Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | Association: Part One »

Monday, December 3, 2007

A Human Tragedy

posted by on December 3 at 8:48 AM

When a new condo tower goes up, odds are good that it blocked someone’s view of something. When another new condo tower goes up, this time blocking the views from a previously constructed condo tower, how bad should we feel for folks who are going to lose their views? The PI has a front-page story today about the plight of condo owners losing their views as new condo towers go up around them. I’m thinking that details like this one aren’t going to generate a lot of sympathy:

Michael Harris, who bought a condo on the west side of the 17th floor of Cosmopolitan, found out [about the new tower] about six months ago, thanks to Tatum and a search of condo blogs.

“I could almost touch the building,” said Harris, who was so upset about the Cosmopolitan situation that he rented out his condo there and bought a new one for himself in Capitol Hill.

In lieu of flowers, Mr. Harris asks that mourners make a donation to his I.R.A.

RSS icon Comments

1

What a little crybaby. In cities we are supposed to have big buildings. Move back to Omak ass clown.

Posted by Toby | December 3, 2007 9:06 AM
2

LOL!!! I think it's FUNNY!!!!! He should enjoy Cap Hill with it's thriving nightlife too! Wait, the nightlife on Cap Hill is dying off.... HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Posted by Just Me | December 3, 2007 9:06 AM
3

Poor little guy, suffering like that.

It's hardly news, though, is it? It's funny to go around the city and see all these old apartment buildings (like the one I live in) named for the view and the vista and the panorama... that was promptly blotted out by the next building across the street that was built a decade later.

Posted by Chris B | December 3, 2007 9:13 AM
4

My dad always said, if you buy a place for the view, buy the view.

Posted by Lisa in Bama | December 3, 2007 9:13 AM
5

Views are overrated. You can't turn around in this town without confronting a breathtaking view of something.

I'd much rather have some neighbors to spy on. Especially if they are good-looking and into nudism.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | December 3, 2007 9:13 AM
6

In the words of my grandmother...my heart bleeds cold borscht for him.

Posted by ahava | December 3, 2007 9:15 AM
7

This is funny, coming from Dan Savage, a guy with a house on Vashon and a condo in town. I bet if someone blocked YOUR view Dan we'd hear about it. Unfortunately, many of us who have finally managed to buy a place can't afford to just rent it out and buy another when the view is blocked and the value of the place is destroyed.

Posted by Prospero | December 3, 2007 9:20 AM
8

To be fair, when a condo with a spectacular view is sold, sometimes as much as half the price of the condo is based on the view (depending on how good the view is). If the view later gets blocked by a new building, that can lower the value of the condo with the blocked view substantially.

Now nobody guarantees you an unblocked view for all of time, so I have only limited sympathy. But it is more than a trivial inconvenience. The blocked view could have cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost value to his former-view condo.

Posted by SDA in SEA | December 3, 2007 9:23 AM
9

I dig that P-I photo. Is there a less creative building name than "Cosmopolitan"?

Posted by DOUG. | December 3, 2007 9:24 AM
10

I no longer own a house on Vashon, for the record. Or a condo, although I have owned a condo -- which had a view of an office building across the street. I own one house, no view. But thanks for keeping me honest, Prospero. Best to Ariel and the rest of the sprites on your island.

Posted by Dan Savage | December 3, 2007 9:25 AM
11

Floor-to-ceiling 3-D flat screens would solve this problem instantly.

Give me my future now!

Posted by COMTE | December 3, 2007 9:27 AM
12

Normally the value goes up. Because there's more investment on the block. More people. More demand. People value density that's why the inner urban core is higher in value. If all those towers go up near your condo, you can sell and move at a profit.

You don't own that lot next door. No one stopped your building when it built up and loomed over its neighbor. Stop whining that you didn't get something for nothing. It costs money to buy into a protected-view community. If that's what you want go buy it in Viewcrest, Bellevue.

"Nimvi's" = Not in my view = boo hoo, boo hoo.

Posted by unPC | December 3, 2007 9:29 AM
13

housing market starts to look like it's plateaued and savage cashes in with the vashon estate. CA-CHING!

the question is, is he going to remodel his current house, invest in stocks, buy gold, or maybe take a european vacation?

...Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash. New car, caviar, four star daydream, Think Ill buy me a football team...

Posted by money, it's a gas! | December 3, 2007 9:32 AM
14

@8 - true about the value depreciating, but I still have little to no sympathy for luxury condo owners whose views are gone and they have lost money. Their building caused the same drop in value to someone else, I'm sure, which their purchase supported.

Posted by genevieve | December 3, 2007 9:46 AM
15

The Irish Republican Army?

Posted by Jimmy Legs | December 3, 2007 9:47 AM
16

Chances are they were already looking at condos, anyway. Only now they have one buttfucking them, and one right in their face. Besides, now they can have some cool Rear Window times.

Just tryin' to look on the bright side.

Posted by Mr. Poe | December 3, 2007 9:51 AM
17

these owners are whiners. the greater fool mentality works until you're the fool.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | December 3, 2007 9:58 AM
18

Part of the problem is that the zoning code prioritizes buildings that fill the lot. In some places it would be better to go taller and thinner. Building occupants would benefit, but more importantly, it would allow more light to street level for the rest of us.

Posted by michael | December 3, 2007 10:00 AM
19

@7, My GOD, Dan ownes a house!!??? Jesus Dan IS a member of the liberal/hollywood elite.

Posted by Just Me | December 3, 2007 10:08 AM
20

I'm a little suprised at this celebration of the idea that reliance on zoning and planning is for losers, and this delight in the law of big money trampling the petty dreams of the individual.

Posted by cracked | December 3, 2007 10:19 AM
21

I agree with #12, it's a good thing to live in a place where there is lots of development. The block that the Cosmopolitan is on has been quite seedy (directly across the street is the Urban Rest Stop) and the Cosmopolitan was just in a sea of parking lots. Now I agree if the neighboring building is only a few feet away, that is reason to complain. But there is no reason to complain about the mere fact of adjacent development. That is a good thing and I think in the long-term the values of the condos will go up, even if they might lose in the short-term. Maybe the guy in the story was just looking to flip it for a quick profit so he's miffed.

Posted by twee | December 3, 2007 10:22 AM
22

it took the P-I a month to notice this story?

http://seattle.metblogs.com/archives/2007/11/in_other_blogs_195.phtml

Posted by josh | December 3, 2007 10:29 AM
23

I've heard that in Japan when the big buildings go up they have to include payments to neighbors whose sun is blocked; perhaps a similar payment for views blocked would be fair?

And while his condo may have blocked someone else's view too, that doesn't mean that perpetuating the wrong is the right thing to do. We need to value views and sunlight and green spaces properly, or everyone will lose.

Posted by SpookyCat | December 3, 2007 10:29 AM
24

@16 - *ouch*

Posted by Slim | December 3, 2007 10:30 AM
25

I've got a great view of some foliage and mulch in my bedroom window, though I will admit the view from my front window is pretty nice.

As for Mr. Dumbshit and his spoiled view... maybe he should've had the sense to do his research. I can't vilify the guy for moving and renting out his space: he's just exercising his available options.

The real villain here is Aubrey Choen and her editor, for trying to further this idea of Rich Condo Owner As Victim.

Posted by Gomez | December 3, 2007 10:34 AM
26

Michael works in real estate. It's no surprise that he's buying, selling and renting condos more often than the average Seattlite. It's also no wonder he concerns himself with the values of his properties.

You anti-condo pro-density folks can't have it both ways. Stop yer' whining.

Posted by Chris | December 3, 2007 10:36 AM
27

@15: The IRA was my first thought, too.

It has inspired me to consider making corned beef and cabbage. A boiled dinner is good on a rainy day. Harris needs to quit his crying and have a nice meal, secure in the knowledge that he is not sleeping under the god damn viaduct, or worse.

I am sick of greedy people.

Posted by kerri harrop | December 3, 2007 10:38 AM
28

@15 Preview before you post.

What amazes me is the number of these condo units that sell before construction even begins. On the website and in the models the view is always spectacular.

Posted by Jimmy Legs | December 3, 2007 10:42 AM
29

Dan,
Is it true that you once lived in the Lamplighter condo on Belmont Ave. If so wich unit. It has been an ongoing rumor and point of disagreement among residents.

Posted by jeff | December 3, 2007 10:49 AM
30

to (mis)quote the Grinch,

Boo fuckin' hoo...

have about as much sympathy for this dude as i do for the morons that move to Belltown or the Hill, then bitch about the noise and late night shenanigans...

Posted by michael strangeways | December 3, 2007 10:53 AM
31

Dan: The sprites say hi.

#8 makes a good point: The value of a condo (or house) is often based on the view. So, it's a big deal.

Having said that: If you live downtown, you have to expect that something might block your view. Still, 18 feet away. Even a lot of renters would balk at that.

Posted by Prospero | December 3, 2007 10:55 AM
32

When I look at buildings, I look at what the area is zoned for and think about the surrounding buildings.

And my answer is ... tough. Tell him to suck it up.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 3, 2007 11:00 AM
33

Hey, a building 18 feet away gives you something to attach the other end of your clothesline to.

Posted by Flora Hamburger | December 3, 2007 11:06 AM
34

A dense vibrant urban lifestyle will be better for Seattle. If we can become more like Portland's Pearl district living in this racist hicksville will be more tolerable. I miss Manhattan where I moved from, but The Stranger's New York vibe makes Seattle a little more tolerable. Happy Hanukkah! Does anyone know of any cool hipster Hanukkah parties on Capital Hill? Is The Stranger hosting any Hanukkah events?

Posted by Issur | December 3, 2007 11:15 AM
35

Never lived in the Lamplighter, sorry.

Posted by Dan Savage | December 3, 2007 11:17 AM
36

in Vancouver (the real one, not the one in Washington) the zoning & planning has kept views PAST other buildings. they aren't put up directly adjacent to each other, but rather kitty-corner.

Posted by max solomon | December 3, 2007 11:45 AM
37

Wow, look at all the vicious condo haters.

Reading the PI article (the issue was covered on Metroblog or something a while back), I think the condo owners have every right to complain. At the time most of them purchased, a 13-story tower was in the works next door. Most bought their unit with that understanding. After purchasing, the developer next door decided to almost triple the building height. Because none of the Cosmo owners were actually living at the location yet, they were not notified of the change, and because of zoning, probably could not have done anything anyhow. Regardless of whether or not you hate "rich" condo owners, this type of developing does not bode well for anyone. You can't raise building heights and then turn developers loose. There needs to be some thought given to the process and to the impacts on the surrounding community. That seems to be lacking in a number of projects all over Seattle, and is well illustrated by this particular issue.

Also, I can't imagine that the Cosmo blocked much of anyone's view. There doesn't seem to be much but vacant lots or 1-2 story buildings north and east of there, and it's situated a reasonable distance from other towers. For people on the Hill and other neighborhoods, it became part of the cityscape - it did not completely block their view of everything, as this new development will do for west-facing Cosmo residents.

Posted by rb | December 3, 2007 11:58 AM
38

If the Cosmo's west views are blocked, then a lot of east views in the new building will be blocked as well. These new units won't be able to disguise their view/light impairment and so may be 'bargain priced' to move them.
Lots of new single family homes only have 10 feet between them and zero lot line homes have none. Of course they have front and/or back yards, but still jammed together.
Too bad, I guess we were called 'world class' before
our time.
Remember, it's not the brochure that you are actually signing up for.

Posted by snark | December 3, 2007 12:14 PM
39

@37 - sounds like the stranger missed an opportunity to blame something on the mayor.

Posted by missed opportunity | December 3, 2007 12:14 PM
40

#36--Seems like that would be a good idea.

That whole area a few years ago was run down and mostly parking lots. There are 4 high rise office towers being built and proposed in this area, so it looks like it is not all condo towers going up. The one that is being built beside the Cosmo is a 500 foot office tower.

Here is a video of what the the skyline will look like in 2011 when all of these towers are finished. The skyline will be dramatically larger if these projects move forward.


http://www.urbancondominiums.com/

Click Beta 2.0

I am glad to see that we are filling up empty spaces and parking lots with high rise hotels, condos and office towers.

Posted by aquaticboy | December 3, 2007 12:15 PM
41

This kind of crap actually makes me miss living on the east coast, where no one had views of anything.

Posted by Cate | December 3, 2007 12:40 PM
42

I rent. I can't afford to buy a home in Seattle.

Sympathy meter says... 0

Posted by monkey | December 3, 2007 1:31 PM
43

I dunno. I'm a broke-ass student with a view of a really charming (and loud) construction site, and I still have sympathy for the rich people losing their views. If I bought a place with a gorgeous view, I'd be crushed to lose it.

Being a fan of urban density, I don't really see any solution to the problem. But I do see the problem.

Posted by violet_dagrinder | December 3, 2007 1:46 PM
44

It's not a problem. It's an aesthetic preference, and there is no need to solve the "problem." Buyer beware.

Posted by Jay | December 3, 2007 7:25 PM
45

Jay @44, it's a problem when the city invites developers to start building, and then doesn't provide any real control or influence over projects that might ruin the lives of people living nearby.

BTW... when I looked at buying a condo in the Cosmo, you could get a (very small) until for 300K or so. Try buying a house, of any size, for that price in the greater Seattle area. These condo owners are not all super-rich living in luxury. The assholes moaning about condo owners on this spool should go fuck themselves. Not every condo owner is a rich Microsoft asshole, and apartment ownership is the norm in most cities around the world. Provincial cry-babies.

Posted by condo | December 3, 2007 8:30 PM
46

300K? Yeah, that's totally affordable.

*eye-rolling*

Posted by JessB | December 4, 2007 7:08 AM
47

Well, I hope the Condos are at least earthquake proof, because if the big one hits I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a building with more than one floor. Oh sorry. I worry about earthquakes. I can't help it. Views, schmews. $300,000 yah. I only wish for money like that. Maybe someday I'll win the lottery or marry a rich prince or grow wings and fly. :) hehe

Posted by Kristin Bell | December 4, 2007 9:26 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).