Comments on What's Going Up After the Bars Come Down

with one fell swoop, this development is taking so much away from the neighborhood. How can you replace bus stop, manray, bimbos, etc? another monolithic, monochromatic monstrosity....

here's your problem:

Weber Thompson. same firm that did the beauty at the N. end of Bway by the Deluxe.

What a horror.

"It’s easy to see, even in this smallish format, that the development is going to be just as monolithic, standard-issue, and uninspired as neighborhood residents have feared."

No one can see much in a drawing that small. So your judgment is premature unless you have seen and studied a much larger drawing.

The only way to make an informed judgment on a proposed structure is to first (in your imagination) "walk around the building" at street level at roughly 25 foot intervals and be sure you know what is planned. Then you make a judgment. This drawing does not allow one to do that.

(The idea of looking at a "pretty picture" and making a judgment is very last year.)

In general, Weber & Thompson has done some nice stuff.

I have seen it in a much larger format. That image, however, had to be sized down to fit on Slog.

I love it! When can I move in?

yeah, it's ugly, and it sucks that those places are going away, but i don't get what the alternative is. you can't really be suggesting that all new building designs be subject to some kind of public vote or process that does "have teeth," can you? that's the kind of thing that prevents this city from ever getting anything done. what's the solution? who gets to decide what a private landowner can do with their property? how far can that go?

i agree that the result here is bad, from what i can tell anyway, but i don't get what fair process could prevent such things. someone is always going to have a reasoned objection, but who gets to decide? the "neighborhood" is a pretty thin concept to which to give such power.

It looks just like every other condo being built on Cap Hill. More wine/sage/dusty-blue/modern-faux-craftman boxes with no soul.

But, they will sell. Capitol Hill is as good as dead. Might as well put another Gap in.

You're not really the right person to be commenting on bars on Capitol Hill, David Sucher. Also, Weber (no and) Thompson hasn't done anything but cookie cutter in YEARS.

such silly trash as journalism - this block with the exception of manray is a total rat trap - needed to be demolished

more taxes, buildings at code, needed housing

talk about small town people

how Stranger, rubes with country folk opinions

As we’ve said before: We’re not against density... Build your condos, developers, but put them on open lots first...

because there are just so many open lots available on capitol hill? or downtown?

c'mon erica, you can't have it both ways. being pro-density is, in this age, the same as being pro-development. i know you hate ugly buildings and, for god's sake, we all know charles hates ugly buildings but, really, what do you expect?

in my lovely admiral district neighborhood, i have watched three different blocks of perfectly fine mid-century houses and apartment buildings razed in the past six months so that townhomes can be built. it fucking sucks. but not nearly as much as capitol hill is going to suck once buildings like this eyesore dominate the pike/pine corridor.

They need to pass a law to dictate aesthetics!

Uh...I wasn't commenting on bars.

builders should start making an effort to build in line with the neighborhood. this allows for density, development AND character. it IS possible, it's just rarely being done.

that building does look cookie-cutter. more importantly, we know that the existing bars cannot remain, and local independent retailers will have to be making almost twice as much $$$.

i had a discussion the other day where i asked someone what they would do (in the developer's shoes), and they said nothing could be done, character and development were mutually exclusive.

THEY ARE NOT.

here are many of the options at least some resisdents of capital hill would be more agreable to:

- a building so beautiful and unique it enhanced the neighborhood

- a building that incorporated more open spaces for residents and the public

- allowing the existing tenents to have reasonably priced opions to rent (along with new tenents)

- allowing bars

- (my favorite, yet additedly most unrealistic), work with the current shop owners to replicate the current establishments in the new space. examples would include building over the current spaces where possible, saving the walls and reconstructing the retail spaces and bars using them, etc...

architecture does not have to be limited to these cookie cutter buildings. unfortunately, that is all we are seeing.

Someone should get the P-Punk gang going on this. Chip Wall is the guy who can talk to developers and get them to make subtle changes that will affect the appearance of the building at street level, the issue that affects most of us who live in the neighborhood.

Can't any one come up with a less hackneyed and cookie-cutter word than "cookie-cutter?" It's so trite and it really says very little.

Be specific. Say what you like and don't like about a building -- not your conclusions that it is a "cookie-cutter."

The building under discussion appears to meet the sidewalk well, with windows and doors -- of course my judgment is tentative and based on a very small drawing.

So what don't you not like about it? Specifically. No generalizations like "height, bulk and scale" (since we don't have a map to show the neighboring buildings nor can we see whatever detailing the building might have.)

EB: You can size down the image in the HTML, then still upload the full size image. That way we can click on it and open it in a new window to see the detail better. Just a thought...


img src="/blog/files/2007/03/building_scan_2.jpg" width="400"

It is completely within the realm of reason to ask developers to build buildings that are interesting and unique.

This building appears to be neither.

Of course, the builder will tell you it's a matter of maximizing $ per square foot - every cutout and courtyard that would add dimension and interest to this structure is XXX square feet of that won't exist to be sold.

Erica is completely correct - as a city we must be able to demand density that isn't coul-destroying.

Why can't we come up with some kind of Greater Seattle movement that understands that we need to absorb density to prevent sprawl, build mass transit, and demand beautiful buildings and parks?

c'est la vie. see ya in georgetown, cool people.

We're in!!! This is just the kind of place Ashley and I were looking for. It's near all the funky clubs and the artistic types that frequent them. We'll take one of the big units please as our three year old Dakota, and our Labradoodle need a bit of space, I hear there is a park a couple of blocks east that has been cleaned up very nicely. I hope there is parking, Ashley and I both need to drive to work after dropping off Dakota and Rex, at daycare and doggyday care. Sign me up, I really want a Big Unit please.

Thanks
Trent, Ashley, Dakota & Rex

Georgetown? I give it ten years before it's just a longer runway.

Sadly, I don't know where the hipsters will live.

@16. sometimes reaction is gutteral. a movie can be "bad" or "boring" without details. while those details may help in future projects, the lack thereof does not invalidate the initial reaction.

that said, i more than provided examples that would break the cookie-cutter mold, so to speak.

while i could go into greater detail, i'm not sure why it matters in this case. to say they look plain, ordinary, and out of character with what they are replacing is quicker and easier.

We did, Ganador - that was the multi-issue base of concerns of the folks in the monorail movement. And the careless developers, in cahoots with the ass-covering politicians and the sniping, dumb editorialists at the Times took advantage of the average Joanne's confusion and wiped out a decade of work, and the faith of a whole lot of people in collective action in the process. Your spirits are good, but they are very 1998 as far as this burg is concerned.

Don't like this building? Want to preserve independent businesses? Want a vibrant neighborhood? Want to quit whining and do something constructive?

Buy property. That's the way it works in this country, comrade. Property rights trump all.

Think only fat-wallet evil developers can do it? Check out this quite recent story about some people in Seattle who got together and did just that, with a Monorail fire-sale property. Scroll down to the last section.

David #16: See my post at #8. It seems to me every new condo that goes up has a modernized craftman feel to them and they all use the exact same color scheme. I kind of understand what they are doing. They are trying to make them timeless so they all end up a combination of brownish maroon, grayish blue, and sage green. It's not that they are offense colors are design it's just that they have NO charactor what so ever.

I like buildings that look like someone was really thinking about the future. I want more than "unoffensive". Build art, not invisible boxes. If we're going to change the neighborhood at least change it for the better.

"movie"? where exactly is my mind? should be "building".

Kerri:

Yes, there ARE open lots on Capitol Hill - TONS of them. There are also lots of blocks that have been shuttered for years (Godfather's Pizza on Broadway, the Chinese Place across the street)- the neighborhood would lose nothing if those were demolished. The CHHIP building at Broadway and Pine went up where an empty lot used to be. There are plenty of development opportunities on CH that don't involve tearing down the things that make the neighborhood great.

kerri @11,

there are quite a few empty lots on capitol hill; quite a few of them are on broadway. you'd think that something better could be made of the abandoned building that used to be mongolian grill [?] than housing the spacetoilet.

does anybody know if the cha-cha is moving, or closing down, or having a 'going out' party, or what? i met my husband there eight years, seven days, and six hours ago...rat-trap or no, it's a personal landmark and a helluva good place to get a drink.

and what's with this 'no-bar' policy being allowed in the new development? is it supposed to be for the benefit of the residents? where do they think they're moving? to bellevue?

p.s. kelso?: the hipsters are moving to beacon hill. didn't you get the memo?

My suggestion to all who are upset about this redevelopment is to either move to Ballard [where the truly hip now live] or quit complaining and read the permits section of The Capitol Hill Times. You will learn what is going on and where the meetings are to add your voice.

To the scenesters and the hipsters leaving Capitol Hill, don't let the door hit your backside.

Grant - based on the volume of comments you leave on this blog, it sure looks like you may have left Seattle in body, but you're firmly planted here in spirit. What gives?

This is exactly why I eventually decided to stay in this country after the 2004 Election. Why bother leaving if your values and identity are so bound up in a place that you can't stop obsessing about it from afar?

@21:

Gawd NOOOOOOO! Kelso took away seven years of my life before I could graduate (KHS Class of 1978) and get the Hell out.

I wouldn't wish that town on My Worst Enemy (tm) - or anyone else for that matter.

And David, "cookie-cutter" is the perfect adjective for these types of buildings, since it efficiently summarizes their collective lack of individuality.

And I agree with @9, W+T's mixed use/residential work is pure crap, of which this appears to be a typical example.

Bland, boring, characterless, interchangeable with just about any development anywhere. It's also an ignoble POS that removes character from the neighborhood but that's beside the point.

We got a flyer from the Press condos yesterday: teensy tiny two bedrooms for only $400,000+; is a check OK? Bet on these costing something similar.

It is possible to design interesting architecture that enhances the neighborhood, but few builders want to pay for it and squeeze their already thin profit margins and even fewer people have aesthetic taste to begin with.

1. that's not a rendering by any means.

2. no artist did that, it was some lackey hunching for a sh*tty architecture firm.

These nasty things will keep popping up thanks to half-assed developers teaming up with half assed architecture firms. it's rather unfortunate that the city of holl's chapel and oma's library can't seem to progress beyond the daily crap these companies keep rolling out. hoo-yah.

You know, we could have changed our zoning so they could build the same thing, but as a 100-story tall building, and used the rest of the space for parkland and small retail.

And it would be a lot more fun.

"We’re not against density. What we’re against is density that obliterates the very “vibrancy” that made the neighborhood desirable in the first place."

Okay, that's a start. GOOD. But if you *want* density on those vacant lots and not where the cool stuff is, don't support the upzones where the cool stuff is! Upzones incentivize tear downs and de-incentivize new development where the capacity exists for new development already.

The Stranger helped create the conditions for what they DON'T want when they supported the pike-pine upzones and this is precisely what makes it more attractive for the owners to take what they currently own, kick out the tenants, and rebuild (as opposed to buying those empty lots and bldg there.)

After you and I talked about this at the bar months ago and you said there was no link, I checked with DPD...same property as the upzones and the developer *is* taking advantage of the changes.

Aesthetics don't matter. David is right, anyways; you can't tell anything about this building by looking at a two-inch drawing. The flaw of this building has nothing to do with "texture".

What matters is the size and cost of the retail space. New retail space is ALWAYS going to cost more; otherwise the building can't be built. The spaces are also, if recent history is anything to go by, bogusly formatted, as they will almost certainly lack the depth-of-lot size necessary to run a proper business from. The spaces they build now are shallow and good for only sandwich places and dry-cleaners (the kind that take the work off-site).

Quality neighborhoods are not made of any one kind of thing. You have to have a mix of new and old. Without any new, conditions fall apart; without any old, character is sapped and rents price out everybody but chains and garbage.

It will be difficult for a successful independent business to survive in this building for at least thirty years.

Legislating aesthetics is stupid. What they should restrict is the ability to build more than one of these buildings (anything greater than one standard city lot) with a radius of X -- X equal to something like two city blocks in any direction -- within a ten or twenty year period.

Preserving specific bars and crusty restaurants (Bimbo's? Good riddance) is ridiculous. Easy come, easy go; there are generations of independent businesses in those spaces over the past hundred years. Preserving building diversity is where its at.

Where I moved from in Europe, cities zone "entertainment districts" that focus on providing bars/food/nightclubs.. residential areas which dont particularly seem to mix with these activities are usually limited to a block back... Broadway pretty much seems that way today. I'm not quite sure why Seattle keeps trying to push residencies right on top of (or sadly replacing) bars and nightclubs.

It's almost like the city of Seattle read about Vancouver BC's "eyes on the street" city plan but forgot all about Granville.

#15 & #30

Many of the community members are not just sitting back and complaining. We're organizing and sharing our comments and concerns with the developer, architect and powers that be. Last fall Peter Graves (#9 - his card says Weber + Thompson) & Ward Metz (developer) came to the POWHat Neighborhood Association meeting to talk with us about the development, following the first design review meeting. [POWHat btw stands for Pine Olive Way Harvard Area Triangle, the neighborhood boundaries.] In fact, there was another meeting on Tuesday night. Nearly 50 people attended. So the impression that people are passively welcoming the development is simply wrong.

I suspect that the smaller storefronts are partially a reflection of that discussion. That is positive. However, the retail spaces remain HOMOGENOUS and MASS PRODUCED. It would be nearly impossible for a business like those that are currently located on the block to demonstrate character or individuality in this building. Even if they could afford the space. The retail level should be distinctly different from the residential units, NOT a slightly differentiated copy of them. The retail level should interact with the pedestrian level. It does not. As has been stated, it's a huge monolith structure with little consideration for the existing neighborhood. The folks who they'll market to will want to move in because it's a hip and activated neighborhood. Irony is - the neighborhood they're selling will be demolishing in order to build those units. Considering the direction the team is going, it will not be replaced or replicated. Change isn't all bad, but change that dramatic and that destructive of the vary fiber that makes up the current neighborhood makes me want to cry. I walk down that block every single day. I just attended a reading at Bus Stop. It's going to change the way I interact on a daily basis with the neighborhood that I love so dearly.

PPUNC has been largely absent from the discussion, despite invites to engage.

These are going to look great built out 6 times larger all along the waterfront if the surface option goes through.Check out the cutting edge architecture along the north end of Alaska Way for a preview.

Macheath - I'm actually here, finishing up some business and shackled to a computer day and night, thus the spike in comment-frequency of late. Plus the election the other day has me fired up, surprised I am so invested in it, or at least want to lean in and boo the villains like at the Punch and Judy show. And because I am broke and my business is here and heating up I am not in my beloved Mexico but instead in a major city nearby that is distinctly reminiscent in so many ways of Seattle some fifteen years ago.

I don't know what names people that opposed density were called when the stranger was pushing density (which I agree with) but I can imagine that they were simliar to anybody not a 100% on board with the S&T concept - stuck in the 1950's, suburban mentality etc.

Just like the stranger wasn't aware of what they would get and didn't force people to build on empty lots (that would be an interesting ordinance) or demanding extra large balconies (for more bicycle storage?) or requiring the previous businesses to be allowed back at their old rates (might slow down density) , the S&T plan needs detail and realizations of what the downsides will be. I can hear the wails about 16 story buildings with 3 stories of parking garages or trucks and buses on the AWB, the raising of rent to the J&M and the Washington St. Diner (are they gone yet?) - you all call for change and then when you get it you complain because your favorite bars are gone - I think you guys are getting old - next you'll be complaining about property tax, health care and social security.

this is a tough design problem: design a 6 story, 600' long building so that the mass & scale are reduced. fill the envelope so the developer can get his money out of the property. make it affordable for buyers other than 2 gay lawyer couples, make it cool enough to satisfy the penniless hipsters in the neighborhood, make it traditional enough not to scare the banks & realtors who stop the developer from letting the architect rip shit up.

i don't know what architecture firm could satisy all those criteria. certainly not mine.

but we'd do better. we always kick W+T's ass.

Funny Sherwin. All's I need is a new haircut for The New Hill and I'm all...hey lady, you know where a fella can get the very finest in teriyakis up here?

"Preserving specific bars and crusty restaurants (Bimbo's? Good riddance) is ridiculous. Easy come, easy go; there are generations of independent businesses in those spaces over the past hundred years. Preserving building diversity is where its at." - Fnarf

how about preserving small businesses and the jobs they create? how about preserving neighborhood atmosphere?

capitol hill offers a unique flavor—maybe not yours, you bimbo-hating crazy...but unique all the same—and has long been home to entrepreneurs who spring directly from the alternative culture(s) they serve.

THAT's something worth preserving.

i agree that the 'easy go' part is unfortunately true (due in no small part to redevelopments like this), but are you serious about the 'easy come' part? have you ever tried to build a business from scratch? if you did, i suppose you found it 'easy?'

or maybe you want everyone to work for microsoft? or the gap?

and you want to see whole neighborhoods without bars so that everyone can drink and drive? or are you one of those fascist recovering alcoholics (not to be confused with the actual recovered) who can't trust themselves to drink so you think nobody else should...?

i agree that ideally a city harbors a harmonious mix of The Old and The New, but razing an existing vibrant block to the ground is not the way to accomplish it.

ECB--a a total hypocrite.

She was for density before she was against it.

Maybe the developer can design it out of concrete blocks and get Mudede to love it.

The thing that bugs me is those cheap-ass, pseudo balconies. You can't have a table and chairs out on a balcony like that. What's the point?

As far as preservation: If it were up to me, Frederick & Nelson, I. Magnin, the Doghouse, The Coliseum Theatre, The Marine Room and Woolworth's would still be around. But they're not. That's life. As you get older, you get more used to it.

And I say that as a Bimbo who loves Bimbos. And the Bus Stop. But I also loved Squid Row and Righteous Rags.

C'est la vie, kiddos. You'll find another favorite haunt.

m. -- if you knew anything of the history of that neighborhood and the businesses there, you'd know that there have been small independent businesses there since the area was first built. There's nothing special about Bimbo's and the rest. And there's nothing particularly groovy or worth saving about "alternative culture". If anything, "alternative culture" is LESS independent than what it replaced there.

That's probably going to change with the new building, because it will house three indentical Subway sandwich shops and maybe a Mailboxes Etc.

This is a direct consequence of the neighborhood becoming expensive. When values and thus property taxes rise beyond a certain point, there is no way on earth to prevent this from happening.

If you want to see small independent businesses, you have to move out to the Land of the Automobile, and the miles of cheap strip malls on upper Aurora, Northup Way in Bellevue, etc. etc. Look for teriyaki and smoke shops; that's where the cheap rents are.

The tragic plight of the hipster whose neighborhood has moved upscale and left him and his white belt behind is truly heartbreaking. But the smart ones have already scoped out the next hot action spot, or where it will be in twenty years. Alderwood, maybe.

Oh, I don't know that you have to go out that far. There's plenty of local independent business on Beacon Hill. They're just not anything all that interesting (Java Love/Baja Bistro, Beacon Pub and Galaxy being the exception to that)

just give me teriaki, smokeshops, and Phở, and no one gets spanged, what w/your condos and your prozac you dare condescend to me, stay over in the shangrila of west seattle fnarf, your once esteemed opine on stuff is now once too often, i'd say, SIR ...

FWIW, the existing structure isn't all that great itself.

Hipsterlite, what language are you writing in?

I don't live in West Seattle.

i've been thinking a lot about condos this week [thanks kuow]. tonight i decided to look up some of these uber-fancy things they're building downtown - and look at this list i came across:
http://seattlecondosandlofts.com/list-of-condoslofts/
i just can't believe the volume of high end, expensive housing being built [especially when you consider that the housing market looks precarious at best]. it makes me hope that the market really is capable of adjusting itself and they really do stop converting our apartments and building million dollar condos.

for a lark, say you do...say you do??
you are a funny mf re:

"Oh, and for the record, there is NO RELATIONSHIP between penis size flaccid and erect. Like me, for instance; on a cold day I'm showing less than this guy, but show me a little ankle and BOOM: like a baby's arm with an apple in his fist."
--FROM THE NAKED GUY WESTLAKE LINK

so no harm, still sometimes you read as a curmudgeon, vis-a-vis the hipsters or whatever kids that happen to be on your lawn..

ala old smelly peeps from west seattle.
represent

@ 14 - here in Denver (which is much more spacious and not partially landlocked or hilly) the big trend is to knock down single story frame houses and put McMansions in their place. They call it "scraping." One went up just two doors down from my sister's house in a neighborhood where the old houses go for around $220,000 (not a top or hip neighborhood by any stretch, and behind a strip mall no less), and they want $800,000 for it.

My sister has a friend who had a small house in a much more desirable neighborhood, and when she was selling she was getting bids from developers who wanted to scrape. Unfortunately her lot was too small for the McMansions; one told her flat out that they needed to make a 100% profit in order for it to be worth their while. So they want to pay fair market value for the house, pay to demolish it, pay an architect to design it, then pay to construct and sell it; then get double their money back.

If this is the sort of mentality going on with Seattle's developers then that goes a long way toward explaining why "character and development [are] mutually exclusive." Character is undoubtedly an added expense.

You are screwed. How Vancouver Canada of you!
No one uses small balconies except to put white plastic lawn chairs on or bikes they never use and as storage. When you look up they look like crap. This is not architecture it is just bland developer junk. Kinda like what Junk food is to healthy eating this is to neighborhood destruction. Build Cheap sell high forcing everything else to go up.
Ya you are screwed!

Maybe the think balconies with bikes and storage makes them look "urban"

Thanks, ECB (or someone) for making the elevation so much larger. And while my initial comment was simply that it's impossible to say much with such a small drawing, this large one suggests to me that the building might be just fine depending on the exterior finishes and colors and details. Compare this building to Arthur Erickson's lovely 'Harbor Steps' and you can see (at least _I_ can see) that this one could be pretty neat if the architect and developer had enough money (that means somewhat higher rents) for more expensive finishes.

No, i think you misjudge the potential of this building. Certainly it could be indifferent but it could also be terrific.

I'd like to note that the comments on the size of the baconies is exactly the sort of thing I detest -- does anyone reading here know how big they are? Dimensions? And if you don't know, how can you comment?

Btw, note the floor-to-ceiling heights of 10' -- that could suggest a building with nice high ceilings -- maybe over 9' if it is a steel and concrete structure which it might well be.

So Erica, please don't get on your high horse until you have studied the details of the building.

"The tragic plight of the hipster whose neighborhood has moved upscale and left him and his white belt behind is truly heartbreaking. But the smart ones have already scoped out the next hot action spot, or where it will be in twenty years." - Fnarf

fnarf. i'm not a he. i don't have a white belt. i've never been called hip (eccentric, yes, artistic, yes, hip, no). i'm not worried for money. and i've never been tested as a dunce.

in addition, i haven't lived on capitol hill in years...but that doesn't mean i want capitol hill handed over to the gaps and the subways and the quizno'zes of the world.

and catalina i absolutely share your thoughts on beacon hill...

and you're also right that some things you just have to let go of and get used to as you grow older.

on the other hand, some things (choice things) maybe you work against and others you do things to support and in a healthy culture individuals doing just that are what defines the culture.

why is every new library being built the past five years exciting (if not fully functional) and every new condo being built a bore? money. duh.

but in a healthy city quality of life counts for something...and hm...managing a subway or managing a groovy little bar...that's a hard lifestyle decision...but people have made it and scraped out a living at it, some for over ten to fifteen years, and now what?

they're just kicked out?

i'm not gunning for the rundown architecture of the existing building. i'm gunning for the people who exist in it.

the building in question has been a lost cause for a long time, but it's not too late to correct other similar mistakes that are yet to be made.

we're in a growth spurt. let's define it better. we may as well, since we'll be living with the results for a looooong time...

I seriously doubt the Stranger would care if it were not in their own beloved neighborhood. This is what NIMBYISM is all about. The entire Pike/Pine corridor will be within six blocks of the light rail station at Seattle Central. This is exactly where density belongs. Work to make the design better, but don't try to stop time and preserve the neighborhood like a museum piece. If things change, a new hip neighborhood will emerge like Mississippi Avenue is currently in that mysterious town Grant is hanging out in down south. You know, the one with light rail, streetcars, trams, and a waterfront park where the freeway used to be.

"I'd like to note that the comments on the size of the baconies is exactly the sort of thing I detest -- does anyone reading here know how big they are? Dimensions? And if you don't know, how can you comment?"

David, it's called SCALE. When I went to college (back in the Bronze Age) we learned how to draft (pre-CAD design major)

Based on the 10' floor height, the balconies look to be about 2' deep. 2' is typical of those worthless balconies.

So that's how I can comment.

"Work to make the design better, but don't try to stop time and preserve the neighborhood like a museum piece." -tiptoe tommy

asking that small businesses at least be given a chance to continue to cull from their hard-earned existing clientele is not trying to preserve the neighborhood as a museum.

kicking out—how many bars is it exactly—and then prohibiting ANY bars from moving back in (even if they can afford the new rent) is fascist and should not be permitted, especially in an existing habitat, land rights or no.

maybe tenant discrimination laws need to be revisited. i don't know what the right answer here could have been, but i know it's not THIS.

and p.s. though tough, steven vroom up above @#30 is right about the meetings. sad and slow and last-century though the process may be, it's the one that is available to everyone who is impacted by development, which is everyone, including other developers whose land value may go down because their neighborhood is being turned into a high-rise strip mall.

meetings like the ones steven suggests are heating up all over ballard, for example, because people are informed on the process and they care enough to put the effort forth on behalf of the overall health of the neighborhood, old AND new.

It's a shame for Pike/Pine to lose this cool strip of businesses, but before you all crap your pants, it's not *impossible* for a new building to host some cool, local independent businesses. But it will be different. In Belltown, we have a "monolithic" (whole square block), "cookie-cutter" modern condo building, Belltown Court on 1st Ave. It also houses Belltown Pizza, Macrina Bakery, Lampreia, Shiro's, Vita e Bella, Bellino Coffee and more. The building went up in '94, but it's not so different from what you all are ranting about. I think most neighborhoods would be thrilled to have that collection of businesses. It may be that this new development will not be the disaster you are predicting.

I'm going to miss that block, the design is horrible, but I this is not the end of my world.

Hella funny that Erica B. still believes that New Density will note her interests. The people who wanted a compromise proposal (transfer of building rights, preservation of certain buildings, recognition of the fact that the study commissioned by the city found that the old zoning on Broadway was likely the most viable zoning) had it right. Now total gentrification is the program. You Kool Kids who acted as cheerleaders? Your services are no longer needed.

Catalina,
I'd say 3' deep by scaling from a computer screen but that is only from the west & east elevations. There is no way to be sure of the depth in the south elevation, which is what we are seeing.

But my big point is that as a matter of process I don't think that is fair to the design. You/we just don't know enough from the drawing to be sure about such details.

The balconies could be set-back inside the building plane, for example. Or the developer might be specifying French (double) doors which would open up the interior space and functionally change the utility of the deck.

No, I don't think you are being fair.

•••

As to "why is every new library being built the past five years exciting (if not fully functional) and every new condo being built a bore? money. duh."

Yes, PUBLIC money -- so that (for example) the land could be used lavishly but not wisely. The Northgate Branch is a fine example: a huge site in one of the City's future growth centers and it is built with SURFACE parking as if it was out in farthest Lynnwood.

ARCHITECTURE is not about eye-candy but it seems as if Erica (and especially Charles) and most of the readers of this blog want to debase it to that level.

um. yeah. architecture is never about finding aesthetic balance or making a dramatic visual departure, and it is certainly not about the challenge of successfully marrying function with form...

and if you think it is you are DEBASING it, so just STOP LOOKING people, and don't you dare have a reaction to any architecture anywhere. there's nothing to see here. move along...

how can anybody blame the stranger for this building? just because you want a haircut doesn't mean you want a bad haircut. and david, this looks like a bad haircut. but more telling, it is described as one.

Are those STAIRS on the sidewalk?

There is no relationship between "aesthetic form" and interesting neighborhoods. The best neighborhoods are almost always undinstinguished, bland, commercial architecture put up on the cheap. No one here has the faintest clue what this neighborhood will be like in thirty years, or whether this building will function well within it or not.

The only problem with this building is that it is new. New buildings have a very different effect on a neighborhood than old ones. There's no way in hell any of your anguished cries about what this does to your funky little cubbyholes can alter the basic facts of how neighborhoods evolve.

You won't know anything about this building until it hits middle age.

Nominating other blocks for redevelopment without even WONDERING who owns them is ridiculous. Crying "fascist!" because they're closing a bar is ridiculous. These attitudes betray a mindset that expects funky good-times grooviness to be delivered to you free on a plate. There is NOTHING about Bimbos or any of the other places on this block that merits a second's more consideration than, say, a Vietnamese-owned smoke shop on Aurora. To say otherwise is to demostrate a spectacular lack of understanding of how cities work.

If you want to know why these buildings are going up, take a look at the tax records. They're freely available on the web; you can find out who owns a block and how much tax they pay. The tax is what's driving the construction, and the valuation is what's driving the tax up. These lots are more desireable than they used to be, so they're worth more, so cheap uses are no longer affordable. These facts are not subject to your hopes and dreams. If you want to go to a bar, it's up to you to find a bar, not an entitlement for a bar to be where you want it to be.

Where there is a public impact is in the design review meetings, which anyone here is able to attend. But you'd better bring better arguments than these.

interesting multipurpose neighborhoods and modified pedestrian pockets in high density areas are in everyone's best interests.

long boring posts offering pathetic statements such as the following are not:

"The best neighborhoods are almost always undinstinguished, bland, commercial architecture put up on the cheap."

why don't you just pack it on up to alderwood, fnarf, and wait for the super interesting neighborhood that you think will spring out of their strip malls twenty years from now...?

there's more "undinstinguished, bland, commercial architecture put up on the cheap" up in alderwood than i've ever seen outside of the cesspool known as fresno california, so if your formula is right, alderwood will soon outshine all others and become the VERY BEST neighborhood in the region.

Once again Fnarf demonstrates that he should be writing about urban planning and architecture for The Stranger, not Barnett and Mudede.

ecb and cm, are you listening?

what we need from the stranger is more support and acceptance and solidarity with the developers who are committed to throwing up "bland commercial architecture" as defined by fnarf, the ultimate sophisticate where these matters are concerned.

and hey, throw in a dose of mild racism every now and again, would ya? i wouldn't want anyone finding out that the owners of my favorite smokeshop on aurora are persian, not vietnamese.

M @ 71. Prob because Fnarf had the wherewithall to buy, in which case, wherever he dwells, he's no doubt halfway into a nice glass of chilled Cianti, watching the grass grow on his increasingly valued investment.

April rent's coming up soon enough, M.

>>

Mike - This developer and architect, have designed and built some interesting projects: Bagley Lofts [http://www.bagleylofts.com/]; Madison Tower; Hotel 1000 [www.weberthompson.com/portfolio/highrise9.html]; Water's Edge [www.weberthompson.com/portfolio/lowrise6.html] ; Fifteen Twenty-One [http://www.1521second.com/main.html]; are some of the projects I found on line. To suggest that private developers would do speculative work commensurate with extraordinary private projects like OMA's downtown library or Holl's chapel is a bit out of touch with reality.

it's so amusing the assumptions that people make, lloyd clydesdale...

successfully investing in property is supposed to brainwash me into a passion for "undinstinguished, bland, commercial architecture put up on the cheap" and chianti?

try a passion for the latest architectural record and chateau neuf du pape viex telegraph, vintage 2001.

Doug ask a good question. Stairs on a sidewalk? Interesting and unusual in Seattle,

TEAR THAT SCHIT DOWN!!

Pop quiz hotshot: which will be the last one standing--the viaduct or capitol hill? Cap Hill should be bled like a diseased seventeenth century pauper.

None of these bars/restarants are more than 10 years old -- hardly Capitol institutions. And aesthetically this block is not all that appealing. See for yourselves.

re 79- at least it's at human scale now, the biggest problem with the new design is height, just because you can build to 65' does not mean you ALWAYS should(or HAVE to), sure from a maximize profit P.O.V. go ahead, but there are other considerations, like how a bland(big-ish) building imposes itself and leaves a discomfiting sense in it's surroundings, and the people therein.

it does not matter what the building is, if people who live in a neighborhood say they like it an it is important, then perhaps consideration should be given to find out first why, and second, what might be done so the replacement provides something similar. sure, nobody has to do this, but it would be nice. not doing (such as is in this case) has to potential to change a neighborhood.

@79 doug

that picture had the opposite effect one me. instead of seeing run-down buildings, it reminded me how much i like that little block...

maybe i'm alone in this, but wouldn't it be great if those shops could be saved? if the new condos could be built over them? even if you just save the fascade and let the business stay there...

(sorry for posting again so soon!)

The hipsters have moved to Beacon Hill? Where the hell are they? A few people at Beacon Pub do not a hipster Mecca make.

"EB: You can size down the image in the HTML, then still upload the full size image. That way we can click on it and open it in a new window to see the detail better. Just a thought..."

Bad idea -- this forces everyone to waste time downloading a huge image whether they want to see it large or not. Instead, just make a small copy and link it to a large one. It's not rocket science.

"The Northgate Branch is a fine example: a huge site in one of the City's future growth centers and it is built with SURFACE parking as if it was out in farthest Lynnwood."

They did that for the Beacon Hill library, too -- the impression I got from sitting through too many library board meetings (because they were originally going to tear down our house to build that library) is that it is, to some extent, a security and cost issue. Parking in a street-level lot is more visible than parking in a garage or on a roof, so they don't have to pay for extra security. It makes me mad that they had to waste half the site on a parking lot, in a designated urban village one block away from the light rail station.

Speaking of Beacon Hill, there are empty storefronts up here waiting for your cool businesses, folks. And there is a big renovated house that is open for a restaurant lease, right on Beacon Ave. Would someone please open some interesting places on the Hill? We're dying up here. (The coffee shops are not open in the evening, Beacon Pub doesn't serve food to speak of... there are some OK and even good restaurants, but the neighborhood dies at night. And when a retail space gets filled, it always seems to be another minimart or accountant -- in prime retail space -- not the kind of thing that makes a neighborhood a more fun place to walk around.)

I think we might be the only neighborhood left in Seattle with no Starbucks, though. And there is no chain fast food. It really is an island of Old Seattle in that sense.

"None of these bars/restarants are more than 10 years old -- hardly Capitol institutions."

Indeed. The whole "Pike/Pine" hipster thing is pretty recent. Of course, a lot of folks are new to the area and don't know that. But there have been a variety of independent businesses there for decades, well before the hipsters moved in.

A little lesson on development, density and preservation.

I live in Mount Vernon, Baltimore. The neighborhood went through a huge fight with billionaire DC developer Kingdon Gould, who spent quite some time quietly buying up buildings, tearing them down, using the lots as surface parking, and hoping to maximize the return by resisting all limits to development, and by trying to force through plans to build 25 story skyscrapers in a neighborhood where the typical building height is 45 to 60 feet.

But, in Baltimore, we have a Commission on Historic Preservation (CHAP). Neighborhoods, by supermajority vote, can decide to subject themselves to CHAP oversight, which places substantial limits on what can be done to existing historical structures and what new construction can be built. Here's a good summary:

http://www.boltonhill.org/mria/documents/chap/overview_of_chap.htm

And CHAP review placed a well needed set of brakes on Gould's plans. They were so effective, in fact, that Gould Got one of our city councilmembers, Keiffer Mitchell, who doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in the box, to try to pass legislation that would have taken Gould's lots out of CHAP jurisdiction altogether.

I know the buildings that you are talking about in Seattle quite well. Used to live on 13th and Thomas. It seems to me that Seattle needs a CHAP. Badly.

Oh -- and the connection to density? Gould kept saying: density, density, density. He even hired to U Penn professors to help him make his point that Mt. Vernon is a shithole because it's not dense enough.

Of course, Mt Vernon is not a shithole. It's an integrated, black, white, poo,r rich, gay, straight neighborhood. In other words, it's not a homogenized bo-bo, yuppie paradise. And that's one of the reasons I love it.

And it is one of the densest neighborhoods in Baltimore.

But putting reality aside for a moment, it's worth looking at some of the arguments about density.

First off: Density does not equal vibrant urban environment. Look at NYC. Some of the most vibrant areas are not the densest, and -- in fact -- some of the densest are the least vibrant.

Greenwich village -- nowhere near the densest neighborhood. It's mostly converted row houses and low-rise 10-12 story apartment buildings.

Harlem -- A lot like Greenwich Village.

The Upper East Side (east of Madison). Way dense -- but pretty staid -- and in fact, the bigger the buildings, generally the duller the neighborhood.

Upper West Side -- Big buildings, more residential density. Less vibrancy.

So what's going on? First off is the assumption that *residential* density equals urban density.

That's just not right. The kind of density that makes a neighborhood interesting is feet on the street. Not heads in bed.

So how do you get feet on the street? Good transportation options is one of the most important. Can people get there if they live somewhere else? If they take cars, can they park -- but better yet can you help them get there easily with or without cars. Second. Places to go. Do you have an environment that is friendly to small and medium sized stores, restaurants, entertainment. Also, safety plays a role here too.

So what does this have to do with Pike/Pine. It's straightforward. The condos put more heads on beds, not more feet on streets.

It's entirely possible to oppose stupid condo developments and be supportive of density -- even residential density. But you need to favor what i call "smart density" not just heads on beds.

And, no, I do not own a car. I do believe passionately that what makes us human is our cities, and I want dense cities and a ban on suburbs, which are soul crushing, homogenizing machines.

I just don't think that by believing that, you have to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

litlnemo @ 84 -- True about Beacon Hill. Dies at night. Esp the further south you go.

And the Beacon Hill pub. Jesus, what a lonely, sad place. If I wanted to fight depression and had to choose whether to do that at the Beacon Hill Pub, I'd rather just lock myself in my bathroom at home and eat sticks of butter dropped into a half-full vacuum bag.

"The kind of density that makes a neighborhood interesting is feet on the street. Not heads in bed."

bravo, jonathan.

Lloyd, ha! You got that right.

We told you so.

(or at least we tried to, before you starting shrieking about what evil right-wing NIMBYS we were).

My advice to all of you smug know-it-all new Seattle residents - be careful what you wish for (and stop being such effing hypocrites after you decide you don't like what you get!)

FNARF @ 70-

Right as usual, but with one caveat. You do know that going to a design review meeting and expecting to have a meaningful impact on any substantive part of the final project (say, beyone what kind of siding they use) is like pissing in your shoes, don't ya?

OTOH, if a bunch of people showed up and noisily and insistently hounded developers and DRB members in a way that disregarded the restrictions put on the process, that could have an effect (if only by making some of these bloodless professionals builders personally uncomfortable enough that they would make meaningful concessions just to shut everyone up/eliminate the controversy).

Get up get up get up get down - design review is a joke in your town....

I think the "arguments " here are good. It is pointing out that people want stability and not to loose their neighborhoods which really are an extension of their homes.
Pike Market at one point was destined for demolition and it was saved from being developed. This is because it was part of Seattle culture and that is what makes a neighborhood. That is why a city has a council so that it can mandate some preservation in cities neighborhoods. That is not happening in these neighborhoods because most City Halls want revenue generated from building permits and the politics of redevelopment. Developers and City Halls are in each others pockets all the time. Neighborhood preservation are bad words for these people but it is something the city should be looking at. But then you have the perfect mayor right now for not caring about all that. One that does not like bars much in Seattle. A developers mayor. Usually they have no vision but are always working on their legacy. His will be the redevelopment of Seattle and wanting to look like he went down in history as the guy that made all the great changes and cleaned up the city (usually that is how it works). It strips the soul from a city something politicians and developers with bland generic concepts for neighborhoods do not care about.
What is on the street level of a neighborhood is most important. If it is generic then there is no difference from block to block. To build creatively is expensive to build without any thought to what exists in a neighborhood just for profit is cheap.
All the arguments here wanting better are valid because people are passionate about their neighborhood. Development will happen it is just up to people to push for better development. Wanting better for your neighborhood is a great thing. City Halls that do not care much along developers with cheep bad ideas are not great but they usually win unless made to do better. I live in a city that has had all these arguments played out already over the years and developers were made to build better but not until building like the one shown were thrown up before anyone could act.