City of Seattle planners are looking at ways to improve townhouse design, but some are saying the suggested solutions are worse than what we have now. City planners say the current formulaic designs are largely due to limiting zoning rules. One architect was quoted in the story as saying he only works on projects that go through the design review process to allow changes from the normal rules. Here’s more info on the proposed multifamily zoning changes if you’re interested in seeing what the debate is about.
My Ballard
A news blog for Seattle's Ballard neighborhood and beyond
Plans to de-uglify townhouse designs panned
June 10th, 2008 · 8 Comments
Tags: Ballard · Fremont · Phinney Ridge-Greenwood
8 responses so far ↓
1 Ben // Jun 10, 2008 at 6:02 pm
This is a step in the right direction, townhouses facing the street with a porch/stoop up to the property line will create a stronger connection within the community and among neighbors.
I think some sort of administrative review, like that mentioned in the PI article, would be nice to prevent these cookie cutter designs.
2 act two // Jun 10, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Angles and Ministers of Grace have mercy…..City of Seattle Planners have proposed a “plan to de-uglyify townhomes”. Whatever next?
Perhaps, if you will indulge me, it was the limited zoning regulations which gave rise to these dreadful plans in the first place. (no that couldn’t be!)
Look no further than the unimaginative city folks wh0 govern such regualtions….fat, well fed and completely at ease with a well establish regimine. We all know how imagnative and forward thinking it is to visit our city stewards. Yes, really quite a breath of fresh air. They thrive on thinking outside the box.
New ideas…perish the thought. You have to fit in the box. Our regulations can’t abide something that doesn’t fit the mold.
No! Four little three story boxes, with garages all facing inside of a court yard, for which a golf cart couldn’t navigate…now that’s more like it! Yes, that’s the standard. Press on.
What’s that….the murmer of a city rable isn’t happy with our standard. Yes, lets stir our backsides and propose something more pleasing….after the land has been debased by our latest prodginy.
Angels and Ministers of Grace have mercy….they have new proposals. Gird your loins…round two coming up.
3 Keith // Jun 10, 2008 at 8:52 pm
From an aesthetic standpoint, I can understand people’s frustrations with the cookie-cutter design of most new townhomes. But townhomes offer people an affordable place to live within the city. I agree that it would be nicer to see more variation between developments, but at the same time - single family home prices in Seattle are ridiculous :)
4 Peter // Jun 11, 2008 at 5:40 am
Single-family townhome prices in Seattle are ridiculous. Townhomes on my block are going for between $425 and $475, about the same as a “regular” house if you’re willing to forgo the granite counter-tops, high-ceilings, hardwood floors (brazillian cherry!) and the other popular Home-Depot quality items people seem to like.
Townhomes aren’t ugly because of the zoning regulations, they are ugly because of the greed of the developers. Every wonder why they all have four little balconies out front? The city requires 200 sqft. of outdoor space per single-family home, and that is the easiest way to squeeze more houses on a single lot and still make the city happy. A real yard would mean one less house on the lot, which would mean less profit for the developer. Developers are 100% profit motivated and will continue to churn out cheap, ugly townhomes as long as people continue to buy them. If the city eases up on the regulations, the townhomes will only get cheaper and uglier until eventually every block in Ballard is one big mega-NoMa from corner to corner - a dystopian faux-Scandinavian Blade Runner.
If you’re in the market for a house, please consider buying a real home. Yes, it’ll probably mean putting a little work into it, but you’ll be helping preserve a community that needs and deserves to be saved. Not to mention the added satisfaction of actually owning a yard. There’s nothing sadder for me than to see a dog pacing around on the same 5×5 foot postage stamp of grass…
5 Suthii // Jun 11, 2008 at 6:48 am
“Not to mention the added satisfaction of actually owning a yard. ”
Some folks may not want one.
But I agree, these town homes should be bigger and nicer, it would be a great way to drive up all our homes’ values!
6 Jasmine // Jun 11, 2008 at 7:42 am
Peter, I didn’t know that about the 200 sq. ft. rule for outdoor living. I’d guess that the quality of living on those itty bitty decks isn’t really what the city had in mind.
7 Lynn // Jun 11, 2008 at 10:21 am
Yes the developers want to squeeze in every square foot of building for profits. So does the city. More square footage = more taxes.
8 keith // Jun 11, 2008 at 6:29 pm
peter - the deck space rule is really interesting, thanks for sharing that. Our townhome has a tiny, tiny little balcony - big enough for one person to stand on. It makes absolutely no sense, and that answers the question of why its there. Weird!
Leave a Comment