Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on More Housing You Can't Afford

1

I wonder how much the 24 townhouses going up just north of Gas Works Park are going to cost? My guess is $795,000 each. Six buildings of four units each, replacing an old four-story rooming house on three lots.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 2, 2006 1:13 PM
2

Yes, ugh! We don't want any of those nasty rich people here, building their opulent houses, buying expensive things from nice botiques, and funding the fine arts. We want to keep Capitol Hill just like we know and love it: full of empty storefronts and meth-addicted beggars. It's so quaint and authentic!

Posted by David Wright | October 2, 2006 1:15 PM
3

Density brings in wealth, jobs, great restaurants and vibrant living. This condo is CHEAP by Manhattan standards. Seattle people should quit whining and ask your boss for a raise. You can easily afford one of these if you just work hard.


I love the direction Seattle is growing and wish "old Seattle" types would quit dragging this city down.

Posted by Density Density Density | October 2, 2006 1:22 PM
4

I think Erica here is trying to challenge Greg Nickels for the "Seattle's greatest hypocrite" award. The phrase "a multi-family version of a suburban McMansion" is about as oxymoronic and Orwellian as the NIMBY's' infamous "vertical sprawl."

I guess Erica's all for density as long as it's her style and designed for cool people in her income range.

Posted by cressona | October 2, 2006 1:23 PM
5

Ah, but instead we could build 100-story residential highrises surrounded by parkland instead - and house more people, and more cheaply.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 2, 2006 1:38 PM
6

Um, Will, your plan is pure Le Corbusier, and it sucks. 100 story towers would result in astronomical square foot prices, and huge isolated towers surrounded by wasteland is a terrible idea that's been tried on the ground many times, and failed.

Posted by Fnarf | October 2, 2006 1:50 PM
7

Concerning Will's high-concept concept, I agree with Fnarf. I'm reminded of the images of Shanghai high-rises which Charles Mudede posted on Slog a few months ago. I forget if it was Charles or a commenter who described the buildings as "Dante-esque," but I agreed and was just as horrified. Even the old public housing in Chicago made for a more appealing sight.

I guess the larger point is, strictly in terms of style, dense housing can be just as poorly designed as sprawling housing. I guess that's stating the obvious. But I wish Erica had focused her criticism strictly on the style instead of appearing to mix it up with an implicit criticism of density and gentrification.

Posted by cressona | October 2, 2006 2:01 PM
8

Seattle=San Francisco without Bart, Muni and good taquerias.

Posted by SeMe | October 2, 2006 2:07 PM
9

I think I'll take two. Both for investment purposes.

Posted by RichWhiteGuy | October 2, 2006 2:23 PM
10

The real problem is, there are a lot more rich folks than there are rich folks with class. And the ones with class aren't looking for condo units on Broadway. So, because the developers are consumed with marketing, and the marketers lack all sense of art, you end up with pure cheese. Of COURSE it's going to look like a outscale McMansion; that's the only model for "class" these guys have.

That's what "European" means in this context, as put forth on their website -- not real modern architecture like you would find in the real Europe, but faux-Tuscan inbred with faux-Bordeaux, which you find EVERYWHERE in the imaginary Europe of soft-brained new American money.

The funny part will be when the new owners fill these units up with bizarrely inappropriate faux-moderne or faux-Craftsman furnishings, because American design is so completely out of kilter now.

Posted by Fnarf | October 2, 2006 2:56 PM
11

"Seattle=San Francisco without Bart, Muni and good taquerias."

Also without Amoeba Records and the NHL (Bellevue=San Jose)

Posted by neo-realist | October 2, 2006 2:57 PM
12

Gee, FNARF, when I lived in such places in Vancouver (specifically East Van), the rents weren't too high.

Methinks you're thinking the ultra-rich stuff they build here, not there.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 2, 2006 2:57 PM
13

They have 100-story towers in East Vancouver? Who knew?

Posted by Fnarf | October 2, 2006 3:22 PM
14

One million for a condo is cheap in Manhattan. You Seattpe people whine too much! I'd snap up a couple of these units while you can. They sound great and plenty of Microsoft types have the bucks to buy. Density is great, it drives up property values.

Posted by Manhattan Transplant | October 2, 2006 3:26 PM
15

How much of this is profit, do you think?

Urban infill at the same price as a house the same size on a larger lot.

Shouldn't higher density allow them to charge lower prices?

Even Frank Lloyd Wright did some Usonian houses.

That nonprofit, cooperative development association I proposed here awhile back is looking better and better all the time.

We need to drop the bottom out of this market a little.

Posted by new urbanism | October 2, 2006 3:26 PM
16

Density is fine, just as long as there is a place for people who aren't uber rich. Homogenous communities (ie ultra-rich or all-white) are as unhealthy as they are boring. And, no, the rich actually don't necessarily end up supporting the arts more than anyone else. Some of the poorest counties in the US have some of the highest per capita support of the arts.

It's my experience as an artistic director that most people who give to the arts don't have a lot of money and those that do are so mainstream that they don't actually make a difference to anyone.

Posted by artlover | October 2, 2006 3:33 PM
17

Good point about NYC. My brother's place cost a million, and he lives in a place smaller than my bedroom.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 2, 2006 4:48 PM
18

The units are priced according to the market, not to their costs.

Posted by Fnarf | October 2, 2006 4:56 PM
19

I don't think you can have big garages and call it moving in the direction of density.

Posted by Noink | October 2, 2006 5:10 PM
20

NYC is chock full of garages.

Posted by Fnarf | October 2, 2006 7:24 PM
21

Lamenting the death of Capitol Hill as we know it is fine, but what would you want to do to prevent it? Stop all development and investment in Capitol Hill? Force people to sell their condos at below market? Saying that it is a shame that people are being pushed out of the area is one thing, but it is nothing new, and it is very difficult to control. And any intervention that you propose in the neoliberal, Darwinian American system has the potential to bite you in the ass further down the road.

But that is the nature of things. Welcome to urban succession in America. Poorer hipsters and artists and students will now move to where the rents are cheaper (Georgetown / White Center), push all of the really poor people out, draw in new local amenities, and set up the vicious cycle again. And maybe in 30-40 years or so, when all of the condos that are built now are falling apart because of their shoddy construction, the neighborhood will become more interesting again.

Posted by bma | October 2, 2006 11:08 PM
22

You'd think reading this that harvard and higland were the center of bohemia.

I don't understand why you're so upset about rich folks moving in next to rich folks. Last time i checked, the other for-reals-mansions around harvard and higland were'nt exactly cheap (like this house directly opposite the building site, mentioned in slog a few weeks ago, a snip at $4.5 million http://windermere.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Listing.ListingDetail&ListingID=7185475)

So what's a better use of that land? Two single family homes, or a bunch of super high end condos.

Oh one other thing while I'm ranting. This construction isn't replacing low income housing. It's not even replacing a historic landmark mansion house or a set of affordable condos. It's being built on the former Scottish Rite Masonic Lodge and its parking lot.

Thats more people living and working in the city, spending money with local business, and driving on I-5 a lot less. we should be applauding this construction.

Posted by Paul | October 3, 2006 3:52 AM
23

i can't afford? who says you?

Posted by seattl98104 | October 3, 2006 9:36 AM
24

speak for your self. Some of us can afford it.

Posted by you_gotta_be_kidding_me | October 3, 2006 4:01 PM
25

At least they're getting a ton of fucking room for a million dollars. 1670 feet could fit 3-5 normal apartments. Some places are charging a million large for 700 or so sq feet.

Posted by Gomez | October 3, 2006 11:10 PM
26

Also, watch out for a rash of foreclosures when the mortgage rate on adjustables goes up. The rental market's gonna get crowded, but the homes on the market will become more affordable.

Posted by Gomez | October 3, 2006 11:12 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).