Area community center unlikely

The Central District News, a neighboring blog, reported last week that the Seattle School District had received four bids for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School site located at 3201 E. Republican Street. There are a couple of reasons why this story may be of interest to residents of Madison Park, even though the school, which closed in 2007, is a couple blocks south of our community.

For one thing, the Bush School, which is contiguous to the MLK School site, is apparently the top bidder for the property. Although the School’s main buildings are—like the MLK School—in Madison Valley, Bush’s Gracemont Upper Campus actually is located in Washington Park, so I think we can legitimately claim the Bush School as one of our own.

Another bid for the site has been submitted by a group of community activists, Citizens for a Community Center at MLK (CCC), which is the second reason the story could be interesting from the standpoint of Madison Park. Right now there is no community center located anywhere within the area, unless you want to count the Miller Community Center (330 19th Avenue E.) on Capitol Hill, or the Montlake Community Center (1618 E. Calhoun St.) as “within the area.” If the Madison Valley activists have their way, there would be a community center located practically on Madison Park’s doorstep.

However, it looks like it is just not meant to be. The CCC’s bid to purchase the site for $2,400,000 is 36% lower than the Bush School’s $3,750,000 bid. Two other bidders, Hamlin Robinson School (a non-profit private school for children with learning disabilities) and the First African Methodist Episcopal Church, each have lower bids than The Bush School. All of the bidders also provided the school district with proposals for renting the property, with The Bush School offering significantly more than any of the others.

The district, of course, is not obligated to take the highest bid; but given the Seattle Schools’ budget problems, the school board would certainly come in for some justified criticism if it didn’t take the money and run. Additionally, it is not clear that either the CCC or First AME actually have the cash in hand at this time to back up their bids. So it looks as if the idea of a community center for the area may just be one of those pipe dreams you hear about.
.

Christmas ships to arrive December 19

For those of you who plan holiday parties timed to coincide with the arrival of the Christmas Ships at Madison Park Beach, you will probably be interested to know that the Seattle Department of Parks & Recreation today released this year's schedule showing that the ships will make their appearance here during the afternoon of Saturday, December 19, from 4:55 until 5:15 pm. Seems a bit earlier in the day than has been the case in past years.

For many of us, however, it is just a bit too soon to be thinking Christmas--though I see that Tully's has been decked out for the holiday season for at least a week, and Christmas trees are already in stores downtown. I guess you can never begin worrying about the holidays too early.

The Christmas Ships' appearance at Madison Park Beach is sponsored by the Miller Park and Montlake Community Centers. There is no Community Center anywhere in close proximity to Madison Park (a fact which is relevant to a story I will be posting this weekend).

By the way, the Christmas Ships will begin their Lake Washington runs on December 1, with a call on Gas Works Park. Earlier, on Sunday, November 29, there will be a preview voyage starting at Lake Union Park (860 Terry Avenue N.) at 6 pm. The ships will arrive at the Madrona Beach on Saturday, December 5 at 9:25 pm.

.

[Photo by Curt Milton (cascadeguy on Flickr), who also writes the blog EastlakeAve.]

Defining Madison Park: an essay (part one)

You might think it would be a pretty easy thing to describe the community in which you live, defining— for those not in the know— its characteristics and its boundaries. A simple neighborhood definition might be possible for a lot of places in this town; but, as I’ve discovered, it’s not a simple thing to accomplish when it comes to Madison Park. For it’s a fact that there is no consensus on what it means to live in Madison Park. The City has an opinion, the local realtors have one, the area’s community councils each have one—and their views are certainly not identical. And then there are the people who actually do (or, in the opinion of others, do not) live in the Park.

Where, exactly, does Madison Park begin, and where does it end?

Let’s start with a premise, perhaps the only one, on which all of us can agree: living in Madison Park does not mean sleeping, homeless, within in the confines of the actual City park known by the same name. Yes, the community does get its geographic identify from the City park, but the two things are not synonymous. Once we agree on that fact, however, we are probably done with consensus. From this point forward the story gets complicated and the disagreements sometimes become acute.

I first became aware of the problem of defining Madison Park well before I moved here. Although a native Seattleite, I had lived my entire life ‘north of the canal’ and was simply unfamiliar with the details of neighborhood geography ‘south of the cut.’ I made the mistake of introducing a friend to someone by saying that “she lives in Madison Park like you do!” I was immediately corrected by my friend, who told me she didn’t live in Madison Park! Really? This was a surprise to me, since I’d visited her at her house. “You’re just confused,” she told me, “I actually live in Washington Park.” “What’s the distinction?” I asked. “Washington Park is south of Madison, Madison Park is north,” she told me. This, it turns out, is the mutually exclusive proposition endorsed by a few: Washington Park is not a part of Madison Park. This was news to me then—and it still is.

I suspect it’s also news to a lot of other people who live in Washington Park, as some people think I do. Other people, by the way, don’t think I do. For not only is there a dispute over whether Washington Park is part of Madison Park, there’s also a dispute over where Washington Park itself begins and ends. Do I really live in Washington Park? And even if I do, is Washington Park also home to my neighbors on the next block? Well there’s a dispute about that as well, since the City thinks that many of us down here actually live in a neighborhood called Harrison Denny-Blaine, which isn’t Washington Park at all. In the City’s opinion, not only is The Seattle Tennis Club not in Washington Park, it isn’t even in Madison Park! Confused? I told you this was complicated.

Let’s begin at the beginning.

In the beginning there was the park, Madison Park, the land for which was set aside by landowner Judge John McGilvra in 1880. Madison Street had already been named (but not by McGilvra, as is sometimes claimed), and the park at the end of the street logically became Madison Park (the picture above shows the Park in 1900). McGilvra, who owned the surrounding land, developed some of it into cottages, and the growing community along the Lake soon became known as the Madison Park neighborhood. To this point, the story is pretty straightforward.

By early 1900’s the City had already set aside (but had yet to substantially develop) the 260-acre Washington Park, which would later, beginning in the 1930’s, be developed into the Washington Park Arboretum under an agreement between the City and the University of Washington. (The picture above shows Lake Washington Boulevard snaking through the Park in 1913). During the 1920’s, meanwhile, a 216-acre “country club within the city” had been built in Madison Park. Opening in 1927, Broadmoor provided Seattle’s wealthy with a gated community on a golf course, all located within shouting distance of downtown. This is Broadmoor, circa 1930:

.

Thus, by the late 1930’s the three major components of Madison Park were well established, with Washington Park at one “end” of E. Madison Street, Madison Park at the other, and Broadmoor sitting secluded and serene in the middle. The neighborhood of big houses and mansions built in the area south of Broadmoor (and therefore south of E. Madison Street) become known, apparently early in the 1900’s, as the Washington Park neighborhood. The designation may have been prompted by a desire to distinguish the area from the grittier and more working class housing of Madison Park to the east. Washington Park certainly had a greater cachet than the rest of Madison Park, although after Broadmoor opened, Washington Park was no longer the most exclusive enclave within Madison Park.

Unlike Washington Park, there’s no problem defining the boundaries of Broadmoor: the community is pretty well walled in. The only question that concerns us here, therefore, is whether Broadmoor is part of Madison Park or is not part. I haven’t taken a poll on the subject, but I suspect there may be a few people living there who feel they are not residents of Madison Park. But that’s certainly not the official view. Broadmoor, I am told, has historically been represented on the Madison Park Community Council (MPCC), and to quote current Broadmoor Homeowners Association president Erin McCormick, “I consider our neighborhood part of Madison Park. In fact when I am asked where I live, I say ‘Madison Park area’ because that is well known to people not from the area, and it is a destination point.” Most Seattleites who are in the know, I imagine, would agree that Broadmoor is in Madison Park, just as they think of Blue Ridge as an exclusive section of Ballard. Google, for what it’s worth, actually places Broadmoor at the very center of Madison Park:

.

While there may be a few exclusivists out there who hold themselves aloof from Madison Park, the record seems pretty clear that both Broadmoor and Washington Park have historically been considered parts of Madison Park and are so viewed by most residents. The interconnection of Broadmoor and Washington Park with the rest of Madison Park is further reinforced by the fact that the Madison Park business district serves as the focal point for most residents of the area. Bert’s, Bing’s, Madison Park Hardware, and Pharmaca are among the many places along the strip where people from each of the neighborhoods intermix on a daily basis. And of course the city park and its beach provide another common point of reference for what is really one big Madison Park community.

Once we accept the idea that we’re all in the Park together, you might think it would be a relatively simple matter to define our boundaries. After all, the Park is surrounded on two sides by water and Lake Washington Boulevard is generally accepted as the demarcation line to the west. But it’s a fact that to both the south and the west there are multiple disputes over large chunks of Madison Park’s territory.

Before we get into all that, let’s start with this blog’s working definition of the community: “Madison Park is bounded by Lake Washington Boulevard E. on the west and south (to the intersection with 39th Avenue E.) and by Lake Washington and Union Bay to the east and north respectively.” Here’s what that looks like on the map:

This definition of Madison Park is consistent with Wikipedia’s definition (I should know, since I wrote it). It has a couple of advantages: 1) it is fairly easy to explain, since Lake Washington Boulevard extends almost to the water at Lake Washington, allowing that street to define both the western and southern boundaries of the Park and 2) it is almost exactly the same definition as used by the U.S. census for King County Tract 63 (shown at right).

.

For some reason, the Census Bureau doesn’t extend the tract all the way south to the intersection of 39th Avenue E. and Lake Washington Boulevard. Instead, it extends only to 36th Avenue E. and then meanders up Hillside, over to McGilvra and down 39th for awhile, finally reaching the Lake at “E. Mercer Street” (which appears not to be a real street at that point). The difference between Census Tract 63 and our definition of Madison Park, however, is fairly insignificant—amounting, by my count, to 60 or 70 high-end houses.

The City of Seattle, meanwhile, has a very different take on Madison Park’s southern border, eliminating almost all of Washington Park from Madison Park. Here’s what the City’s neighborhood map looks like:


As you can see, a majority of the territory south of E. Madison Street is missing, including all the blocks south of E. Prospect Street and most of the blocks south of E. Lee Street. In fact, the southern border of Madison Park, as defined on the City’s map, is what some people think is the real border between Washington Park and Madison Park. In other words, everything south of E. Madison Street doesn’t necessarily constitute Washington Park, just certain blocks. And these are the very blocks that appear not to be a part of Madison Park in the City’s opinion. In fact the City seems to think that Washington Park is part of some other neighborhood, namely something called Harrison Denny-Blaine.

Now if you have never heard of Harrison Denny-Blaine, you are not alone. Denny-Blaine is certainly a recognized neighborhood, but Harrison Denny-Blaine? If you Google it you find that every reference to HDB ties back to the City’s use of the term on its neighborhood maps. Real estate websites such as Zillow, Redfin and Trulia follow the City’s convention and use the HDB designation, as does Google (although Google places the neighborhood south of Washington Park rather than including Washington Park in HDB).

Why the City appears to believe there’s a Harrison Denny-Blaine neighborhood and why Washington Park is included in it are among the issues we will explore in Part Two of this story, to be posted next week. We’ll also explain why the Madison Park houses located closest to Washington Park Arboretum are designated as “Madison Park” by realtors while some houses that are closest to Madison Park itself (the actual city park, that is) are designated as “Washington Park.”

.

Confused? Stay tuned.

.

[Historic photos courtesty of the Seattle Municipal Archives.]

Post-Halloween color in the Park

We lucked out over the weekend with some sunny, warm weather,

which inspired me to get out and wander around the 'hood, camera in hand.

Although I have never considered myself much of a photographer, a day like Sunday in a neighborhood like ours presented some great opportunities for documenting the fall scene that were hard to resist.

.

These maple trees sure look great now (but there's a lot of fall leaf raking ahead):

.

Trick or drink?

My neighbors, Adele and Dan Clancy, took what (at least from my perspective) was an innvoative approach to Halloween last Saturday, dressing up and roaming about the neighborhood with empty wine glasses in hand. I'm not sure how many unsuspecting homeowners they accosted with their apparently novel opening line: "Trick or Drink!", but I understand that the tactic (or was it a strategy?) worked very well at multiple locations, including at the Madison Park residence pictured above.

.

They were, unfortunately, SOL* at our house (no wine on the premises), but we'll be better prepared in the future. Next year we'll report on whether these two fun-loving characters have "double-handedly" been able to establish a new Holloween fashion for Madison Park. A trend has to start somewhere!

.

*For this audience I can translate the acronym as 'Sorry, Out of Luck."

.

[Photo by David Hutchins, aka Jimmy Olsen.]

Preview of a possible SR-520 solution

Although it is not anticipated that the upcoming construction of State Route 520 will have significant direct impact on Madison Park, we will certainly have a front-row seat from which to view the expansion project when it gets underway in 2012. And it is almost certainly the case that the Arboretum will be directly affected by both the construction and the placement of one of the freeway on-ramps, depending on which design option is ultimately chosen.

Given the probable interest in all this by MPB readers, I thought I'd take a look at what the Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT) is saying about the SR-520 expansion and floating-bridge replacement program. Without much investigative effort I discovered that DOT has some pretty interesting information easily available on its site. The video above provides a visually arresting simulation of driving on one of three options for the "west side" approach to the new bridge (click on HQ in the lower right corner for higher-resolution video quality). Simulations of driving on the other two options are also available on the DOT website.

To date, the only construction that is underway on this project has to do with the testing of various methods for building the pontoons. This is happening in Satsop, with ultimate construction of the pontoons to take place in the Grays Harbor area. Some of the pontoons for the new bridge will be the largest ever built, according to the DOT: "360 feet long, 75 feet wide and weighing over 11,000 tons. That’s as long as a football field and as heavy as 23 Boeing 747 jets." That's big.

In case you wonder why the State thinks that the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (pardon me, the Governor Albert D. Rosellini Bridge) is vulnerable and needs to be replaced, you need look no further than this simulation of the bridge's likely response to an earthquake:

Dilettante journalism and a philosophy of blogging

.

On what was, coincidentally, the six-month anniversary of this blog, I had lunch last week with a professional journalist—in other words, someone who is actually paid to investigate and report. What I do as a blogger, it turns out, is not that different from what she does as a newspaper reporter, except that as an amateur journalist I do not get paid for my efforts.

Though we represent opposite sides of the old-media-versus-new-media divide, I discovered that among the things we share is a love of uncovering a story, a sense of purpose and accomplishment for doing what we do, and a common journalistic ethic. If it paid any money, I would be a newspaper reporter rather than a banker. Instead, I have found my calling as a part-time blogger—a dabbler in the business of communication.

Which isn’t to say, however, that as a blogger I don’t have standards. In adhering to a journalistic protocol, I am certainly not unique within the Seattle hyperlocal blogging community. Most of the neighborhood bloggers clearly take their jobs as journalists very seriously (even though some do cross the line into advocacy journalism from time to time). Hyperlocal blogging is really citizen journalism, after all, and the form is still evolving.

Not everyone believes that bloggers are professionals, however. In my half year “in the business” I’ve found that bloggers simply do not get the level of respect enjoyed by their broadcast and print-media counterparts. After introducing a newspaper-tax-break bill into the legislature this year, for example, House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, gave this quote to the blog TechFlash: “Anybody who’s blogging, God love ‘em, can say and do whatever they want, because they have no liability or responsibility for what they say, because they are not held to any standard, and they shouldn’t be—they’re just individuals editorializing, if you will.”

I take exception to that description. Bloggers do have a responsibility to the readers they serve and, as been pointed out by the one of the founders of the West Seattle Blog, we are no more (and certainly no less) licensed or certified to produce content than any newspaper is. Bloggers will be successful only so long as there are readers who believe we are credible.

Journalists are supposed to live up to certain standards of journalism, and I think a similar code of “professional” conduct is required of bloggers. Here are the elements of my own personal blogging code:

1. Be fair and accurate
2. Separate reporting from editorializing
3. Give attribution and provide hyperlinks to sources
4. Avoid conflicts of interest
5. Correct and note errors

Perhaps there are other necessary standards for this blog, the need for which will later become obvious; but I think this is a good start.

There’s one last point to make, and that involves philosophy. I started thinking about this during the summer after getting an email from one of my loyal readers whose story idea I had rejected. He graciously accepted my rationale for not following up on his suggested posting and ended by stating: “It is always a good idea to have an operating philosophy.” I agree, so I am going to spell mine out.

First of all, this is a blog about Madison Park, the geographic definition of which can be found in the lower portion of the right column. Stories that are about events, places, or people who live in the Park are fit subjects for this blog. Stories of broader interest that have some special impact on the Park or the people in it are also grist for this blog mill (an example of this might be the upcoming SR-520 expansion).

I make the assumption, however, that all of my readers have easy access to other media and regularly consult these sources for information on “macro issues” such as political and economic conditions in the wide world outside the Park. Thus I do not feel the need to cover the mayor’s race on this blog (unless there is some campaign issue that uniquely relates to the Park), or talk about Referendum 71.

The reason this blog exists (i.e. “why I blog”) is that there is no timely and effective alternative method for communicating information about the Park to the people who live here. And until there is, it’s my goal to keep MPB readers informed about what’s happening, what’s going to happen, and even what should be happening in Madison Park.

That’s my operating philosophy.

[I was made aware of Rep. Kessler's comments by reading the blog of MyBallard's founder, Cory Bergman, as quoted on www.hyperlocalblogger.com. The graphic, Blogito ergo sum (I blog, therefore I am), was created on Flickr.]

Halloween in the Park

Madison Park may not have made Zillow.com's list of Top Seattle Trick or Treat Neighborhoods, but kids here still manage to do quite well for themselves every Halloween. They can get an early start on the action by trick or treating Madison Park businesses on Saturday, October 31, from 3 until 5 pm. Pictures of trick or treaters will be taken at Triangle Park, in front of Bing's. The Madison Park Business Association is the sponsor of this annual event.

The Washington Park Arboretum Association, meanwhile, is sponsoring a "Halloween in the Dark Spooktacular" on Saturday from 4 until 8 pm for families with children aged 6 to 12. Pre-registration is requited ($6 per person). It's a BYOF (Bring Your Own Flashlight) kind of event, which starts at the Graham Visitors Center in the Arboretum. For more information, contact Jean Robins at jrobins@u.washington.edu or 206-685-8033.

The reason Zillow gives, by the way, for deciding that Madison Park and Broadmoor are not as good as Wallingford or Magnolia to trick or treat in is that "while homeowners in these prestigious 'hoods may pass out a king-sized Snickers here and there, the homes are more spread out with long driveways and gates, thus not very conducive to kids travelling by foot." Since Zillow's ratings were picked up by KING-TV and several websites perhaps we should expect fewer out-of-neighborhood trick or treaters this Halloween. More treats for the home grown.

[Graphics courtesy of Photobucket and Madison Park Business Association, respectively.]

September Real Estate Report

Has the market finally turned?

September was such a spectacular month for home sales in Madison Park that it caused one realtor to proclaim that “the logjam has finally broken” in the local real estate market. Perhaps so. Eleven houses and two condos were sold during the month, a huge increase from the dismal five sales recorded in July and the seven closings in August. September is normally not a big sales month here in the Park, making this year’s numbers particularly impressive:


The October closings, at least though the mid-point of the month, also seem to support the hope that the market here is finally on a sustainable upward trajectory. There were seven sales in the first two weeks of the month, and 12 homes were listed as “pending” sale by mid-October, according to the Northwest Multiple Listing Service (MLS).

Not everyone is ready to declare victory, however. One very experienced agent told me she was really not sure that the recent uptick was conclusive. She has a point. Looking at the home-sale numbers over the past couple of years shows that the market this year is still struggling to regain the level of sales experienced even as recently as 2008, when the market had already leveled off:

So the bottom line is this: the market is definitely on the move, but it may be a few more months before it becomes obvious that we are finally out of “the trough.”

Here’s where the market stands at the end of October. These numbers, based on listings reported by Redfin, cover all of Madison Park—Washington Park and Broadmoor included:

Single-Family Homes

Listings: 63
Median List Price: $1,995,000
Median Sq. Ft.: 4,040
Median Price per Sq. Ft.: $494
Average Days on Market: 136
Proportion with Price Reductions: 38%


Condos & Townhouses

Listings: 31
Median List Price: $635,000
Median Sq. Ft.: 1,131
Median Price per Sq. Ft.: $561
Average Days on Market: 176
Proportion with Price Reductions: 52%

The fact that inventory levels have declined to 94 listings is worth noting, since up until this month the Park has apparently not had less than 100 total listings all year. Interestingly, all of the houses sold in September closed for more than $1 million, according to the MLS. The most expensive was a $2,850,000, 6,200 sq. ft. Washington Park residence built in 2002. The least expensive was a $1,060,000 1959 ranch-style house located in the Canterbury section of the Park. The average time on the market for sold houses was 173 days, and the average discount at sale from the list price was 10% (the discount for condos was 13%). These percentages understate the true discount from the seller’s initial hopes, however, since six of the sold homes were originally listed at prices that were higher than their final list prices.

Again in September the pattern continued where the largest listed homes were the ones most likely to still be awaiting a buyer, though the homes that did close were still significantly bigger than the median Madison Park residence (as computed by Zillow.com):

There are a few houses for sale in the Park for less than $1 million (11, to be precise), but they represent only 17% of the available inventory. One example is the house shown above, a two-bedroom 1940’s cottage listed at $649,950.

.
When the market was hot, this was precisely the kind of house that would have been purchased by a speculative builder with the intention of tearing it down and building the biggest house allowable. That’s probably not going to happen with this property this year, for reasons we’ll explore below.

September also saw the first case I am aware of in Madison Park of a short sale. There’s been a lot of discussion of this phenomenon in the press recently, but it is not something that has heretofore impacted the local market. What happens in a short sale is that the lender agrees to allow the property owner to sell the house for less than what is owed on the mortgage. The lender then “eats” the loss. Redfin reports this month that a Broadmoor house which is listed for more than $2 million is now in that short-sale category as a result of its latest price reduction.

Broadmoor, for whatever reason, seems to be pretty much stuck where it has been for many months: few sales and 25 to 30 houses on the market. Broadmoor represents 41% of the homes currently listed in Madison Park, while constituting less than 20% of the total homes in the neighborhood. There was one Broadmoor sale in September and no sales reported to date in October, according to the MLS. Broadmoor’s 26 listed houses are not more expensive than those for sale in Washington Park (median for-sale prices being $1,950,000 and $2,695,000 respectively), but Broadmoor’s are substantially older. The median year built for listed houses in Broadmoor is 1935, versus 1966 for Washington Park. The numbers for Washington Park are admittedly somewhat skewed by the fact that there are six speculative houses for sale there, all built within the last three years.

A tough market for spec builders

By my count, there are eight spec houses currently on the market in Madison Park, including two north of E. Madison Street. Houses built by speculative builders now constitute almost 20% of the houses for sale in the non-Broadmoor portion of Madison Park (Broadmoor does not allow spec building).

It’s a difficult time for the speculative builders who have normally worked the Park. Each has, at minimum, scaled back operations since the height of the market in 2007. Some have apparently ceased operations altogether, other than attempting to sell their existing inventory.

One of the most prolific re-developers of Madison Park properties over the past four years was Blueline Developers, which built ten houses in the neighborhood, ranging in price from $1.2 to $2.4 million. But they’re not building anything now and probably won’t be doing any redevelopments on their own account anytime soon, according to Lorenzo Smith, one of the firm’s principals.

“Right now,” he told me, “we’ve developed all of the properties we owned.” The game plan for the foreseeable future, he said, is to “hunker down and wait it out.” Smith noted two major restrictions on developers in the market: lack of bank financing for builders, and stringent requirements and higher rates for home buyers needing jumbo mortgages. “Developers are almost a dirty word with banks right now,” he commented. “We’ve talked to lots of different developers and the situation is the same for everyone.”

What this means for Blueline is that they have reduced staff to about 25% of what they had at the peak, and the company is currently only doing contract work for clients wanting remodels, build-outs, and new construction. Smith agreed that the market seems to be improving, “but we would want to see a little more movement before jumping back in.”

Chaffey Homes, which has also been a major player in redeveloping properties in Madison Park, has a similar wait-and-see attitude. Kevin Murray, the company’s Vice President, told me that he is “quite hopeful” that the market has turned. “It feels like we’re still in the trough, but we’re starting to see positive upward pressure,” he said. This is more the case for homes selling for well under $1 million, he noted, than for areas with pricier homes such as Madison Park. Nevertheless, Chaffey did chalk up a win here last month, selling the one house it had for sale in the Park. The house sold for about $1,650,000, which was only a slight discount from its asking price. Murray, who lives in the Park, said "it is great to see solid activity in our neighborhood over the last couple months".

.

Chaffey’s homes in the area have generally been in the $1.5-$2.2 million range. For this segment, Murray told me, there have been a lot of people who have been watching the market but not making the move to buy. He notes that some buyers want new, and once the available new houses start being absorbed, there may not be replacements in this market any time soon. Now that some houses are selling, this may accelerate buy decisions by those who have been waiting on the sidelines.

.

Murray commented that Chaffey has one other house almost ready to come onto the market (a Tudor-style house on 41st Avenue E.), but after that the company has no immediate plans to develop other properties in the area. He noted that Chaffey owns a Madison Park house that it intended to eventually tear down and redevelop. But “we’ve decided to sit tight for now,” he told me. This, in spite of the fact that there’s a building permit in place. Chaffey is treating the house as a rental property at this point. “If we see a couple more new homes sell, we might reevaluate the situation,” he added.

One area spec builder, however, seems to be taking a different view of the market and is moving forward with its redevelopment plans. M2K Developers, which is just completing a 4,000 sq. ft. spec house in the 1400 block of 38th Avenue E. (shown below), is also constructing two 5,000 sq. ft. houses on the 1500 block of 37th Avenue E., near McGilvra School.

.

I asked M2K partner Mike Culwell what prompts such a gutsy move at this time. His reply: “We’re fairly bullish on this market, though not as much as we were two years ago.” Culwell, who also lives in Madison Park, noted that “the area has great appeal as a destination neighborhood, has proximity to downtown and the eastside, and it’s a great place to live.” He said M2K would probably not be willing to do property redevelopments in any other Seattle neighborhood right now, but he is comfortable going ahead with the projects here that M2K had already planned. He noted, however, that his crews have been thinned out—and the company is slowing construction on its projects so as not to put all of its properties on the market at the same time. “There’s no reason to hurry these things through now,” he said, “but there’s also no reason to stop.”

Another developer called M2K’s decision “bold,” but noted that it’s possible M2K may end up having the only new-construction houses on the market at the point things really open up for the jumbo-mortgage segment.

The issue for most spec builders with houses already on the market is whether they can sit and wait for the market to turn. As one noted, “you can’t hold out forever.” Every month that a house remains unsold means another month of profit-eating carrying costs, which include taxes, insurance, maintenance expenses, and interest on financing.

The two houses shown below, located on the 1200 block of 42nd Avenue E., were built by separate spec builders in 2007 and 2008 respectively. After sitting with their houses unsold for at least a year, each of the builders independently made the tough choice to rent out the houses with a view to re-listing them when the market improved. That decision apparently paid off for Ryan McKinney, the builder of the 3,700 sq. ft. house on the left. His house is one of those on this month’s pending list.

.

.

[Thanks to Wendy Skerritt of Windermere Realty for her help in providing some of the market data utilized in this report. In addition to information reported by the MLS, homes sales data include sales recorded by the King County Assessor’s Office that were not reported in MLS totals.]

Treacherous sidewalks: who’s at fault?

It’s hardly surprising that in a venerable old neighborhood such as ours many of the sidewalks have degenerated to a condition something well short of pristine. Indeed, some Madison Park sidewalks are in such disrepair that they constitute a real safety hazard for the unsuspecting walker or runner. Many Madison Parkers have learned (in some cases, the hard way) that the best approach to navigating sidewalks in the neighborhood is with one’s eyes firmly glued to the pavement. And when fall leaves cover the sidewalks it’s best to be doubly vigilant, for it may not be obvious what lurks beneath all of that autumn color.

Many sidewalks here date to the early 1900’s, and over time a lot of shifting may have occurred in the ground underneath. The biggest culprit is tree roots, but water is another major factor in undermining sidewalks and causing them to dislocate. These are the principal reasons why our neighborhood sidewalks got into bad shape, but the reason why some of them remain in a deplorable state is that many of us simply fail to live up our obligations.

Now I know that this is probably going to come as a tremendous shock to a few of you, but it is a fact that under City ordinance property owners are responsible for the sidewalks adjacent to their property. What this means in practice is this: if you are a home owner you must keep the public “right of way” surrounding your property in good condition and clear of obstructions. Cracks in the sidewalk and uneven surfaces must be repaired—and don’t expect to be reimbursed by the City for your efforts.

There is a big exception to the rule, however. And that has to do with damage to the sidewalk that is caused by trees that are City owned. You are responsible for reporting the sidewalk damage, but the City is responsible for making the repairs. If you are unaware of whether the City owns the offending trees, you may call the Urban Forest Office (684-8733) to find out. The sidewalk repair just completed in the business district along E. Madison Street is being paid for by the City, which was the owner of the trees whose roots were responsible for most of the uneven sidewalks in the area. It is common, I am told, for the City to own trees along arterial routes; but it is much less likely for the City to own the trees on side streets.

According to the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), sidewalk repairs must first be approved by the City, which will grant a “street use permit” for the work. Asphalt or cement patches and “shins” (such as those shown below) can be acceptable alternatives to replacing an entire section of sidewalk.

Another option is to have the concrete “shaved” in order to create an even surface.

SDOT spokesperson Marybeth Turner told me that concerns about dangerous sidewalks should first be addressed to the respective property owner. If the appropriate repairs are not made, SDOT should then be notified. At that point, she said, the department’s Street Use Section will investigate the complaint and, where appropriate, issue a notice to the property owner to correct the problem.

.
What happens if the property owner does not take action? Well that’s a little less than clear. Turner said “we may refer the issue to our law department for legal action,” but when I pressed her on whether such action had ever been taken against a property owner she said she would have to get back to me.

I later received this finely crafted statement from her, quoting SDOT Right of Way Manager Brian dePlace:

“Usually, if the sidewalk is uplifted due to something the property owner is responsible for (a private tree, collapsed side sewer), they realize it’s in their best interest to comply. We do issue Notices of Violation, which informs the responsible party that we may take legal action if they do not comply. Generally, we achieve compliance at this point.”

So now you know.

[Afterthought: Some of you may wonder why “sidewalk safety” is worthy of a posting when it might just as well fit into that catch-all blog category that I sometimes joke about, pet peeves--those little (sometimes petty) irritations we Madison Parkers have about life here in the ‘hood. The difference is this: I personally know several people who have been injured as a result of falling on unrepaired sidewalks in the neighborhood, and several years ago I myself broke my jaw in a fall on my own block. So here’s the rule for this blog: if something is just irritating to people then it’s a pet peeve; if it’s irritating and dangerous, then it’s a problem worthy of comment; and if I personally have been negatively impacted, then it’s a real issue of concern. I hope I’ve made these distinctions clear.]