walkway wrap around the Octopus Bar (like a tentacle?) and connect 45th to Bagley was nixed due to “safety concerns,” it will at least allow the ground floor retail tenants to have windows on two sides, and potentially utilize this covered central area with seating. In addition, there will be bench seating for the public in this space, which will be closed off by a decorative gate during “off-business” hours.
Much to the outrage of some, no doubt, the building will have no parking spaces for cars. Since public transportation is readily available nearby, car parking is not required by the city (and bike storage will be available for residents). Though the 44 and 62 are convenient, albeit sometimes sluggish routes, it’s a shame that Metro killed the 26X, with speedy bus service to SLU and downtown from Wallingford. Oh, how I miss the 26.
The east and west sides of the building are a bit foreboding, and to break up the monotony on the western wall, a large mural “with emphasis on the Pacific Northwest” will be commissioned. Much of the public feedback on this project recommended that the architects pay homage to the Guild 45th Theatre somehow. Perhaps the mural could be a nod to the former movie theater, which opened in 1921, and whose floors were last mopped in the mid-90s.
Potentially the name of the building could pay homage to the theater as well, but when asked for comment from the architect, I got no response. Nor did they provide me with a timeline for the groundbreaking of this project. For now, enjoy the wildflowers.
Discover more from Wallyhood
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What’s with the Berlin Wall next to it?
The architects simply drew blank walls in place of The Octopus, Cheers, and Silver Tray.
The full design proposal: https://www.seattleinprogress.com/project/3040554/page/1
Where will people park? It is not legal to park in the Wallingford Center parking lot unless shopping.
Most of the residents won’t own cars, and the proportion of residents with cars will decrease over the years as we improve transit options. Those few who do own cars can park in the same places where people who went to the cinema parked.
"Those few who do own cars can park in the same places where people who went to the cinema parked."
Well said, well said indeed.
Street parking is going to substantially increase, so expect rpz permit area 33 to expand East to include blocks around the building and for time limits on parking to tighten up within a few blocks of the building.
what are the chances that it actually looks like this??
So excited for a building made for people instead of cars. We need to make more decisions like this for the future of our children! Will always miss the old movie theater though.
Ah, so another oversized, soulless and uninspired box, with zero parking. I mean, why trouble yourself with your impact on the surrounding community when city leaders decided to allow developers to screw our neighborhoods?
This is what the urbanists who want to eliminate single family zoning call "progress."
The building is not beautiful, but it’s not ugly either; it’s just meh. Unfortunately, 'meh' is what gets approved. It also didn’t eliminate any single-family residences.
The much more important thing is that this building will bring many more people, especially young people, into the heart of the neighborhood. That’s a huge benefit to everyone in Wallingford, and that’s the true soul of the building.
"A huge benefit to everyone?" How, specifically do I benefit from this?
Like Ben said, it will bring more people, specifically young people into our community. That means more businesses and a thriving neighborhood, which is better for everyone in Wallingford!
We've already got enough people in our community. I think Wallingford's a great neighborhood as it is. Why do people move here and then demand we change it to suit their agenda? Why not move to, say, downtown Ballard or Capitol Hill hill or downtown Seattle if you want to be surrounded by huge buildings?
I don't get this blind insistence of YIMBYs that growth for the sake of growth, is good for our city. All it means is more traffic, less parking, crappy, shoddily and ugly architecture, more crowded hiking trails and ski slopes, higher taxes and more crime. All of which has been borne out by the facts of the last ten or fifteen years.
The ski slopes in Wallingford are very crowded. However, the surviving businesses on 45th definitely need more foot traffic. As for traffic and parking, these will improve with more young people to support increased transit options.
Maybe we should think about taxing these small businesses less, imposing less ridiculous regulations on them and more law enforcement to deal with non-stop shoplifting and break-ins. Just a thought.
As for traffic, people, including those you claim won't bring their cars here to their new building with no on site parking, want to be able to park their car and run an errand for a couple of minutes. Not everyone wants to sit on a grimy bus or bike in the rain. And you're putting the car before the horse by assuming assuming transit options will improve just because more people move here.
We actually don't have enough people in our community. People who work lower paying jobs in this neighborhood cannot afford to live here.
You know there are a lot of condos in places half an hour or more away from Seattle and commute into Seattle to provide service to people living here? Why should people working in Seattle grocery stores living in Kent or Millcreek condos instead of condos in Wallingford?
As for ugly architecture, do you not realize an average single family house in Wallingford looks the same as those in much poorer neighborhoods in Tacoma? The neighborhood actually looks better now than in the past.
In addition to businesses thriving, the new people will support further improvements in the neighborhood, such as enhanced transit options and the establishment of a community center. New residents will also volunteer at local organizations, such as the Boys and Girls Club and the senior center. Finally, having more people walking along 45th Street will create a more pleasant environment for everyone.
Right? "Developers create the chance for somewhere between 40 and 80 new customers to live within a nothingburger walk of (among other places) Sock Monster, Fainting Goat, and Archie McPhee's and for this they are bad" – no, this is good!
I rely on public transportation, based on the previous 26/20, a reliable 44 and a more frequent 62. One route is gone, the 44 disappears for 30-45 minutes at a time, and the 62 backs up somewhere along the one-lane traffic route several times a day (three arrive at the same time). I have lived in this neighborhood since 1989, and our transportation options have declined and ossified significantly by KC Metro's design (the 26 wasn't on an NW routes map in 2004). Why would less parking make the situation better? If the new housing were going to be affordable, that would be a benefit. Will it? Doubt it.
What is doubly frustrating is the idea that so much of 45th is occupied by abandoned or burnt out businesses, some left for years at a time. It's been like this in Wallingford; why would anyone want to walk up and down a street that encourages buildings to remain vacant, upgrading to vacant lots after the inevitable arson to accelerate the demo process. How valuable to the owners are these properties? Clearly none of these players are interested in the concept of community.
This replaces a cinema with an apartment building whose residents will predominantly be carless young people. It will reduce the demand for parking spaces while supporting more transit, which will, in turn, reduce traffic. Don't let the reduction in bus service, caused by recent politicians treating transportation as an identity issue, dissuade you from supporting more sustainable, safer, and, cheaper housing and transit options.
"It will reduce the demand for parking spaces"
You're bringing 80 units into a space where there were previously none. Many of these people, despite your assurances to the contrary, will still bring cars. So how does that actually "reduce" the demand for parking?
But let's play along and pretend none of these new residents will bring cars. How about we mandate that if you move into any new construction with no on site parking in neighborhoods like Wallingford, you don't get an RPZ sticker. You shouldn't have a problem with that, since none in these people are bringing cars and will just bus and bike everywhere, right?
I am ok with mandate for new residents, if it also apply equally to old residents. How about no street parking for everybody?
The whole city should be RPZ'd. And free ORCA passes for car-free households.
A very successful and influential local lobby has ensured that 45th has deteriorated, while other streets like lower Stone Way and upper Queen Anne are thriving. This was a deliberate campaign to keep young people out of the neighborhood. They said young people would ruin the character of the neighborhood. Well, this building is part of the recovery of the character of 45th.
Can you expound on this? Or is there a link to read? Curious.
I'm somewhat new to the area and am somewhat mystified by the slow pace of replacing eyesores like the old Guild, the old Fat Cat records (FUGLY), and now old Bartell (who doesn't enjoy plywood and posters competing with graffiti?). And that spot next to Molly Moon's… how can that just be sitting there, derelict but protected by lovely cyclone fencing?
For some background, read this article and listen to the audio:
https://www.kuow.org/stories/wallingford-fought-developers-decades-it-was-hip.
It's a chicken and egg situation. Low density in Wallingford reduced bus service and the incentive for business to come in. Stone Way is now much busier than 45th for foot traffic and you see businesses popping up there instead of on the 45th.
What kind of business thrive on 45th nowadays? The types where people from denser areas to the west of Wallingford can park and grab something fast. Why? Because the density of the neighborhood itself cannot sustain the local businesses by itself.
"which I guess is the idea—to blend in with the other new multi-family buildings in this neighborhood…"
But it does NOT blend in with the original turn-of-the-century housing stock or commercial buildings, which is what gives Seattle's core neighborhoods their unique and appealing character.
FWIW: I'm not against growth; I'm against ugliness.
What's unique about the Tacoma ghetto look? Most of the better looking blocks in Wallingford has modifications to make them not look like that already, because the old look was neither unique nor appealing.
Happy to help you pack for the suburbs, stroads, 5-over-1s, and all the strip malls your heart desires.
Not sure if you reply to the wrong person. I am criticizing the low density housing people are advocating. I am the person that kept floating the idea of razing all of Wallingford to turn half of it into park/forest land and half into 20+ floor high rises.
I took "Tacoma ghetto look" as a swipe against turn-of-the-century architecture and in favor of contemporary architecture. eg craftsman homes and old town main street buildings v plain box houses and 5-over-1's. I scrolled through the proposal and it doesn't seem much better than a typical 5-over-1, albeit with one less story and "red brick veneer" (p. 28). I have no opinion on the density issue. Just commenting solely on aesthetics.
I probably favor the new buildings over the old houses in Wallingford, but I think both of them look bad. Really I am saying is that all the nicer looking single family houses in Wallingford are actually not really old style ones that as I said you can find everywhere in region, and better "preserved" with their original look in poorer neighborhoods. Many single family house blocks in Wallingford look great despite its original look, because richer newcomers spent money to touch them up.
The picture of my house from a hundred years ago really just look like an average Tacoma ghetto house.
There has been endless remodeling happening, especially in the past 10 years. The reason was mostly due to quick increase in price. The norm was somebody spent 600k to bought a house that looked like a 400k house and remodeled it, then somebody bought it for 800k and then remodeled it again to look 800k, and then 1m and on. It feels like there is always somebody remodeling on the block, either to prepare for a sale, or to upgrade the house after a sale. This really only slowed recently.