They may not be beloved... but they are about the only affordable way to buy a house in the city and live close to where you work.
Isn't' the Stranger Pro-Density?

Yes, we are. But, judging from the feedback we get about these new condo developments, a large chunk of our readers aren't. And 400K+ isn't exactly affordable...

Here's how it seems to work: Developer buys Grandma's house on what was previously a single family lot. Developer then proceeds to....

A.) Tear Grandma's house down and put up two duplexes (one where Grandma's house was, and one in Grandma's back yard)

B.) Cutesifies Grandma's house (Granite counters! Stainless Steel Appliances!) and builds a duplex in Grandma's backyard.

C.) Buys both Grandma's house and her neighbor's houses, tears all of them down, and builds a string of "townhomes", sometimes with duplexes behind them.

Don't get me wrong: I would rather have Seattle inbuilt than any more of the Cascade foothills destroyed. But there has to be something better than this tacky, half-hazard development.

But obviously, the answer isn't arson - It isn't the fireman's fault that the developers have no taste.

I'm confused. We're not supposed to build out- 'cause that's sprawl- but we're not supposed to build up either? Because, like, single family houses are, I dunno, precious or something? Are we supposed to tell people to go the fuck away to Arkansas or something?

And when we do institute tighter guidelines (compared to say Dallas or Denver) and then as a result housing prices do start going up, that's evil too? Cause everyone should be able to afford single family housing within the very small and geographically constrained city limits?

If Mayor Nutsack finally spontaneously combusts one day, and the fine citizens vote you Mayor, Dan, what would your housing policies be?

Catalina vel-duray says "But there has to be something better than this tacky, half-hazard development."

Are you familiar enough with this project to make such a judgment that it is "tacky, half-hazard?

I'm confused. We're not supposed to build out- 'cause that's sprawl- but we're not supposed to build up either? Because, like, single family houses are, I dunno, precious or something? Are we supposed to tell people to go the fuck away to Arkansas or something?

That's more or less the attitude of a lot of people. They love Seattle, as long as they're the last people to move here, and a lot of the people that are here kindly move away.

It's been a joke around here for decades (so I'm told, I've been here about 8 years) that people overstate the rainfall here to a national audience, in the hopes that it keeps people away.

What if the arsonist was actually the developer or one of the homeowners?

This is becoming a very common occurance in other "bubble" housing economies - people get upside down on their properties so they burn them down.

Nothing to see here folks.

DMS Dear - No, I'm not familiar with the project at hand. And if you read carefully, you might notice that I did not specifically mention the project at hand. I was merely remarking upon the general air of crapiness and banality in most of the new developments, and how they tend to not fit into the neighborhoods they are built in. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Literal minded people have such a difficult time in life, don't they?

Generally speaking (note that I said GENERALLY) the newer townhomes, duplexes, etc are lowest common denominator design, pulled straight from some developer's ass. Surely a "World-Class" city can do better?

Excuse me friend Catalina if I mistook the "this" in the sentence "But there has to be something better than this tacky, half-hazard development." to refer to the property burned and not to the general situation in our region. Please accept my apology.

Though now I realize that I was wrong, I found it particularly surprising because the idea of "live-work" spaces is good (the project has two of them) and the drawing in this post looks fairly attractive, so it is especially ironic for someone to burn down what seems like a pretty good project.

If the neighbors are so upset, why aren't they working to change building regulations to mandate the kind of buildings they wouldn't mind seeing in their neighborhoods?

And don't knock butt ugly homes too much. If the beautiful home from the '20s that was on my lot hadn't burned down in 1978, and been rebuilt according to the tastes of the day, I never would have been able to afford it.

@1 and @4 over-simplify The Stranger's position and criticize it for being simplistic.

What I see is The Stranger advocating for urban density while simultaneously (1) acknowledging that many readers and others have substantial objections, and (2) facing the problems with their own ideas (like the tasteless cookie-cutter designs and unaffordable prices of most current development).

That's not hypocritical or unthinking.  That's honest, skeptical thinking and reporting.

Sustainable, live-work units that cut down on commuting in a neighborhood that continually whines about the poor transportation options available to get downtown. Those developers are insensitive bastards! They're lucky the arsonists only burned down the townhomes and didn't break out the tar and feathers.

DMS, apology accepted. On review, I was much too liberal in the universal "this". I was at a wine tasting earlier, and spirits do affect the elderly so....

I think "half-hazard" was meant to be "haphazard", which means inconsistent and wildly uneven. It has nothing to do with a place being hazardous or flammable.

And 400K+ isn't exactly affordable...

For 2100 square feet of live/work space in Seattle... uh yeah it is. You clearly haven't priced many single family homes in the city lately.

I agree with @9 that this does look like a decent project. And I wish everybody would shut up about the "cookie cutter" look of condos and townhomes while simultaneously gushing over those adorable craftsman style single family homes... you know... the ones they used to sell in a Sears catalogue. Or row houses in San Fran or brownstones in New York. All cookie cutter.

@15 seems to have confused "affordable" with "a bargain."

One has to do with prevailing market prices, the other with people can, you know, actually afford...

OK, here I am again. Up all early and shit, and somewhat recovered from last night. Let me see if I have it in me to post a few observations....

1.) I think there's a big distinction to be made between "authentic" Craftsman (and similar styles), and the new stuff - which tends to be boxy, with a gable or two added for a "contemporary Craftsman" look. Personally, I don't like old world charm, so you won't find me preaching that particular double standard.

2.) These construction projects really are tough on the neighbors: Noisy and dusty, and they tie up traffic. Plus, many of the builders are rather insensitive to the neighbors. Not a reason to burn anything down, of course, but you know how psycho arsonists are...

3.) To me, the reason why good design is important is because its the difference between a stable long-term neighborhood and a future slum. Crappy townhomes and duplexes, once the bloom has been rubbed off, tend to become shitty rentals, owned by absentee landlords. Condos fare a little better, as they tend to have association rules precluding too many subrentals, but it can be bad for them too.

This is not to say that I thought this was a good development or a bad development, or that the builders and developers were either angels or devils. It's simply what I see in my field work with new construction. Many humans don't like change - especially when it threatens them or gets them up early because of noise. I hear it again and again, and I'm just a schmuck from the electric company with absolutely no clout.

But again, it's no reason to burn anything down.

"...it's no reason to burn anything down."

But this is Seattle. Dollars-to-donuts you'll hear calls for "understanding" once they catch the creep(s) who did it. The calls for "healing."

And watch to see what they Mayor says; I would bet he is silent.

DMS, don't discount the very real possibility that this project wasn't penciling out, so somebody decided to let the insurance company take it in the shorts.

And I wouldn't count on Seattle feel-good winning out. Remember Martin Pang? Nobody - including me - wanted to understand him, and we sure didn't want to see him "healed". The same is true of that serial arsonist we had about ten years ago.

I hope you are correct Catalina on the latter point about zero tolerance for violent protest i.e. arson.

As to the first point, I don't think that housing values are anywhere near falling here so I don't see that 'not-pencilling' is very likely. If the above-quoted $200/sf is accurate then the live-work spaces look like a very fair deal and will sell quickly.

And I assume that the police/ATF look to the owner as the very first suspect in an arson case so of course let the chips fall...

Btw, why I even raise the issue of tolerance for arson is because I have noticed huge silence -- especially from elected officials -- in past cases of anti-development arson.

I do hope I am wrong.

"Not penciling in" can happen for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with housing prices, but the whole premise is pure, unadulterated speculation on my part, so I should leave it lay.

However, take a look at some of the houses fore sale in Seattle: Not only are they staying on the market longer, I'm starting to see a lot of "PRICE REDUCED" and "BRING OFFERS" posted on the signs, so I'm wondering if we are on the verge of something in terms of real estate values.

Also, there are rumblings from the DPD that the number of permits opened has decreased dramatically. Nothing official, mind you, but the rumors are out there.

Lastly, this may be an effect of the silence you speak of, but how much anti-development arson has there been around here? I don't recall much.

THIS development, despite the amateurish rendering on Knoll Development's website, was MUCH better than the 4, 6, 8-packed townhomes that have become the staple of second-tier developers in this town.

these instant ghettos (go up to 85th & aurora to see one in full flower) are a direct result of the loopholes built into the city's design review & the pathological fear of condominium ownership. each townhome is on its own fee-simple lot.

by the time the citizens, or DPD gets around to discouraging this shite, it will be too late & these blights will remain for the remaining 40-odd years of my lifespan.

discouraging.

@16 - I haven't confused anything. I'm talking about affordability based on market standards.

You're not going to see anything "affordable" by national standards in Seattle because we do not have that kind of market here. That's just a reality we have to deal with. That's how our national economy works.

Here's how it works in Big Cities Where People Want to Live (New York, Chicago, Seattle, SF, LA): you can get a mediocre house for ridiculously high sums of money, or a comfortable house for more money than you've got. If you don't want it to get even worse, you have to let them build more mediocre houses- do you think if developers start putting up beautiful condos ANY of us would be able to afford it? If you don't like it, get on I-5 and head ~150mi south.

All of you who want us to bubble burst our way back out of the top tier of markets: (1) on behalf of all of us who are actually already homeowners, thanks a whole bunch, and (2) that's not how burst bubbles work. They just lead to flat prices for a while and bankruptcy for people who were financially betting on steady appeciation of their properties. Ask anyone from L.A.

I second everything Big Sven said.

General @24, we agree more than we disagree.  The reality we have to deal with in Seattle is that most of our housing is not affordable by you-say-national-I-say-normal standards.

mkarelv goefuw nxoqrdza zmgydwr nfog revujkhb dfov

mkarelv goefuw nxoqrdza zmgydwr nfog revujkhb dfov

bcuvg jxki emqjhf pdlz skzjx cypaekflx abcfvzgok http://www.xajuytzs.hnzptsd.com