Sorry--that should be 'at least they're more interesting looking'.

If you really support cheap housing because it promotes neighborhood diversity, then by that rationale I suppose you have no problem with people living out of their vans or, say, cardboard boxes.
Come to think of it, I'd take the funky vans and campers over the town homes any day--at least their more interesting looking.

One reason for the anti-density move in California was the proliferation of “granny houses.” Conversion of detached garages into dwellings or the construction of small dwellings in backyards. As time went on single family homes with granny houses became rentals. Those rentals offered a two-for-one rental potential. The ratio of inhabitants to living space jumped far beyond building and health codes. Streets, driveways and yards became jammed with parked vehicles. Not a pretty sight – along with windows festooned with security bars.

Also once undesirable land became quick profit high density condo land. Small pockets of land between major streets and freeway ramps were magnets for the fast buck crowd. Sure people bought but the resale potential for these types of places was zilch. So began a cycle of blight. Who can really put up with cars and trucks entering or leaving a freeway off their patio door? And not just freeways but major intersections. Also complexes built and initially offered as condos became rental apartments during development due to lack of buyers (sound familiar Seattle?)

Now the City of Seattle has come up with the idea to allow granny houses in certain parts of town as a “test.” Also look at some of the pockets of condos popping up. As an example look at the pie shaped lots near 3rd Ave West and Holman Road. Poor ingress and egress to and from heavily traveled thoroughfares. Almost non-existent onsite parking. Streets becoming parking lots for multi-family dwellings. No yard space. What will these places be like in ten years?

High-density should be controlled. Controlled so that people can have decent housing they can enjoy and be proud of. Not something that becomes a neighborhood blight.

Sunset Bowl lot is going to be a large apartment building on top of commercial space.

The lack of quality with most of these townhomes is a real concern for me. Combine that with no Home Owner Associations (builders don't want to get sued, no HOA = less lawsuits) and you have the future slums of Seattle.

On the subject of townhouses, I like these - 1 block from Ballard HS:

http://www.modernon64th.com/

consumers pay for design in mass manufactured products where the cost is essentially stripped from the product due to scale, but design is not a significant or perceived market force for townhouse development; the majority of which are solely a pro forma output of zoning based on the cheapest available materials.

part of the problem is exploitation of the regulatory loophole skirting design review, but there has to be a demand and a shift away from thinking of value in absolute square foot terms. the soft townhouse market may be good for the near term where developers realize, "hey maybe this isn't selling because it looks like sh!t."

that said there are nice exception around ballard -the modernist boxes on 64th just east of 15th come to mind.

good blog!

re: "Ballardeer // Apr 30, 2008 at 4:33 pm

I walked by some new town homes near Greenlake the other day that actually look like an architect was involved. The garage is sunk below street level, they have big front porches, and all the houses share open space in the middle with a fire pit and garden hut for hanging out (http://www.djc.com/news/en/11192407.html). Proof that you can do high-density housing without the depressing lack of architecture. Sadly, a lot of what’s going up in Ballard these days looks pretty drab.
####

Even Sadlier: Those Green Lake cottages will sell for between $739,000 and $950,000.

So how this for an idea for solving the similar design problem. The mayor has a contest, any architect can submit a design for a set of 10 seattle townhomes. A group of architectural reviewers judge the 10 best and the city picks up the price of the design review in exchange for them becoming free to use by any builder.

Great PR for the winners, and more variety for the builders and neighbors.

Townhomes are built as quickly and cheaply as possible to reduce the overall amount of money laid out by the developer and increase profit. This is why so many of them look the same - why buy new blueprints when the last ones worked fine?

The real problem with townhomes is that they aren't selling the way they used to. There's been a townhome on my block that's been on the market for over a year. Real houses are still selling like hotcakes, either to people who will live in our community or to developers looking to make a quick buck, while townhomes sit vacant.

At some point the devs are going to have to fish or cut bait and either drop the price dramatically or turn the townhouses over to property managers for rentals. Either way they need to turn a profit fast because these things are going to start showing their age quickly.

No flaming here, iluvmyhummer, your comments are all well-taken.

We love our Ballard townhouse! We're not typical of the townhome demo - mid-50's emptynesters, we decided we had too much empty space in our older Phinney craftsman so we turned it over to the next generation, sold and moved down the slope to Ballard. Walking distance to grocery stores, coffee shops, great restaurants and bars. We love Ballard!

Yes, lots of them look the same - you can say the same thing about new condos, apartment buildings, even single-family homes. Most consumers don't appreciate/aren't willing to pay for design in most products, housing included. So the market responds with more of the same.

We'd all like to keep our neighborhoods looking good - in our own eyes - but who's to say what good means? Some oranges, greens and yellows look great, Bella (we hate taupe, too). Wander by that complex at the corner of 9th NW near Gilman Park, for example, and see what I mean.

The problem we face is this - increasing design review will add to the cost of construction. Increasing the cost of construction means increasing the cost of housing, means changing who can afford to buy the housing. If only the folks with tons of bucks can buy the new townhouse on your block, what does that do for the diversity of the neighborhood?

The real challenge we all face - whether residents of single-family homes, townhomes, condos or apartments, is how to create and nourish community. We've already met our back fence neighbors. When the weather improves we're going to have a "hi neighbor" party with the folks in our complex. Change is going to happen, some of it won't look as nice as it could/should. But there it is. Meanwhile, let's get to know each other.

I know what you mean about the colors, but the ones that I have seen varying from the norm, unfortunately end up looking like my dog barfed on them. I hate the drab taupe ones, but gawd, some of the orange and green ones are heinous.

Yeah, no problem with high-density housing per se, but one thing has always mystified me: why are all townhomes in a development the exact same color schemes? I can understand why many have identical designs and layouts (to save on developer costs), but would it be such a hassle to paint one house green and the other orange?

I walked by some new town homes near Greenlake the other day that actually look like an architect was involved. The garage is sunk below street level, they have big front porches, and all the houses share open space in the middle with a fire pit and garden hut for hanging out (http://www.djc.com/news/en/11192407.html). Proof that you can do high-density housing without the depressing lack of architecture. Sadly, a lot of what's going up in Ballard these days looks pretty drab.

those are some ballsy statistics. ;)

I think a lot of people are still bowling. Do your research. This is as of May 2007 which is the latest info available:

Bowling Industry Figures:
• Number of bowlers (who bowled at least once in the past 12 months) in the United States in 2006: 66 million

• Number of youth (ages 6 to 17 who bowled at least once in the past 12 months) in 2006: 21 million

No flaming here - I'm with ya.

I encourage the townhomes & condos, although I wish they didn't all have the same cookie cutter look. It's great to have more young people moving into our neighborhood as permanent residents, not just transient apartment dwellers that move when their lease is up. Ballard was sleepy for so many years (decades) I love the energy these days.

I hope our new neighbors take an interest in Ballard and help to make it a great place to live. It really is the best neighborhood in Seattle.

townhomes are awesome! we broke into the ballard denny's to steal bad restaurant furniture to give ours that special retro feel and can't wait for the new townhomes to replace the sunset bowl. (who bowls anymore, anyways?)

but for reals- one of the reasons ballard property values continue to stay strong relative to the rest of seattle is because of zoning laws that allow the construction of townhomes to begin with, thereby directly increasing the value of single family homes in the same area. increased population density is also a boon inasmuch as it increases the amount of cultural density (i.e. more people = more shopping, nightlife, etc), and reduces environmental costs (i.e. wasted land, longer commutes, etc). the other thing to remember about condos is that for many people, it's the only thing they can afford for a first home (i.e. not everyone can shell out $600k+ for a craftsman or single family home).

i'm pretty mystified in general by the attitude people have towards urban development and townhomes in general here. i'm willing to bet that we'll see some lame comments momentarily about how townhomes are "changing" Ballard from what it once was, and while that's certainly true, think of what the alternatives would be. For example, trying to apply anti high-density zoning laws (as was done in California throughout the 80s) will have disastrous effects on the region as a whole, by encouraging sprawl, and transforming neighborhoods that might remain somewhat affordable into soulless Shallow Altos.

I look forward to getting flamed on this, but realistically, this is a pretty complicated issue and I've yet to see a good counter argument against the condos here, beyond invective against Microsoft employees and those not from Ballard.