After years of delay and change of ownership, 23rd and Union development could start in August

23rd and Union Final Rendering

Concept image courtesy of Lake Union Partners

The fenced-in, weed-filled vacant lot on the southwest corner of 23rd and Union may not stay that way much longer. An already approved but stalled six-story building is now set to break ground as early as August.

Formerly owned by Jim Mueller, the property and approved building design were sold to Ian Eisenberg, who also owns property on the northeast corner of the intersection including the car wash, Med Mix property and the building that houses the Neighbor Lady.

Eisenberg and the Lake Union Partners will build and maintain ownership of the building, which should open its doors in fall of 2014.

“The interesting thing—and fun thing for us—is to understand who the neighborhood is,” said Scott Roberts of Lake Union Partners. “I’m sure we can contribute to the next hopscotch.” Hopscotch CD ended at 23rd and Union Saturday.

The planned building includes 92 apartments, 74 underground parking stalls and 4,000 square feet of retail space. The developers are lobbying to identify a restaurant for the larger corner retail space, they said. No retail tenants have been officially lined up yet.

Leasing of rooms will start three or four months before the building opens in fall 2014. Rent rates are not yet available.

The new owners do plan a few tweaks to the design, mostly geared toward improving the pedestrian environment, they said. They want to give the retail storefronts “more of a residential feel.”

Before it was a vacant lot, the corner was home to the Colman Building. But the Nisqually Earthquake-damaged building was demolished and plans for the new building were designed by Mithun Architects and had momentum to be constructed before the 2008 recession pulled the financing rug out from under most developments in Seattle and around the nation.

The project could be the start of a redevelopment of the majority of properties on the corner. The Key Bank (once home to Liberty Bank) could be on its way to becoming an affordable housing project run by Capitol Hill Housing.

The southeast corner is currently going through the rezone process in hopes that an interested developer wants to redevelop some or all of the block, which is hurting since the Post Office moved its distribution center (and the many employees it used to have) out of the neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the city is working to develop a 23rd Ave Action Plan this year, which will look to update the city’s long-term plan for the CD’s major hubs along 23rd Ave, including Union. And, of course, the city is planning to repave and redesign 23rd Ave itself.

More details on the project’s movement, from Lake Union Partners:

As you probably know we are moving forward with the development at the corner of 23rd and Union in the Central District.  The site was formerly owned by Jim Mueller (we closed on the property in late December) and we are planning to start construction this August on the 92-unit mixed-use apartment building with approximately 4,000sf of retail and 74 underground parking stalls at the southwest corner of 23rd Ave E & E Union St.

The property was once the earthquake-damaged Colman Building which has since been demolished by the previous owner.  The site remained vacant for a number of years as it underwent environmental remediation which was completed at the end of last year.  We have advanced the previously approved master use permit completed by Mithun Architects to construction drawings with a specific focus on improving the street and pedestrian experience at the retail level, which when completed in the fall of 2014 will complement the revitalization and infill redevelopment that has been seen from 20th to 25th Avenues along East Union Street.

Given the momentum in the community led by the City’s current effort with the 23rd Ave Action Plan, which is looking to create guidelines and a community vision for the future of the street’s most active areas, we expect this project to highlight the beginning of future redevelopment plans at the intersection of 23rd & Union.  We believe that our project will be a good example of the appropriate density for the core of this neighborhood.  We are also working with neighboring land owners to assess the feasibility of a rezone to match the same zoning to allow for continued investment in housing and quality neighborhood retail.

44 thoughts on “After years of delay and change of ownership, 23rd and Union development could start in August

  1. Really good news, especially given the changes taking place on the post office lot. Having two largely vacant lots would have been horrible, so construction on the SW corner of 23rd & Union will bring a bit of life back to the intersection. I also see this impacting how developers and neighbors view the post office building and how those lots could best be utilized. Certainly, a lot of changes, but I’m excited to see what comes of this.

  2. Thanks for mentioning the developer’s interest in creating a sidewalk area that is pedestrian friendly and brings a residential feel to the project. Attention to this type of detail could really help move this corner in just the right direction.

  3. I really appreciate their focus on the pedestrian and storefront design. I checked out Lake Union Partners facebook page and it appears they are doing some pretty quality looking projects in Seattle and Portland. It looks like their 19th & Mercer building has Linda Derschang opening a new restaurant in the retail.

  4. NO TO ANY MORE ETHNIC CLEANSING / GENTRIFICATION DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICATOWN / CENTRAL DISTRICT. SEEING IS BELIEVING!! TRUST ME, KNOWING THE HISTORY OF AFRICATOWN / CENTRAL DISTRICT. THE LINES HAVE BEEN CLEARLY DRAWN AT 23RD AND UNION. GOOD LUCK? Omari Tahir, FOUNDER / VICE PRESIDENT AFRICAN AMERICAN HERITAGE MUSEUM AND CULTURE CENTER AT THE FORMER COLMAN SCHOOL SITE, AFRICATOWN / CENTRAL DISTRICT HISTORIAN AND 67 YEAR AFRICATOWN / CENTRAL DISTRICT RESIDENT,

      • Bob Smith, while the article you quote does state that “by the 1970s”, African American history began decades earlier. Many of the families that I first encountered here moved to the CD during WWII for the jobs, but even earlier it was a home to much of the African American population in Seattle. Remember it grew more rapidly during the WWII, but since the CD was already home to those who came before, it was logical that many settled here. Of course, there were also those covenants in other areas. Anyway the various ethnic groups often lived in the CD at the same time. It was a diverse neighborhood. I think this link from the online encyclopedia of Washington State History is much better and gives a more accurate picture.
        http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=3079

      • Anyone with even a casual knowledge of Seattle history knows that African-Americans have always been part of the CD. IT’s just that in Omari’s odd little world, it was never anything but African-American, and any failings that imaginary neighborhood had were always somebody else’s fault. That, combined with his all-caps run-on sentence screeds, put him firmly in the ranks of neighborhood cranks.

  5. .
    ugh
    .
    not even one attrative architectural feature
    .
    this is what fast buck developers call no spice for chumps
    .
    looks like a pile of plastic boxes
    .
    fits with the values of a someone who made a bundle on sleezy 900 numbers
    .
    not a good influence on the neighborhood
    .
    .

  6. Working in the architecture industry and seeing hideous mixed use projects all over the city, this is actually refreshingly attractive! The design review guidelines put into place by the city have created a very blah standard of design for these types of projects and most of the creativity is chopped away from these designs in order to meet stringent design requirements. I’m excited to see this go up two blocks from me!

    • I went through the original design review process for the previous proposal, and this already looks better than that one did.

  7. .
    LizWas, in my opinion, you have really low expectations for the neighborhood.
    .
    This ugly no spice for chumps building is just another shabby, tawdry, sleazy, fast buck scheme.
    .
    .

    • 98122, how often do you go through the design review project with the DPD at the City of Seattle? Try that one time and then let me know how you feel about mixed use projects.

  8. 98122 – . The design is from 2008-2009. It is Mueller/Mithun’s. Personally I find it very attractive and I hope your opinion changes as you see it progress. Not sure how it qualifies as a fast buck scheme. We are definitely committed to the neighborhood for the long term. Thanks for keeping an open mind :)

      • @Eyes – The short answer is “no.” Before you criticize the development team, please consider that this design and MUP/rezone is from 2008 before LEED became more commonplace, and it is fairly locked in place to build what was already approved.

        With the “green” theme in mind I am mulling over plans to do some major work at the car wash down the street to add an incredibly cool water reclamation/purification system as well as possible PV panels to the roof.

      • I am not slamming the building just asking if LEED is a goal. But while on the subject have you considered of Mithun considered cisterns for gray water reuse or a green roof?

  9. i think it is a nice structure – it looks like it has some common out door space with the roof top deck – it would be really swank if it had a rooftop garden, but this doesnt seem to be the case. really appreciate the designer incorporating the City’s potential changes to 23rd – this is something to be excited about. strange that this image has evoked such bitchy unsubstantiated comments about design.

  10. I’d like to ask a question of 98122 and others of similar opinions: if this proposal is not attractive, consistent with neighborhood standards, what would it take to make it better? I chair the Garfield Community Council’s Land Use and Transportation committee, and we’re tracking the city’s 23rd Ave planning effort. We would like to have a sense of what design standards we should recommend. To that end, I’d like to hear what people want to see in future proposals.

    Can you list a few recent projects (done in the last 10 years) that you like?

    What specific features make them good designs?

    • I will not go so far as to say this building is ugly. As these modernist stack-a-box buildings go, it’s probably as nice as any. I just worry that 10 or 15 years from now, all these stacked-cube apartment buildings will look shabby, dated, and unremarkable.

      Why don’t these architects ever design buildings that look retro? Seattle has its own historical, unique style of Craftsman and bungalow houses. Can’t anyone do a building that incorporates any of those old-fashioned design elements? Something with a little bit of style, instead of just a bunch of stacked glass blocks?

    • Unfortunately we are currently living in an era of ugly architecture, so I would say limiting your request to recent projects (from the last ten years) is sort of like picking the best Mariners team from 1976 to 1990. So, given your constraints, I would submit the Meridian 1420 Terry as an example of good design. But if you were to free yourself from our current era, I could list many within Seattle.

      It seems that people have a built-in or visceral love of stone, masonry and wood—natural materials. People also like buildings which are built and detailed to human scale, where the basic building blocks are small and graspable; think Smith Tower, vs. Columbia Tower. Large expanses of sheet material are used because they are less expensive, but unfortunately they look cheap, and so they never become beloved.

      In the neighborhood: Just a few doors south of Union on 22nd (941 22nd) there is actually an example of some beautiful concrete work detailed using the human scale, and of course the corner of E. Howell and 26 is a wonderful wall.

      • I should have also said that Lothlorien 4730 on the Ave, and Lawrence lofts on 19th and Madison are also far superior to what is going to be built on 23rd and Union

  11. I should have also said that Lothlorien 4730 on the Ave, and Lawrence lofts on 19th and Madison are also far superior to what is going to be built on 23rd and Union

  12. .
    The things that JimS and Hermann said are parts of the discussions we could and, in my opinion, should be having at the neighborhood meetings.
    .
    Aesthetics and affordability and grassroots amenities and social justice and economic justice and sustainability and etc are not compatible with the fast buck mentality.
    .
    This building is a way to shame the people who care about economic diversity. It says, ok, you want housing for low and moderate income folks, here is what you get, no spice for chumps blight that looks so plastic and flimsy and cheap and institutional it must be affordable but it turns out to be pricey. The building owners say, well, we did the best we could, we invested, the building is better than a whole in the ground, we are getting the same amount of return that other developers are getting, we did the best we could, you are a bunch of unrealistic ingrates.
    .
    That is a lie. Attractive and affordable are possible. Vision and will are what these so called developers lack.
    .
    I can not think of anything worse for this neighborhood than this tacky, repulsive, high rent building. There are plenty of reasons to start a boycott campaign before the first piece of rebar is delivered to the site.
    .
    .

    • Where the Key Bank is there will be low income housing .. http://www.centraldistrictnews.com/2013/01/keybank-at-23rdunion-to-be-redeveloped-as-affordable-housing/

      I don’t think the 23rd & Union project is unattractive, nor do I think it will be dated in a few years. Our neighborhood is changing and growing, we can fight every change and nothing will happen or we can go to design review meetings and make the change the best change possible. That said, I think the mix of market rate with the neighboring low income is a vital dynamic.

      The history of the CD is checkered .. positive things might fade away along with some of the negatives. We can work together to retain some of the history and joy we treasure or we can grip on blogs about how things aren’t like they were. The choice is ours.

    • 98122: Again, I implore you to check out the City of Seattle design code for multifamily housing. Seriously. It is nearly impossible to meet all the requirements and retain a designer’s original vision. Architects and designers more often than not have their imaginations gutted by requirements for modulation, multiple material use, glazing percentages (windows), awnings/overhangs, height limits, entry appearances…the list goes on and on. From what I can tell this project already looks better than the new one at 12th & Cherry and The Pearl at 15th & Madison…

  13. I can think of something far worse than this building and we already have it. It’s that lot surrounded by chain-link for over a decade now. While the proposed building won’t win any awards will still be far nicer than anything else at that intersection. Personally the building is a little bland but overall has a good look to it. It will make me far happier to have some life return to the corner after all these years.

  14. .
    Klong, what can I say except if over priced and and ugly suits your taste, maybe you are clinically depressed or have some other mental illness. Then again, maybe you have a financial stake in the building and you plan to take your fast bucks and move away. Maybe, maybe not. I just can not think of any sane reason why anyone who plans to stay in this neighborhood would defend this monstrosity.
    .
    .

  15. .
    Byron, guess again.
    .
    I can not say I have seen any micro housing that was planned as well as it could have been. However, the core idea has a lot going for it, in my opinion.
    .
    For decades lots of people have been sharing houses and apartments and, more often than not, each person does not have a bathroom. Seems to me people are better off in micro housing where each person does have a bathroom.
    .
    With careful, conscious architecture and building materials, it could actually be a step up in livability, convenience and attractiveness and still cost less per person.
    .
    There are other pluses such as a smaller carbon footprint, something we will either get used to in many areas of our lives or face off against dire consequences. It might be too late already.
    .
    I could go on and on. I think micro housing is the wave of the future or else.
    .
    .

  16. Just please Please PLEASE make sure that at least ONE of the retail tenants is some type of DELI, so that I could actually WALK from my house and, oh, maybe get a SANDWICH!

    • There’s a whole lot of delis man. You need a special ethnic neutral white bread one? Or are you limited in ability to walk.

    • Remember Medmix is a great place for take out too. To be successful it would have to be unique. Something like Kingfish Cafe or even Pasta and Co. would be welcome.

  17. A whole lot of delis? There aren’t a whole lot of delis in all of Seattle. The deli counter at Safeway doesn’t count.

  18. .
    oliveoyl, seems to me you might be thinking that the possible subsidized housing on the northwest corner of E Union St and 24th Ave is an adequate response to the need for low and moderate income housing in the neighborhood.
    .
    Fact is that even people who qualify for a subsidy are waiting for years, three to seven is a figure I have read, to move up the list and actually get housing. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
    .
    Many retired people do not meet the financial requirements for subsidized housing even though they are in the category of low and moderate income. There are few to no affordable options for them in this neighborhood.
    .
    Many people, including many young highly educated people, work for minimum or close to minimum wage, especially since the economic crash in 2008. They do not meet the financial requirements for subsidized housing. There are few to no affordable options for them in this neighborhood.
    .
    So called market rate housing does not meet the current needs.
    .
    What is needed is housing that responds to reality.
    .
    That means careful planning. Throwing up a building that is unaffordable for low and moderate income people who do not qualify for subsidized housing exacerbates the problem. It takes up a space where people who factor in economic justice with their plan would and could build affordable housing.
    .
    Some people attempt to justify the no spice for chumps sort of building we are discussing use the excuse that, given the cost of land and construction, affordable housing is not possible. That is a lie. People who make economic justice a priority can and do build affordable housing and get as high a return on their investment as the ugly no spice for chumps sort of buildings.
    .
    The fast buck schemers consciously or unconsciously do not take economic justice into consideration. Maybe they are just not aware of the negative impact they have. Their reasons are probably known only to them. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are just not in tune with the times and or are not up to speed about the alternatives they have.
    .
    This is where the neighborhood discussions come in. We can put pressure on the fast buck schemers to respond to the needs of the neighborhood. We can promise a boycott of any housing scam that is out of sync in that it does not address the paramount need of the neighborhood, affordable housing for low and moderate income people of all ages.
    .
    The cost of land and construction and the design review are diversions, a way to attempt to marginalize those who care about economic diversity.
    .
    Most, all as far as I can tell, people who live in the neighborhood want economic diversity.
    .
    We can and should insist on, demand even, the sort of housing options that make it possible to have economic diversity in the neighborhood.
    .
    We should not and do not have to let the small number of people who make the false claims that the cost of land and construction and or the design review make what the neighborhood wants and needs impossible. That is a lie.
    .
    We can get what we want and need. That means attending the discussions and making ourselves heard. That means opposing no spice for chumps schemes that run counter to what we want and need.
    .
    .

  19. .
    oliveoyl, seems to me you might be thinking that the possible subsidized housing on the northwest corner of E Union St and 24th Ave is an adequate response to the need for low and moderate income housing in the neighborhood.
    .
    Fact is that even people who qualify for a subsidy are waiting for years, three to seven is a figure I have read, to move up the list and actually get housing. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
    .
    Many retired people do not meet the financial requirements for subsidized housing even though they are in the category of low and moderate income. There are few to no affordable options for them in this neighborhood.
    .
    Many people, including many young highly educated people, work for minimum or close to minimum wage, especially since the economic crash in 2008. They do not meet the financial requirements for subsidized housing. There are few to no affordable options for them in this neighborhood.
    .
    So called market rate housing does not meet the current needs.
    .
    What is needed is housing that responds to reality.
    .
    That means careful planning. Throwing up a building that is unaffordable for low and moderate income people who do not qualify for subsidized housing exacerbates the problem. It takes up a space where people who factor in economic justice with their plan would and could build affordable housing.
    .
    Some people attempt to justify the no spice for chumps sort of building we are discussing use the excuse that, given the cost of land and construction, affordable housing is not possible. That is a lie. People who make economic justice a priority can and do build affordable housing and get as high a return on their investment as the no spice for chumps sort of buildings.
    .
    The fast buck schemers consciously or unconsciously do not take economic justice into consideration. Maybe they are just not aware of the negative impact they have. Their reasons are probably known only to them. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are just not in tune with the times and or are not up to speed about the alternatives they have.
    .
    This is where the neighborhood discussions come in. We can put pressure on the fast buck schemers to respond to the needs of the neighborhood. We can promise a boycott of any housing scam that is out of sync in that it does not address the paramount need of the neighborhood, affordable housing for low and moderate income people of all ages.
    .
    The cost of land and construction and the design review are diversions, a way to attempt to marginalize those who care about economic diversity.
    .
    Most, all as far as I can tell, people who live in the neighborhood want economic diversity.
    .
    We can and should insist on, demand even, the sort of housing options that make it possible to have economic diversity in the neighborhood.
    .
    We should not and do not have to let the small number of people who make the false claims that the cost of land and construction and or the design review make what the neighborhood wants and needs impossible. That is a lie.
    .
    We can get what we want and need. That means attending the discussions and making ourselves heard. That means opposing no spice for chumps schemes that run counter to what we want and need.
    .
    .

  20. Pingback: Open House for the long awaited Colman Building | Central District News

  21. What did the original Coleman Building at this site look like? The only thing I can find online is for the coleman building that’s downtown.

    Regarding “ugly” architecture – relative to what? what should it look like? It’s not really meaningful to say “that sucks” and not say what wouldn’t suck. I don’t find this building especially fugly nor beautiful – it’s save, generic, and not expensive. I’d like to see something fun like an old brick or stone building with arches and stuff. I’m more interested in the building working with the street and the neighborhod, not creating dead spots (either turns, parking or entrances, storefronts, etc.). It doesn’t matter if it’s pretty if it’s not obvious how the hell to enter a business or building (like the pagliacci on madison). That’s design.