Home / Seattle Condos / Denny Triangle / The Cosmopolitan / Seattle PI on Cosmo struggle

Seattle PI on Cosmo struggle

By Matt Goyer December 4, 2007

Aubrey at the Seattle PI has an article on the well discussed tower spacing issue at Cosmo, Condo owners struggle for views as Seattle rises.

The article mentions two folks who have actually left the building because of this. One sold, the other is renting their place out. The article also has a sound bite from chairman of the Urban Development and Planning Committee:

Developers strongly opposed tower spacing and the final rules were a compromise, said City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, chairman of the council’s Urban Development and Planning Committee. He called the Cosmopolitan situation “shocking.”

Of particular value in the article is this info graphic:

Yes, it’s buyer beware but downtown condo consumers need more rights here.

18 foot tower separation may be acceptable for two office towers but it is not for residential towers
Developers should bear responsibility for notifying their pre-construction buyers of zoning changes
Consumers should have protection in the purchase and sale against zoning changes

Time to form our own lobby group.

And of course the Seattle PI trolls think that we get what we deserve when we buy downtown.

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

34 responses to “Seattle PI on Cosmo struggle”

Chris says:

December 4, 2007 at 9:25 pm

Just want to point out its in the DOC-2 zone, as in downtown office core. there is ample zoning in the DMR and DMC zones where there are tower spacing reqs.

Its untoward that the developer did not notify the buyers about the change once the MUP on 1918 was approved. But having been notified, would the buyers have walked away from their deposits?
Chris says:

December 4, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Just want to point out its in the DOC-2 zone, as in downtown office core. there is ample zoning in the DMR and DMC zones where there are tower spacing reqs.

Its untoward that the developer did not notify the buyers about the change once the MUP on 1918 was approved. But having been notified, would the buyers have walked away from their deposits?
Jason says:

December 4, 2007 at 9:46 pm

I don’t know…I honestly think this is the risk one takes when you’re buying something not for what it is but for the eye can behold around it. I love views too, but nothing is permanent. I’m not arrogant enough to believe my little piece of property is the final word on an entire community within sight of me. New stuff is built. My condo probably fucked up someone else’s view. I’m sure wonderful things like the Empire State Building fucked up someone’s view circa 1930. This is why waterfront property is much more expensive, there is less chance of your view being wiped out 5, 10, even 100 years hence.

I can get behind historic preservation, construction and zoning laws that protect the overall aesthetic look of a city, and even height limits that are made for aesthetic or skyline preserving reasons (ie keeping super tall bldgs away from the immediate blocks adjacent to the Space Needle). However, I can’t get behind zoning that exists only to arbitrarily protect select property owners’ pocket books. If developers purposefully mislead (told there would be a 12 floor bldg next door when they knew it would be 30 floor) that’s another story, but buying based on view is a risk just like so much of real estate is. You have no guarantee your style house won’t fall out of fashion in ten years or that quiet, sleepy road next to your home won’t become a busy thoroughfare twenty years hence.
Jason says:

December 4, 2007 at 1:46 pm

I don’t know…I honestly think this is the risk one takes when you’re buying something not for what it is but for the eye can behold around it. I love views too, but nothing is permanent. I’m not arrogant enough to believe my little piece of property is the final word on an entire community within sight of me. New stuff is built. My condo probably fucked up someone else’s view. I’m sure wonderful things like the Empire State Building fucked up someone’s view circa 1930. This is why waterfront property is much more expensive, there is less chance of your view being wiped out 5, 10, even 100 years hence.

I can get behind historic preservation, construction and zoning laws that protect the overall aesthetic look of a city, and even height limits that are made for aesthetic or skyline preserving reasons (ie keeping super tall bldgs away from the immediate blocks adjacent to the Space Needle). However, I can’t get behind zoning that exists only to arbitrarily protect select property owners’ pocket books. If developers purposefully mislead (told there would be a 12 floor bldg next door when they knew it would be 30 floor) that’s another story, but buying based on view is a risk just like so much of real estate is. You have no guarantee your style house won’t fall out of fashion in ten years or that quiet, sleepy road next to your home won’t become a busy thoroughfare twenty years hence.
jo says:

December 4, 2007 at 10:17 pm

After reading those PI comments I have to wonder…when did everyone in Seattle become so bitter and angry? Apparently the “in” thing is to hate on those having money. I’ll never understand why so many take enjoyment in the misfortunes (Cosmo buyers, bubbleheads) of others.

Don’t know if the developer should be responsible for notifying buyers of zoning changes, that onus should reside with the buyers representation. Want to be notified? Have it written in your contract.

As far as having protection in the P+S, only if the buyer asks for it. I’d be willing to bet that the developer couldn’t renig his contract to buy the plot of land over a zoning change. Why should a condo owner be any different?

All the Cosmo owners had the option to walk away from their contract and lose the 5%. When a developer pre sells condos and the price on those units goes up 10%-15% by closing, do you ever hear the developer crying “not fair, not fair”? Nope. It’s part of the risk you take when you enter into a contract. Just happened this time it was the buyers coming out with the short end of the stick.

Hopefully many learn from what happened to the buyers at the Comso and have their P+S amended in ways to protect themselves in a similar situation.
jo says:

December 4, 2007 at 2:17 pm

After reading those PI comments I have to wonder…when did everyone in Seattle become so bitter and angry? Apparently the “in” thing is to hate on those having money. I’ll never understand why so many take enjoyment in the misfortunes (Cosmo buyers, bubbleheads) of others.

Don’t know if the developer should be responsible for notifying buyers of zoning changes, that onus should reside with the buyers representation. Want to be notified? Have it written in your contract.

As far as having protection in the P+S, only if the buyer asks for it. I’d be willing to bet that the developer couldn’t renig his contract to buy the plot of land over a zoning change. Why should a condo owner be any different?

All the Cosmo owners had the option to walk away from their contract and lose the 5%. When a developer pre sells condos and the price on those units goes up 10%-15% by closing, do you ever hear the developer crying “not fair, not fair”? Nope. It’s part of the risk you take when you enter into a contract. Just happened this time it was the buyers coming out with the short end of the stick.

Hopefully many learn from what happened to the buyers at the Comso and have their P+S amended in ways to protect themselves in a similar situation.
nitsuj says:

December 5, 2007 at 12:16 am

The cool thing about only being 18 feet apart is you can have a BBQ or roast marshmallows with your neighbor w/o having to leave your balcony.
nitsuj says:

December 4, 2007 at 4:16 pm

The cool thing about only being 18 feet apart is you can have a BBQ or roast marshmallows with your neighbor w/o having to leave your balcony.
EconE says:

December 5, 2007 at 8:43 am

I agree with pretty much all of the above comments. I’d also like to say that I think that Jo offers valuable advice as to what to include in a P+S agreement. People do pay premiums for view units but they must also take into consideration what might block the view in the future. Had I been in one of the West Facing units (ESPECIALLY the 08 & 09 studio and 1BR floorplans) of the Cosmo and found out about the behemoth before closing I would have walked from my 5% deposit and taken my chances.

Call me finicky, but to be honest, I won’t like my city view as well as I do now after this building is built…and that’s from the 2200 complex!

Where there is now a nice “depth” to the view with some architecturally interesting buildings in the background between the Cosmo and the Federal building…that view will be toast in another couple years.

Not to mention…If the proposed 901 Lenora building (40 stories?!?!) is built where the Social Security building currently it will suck even worse…not to mention cut out quite a bit of “sun time” for even the highest (Including the Penthouses) of the south facing units of the Arte Building.

Good thing I rent.

Oh…and CG…with regards to these situations all I can say is…(to quote Monty Python)…”YOU LUCKY BASTARD!!!”
EconE says:

December 5, 2007 at 12:43 am

I agree with pretty much all of the above comments. I’d also like to say that I think that Jo offers valuable advice as to what to include in a P+S agreement. People do pay premiums for view units but they must also take into consideration what might block the view in the future. Had I been in one of the West Facing units (ESPECIALLY the 08 & 09 studio and 1BR floorplans) of the Cosmo and found out about the behemoth before closing I would have walked from my 5% deposit and taken my chances.

Call me finicky, but to be honest, I won’t like my city view as well as I do now after this building is built…and that’s from the 2200 complex!

Where there is now a nice “depth” to the view with some architecturally interesting buildings in the background between the Cosmo and the Federal building…that view will be toast in another couple years.

Not to mention…If the proposed 901 Lenora building (40 stories?!?!) is built where the Social Security building currently it will suck even worse…not to mention cut out quite a bit of “sun time” for even the highest (Including the Penthouses) of the south facing units of the Arte Building.

Good thing I rent.

Oh…and CG…with regards to these situations all I can say is…(to quote Monty Python)…”YOU LUCKY BASTARD!!!”
Dunno says:

December 5, 2007 at 9:51 am

According to the comments above, what is the point of having any zoning laws? Why not allow a 300ft office tower to be built next to a suburban home? Why not allow a nuclear power plant to be built in the middle downtown? If you want to have a truly growing and vibrant city, you have to make it LIVEABLE! Wake up.
Dunno says:

December 5, 2007 at 1:51 am

According to the comments above, what is the point of having any zoning laws? Why not allow a 300ft office tower to be built next to a suburban home? Why not allow a nuclear power plant to be built in the middle downtown? If you want to have a truly growing and vibrant city, you have to make it LIVEABLE! Wake up.
Chris says:

December 5, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Seattle is approximately 84 square miles. approximatley 60% of that is zoned single-family, where there’s protection against just about everything. the vast majority of the multi-family zones have height limits between 40-65 feet, a small percentage have 85-120 feet. Then there’s the approximatley 2 square miles comprising downtown (ctr city neighborhoods) of which only 400 acres or so is “downtown office core 1 or 2” where there’s no tower spacing. the vast majority is already built out. In DOC 2 zones, half of the FAR for office is conditioned on bonuses such as affordable housing and public amenities, so its not exactly acrte blanche for the developer there either.

Just a little perspective
Chris says:

December 5, 2007 at 9:03 am

Seattle is approximately 84 square miles. approximatley 60% of that is zoned single-family, where there’s protection against just about everything. the vast majority of the multi-family zones have height limits between 40-65 feet, a small percentage have 85-120 feet. Then there’s the approximatley 2 square miles comprising downtown (ctr city neighborhoods) of which only 400 acres or so is “downtown office core 1 or 2” where there’s no tower spacing. the vast majority is already built out. In DOC 2 zones, half of the FAR for office is conditioned on bonuses such as affordable housing and public amenities, so its not exactly acrte blanche for the developer there either.

Just a little perspective
Kelly Nutt says:

December 5, 2007 at 5:52 pm

It is so important as a buyer to do your research. When purchasing a new home it can be extremely emotional for many people. You can get caught up in all the immediate things, such as the amazing view you might have. Like Jo said, write it into the P&S to get the correct answer.
Kelly Nutt says:

December 5, 2007 at 9:52 am

It is so important as a buyer to do your research. When purchasing a new home it can be extremely emotional for many people. You can get caught up in all the immediate things, such as the amazing view you might have. Like Jo said, write it into the P&S to get the correct answer.
mattgoyer says:

December 5, 2007 at 6:43 pm

I think it’s easy to say that the buyer can put a clause in the purchase and sale but how many buyers have successfully had a clause like that written into their new construction purchase and sale at a large development? I’d love to hear some examples of clauses that folks have added. Because in my limited experience I’ve found that the developer is unwilling to offer concessions. Maybe that will change if market conditions deteriorate but if things hold steady I don’t think developers are going to give up any control in the purchase and sale.
Matt says:

December 5, 2007 at 10:43 am

I think it’s easy to say that the buyer can put a clause in the purchase and sale but how many buyers have successfully had a clause like that written into their new construction purchase and sale at a large development? I’d love to hear some examples of clauses that folks have added. Because in my limited experience I’ve found that the developer is unwilling to offer concessions. Maybe that will change if market conditions deteriorate but if things hold steady I don’t think developers are going to give up any control in the purchase and sale.
Kelly says:

December 5, 2007 at 9:03 pm

In my experience in new construction homes, we have written and seen addenda on a form 34 written up as the purchaser has X amount of days (usually no more then 5 days) to review certain subjects. It does make sense that a developer would probably not give certain information, and they might not even have the information at this time, but it never hurts to ask!
Kelly says:

December 5, 2007 at 1:03 pm

In my experience in new construction homes, we have written and seen addenda on a form 34 written up as the purchaser has X amount of days (usually no more then 5 days) to review certain subjects. It does make sense that a developer would probably not give certain information, and they might not even have the information at this time, but it never hurts to ask!
CityChick says:

December 5, 2007 at 11:23 pm

As for new construction condo P & S clauses…based on our experiences – nada at Bellora and Cristalla. Yes at 2200 Westlake, which was surprising. I figured they would not budge on anything due to demand (we purchased pre-sale in ’05).
CityChick says:

December 5, 2007 at 3:23 pm

As for new construction condo P & S clauses…based on our experiences – nada at Bellora and Cristalla. Yes at 2200 Westlake, which was surprising. I figured they would not budge on anything due to demand (we purchased pre-sale in ’05).
Mark W says:

December 6, 2007 at 8:47 am

Re Matt “Because in my limited experience Ive found that the developer is unwilling to offer concessions. Maybe that will change if market conditions deteriorate but if things hold steady I dont think developers are going to give up any control in the purchase and sale.”

If it’s something important enough to the buyer, the buyer should ask. If the developer turns them down, buy somewhere else. There are plenty of condos for sale, and most aren’t looking across an alley at an undeveloped lot. Even at the Cosmo.

Re Chris’ question about whether buyers would have walked had they been notified…. By the time Cosmo units actually started closing, the zone change for the lot was already posted information. So those who followed through with closing rather than give up their 5% either didn’t care or presumably concluded that the construction change would hurt their home value by no more than 5%. Which given appreciation rates over the last several years would be made up fairly quickly. Having [how many units is it now] so many units in the same building for sale is probably a bigger price depresser (not to mention the mortgate industry problems in general).
Mark W says:

December 6, 2007 at 12:47 am

Re Matt “Because in my limited experience I’ve found that the developer is unwilling to offer concessions. Maybe that will change if market conditions deteriorate but if things hold steady I don’t think developers are going to give up any control in the purchase and sale.”

If it’s something important enough to the buyer, the buyer should ask. If the developer turns them down, buy somewhere else. There are plenty of condos for sale, and most aren’t looking across an alley at an undeveloped lot. Even at the Cosmo.

Re Chris’ question about whether buyers would have walked had they been notified…. By the time Cosmo units actually started closing, the zone change for the lot was already posted information. So those who followed through with closing rather than give up their 5% either didn’t care or presumably concluded that the construction change would hurt their home value by no more than 5%. Which given appreciation rates over the last several years would be made up fairly quickly. Having [how many units is it now] so many units in the same building for sale is probably a bigger price depresser (not to mention the mortgate industry problems in general).
Cosmo Seattle says:

December 6, 2007 at 7:37 pm

thanks matt for signing our letter to the mayor and showing support for the cause! if i may, i would like to invite your readers to do the same.

approximately 40 people have signed the letter and we would now like to reach out to the community for a stronger showing of support. our letter simply asks the mayor for a forum where we can address the problem. showing support for this cause is an opportunity to show solidarity among seattle residents.

as i mentioned in a recent cosmo seattle post, the city has power of legislation. developers have power in money. seattle residents have power in numbers!

submit your name here if you’d like to help out! the key to starting a lobby that represents the constituents of a community is to show that there is in fact a community.
Cosmo Seattle says:

December 6, 2007 at 11:37 am

thanks matt for signing our letter to the mayor and showing support for the cause! if i may, i would like to invite your readers to do the same.

approximately 40 people have signed the letter and we would now like to reach out to the community for a stronger showing of support. our letter simply asks the mayor for a forum where we can address the problem. showing support for this cause is an opportunity to show solidarity among seattle residents.

as i mentioned in a recent cosmo seattle post, the city has power of legislation. developers have power in money. seattle residents have power in numbers!

submit your name here if you’d like to help out! the key to starting a lobby that represents the constituents of a community is to show that there is in fact a community.
uptown says:

December 10, 2007 at 1:04 am

Another reason that presales are not always that great of an idea; unless the price reflects the risk the buyer is taking.
uptown says:

December 9, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Another reason that presales are not always that great of an idea; unless the price reflects the risk the buyer is taking.
Mike says:

December 11, 2007 at 3:24 am

So the units on the affected side of Cosmo are xx08/xx09 studios, and which 1bdr unit numbers? Unfortunately, the developer took all of the floorplan / building layout info off their site.
Mike says:

December 10, 2007 at 7:24 pm

So the units on the affected side of Cosmo are xx08/xx09 studios, and which 1bdr unit numbers? Unfortunately, the developer took all of the floorplan / building layout info off their site.
MC says:

March 15, 2008 at 7:51 pm

I couldn’t believe when I saw a new construction studio for sale at below sales cost in April 2007. The view alone was worth a million, but noticing construction on all sides of this building found out 2 buildings are going in as high if not higher right next to and kitty corner from the Cosmo. Completely ruining the beatiful Puget Sound View, which I felt was the real investment. The finishes in the unit were great but the floor plan could’ve been laid out better, It seemed smaller than a hotel rm., Walk in closet “not” and the deck felt like a plank to death.
MC says:

March 15, 2008 at 11:51 am

I couldn’t believe when I saw a new construction studio for sale at below sales cost in April 2007. The view alone was worth a million, but noticing construction on all sides of this building found out 2 buildings are going in as high if not higher right next to and kitty corner from the Cosmo. Completely ruining the beatiful Puget Sound View, which I felt was the real investment. The finishes in the unit were great but the floor plan could’ve been laid out better, It seemed smaller than a hotel rm., Walk in closet “not” and the deck felt like a plank to death.
Mark W says:

March 17, 2008 at 4:33 am

What floor was it on? After all, many of the units actually didn’t have views to lose.

As has been noted in the PI and by me and others elsewhere, at the time of the Cosmo pre-sale, there was a 13-story office bldg in plan for the lot right across the alley from the Cosmo. And a comparison of modern office buildings to parking garage and residential tower floors shows, office floor spacing tends to be much higher (e.g., compare the floors on the office bldg on Stewart facing side of Cosmo to Cosmo itself). A 13-story office building would have come up to approx. the 20-24 floors of Cosmo. In spite of the plans having them looking out at an office bldg directly across an alley, most of Cosmo sold out at the pre-sale.

The zoning changes enacted allowed a taller building across the alley but kept essentially the same spacing on the Cosmo block. The developers of 1918, citing the zoning change, decided to replace the 13-story with a 34-story. That will now block the views of the upper Cosmo floors, but for most of those below the 25th floor, they’ll be getting essentially the same cross-alley office views that were already in plan when they chose their units at the presale.
Mark W says:

March 16, 2008 at 8:33 pm

What floor was it on? After all, many of the units actually didn’t have views to lose.

As has been noted in the PI and by me and others elsewhere, at the time of the Cosmo pre-sale, there was a 13-story office bldg in plan for the lot right across the alley from the Cosmo. And a comparison of modern office buildings to parking garage and residential tower floors shows, office floor spacing tends to be much higher (e.g., compare the floors on the office bldg on Stewart facing side of Cosmo to Cosmo itself). A 13-story office building would have come up to approx. the 20-24 floors of Cosmo. In spite of the plans having them looking out at an office bldg directly across an alley, most of Cosmo sold out at the pre-sale.

The zoning changes enacted allowed a taller building across the alley but kept essentially the same spacing on the Cosmo block. The developers of 1918, citing the zoning change, decided to replace the 13-story with a 34-story. That will now block the views of the upper Cosmo floors, but for most of those below the 25th floor, they’ll be getting essentially the same cross-alley office views that were already in plan when they chose their units at the presale.

Seattle PI on Cosmo struggle

Ask Matt a Question

Ask us a Question

Keep your finger on the pulse each week