Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cusmilie t1_j5rxvrs wrote

Look at what happened in Kirkland if you think this will fix the issue. The Cottage housing inventory was passed to allow homes to be able to build multiple homes on a lot in order to increase housing and make it more affordable. What’s been happening (1) starter home are being torn down for McMansions. I’ve seen a perfectly fine move in rambler bought for $1.25. The developers split the lot in half, built a McMansion on one half with no yard for $3.2 mil and trying to sell other lot for $1.35. (2) home continuously being built on smaller and smaller lots. The homes have virtually no yard and start at $1.2mil +. (3) homes being built in crazy space where they should be built. I literally saw a home for sale for $1.4mil with a home literally in its front year that’s $1.2mil.

So developers are just squishing more and more homes into smaller lots and causing land values to go through the roof so an average family can’t afford anything in the area, even fixer upper starter homes.

15

compurunner t1_j5s27al wrote

That...sounds good? Having a yard is fine, but there are so many people that don't need one and are willing to give it up for other things.

16

cusmilie t1_j5sa065 wrote

I think the biggest issue was that expectations was that yard sale was smaller, that homes would be priced lower to compensate. That they would provide affordable options. Instead developers are driving up the prices and not building anything “affordable.”

8

JohnDeere t1_j5uxhsb wrote

So? All housing adds to supply. If someone moves into that expensive home they are not competing for the cheaper ones anymore and driving up prices.

3

cusmilie t1_j5v6tpl wrote

That would be the goal, but not happening. Families have a slim chance of getting a home against developers and investors. Until developers and investors are leveraged to point to where they slow down buying inventory, it won’t shift.

0

JohnDeere t1_j5v7o0l wrote

It literally does tho, its basic supply and demand I dont know why this terribly backwards idea comes from. We have a supply issue, we need more housing. Literally any housing helps. If the developers and investors were just buying legit any open property anywhere sure you may have a point but that would mean we would have no houses available either which we know is not the case. All housing built is good full stop.

1

cusmilie t1_j5vrwm0 wrote

I don’t know what you mean with open - as in listed in MLS? I don’t know exact percentages, but I would gather conservatively 75% never get listed. It’s under the table deals and in some cases taking advantage of elderly. The area started providing free legal housing advice to elderly which implies city knows it’s a problem.

1

monkey_trumpets t1_j5sh41z wrote

Kirkland went from cozy and quaint to overbuilt and cramped.

7

cusmilie t1_j5shpfs wrote

Yes, in a matter of a few years.

1

monkey_trumpets t1_j5shx53 wrote

I really hate those modern McMansions. We toured on during an open house - so sterile and unfriendly. I honestly do not understand why people like them.

1

Wellcraft19 t1_j5sepbx wrote

Recent transactions; old house on 1/4 acre lot purchased for $1.4M. 6 months later, older fixed up house on now 1/8 acre is sold for $1.3M. The other half (1/8 acre) will get a decently sized house, likely to sell for $2.3M (even in this market once construction completed).

Kirkland is to a large part (expensive) single family houses on decently sized lots, and that’s unlikely to change, as long as people love the area (views, lake, parks, close to everything, good neighbors, etc) and willing to pay for it.

Legislature would be making a grave mistake if nixing single family zoning.

−2

cusmilie t1_j5sg5zv wrote

1/4 acre would sell for $1.4mil+ and they’d probably squeeze in 3 homes minimum if city allowed. The homes they are building on 8k-10k lots are usually around $3.2mil still. Decent sized lots are pretty much gone from most of the area unless you are in a $2mil+ home. Developers went bonkers during Covid.

I understand they want to make money, but the city has to put some limits. The developers have a ton of buildings sitting empty as they are waiting to build and bought up the area not only last year, but years prior. My friend had rats come into her house because a developer has left the building behind her house empty for years. She’s tried to get it condemned with no luck. The small town feel of Kirkland is quickly disappearing and not the same anymore.

3

Wellcraft19 t1_j5sgrk3 wrote

No longer a small town when it’s not uncommon for houses to sell in the $5M to $10M range. Still truly an awesome town though.

But yes, with cottage zoning, there is a change to squeeze in three ~1,400 sqf houses on something close to 1/4 acre (driving up the purchase price for that lot vs if only two houses, etc).

3

cusmilie t1_j5sij1x wrote

I’m not sure what the solution is. I just know that this was passed last year and probably talked about for years as a solution. The intention was to come up with a solution for more housing (and hence more affordable housing), but made the problem worse. 🙁 I will admit I thought it would help, but I was under impression that they would build up to $1mil 1600 square ft homes on 1/8 acre lots. Oh how I was wrong. I could never have thought of ways to squeeze in homes like they do.

2

oldirishfart t1_j5sgr6b wrote

Kirkland used to be nice, but all this density is ruining it. Redmond is even worse.

−5

MoiJaimeLesCrepes t1_j5s90f0 wrote

yeah, that's precisely it, except no McMansions, but condos or apartment buildings instead. In order to make a profit, the developers will have to up the prices. Nothing comes in cheap. That much sudden density will cause traffic jams on roads not designed to take in that many cars, but maybe, decades later, the public transit infrastructure will become developed enough to help.

​

At best, I see this as a heavy-handed attempt to force the cities and suburbs to densify, but it'll come with a lot of pain for the next 15, 20 years.

−7

mcfreedman t1_j5srir9 wrote

Building houses in further out suburbs will also require people to drive and add traffic to the region's roads

4