Home / Uncategorized / Is no parking in Green Lake a deal killer?

Is no parking in Green Lake a deal killer?

By Matt Goyer March 1, 2007

Another reader has a question for the audience which I’m happy to entertain here.

I work for a small real estate firm and we have some sites tied up with the intention of developing a portfolio of for-rent
product in Seattle. However, I am interested in building to condo specs and potentially converting to condos or selling to a converter. The question is this:

Would you be willing to consider buying a condo in a new building without an on-site parking space (Green Lake/Roosevelt neighborhood), or would the lack thereof that far from downtown be a deal killer?

Would you opinion change if the unit price was 30,000 below “market” prices (approximate cost of stall at one per unit) and a buyer allowance of 5,000 (one time allowance at closing) was provided for off-site parking?

I own and manage Urban Living, a boutique Seattle and Bellevue real estate brokerage. I love lofts, floating homes, new construction, and mid-century moderns, but I will help you buy or sell just about anything!

Get in touch to:

Understand the market
Find your perfect home
Sell your home

Contact:
[email protected]
206-203-6242

30 responses to “Is no parking in Green Lake a deal killer?”

Cameron says:

March 1, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Love the neighborhood but personally would not buy a unit anywhere, even downtown, if it did not have at least the option of an onsite parking spot. Even if I did not have or need a car I would not be prepared to impact the future resale value.
Cameron says:

March 1, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Love the neighborhood but personally would not buy a unit anywhere, even downtown, if it did not have at least the option of an onsite parking spot. Even if I did not have or need a car I would not be prepared to impact the future resale value.
Cameron says:

March 1, 2007 at 11:54 am

Love the neighborhood but personally would not buy a unit anywhere, even downtown, if it did not have at least the option of an onsite parking spot. Even if I did not have or need a car I would not be prepared to impact the future resale value.
Brian says:

March 1, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Also, 30k seems low for “market rate” at the moment. Even the Decatur is selling spots for 45k…
Brian says:

March 1, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Also, 30k seems low for “market rate” at the moment. Even the Decatur is selling spots for 45k…
Brian says:

March 1, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Also, 30k seems low for “market rate” at the moment. Even the Decatur is selling spots for 45k…
Cosmo Seattle says:

March 1, 2007 at 8:09 pm

I thinks its a grand idea as in would seem to create more affordable condo options while at the same time encouraging a car-less existence. Id consider it if I liked the area more. Not urban enough.
Cosmo Seattle says:

March 1, 2007 at 8:09 pm

I thinks its a grand idea as in would seem to create more affordable condo options while at the same time encouraging a car-less existence. Id consider it if I liked the area more. Not urban enough.
Cosmo Seattle says:

March 1, 2007 at 12:09 pm

I thinks it’s a grand idea as in would seem to create more affordable condo options while at the same time encouraging a car-less existence. I’d consider it if I liked the area more. Not urban enough.
Ben says:

March 1, 2007 at 8:19 pm

Would there not be any on-site parking at all or would it be available as an option? Certainly, having a deeded or community parking space would be preferable, and as Cameron pointed out it may impact resale value.

That said, there’s more surface parking available in the Green Lake / Roosevelt areas (away from the biz districts) so parking may not necessarily be an issue for potential buyers. And, if someone purchases it as a rental, the most obvious renters would be UW students, many of whom may not have a vehicle.

Though, personally, I’d only purchase if it had on-site parking.
Ben says:

March 1, 2007 at 8:19 pm

Would there not be any on-site parking at all or would it be available as an option? Certainly, having a deeded or community parking space would be preferable, and as Cameron pointed out it may impact resale value.

That said, there’s more surface parking available in the Green Lake / Roosevelt areas (away from the biz districts) so parking may not necessarily be an issue for potential buyers. And, if someone purchases it as a rental, the most obvious renters would be UW students, many of whom may not have a vehicle.

Though, personally, I’d only purchase if it had on-site parking.
Ben says:

March 1, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Would there not be any on-site parking at all or would it be available as an option? Certainly, having a deeded or community parking space would be preferable, and as Cameron pointed out it may impact resale value.

That said, there’s more surface parking available in the Green Lake / Roosevelt areas (away from the biz districts) so parking may not necessarily be an issue for potential buyers. And, if someone purchases it as a rental, the most obvious renters would be UW students, many of whom may not have a vehicle.

Though, personally, I’d only purchase if it had on-site parking.
Tom says:

March 1, 2007 at 10:44 pm

If this is in a zone that requires Commercial street frontage, you are going to be required to have parking for said commercial spaces unless you can minimize it to below 2500 S.F.

One of the largest reasons to avoid supplying parking is cost obviously, however if you are going to avoid this cost and then have to charge less as a result it seams to me that it is a bit of a wash.

Granted, there might be a a minor profit, but there is also a lot of added risk. The average condo buyer out there does not think of a parking space as a commodity, that is what a second parking space is for. You can assume that if you offer the option for parking, some will take it, others won’t, but on the flip side, there are a decent number of people who won’t look at the building at all without parking. Personally, I don’t think that the risk is worth the potential minor reward.

Additional bonuses to a parking garage.

1. It is impossible for you to use all the space in a garage for parking. This allows you to move utilities such as meter rooms, water retention vaults, storage, transformer vaults and boiler (if applicable) into those spaces and take them out of the sell able square footage.

2.) I believe that regardless of use you must supply a handicapped stall and entrance, Parking garages are perfect for this.

To say that anyone or even most of the people renting in that area are UW students I would say is a mistake and marketing that direction would be a mistake. In addition, almost everyone I knew who went to UW had a car and those that didn’t lived in frats / sororities.

Additionally, Greenlake has become a virtual breeding ground for the young professional. While many of us would like to rid our areas of “the car” it simply is not a realistic option until the city gets a better mass transit system. Too many of these people must commute to work, whether it be downtown Seattle, or all too often Bellevue and Redmond to Microsoft.

All things to think about, but most of it simply opinion and experience.
Tom says:

March 1, 2007 at 10:44 pm

If this is in a zone that requires Commercial street frontage, you are going to be required to have parking for said commercial spaces unless you can minimize it to below 2500 S.F.

One of the largest reasons to avoid supplying parking is cost obviously, however if you are going to avoid this cost and then have to charge less as a result it seams to me that it is a bit of a wash.

Granted, there might be a a minor profit, but there is also a lot of added risk. The average condo buyer out there does not think of a parking space as a commodity, that is what a second parking space is for. You can assume that if you offer the option for parking, some will take it, others won’t, but on the flip side, there are a decent number of people who won’t look at the building at all without parking. Personally, I don’t think that the risk is worth the potential minor reward.

Additional bonuses to a parking garage.

1. It is impossible for you to use all the space in a garage for parking. This allows you to move utilities such as meter rooms, water retention vaults, storage, transformer vaults and boiler (if applicable) into those spaces and take them out of the sell able square footage.

2.) I believe that regardless of use you must supply a handicapped stall and entrance, Parking garages are perfect for this.

To say that anyone or even most of the people renting in that area are UW students I would say is a mistake and marketing that direction would be a mistake. In addition, almost everyone I knew who went to UW had a car and those that didn’t lived in frats / sororities.

Additionally, Greenlake has become a virtual breeding ground for the young professional. While many of us would like to rid our areas of “the car” it simply is not a realistic option until the city gets a better mass transit system. Too many of these people must commute to work, whether it be downtown Seattle, or all too often Bellevue and Redmond to Microsoft.

All things to think about, but most of it simply opinion and experience.
Tom says:

March 1, 2007 at 2:44 pm

If this is in a zone that requires Commercial street frontage, you are going to be required to have parking for said commercial spaces unless you can minimize it to below 2500 S.F.

One of the largest reasons to avoid supplying parking is cost obviously, however if you are going to avoid this cost and then have to charge less as a result it seams to me that it is a bit of a wash.

Granted, there might be a a minor profit, but there is also a lot of added risk. The average condo buyer out there does not think of a parking space as a commodity, that is what a second parking space is for. You can assume that if you offer the option for parking, some will take it, others won’t, but on the flip side, there are a decent number of people who won’t look at the building at all without parking. Personally, I don’t think that the risk is worth the potential minor reward.

Additional bonuses to a parking garage.

1. It is impossible for you to use all the space in a garage for parking. This allows you to move utilities such as meter rooms, water retention vaults, storage, transformer vaults and boiler (if applicable) into those spaces and take them out of the sell able square footage.

2.) I believe that regardless of use you must supply a handicapped stall and entrance, Parking garages are perfect for this.

To say that anyone or even most of the people renting in that area are UW students I would say is a mistake and marketing that direction would be a mistake. In addition, almost everyone I knew who went to UW had a car and those that didn’t lived in frats / sororities.

Additionally, Greenlake has become a virtual breeding ground for the young professional. While many of us would like to rid our areas of “the car” it simply is not a realistic option until the city gets a better mass transit system. Too many of these people must commute to work, whether it be downtown Seattle, or all too often Bellevue and Redmond to Microsoft.

All things to think about, but most of it simply opinion and experience.
mhays says:

March 1, 2007 at 11:16 pm

I’d certainly buy without parking. By marketing units specifically as “no space = more space” you’d certainly attract the attention to those of us without cars. The $5,000 allowance is problematic — I’d wonder why I, who would not use the allowance, wasn’t getting my $5,000 too. Why not ditch the $5,000 and just sell units for less?

PS, I’ll stay in Belltown. But Green Lake would be great if I worked within walking distance!

The concept isn’t without risk. But if it’s a small number of units and within a block of good transit and services, it sounds very workable.
mhays says:

March 1, 2007 at 11:16 pm

I’d certainly buy without parking. By marketing units specifically as “no space = more space” you’d certainly attract the attention to those of us without cars. The $5,000 allowance is problematic — I’d wonder why I, who would not use the allowance, wasn’t getting my $5,000 too. Why not ditch the $5,000 and just sell units for less?

PS, I’ll stay in Belltown. But Green Lake would be great if I worked within walking distance!

The concept isn’t without risk. But if it’s a small number of units and within a block of good transit and services, it sounds very workable.
mhays says:

March 1, 2007 at 3:16 pm

I’d certainly buy without parking. By marketing units specifically as “no space = more space” you’d certainly attract the attention to those of us without cars. The $5,000 allowance is problematic — I’d wonder why I, who would not use the allowance, wasn’t getting my $5,000 too. Why not ditch the $5,000 and just sell units for less?

PS, I’ll stay in Belltown. But Green Lake would be great if I worked within walking distance!

The concept isn’t without risk. But if it’s a small number of units and within a block of good transit and services, it sounds very workable.
Kristin says:

March 2, 2007 at 5:52 pm

No parking spot is a total dealbreaker for me. When I was looking to buy, I wouldn’t even consider LOOKING at the place if it didn’t come with parking- especially since most new constructions do offer one.
Kristin says:

March 2, 2007 at 5:52 pm

No parking spot is a total dealbreaker for me. When I was looking to buy, I wouldn’t even consider LOOKING at the place if it didn’t come with parking- especially since most new constructions do offer one.
Kristin says:

March 2, 2007 at 9:52 am

No parking spot is a total dealbreaker for me. When I was looking to buy, I wouldn’t even consider LOOKING at the place if it didn’t come with parking- especially since most new constructions do offer one.
Chris says:

March 2, 2007 at 6:11 pm

thanks for posting, Matt. I’ll add more detail:

In this concept, the parking ratio would be just above .5 per unit, so about half of the unit buyers could have parking on site. I’m in the process of identifying nearby lots (w/i a block of the site) where parking would be available for lease to potential owners.

The 30K is pass long savings on the stall, which would be lowere than the retail price and somewhat lower than the replacement cost
Chris says:

March 2, 2007 at 6:11 pm

thanks for posting, Matt. I’ll add more detail:

In this concept, the parking ratio would be just above .5 per unit, so about half of the unit buyers could have parking on site. I’m in the process of identifying nearby lots (w/i a block of the site) where parking would be available for lease to potential owners.

The 30K is pass long savings on the stall, which would be lowere than the retail price and somewhat lower than the replacement cost
Chris says:

March 2, 2007 at 10:11 am

thanks for posting, Matt. I’ll add more detail:

In this concept, the parking ratio would be just above .5 per unit, so about half of the unit buyers could have parking on site. I’m in the process of identifying nearby lots (w/i a block of the site) where parking would be available for lease to potential owners.

The 30K is pass long savings on the stall, which would be lowere than the retail price and somewhat lower than the replacement cost
Cameron says:

March 2, 2007 at 6:51 pm

One suggestion that sort of picks up where mhays left off. In San Francisco, buildings with less than one spot per unit (often studios can’t have parking) are starting to provide a spot or two for flex-car or car-share programs. That could take the sting out of it for those that don’t need to drive daily but want access to a convenient car.
Cameron says:

March 2, 2007 at 6:51 pm

One suggestion that sort of picks up where mhays left off. In San Francisco, buildings with less than one spot per unit (often studios can’t have parking) are starting to provide a spot or two for flex-car or car-share programs. That could take the sting out of it for those that don’t need to drive daily but want access to a convenient car.
Cameron says:

March 2, 2007 at 10:51 am

One suggestion that sort of picks up where mhays left off. In San Francisco, buildings with less than one spot per unit (often studios can’t have parking) are starting to provide a spot or two for flex-car or car-share programs. That could take the sting out of it for those that don’t need to drive daily but want access to a convenient car.
EconE says:

March 4, 2007 at 2:21 am

No parking is a total bust.

Even 1 br’s here in L.A. can come with 2 spots…but it’s more of a car culture down here.

Regardless…as much as I’m for cycling/public transit/walking etc…I would have to have a car…and a flexi car wouldn’t cut it either.
EconE says:

March 4, 2007 at 2:21 am

No parking is a total bust.

Even 1 br’s here in L.A. can come with 2 spots…but it’s more of a car culture down here.

Regardless…as much as I’m for cycling/public transit/walking etc…I would have to have a car…and a flexi car wouldn’t cut it either.
EconE says:

March 3, 2007 at 6:21 pm

No parking is a total bust.

Even 1 br’s here in L.A. can come with 2 spots…but it’s more of a car culture down here.

Regardless…as much as I’m for cycling/public transit/walking etc…I would have to have a car…and a flexi car wouldn’t cut it either.

Is no parking in Green Lake a deal killer?

Ask Matt a Question

Ask us a Question

Keep your finger on the pulse each week