Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Devil's Date | 107.7 the End Hires New Progra... »

Tuesday, June 6, 2006

Second Has Finally Arrived

Posted by on June 6 at 13:16 PM

The nearly completed world headquarters for Washington Mutual Bank (whose cash machines are easier to find in Manhattan than in Seattle) has won me over for one reason: its best side, which faces south, has done something special to the middle part of a stretch on Second Avenue that begins in the north with the Josephinum (which, to use Jonathan Raban’s words, looks “like the Medici tomb”) and the flying top of the Space Needle; and ends in the south with the aqua-green glass-fall of the Vulcan’s building at the foot of the Smith Tower. The new 42-story tower of glass and steel, which was designed by NBBJ, has changed forever the way one experiences (or even feels) Second Avenue. It’s as if the street, the sealed stretch, is finally fulfilled.
69ac3a1d624a.jpg Walk up or down to the parallel corridors on First and Third, and you wont find that special feeling, that sense of fullness.

First Avenue, however, is the source of a little good news for regional architecture. The expansion of SAM on that street is presently the top story in the journal Arcspace. Designed by Portland’s Allied Works Architecture, the building is a boxy composition of stainless steel and glass that, when finished, promises to do fancy things with light. Though the expansion looks fine enough, I don’t think it’s a success because it looks too much like Washington Mutual’s headquarters.

c6f925ed1f57.jpg Where does the bank end and the the museum begin?


CommentsRSS icon

Once again, Charles, you form all of your reactions to tall buildings by looking up, which is the least important factor in how a building works. The important thing, as David Sucher has mentioned here before but which appears nowhere in your description or photographs, is how the building addresses the street. You mention a "sense of fullness" but not any actual human emotions.

Does the building address the other buildings next to and across from it? Are the entrances easy to find and to use (no "pull"-style handles on "push" doors, for instance). Does it enhance the roomlike qualities of the street, or does it oppress pedestrians? Are there blank walls? Block-long multi-story blank walls? Are the underground parking exits designed for visibility both by and from pedestrians? Is every square inch of the ground floor facade filled with retail, as it should be?

These are the kinds of things that actually matter with tall buildings, and are so often forgotten or done incorrectly.

I don't know if I even expect you to see them, Charles, since you are appear to be a big fan of alienation and anomie. But most people are not.

Well said.

every time I walk past I feel walled off from my city

Fnarf, I'm certainly no architect, and I don't disagree with your points in the least, with the exception that, I do believe tall buildings need to possess some sort of definitive aesthetic character in their overall presentation, although again, your point about "looking up" from close range isn't the best viewing angle.

At first I was rather disappointed at the "boxiness" of the framing structure as it went up, but now that the skin has been revealed, I find the exterior much more pleasing to the eye than I expected.

I tend to judge skyscrapers from several perspectives: the street-level perspective is, as you point out, all about the "humanness" of the building as it relates to people coming into or out of its sphere of influence at street level. But, I also think it's important to look at how the overall structure and design fits into the skyline itself; how it reacts to, or compliments, or plays against the other larger buildings in the core, as well as the larger natural environment, and that's something that can only be observed at a distance, and from different angles.

My favorite downtown building has been for many years 2 Union Square (another NJJB design), both because the outdoor plaza creates a very human-scale environment that actually takes advantage of open space at ground level that few buildings here or elsewhere do in any significant way, but also because everything above the plaza blends and compliments both the neighboring buildings, and when seen from an even greater distance, it creates just enough of an "organic" feel to compliment the natural environment of water, mountains and sky beyond the city limits.

In my very humble and un-schooled opinion, it's one of the most aesthetically pleasing buildings in Seattle.

Right - NBBJ, that's what I meant...

I heard it's going to have the largest Starbucks in the world in it. How's that for human! I guess that would also make that building the world's greatest purveyer of milk, by volume.

Hey, Longball, you're stealing my line.

Like Comte, I've had a crush on Two Union Square for a long time. I admit that last night, from the very cheap upper level seats on the first base side of Safeco, the new Washington Mutual building was looking rather fetching, too.

The city has long ago given up the central core to the utilitarian anarchy of profit. There are zero pedestrian spaces. There are few public spaces of any kind. Setbacks are nonexistent. It's an ugly grid of boxes. This building is just one more crowded box among many.
For me 2nd avenue is simply a bike route that I take to get through the blight, and I really couldn't care less what shape the crowded boxes have around me as long as they aren't pouring cars out across my path.
Good architecture from my perspective, as a member of the public who finds the commons eroded by these monstrosities, would start with opening up possibilities for reclaiming the core as a place to do things: sidewalk cafés, street performers, parks to sit in and read or wi-fi, etc. I don't see anything about the box adulated in the post that moves in that direction.

Setbacks, plazas and parks do not add civic value.

If you look at a city like New York -- Manhattan, which has almost no parks (aside from that really big one way off to the side of all the action), you'll see what kinds of interactions make city life come alive. It's perfectly compatible with the "utilitarian anarchy of profit". Retail stores, cafes, sidewalks, garbage cans, newspaper boxes, bus benches, parked cars -- the furniture of daily life. Providing planned spaces, like plazas, often obviates the very reason for people to be there in the first place -- hence the suprise later when people don't come.

Read "City" by William White for some maybe surprising answers, like the reason people like to stop and talk at the narrowest, crowdedest part of the sidewalk. Planning isn't in it.
And street performers aren't the answer to any question I want to ask. Ugh.

so, if it has the largest Starbucks in the world, will we be able to find it? I mean, a lot of these buildings, it takes me decades to find out they had a cool shop inside. usually when the shop closes forever, of course.

"a thing is a phallic symbol if it's longer than it's wide..."

Really makes me wonder if y'all have a thing for trains, too. I have to agree that looking UP a building from the sidewalk level is the least interesting viewpoint. I'm also no great fan of featureless steel and glass boxes.

Give me the Sydney Opera House any day.

I'm sorry, Geni, but I'm pretty sure they're keeping it. I saw it up close in February and it is indeed a freakishly engrossing thing to look at.

sorry, Sydney has a new monorail, we don't, so we can't get the Sydney Opera House.

but they will force us to pay Seattle-only taxes to build an underwater tunnel we don't need and we don't want.

Sydney has a big ol' honkin' viaduct right in front of their main harbor, too. You can see it from the Opera House. It's cool. If our viaduct was as cool as that one none of you folks would be complaining.

Oh, what am I thinking, of course you would.

Would you be surprised if I said that FNARF nailed it? Probably not.

Personally I have no opinion of tghis 2nd Avenue building as I have not seen it much less walked by it. But FNARF is applying what I believe are the correct criteria.

But let me add this: there is no inherent confliect between having a great sidewalk presence and having a goofy, freaky, and/or"aesthetic" (call it what you will) super-structure.

We can have both. Easily. With no compromise.

Take the Public Library. My problem with it is not the main body of it -- I find it banal and blah I but know that a lot of people like it -- but the way the building meets the sidewalk. The unpleasant irony is that we could have had both -- a pedestyrian-oriented street-level and an "arty" (sorry, I have to use quotes) upper.

I wrote about it here: Koolhaas Library Pre-construction analysis. (follow the links to Koolhaas Library Design.)

Of course I nailed it, David; I copped about half of it from you.

My problems with the library, which I actually like a lot in a number of ways, have to do with it's many failings AS A LIBRARY, i.e., a facility for the storage, retrieval, and use of books. Unfortunately too many people in the SPL offices think that the purpose of a library is the delivery of internet porn to homeless people. I won't even go into the horrors that lie within the mens' rooms.

The Seattle Library is the most famous building in the world right now. It feels like and airport inside because it's a space for thoughts to take flight.


Anyone who doesn't like the Seattle Public Library, doesn't understand great architecture.

Architect.
I may not know architecture.
But I do know urban design.
Rem Koolhass doesn't.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).