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

[geoffloftus]

Very nice panorama, but I think this is the Paul Allen Brain Institute

[alki]

Another render of 2nd and Pine...........I think this is going to be a good design:

[seattle360s]

Originally Posted by geoffloftus

Very nice panorama, but I think this is the Paul Allen Brain Institute

Thanks, I've corrected the post.

[alki]

That Seattle apartment tower you’ve never heard of (or had forgotten about) could be revived



http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/b...-heard-of.html

[joeg1985]

^ Oh man. For a second I thought this was going to be the trophy tower. Does anyone remember that proposal? It was right up against I5 at Denny. Super slim tower. Is there any word on that proposal coming back?

[alki]

The Chinese are coming!


Chinese group pays $20M for downtown Seattle high-rise site

Marc Stiles
Staff Writer- Puget Sound Business Journal
Email | Twitter

A Chinese company is the new owner of a quarter-block in downtown Seattle and plans to build a 22-story residential tower there, a representative of the group said Tuesday.

TeamRise paid slightly more than $20 million for the property at the northeast corner of Bell Street and Fourth Avenue, according to public records. The site is due south of the Belltown fire station and two blocks from Amazon.com's future high-rise office campus.

TeamRise is working with Mark Lundberg of Carlton Development Group in Edmonds and attorney Matt Hanna of Cairncross & Hempelmann to develop the site now occupied by two low-slung buildings and the Franklin Apartments which went up in 1918.

TeamRise representative Randy Lim said the company plans to save the facade of the building.

In addition, the group is working with a regional architect that Lim said he could not yet name. Lim said that TeamRise would like to start construction by early 2016.

This is TeamRise's first U.S. acquisition. The company has been looking for development sites up and down the West Coast for four years.

Chinese investors are flocking to the Puget Sound region, where one group has snapped up more than $92 million worth of properties. The New York Times reported on this phenomenon and how Seattle real estate agents have added a new term of art to their deal language: “the feng shui contingency.” Before closing on a house, many Chinese buyers are asking to have a feng shui master or consultant approve the house as part of the inspection.

Lim, who's based in Pasadena, Calif., said it's not just Seattle but all major U.S. cities that are attracting the attention of the Chinese.

read more........

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/b...ttle-high.html

[alki]

Seattle City Council backs developer fee to fund affordable housing

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...e-to-fund.html

[alki]

Cool Spaces: Mithun's historic waterfront perch, where the city and nature come together [on Elliot Bay]









http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/b...ont-perch.html

[mhays]

Originally Posted by alki

Seattle City Council backs developer fee to fund affordable housing

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...e-to-fund.html

This would seriously curtain supply in the short term (residential and commercial), which would raise rents, which would allow supply to start back up again. Rents are always tied to development cost.

While low-income housing does need support, they're doing many times more damage than good.

The council is mostly morons. Hopefully intelligence will prevail between now and the June vote.

Of course existing landlords are probably fine with it...less competition means higher rents.

[alki]

Originally Posted by mhays

This would seriously curtain supply in the short term (residential and commercial), which would raise rents, which would allow supply to start back up again. Rents are always tied to development cost.

While low-income housing does need support, they're doing many times more damage than good.

The council is mostly morons. Hopefully intelligence will prevail between now and the June vote.

Of course existing landlords are probably fine with it...less competition means higher rents.

Did you read this provision:


It is a required fee, but developers can avoid it if they make 3 percent to 5 percent of units available to people who make 80 percent or less of the median income for that area.

3%-5% of 100 units is 3-5 units. If such a requirement is so onerous, the project won't pencil; then the project should never have been proposed in the first place. IMO this law will not be a development killer.

[mhays]

That's still a few percent cost/value difference for a downtown building, or a smaller amount for neighborhoods that already don't pencil easily. And offices, hotels, etc., don't get the exemption. Yes that can kill a lot of projects.

Your "shouldn't have been proposed" comment just floors me. Most projects are near the edge of happening or not happening, depending on the final cost/rent/risk/market analysis. By your standards nothing should be proposed.

And that's just at the end. At the time a project is proposed (starts entitlements for example) the cost is far less known than that, other than they're planning on a price target and will attempt to design to that target. The entire construction market could be 10% more expensive by then, even without fees.

Between the fees and your insistence that only "certainties" get proposed, prices would skyrocket.

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's still a few percent cost/value difference for a downtown building, or a smaller amount for neighborhoods that already don't pencil easily. And offices, hotels, etc., don't get the exemption. Yes that can kill a lot of projects.

Your "shouldn't have been proposed" comment just floors me. Most projects are near the edge of happening or not happening, depending on the final cost/rent/risk/market analysis. By your standards nothing should be proposed.

And that's just at the end. At the time a project is proposed (starts entitlements for example) the cost is far less known than that, other than they're planning on a price target and will attempt to design to that target. The entire construction market could be 10% more expensive by then, even without fees.

Between the fees and your insistence that only "certainties" get proposed, prices would skyrocket.

Would "pencil" include the amount of profit to developer, supplier, lender?

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by mSeattle

Would "pencil" include the amount of profit to developer, supplier, lender?

Yeah, but don't developers need to have a healthy profit margin built in to allow some wiggle room in case costs escalate or revenues underwhelm? Plus, wouldn't a lower profit margin make it more difficult to attract financing?
Not trying to sound like an apologist for the developers, but on net this is a new tax on adding new market rate housing supply in the city. Seems at least some marginal projects will not get built in face of this new tax?

IMO, a better way to build affordable housing would be either density bonuses in exchange for affordable housing funds or a broader city wide property tax (with maybe a surcharge on super lux and 2nd homes). Affordable housing is a social good, why not make everyone pay for it? Not just new renters/buyers/developers?

[mhays]

It's not just the new projects that would pay. The entire rental market (commercial and residential) is set by the overall supply-demand equation.

New buildings are the pressure valve as demand increases. If the pressure valve only releases at 104 psi instead of 100 psi (or $1600 instead of $1500), that means more demand for older units too.

mSeattle, yes, profit is involved. Even the most sainted developer won't get funding unless their pro forma looks better than competing projects' pro formas here or elsewhere. And as jpdivola also points out, your pro forma has to show minimal risk of losing money...as 2009-2010 shows us, a large percentage of developers and financiers can lose everything if things don't go well.

[alki]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's still a few percent cost/value difference for a downtown building, or a smaller amount for neighborhoods that already don't pencil easily. And offices, hotels, etc., don't get the exemption. Yes that can kill a lot of projects.

Your "shouldn't have been proposed" comment just floors me. Most projects are near the edge of happening or not happening, depending on the final cost/rent/risk/market analysis. By your standards nothing should be proposed.

And that's just at the end. At the time a project is proposed (starts entitlements for example) the cost is far less known than that, other than they're planning on a price target and will attempt to design to that target. The entire construction market could be 10% more expensive by then, even without fees.

Between the fees and your insistence that only "certainties" get proposed, prices would skyrocket.

I repeat......any project whose finances are marginal should not be built. I have managed apt bldgs. A bldg that has its profit margin obliterated because 3-5% of their units have reduced rents should not be built. They will most likely fail even without what you call 'a tax'.

[mhays]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

All you've done is move the target. A solid development at $1500 rents (plus projected growth) might be marginal if $1600 rents are required due to the fees.

The word "marginal" might be confusing. Financing and low interest rates are available for decent bets only. If the bet is too risky and/or projected returns aren't high enough, money gets expensive and hard to get. More importantly, no matter where you draw the line between what gets built and what doesn't, there's a gray area in the middle.

For any project, the cost side and the future projections about rents and risk are both moving targets even right before construction starts. Even as the building completes it's not clear where rents will go initially or down the line.

[alki]

Originally Posted by mhays

That makes no sense whatsoever.

All you've done is move the target. A solid development at $1500 rents (plus projected growth) might be marginal if $1600 rents are required due to the fees.

The word "marginal" might be confusing. Financing and low interest rates are available for decent bets only. If the bet is too risky and/or projected returns aren't high enough, money gets expensive and hard to get. More importantly, no matter where you draw the line between what gets built and what doesn't, there's a gray area in the middle.

For any project, the cost side and the future projections about rents and risk are both moving targets even right before construction starts. Even as the building completes it's not clear where rents will go initially or down the line.

I want what's best for Seattle. Not all development is great; not all proposed projects should be built. Seattle needs to have a mix of housing units......apts, condos single family; old and new. It needs to have expensive housing AND affordable housing. Expensive/market rate housing is the easier to get built. Affordable housing is more difficult. One of the ways to get AH is what the city council is proposing. Your suggestions are other possibilities. Probably all of them will be needed to maintain a minimal level of AH production.

Seattle is not a city in decline. It has some luxury in picking and choosing what it wants built. It doesn't have to give up all aspirations to maintain the health of one industry........like construction.

[mhays]

Agreed....

So why make rents more expensive for everybody?

[shakman]

Originally Posted by mhays

Agreed....

So why make rents more expensive for everybody?

Welcome to the capitalistic version supply and demand. Imposing rent caps could cause Seattle's housing construction to slow. Are there incentives towards developers to provide affordable units?

[alki]

Originally Posted by mhays

Agreed....

So why make rents more expensive for everybody?

To create more affordable housing in the city. The impact on market rate tenants will be minimal........only a few dollars. The owner will still make their profits.