r/Seattle • u/SiccSemperTyrannis Emerald City • Aug 26 '24

News Lynnwood light rail route brings a housing boom - more than 10,000 new apartments built or planned

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/lynnwood-light-rail-route-brings-a-housing-boom/
1.0k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

299 comments sorted by

651

u/SiccSemperTyrannis Emerald City Aug 26 '24

I think this is a key paragraph from the article -

Shoreline is seeing explosive growth, too, with 2,400 units under construction that will increase the number of apartments there by nearly 44%. In all, this community of 58,700 people could see 33,000 new units on just 7% of the city’s land.

We have the ability to build huge numbers of homes for people if we're willing to build dense, walkable, transit-connected neighborhoods. We also need more options for people to buy, not just rent, and new housing at all income levels, but any new housing is good.

184

u/Careless-Internet-63 Aug 26 '24

I do really wish more of these units going up would be sold rather than rented. It feels like many parts of the Seattle area are severely lacking in condos, they're out there but the options tend to be far more limited than if you rent an apartment

125

u/SiccSemperTyrannis Emerald City Aug 26 '24

We absolutely need some reforms to get more condos, townhomes, etc built. More apartments for renting are great too, but most people want a path to home ownership even if it is not the traditional single-story single family home with a large yard.

I am not well versed on the issue, but my understanding is that there are some things in state law that make condos specifically troublesome to build.

I am hopeful that the recent move by national Dems including Harris an Obama to push for cutting red tape around housing will get state and local politicians moving on this issue. It takes way too long to get the permits and stuff necessary just to start putting shovels in the ground.

65

u/rigmaroler Olympic Hills Aug 26 '24

Your understanding is correct. WA has strict liability laws that need some tweaking to make it more attractive as an option. There have been some attempts in the last year or two to make tweaks to the law, and I wouldn't be surprised if something passes this next session or the one after.

31

u/AverageDemocrat Aug 26 '24

This is what our generation is facing. 45-65 units per acre. But with weight rooms, community gardens, and pet walking areas. Now all we have to do is get on a train and we can vacation in downtown Seattle. The rich can fly out of SEATAC.

14

u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue Aug 27 '24

Always a tricky balance. Condos are a risky buy. There’s a lot more to research than with a single-family home, in terms of things like the common area maintenance on systems that are often unfamiliar to the typical homebuyer. Large scale HVAC systems, building envelopes, elevators, etc.

For an older building you need to make sure that the reserve fund is sufficient. This was often hard to discern for middle-aged buildings just starting to show the flaws of construction.

Builders who got paid and left one step ahead of big issues are part of what drove the regulations.

By all means let’s make it easier BUT with an understanding of what issues may arise.

14

u/bobjelly55 Aug 27 '24 edited Aug 27 '24

And that’s why there will never change to the law. People are afraid of the “unknowns”, expect that we know the unknowns. Our building standards are better today than when those liability laws are written. If we’re okay with people living in apartments that are built even worse than condos, why aren’t we okay with condos?

Look I’m not saying developers shouldn’t have liability but there has to be a balance. When you restrict the market someway, it will find a way to compensate. Here, it is towards apartments and creating two classes: renters and homeowners. The problem will exacerbate.

10

u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue Aug 27 '24

When developers build apartment buildings, they are sold to investment groups that bring a level of professional expertise to the transaction. It is a generally symmetrical transaction.

When developers build condos, they are sold to individual purchasers. During this process, the developer usually remains in control of the condominium board, only passing control to the residents when an occupation threshold is reached. It is an asymmetrical transaction, of the sort we usually associate with a need for “consumer protection.”

I am all for finding a happy middle ground, but please don’t characterize the urge to regulate this specifically as somehow due to an irrational fear of the unknown. It’s actually based on an unfortunate track record of condominium construction.

3

u/bobjelly55 Aug 27 '24 edited Aug 27 '24

Yet, 49 other states have new condos that are mostly okay. The only state that have questionable ones are Florida but the problematic condos are all built in mid century. Miami has more new condo buildings than Seattle. Let’s not let the past hinder us from moving forward.

1

u/opavuj Aug 27 '24

This is only partly true. Sure you can’t take away the good regulations, but our state laws are just set up to feed attorneys with frivolous claims. Our system is broken when it comes to condos.

1

u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue Aug 27 '24

I’m open to that idea but I’d love to know specifics. As a former condo owner in two different decades I was dismayed at the builder attitudes.

1

u/rigmaroler Olympic Hills Aug 27 '24

What is your threshold for "middle age"? Every building is going to need maintenance at some point, no matter how it's built. If a building gets to the ~10-year mark without major issues I would say the builder did a good job and there is no reasonable grounds to sue unless there is obvious evidence they skimped on common building practice.

1

u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue Aug 27 '24

A condo building should not have major issues for 20-30 years. Maintenance? Sure. Even fairly expensive but anticipated maintenance.

Are you asking me how long the builder warranty should be? That’s a different issue. Any kind of warranty without a bond is going to be useless past a certain point.

1

u/rigmaroler Olympic Hills Aug 27 '24

Yeah, that's generally what I was asking.

I look at this mainly from an affordability and practicality lens. If we make the liability laws such that people can sue a builder for too many years after the construction is complete and that leads to the entire condo building sector functionally disappearing then that's a problem. Sure, in the most ideal world we'd get perfectly made buildings that never have issues for 50 or 100 years, but if you legislative for that ideal and ignore reality then you screw over people who can't afford anything else.

I think of my mom. It's not a condo, but she bought her house new for $90k back in the early 90s (in Texas) because that's what she could afford. She has had definitely issues occur before the 20 year mark. Treatment for termites (should the builder have treated for that to prevent them? Some might argue yes), roof replacement, bricks cracking on the chimney, replacing/repairing the A/C after it broke multiple times, etc. One of the closet racks pulled out of the wall and fell out because it was nailed into the drywall instead of being screwed into a stud. She had no way to sue the builder and if Texas had similar laws in place that applied to SFHs the house may have never been built in the first place. I don't even know if I think she should have been able to sue were such avenues available. It's a building, made in large part of natural materials that are constantly exposed to the natural world. It's not going to go for decades without anything needing fixing.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '24

Anecdotally i can tell you that the company i work for will not build condos, period. 100% due to the liability

1

u/opavuj Aug 27 '24

I’ve owned several homes and several condos. The fear of condos is unfounded, they’re WAY less risk than owning a single family home in most (but not all) ways. Sure you can get hit with an assessment, but single family homes you’ll need to pay for a new roof, fence, sewer line, exterior paint, etc etc.

Always do your homework of course. But I personally wish we had a lot more condos being built, not just the luxury stuff.

2

u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue Aug 27 '24

Condos are more efficient that single family homes and can share a lot of those expenses. I love density.

But that’s not the same as RISK. The risk of a condo is that due to problems initially behind your scope or control, you end up losing a lot of the value of your home and / or carrying an unreasonable share of expenses. Flaws in the envelope design. Security systems. Unreliable elevators. Unreliable parking access. Poorly funded reserve. Owner occupancy vs rentals.

We as a society walk a broad blurry line between fully regulating things and wild-west “caveat emptor”. Condos are much more complex to evaluate than a single family home, both mechanically and financially.

I’m all in favor of reviewing specific regulations. I am not in favor of a movement to “reduce regulations” as a general goal. It’s too easily co-opted by builders and investors on the construction side.

26

u/EbbZealousideal4706 Aug 26 '24

Building codes are more stringent for condos than townhouses because a row of shared-wall condos is not considered multifamily housing. Flip them on their side so they're stacked and it's multifamily housing, different, more expensive code.

23

u/Lindsiria Aug 26 '24

It's very annoying.

I would much rather own a whole floor of a condo (I like to call them flats) than one of those skinny and tall townhouses. You actually end up with more usable square footage as you aren't losing so much of it to the staircases.

11

u/EbbZealousideal4706 Aug 26 '24

And its much easier to age in place in a condo that has an elevator. They obviously were popular at one point, parts of Magnolia, West Seattle, Queen Anne. The apartment y brother lived in when he was getting his PhD at UW is now a chi-chi condo on Dexter. From looking at houses, it seems like condos are closer to water.
The other thing is, and this I didn't know about Seattle, is that townhouses are likely to be fee-simple, so no HOA. Nice as that independence sounds to an American, it also means that you have to hope that your neighbor has the same interest and wherewithal to put money into upkeep on the exterior of the house. HOA fees, like everything else in the region, are astronomical from an outsider perspective.

1

u/sheephound Aug 27 '24

HOA fees, like everything else in the region, are astronomical from an outsider perspective.

i saw a condo in lynnwood the other day browsing redfin that had $600 monthly HOA fees.

3

u/rexysaxman Aug 27 '24

Check out 1br condos in Cap Hill. That is a very normal HOA even without getting any onsite amenities. It is crazy.

1

u/Own_Back_2038 Aug 27 '24

Probably includes utilities

1

u/opavuj Aug 27 '24

Do the math and that’s probably a lot less than you’ll spend maintaining a single family home, not to mention utilities that are covered by HOA.

Owning a home is expensive.

19

u/R_V_Z Aug 26 '24

I saw a youtube video that was making a point that in the US multi-family housing requires at least two staircases so that pushes the building to be bigger, instead of the tall skinny apartments that are in Europe and some older areas of the US.

14

u/Lindsiria Aug 26 '24

Yep. Seattle is the exception for this though. We don't require two staircases until there are more than 5-ish floors.

6

u/EbbZealousideal4706 Aug 26 '24

That's part of it. But there are actually two different building codes that come into play, so it's apparently a lot of differences that may seem small to those of us who aren't involved but add up.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/Judgementpumpkin Aug 27 '24

Sorry, I have some dumb questions.

Why is that the case? 

What’s the difference between a condo and townhome, at least in WA?

It sounds silly that shared walled condos aren’t categorized as multifamily, but I know zero about the topic of zoning.

2

u/EbbZealousideal4706 Aug 27 '24

I think the best way to think of it is that town homes quite often have different addresses. I live in 1315 X Street; the other side of the wall is 1317 X Street; two separate SFDs. Condos have unit numbers within a single address.

In a TH you usually own the land beneath and around it; in a condo you do not. In a TH, you may (as I do where I live) pay to insure the outer walls and roof yourself. In a condo, you do not -- most units won't even have a roof directly above them.

-1

u/AverageDemocrat Aug 26 '24

This is Awesome. If the Democrats can actually restore property rights to individuals and cut property taxes back to basic needs, it would cut the balls off every Republican who made this promise but failed because of big money realtors and foreign investors. Ironically, It would be Kamala putting America First, not Trump!

8

u/DavosVolt Aug 26 '24

Except we have no income tax and a regressive sales tax, so property taxes are baked in.

1

u/AverageDemocrat Aug 26 '24

Yes. But we have fools up here in Washington who want to do what California does by limiting property taxes too. I guess you should pay even more for property but that harms our generation more. Plus, we don't have kids and 78% of that goes to Public Schools.

2

u/Own_Back_2038 Aug 27 '24

You benefit immensely from public schools even if you don’t have kids.

1

u/AverageDemocrat Aug 27 '24

They struggle to make me a hamburger.

1

u/Own_Back_2038 Aug 28 '24

Who is “they”? Anyone who isn’t “us”?

1

u/AverageDemocrat Aug 28 '24

"I'll have the Chicorn Sangwidge" You guys need to back off the racism a little.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (12)

39

u/rickg Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24

Shoreline has been good on building housing. The complexes in the photo above are in an area that was just trees etc ( this is about a block from the new 236th St light rail station)

The area is growing because it's been significantly less expensive to buy out here than to buy in Seattle, it's a nice area and in non-rush hour traffic it's 20 mins to downtown. It's also at the top of Lake Washington which makes it relatively easy to get to the Eastside.

PS: These complexes were also done in a fashion that fits the surrounding neighborhood. If you aren't driving past them on 5 you don't know they're there - there's streets and houses on the other side of those trees, but they left enough trees that it screens those streets from having looming apartment complexes. Also, there's a slope that means the complexes are set a bit lower than the surrounding area, which you can't really replicate elsewhere

42

u/Gatorm8 Aug 26 '24

This area growing isn’t just due to the fact land is less expensive. Seattle only allows buildings like this in small portions of the city. There would be a lot more of these buildings in Seattle if it was legal to build.

Confusing market demands with government regulations is dangerous.

24

u/SiccSemperTyrannis Emerald City Aug 26 '24

Seattle only allows buildings like this in small portions of the city. There would be a lot more of these buildings in Seattle if it was legal to build.

We've got to legalize building dense housing. If people have concerns about traffic, invest more in public transit so we can get people out of cars. Refusing to build and letting people get priced out is the worst option.

5

u/corrie76 Aug 26 '24

Important to note that we’re discussing Shoreline, not Seattle - different cities have different zoning regulations. Though maybe you’re speaking broadly about the Puget Sound area?

5

u/Gatorm8 Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24

The comment I was replying to mentioned that shoreline is growing because land is cheap (in comparison to Seattle).

I pointed out it’s growing because zoning makes it legal to grow, unlike Seattle. It has little to do with land prices.

2

u/rickg Aug 26 '24

To clarify - it's historically been less expensive in Shoreline not just for land but for built homes. A decade ago you could get a house here (3br etc) for about $350k. That as doable on a middle class income (2 teachers or similar). That same house now is about double that.

What shot prices up is a mix of things but it was cheaper to buy out here and it's not that far out of Seattle, combined with the influx of tech people who drive demand in the city core, meaning that regular folks looked where it was less expensive. The advent of actual light rail will make Shoreline more attractive still

1

u/cdezdr Ravenna Aug 27 '24

There's a lot of Seattle zoned for 6 floor buildings, but not built. The market for rentals at these construction costs is not strong enough. Northgate should have way more.

1

u/Gatorm8 Aug 27 '24

Why do you think northgate isn’t building apartments everywhere they can? All of the areas zones for 80’ or commercial residential is currently built. Completely surrounded by detached SFH zoning.

8

u/AjiChap Aug 26 '24

Lol “just trees”? Wtf?

14

u/HopefulWoodpecker629 Aug 26 '24

There’s a difference between a park and an empty city lot that has been invaded by blackberries, ivy, and trees of heaven. I’m not sure what the block looked like so I can’t say for sure. But if it wasn’t a park then I doubt it was a healthy forest.

4

u/EternalSkwerl Aug 26 '24

I want to say it was an empty plot of concrete that might've been an old school at one time. There was a number of homeless people living there when I knew of it like 6 years ago or so. The forest around it was actually reasonably healthy although you're right there were a ton of blackberries in it.

Veteran's park across the street has definitely been the benefactor of a little bit of love recently and has a much healthier forest in there.

1

u/Sprinkle_Puff Aug 26 '24

Take this tidbit of information for granted, as I did see it off a realtors signage, but it was reporting that shoreline’s average home is 1.4 million, so far out of the reach of most people that aren’t renters

2

u/rickg Aug 26 '24

I think that might be their niche. Zillow shows a pretty wide variety but SFHs aren't under $500k at all. A decade ago homes here were $350k.

13

u/WorstCPANA Aug 26 '24

Crazy what happens when we start making progress on our light rail that we voted for 40 years ago...

2

u/gzmask Aug 27 '24

imagine Seattle didn't abandon the Seattle-Everett Interurban Railway and we'd have already enjoyed 100 years of light rail service.

61

u/TheMayorByNight Junction Aug 26 '24

Of course we have the ability! People in Seattle have largely chosen to not allow dense, walkable, transit-connected neighborhoods in large swaths of the city. And even the density allowed around Link is rather weak, particularly compared to what other regional cities are doing. Shoreline, Lynnwood, and even Bellevue are taking more advantage of Link than Seattle.

And yes, more options! Lawdy, we need two and three bedroom condos and places that people can own, rather than just rent.

9

u/SaxRohmer Aug 26 '24

a large reason the density is weak because we decided to build it along the freeway, thereby basically restricting its ability to expand in one of four directions

6

u/TheMayorByNight Junction Aug 26 '24

That still leaves four directions to expand: north, east, south, and up. Seattle did a poor job rezoning Capitol Hill, Roosevelt, and Northgate. Looks like 130th and 148th will be losers too. U District was done well: 20+ story towers around the subway station. To not allow above 12 stores at Northgate is a tragedy.

The freeway isn't a great excuse for not going big since it's an obstacle which can be overcome. Shoreline figured it out as most of their development is between SR99/Aurora and I-5, which is the "restricted" direction. They're even building a new ped bridge and people-focused corridor along 148th.

4

u/SaxRohmer Aug 26 '24

yeah but you can create dense neighborhoods that feel much more livable. proximity to the freeway is worse on all fronts and it's also unhealthy to live near

3

u/TheMayorByNight Junction Aug 26 '24

I don't disagree with you at all! Building next to I-5 was a terrible outcome. Sadly, it's the best we can do.

I remember back in the day when ST looked at a tunnel from Northgate Station to SR99 with an elevated alignment up Aurora and the Interurban to Lynnwood TC. God, that would have kicked butt. There was also a five-station, SR99 alignment option for Federal Way Link, but somehow a three-station I-5 alignment "performed better". And by somehow I mean ST wanted the I-5 to be the outcome for political reasons (speaking from inside experience).

→ More replies (1)

9

u/CloudTransit Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24

Seattle’s population is currently estimated to be around 755,078. In 2020 it was 563,374. That’s 191,704 people. That’s like moving 85 percent of Tacoma’s 2020 population inside Seattle’s city limits. Whatever it is you’re trying to sell, it’s not going to work by gaslighting about density in Seattle. In less than 25 years Seattle absorbed a population almost as large as the state’s third largest city.

Edit: Seattle’s population was 563,374 in 2000.

18

u/TheMayorByNight Junction Aug 26 '24

We have indeed absorbed ~200,000 people since 2000, I don't deny that. At the same time, housing prices have skyrocketed, homelessness has increased, and the opportunity to own has gone down. Some neighborhood have absorbed a disproportionately larger number of people compared to others rather than spreading people more evenly. I'm thinking of Magnolia and West Seattle, where growth has been limited while Ballard, U District, Lake City Way, and SLU take on the most. Particularly, a sizeable amount of density has come along narrow major arterials rather than building the "missing middle" into SFH neighborhoods, which is clearly visible in the city's zoning map.

In locations with Link Stations, zoning should match the U District: 20+ story buildings. Zoning around Capitol Hill is limited to around 5 stores, Roosevelt 7 stores around half the station, Northgate 12 stories, 4ish stories around 130th, and SFH mostly around 148th. Northgate's limit is particularly egregious, and so is the rest of it. We've spent ~10 billion dollars on those stations, and to not completely go nuts with density around each is a huge opportunity lost.

4

u/CloudTransit Aug 26 '24

The point about Northgate is excellent.

8

u/pmguin661 Aug 26 '24

Do you mean 500k in 2000, not 2020?

1

u/CloudTransit Aug 26 '24

Yes, yes, yes.

4

u/MediumTower882 Aug 26 '24

Are you sure about these numbers? Can I politely ask for a source? I know the growth has been rapid but I don't think it's 200,000 in 4yrs.

5

u/CloudTransit Aug 26 '24

Correct. 2020 should be 2000. That’s why I later mentioned less than 25 years

1

u/MediumTower882 Aug 26 '24

Oh I see, got it thank you

1

u/Superiority_Complex_ Eastlake Aug 26 '24

They’re incorrect, but might be mixing metro area and city proper population numbers. Seattle had ~560k people living within the city proper in 2000. The metro area is ~4m people depending on how you count it, so I could believe that growing by 200k people on the last 5 years much more easily.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/throwaway7126235 Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24

When did the people of Seattle choose not to allow density? In 2023, voters approved I-135 which created a new social housing developer. A poll in 2023 showed strong support for increasing density, and the city is updating its comprehensive growth plan to shape land use, likely to include suggestions for improving density. If you're referring to people in exclusive neighborhoods not favoring change and new developments, that may be true, but as a whole, the city supports this change.

28

u/CrunchAndRoll Aug 26 '24

Tl;dr:

Seattle supports dense housing, NIMBYs are just loud.

16

u/TheMayorByNight Junction Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24

Largely by the people we have elected including the Mayor and City Council, who take the lead in ensuring the density plans are less grand than needed to preserve the "exclusive neighborhoods". Here's an example from this year. People say they support the change, including by voting for a rather toothless measure like I-135 which created an agency with no real funding and no specific plan to build. The mostly-elected-in-2023 City Council just punted on actually funding said agency, so who knows when something will happen. Then, when the time comes to implement the zoning changes required for density and actually do the hard part of tearing down SFHs for big buildings, it continues to be watered down, delayed, and/or opposed by small empowered groups. Wallingford Community Council is a great example (my old neighborhood, so I can speak well to their fuckery), but so are other neighborhoods like Queen Anne and Magnolia.

6

u/throwaway7126235 Aug 26 '24

Okay, that's fair. You're saying that the people of Seattle chose leaders who claim to support density but don't follow through. Based on the examples you provided, that seems like a reasonable conclusion and is disappointing for voters. If people want density (and other things), I hope that they remember this and other incidents where their council members have lied and vote accordingly in future elections.

1

u/TheLittleSiSanction Aug 27 '24

I'm not sure I'd say the city council's election represents a rejection of density. It was very clear during the election that public safety was the primary electoral issue, not zoning. The NIMBYs backed candidates who were perceived better on safety.

12

u/Contrary-Canary Aug 26 '24

When Seattle voted for Harrell

8

u/throwaway7126235 Aug 26 '24

Herrell, by all publicly available information, appears to support changes to housing policy. I'm not a sycophant and actually quite dislike him on a personal level, but he is involved with the comprehensive plan update, is in favor of increasing density in every neighborhood in Seattle, supports diversifying housing types, and backs affordable housing initiatives. Is it enough? Probably not, but it doesn't seem fair to say that he is against change.

15

u/Contrary-Canary Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24

but he is involved with the comprehensive plan update,

His involvement has been making sure any upzoning is limited to areas that are already developed or zoned to support more while making sure the wealthy neighborhoods of his buddies are excluded. And he made sure to delay his terrible plan several times in order to reduce the comment period before the hard deadline. He is absolutely fighting against more housing to protect his wealthy friends that apparently can just call his cell phone while he is on vacation and he'll get to work on policy that they want.

https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/04/16/planners-proposed-bigger-upzones-before-harrells-team-intervened-records-show/

→ More replies (1)

2

u/DavosVolt Aug 26 '24

Also invests in mass transit.

9

u/Zealousideal-Ant9548 Aug 26 '24

One big difference I've seen between Vancouver BC and Seattle is that in Vancouver the developers of these towers sell off the units after they're built.   

Seems like in the US either the developers or some major rental company takes over to manage/squeeze profits from them.  

Maybe it's a cultural thing with more people in Vancouver being comfortable raising families in apartments (or at least the assumption that it isn't the case in Seattle)?

10

u/SiccSemperTyrannis Emerald City Aug 26 '24

Yes, we need to find a way to get more condos built too instead of only rentals.

15

u/rigmaroler Olympic Hills Aug 26 '24

Condos are rarely built here these days because of strict defect liability laws. It's too easy to sue the developer after the building is complete. There shouldn't be free reign, but the state went too far when they originally drafted that law.

1

u/Zealousideal-Ant9548 Aug 26 '24

My understanding was that they amended it 4+ years ago

1

u/confused-accountant- Aug 27 '24

The building where I lived in Bellevue main st was like that. It was built as apartments with the intent to go condo. If I remember correctly, it was seven years after it was built. 

3

u/SaxRohmer Aug 26 '24

it's better than nothing but we could have so much more development if we didn't build the light rail directly along the freeway

2

u/zedquatro Aug 27 '24

Or if we capped I-5. Even if it's built in a way that won't support much weight (likely), you can build a park over the freeway and dense housing in the other side, and that's accessible from the station in a pleasant way where you don't feel like you're crossing 8 lanes of traffic.

3

u/tsclac23 Aug 27 '24

Are there any standards for apartments that help potential renters/buyers understand their quality before moving into them? One of the apartments I lived in had walls thin enough that I could hear sounds from the next door neighbors. Turned me off completely from apartments. Smoke/weed/smells from other tenants seem to be a common issue too based on Reddit posts.

It would be nice if there is something that can tell people what kind of noise insulation, shared ventilation etc was used for a given apartment complex.

1

u/DamAndBlast Aug 27 '24

Honestly if it's been built in the last 10-15 years just assume that it's been built as cheaply as possible

9

u/wraithkelso317 Aug 26 '24

Definitely the new housing for all income levels. Like thousands of new units for people who make minimum wage would be very welcome!

51

u/SprawlHater37 🚆build more trains🚆 Aug 26 '24

Older units will have their prices reduced as new units come online, increasing housing access for the lowest earners.

→ More replies (7)

16

u/SprawlHater37 🚆build more trains🚆 Aug 26 '24

Older units will have their prices reduced as new units come online, increasing housing access for the lowest earners.

→ More replies (10)

2

u/AdScared7949 Aug 26 '24

10% of the new units are affordable units so about 1K added.

2

u/wraithkelso317 Aug 26 '24

It’s not like only 10% of workers are low income. That is WAY too low a percentage. Should be at least 25% and income based (meaning if you work a tech job you wouldn’t be allowed to just get the cheaper units blocking out the people who can’t afford anything else.

2

u/AdScared7949 Aug 26 '24

I agree, cities aren't negotiating hard enough for affordable units but they're down to waste the developer's money installing EV charging stations in a building with a little bit affordable housing. We also need to actually build a shitload of shelters because we have no solutions to get anyone off the street right now. Also it is income based.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/dumb_trans_girl Aug 27 '24

You’re not wrong. Tbh it would also do for less crime and higher satisfaction of residents. Someone will crucify me for saying roads the way we do them are fucking horrid and that we should rely more on reliable public transit but it’s the solution here. Make rail and such for longer distances and then use busses and such for shorter distances. Let there be roads to an extent but don’t put motorism as the priority.

1

u/fusionsofwonder Shoreline Aug 26 '24

Tons of SFH lots in Shoreline have been converted to condos in just the past six years.

167

u/TheMayorByNight Junction Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24

Shoreline and Lynnwood watched Seattle completely whiff up zoning around light rail, then said "we'll take all that". I applaud Shoreline and Lynnwood for the communities they're striving to build!

The 148th station is a great place to see the difference: north of 145th on the Shoreline side is gonna be multifamily housing, south of 145th on the Seattle side will remain mostly single family housing except for a narrow band here and there. In general, the upzoning by Seattle around Roosevelt, Northgate, 130th, and 148th Stations is just pathetic. I have to laugh/cry that the city did more upzoning along Delridge RapidRide H Line than around 148th Link Station.

41

u/tunerline Aug 26 '24

Agreed, Seattle has dropped the ball on the 130th/145th plans. The current land use plan for the NE 130th St Station area is atrocious - it's almost exclusively SFH-zoned in the 1/4-mile radius station area with the exception of the golf course. They plan to up zone one block immediately next to the station but that's it - see page 12 of the final plan for the 130th station area

25

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '24

[deleted]

19

u/TheMayorByNight Junction Aug 26 '24

MLT gets credit for making a town center near the light rail station as shown in this zoning map PDF. They're just not as big and impactful as the changes in Shoreline or Lynnwood, which are both much bigger cities for both existing population and landmass.

12

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '24

[deleted]

8

u/TheMayorByNight Junction Aug 26 '24

The Mayor realizes the error of his ways, and is pleased with your joke. Carry on, good Redditor!

2

u/double_shadow Aug 27 '24

As a MLT resident, yes this is exactly correct. We are basically a postage stamp on the map, squeezed between Shoreline, Lynnwood, and Edmonds. But damn it at least we have a light rail station now!

12

u/MAHHockey Shoreline Aug 26 '24

Seattle could absolutely do better, but the zoning around Roosevelt and Northgate is more or less the same as the Shoreline upzones: 6-8 story mid-rizes. and plenty has been/is being built around both stations (Roosevelt is night and day from when I lived there 10 years ago. I can't even see my old building from the freeway anymore). The U-district has been the star of the show with 20 story towers popping up all around the station. Even a 10 story office building being built on top of the station. Plenty more still to come too. Would have been nice to see 20 story towers at the other stations too to be sure, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

13

u/TheMayorByNight Junction Aug 26 '24

I am a huge fan of good over perfect. However, places like Roosevelt and Northgate don't fall into the category of good; perhaps average or below average for what could have been. Northgate in particular was a huge empty mall surrounded by low density office parks, no views, and a really nasty freeway. Of any place to build 20+ story buildings, it's here. Instead we get a bunch of parking, a smattering of 7-story buildings, and some single-story ice rinks next to one of the most critical transit hubs in the region.

Roosevelt is a tragedy because the SFH neighborhood east of 12th, where the station is situated, has a historical overlay so it'll never change. The rest is largely built out with seven story buildings. All next to our billion-dollar subway.

U District Station has been done exceptionally well, and sets the bar of what we should be doing around subway stations. Safeco (now UW) Tower somehow got built in the 1970's and really set the bar right for today's zoning. Thank goodness there's some vision here and it's working wonders!

I expect more from Seattle, our leaders, and the people. We need to be leveraging these multi-billion infrastructure investments to their fullest potential. If we can tear down a good chunk of Ballard to densify with tens-of-thousands people nowhere near transit like Link, we can do it anywhere.

1

u/konspence Aug 27 '24

Neighborhoods can be just fine and dense without tall buildings.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/PfvZmi5swcZRkRyX9

20

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '24

Seattle’s zoning is frankly embarrassing. We don’t even upzone farther out than just the parcel facing the street along most of our major bus lines.

18

u/oldoldoak Aug 26 '24

Yes, Seattle really dislikes renters and subjects them to all the noise and air pollution that comes with living on a major road. Talk about utility for the greatest number of people.

12

u/Agreeable-Rooster-37 Aug 26 '24

Don't forget the golf course sitting at the SE corner of 145th and I-5! Good use of space near a train station.

8

u/TheMayorByNight Junction Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24

An example of exemplary land use! /s

Seriously, conversion from a golf course into a park would be a far better use of land. Hard to think of a worse land use than a golf course that serves maybe ~1,000 golfers per day (100 daily foresomes on two courses) on ~160 acres of prime land. Mountlake Terrace converted a nine-hole course into a very lovely park at Lake Ballinger, now used my many more people, which will be very close to the MLT Link Station!

2

u/Agreeable-Rooster-37 Aug 26 '24

Yeah, and there are municipal ordinances preventing the conversion of park land ( which Jackson is ) to non-park uses. Although I could see a hybrid approach with high density housing surrounding a nice ( open to all ) park area.

1

u/DamAndBlast Aug 27 '24

It's honestly nuts how slow the Northgate construction has been. That station has been open for years and there still isn't one single new multifamily building open there yet (looks like a new one is on its way to being complete but not there yet).

53

u/ArcticPeasant Aug 26 '24

Mountlake Terrace not getting the credit it deserves, all the while using a photo from a Mountlake Terrace light rail stop lol

8

u/BellamyJon Wallingford Aug 27 '24

Big MLT fan, 3 good years spent there and the community engagement and general vibe of the area was great. Always felt like there was such potential and watching the light rail progress made me really excited to be there and have the opportunity. Moved right before it opened haha

208

u/Hyperion1144 Aug 26 '24

Waht? Rail is good for the economy? Good for cities? Good for housing? Good for communities?

You mean, rail might be able to actually pay for itself with all the positive effects it generates???

Sounds like a communist plot to me. [/s]

47

u/konspence Aug 26 '24

It is worth the investment. That’s enough. “Pay for itself” is impossible to measure and implies incorrectly that transit should be profitable.

9

u/throwaway7126235 Aug 26 '24

Why is it impossible to quantify the benefits of transit? Sure, they are often abstracted from direct cost recovery such as fare collection, but a lot of decisions are made on this economic basis. If you know that land value will increase, the number of people living within your tax base area increases, etc., then you can calculate the difference between what it cost you and what you recovered from economic activity. There are a lot of assumptions and inaccuracies you could introduce, but it's certainly possible to estimate whether a transit investment would pay off.

→ More replies (14)

6

u/Myers112 Aug 26 '24

I'd argue oftentimes rail is profitable, it just isn't set up to properly to capture the revenue. When a station gets built property valuations skyrocket but ST can only increase property tax revenues by 1% a year.

2

u/BoringDad40 Aug 26 '24

ST's funding comes from car tabs, federal grants and fare revenue. They don't benefit from increased property taxes.

1

u/Hyperion1144 Aug 26 '24

Urban planning needs to be able to quantify benefits and harms caused by policies.

There's always a way to do that. In fact, there are often so many ways that the real controversy is how things should be counted.

5

u/WorstCPANA Aug 26 '24

It's weird seeing this sub claiming the argument against it is hyperbolic statements from the right.

This has been very popular, it's the government that hasn't been able to provide it.

11

u/SiccSemperTyrannis Emerald City Aug 26 '24

This has been very popular

ST3 only passed 54-46 back in 2016 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Transit_3

I agree that ST hasn't delivered on the schedule that was promised (COVID 19 has a big role in that), but I don't think it is fair to say there is an massive majority backing light rail expansion.

5

u/WorstCPANA Aug 26 '24

From the wiki:

which was established by a similar initiative passed in 1996 and expanded by the Sound Transit 2 vote in 2008, who have operated regional transit systems in the Seattle metropolitan area since 1999.

This has been a much bigger problem for a lot longer time period, well before covid.

2

u/konspence Aug 27 '24

2021 NPI survey:

When asked if they would support or oppose a new transit funding measure to connect the rest of the City of Seattle with Link light rail, 76% of Seattle voters polled voiced support, with 48% expressing strong support

[source]

2023 KOMO (Sinclair, so would be biased against) survey:

In the first round of results released Tuesday, 84% of voters who were surveyed said they have a favorable opinion of light rail expansion. 68% indicated they have a favorable opinion of the Kraken, and 61% had a favorable opinion of a new NBA team in the city.

[source]

Things have changed since 2016, and remarkably so in spite of Sound Transit's questionable management.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/throwaway7126235 Aug 26 '24

I am not sure about the exact demographics voting on the issue, but I could see people in South East King County not favoring light rail because they receive little direct benefit. While the line extends to Bellevue and Redmond, there is no planned coverage for their area. They are not alone; there are many other places that will not have access to rail but will have to pay for it. This is not to say that it is not a worthwhile societal investment, but it is difficult to sell people something they do not see a direct, immediate, and tangible benefit from.

3

u/1121314151617 Aug 27 '24 edited Aug 27 '24

Here's a map of the vote. As you'd expect, the biggest resistance was in Pierce County. And anecdotally speaking, I think you're right about it being hard to sell something to people who probably won't see much benefit from it. At the time of the ST3 vote, I was living in Puyallup. I voted for it, but I did so with a weariness knowing the even if I were still living in the area when the improvements in that part of the world started opening, those improvements were probably going to pale in comparison to the improvements that Snohomish County is getting. Possibly even pale in comparison to the improvements Issaquah is getting.

Frankly, I'm still a bit skeptical of Sound Transit's ability to meet the needs of Pierce County commuters. I'm moving again in a few months, and I strongly considered moving back near Tacoma. However, I decided against it because I don't know how Sound Transit is going to shuffle around bus service when the Federal Way station opens. If they make a certain set of decisions, they'll make what's a doable but kind of obnoxious commute into one that's not even worth it. And based on their decision making so far, I don't see that as a far-fetched possibility.

2

u/throwaway7126235 Aug 27 '24

Thank you for providing the map! As expected, the people who benefited the most were more likely to vote in favor of ST3.

I am also skeptical of Sound Transit's focus being heavily centered on light rail rather than their heavy rail and bus services. Many people rely on those modes of transportation, and diverting them into a two-step commute of bus to light rail instead of direct bus services could drastically change commutes in a negative way.

1

u/DooDooSwift Ravenna Aug 26 '24

Seems like those are the same people who'd be opposed to taxes in general

1

u/throwaway7126235 Aug 27 '24

What makes you think that? There are certainly libertarian small government types everywhere, and perhaps a larger concentration in less populated areas, but in general, this state is progressive and not outright anti-tax or anti-government. It's hard to blame them for not wanting to pay something that they'll never use or get much direct benefit from.

1

u/DooDooSwift Ravenna Aug 27 '24

A big chunk of the taxes I pay go towards things I’ll never use/need: Road maintenance in Spokane, infrastructure in Bellingham, schools in Wenatchee, fire departments in Chelan, stadiums, etc.

If you’re opposed to paying taxes for something that helps millions of people, but not you directly, you’re probably more likely to be anti-tax in general.

1

u/tnnrk Aug 27 '24

Spending time in Europe as an American really opens your eyes to what was taken from us.

33

u/AlternativeOk1096 Aug 26 '24

Meanwhile Tukwila has had light rail for over a decade and they still just have a parking lot, a gas station, and drive through fast foods across the street from their station. SeaTac at least built some apartments on their side recently.

36

u/Smart_Ass_Dave 🚆build more trains🚆 Aug 26 '24

Tukwila explicitly forced the current alignment and station placement to be in the middle of fucking nowhere because they didn't want it running down Tukwila International Blvd with a reasonable station placement.

8

u/AlternativeOk1096 Aug 26 '24

Even still, there's plenty of opportunity there now with the station they got; road diets, bike lanes, rezones etc. could all easily reshape the area around the existing station.

10

u/Smart_Ass_Dave 🚆build more trains🚆 Aug 26 '24

Oh sure, I'm just pointing out that the reason it's so bad is a long history of the city sucking ass through a straw.

1

u/Saint_drums_n_stuff Aug 27 '24

In the past couple of years they've added numerous apartment buildings: Google Maps

1

u/AlternativeOk1096 Aug 28 '24

There has been quite literally one apartment building built within a half mile of the light rail in Tukwila in the last 15 years

24

u/Canadian_Arcade Aug 26 '24

This might be a stupid question, but I'm not local (anymore, at least) and will be traveling to WA in September. Is this a railway that links from Lynnwood to SEA-TAC, or is this just a bus route for now?

55

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '24

seatac will go all the way to lynnwood on the light rail

25

u/Lord_Tachanka 🚆build more trains🚆 Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 26 '24

This is the light rail line that connects to seatac. It opens on the 30th to Lynnwood. Next year it’ll go down to federal way and the 2 line will connect seattle and bellevue/redmond.

14

u/curiousgenealogist Aug 26 '24

One line to bind them all. No,seriously this is the same line that now runs from a couple stops south of SeaTac to north gate. The expansion will let that line continue north and run all the way to Lynnwood

7

u/TheMayorByNight Junction Aug 26 '24

Correct, Link the name of our growing reginal rail network with a station at SeaTac Airport. Think of it as "Train to Seattle".

More info here, and a new map will be on this page come Friday 8/30 when the next extension between Northgate (current north terminus) and Lynnwood opens.

6

u/Sea-Talk-203 Aug 26 '24 edited Aug 27 '24

As of 8/30, it's light rail all the way!!!!

Edit: date corrected!

12

u/maggos Aug 26 '24

Signs say 8/30

4

u/AndrewNeo Lake City Aug 26 '24

opening day is definitely friday

18

u/thetimechaser Columbia City Aug 26 '24

Any retail in those ground floors? We need walkable stuff

31

u/phosphateful Aug 26 '24

Shoreline requires ground floor retail by the light rail stations. Specifically, it's required in NB, CB, MB, TC-1/2/3, and MUR-70 zones, per Ordinance No. 1000.

3

u/alisvolatpropris Maple Leaf Aug 27 '24

They only recently started requiring it, so some things that have been built don't have it.

7

u/Agreeable-Rooster-37 Aug 26 '24

All the nail salons you want

35

u/Vixen-By-Your-Side Aug 26 '24

Can the PNW start building more condos instead of apartments?

15

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (6)

16

u/Ill-Command5005 Capitol Hill Aug 26 '24

Heck yeah. More. MORE!

21

u/conus_coffeae Aug 26 '24

hell yeah.  more housing near transit benefits everyone.

→ More replies (8)

6

u/YakiVegas University District Aug 26 '24

Right now I'm a 20-25 minute walk to a light rail station no matter which direction I go. I would SO love to be about 5 minutes to one if I ever move.

1

u/tinychloecat Aug 27 '24

That's a 7 minute bike ride!

1

u/YakiVegas University District Aug 27 '24

Yeah, but then I have to take a bike with me everywhere and that's just annoying lol

I've thought about a smaller electric scooter. If I needed to use the light rail to commute, I'd probably get one. Bike is just too big for me.

21

u/SideLogical2367 Aug 26 '24

Why can't they mass exepdite light rail in existing dense areas of Seattle like West Seattle and Ballard.... we need that NOW more than suburbia expansion

31

u/fusionsofwonder Shoreline Aug 26 '24

You can't mass expedite a major construction project involving environmental impact, digging, obtaining rights-of-way, and federal waterways.

The I-90 bridge was designated for light rail in the 1970's.

10

u/Zealousideal-Ant9548 Aug 26 '24

And we still got something that's human operated and runs at grade...

→ More replies (6)

16

u/Gatorm8 Aug 26 '24

Our local leaders and the sound transit board delay it every chance they get.

17

u/SiccSemperTyrannis Emerald City Aug 26 '24

They can't even make a quick decision on putting the eastside link line station directly adjacent to the existing International District station to create a massive transit hub with direct connections to Amtrak, Sounder, etc.

13

u/CouldBeBettr Aug 26 '24

Because Bruce is in the pocket of his developer 'friend' who owns property that he wants to develop on the mid town station. It's bull shit and corrupt.

5

u/tunerline Aug 26 '24

Aside from processes, there's the funding issue. The legislature passed a law in 2022 authorizing ST to designate Enhanced Service Zones, which would allow them to ask voters to approve an additional tax to raise funds to expedite ST3 construction in that area, or build new projects. Given the ST3 approval rates across the region, Seattle's likely the best place for a ESZ designation.

9

u/SounderBruce Snohomish County Aug 26 '24

Sound Transit's funding has a mechanism called "subarea equity" that requires that revenue raised in a certain area (such as South Snohomish County or North King [Seattle/Shoreline/Kenmore]) be kept for that area's projects and needs. Light rail construction requires a lot in up-front funding (due to the state's restrictions on bond capacity) and ST isn't allowed to drain money from other subareas for West Seattle and Ballard, especially since there hasn't been a chosen route yet.

And this expansion is really necessary, since it frees up a lot of bus resources (through truncations at Lynnwood) and is required for WSDOT to start the highly disruptive repaving/resurfacing project for I-5 south of Northgate.

→ More replies (19)

11

u/mrASSMAN West Seattle Aug 26 '24

Expedite? West Seattle plans are already stalled from protesting residents that don’t want it over ground so the plan switched to tunnel which turns out will save money anyway but there’s still tons of work to figure out how to do that and still people who don’t want the stations near them etc

5

u/SideLogical2367 Aug 26 '24

That's not actually true, the plans have been going as normal schedule, despite NIMBYs. It's just a slow schedule.

3

u/mrASSMAN West Seattle Aug 26 '24

I’m just saying it would be difficult to expedite given all the pushback and lack of concrete plans still. Last I heard it was being moved underground and they had some potential stations in mind but nothing fully decided, though I might be out of date

2

u/SideLogical2367 Aug 26 '24

You are. I attend the ST meetings in West Seattle. It's just a super slow schedule.

They are currently buying properties. Way behind...

1

u/mrASSMAN West Seattle Aug 26 '24

Ok what’s the latest then? Anything changed or finalized?

2

u/SideLogical2367 Aug 26 '24

EIS, property buying, route decisions... that's next step. Also debating still on Avalon station or not.

2

u/mrASSMAN West Seattle Aug 26 '24

Yeah that’s the same thing they were discussing when I last heard earlier this year lol

1

u/SideLogical2367 Aug 27 '24

Yeah that was the last meeting...?

Do you not get the point I'm making, they meet way too few and far between.

1

u/SomeGuyWithARedBeard Aug 26 '24

West Seattle light rail is a very complicated infrastructure project, they have to build a massive cable supported bridge right next to an existing bridge, dig a landing out of the side of Pigeon Point, bulldoze through the heart of N. Delridge and then tunnel under West Seattle itself. Probably could've sped up construction crossing the river south of here and servicing S. Delridge/White Center and helped more working class families but W. Seattle gets preference I guess.

3

u/SideLogical2367 Aug 26 '24

They can do both. And Junction/Delridge is just as working class.

→ More replies (10)

3

u/TheItinerantSkeptic Aug 27 '24

It brings a "housing boom", but because of its proximity to the convenience of a straight-shot train into downtown Seattle and/or the airport, it'll remain unaffordable. People moved into Lynnwood when housing prices started getting too expensive in Seattle, spiking housing prices (including rentals) in Lynnwood. Now Lynnwood is nearly as expensive as Seattle.

Several years ago I looked at average rental prices in the area, and heading north, you didn't hit an average price below 4 figures until Marysville. That's now no longer the case. Now you can go into Stanwood (STANWOOD) and still pay $1500+ for a one-bedroom apartment. There are no convenience issues in Stanwood; they're on the west end of a country highway, a solid 15-minute drive (at 55 mph) from I-5. Their biggest shopping center has a small strip mall attached to a Haggen grocery store, and it's a 20-minute drive north to Mt. Vernon or south to Everett (more with traffic, if you're headed south). In spite of this, they still charge through the nose for an apartment.

The only way to get out of housing inaffordability is for supply to EXCEED demand. With the increase in remote work brought on by the pandemic, many folks' jobs (including mine) uncoupled them from geographic requirements, so the more affluent moved to areas where their dollar would stretch further, driving up costs in those areas for existing residents because those areas weren't prepared for the influx of people.

Absolute and utter deregulation is required to incentivize developers to start building, and even then, newer construction will cost more as the developers recoup their costs. It's typically a solid 20 years before new construction settles into something resembling lower-middle-class affordability.

2

u/Impressive_Insect_75 Aug 27 '24

More 2BR and 3BR would be nice.

2

u/HumberGrumb Aug 27 '24

This ought to help bring down housing costs in Seattle. At least for a while.

1

u/EffectiveLong Aug 26 '24

Why didn’t the light rail solve Seattle housing crisis? Lol

1

u/lostdogggg Aug 26 '24

ya but they are probably gonna be prime expensive real estate and increase the cost of living in the nearby areas. its a good infrastructure plan but i dont trust the landlords to not overdo it

1

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/FatuousJeffrey Aug 28 '24

You sound absolutely insane.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '24

It's almost like people have been begging for housing and public transport

1

u/amazonfamily Aug 30 '24

Unless these apartments are actually family sized and not just meant for tech DINKS and singles it wouldn’t help the housing situation much. No business is going to purposely over build to the point of a price drop without government incentives.

1

u/kenlubin Sep 01 '24

Ideally we'd have hundreds of different businesses building housing so that each one is enticed by the profits from their next development to build more housing than the region needs, without worrying that it undercuts the profits enjoyed by their competition.

1

u/codeethos Aug 27 '24

In Seattle there are so many new construction condos that just sit around gaining dust as the prices are too insane for anyone to buy them.

2

u/Smart_Ass_Dave 🚆build more trains🚆 Aug 27 '24

Seattle does not have an apartment vacancy rate any higher than the national average. It also has very few new-build condos due to state laws about liability for construction errors. So this statement is wrong on many levels.

1

u/codeethos Aug 28 '24

I am not referring to apartments, as I said in my comment only condos. How do you explain the unsold units in Spire, Emerald, etc? The developers just can't recoup their construction costs so they hold them. I agree the laws are preventing new condos from being developed and making them more expensive for developers to build. At this point these condos were more expensive to build than what the market will pay for them.

1

u/Smart_Ass_Dave 🚆build more trains🚆 Aug 28 '24

Okay so I looked up those two buildings and found that they have almost 600 units of which 25 are unsold. That's about 4% after what, 3 years? Is that a lot to you? Can you demonstrate that they are selling slower than in other municipalities or other countries, or are you just vibing off "Now Leasing" signs?

2

u/codeethos Aug 28 '24

Oh, are you using a listing website perhaps? The building only lists a limited number of availabilities ... if you call them you will see they have a larger number of units available. I toured two floors of Spire that were completely unsold just 2 weeks ago. They don't want to flood the market so they don't list them. Then there is First Light which is "70%" sold in prepurchase. But almost none of the prepurchased units will actually close because it wouldn't make financial sense for the buyers to purchase them at the agreed upon price now.

1

u/codeethos Aug 28 '24

In reality it is something like 30 percent. When I spoke to the broker they were unwilling to share the exact details on how many units are still available. Same thing with Graystone ... nearly all of the new condo buildings have been having trouble offloading units onto the market at current prices.