I had to look up Wedgwood on a map so it can’t really be urban living but I think Capitol Hill residents are having similar concerns about the Pine/Belmont project which is why I think this might be of interest to some readers - Matt
By Guest Contributor, Greg Raece - Wedgwood Action Group (WAG) member
Wedgwood is a neighborhood in Northeast Seattle that for the past 20 years has kept itself off the city’s land-use radar simply because no controversial large-scale development has taken place here. However, this situation changed when Murray Franklyn’s proposed a 4-story 86 unit mixed-use development for the corner of 35th Ave NE and NE 86th St.
From the feedback our group has received on our blog, at different design review board meetings, and by appearing at local events - it seems that Wedgwood is ready for additional multi-family and retail development. However it is also clear that our neighbor’s biggest issue is with the sheer bulk and scale of this proposed building.
Unfortunately though, there are three large problems making it difficult for both Wedgwood residents and the developers to construct a Wedgwood-appropriate building. The first is a problem of our own creation, Wedgwood did not use its 20 years of light growth wisely. Back in 1998 while 38 other neighborhoods in Seattle were working with the city to develop neighborhood plans, Wedgwood chose to stay complacent and decided not to put together a plan that would have provided developers, neighbors and the city with some guidance about desired future development. The second problem is much larger, and this one is the city’s making.
Back in 1986 the city rezoned the commercial property around Wedgwood’s main strip (35th Ave NE) as NC2-40 (Neighborhood Commercial with 40-foot height limit). The problem is that although the city has since changed its views towards development, it hasn’t actually applied any of these improvements to Wedgwood. Wedgwood now faces the same bad zoning problems from the 80’s that actually prompted the city to launch a whole new series of neighborhood design guidelines in the 90’s. All of the current NC2-40 zoning in Wedgwood slams right up against single family zoning, there is no multi-family zoning buffer to act as a slope between tall and small buildings. To put this in perspective, for one person to the east, his property is just 8 feet away from 40-feet of new construction!
And finally, although not formally recognized by the city as a Residential Urban Village by the city, we feel that Wedgwood’s zoning makes it a de facto Residetial Urban Village. The reality is that by not having this designation, Wedgwood doesn’t get access to the type of infrastructure, planning, transit and open-space investment that would help mitigate the impact that developments like this one will create.
Murray Franklyn seems to understand how to develop downtown buildings (Hotel 1000 and the Pomeroy), large suburban communities (Snoqualmie Ridge), but it is failing to win hearts with its mixed-use building that it is bringing to neighborhoods with strong personalities (Phinney Ridge’s Fini, Capitol Hill’s Pine and Belmont, and this building in Wedgwood). Murray Franklyn did fare better with its Bagley Lofts building in Wallingford, but after speaking to a Wallingford activist who was involved with the planning of Bagley Lofts, its smart design and sensitivity to its neighbors was largely due to the neighborhood’s good relationships with the property’s owner.
Unfortunately, since it appears we have neither a property owner nor city willing to act in the role that Wallingford and the owner of the Bagley Lofts did, as a group of neighbors we’ve organized to come up with our own solution. We feel that our ideas do the best job of bringing in smart development to Wedgwood under the current zoning while protecting the existing community.
- Lower proposed building height to 2 stories to reduce shading and improve privacy for single family homes.
- Increase setbacks on 87th and 86th Streets and to the homes east of the site.
- Address zoning incompatibility on 35th Ave. NE. to either reduce current NC2-40 zoning or create multi-family zoning buffers around the current NC2-40 properties.
If you want to learn more about what we’re doing, or to become involved with our group, please visit us at www.wedgwoodaction.com.
Thanks!
Greg
(Birdseye view looking NW from the SE)
(Birdseye view looking NE from the SW)
Popularity: 4% [?]
24 responses so far ↓
1 CG // Aug 1, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Greg: Nice write up on Murray Franklyn’s latest inappropriate mixed-use condo development. As a vocal critic of what Murray Franklyn/Weber Thompson is proposing for its Pine + Belmont condo project on Capitol Hill, I share your pain.
I agree that city planning guidelines need to be beefed up. Currently, the city’s design “standards” seem merely precatory. Developers in Seattle have too much leeway to construct crappy speculative projects that really undermine neighborhoods. In spite of major community opposition, take a look at the gawd awful 700 Broadway East project that Weber Thompson plopped down on Capitol Hill’s main commercial thoroughfare a couple of years ago. We’re seeing more and more of these Tukwila-style suburban developments going up in prime urban locales.
The Murray Franklyn projects do a disservice to our need to create stimulating urban neighborhoods with buildings that are appropriately scaled, architecture that is vibrant, condos and rental apartments that have character, and commercial storefronts that house businesses other than Subway sandwich franchises and tanning salons.
If anyone wants to organize a picket of Murray Franklyn’s Capitol Hill or Wedgwood developments, I’d be happy to join you!
2 Chris // Aug 1, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Greg,
Two stories would no doubt render the project financially infeasible - not enough units to spread the land basis that the current property owner is seeking to recieve. You can’t down zone them so the land value is what it is. You’re in a tough spot and I understand your interests, but, city-wide, we need more units to meet demand and keep prices in this stratosphere. I don’t know if you have kids, but this project is one where young families and singles - among others- could potentially find a reasonably priced place to live. I’d ask you to weigh the value of relatively affordable housing for 85 potential households against the light and view corridors of existing residents.
…And I agree with your sentiment about the need for corresponding city investment to mitigate the density. The city is in the process of reviewing all neighborhood plans (will take years) - this is being headed by Sally Clark’s committee at council
3 SeattleArchitect // Aug 1, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Hello Matt -
I enjoy your blog. For the record, The Bagley lofts project in Wallingford [which has recieved many favorable reviews] is but one of several projects that have been developed by Murray Franklyn and designed by Weber + Thompson. Other projects include Water’s Edge; Madison Tower/Hotel 1000; and Cristalla. Murray Franklyn is a quality developer that has completed mahy other projects that have received kudos - including the Austin A. Bell Building and The Pomeroy - those were designed by Snell Partners. All of these projects evolved out of the city’s collaborative design review process which is a good venue for hearing from all parties: the community, the city and the developer. Each design review board is made up of five members, an architect, a developer, a business owner, a local resident, and a local member at large — this ensures that all perspectives are represented on the board itself. Thank you for advocating and wanting to see better design - something that we all have in common.
4 Dan C. // Aug 1, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I can already tell you that this will NOT be a place where young families and singles can live. I will bet you the starting price point is at least $350,000. There is no way you could underwrite a project of this size for any less.
Chris, were you being sarcastic about needing more units citywide and keeping prices in the stratosphere? We are close to a record number of units EVER listed on the MLS…I think we are doing just fine on supply. We have enough condo projects in the pipeline to double our in-city populations! (Not trying to be snippy, just practical)
5 Chris // Aug 1, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I recognize your positins, but I still think added density in desirable Seattle neighborhoods can only help relieve price pressures over the ling-term. And I could care less if the developer takes a bath any one project…. 4-over 1 in Wedgewood should be reasonable as far as new construction cost goes - I think you’d also find the project margins a lot tighter than in some other areas of North seattle given the market conditions. Also, if boomers have a place to downsize in the neighborhood, that reduces pressure on supply for families who need the larger spaces.
“We have enough condo projects in the pipeline to double our in-city populations!” - most won’t be built because they are higher-end, high-rise construction. If the PSRCs projectsion are accurate, we’ll need to house 70k+ new households in seattle over 20 years, and neighrbohoods like Wedgewood need to recieve some - there’s not much going on currently.
6 BKG // Aug 1, 2007 at 6:07 pm
As someone with children, I would find it difficult to live in a 454 sq ft space– do-able but not so many family do. The estimates for a larger unit (more feasible for a family with more than one child) is already approaching cost prohibitive.
I am all for Wedgwood absorbing some more city density; however, as Greg has pointed out this region has not been zoned for an Urban Village and thus will not have any added benefits (for example, the closest public park to this unit is about a mile).
The current plan denigrates the neighborhood. Really, do we “need” another bulky, ugly building in Seattle? Wedgwood was a neighborhood that was predominately established in the 40s and 50s– why not capitalize on that design aesthetic?
Most homes in the neighborhood are less than 1000 sq ft. This building will be grossly out of scale, proportion, and design. And, no, I don’t think it is fair that a few people will suffer for the “good” of many– those people did not purchase their homes, and invest in the community as a sacrificial exercise.
I would really, wholeheartedly welcome some city planning! Or picketing ;-)
7 seattle67 // Aug 1, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Thanks for the comments everyone!
In response to Chris, I belive you are trying to position this development as playing a key role in reducing price pressures and providing affordable housing for young families and singles in Seattle.
I wish that were the case, really. I’d love nothing more than to have more affordable housing in Wedgwood for more teachers, retirees, young families, and others with lower-than-average salaries. That would truly be a magnanimous effort we could all get behind.
However, the reality is that this building does nothing to relieve the problem of insufficent supplies of affordable young family/single person housing in NE Seattle. How do I know? Because the developer has said in public that these units will be priced at an average $475 a square foot, and that rate is much higher than most all other comparable properties in our area.
Let’s first compare this $475 sq/ft rate to a 575 sq. foot unit across the street from this proposed property that is priced at $259 a square foot. The unit currently for sale ($149,000) seems like a nice affordable starter unit for someone.
(http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-listing?listing-id=989599)
Or how about this 2-bed, 1 bath house selling for $339,950. This is another pretty good deal when you compare it to this building’s proposed Unit 118 (which is located on the first floor, will get barely no sunlight, is a 641 sq. foot studio, and at $475 a sq ft will sell for $304,475).
(http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-listing?listing-id=1000180)
Unfortunately, the reality is that there is nothing nearly as socially beneficial about this building as Chris states. And it’s really pretty incredible that he even uses this reasoning to say, “I’d ask you to weigh the value of relatively affordable housing for 85 potential households against the light and view corridors of existing residents.”
If this developer needs help making this project pencil out, why not share that info with the neighborhood? I bet they would help them make it work with fewer units.
And for anyone else who has read this far, this is the kind of publicity campaign we’ve been working against since this property was proposed and why we’re organized and determined to keep pushing ahead with our efforts.
And to CG, sounds good! I guess I’ll need to give a shout out to J. Power at POWHAT.
8 Chris // Aug 2, 2007 at 9:02 am
Fair enough, lets assume that we can agree that seattle needs more housing stock to lower prices and that this project is out of character with the neighborhood. An alternative would be to rezone single-family areas for duplexes and triplexes that could produce affordable units large enough for families. But guess what Wedgewood (and every other neighborhood) would say to that? its the third rail of seattle planning. That’s why we have the conditions we do - all the growth in multu-family stock has to be focused in high-density building, many on busy arterials.
Single family zones take up 65% of the land in city! I can’t standing hearing landowners griping about views and loss of “character” when we have a major affordability crisis (I believe this is the case while I simultaneously think the housing recession of the next several years will ease the degree some). I think Wedgewood should step up to the plate and encourage any small amount of rezoning of single family land in conjunction with effectively “downzoning” this parcel. Again, legally, I don’t know what your recourse is given the inability to downzone….It would send a messge that we can retain appropriate scale and bulk while find places for new lowrise zoned to accomodate families.
9 Eric // Aug 2, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I just don’t buy the more affordable housing angle on this property. According to the PI, “Last year, the typical single person in Seattle earned enough to buy a home for just under $200,000 while the typical family of four had enough to pay just over $280,000″. These units start at $350K and that will buy you 700 square feet and that is not enough room for most families. The controversial 4th floor will be million+ luxury suites with views of the cascades. How does this relieve the lack of affordable housing crunch?
10 d // Aug 4, 2007 at 9:18 am
Amen, Chris! I’m sick of all the belly-aching from the NIMBYists. Density is good…but not in my neighborhood! Don’t violate my god-given right to an Ozzie and Harriet neighborhood of single family homes!
11 kimzilla // Aug 4, 2007 at 10:39 am
“NIMBYist” is a bit simplistic, don’t you think?! Um, I think the reaction of Wedgwood neighbors is a little more complex. As a Wedgwood resident, I welcome development- more retail and services, sure why not some condos. I am quite tired of developers trying to label concerned neighbors as intolerant of developtment-”NIMBYists”. This is self-serving to those who would like to paint a black and white picture, ignoring deeper issues. The neighbors I have met in Wedgwood are actually very well informed regarding Seattle growth and politics and the need for density. We are NOT anti-development or growth, BUT do have ideas on what constitutes responsible development.
The discussion around this condo development both online and at the Design Review meetings has been very thoughtful and well researched and argued on the part of Wedgwood neighbors. What we are up against is compatible zoning and resources. I think it is to be expected that any developer would like to maximize the profit yield of a site and capitalize on a great neighborhood. My question is that aside from the specious claim of providing affordable housing opportunities, what else are they contributing to the quality and vibrancy of Wedgwood? Are they merely taking and giving nothing in return? This does not bode well for my neighborhood, because this does not sound like a good neighbor.
12 seattle67 // Aug 4, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Well, just to bring you up to date, Wedgwood’s more than Ozzie and Harriets. We may have the original “Ozzie and Harriets”, but our neighbors also include Ozzie and Ozzies, Harriet and Harriets, single-Ozzie families, and single-Harriet families. Many of these live in single-family units and multi-family properties located up and down 35th Ave NE, NE 65th and NE 75th. They all have chosen Wedgwood to put down roots and are active members of the community.
You call us NIMBY, but I’d say we’re pretty responsible and progressive. Again (for the third time) we’re not against development, we’re against out of scale development like this that doesn’t come along with additional planning and investment. If the city’s going to build up 35th, why not also throw a streetcar or better Metro routes our way?
Also, I don’t think your NIMBY argument holds- Phinney Ridge, Capitol Hill and Wedgwood are each having similiar issues with the same developer. I think the real question to ask is, why are they having these issues? The concerns these neighborhoods express shouldn’t be waived off anonymously as NIMBY belly-aching.
13 Cherylynne // Aug 5, 2007 at 9:53 pm
What a great dialog. After reading through the details, I’m sorry “D” decided to summarize this as a NIMBY issue. I’m a Wedgwood homeowner and had thought this project was okay. Sure, it sounds a big but lots of places around town are big. But to see the details on the actual zoning, the sad fact that Wedgwood didn’t do work 20 years ago to make plans for urban village life and the expected cost of the new units, I’m going to support WedgwoodAction in asking the city for a change. Sally Clark, expect a call and email from me. The reality is people don’t pay attention to details until it’s relevant. The details I’ve read tonight, including the comments, have me ready to take action.
14 Chris // Aug 6, 2007 at 7:44 am
Leaving the SF debate aside for a second, you have a financial problem in that the land is probably valued at $120-$150/psf and I’ll guess its 20,000 sf - $2.4-$3MM.
As it happens, this would be a great site for a brownstone-type three-story townhouses that face the three streets - and the demand for that product in that neighborhood would be strong. If we aggressively assume 1 unit per 1000 sf thats 20 townhomes which can afford to pay 120k each (again aggressively) for the land. An agrument could be made that townhouses could reap a competitive return for the landowner, but again, you’re still looking at 35′ heights to do so. I could be off with my guestimates, but that’s one possible thought process. Another alternative would be for a contract rezone to allow 5 stories at 35th and step down to 3 stories adjacent to SF homes.
I think you can fight this project and maybe drive off the developer if you really want, but the problem is with the zoning, not the developer, and more importantly, what the current owner’s expectations are for land values.
15 jo // Aug 6, 2007 at 10:34 am
I don’t understand this.
The developer owns the land and as long as he is within his legal rights, what business is it of you guys to have a say in what goes there?
If you want to dictate what gets developed there, you should have bought it yourself.
16 Chris // Aug 6, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Any good developer knows $, land, influence and political capital are fungible. You build over neighborhood objection at your own risk. Legally able and politcally able with no later financial ramifications are two different things
17 d // Aug 6, 2007 at 2:52 pm
One clarification–my Ozzie and Harriet comment was a reference to the single family homes with yards, not to family structures–I didn’t mean to imply social intolerance or bigotry on the part of Wedgwood residents. Also, I think it’s admirable that the group proposes as an alternative a buffer zone from the main strip.
However, I think there remains a strong strain of NIMBYism in the group’s aims and writings. Look at the Wedgwood group’s website, from July 27th:
“If this project goes through it sets a precendent for other properties. Imagine knocking down the Rite Aid, All that Dance, the Windermere Building, the QFC, Wedgwood Broiler, etc.. and replacing their entire footprints with 4 story multi-use properties. No offense, but this would look a lot more like Lake City Way than Wedgwood.”
Dear God, no!!! 4 story buildings on the main commercial strip?!!! Within the city limits of a large, growing city!!! Say it ain’t so!!!
This is what cities have–multi-story buildings on commercial streets. Is a one-story Rite Aid or QFC (with its wasted open space on parking (minimizing density and causing run-off issues) really better than a four-story building that allows more people to live near goods and services? If you want increased transit, you need the density to sustain it. Such developments would help your cause.
I don’t begrudge any neighborhood trying to get something out of its developers, but I find a lot of the pro-density rhetoric from groups like Wedgwood action disngenuous when they consider multistory development on main streets to be some sort of apocalyptic vision.
18 MW // Aug 6, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I am just now joining this conversation, and it seems that we all know that Wedgwood is a neighborhood that was developed in the 40’s and 50’s, and that it has some zoning that worries residents. When we talk about NIMBYs, we assume that these are intolerant, old-fashioned, and inflexible people. I wouldn’t want to consider myself a NIMBY, but I happen to own a house that directly backs up to this commercial district, so my back yard is directly involved in this issue! I believe that the way this commercial peoperty is currently zoned, it would significantly devalue my home, and violate the design guidelines (minimizing disruption of privacy, etc.) if a 4 story mixed use building went up behind my home. I would think that any reasonable person who had a significant amount of equity and love of their neighborhood would worry about such loss of value and privacy. I would be more inclined to support building projects that were limited to two stories; then I wouldn’t feel like my life was on display for anyone who lived on the back side of the building. Calling attention to the potential problems with this current project will hopefully address future development issues.
19 jo // Aug 6, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Yea, that stinks. However, when you bought the house you should have looked into zoning laws. If you were not comfortable with this type of development possibly happening some day, you should have never bought the house and bought in an area which you were comfortable with the zoning laws.
20 BKG // Aug 7, 2007 at 7:11 am
“Dear God, no!!! 4 story buildings on the main commercial strip?!!! Within the city limits of a large, growing city!!! Say it ain’t so!!!”
The problem, again, is the incompatible zoning, not four story building. The houses directly behind all areas zoned NC2-40, which again are small (less than 1000 sq ft, single story homes) would be directly abutting massive, disproportionately scaled buildings, as we are seeing per this current project.
Are you suggesting that this is reasonable urban planning, and this is what we should expect if we live in the city? I would disagree.
21 d // Aug 7, 2007 at 10:06 am
I am suggesting that cities contain four story buildings on commercial strips. Suburbs and rural areas contain single story supermarkets with huge parking lots. I think the idea of establishing a buffer zone–i.e. increasing height limits in the block or two immediately west and east of 35th–is a good one, and I said that. I like that idea. But that’s not gonna do much for the people who currently live in the small, single-family home.
The calculus I see is that the city needs to start maximizing residency and services on its main streets more than the owner of a small, single family home needs not to live next to a taller building. That’s the essence of NIMBYism–a tragedy of the commons.
As for the question of disproportionate scale–there is always goign to be some disproportionate scale, and there particularly always will be in times of heavy growth. It won’t be disproportionate for long if the neighborhood and city get their shit together and allow 4 story buildings on 35th, 2-3 story apartment complexes in the block or two to either side, and townhouses in the actual neighborhoods.
22 kimzilla // Aug 7, 2007 at 6:23 pm
MW, have you considered moving and renting your house to a bunch of sun-loving nudists;-);-)
23 MW // Aug 8, 2007 at 11:19 am
kimzilla,
Ha, ha! I would become a nudist myself if I thought it would help (although with this weather, I may not be outside much)!
I don’t see myself renting or moving anytime soon, and I just hope the owners of the property behind me don’t get greedy and think they can maximize profit by selling to a developer with no scruples about the impact of the eight houses behind this property.
Wedgwood is predominantly a single-family residential community and lacks a large commercial district where there would be a good transition area between 4 story mixed use buildings and single family homes. I think any new development needs to also consider the traffic congestion that already exists along 35th… the street just happens to be an arterial; that doesn’t mean it’s an appropriate place to have this 40′ commercial zoning.
In response to the person who thought I should have considered zoning laws when I bought my house… I was concerned with the normal things people consider when purchasing their first home: safety, schools, location of amenities, neighborhood “feel,” etc. I was concerned that the restaurant behind us wouldn’t leave their dumpster open us to smell. I never imagined that 10 years down the road there would be a development boom with condos popping up all over. No one could have anticipated that. Be reasonable and consider what you thought of when you bought a home (assuming you have). I suspect that if you bought a home and you later found out that the city was going to put in a dump next door, or a low-security jail, or a home for convicted sex offenders, you might be concerned about how it impacted you! If your neighbor said they were going to tear down their house and build a mc mansion that blocked your prime view of the Olympics, but it was in their zoning rights to do it, you would call them bad neighbors. Am I wrong? All I am saying is that you can’t blame someone for not anticipating everything.
24 Chris // Aug 8, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I don’t buy that argument MW, given the very small percentage of the city zoned for commercial uses (especially in the neighborhoods) you had to anticipate that in the intervening ten years there would be some potential for redevelopment. What year was it ten years ago? 1997. Nope, no big time growth going on then that could foretold what might occur later. You made a bet, in essense, that you were willing to live with the risk of redevelopment next door given all sorts of positive aspects of the house that would be available immediately. If the risk of redevelopment had been appropriately discounted, there would be some hit to the price that you probably also benefited from, if indeed you were aware of the potential of development
The jail and the sex offender thing are poor analogies - the odds of them occuring are infitesmally small relative to a development being built in a zone where it is currently allowed as of right.
Leave a Comment