A 40-foot high development project that embodies the tensions created by new density-friendly zoning in Capitol Hill’s core areas is moving forward after successfully navigating a path through the city’s “early design guidance” process.
Though his firm hasn’t yet acted on the early design approval, Brandon Nicholson of NK Architects said his team is still considering options after the Capitol Hill Design Review Board gave its blessing — and guidance — for key elements like massing and layout of the project’s elements.
“L3 is something where neighbors aren’t used to that scale in that zone,” Nicholson said about the pushback the project received from neighbors and proponents of the adjacent FedRep Park lot.
The new “Lowrise 3” designation assigned to the area in the update to Seattle’s multifamily code was approved by full Council this past winter but the NK project is the first on Capitol Hill to engage in the public process using the new framework. “The board can’t really change size allowed by zoning,” said the Hill’s design review board chair Evan Bourquard this summer. “We can’t just make this a single family development.” We wrote more about that pushback here.
Nicholson said the developers are still considering their options and whether they can achieve a project that meets the design board’s guidance and preserve the 1900 house that currently exists on the lot. “We’re really trying to keep that house,” Nicholson said. If it is preserved, expect some neighborhood entertainment as the more than 100-year-old house will need to moved offsite during construction of the project.
NK is also planning to drop the total units in the project to 24 and is looking at plans that would eliminate the 10 underground parking spots in an effort to reduce the mass of the project and lower its height.
The parking question is a good illustration of dilemmas faced by the project. On one hand, adjacent neighbors and people working to create the new park would prefer a shorter, smaller building. On the other, neighbors down the street probably aren’t looking forward to increased demand in street parking if the project is built with no underground lot. “We’re never going to make everybody happy,” Nicholson admits. It’s an understatement — and a reality — of developing in a zone designed for change.
Below is the Capitol Hill Design Review Early Design Guidance report from DPD. Make sure to read the public comment section for more from the sides of the residents and the FedRep Park group.
“L3 is something where neighbors aren’t used to that scale in that zone,”
I don’t understand this. There are similarly sized apartment buildings all over the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development, most of which have been around for decades. Why is this particular building facing “push back” when it’s no different than buildings that have been going up on Capitol Hill since the middle of the last century?
And that house is an eyesore with no particular outstanding architectural detail, why waste money saving it? A better use of money would be increasing the number of units in the new building so that more people are able to live in a convenient, close-in neighborhood.
This house is not an eyesore. It’s been unloved and whitewashed.
Jay: L3 zoning has recently been expanded to support 4-story apartment buildings whereas all existing buildings in this neighborhood’s L3 zoning have been built under the old 3-story rules. Given the grade of the hill and the developer’s desire to put the new building as close to the property lines as possible, one of my primary concerns is the looming presence the building would have over the new park (and the fear that what was meant to be a community park would effectively become a front yard for this large, 24-unit building).
I also agree with poseur’s comment: The white house has been neglected over the past decade, but it’s got good bones and fits the character of 11th Ave E better than the aluminum boxes NK architects specializes in building.
Notice to Seattle Neighborhoods: It’s not 1960, 70, 80, 90 anymore….
Here’s a couple of ideas. Here’s some options for the developers if they can do them:
Option 1 – Jack the house up and build under it.
Option 2 – Re-design the larger wing to resemble the designs from the era of the house.
Option 3 – Replace some of the building wall with glass where there are hallways/sky-bridges that connect the two main portions? It would break up the visual bulk of the building.
Any of the options that preserve the house but add density are good in my book. It’s a win/ win… we get density just blocks from the light rail station, and we preserve the ‘character’ that the house brings. I can’t believe this is even controversial.
just because the neighborhood is newly zoned to increase density, doesn’t mean that all parcels of land in the neighborhood should be considered the same. This parcel has unique characteristics that make special consideration for maintaining the human scale in a neighborhood that will, rightly, become more dense. Let’s protect the special place a park holds for the people that live here. Let’s balance growth with space. Capitol Hill is a huge area with plenty of places able to handle the growth. Can’t we carve out SOME part of it in order to escape from the unrelenting, looming grab for air space? The urban village needs to breathe.
Seattle, more so than any city that labels itself dense and urban has so much more open space, so much less density, and so much more greenery. It’s absurd to talk out both sides your mouth about preserving and increasing density when such a paltry building is too much to handle for you.
Let’s just be content with being the biggest fishing village in the US so that we don’t have to lie to ourselves on a daily basis about aspiring to be more urban.
I would not say the old house is an “eyesore,” but it is in very bad condition and would cost a small fortune to rehab/preserve. And even if it were preserved, how will it look sandwiched into the lot with the new building surrounding it closely on two sides?
I love older architecture, but some things are worth saving and some things are not.
Granted it would cost to rehab this home but it has the potential to be on the Historic Preservation List. The home on 14th Ave, south of Thomas is very similar, beautifully restored into fine units consistent with the Capitol Hill neighborhood.
Much as the developer is trying to say otherwise, they are not really interested in the conservation of this older building. Rather they are more interested in making big bucks by squeezing as many ugly box building units as possible on this site. Money and greed is the motivator!
Sally Clark, you really ought to take another look at this one. Otherwise I think you blew it.
The home down the street on Federal & Republican looked like this one and it was beautifully restored. So it can be done!!
Design Review Board and Sally Clark, just because you don’t live here I hope you can get behind the preservation of this neighborhood. Please don’t blow this one.
Who do you propose fixes up this building? Are you going to force someone to do it?
The land has an owner and they can do what they like with it. If they chose not to restore the building then it’s no one’s place to say “all it needs is a little TLC.” TLC costs money, and it shouldn’t be the owner’s obligation to fix up the place just because some people prefer it to the alternative.