Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on This Building...

1

Perhaps Sunset Bowl could move there, tho' it'd be smaller and an even longer wait for a lane.

Posted by Madashell | February 20, 2008 7:02 PM
2

Put a roller rink in it?

Posted by could we... | February 20, 2008 7:05 PM
3

Anybody feeling we're getting a little TOO historic landmark happy? Boy who cried wolf anybody? Soon we're just gonna be stuck with a load of old buildings that cost too much to repair but can't be replaced. Which'll just push the cost of living up more.

Posted by Mac | February 20, 2008 7:07 PM
4

@3:

NO.

Posted by Strath | February 20, 2008 7:12 PM
5

@3 Thanks, Debbie Downer.

Posted by Bub | February 20, 2008 7:14 PM
6

I think this designation speaks volumes about the lack of interesting architecture in our city. Anything that stands out in the least is considered valuable. I love bizarre buildings, but I think our energies should be spent toward making buildings green before we work to preserve mere oddities that probably suck energy like mad.

Posted by Marko Constans | February 20, 2008 7:24 PM
7

I'm so sick of irony.

Posted by Geoffrey | February 20, 2008 7:33 PM
8

WOO HOO! This old hideous building is BALLARD! Let's drink bottled Rainier to celebrate!

Posted by Soupytwist | February 20, 2008 8:01 PM
9

Now can we get the schmucks running Pacific Science Center to take down all the Imax banners, advertising vinyl, the stupid dinosaurs, and all that brightly colored crap that's infesting the pool in the courtyard between the buildings?

Seriously. The original Science Center architecture is cool. Crapping it up with all that crap is just, well, it makes my blood boil.

Posted by Dr_Awesome | February 20, 2008 8:04 PM
10

There's nothing ironic about it. What keeps the city interesting is weird older buildings mixed in with smart new buildings: the high/low mix. What makes the city suck is schlocky new condos: pure mediocrity. There's plenty of stuff that can be knocked down before this little guy.

Posted by Strath | February 20, 2008 8:04 PM
11

This Building... is now a historic landmark.

which is a polite way of saying "this building has been confiscated."

Posted by JMR | February 20, 2008 8:07 PM
12

This will surely make for interesting litigation.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 20, 2008 8:15 PM
13

Perhaps this building is not your cup of tea. Close your eyes and imagine the one that will replace it, then get back to me.

Posted by Jim Demetre | February 20, 2008 8:19 PM
14

Is that a goddamned denny's?!

Even if it's not, what the fuck is wrong with you Seattle? And don't give me that "it's so ironic and fabulously tacky" bullshit.

Posted by brandon h | February 20, 2008 8:23 PM
15

As the most hated commentator on Slog I just have to say that despite what most of you will think I am glad that one (and I say and hope ONLY one) of these buildings will be saved. Let me explain: One area of history that was long neglected until recently is social history (ie history of how people lived etc) and this building (as hideous as it is) is a relic of a time of cheesy fast food diner crap. And as scary as it sounds those diners are part of our social history.

I certianly am not saying save all or most or even a few Denny's but one or two I am actually okay with.

Feel free to tear me a new asshole but find me another historian who does not understand the point I am making.

Posted by Andrew | February 20, 2008 8:31 PM
16

You're Ecce Homo?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 20, 2008 8:38 PM
17

Hey retards, no one saved a Denny's today. They saved a building, and it's anyone's guess what will happen to it now.

Also, no one "confiscated" the building -- it's still owned by Benaroya, only now they have less freedom over its future, i.e., they can't tear it down.

Posted by joykiller | February 20, 2008 8:39 PM
18

Guess the Benaroyas' land speculation purchase didn't work out here the way they bet it would. Funny - they themselves submitted the nomination as a landmark. Ah well, at least they have eleventy million dollars left.

Their ostentatious and clumsy PR campaign backfired badly, so now the image-sensitive Benaroyas get to find someone to restore and make cool use of the building. A win for the whole neighborhood.

Posted by tomasyalba | February 20, 2008 8:50 PM
19

@15
We do understand your point we just diagree: The point of historic preservation should not be to preserve ugly things. Or "relic of a time of cheesy fast food diner crap." It makes our city crappy to preserve crap and this is crap. Mixing old ugly crap with new ugly crap does not help either. We don't preserve all the really bad art from the ancient Greeks or the Florentines.
I don't keep failing crappy records on my shelf. @17 "less freedom" = PC poppycock.
Get real. It's a functional condemnation/seizure. The owners are now our agents, they now own it for our public purposes not their own. They can't tear it down or replace it this is functionally the same as a taking. Tell it like it is.

Posted by crap is crap | February 20, 2008 8:52 PM
20

@19, I'd have more sympathy for the ownership suffering from this "functional condemnation/seizure" if they didn't, you know, file for landmark status themselves.

Posted by joykiller | February 20, 2008 9:01 PM
21

@16 Napoleon...
That was funny. Deserves a LOL!
(sorry ecce, but didn't you laugh too?)

Posted by onion | February 20, 2008 9:11 PM
22

It's "an" historic landmark. Not "a" historic landmark.

Posted by jean genie | February 20, 2008 9:14 PM
23

Maybe y'all could learn a thing or two before you jump in here. Like maybe a thing or two about midcentury architecture, and about googie. Maybe you could learn a thing or two about what that building was before it was a Denny's, or about the way buildings function in a city. If you knew ANYTHING about Seattle at all, maybe you'd have a slightly informed opinion, instead of this knee-jerk "confiscation!" B.S.

Posted by Fnarf | February 20, 2008 9:21 PM
24

When I was a kid it was Manning's. The ceiling went all the way up to the arched roof (Denny's lowered it) and long strings of colored glass beads hung down from it to the floor. There must be photos someplace.

Posted by Jim Demetre | February 20, 2008 9:30 PM
25

I'm beyond furious that this got declared "historical". This has happened way too much.

It's like that ugly Pike Place Market, which should have been demolished long ago and turned into an office building. We can always use more office buildings.

Or that collection of old warehouses they call Pioneer Square, which would have been GREAT parking ramps. Six square blocks of parking ramps would make going downtown much nicer.

Or that ugly swath of greenery called the "arboretum", which would have made an excellent expressway.

When will we ever learn? Don't property owners have any rights anymore? This is just like the Soviet Union!!!!

Posted by Seattlite | February 20, 2008 9:31 PM
26

Whether this building is torn down, or is restored to glory, when that happens we will be losing some of our city's last remaining "Ron Paul rEVolution 2008" stencil graffiti.

Posted by elenchos | February 20, 2008 9:34 PM
27

@ Fnarf - Dude, I agree with you completely!

Posted by Soupytwist | February 20, 2008 9:41 PM
28

@24

Picture. You can kind of see the beads and the tall glass windows toward the back.

Posted by elenchos | February 20, 2008 9:43 PM
29

I am so pleased. When I moved to Seattle 20 years ago there were so many funny quirky buildings like this.

This building and Zestos radiate post-war Ballard! With only Ballard Ave. and surrounded by Endless condo buildings it would lose a lot of the continuity to the past.

Or something like that. Am I drunk?

Posted by cracked | February 20, 2008 9:44 PM
30

So, this was one of the original candidates for Not Fooling Anybody. And, it will be again.

I'm currently hoping for a place called Danny's.

Posted by TheMisanthrope | February 20, 2008 9:47 PM
31

@28
that picture is fantastic. Thanks for posting. I love the 70s colors before the 70s and the great hanging fixtures.

Posted by cracked | February 20, 2008 9:49 PM
32

@28

That's the place I remember!

Posted by Jim Demetre | February 20, 2008 9:53 PM
33

RE: The Pacific Science Center comment.
I work there and the last time I checked the only things around and in the pools are the waterworks(that the kids love), the "high wire" bike and the model dinosaurs. And PSC loves their dinos and their big money making("Fund Raising") Imax movies.

Posted by PSCfossil | February 20, 2008 10:12 PM
34

One of the least boring historic buildings I've ever seen in the northwest.


I miss these... http://40ouncebeer.com/40/rainierale40.html

Posted by Abe | February 20, 2008 10:38 PM
35

Here's another page with the same Mannings postcard: http://www.vintageseattle.org/2008/01/30/past-post-mannings-cafeteria-interior/

Posted by Fnarf | February 20, 2008 10:43 PM
36

The idiots who voted to make this ugly piece of shit a historic landmark are even dumber than the idiots who think we should say "an historic landmark."

Posted by ivan | February 20, 2008 10:47 PM
37

erica: i started to do the same thing tonight, it's awfully difficult. i guess yay obama?

Posted by Cook | February 20, 2008 11:02 PM
38

@ 22: I used to think it was "an historic" too, but the rule with using the article "an" with an "h" word is the way the "h" is delivered with the mouth. If the "h" in the word has a silent "h", as in "hour" you use the "an" version of the article: "An hour later ...." If the "h" word has an "h" you pronounce, like "home" or "hard" or "hidden" or "hysterical", you use the "a" version of the article: "A hysterical plot ...." Just sayin'.

Posted by grace | February 20, 2008 11:03 PM
39

I agree with Ivan! It's just like that horrible Olympic Hotel or those nasty theatres (Fifth Avenue, Paramount, Moore) that those faggy decorators on the "landmarks" board stole from their owners!!!

They should have all been bulldozed in favor of something really neat like the Westin Hotel. Thank God they demolished the Orpheum for that. And Thank God that the Clise family had enough of their civil liberties left to demolish the Music Hall!!!

I'm so worried for the Benaroyas that I fear I might vacate my bowels right here in the kitchen. Wealthy people shouldn't be treated like this!!! If the mayor and council weren't such communists, we might see some real progress in this town. As it is, I'm afraid the rich people will all move away, and we'll have a Penney's where Nordstrom is now!

Posted by Toady | February 20, 2008 11:07 PM
40

@22, @38: Another handy rule of thumb is that if you sound like a dopey middle school teacher at a Catholic boy's school when you say it, the "n" before the "h" probably doesn't belong. It was cool once, but not any more.

A historic
A histogram
An hour.
A

Posted by Ad | February 20, 2008 11:15 PM
41

i am absolutely elated. power to the people. and fnarf, thank you for the postcard link.
no fucking twee museum, though, please. restore it to its manning's glory. more 24hr diner options in seattle!

Posted by pretentious | February 20, 2008 11:22 PM
42

This story is a prime example of this effect: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?document_id=2004181704&slug=eicher14&date=20080214

Most of those who applaud this decision admit that it's fundamentally a misuse of landmark status, just one that happens to serve their goals for shaping the cityscape. I wonder how many of those same people complain about the skyrockting cost of housing in the city?

Posted by David Wright | February 20, 2008 11:29 PM
43

Why did you tell me about this, Erica? You know I hate history! Look at those disgusting landmarks, stealing my right to make an outrageous profit. Oh, I can't stand this city another minute. All historic buildings should be turned into condos! I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation. Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?

Posted by Benaroya will destroya | February 20, 2008 11:29 PM
44

Cool.

See you at the Obama gettogether on Friday, Erica!

Check my Facebook Events for the invite ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 20, 2008 11:30 PM
45

FNARF! HELP! I am fascinated with city planning and my first apartment out of high school was two blocks north of this Dennys (terrific memories under the worst lighting known to man). Google isn't giving anything very useful: what are you using as search terms??

Posted by former ballardite | February 21, 2008 12:46 AM
46

OH! Sorry to bother, read more and got your postcard link. Thanks!!

Posted by former ballardite | February 21, 2008 12:50 AM
47

Don't think you're having all the fun. You know me; I hate everyone.

Posted by Trent Reznor | February 21, 2008 2:22 AM
48

To all the folks who are incapable of distinctions:
1. just because someone says this building is an ugly piece of crap, quoting someone else who agrees with the designation yet admits it is an ugly piece of crap, doesn't mean that other landmarked buildings like the Pike Market are an ugly piece of crap.

Can you understand that bit of high level logic:
"X is crap" does not mean "y is crap"??

2. Just because someone says stop saying PC bullshit that it's not in effect a substantial taking let's just admit it it is a substantial taking in effect -- doesn't mean that that person is saying we should never have landmark satus or we shouldnt' have taken or portected the Pike MArket or other buildings.

Can you comprehen that incredibly difficult intellectual position of this type of logic: (a) A program can have serious effects on people we should be honest about so that we should pretend we are pvoding liberty we should aadmit it we are taking away their libert or oproperty (govt. taking property, govt. severe regulation of property, putting people in jail, making them attend school or educate their kids, making them sign up for universal health care);
and (b) in particular instances this power can be used for silly or stupid purposes (preserving crap INSTEAD OF nice and valuable stuff like the Pike Market) (a particular defendant couldn've been railroaded by the cops) and should niot have been so used, and
(c) THIS DOESN'T MEAN it should not exist or never be used.

If you don't think it's crap say so. If you think crap should be preserved say so. But when you twist the position that crap should be preserved into a position against all preservation, you're either ignorant or deliberately using the straw man technique a/k/a

lying.

This is crap. Ugly crap. Now we allhave to look at it forever. That sucks. It's idiotic. The only way the defenders can make their case appears to be to lie and twist words and argue against straw men because they seem to be afraid (unlike @15) to say:

we think it should be preserved although it's crap, because it's HISTORICAL crap!!

Posted by unPC | February 21, 2008 6:15 AM
49

This designation would never have happened if the developers listened first to the neighbors and provided a well-designed building instead of the piece of sh*t they presented.

Posted by Polka Party | February 21, 2008 6:40 AM
50

I think this is a cool building, with a great design. Since it has helped define the "entrance" to the Ballard commercial district for decades, it's a perfect candidate for preservation.

As for people who think it's ugly, tough. It's not our fault that you lack imagination and good taste. And if you feel like it's an "illegal taking", double tough. Our city decided long ago that preservation was important, and that's a fact of doing business in this city. Don't like it? Do business elsewhere. There's plenty of other people out there who want to live and work in Seattle, partly because of progressive initiatives like this.

But if the opponents to preservation feel strongly about it, they should run for council on their anti-social, anti-government, pro-developer platform. Maybe they could even form their own political party and call themselves the Benaroya bootlickers or something.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | February 21, 2008 7:09 AM
51

Yes, it's an ugly wart on the ugly landscape of Ballard, but that is not the point!

It would be difficult to name anyone who came of age in Seattle who did not eat there when drunk or stoned or whatever at 3AM! It was the fucking Cantina Scene from Star Wars in there on most nights. All the drunk Catholic skool girls....

Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber | February 21, 2008 7:16 AM
52

My SO hates this building passionately! I feel passionate about preserving it. Is there anyone with a mild middle of the road opinion about this object?

Posted by mirror | February 21, 2008 7:26 AM
53

You don't get to call this a "landmark" because you hate to imagine what building will replace it...

Posted by Shawn Fassett | February 21, 2008 7:27 AM
54

Erica, I started to do the same thing, then I read Dan's post of the Idaho urinal last night and relapsed.

Posted by ratcityreprobate | February 21, 2008 7:29 AM
55

Most of my teen years were spent in similar "space-agey" coffee shops, so I got a soft spot for saving that one.

Just saw the update, ECB. Let us know what we can do to help. :)

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 21, 2008 7:30 AM
56

Wow. Manning's. I was born and raised in Ballard in the 1960's but for some unknown reason, my family never ate at Mannings. My only visit to that restaurant was once as a crazy teenage girl, with my probably-gay very-short-term boyfriend (who later became a priest).

That same fellow also convinced me to ride The Zipper at The Fun Forest. And, no, not THAT zipper unfortunately (which is one of the reasons we broke up).

Anyone remember Burgerama up the street? (Oh, geez, don't get me started.)

Posted by marian the librarian | February 21, 2008 8:02 AM
57

Ok most of you hate the Benaroya family and think its funny that they will lose big money on this deal. They could restore the Mannings there and if they charge almost no rent maybe it will stay in business.

Now this could have been the "big" project of a developer that had built "good" buildings for 30 years and had a "good" design for this spot. But if someone filed for a Googie landmark he would be SOL.

As someone said above, the people on the slog seem unable to connect these kinds of regulations with increased housing costs. In fact, when the UW professor put out a paper saying that zoning, permits, regulation, growth management, court rulings and other government imposed items increase the cost about $200,000, he was attacked as a pro sprawl, highway building, anti-density asshat. And the developers choose to build crappy buildings even though good building cost the same, right.

We should inventory all property in Seattle and tag all potential landmark buildings and give the owners a drastically lowered property tax that only needs to be repaid if they successfully protest the LM status. How it can be justified to reduce value on an one at a time basis versus a general zoning change needs to be explained.

Posted by brilliant | February 21, 2008 8:36 AM
58

You don't want it to be a historic landmark?

Then don't nominate it as a historic landmark.

Especially when you don't even really mean it.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 21, 2008 8:50 AM
59

39, 50:

The Orpheum and the Music Hall served a valuable civic purpose. This Denny's didn't. I ate there many times but so what?

How many housing units are we deprived of now? Can't have it both ways. Can't complain about lack of housing and the "loss of Seattle's architectural soul." If that Denny's represented the "heart of Seattle's archiectural soul," what's next for preservation? The used car lots on Aurora?

Posted by ivan | February 21, 2008 8:52 AM
60

When in 20 years we're sitting amongst miles upon miles of mouldering, dated six story condos, wondering how we got here, people will ask:

1) Did Seattle ever have a soul; and
2) If so, what was it?

A few ungainly relics of Seattle's blue collar past won't be unappreciated, then.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 21, 2008 9:04 AM
61

Grammar Nazis fuck off

Posted by bobcat | February 21, 2008 9:17 AM
62

@61

I am trying to parse your sentence, but it seems your computer died mid-stream. This pedant is particularly interested in what text would have come before the closing period.

Posted by seattle98104 | February 21, 2008 9:21 AM
63

Congrats seattle, holding on to your suburban hell culture and making it "historic" really shows how "world class" we are.

shit like this just reinforces my opinion that seattle and the people of seattle really don't want seattle to be anything but a suburban hell.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 9:33 AM
64

catalina, i cant help that you think suburban food establishment buildings qualify as "good design" Maybe you're just using a low brow, suburban understanding of what design and taste are?

there is nothing progressive about preservation. that is called conservative. conserving the status quo, what already exists and what we are comfortable with. Seattle in this regard is VERY conservative; We simply don't want anyone to do anything development-wise because, well, that wasnt what it was like when they grew up here, and it was pretty great growing up here.

and on another note, I think people taking glee in the fact that beneroya cant do what they please with their property are idiots. It is the height of selfishness to dictate your vision of what the city-scape should be to the property owner when you have no vested interest in the final outcome of that parcel of property. You gain a smug satisfaction in living in a suburban hell? at the cost to the property owner?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 9:42 AM
65

Benaroya Companies has a lot of money, but the people have a lot of votes. Property owners would love a society based on one-dollar-one-vote, but that is not how democracy works. The people won and that's good.

Posted by elenchos | February 21, 2008 10:00 AM
66

cmon elenchos, the people voted for george bush, the people vote for politicians that enact subsidies to not grow crops, the people vote for a lot of things that feel good but arent good on the whole. I dont buy the "any democratic decisions is a good decision" line.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 10:03 AM
67

i especially dont buy it when a democratic decision leads to something else that people then complain about. unintended consequences are the biggest spectre of decision making, but for everyone that complains about housing prices being so high, we simply need to point to democratic decisions like this that reinforce those high prices.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 10:08 AM
68

Any democratic decision is better than any plutocratic decision. If I disagree with an outcome, I'd much rather try to convince the people to change their minds than to try to outbid the rich.

And the American people themselves are to blame for George Bush and all of his crimes. We can't escape responsibility for what we have done.

Posted by elenchos | February 21, 2008 10:09 AM
69

but how is it "democratic" when the "democratic" decision is limiting the individual company's decision on an individual parcel of property, and "plutocratic" when the company gets to decide what to do with that individual parcel of property?

the only thing that you've shown is that the public can regulate business to do certain things with their property. The smoking ban is an instance where the public has spoken on property rights, etc.

But this goes beyond that. this is an individual case where voters decided that they wanted to keep a vacant building for no other purpose, for no other benefit, for no other reason than nostalgia. How can you really justify the selective nostalgia being more important to the populace than property and land use rights? This basically sends the message that there doesnt even need to be a public good to preservation, simply a vote.

while i disagree with the decision, and i disagree with the process of making building landmarks, if the people want to preserve the eyesore, then they need to live with this decision. and i hope to god landmark status can be revoked.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 10:25 AM
70

this also sets forth a perverse set of incentives; the owners now get tax breaks and government help to preserve the building.

so there are several costs here;
one to the tax payers in real dollar amounts towards preservation that takes away money from other services and programs, and less tax revenues on that property. another cost is to the company in the form of opportunity cost for that property.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 10:37 AM
71

Bellevue, taste is admitedly subjective. Some have it, some don't. I do, however.

And yes - Preserving a handful of buildings in a major American city accounts for the high cost of housing in that city. My gosh, here we've all been thinking it was the fact that a lot of people want to live here, but it turn out it's all historical preservations fault.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | February 21, 2008 10:40 AM
72

and finally, as a landmark and based on the current facilities of the building and sqft, the only thing that can go in there is another restaurant. to redevelop the interior would require special permitting to do that, and force the costs upon the owner which would then be transfered down to the tenant. the owner isnt going to redevelop the building for a new tenant out of their own pocket. those costs will be covered elsewhere, either through a grant provided by tax payers, or through higher rental rates on the tenant.

this seems like the worst instance of landmark status i could conceive of.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 10:52 AM
73

What this company does with that corner will have repercussions in the lives of thousands upon thousands of people every day. It is plutocratic to say they can alter the landscape that is part of the lives of a half million (or more) people in perpetuity, merely because they have a few million dollars.

They can build anything they want out in the sticks; country folk don't care about their environment and community means little to them. But if they want the substantial benefits of being located in the heart of a world-class city with a cutting edge culture, they have to submit to the will of the community. Seattle might be a backwater compared to New York City, but compared to the rest of the planet, Seattle is world class and that's why the rich want to buy a piece of it.

You can label it 'nostalgia' if you like but that's irrelevant. If the people say value exists, it exists. This building is worth saving because the community says so. Libertarians never get this: they think gold is inherently valuable, while the value of mere money is a social construct. The value of gold is a social construct too but they are not objective enough to see it.

Posted by elenchos | February 21, 2008 10:54 AM
74

catalina, are you purposely being ignorant of the fact that all the people moving here could have lived in a building that would replace that building? do you have a basic grasp of supply and demand curves? do you know what opportunity cost is?

people wanting to live here doesn't lead to higher prices if there is housing supply to meet that demand. demolishing this building and building condos would contribute to the supply and help keep prices lower.

historical preservation has a purpose to be sure. i think it's a poor argument to say that if one opposes this historical preservation the oppose all of it. but looking at the building type, the proposed redevelopment, the public good was served how in this case?

how is this historical landmark like other landmarked structures in the city btw? are other historical structures single level restaurants?

and everyone thinks they have taste catalina,

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 11:01 AM
75

I like it!

Posted by Kristin | February 21, 2008 11:02 AM
76

elenchos, the fact you support the tyranny of the majority doesnt make your case very compelling. you basically are giving your implicit support to things like bans on gay marriages, the patriot act, because the majority of people support them. or conversely you dont support things like mass transit because the majority of people here don't support them. so no only are you a statist but you're also pretty unprincipled.


also, your definition of world class would have Milwaukee as world class, have the entire south as world class, etc etc. you have such a wide definition of what world class is that it is hardly something one could use as a definition. preserving single story vacant buildings is not something that speaks to being on the cutting edge of culture.

in fact the cutting edge of culture is brought there by redeveloping, renewing,innovation, not preserving landmarks in ballard. the cutting edge of culture is not sustained by creating such a high cost of entry to people that they go elsewhere.

what does the value of gold or the perception of value have to do with anything in this conversation? the people value something so highly that they will complain about the costs of it down the road? thats what i'm seeing here. that people like catalina want to preserve something that they only benefit from slightly while

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 11:30 AM
77

the rest of the community, the company itself, pay for it.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 11:31 AM
78

Elenchos: Actually, they can't build whatever they want out in the sticks, because the growth management movement has given us "urban growth boundary" regulations (http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=7873).

Catalina: Prices go up not just because a lot of people want to live here, but because more pople want to live here than the ammount of housing supplied at current market prices. Limiting development exacerbates that effect. A local academic economist who has studied these things more carefully than you estimates that land-use regulations add $200K to the price of a typical Seattle home, a much larger fraction of costs than in other cities. If historic landmark statues were used as itended, to protect a tiny number of extremely significant sites, then their share of this effect would likely be very small. But when historic landmark statues are used willy-nilly to satisfy nostalgic whims and diffuse anti-developer sentiment, the costs they impose become much larger.

Posted by David Wright | February 21, 2008 11:48 AM
79

humorously enough elenchos the idea that values arent inherent is a great case as to why this is such ridiculous bullshit.

why should one part with what they value to satisfy what another one values when one is willing to pay the costs for what they value and the other isnt.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 11:51 AM
80

Bellevue,

Your understanding of historic architecture and economics is even weaker than your grammar.

The stupid, it burns!

Posted by Mr. X | February 21, 2008 12:06 PM
81

and yet all you can do is insult me, not contribute.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 12:14 PM
82

Not buying the "but now we won't have any housing!" argument. The Denny's is only a small portion of the property. It was not slated to become a 100-story tower. Whether or not condos are built on the site of the Denny's (not the entire property) will have a negligible impact on the local housing market.

Posted by joykiller | February 21, 2008 12:17 PM
83

I would much rather put gay marriage up to a vote than up for auction. It's worth remembering that for centuries gay people who were rich enough could buy the life they wanted. Today rich gays can pay lawyers to write contracts that are equivalent to the hundreds of rights that marriage gives you. In a society like Saudi Arabia, where there is hardly any liberty at all, you can buy the right to do just about anything. Most third world shit holes are plutocracies.

I did not say democracy is always right. I said democratic decisions are better than plutocratic decisions. It's much easier to correct a bad decision made democratically. Markets are inherently unstable and irrational. People can become better educated and more broad-minded, but markets perpetually search for ways to become more corrupt. Money accrues to those with the worst character traits (Mitt Romney), while democratic power tends towards those with virtue (Barack Obama). I'll take my chances with democracy over market forces any day.

Your problem in this issue is you keep shifting back and forth between disagreeing with the decision the community made, and questioning the right of the community to make it in the first place. Those are two different things.

Posted by elenchos | February 21, 2008 12:20 PM
84

elenchos, a plutocracy is the government taking away from the individual property rights.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 1:08 PM
85

plutocracy and democracy arent mutually exclusive either.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 1:12 PM
86

bellevue ave, your negative pedantry might be taken much more seriously if you would properly employ apostrophes.

Posted by grammar? i hardly knew her! | February 21, 2008 1:29 PM
87

i wrote off apostrophes long ago

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 1:36 PM
88

I can't believe I got through 80-some posts and no one mentioned that if we had built a monorail, this would have been a station--the building would have been torn down. So it really is a confiscation. I'm all for historic preservation, but it's awfully shitty for the public to sell a building that was about to be torn down and then prevent the new owner from doing the very same thing.

Posted by kk | February 21, 2008 1:58 PM
89

David darling, what you miss is that most of our regulations (in Seattle proper, and in WA state in general) exist because people wanted them.

Case in point: I work for City Light. Theoretically, we would be happy to hook up anyone who wants to be hooked up, regardless of the location (within safety regs, of course) but the citizens didn't like all the overhead wire in the sky.

So they petitioned DPD to create a regulation whereby if you are adding a freestanding, ADU or short platting your lot, you can only get one overhead service. That means that you have to go underground to serve the second structure.

This adds considerably to the cost of installation and electrical work. But that's what the people wanted, so that's the way the code was written.

Most of our environmental regulations are also because that's what the people wanted: Clean air and water, safe and reliable power, and at least minimal protection from the effects of rain water, landslides and earthquakes.

So go figure.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | February 21, 2008 1:58 PM
90

As for democracy, it wouldn't surprise me if we soon get a backlash initiative repealing local authority to landmark structures without compensating the owner for the loss in fair market value. After that passes overwhelmingly in response to an abusive case such as this, then we'll be left--democratically--with no historic preservation at all. Case in point: Oregon's Measure 37 (which passed in every county but one).

Posted by kk | February 21, 2008 2:09 PM
91

catalina, the problem is when you take this "thats what the people wanted" attitude towards everything but then find special exceptions for your own POV like gay marriage, like a lot of things. I thing that there is merit to historical landmarks but i think this is a case without merit, especially in the face of the net benefit a condo development would provide economically and tax wise compared to a shuttered denny's. say what you will about condo architecture in seattle, at least there is a government revenue benefit to it.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 21, 2008 2:13 PM
92

Another good reason to have stopped the Monorail!

Posted by NapoleonXIV | February 21, 2008 2:21 PM
93

Bellevue, your argument makes no sense. This is a local permitting/land use issue. Gay marriage is a national human rights issue. How can you even compare them? Did you take Civics in high school?

As for the monorail station issue: A monorail would have served the entire community, so sacrificing an architecturally significant structure would have been acceptable. A private developer's plans are different. They do not help solve the issue of transportation, and they can build elsewhere.

Besides, there's no reason why the development can't be built around the historical structure, and no reason why the structure can't become part of the new development. It's called architecture. Not all new development has to be pulled out of some lowest-common-denominator developer's ass.

Posted by Catalina vel-duray | February 21, 2008 4:07 PM
94

I feel the need to set the record straight on this issue. First of all, the landmark designation decision was NOT about landmarking a Denny's. It was about landmarking a building for it's site location, because it is just that- a landmark. How many times has one given directions at that corner saying "turn left at the Denny;'s" or similar. Furthermore, it is about the distinctive architectural style of the building. Love it, or hate it, this has garnered a tremendous amount of press coverage and comment.

To quote Alan Hess, who has written two books on the architectural style of Googie architecture..."buildings which one era considers ephemeral or ugly turn out to be highly valued by later generations. In my opinion, the inherent design, quality and well-conceived purpose of the popular Manning's restaurant by architect Clarence W. Mayhew make it a building that will continue to enrich it's neighborhood into the future.

The building will not sit and rot, and Benaroya is certainly able to sell the building to another developer, one that could develop the property while keeping the restaurant. If you keep it a restaurant, it doesn't have to have special permits, because there is no change of use. Check out the Seattle P-I article, as it shows a sketch of a proposed development. Although there have been repeated attempts to present this to Benaroya, they have yet to open the door to other, viable ideas.

And one more thing...the city does not pay for this, it's preservation or it's rehabilitation. The people who are in favor of it's designation are not against development, and if you will look at the sketch, you will see that it includes the restaurant (not a Denny's, as so many people seem to think), and condos, and town homes, and retail. It's just a different approach to the more ubiquitous cookie cutter type condos going up in the new canyons of Ballard. And so, there will still be plenty of housing...none of that was ever going to go away in this proposal. In fact, it meets or exceeds the current proposal.

Posted by Fran | February 24, 2008 10:37 AM

Comments Closed

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