Ballard development to be built inches from neighbor’s home

Quickly install a fence right on your property line so it is physically impossible for them to do construction. That should slow down a bit I think.

Developer built within three feet of my property line. they put the fence on the property line.

Because …developers!

More environmentalist greenwashing.

We have two townhouses that were built on the back half of our lot before we bought our house. Luckily they are about 8-10 feet behind our house, so we still have some space. But we did just find that their power line easement runs super close to our house – which required a change in our basement remodel plans (can’t dig a deeper window well for an egress with it in the way). Super annoying.

I would be very frustrated if these townhouses were any closer to us – they already dwarf us!

I think it’s time for some public action on curtailing development in Ballard.

Rowhouse development in Ballard is exciting and should be encouraged….much better than the “fourpacks” referred to above.

I find it strange that people that own property feel they are also entitled to dictate the type of houseing is developed on the property next to theirs. Development that occurs outside of your property is determined at the larger city level–and I think Ballard/Seattle will certainy benefit from increased density.

Increased density will help support more walkable business districts and the overall vibrancy of our neighborhoods. This is the essence of city living compared to life in the suburbs. If you don’t want to live close to your neighbors, perhaps the suburbs are more in sync with what you’re looking for?

@Keith — they put a fence on the property line? Where else would you put a fence?

As a new Ballard resident I am reminded of Robert Frost : good fences make good neighbors

whiners. your house is built on the property line, why shouldn’t your neighbors build on the property line too?

you could always move to bellevue.

When the siding on this brand new building fails in 3 years, how is it going to be replaced considering there likely isn’t 10 inch deep scaffolding out there, let alone a construction worker?

Why isn’t it possible for the developer to recoup their investment for this project by building 3 houses instead of 4? A little more breathing space for everyone. Good Karma.

That is an interesting observation, plastic bags.
I have never before heard the argument that the rowhouses built on the property-line would compromise a required egress for a neighboring single-family house (assuming they don’t put windows on the sides of these rowhouses).

I suspect that since single-family houses are required to be 5′ from the side line, that the burden lies with them to maintain egress. Although if the city permitted this ‘remodel’, perhaps they would make the new rowhouses accommodate a path of egress to any neighboring windows.
Not to mention natural light or ventilation requirements.

More dense infill development is good. It keeps people from paving wetlands in the suburbs for McMansions, puts people where we already have mass transit and other infrastructure, and in the aggregate increases the housing supply for younger and relatively less well off buyers. Seattle has too much single family zoning, which prices out younger and less well off home buyers in favor of people who bought years ago.

“If you don’t want to live close to your neighbors, perhaps the suburbs are more in sync with what you’re looking for?”

If you want to live like sardines, perhaps NYC would be more in sync with what you’re looking for?

Here come the urbanists, selling their snake oil, developer promoted, greenwashing BS.

How call you tell an urbanist is lying?

His lips are moving.

Note that the project architect is a member of the Seattle Planning Commission, so that can’t hurt when projects like this need city permits.

It’s a quality of life and a property rights issue. The lifestyle parameters of the community should be set by the people already existing in that community. Unfortunately there is no representation. City council members have no geographical accountability and too often pander to special interest. Charter 19 which separates council members via districts is a partial solution.

@21 Only two more years and we’ll actually have a local rep on the city council, no more downtown, monied, greenwashing fools in the pockets of developers telling us ‘it’s good for the environment’.

@9 That’s what we’ve been told for years, but it’s only gotten more expensive as more development comes in. But hey, if you believe that more development means lower prices, I have a monorail to sell you.

Truly there is a difference between smart density and density simply for the sake of density. My understanding is that the Ballard neighborhood has easily met its density quotas under the GMA. Given that, I wish the city could be thoughtful about what’s now going into our neighborhood.

I’m anxious to see if the new city council representation system changes things. Depends on who our rep is.

This is the essential conflict of a neighborhood in transition. Only small sections of Seattle are zoned for multi family use so they are in high demand. Do we attempt to placate semi-suburban forms which tend to lead to poorly realized outcomes like the tall skinnies and design by zoning townhouses from the last boom? Or do we move towards forms that work well in urban areas (like real row houses) but accelerate the discomfort of the remaining SFH owners? I am obviously in favor of the latter. The areas that were zoned LR1-3 should favor LR1-3 uses. Seattle is still very largely SFH only in its zoning.