SEATTLE | Downtown Projects: Completed, U/C, Proposed/Approved

[navyweaxguy]

I hope its not too big

big pano test by navyweaxguy, on Flickr

[alki]

Not too big at all. Its stupendous! Just sent it to one of my German friends who hasn't been here in a while.

[navyweaxguy]

Thanks, I need to fix it. I see a few glitches I didn't catch before

[navyweaxguy]

Ok, same size picture but not the same photos, a little lower detail but larger area. I'm including the smaller version this time too. I will delete the other if you guys want me too.
big pano but not as big 10K by navyweaxguy, on Flickr

big pano but not as big 2K by navyweaxguy, on Flickr

both photos by me

[KevinFromTexas]

Looks great. I love Seattle's cityscape.

[alki]

Downtown residents and towers surging, while retail sales edge upward

Originally published February 25, 2015 at 2:16 pm

More downtown residents, dozens of new residential towers on the way, and a decrease in the number of commuters who drive alone to the area were some of the tidbits presented at the Downtown Seattle Association’s state of downtown economic forum Wednesday.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business...s-edge-upward/

[colemonkee]

It's amazing how much the area where the Amazon towers are being built has changed just in the last 5 years. The cylindrical towers that now barely stick out of that cluster used to be much more prominent on that part of the skyline.

[subterranean]

Wow! I stretched that photo across two monitors and it didn't even show 1/3rd of it. Awesome detail.

[alki]

Vashon probably would know better but I think the Amazon cranes are sandwiched in between the completed blue/green bldg and the bldg under construction with the white crane. DT has nearly doubled in size in 15 years.

[mhays]

Well, it's grown a lot. Maybe in the last 25-30 years it's doubled depending on boundaries and what uses you're counting. With 30 you can count the late 80s boom, which gave us three of our four tallest towers, the Bus Tunnel, the Convention Center, etc.

The second Amazon tower is rising just behind and to the left of the angular black Sedgewick James Building.

[Zapatan]

I want the Rainier square development to be built so bad, it's so awesome.

[alki]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I want the Rainier square development to be built so bad, it's so awesome.

Me too. That one design will be a game changer.

Thanks, mhays, on the correction re Amazon.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by alki

Me too. That one design will be a game changer.

Thanks, mhays, on the correction re Amazon.

By reading the SSC thread it seems to be a pretty legit proposal, I always thought it was stale. Fingers crossed they start soon

[alki]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

By reading the SSC thread it seems to be a pretty legit proposal, I always thought it was stale. Fingers crossed they start soon

Assuming the economy holds, I think the project will go forward. UW owns the land and wants to maximize its development. The existing complex was under a leasing arrangement that expired last Oct. UW has selected a new developer to lease and develop the property going forward.

[alki]

Seattle apartment developers poised to break 26-year-old production record

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/b...-break-26.html

[mhays]

The 40-story residential proposal at the NW corner of 2nd & Virginia appears to be a week or so from a building permit, and just taped off part of the site.

[alki]

Originally Posted by mhays

Of course cars aren't going anywhere. The point is to balance demand vs. supply.

Insignia is an outlier, and a condo (condos typically have more). Also it's 707 units, not 643.

Rental apartments in Seattle are mostly in the 0.5 to 0.9 ratio of spaces to units, and many have zero. This can be seen in the twice-weekly land use information bulletins (Thursday is the main one). Here's the most recent Thursday, including examples like 400 units with 300 spaces, 30 units with 0 spaces, 27 micros with 0 spaces... There's also a hotel with zero, and another with 0.4 or something, which is a pretty typical ratio.

It isn't an outlier.............most new apt bldgs DT have a 1:1 ratio between apts and parking, or close to that ratio.

But putting aside DT bldgs, what do you think is the benefit of putting up bldgs in neighborhoods with very little parking and having people park on the street rather than in the bldg? It may save a few dollars on rent but otherwise it proves nothing.

And I am posting your comments here because this is about Seattle; not LA.

[mhays]

Incorrect. Seattle buildings are mostly far below 1.0, with condos are townhouses being the exceptions. DPD has tons of information available online. Pay attention even sporadically (or religiously as some of us do) and this will be obvious.

I don't get why you're debating something so provable. Do you think readers can't see DPD too? Of are you presumptions so ingrained that you don't even bother to look first?

As for those neighborhoods out of the core, I don't get your question. Developers are mostly trying to meet their residents' demand, because if they don't then rents might end up significantly lower.

Edit: Let me make this easy. Here's the main portal to the LUIB, a twice-weekly bulletin. Choose any date (Thursdays are larger than Mondays) and view the whole issue's list by hitting "print." Every single issue you'll find a lot of projects in various stages of land use permitting. As I said, the exceptions will be developers that focus on condos (Bosa, Onni, Clise, Continental mostly), with the large majority being rentals (not counting townhouses), nearly all with a lot fewer spaces than units, even if there's also retail etc. http://web1.seattle.gov/dpd/luib/Default.aspx

A caveat is that the description is generally the original, often from pre-bust, and many jobs that are later revived (for example Potala Tower, 815 Pine, Insignia and so on) change the unit/space mix, always with more units per space because that whole market dynamic is very different in this boom vs. the last one. Potala Tower for example is doing 200 spaces for something like 347 units and 147 hotel rooms if I recall, making it way easier to fit into 1/3 acre.

[alki]

Originally Posted by mhays

Incorrect. Seattle buildings are mostly far below 1.0, with condos are townhouses being the exceptions. DPD has tons of information available online. Pay attention even sporadically (or religiously as some of us do) and this will be obvious.

I don't get why you're debating something so provable. Do you think readers can't see DPD too? Of are you presumptions so ingrained that you don't even bother to look first?

As for those neighborhoods out of the core, I don't get your question. Developers are mostly trying to meet their residents' demand, because if they don't then rents might end up significantly lower.

Edit: Let me make this easy. Here's the main portal to the LUIB, a twice-weekly bulletin. Choose any date (Thursdays are larger than Mondays) and view the whole issue's list by hitting "print." Every single issue you'll find a lot of projects in various stages of land use permitting. As I said, the exceptions will be developers that focus on condos (Bosa, Onni, Clise, Continental mostly), with the large majority being rentals (not counting townhouses), nearly all with a lot fewer spaces than units, even if there's also retail etc. http://web1.seattle.gov/dpd/luib/Default.aspx

A caveat is that the description is generally the original, often from pre-bust, and many jobs that are later revived (for example Potala Tower, 815 Pine, Insignia and so on) change the unit/space mix, always with more units per space because that whole market dynamic is very different in this boom vs. the last one. Potala Tower for example is doing 200 spaces for something like 347 units and 147 hotel rooms if I recall, making it way easier to fit into 1/3 acre.

Second and Pine is much more typical of what I've seen when the ratio is not 1:1.......400 units/350 parking spaces:

http://www.gbdarchitects.com/portfolio-item/2nd-pine/

Look........in neighborhood projects, developers are putting in whatever parking spaces they think they need. They tend to low ball. So the parking needs not met by the building spill out to the neighborhood. You keep trying to give the impression that people are giving up their cars and you evidence that by pointing out bldgs with less parking than units. Its meaningless.......many of those people who are not willing to pay for parking park on the street jamming up the surrounding neighborhoods. Very few are willing to give up their cars.

[mhays]

This is comical! Even your outliers are wrong each time.

Second & Pine is 398 units and 217 spaces, plus another 144 spaces that will be the below-grade podium for a future second building.

Thanks for helping prove my point though.