Alan Gossett is trying to sell his blue Craftsman house, on a slope
overlooking Madison Valley, for $875,000. But he fears the value of his
home—and every other property on the block—is about to
plummet. From the corner of Gossett’s rear deck, he points to the
plywood edge of a construction project that, he says, is “going to be a
magnet for very sketchy people.”
The project is unusual, for sure. In January, the city’s Department
of Planning and Development (DPD) issued a permit for two buildings
near the intersection of 23rd Avenue and East John Street containing
six town houses between them. However, inside each town house are eight
tiny apartments (each with its own bathroom, apartment number, and door
that locks) that share a common kitchen. So in the lot where Gossett
expected 6 to 12 new neighbors, he is now bracing for 48.
The city code classifies this sort of arrangement as “congregate
housing,” but only if it houses nine or more people per unit—like
the group boarding houses near the University of Washington. But
because each “town house” has just eight units, the developer does not
have to go through public review or notify neighbors.
Inside, the rooms are extremely small—ranging from 110 to 160
square feet—but when the building is complete in mid-July, the
rents will be incredibly affordable: an average of $550 a month,
including utilities, cable, and high-speed internet service.
“All I’m trying to do is provide housing that is affordable to
people who need it,” says developer Dirk Mulhair, 37, a partner at
Calhoun Properties. Calhoun owns six completed projects and is building
another 30-unit building in the University District. Some of those
rooms (all including utilities) rent for as little as $400 a month.
Although he acknowledges that run-down boarding houses are common near
the university, he says his properties are different because they are
not old houses that have been converted into apartments. Mulhair
insists his tenants aren’t “sketchy,” either, but a mix of middle-class
workers and students who simply want to keep their housing costs down
and still live in the city.
Margaret Ryan, 55, a marketer for nonprofits, moved into one of
Mulhair’s properties a few blocks south of the construction site after
separating from her husband in February. With just $500 a month to
spend on rent, “I couldn’t afford a conventional apartment,” Ryan says.
“This is the only thing that offered privacy and utilities at that
price.” Mulhair “runs the place right,” she adds.
But neighbors behind the construction site, including one woman who
asked not to be named, fear that the influx of new tenants will use up
the neighborhood’s limited parking, and they expressed concerns that
this “town house” project could be the first in a wave of low-rent,
high-density construction.
“Anyone who can scrape up enough money for month-to-month rent can
live there,” says Gossett. “I don’t think most people want to live next
to a boarding house with itinerant people living in it.” He believes
the city should ban the kind of housing that Mulhair builds.
DPD spokesman Bryan Stevens says the project complies with the
city’s rules for town houses, which don’t always require public notice.
“This project is unique in the sense that it’s renting rooms within a
town-house development,” says Stevens.
Nonetheless, the project has raised eyebrows at City Hall.
“This ends up being a little bit of a surprise,” says city council
member Sally Clark, chair of the council’s land-use committee. “It is
more people than we envisioned living in this land area. That may or
may not be okay.” Clark’s committee is currently revising the city’s
zoning rules for town houses, apartments, condos, and
multiplexes—and on June 11, her committee will consider
legislation that would change rules for congregate housing (an idea
Mulhair opposes).
In a city where truly affordable housing is scarce—and where
Mayor Greg Nickels recently proposed a $145 million levy to build more
affordable housing—it’s remarkable that Mulhair has found a way
to build affordable apartments without any incentives or assistance at
all. Unlike the luxury “four-pack” town houses that have been vilified
for gentrifying once-affordable neighborhoods, Mulhair’s projects
enable lower-income people to stay in the city.
Mulhair says: “People want big, beautiful houses with white picket
fences, but the reality is people like Margaret, who have a limited
amount of money to spend. Why should she be forced to live in Bothell
or South Seattle?” 
I really just want to give this guy a really big hug. this is awesome! Totally genius!
Ahh I wanted to add a quick note that I think the rent SHOULD be lower… because as someone pointed out, rent is typically 30% of income. It’d be nice to see rent at $400?
It’s a fine line… how low is too low and what’s “affordable”?
What a great idea. To be considered a real city Seattle needs a Ghetto and here is a guy who can do it without taxpayer dollars.
I think a 10×10 room including bath is a perfect size. I would have to admit though, after having lived in Central Africa for 4 years that it is a bit small, even by African standards, but maybe the computer access will make up for that.
It seems to me that if you can’t find a job that pays enough to support you where you would like to live than you should move to where you can find a job that will pay you enough to live, even if you don’t want to live there. But that would require common sense and that has been in short supply in Seattle for the last 40 years.
I live in such a place in the U district. Its impact on the neighborhood will solely depend on quality management. I have seen both drug dealers and bums (old management) and asian students, divorcees, and working poor as tenants (new management). Neighbors, prepare to get to know the management of this property, and demand they find quality tenants. There are plenty out there at this price point. Managers, don’t get greedy, I know you need to recoup your costs but be patient about screening tenants.
Oh, for God’s sake people. Unclench your buttocks and untwist your panties: It’s an apartment house. Apartment houses are as good, or as bad, as their management. The smart thing to do is to work with the management, and not fear the poor folks.
Remember, If we had a city where only the people who could afford to live here lived here, we’d have nothing but a bunch of neurotic baby boomers whining about how you can’t get good help anymore.
A 1000sq.ft townhouse in Cap hill goes for ~2000. By taking the rent-a-hostel-room option he doubled the income from each of the six “townhomes” to avg. 4400/mo. The market price for efficiency apartments (including your own kitchen facilities) is ~600$ in Capitol Hill. Rental housing generally goes for about $2 sq.ft. he will be harvesting over $4.00/sq.ft. on this development. Nice trick. (Seattle Rentals reports Cap Hill avg rent lies between $1.25-1.75/sq.ft.)
Spelled out: the developer is charging twice the prevailing rate/sq.ft. for Cap Hill rentals generally. If he was primarily motivated to provide affordable housing at current market space/rates, rather than using zoning loopholes to enable him to simply double his rental income, the rental on these “hostel rooms” would be closer to 275/mo, not 550.
I see this is just another example of pure out & out developer exploitation marketed with a “friends of the poor” PR push. An irony is that if he DID rent these units for a much lower & fair price, the locals would likely be throwing *twice* the hissy fit they already are now. Basically, NPoorIMBY does sum it up. No matter how much the locals sugar coat their objections through parking issues, etc., it really all boils down to a class-based objection.
Finnagin (#63) you are part of the problem. Have you noticed what is going on in the world right now? Unemployment at a 25 year high, layoffs left and right, cost of housing that is not coming down, and yet you write : It seems to me that if you can’t find a job that pays enough to support you where you would like to live than you should move to where you can find a job that will pay you enough to live, even if you don’t want to live there. But that would require common sense and that has been in short supply in Seattle for the last 40 years.
Get a clue Fin, or are you to sheltered by your wealth to see what the state of the world is?
@55, you might have said one of the best things in this thread:Remember, If we had a city where only the people who could afford to live here lived here, we’d have nothing but a bunch of neurotic baby boomers whining about how you can’t get good help anymore.
@56, his rents do seem inflated, but the last time I looked for rooms for rent (essentially what this is) this is about going rate. The poor do tend to buy less yet pay more per unit than others higher on the food chain. In the rents we have to factor in stuff like the inclusion of utilities (tenants keep paying the same, while the landlord pays for the tennants electricity, water, sewer, garbage, no matter what they use).
Good management will be key in this.
So STFU NIMBY idiots, it’s really not that bad.
#57
No point in using your name since you think we should all be stacked into little cages, like chickens or rabbits. Assigning numbers just makes it easier to keep track of everyone. Perhaps a tattoo? Isn’t this the same kind of affordable housing the Nazis encouraged in Warsaw? One person per room, then two people per room, then three, then……
Anyway, I’m glad you think that we should all be able to live where ever we want and not where ever we can afford.
Interestingly enough, I saw a Papa Murphy’s Pizza Shop the other day that accepted Food Stamps. Never mind making sure that people on government assistance are at least eating healthy foods, let’s make sure they continue to eat what the want to so we have more obese children and more health problems for the Government to pay for. Maybe McDonald’s will accept them also.
Hey y’all, Welcome to Uncle Barrack’s Plantation.
Finn, now you’r ebeing ridiculous. I don’t think we sould ALL be stacked in cages, but I also think we should have options like this available near, as I have stated before, jobs, colleges, and public transit. Why don’t you re-read catalinas comment (#55) and contemplate what the world you seem to be proposing would be like, and remember, this is not being built on the governments dime. I could accept your libertarian ideals (even if I disagree) if this were a tax funded project, but since this is privately funded, I really, truly believe you are out of line and want a world where those of lesser means, even those of lesser means in the process of making something of themselves, are out of sight out of mind. If I am ever as rich and mighty as you seem to be and have kids I will be sure to teach them more empathy than your parents ever did. You and Stupid White Guy both seem like really horrible people.
Alan Gossett, you privileged, self-centered, prick. This developer is creating a sorely needed low-rent housing alternative and you equate the future residents with being some sort of sketchy low life? Shame on you! No tears will be shed if you fail to get the 875k you’re seeking for your property. I am a college educated professional with great career aspirations who has been forced to move into low-incom ehousing this past year. Pray the same does not happen to you and you end up having to beg Dirk Mulhair for a place in his new development.
@49:
Underemployed:
BRAVO AND KUDOS TO YOU!!!!! Spot on!!
@40:
Stupid White Boy: shut the fuckinghell UP, already!
FYI: As for your slur on Evergreen State College, my brother earned a bachelor degree in animation there and I’ll bet he makes a shitload more in L.A. than you do!
Good luck in Rainier Valley.
@61 I expect it is zoned L3 if it is anywhere near 23rd/madison/John. L3 is expected to be apartment buildings. Big townhouses were more profitable before the bust.
Here is the dirty little secret. If it had been an apartment building, the allowed lot coverage would have been smaller, and therefore the impact more rational.
The code incentivizes townhouses (not necessarily a good thing in an area where one wants apartment buildings) with more lot coverage allowed with the expectation of fewer households.
Expectation and meaning are different than what is in the law. I think the guy should build an apartment building with the proper lot coverage, or else not get an occupancy permit for the townhouses…
Came late to thread but here goes, Bracing for 48 units I gotta laugh. How about 500 units on 3 acres on a residential street? Were moving folks in now on my street in NW Seattle’s Hub Urban Village. 100 of the work force renters are disabled and good luck getting around sans sidewalks and 40 – 50 mph traffic on a residential st. Good luck talking to DPD or SDOT whose policy is maybe if there are enough fatalities we’ll fix your street.
QUIT CRYING.IT’S A CITY. YOU CHOSE TO LIVE IN IT. I’VE LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD 24 YEARS AND AM THANKFUL THAT THIS KIND OF HOUSING WILL BRING IN THOSE THAT CAN’T AFFORD TO LIVE LIKE THE RICH ON THE REST OF THE BLOCK.
500 DOLLARS RENT IS NOT CHEAP WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT SEATTLE’S COST OF LIVING. THEY WILL STILL BE UPSTANDING PEOPLE AND MOST LIKELY LIVEN UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THOSE OF US THAT MISS WHEN THE COMMUNITY FEELING EXISTED RATHER THAN THOSE BUILDING FENCES TO UP THE VALUE OF THEIR HOMES.
You want servers and barristas in your precious restaurants and coffee shops? How about retail workers? How about childcare? Artists? Musicians? Well, guess what? These people don’t get paid enough to be able to afford $1,000+ per month rent. Hell, I have a professional job and can barely afford to live in this city, unless I want to share a house with 5 or 6 other people, which I don’t. This city, especially Capitol Hill, sorely needs affordable rental units, even if the size isn’t up to some of your specifications. Maybe this guy took advantage of a “loophole”, but he IS following the rules. If the city wants neighborhood review at less than 9 units, then the rule should be changed. And, you know, maybe the guy avoided that rule because neighborhood review is such a pain in the ass around here. Somehow, I think if he did everything transparently and subjected the project to neighbor review, we would still be talking about this issue of “undesireable” people living in the development, risking the neighbors’ property values. But, hey, maybe with all the money that’ll be coming in renting 8 units per townhome at $500/month, the development will be well-cared for and not a “blight” on east Capitol Hill. I agree with others who have stated that this is a creative, non-government subsidized solution to the desperate need for affordable housing; such solutions should be encouraged, not demonized.
LOL – I love when some knee-jerk bozo lashes out and hangs himself immediately with his own length of rope:
“This is not about altruism. Mr. Mulhair and Calhoun Property Managment makes a lot of money every month off of their $550/month per 7×10 foot apartments. There are 48 units in the development that is the subject of this article. He has build at least one other similar development. Do the math.”
yeah, DO THE MATH. 7 x 10 = 70. There’s some math for you. Dude is building dorm-style apartments (just like the nice, legal hostels we see in cities every-freaking-where) of 110 to 160 sq. ft. That’s (roughly) 14′ x 8′ to 20′ by 8′, not 7 x 10. Jesus. (Is multiplying by ten higher math now?)
I also love it when upper-crust NIMBYs get their shorts is a wad over the povs. But only when they get closer! “No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o! The po’ folk are supposed to stay in the ghetto!” Fer fuck’s sake. You know something? Living in a small space doesn’t automatically make you (a) poor or (b) fearsome. In fact, paying less for rent is very likely to improve a person’s overall financial picture. I can see why the corporatists wouldn’t like that, since being forced into the job market (for sometimes second and third jobs) makes them a nice profit while keeping people down, but not everyone worships at the altar of corporatism.
If your own miserable corporate job that pays for your three-quarters-of-a-million-plus spread is so awful that just the IDEA of living next to people who make less money than you? makes you so *intensely* unhappy, maybe the problem is internal. Plumb that line of thought for a while before you take your case to the federal courts.
Hell yes @ 65,66,67. The language the opponents use when they are not talking about transparency and loopholes is blatantly elitist. Seriously, is your house an investment that you are hoping to one day sell for a profit, or a home, what is it. Fuck your property values.
i was the first person in Seattle to exploit this so-called “loophole”, and built a couple of additions — the city didn’t like it, nor did the and neighbors.
This housing saves tons of materials and uses much less energy.
There’s nothing legally in the codes that forbids it.
We aren’t still living in grass huts or adobe villages, and likewise today’s cities are truly obsolete — (Dirk’s projects will fit in, i believe) —far less space and far less materials will be used to create dwellings — energy will be conserved — food will be grown — your home will sell energy to a smart grid —
there will be hydroponic high-rise FARMS yes, food farmed right in the city, saving transport –and homes will be energy productive via solar — and materials will be very different — you won’t recognize the city of the future — but it’s coming
Go, maps, happy hedonist and Tingleyfeeln, GO!!!!!
Urban farming—-interesting concept, b.farms. I’d be all for it.
I really wish that I could find an apartment that was so cheap in the area before July 15th. That sounds oddly specific, because it is. I am not a sketchy person, and neither is my husband. But we’re very fresh to Seattle and love it and my husband just got a job working at the Homewood Inn Suites. Because we don’t have a lot of income, finding a place lower than seven hundred is almost impossible. And even if we find a cheap apartment, it’s not worth the $1000 or more initial price tag to move in. And he just can’t take the commute from Spanaway to Seattle anymore…it’s making him dog-tired already. I’d get a job too, but seeing as how I’m pregnant and on welfare, I don’t get a lot of callbacks after the interview.
This doesn’t really have too much to do with the article and for that I am sorry. Can anyone help us?
I went to look at one of these units today and I’d love to live there. I live in a studio apartment in Fremont right now, but much of the space I have is wasted. I don’t cook, so I don’t need a kitchen.
Moving from my current apartment (over $1,100 per month if you include utilities) to one of these tiny places ($625 per month) will actually increase my quality of life. I’ll be able to afford to travel, to donate to charity, to buy art and Mariners tickets. I’ll be able to spend my money at the neighborhood pub or coffee shop or bookstore. As a result, I’ll be a true part of the neighborhood and its economy — not just the economy of my current landlord.
Love to see a follow-up on this.
What has the true impact been… not the paniced neighbor reaction… but those who actually believe a neighborhood is a diverse community.
“Gossett added that he and other neighbors successfully blocked a proposal to convert vacant lots a half-block north of his house into 11 to 14 cottages. “We fought it and they are now empty lots. I’d like to see houses, but empty lots are better than 11 to 14 houses on them,” he said.”
From: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Well that explains a lot about that particular NIMBY, doesn’t it…
Check this out for tiny houses! (www.tumbleweedhouses.com)My boyfriend and I are looking at buying one eventually. It’s about time Americans start to downsize and reshape our priorities. Less stuff, less stress.
Check this out for tiny houses! (http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com)My boyfriend and I are looking at buying one eventually. It’s about time Americans start to downsize and reshape our priorities. Less stuff, less stress.
i am the actual innovator who first saw the City Code loophole (8 bedrooms per kitchen = 1 unit regardless the # of bathrooms etc)
and i built these units — at 4036 8th NE Seattle — and another one was designed for 7th NE but i couldn’t get financing….
just for the record
pam baugher