The “site analysis” for the 1404 Boylston project is AWESOME and worth clicking to see a larger version (Image: S+H Works)
It will be a real-world lesson in neighborhood infill development — and the work of E Pike-based architect Hugh Schaeffer — as the East Design Review Board gathers Wednesday night to assess two proposed development projects that will create another 140 or so apartments on Capitol Hill in exchange for one two 1900s-built single family homes and a 1905-built, 8-unit apartment house.
Coming soon to Boylston just off E Pike — seven stories (Image: S+H Works)
1404 Boylston
On Boylston just off E Pike, the Emerald City Manor building has provided a place to live on Capitol Hill since 1905. Today’s Hill calls for a bigger solution.
Planned as a seven-story affordable apartment building with 105 units that will replace the old manor, the developers of the Boylston Flats project promise some lofty goals –including helping to connect Capitol Hill to First Hill:
The goals of this project are to create infill housing that positively transitions between the Pike/Pine and First Hill neighborhoods, both very dense neighborhoods in Seattle. The transition will embrace the architectural character of both neighborhoods, while responding to site specific topography, and the greater transit and bicycle networks. The relationship of the project to the street will complement both resident and pedestrian experiences, while allowing for future changes in the public realm.
We’ve seen developers Tyler Carr and Kelten Johnson at work in the neighborhood before including microhousing projects on 12th Ave. For this particular chunk of the Hill, the duo slapped down $2.4 million.
| Review Meeting: | November 12, 6:30 pm |
| Seattle University | |
| 824 12th Ave | |
| Admissions & Alumni Building | |
| Review Phase: | EDG–Early Design Guidance |
| Project Number: | 3017075 permit status | notice |
| Planner: | Beth Hartwick |
Boylston Flats is designed by Capitol Hill-based S+H Works. And, yup, it won’t have a stitch of parking… except for 45 spaces for bikes.
1010 E Republican
S+H Works is also behind the design of the second infill building on Wednesday’s slate — though this infill will fill in a slightly different type of space on the Hill.
Located in the intertidal zone of single family homes and smaller, older apartment buildings east of Broadway near the future Broadway Hill Park, the 1010 E Republican project is planned as a four-story building with 36 apartment units… and, gulp, no parking. “No parking is required or proposed,” the packet notes. Prepare your torches and pitchforks, neighbors.
The design packet for the project’s early design guidance session goes to great pains to show just how much the developers are trying to create a building that will fit in to this particular slice of Capitol Hill neighborhood. See? It could have been way bigger. Put away your pitchfork and extinguish that torch!
If that didn’t sway you, developers Greg Elderkin and John Odegard include these three goals for the project:
- Design a project that respects the residential and commercial nature of the area.
- Respond appropriately and creatively to adjacent residential uses.
- Create a strong, attractive, pedestrian friendly design.
The developers paid $425,000 in September for the single-family house that will be demolished to make way for the project. They could have included a fourth goal, of course — trading a 970 square-foot house for 36 new places to live on Capitol Hill. UPDATE: As far as the house trading goes, this deal was 2x as costly as we reported. Thanks to the comment correction below, we also should note that a second house will be demolished for the project. Meanwhile, this Capitol Hill colorful classic is also for sale on the same block:
Pretty sure @jseattle RT'd a pic of this Capitol Hill home a while back. For sale now @ $750k https://t.co/p6sJUETah0 pic.twitter.com/XoePnSCGXS
— The Tim (@the_tim) November 7, 2014
| Review Meeting: | November 12, 8:00 pm |
| Seattle University | |
| 824 12th Ave | |
| Admissions & Alumni Building | |
| Review Phase: | EDG–Early Design Guidance |
| Project Number: | 3018148 permit status | notice |
| Planner: | Tami Garrett |
The developers actually bought 2 houses for the Republican project, 1010 and 1014. 1014 was bought for $550,000 and now 1018 next door on the corner (the painted lady) is for sale as well. It will be interesting to see if 1018 goes for the $750,000 asking price.
Thanks — I should have double checked that. Will update shortly.
I hope those who are constantly pushing for “more density” will take note of these two proposed developments, which are in addition to all the others being built in our neighborhood. Just look around….there are new buildings going up everywhere. Considering these, as well as those in the approval pipeline, I say “enough is enough.”
As for the absence of any parking….here is my pitchfork….it’s unconscionable and a poke in the eye to those who live in those areas already, who will now have even more trouble finding a place to park. The developers don’t give a damn about the neighborhood….they are greedy, pure and simple.
Density is here, and it’s not going away. Amazon’s giant towers are going in down the hill from the Hill, and putting a lid on housing is no good for anyone who’s renting here.
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2025002020_amazonblock21planxml.html
Is good for homeowners. They slow down change in their neighborhood and the value of their home increases.
Given that Amazon just announced they’re building 3 more office buildings in Denny Triangle on top of all the existing construction, I say, “build more housing.” Slamming the door on more housing will lead to more forced displacement from Capitol Hill as rents rise for all residents.
Thank god they aren’t adding more parking. More parking just leads to more traffic. If we are going to put a cap on anything, we should put a cap on new parking spaces.
It seems to me like you’re the greedy one in this situation Calhoun. I don’t see any developers trying to force existing residents to move so that their tenants will have more street parking. Yet existing residents expect newcomers to absorb the additional cost of off-street parking just so that their free street parking isn’t threatened. Sounds to me like you’re greedy, pure and simple.
And if street parking is such a hot commodity, why is the City giving it away in the first place? Why doesn’t the City do what is done elsewhere and install meters where demand is so high? The fancy new meters are supposed to be able to adjust rates to ensure that there is always a space available — solving your complaint that finding a place to park is difficult. And it’s a great source of revenue for the City to spend on road or transit improvements. What’s not to love about that?
Just a FYI, Katie….you assumed that I park on the street. My little house has a driveway, so that’s where I park. It’s just that I do care about all those residents whose lives will be just a little more difficult as a result of new developments without any parking.
If the curb cut for your driveway wasn’t there, it could be another on-street parking space.
Not true. That side of my street is all “no parking.” Are you trying to make me feel guilty for having a driveway?
If parking were so valuable, there would be a business case for developers in Cap Hill to build it without the government forcing them to.
Personally, I own a triplex a few blocks away from here. We have one garage space for 3 tenants.
I had to choice to add a second parking space. It would cost $50K at least to retrofit the building for a second parking space…that is perhaps worth $2000/year. Terrible investment. Spent it instead on a nicer building for my tenants.
So what happened? The other units without parking are simply inhabited by 3 people who (duh) don’t own cars. And they’re totally happy with that.
I should add: if you want fewer yuppies (like me ;-) moving to Capitol Hill, you should *definitely* be in favor of parking caps.
Of the 8-10 people who checked out the no-parking apartments, all of them took another place (frequently outside of central Cap Hill) where they could get parking more easily.
When you constrain parking, the neighborhood self-selects for new residents who don’t value cars as much.
Or it increases prices for existing parking spots and current residents have to sell their cars or move away.
Imagine if Seattle auctioned parking permits on the streets of Capitol Hill…
How about no parking passes issued to an address in a building with no parking?
Now that’s an IDEA – I used to live at 1404 Boylston. It was a dive, but spacious and affordable (about $1 sq ft). Now it will be affordable closets.
I’ll be sad to see that one go–it had a lot of charm (at least from the outside). I wonder how long the two Victorian-era apartment houses across the street will last?
Of the 3 smaller multifamily buildings (formerly collectively known as the BelBoy Apartments – developed by Historic Seattle) across the street, the green building on the south is currently very low income SRO housing… It will be there for a while. The other 2 buildings are now condos, so they will be there for a while too.
What about the people who live in old buildings with no parking? Do they also get cut out from eligibility?
Yea, you’re right. Unless the city set a cut off date and only grandfathered in either buildings or residents. Not sure that would be workable.
Guess what – the street is public right of way, nobody owns it. If you want guaranteed parking, use your garage or rent a spot. So many folks I know with garages park on the street anyway, because they want to use their garage as storage. Guess what! No one’s property is deeded with a street parking spot!!
Exactly. How about the city restricts parking passes for people *with* parking spaces? Why do you need a street spot if you have a spot in your house or building?
True, but even considering that it’s public right-of-way, the precedent is already set– neighborhood parking decals DO favor one group of people as having priority for parking over another.
But if the only requirement is legal residence in the zone, the city can’t create a caste system where some apartments can get ’em and some can’t.
it doesn’t sound too different from rent control
so that first new building does look like it will replace a great old Victorian building, that’s not good at all. especially with this boxy eyesore replacement
The only thing worse than seeing the old brickies go down, is walking at night along deserted sidewalks feeling like you’re going to get jumped at any moment with no one finding your body till morning. I guess its sort of obvious but the people I know on the Hill who are most opposed to more density are almost always the people who are the main part of the deserted sidewalk problem so to speak by sitting at home most of the time or rarely venturing off their turf. Almost everyone I know who’s doing thier part to keep the City alive by going out on foot most nights and patronizing the local shops and restaurants is more than supportive of doing whatever we can do to increase density. Obviously they’ll be a point where we could have too much of a good thing, but everyone who’s out on the Hill at night outside of Pike/Pine knows we’re a very long way from that point now…
Very, very few people are “opposed to more density.” But many Capitol Hill residents (including me) want it to be done at a reasonable pace and regulated such that the new buildings are appropriately sized and go through design review to try and optimize their appearance.
Yay, more people to date!
[…] Hill infill: CHS highlights two new projects in design review on blocks of Boylston and Republican; check out the Boylston project, which is very […]
[…] about the development’s impact on the little house during the public comment portion of the early design guidance meeting last November. The board had more questions but ultimately indicated “a willingness to entertain” the […]