New TOD in the Valley

60 Replies to “New TOD in the Valley”

1. Re your asterisk*, a lot of developers are building parking not because of demand per se but because their financers, big banks and insurance companies from afar, require it as a condition of financing. Time for some enlightenment in the financial community, methinks.

2. Anything slated to go up around the Beacon Hill Station?

   1. El Centro has something planned for the area north of the station but that’s waiting on the rezone. Other than that, pretty much nothing moving at the moment from what I hear. I doubt there will be anyone willing to sell or any developer interest until after rezoning firms up. If there’s anything to be happy about it’s that the Seattle process driven two year delay is in the middle of the recession where stuff probably wouldn’t be built anyway.

      1. Do you know the word on when this is supposed to be resolved? And is there any chance that zoning restrictions will be eased any more than the current, challanged, proposal?

3. Parking regulation is tough to fine tune. Transit Guy is right to say that the financiers of developers call some of the shots regarding parking – and their reasons are to reduce perceived or real risk. No developer really wants to provide more parking than necessary, since it’s a cost – often expensive, and creating parking sometimes comes at the expense of more space to otherwise sell or rent.

   Some parking can be externalized and sent to the street or surrounding neighborhood, either informally or formally. If it’s informal, you risk neighbors being unhappy. Formal is good, where you lease short term/long term space nearby that can ultimately be terminated as the market allows.

   If that parking is surface lots though be careful. The surface lot on First Ave across from the north end of the market has been there since I believe 1927 – so temporary can be a long time. Better maybe to create parking in buildings that can be converted, where the temptation to leave it as parking is diminished.

   1. While I agree determining PARKING might be hard to fine tune, I don’t agree that parking REGULATIONS are.

      How about zero?

      Let the developers/financiers figure it out. If tenants/customers choose to park illegally, that’s why we have metermaids no?

      1. You want these housing units to be occupied, or you want them to be vacant? If you want people to actually live there, then provide parking.

      2. City’s that can make the case that real transit options exist have no problem instituting parking maximums, removing the ability of financiers to place auto-centric pressure on developers.

         As you say, getting rid of minimums entirely would be a good first step. And of course, Seattle is a long way from being able to institute a maximum of zero. But a 1-space-per-unit maximum directly next to a rail station might be reasonable in the not-too-distant future.

      3. “Cities.” My once-overs only seem to miss the most ludicrous typos on this blog. Must be my impassioned typing fingers.

      4. Norman, the point of removing the minimum parking requirement is to give the landowner the freedom to choose what to do on his own property, to decide how many parking spots he thinks he needs for the people who will be using the property. If he decides zero or a million, I’d rather it be the property owner’s decision and not a lawmaker’s.

      5. I’m no fan of parking quantity requirements at all either. But understand if parking demand is externalized, there is a cost borne by the taxpayers and neighbors.

         Parking regulation by enforcement means folks to write tickets, a system to enforce and collect the tickets, and provide for appeal. I guess you make it profitable to the local government and then it’s just a nuisance at best, a reason to dislike government at it’s worst.

         As long as that’s understood and accepted – then letting the market set the quantity is certainly efficient.

      6. @Norman

         I realize we’re not a NYC, Philly, or Boston, but people seem to buy/rent places there with no guaranteed parking spots. Everyone has their own priorities. If they need a parking spot and a particular place doesn’t provide one, then that is clearly off their list of considerations. However, if that person prefers other conveniences that outweigh the lack of a guaranteed parking spot right outside their front door, then this is a non-issue. The problem is there are a lot of areas along MLK that don’t fit the “convenience” bill as of yet.

4. [hijacking]

   1. [response to]

      1. [hijack]

      2. [hijack]

      3. I would define TOD as development that happens around transit that wouldn’t happen if that transit service weren’t there, and I believe all these projects in the Rainier Valley fit that bill.

      4. Correct.

5. Construction of Central Link started five or six years ago, which is before the housing bubble burst, and before the recession began. So far, according to the article, there are exactly TWO housing developments under construction near Link stations, one of which is a non-profit. lol

   [off-topic]

   Again, since you have failed to mention even one thing: what is the difference between the one private development currently under construction along Link and the dozens of new private TOD near bus routes in Seattle? How about naming the 5 or 6 most-important differences you see between the private TOD near LInk stations and the private TOD near bus stops in SEattle?

   Thanks.

   1. Many more projects were planned for MLK and put on hold during the recession.

      The difference is that land values are higher in Ballard, for a host of reasons. That makes it a lot easier to build there. Do you think there would be these projects on MLK if they had just increased bus frequency on MLK to Ballard levels?

      1. “Do you think there would be these projects on MLK if they had just increased bus frequency on MLK to Ballard levels?”

         You mean both projects on MLK?

         Yes. If the zoning were changed to the same as it has been changed to near Link stations.

         So, there is no difference between the “TOD” being built and planned on Link, and the “TOD” built all over Seattle on bus routes?

      2. I don’t understand what debating point you’re trying to make. There are several major projects underway or planned for the MLK corridor, a corridor that hadn’t seen any such development for decades. If you honestly can’t see why Ballard would be more attractive for development, irrespective of the transit situation, you should really stop commenting about real estate.

         I presume you’re not making the entirely banal point that development can, under some circumstances, happen near bus lines, since everyone uses the term ‘TOD’, not ‘ROD’.

      3. I’m making the point that the trivial amount of development occuring along Central Link is due to zoning, and not to light rail. The same development would occur if there were still only bus routes on MLK and Central Link had not been built, if the zoning had been changed to allow this sort of development. You see this exact sort of development all over Seattle, wherever zoning has been changed to allow it. What does light rail have to do with any development in Seattle? Nothing.

      4. Then why aren’t big apartment blocks going up farther from the rail stations in the RV?

         Furthermore, what activated the zoning changes? If rail was the amenity that got people to accept the upzone, then in practical terms rail caused the construction.

      5. “Then why aren’t big apartment blocks going up farther from the rail stations in the RV”

         There are only 2 “big apartment buildings” going up anywhere along Central Link in the Rainier Valley. The zoning allowing these big apartment buildings does not extend very far from the rail stations — thus it is the city which is determining where “big apartment buildings” can go. There are “big apartmnet buildings” all over Seattle which are nowhere near any light rail stations — they are just where zoning allows them to be built.

         What “activated the zoning change” in other neighborhoods all over Seattle, such as Ballard, Queen Anne, W. Seattle, etc., which are nowhere near any light rail stations?

         Why are there “big apartment buildings” all over Seattle?

      6. “Why are there “big apartment buildings” all over Seattle?”

         Overlay an old trolley line map with a density map and you’ll get your answer.

      7. Really? The big apartment buildings I am speaking of were built after the early 1940’s, which is when all the trolleys were torn out. What do buildings built after the 1940’s have to do with trolleys?

      8. Because dense mixed used developments attract more dense mixed use developments. The foundations were built during the streetcar era, and in most places were strong enough to keep growing although at a much slower pace.

      9. That is a very amusing theory that you just made up. However, it is obviously nonsense.

         There were no new 6-story or taller apartment buildings built within a few blocks of Market Street and 22nd Ave N.W. in Ballard (to cite juse one example) for decades, until just a few years ago, when the city changed the zoning to allow them. Within the past several years, around a dozen buildings of six stories or more have been built within a half-mile of that intersection. That was all because of zoning — nad nothing to do with any little trains.

         If the city zones for 6- or 7-story mixed-use buildings in a certain area, that is what developers will build. It is just that simple, and obvious to most people.

      10. http://www.flickr.com/photos/51332149@N02/4949534915/in/set-72157624200668965/

          Here is just one of several 7-story buildings built in the past few years near Market St and 22nd Ave NW in Ballard. It just opened this year. It’s location has nothing to do with street cars, obviously, all of which were torn out about 70 years ago. It was built at a bus stop. Several other similar buildings have gone up within a half-mile radius just in the past several years, because zoning in that area was changed to allow and encourage that type of building. Not for any other reason.

      11. If the city zones for 6- or 7-story mixed-use buildings in a certain area, that is what developers will build.

          If property values are strong enough for it to pencil out, which is obviously the case in Ballard. I agree it would be silly to build light rail to Ballard, in particular, for the sole purpose of encouraging construction of 6-story mixed use.

      12. So those 6 stories high rises were built on vacant land? Nothing there, and nothing around it?

          Okay, ya got me, I was wrong then! LOL

      13. “Because dense mixed used developments attract more dense mixed use developments.”

          I thought anyone would be able to figure this out by themselves, but I guess I will have to draw you a picture: there are very limited areas in Seattle where 6- and 7-story buildings are allowed. That is why you see buildings like this in relatively small areas — because those are the only areas where they are allowed!

          They don’t build these buildings there because there are other similar buildings already there! lol They build them there because those are the only places which are zoned to allow them! In fact, there were no 6- or 7- story apartment or condo buildings near 22nd and Market in Ballard until just a few years ago. Those buildings were not built there because there were already tall buildings there – there weren’t. They are all relatively new.

          They would have built them anywhere in Ballard where the city allowed them to be built. They were built where they are because that is where the city changed zoning to allow them.

          Go look where they are building new large apartment/condo buildings in W. Seattle right now. Those new buildings are not right next to other large apartment buildings — they are next to 1- to 3-story buildings, for the most part.

          But, as I said, your made-up theory gave me a good laugh.

      14. “If property values are strong enough for it to pencil out”

          How many places can you name me in Seattle where zoning allows 6- to 7-story apartment/condo buildings, and none have been, or are planned to be, built there?

      15. Well now you’re just being silly. There are surface parking lots all over the city. Large swathes of the CD, Beacon Hill, and Rainier Valley are lowrise-zoned with no plans to replace the single family or townhomes that exist there.

          I’m not speaking of the north end merely because I’m not tracking the projects going on there.

          Try actually looking at a zoning map sometime instead of just making stuff up. Here’s a 2002 report indicating existing multifamily zoning authority is significantly underutilized:
          http://www.cityofseattle.net/dclu/news/20020404a.asp

      16. And I’m not sure why 6 to 7 story buildings are the only density that matters.

      17. So, you can’t even distinguish between “low-rise” zoning and “65-foot” zoning? That document you refer to only speaks only about “low-rise” zoning. What does that have to do with “big aparmtment buildings”?

          The fact is that there are very limited areas in Seattle where 6- or 7-story buildings are allowed. Zoning for 6- or 7-story buildings makes property much more valuable than zoning for “low-rise.” Do you realize that a 7-story building brings a developer a lot more money in unit sales than a 2- to 4- story building? It probably often does not make financial sense to tear down a 2-story building to build a 3-story building, but it might make sense to tear down that 2-story building to build a 7-story building. Do you understand this?

          Much of Seattle is still zoned “single-family.”

          Large surface lots in W. Seattle, and other neighborhoods, are often in areas zoned “commercial.” You understand that, right? For example, in W. Seattle in the “triangle” area, there are a lot of new and used-car lots there now — basically just paved parking lots. That area for years has been zoned “commercial”, which prohibited large apartment buildings. Recently, the city has changed that zoning to allow 7-story mixed-use buildings. Guess what is going up there now, and in the near future? 7-story mixed-use buildings. Why? Because they put light rail stations there? No. Because the city changed the zoning there to allow big apartment buildings.

          I suggest you go over the “the triangle” in W. Seattle and see what is there now — basically not very much. Then make another trip in 5 years or so and see what it looks like then. That will show you how “mixed-use development” with “big apartment buildings” is created by zoning, not by little trains.

      18. You can build apartment buildings in lowrise zones, even if they don’t meet your definition of “big”. In fact, Rainier Valley station areas are generally still zoned lowrise.

          Belltown is zoned for high rises, yet there are plenty of surface parking lots.

          Please stop attacking the straw man that development is impossible without rail. The contention is that rail boosts property values, thus making density viable in some cases it would not otherwise be.

      19. UPZONING is what “boosts property values”. Wherever it is done.

          This is so simple, I really don’t understand why you don’t seem to get it. A 7-story apartment building has over twice the square feet of living space that a 3-story apartment building has on the same lot. Ergo, property that is zoned for 7-story buildings is much more valuable than property zoned for 3-story buildings. If a developer is allowed to build a taller building, he can pay more for the property, because he will be able to put more living units on the same piece of land by building higher.

          This seems pretty simple to me. You honestly don’t get it?

      20. Norman, they aren’t mutually exclusive.

   2. Not sure your point on timing. The first floating bridge across Lake Washington was completed in 1940. Setting aside WWII, it still took another 10-15 years before development really exploded on the east side.

      I think the Rainier Valley should be granted a few years by way of comparison.

      1. Excellent example. My parents built their home on Mercer Island in 1952. Pictures from that era show a clear-cut barren landscape, with tiny scrub trees and very few homes. Growing up there in the 70’s and 80’s all I remember was one long stretch of I-90 construction. Today’s HOV lane construction is nothing compared to what went on in the 80’s when the freeway was expanded from 4 lanes to today’s 8 – Not to mention capped in several locations.

         Typing that makes me feel very old.

   3. Norman,

      If you’re arguing that it’s possible under circumstances, to have dense development without rail, then I wholeheartedly agree.

      But you’re arguing that it makes no difference whether rail is there or not. We’re not going to have a controlled experiment to prove that one way or the other, but your assertion really doesn’t fit with the experience or intuition of people in the field. Why else did Vulcan push for the streetcar, but to raise property values?

   4. I was down in Tacoma over the weekend and picked up an issue of Senior Scene. They run an article every issue on the history of Tacoma. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like you can get it online but I’m going to have my mom save copies for me. One article was on the streetcar from Tacoma to Steilacoom which I never knew existed. It was a failure, despite Steilacoom being an established town tracks were torn out prior to WWI (long before buses and automobiles became common place). The point is… build it and they will come doesn’t always work. Conversely, it’s been proven over and over that development leads transportation capacity time and time again.

6. Haven’t I read in other threads that the street grid of the Valley makes it difficult to run east-west routes?

   1. There are east-west routes (39) but they have poor frequency. The 39 really needs to be a frequent service route! It serves important corridors for connecting to light rail stations. Get rid of the 34 and the 38 and the 42 and use the service hours to make the 39 good.

      1. I think resources need to be found to drastically increase the frequency of buses in high density corridors such as Capitol Hill/first Hill, U-District, Fremont/Wallingford and Rainier Valley. I’m talking increasing (decreasing??) headways to between 6 and 10 minutes. I would even suggest that the City and transit agencies allow private (and possibly subsidized) circulator routes to feed people between Rainier Ave. and the Link stations on MLK.

         Obviously when the Capitol Hill Link station opens in 2016 that will be a huge improvement and the buses could then be reconfigured around that change. But until then, if we want to get people out of their cars, increasing the frequency of buses and getting them to Link quickly will be the way to do it.

   2. “Haven’t I read in other threads that the street grid of the Valley makes it difficult to run east-west routes?”

      Yes, but that just means Metro needs to rise to the challenge. Supposedly a route needs to be at least five miles to be cost-effective. In most cities with a grid system, crosstown routes go straight from one end of the city to the other. From the top of Beacon Hill to Lake Washington is 2.5 miles or less, which makes for a very short route. The 39 crosses the valley twice and goes to downtown to make up for that. It would have 30-minute service except the “Save Route 42” NIMBTYs plundered its service hours. There used to be a route to West Seattle and maybe Metro will revive it when it gets over its downtown-centrism.

7. Has anyone heard anything lately on the upcoming Seattle Transit Master Plan? I’d love to see what SDOT is considering for Rainier Valley.

   But one of the key elements of rapid transit in the valley would have to be HOV lanes on Rainier Ave, so that transit can compete with SOVs by driving right past them. Short of that, a lot of people will not get out of their cars and ride the bus (including to get to Link).

   1. I think the process is just started, and the report won’t be ready for at least a year.

8. While general out-of-context transit theory would have lots of neighborhood routes running perpendicular to a rail line, the problem in Rainier Valley is that the densest development runs along Rainier Ave.

   One tweak I’d like to see on the 7 is to have it head over to Rainier Beach Station on the south end, partially for those riders who want to head south on Link, and partially to provide a more frequent bus bridge between the high school and the station. And then be sure to increase the frequency of the 7 to match that of Link.

   One of my pet peeves is bus routes that die in the middle of nowhere, when they could stretch another mile to reach another major destination, and thereby have a decent passenger count in the counter-commute direction. That includes the 27, that ought to be extended a mile south to reach Mt Baker Station, and then there would be more “outbound” riders in the morning who would catch it to get to Link.

   The other tweak I’d like considered for the 7 is more morning peak runs that terminate at Mt Baker Station after turning left across Rainier to drop passengers at the foot of the station. Number this shorter route the 7L.

9. “rents are up, vacancies down”

   Any evidence to back this up?

   1. Perhaps you should ask the Times, since it’s their quote.

   2. I live in Belltown, but I know for a fact that my apartment would be about $300 more per month had I signed the lease last month. Luckily, I signed the lease this time last year. My building is 95% occupied – last year, it was less than 60%.

      A friend and I went from building to building, visiting every single apartment complex I visited last year, and rents are significantly higher. In the end, my friend had to go with a non-profit to find an apartment he could afford.

      Of course, this is anecdotal. But I think it speaks volumes.

      1. I moved up to Ballard this past spring in part because they raised my rent by about $300 at my place in Belltown. I was planning on moving up anyway so I didn’t push back to see what kind of agreement we could have come to. If I recall correctly, they were somewhere near 80% occupancy when I moved in last year, and were projecting 97% for this past June.

      2. Did you look at Wharfside Pointe?

         They offer the laughable commentary:

         “Escape from the predictable Seattle weather at Wharfside Pointe.”

         Does Ballard have its own microclimate?

      3. @John. Please don’t add ridiculously long links. It messes up the formatting and we have to go in a fix it. Use http://bit.ly/ to shorten them, especially since the HTML formatting can be troublesome if you get it wrong. Thanks.

10. [hijack] [trolling] [off-topic]

11. Just got email about the city holding a “planning meeting” at Franklin High School this Saturday, 9/25 from 9-2:30pm where they want residents feedback about high density development. The city will do a free lunch & walking tour of MLK/Rainier and near LightRail. If you live in Columbia City, Genesee, Lakewood, Mt Baker or Leschi and care about the city plans….PLEASE SHOW UP and get your comments recorded. The city is proposing adding more residents but not the infastructure like Fire, Police, Hospital, Library, Lighting, Safe Streets or Biking zones, Parking. None of us got a mailed notice about this meeting. Thanks.

12. The recent “Can We Achieve Social Equity Using Smart Growth?” event at Seattle City Hall was totally mis-marketed. I got the chance to watch part it online and it is completely about TOD, including a lot of discussion of the the Rainer Valley planning. To me the title sounds like a negative rhetorical question but the presentations were quite good.

    You can watch at:
    http://www.seattlechannel.org/news/watchVideos.asp?program=Council
    Look for Housing, Human Services and Culture Special Meeting 9/20/2010
    Can We Achieve Social Equity Using Smart Growth? Brown Bag.

    The presentations aren’t up yet but they should be here at clerk.seattle.gov council agendas.

Comments are closed.