Fort Lawton: A Troubled Housing Project Comes Down to the Wire


For almost two decades, Seattle has had a plan to turn surplus Army land at Magnolia’s Fort Lawton into low-income and affordable housing. That redevelopment plan has languished while many remain unhoused or ill-housed. That delay is a black mark on this city.

It began nearly two decades ago in 2005, when the U.S. Army declared surplus a 34-acre site adjacent to Discovery Park in Magnolia. At the time there was a hot tug-of-war over what should be done. Some wanted the land developed into affordable housing with a portion returned to native Americans whose ancestors had once occupied the area. Others thought the property and its aging Army Reserve buildings could be retrofitted into educational classrooms. The Friends of Discovery Park and many nearby neighbors were adamant that the Army buildings should be demolished, the forest replanted, and additional park boundaries be drawn.

While working through the Base Realignment and Closure Process (a necessary first step), then-Mayor Greg Nickels’ administration and the City Council held community meetings to hear what the public wanted. As a relatively new councilmember at the time, I recall sitting through meetings that sometimes grew hostile and even threatening. One hot-headed resident alleged that the low-income housing would be occupied by “wife abusers and sex offenders.”

During the controversy, several of us toured the old Army Reserve site and the brick and cement buildings dating from World War II. At one point we were shown the staff room where there were – believe it or not – heavy curtains meant to be drawn in the event of a nuclear attack.

After much discussion and process, a plan calling for 100 rental units for low-income individuals and families, 85 studio apartments for the homeless, and six Habitat for Humanity dwellings was proposed. The proposal was unanimously approved by the City Council. Development would be undertaken by Catholic Housing Services, the United Indians for All Tribes, and Habitat for Humanity — backed by a city contribution of $90 million. There would also be six acres of athletic fields, 13 acres for picnicking and viewing, and the remaining 4 or 5 acres added to Discovery Park.

The project, however, was hit by a lawsuit filed by Elizabeth Campbell and others in Magnolia. Between the lawsuit and the beginnings of the Great Recession, development plans had to be shelved while the city struggled with layoffs and austerity.

In 2019 the Fort Lawton plan was revived and then approved by the new Mayor Jenny Durkan. City Councilmembers (among them Bruce Harrell) went along and  voted support. It seemed like progress — but then the pandemic hit.

When Bruce Harrell became mayor in 2022, the project resurfaced with the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) prepared to approve or reject Seattle’s plan that summer. Facing a deadline, the new mayor appointed an interdepartmental advisory team of 45 and managed to get HUD to stretch the deadline to summer, 2023.

But as that deadline date approached, the city was facing yet another new reality — steep new estimates for road, water, drainage, sewage, and electrical upgrades. Consultants reported that, with infrastructure figured in, the City would have to contribute $145 million. Later that amount swelled to $162 million, pegging the average cost at $673,000 per unit, about three times the original estimate. Stymied again!

Given those numbers, Mayor Harrell pushed to get the HUD time line extended yet again. Latest deadline for approval or rejection of the 2019 proposal is Dec.27. The City must now decide on next steps — even though, once again, the City’s redevelopment proposal is overshadowed by possible lawsuits and the Friends of Discovery Park’s perennial push to abandon the project and reforest the acreage.

Once again, there are calls to proceed, possibly after reworking plans to increase density. An expanded project would lower the cost per unit. The plan originally called for 240 units — hardly adequate to the pressing need. The city is caught in a bind of an urgent need for housing and little land suitable for wide-scale development.

Does Seattle have an appetite for a larger number of units at Fort Lawton? Discussion of a revised plan seems desirable. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on the Army’s making available the 34 surplus acres.


Jean Godden
Jean Godden
Jean Godden wrote columns first for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and late for the Seattle Times. In 2002, she quit to run for City Council where she served for 12 years. Since then she published a book of city stories titled “Citizen Jean.” She is now co-host of The Bridge aired on community station KMGP at 101.1 FM. You can email tips and comments to Jean at


  1. Jean
    Thanks for writing this. As one of the principals involved in developing the plan and overseeing its approval by the City Council (with Community support I would add) as well as the BRAC process this has been one of the most frustrating projects to watch flounder again and again. I’m not surprised by the increase in costs over the past 10+ years which are tied to both inflation and increased regulatory requirements. the plan that was presented was a result of costs at the time, neighborhood acceptance, affordable housing dollars available, political tolerances and a myriad of other factors, otherwise known as “sausage making”. It’s unrealistic to roll out a 10+ year old plan and to expect it will still work.

    I’m not pretending to know how to move forward now but expect we have years of additional planning ahead of us before ground is actually broken.

  2. Isn’t this puzzle the kind of thing we elect a mayor to solve? I fear there will be more large committees, more studies, more vetoes, more lawsuits. The very idea of taking land from the well-defended Magnolia citizens may well be impossible.

    • Not all Magnolians are against this project – as usual, it is easy to hear the loud voices. I wrote to Rep. Jayapal to get answers from HUD (noncommital), and well before the latest election, I asked Daniel Beekman to follow up. His piece recently ran in the Times.

      Our politicians continue to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.

  3. So glad to have a comment from Al Levine, whom I remember working on the original redevelopment. He makes a good point citing the reasons why a 10-year old plan won’t do it today. Still it seems important not discard this opportunity when housing is desperately needed and land is both scarce and costly.

  4. David
    If it was as simple as one person figuring it out, we wouldn’t have an affordable housing crisis in the first place, but I realize you know that. I will say moving this forward may require bigger picture thinking than has been applied so far. Al

  5. Tough to make any kind of assessment without seeing some site plans & maps. I’m not familiar with this project and this article has not made given me any sense of it. For example, is the site contiguous with already-built areas?

    Plus, why would the pandemic stop development? The pandemic certainly didn’t stop construction and preconstruction activities are very amenable to noncontact communication. So why would the pandemic stop anything ? unless pandemic was just an excuse?

  6. I was never convinced this park is a good spot for low-income housing …. in particular, I can’t imagine that it would be a good place for impoverished frail-elderly or parents with young children. It is not a place where you could live easily without a car. I have hopes for low-income housing that is closer to transit and light rail and shops.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Comments Policy

Please be respectful. No personal attacks. Your comment should add something to the topic discussion or it will not be published. All comments are reviewed before being published. Comments are the opinions of their contributors and not those of Post alley or its editors.