Aidan T

IMO a big reason to support townhomes in middle housing zones is so that in areas like this that already zoned for apts, don't get used for low(er) density townhomes

At least in the next 10 years I bet an influx of townhomes in middle housing zones and projects like this will eventually even out the supply/demand reasoning. There are times when developers will build apts with LR3/NC240 zoning, marginal economics changes can make a difference

Ha Washington has some of those too, in Mountlake Terrace there's been the most development in the parts *away* from the station because that's where the townhome level density is allowed.

I get the urge to want to utilize land well, but the net effect is inducing a worst housing situation

Your points are both right, people are willing to pay more, and they cost less to build. Impossible to know what happens under a regulatory system, but for now developers have lots of experience and there are building code/condo liability advantages.

I like this case study because these are nearly vertical apartments, as half the units won't have a parking spot, no yards for any of the unit, and might even be 2 bedroom units. So a lot of the intuitive arguments for townhomes wouldn't apply here

Still the case that developers are proposing underbuilding apartment zoned sites so that they can build townhomes

This proposal is for 9 likely 3 story townhomes where the zoning allows for a 3.0 FAR 40' apartment building

Yep, exactly that one and the building north of it

Proposal for even more student housing in U-District, on The Ave, 6 stories.

Replaces two low slung traditional 'The Ave' buildings. Wonder what the point of blocking skyscrapers on The Ave if this happens anyway 🤔

Have you heard about the social media manager 🤣🤣🤣

if they manage to break even on operations while basically banning themselves from doing evictions and putting the residents in charge of the SSHD, I'd be wildly impressed. i think the whole thing collapses w/o major charter reform

Not necessarily to break even, but mixed income communities yes.

For people that were really paying attention, they knew that it was just going to be buying existing buildings

But calling it a 'Social housing Developer', comparing to Vienna, MoCo, Singapore, made people assume they'd be building

the real spicy takes is that the govt buying existing homes vs building new ones crowds out the private market in the same way...

Wish we could do this in Seattle, but the purpose of MHA here is to pay non-profits, not generate affordable housing efficiently

makes sense, cameras are used in cities all over the us and the world and have a proven track record of reducing crime

Ok that's interesting lol

Wonder if it has to do with the back of these homes likely not being setback/wall efficient, jaggedy against the side of the lot instead of flat

There’s a few on California in west Seattle , which I thought made sense because it’s a very corridor oriented neighborhood so live/work along that popular corridor works

But this is the opposite of that

Oh I see what you mean

In the image from my post the alternative would be a couple hundred unit apartment building

But in general in Seattle in NR unless there’s an alley it’s tough for stacked flats

How much of the feasibility of the townhomes is due to having a lot of parking? Probably a lot yeah

I feel like you see a lot of work/live townhomes around Seattle that never realize the “work” part. In this little area of Mount Baker, there are several townhomes with businesses (yoga studio, acct biz, cafe, permanent makeup studio, spa). What’s the recipe to make it work?

Land use here is wild for near $1.5mil townhomes

Bus depot, trash depot, multiple public storage buildings, concrete plant. quickly changing though

Example of a Seattle area developer building far less density than allowed on a prime lot so they can build townhomes

Shows the importance of allowing townhomes everywhere so demand for them doesn't get shoved to prime lots like this

Yes

First few years isn't planned to go towards building units. Just buying existing units and hiring much of the overhead that the Office of Housing already employs. and lawyer/settlement fees related to the recent fiascos

In Washington because they usually are built by a developer to be sold, developers repeat the same models often, and sometimes in Seattle utilize the pre-approved plans (mostly because it has permitting speed advantages).

Best part after he argues against his own positions from a paragraph earlier is the bottom of this screenshot

Except if you are a renter, in which case you deserve no benefit. Huge homestead exemptions are one of the most regressive taxes out there, anything is better than this

A property tax cut, only for homeowners. Any renter has no reason to support, and shouldn't support this regressive scheme over virtually any other tax cut.

In Tacoma you can apparently build a FAR exempt 900sqft garage in a DADU vs just 250ft in Seattle lol

hey we can bet in 2008 on obvious stops like Judkins Park and reap the reward of zoning changes(maybe) in 2031!