All Forum Posts by: David Edwards

@Brian Hughes, 

It does sound like you have your head around the zoning, I feel most people overlook the density restrictions in that somewhat new zone so I guess good looking out.

If you already have the land and its not in bad shape as far as grade, soils, utility access, etc. then you might be able to make something work as a for sale product using the condo method I described earlier. Retail, you will pay somewhere in the $250-300+ /sf range but if you partner with a builder you may be able to compress that number down to 150-200/sf. There's also strategies to help whittle that number down even further via construction techniques that are not as labor or material intensive. Being creative and efficient in how the structures are built can have the numbers looking pretty good depending on your approach.

The climate of the city as far as its tenant protections are concerned aren't likely to change and the cost of construction is equally unlikely to dip too much. That said, if you have a property that is cash-flowing and working for you there may be no incentive to do anything. You could however, look into splitting up the lot and selling off the rest of the development potential. Attaching feasibility documents or even having the entitlements done would make the dirt even more valuable. 

@Bjorn Ahlblad Access to natural light, ventilation, and views of the outdoors are huge for any living space. Garden units are generally speaking cheaper / sf for both sales and rentals as an indication of the reduced demand for this subpar type of unity type. The answer to housing issues in urban areas isn't the suburbs or these low density, semi underground basement unit solutions. DADU's and ADU's are fine solutions to help provide access to housing in residential areas and to chip away at restrictive zoning that is currently in place but its only effective if we are creating quality housing. Just because its possible to live in someones basement doesn't mean most people would choose to if they could afford something else.

You are right though that there is demand for smaller, more affordable housing wherever it pops up in this region.  

@Darren Chang, @Brian Hughes, @Michael Haas

The ADU/DADU rules in the city have been expanded generally speaking in the ways that @Max Versteppen pointed out but the city also has a number of things that make getting to those SF more difficult. One of the interesting things to keep in mind, especially in RSL zones or others where there is a density limit, is that the ADU/DADU's don't count against the density of the site meaning you have the opportunity to get even more density on sites ie. 4 townhomes each with an ADU can really be 8 townhomes. The way that I personally think this will be used to increase density and have a positive impact on housing affordability will be by separating the parcel into condos and selling the DADU's and ADU's individually. This also provides another exit strategy for an investor.

I have worked on a couple of these projects through feasibility and design and I'd be happy to talk to anyone about a project or strategy they were considering. 

Best,

I'll also add that some architects can help you dial in those soft costs during early project consultations.

@Julie Marquez Yeah those can be all over the place and aren't generally what people first think of when considering the cost of a building. The best advice I can give to anyone thinking of starting a project would be to check with the jurisdiction, most have publicly available schedules of fees so you can get a pretty good idea of where those will fall. 

@Monish Lillaney that makes sense, many jurisdictions have squarefoot limitations on what can be done without a professional overseeing the design. This is largely so that they can ensure life safety measures are being satisfied in these larger buildings. 

The cubic foot limit is an interesting one as you could have a pretty dramatic effect on that quantity by manipulating floor to floor heights and roof pitches, seems as though it would encourage more cramped spaces to get the building in under the limit. 

Shoot me a PM if you'd like to discuss any details about your project. 

@Darren Chang The short answer is yes, I have seen prices much lower in areas like Bremerton and the rest of the peninsula as well as south near and past Tacoma. I have also seen prices stay consistent with Seattle on the east side all the way past Issaquah. As I understand it Lynnwood is supposedly cheaper but as with all locations, that would largely depend on which contractor you decide to work with. 

I think its less of a distance factor and more of an access discussion. I think that places that are connected easily to the metro area are a part of that economic system whereas some smaller towns or areas that have more challenges as far as commutes are concerned aren't competitive in the same way.

@John Lyszczyk

I think there's a lot of good comments in this post. My experience between working in large cities vs smaller jurisdictions is that smaller jurisdictions tend to have a much more relaxed approach to the process. That said, I tell all of my clients that the best way to get what you want out of a jurisdiction is to work with them and include them in the process. In my experience most people don't get into small governmental work just to gum up the process. 

I have a lot of experience working on smaller multifamily projects and am completely on board with your ideas regarding attainability of housing especially when discussing starter home stock. I am actually pursuing a similar strategy myself.  

On a side note the NY Times has actually been doing a series on housing which has been pretty interesting on this and other related topics. 

Shoot me a message if you'd like me to take a look at a site or answer any more project specific questions.

Best, 

@Daniel B.

It sounds like you had a bad experience with your architect due to a misalignment of project goals. This could be due to a number of factors the most likely being a lack of communication.

Generally speaking, architects understand that stacking plumbing walls is a best practice, and adding steel to any wood framed residential project is an added expense. Typically an architect would not add steel to a simple home unless the plan that was reached made it absolutely necessary. If you and your architect had been on the same page with budget being the most important variable to consider they likely would have approached the framing differently. I clearly wasn't involved in the process but this is my suspicion. 

Your comment regarding the use of engineered floor joists is both correct, and incorrect. Housing trends have largely moved to more open plans with less interior walls and intermediate support columns, an efficient way to span these open spaces is via the use of engineered floor joists. While the joists do cost more than traditional lumber they have largely become the standard for framing floors in residential construction due to their increased stiffness aka. their ability to reduce deflection in the floor, in general less bouncy floors are preferred by users of all building types. 

I thought it would also be best to mention that wood floors will not do well in a fire regardless of whether you use 2x lumber or an engineered joist. If you want floors that will handle a fire or allow for one unit to go up and have any chance of saving the adjacent unit you will need to look into building fire rated assemblies where the majority of their resistance to catching fire is based on the materials that face the framing ie. gypsum board. 

An architect isn't the right choice for every project but a good one can help find efficiencies that will save you money on the build, help get you to a better finished product, and more than make up for the small fees we charge (usually well under 10% of the total development cost). If you aren't intending to build a high quality product or you have the experience to understand their shortcomings and work around them than stick with builder plans.

This thread should probably be updated, construction costs (if paying retail) in the Seattle area for homes by reputable builders are starting at about $250/sf and its better realistically to assume $300 if you aren't building something big where you will see economies of scale.  Smaller developers I have been in contact with are able to compress those numbers down to somewhere in the $175 range but they are acting as GC and subbing out all of the work themselves. 

I have no idea where the $100/sf number comes from in this area and I would personally be highly suspicious of that price.