Comments on Denny's Owner Sues City

If that Denny's is a historical landmark, so's the Alaskan Way viaduct.

I would agree that AWV is Istoric.

So let's keep it.

@2 we could turn it into an elevated park, put plants and shit on parts of it that are reinforced, it could be pretty chill, sorta post-apocalyptic in a 12 monkeys or i am legend kinda way

The covered, southbound lanes could be converted into low income housing.

Or art lofts!

@3 - it just won't have that post-civilization flair without zombies, feral animals from the zoo, or deadly microbes.

That said, I'm ready.

bah...Benaroya sucks...the last time I ate there, they burned my Kobe beef and the chef nearly impailed me with his knife...

I feel duty bound to state what I always state: The Mannings building, suitably cleaned up and restored to its space-age kitschy glory, could be the anchor to a new development that would wrap around the north and west of the existing structure.

The resulting project would truly be distinctive and unique (as opposed to the usual horrendous misuses of those words by the real estate marketing crowd, when they talk about "urban living")

It's called "using a little imagination", but that involves more than recycling, for the ten millionth time, some dumbass set of plans drawn up by some Southern California developer (they put a few gables and some cedar on it to call it "northwesty").

And before anyone gets all property rights on my ass, let me say I think they should be given a height variance to make up for the airspace lost in preserving the building, and some sort of tax credit for creative reuse of a historic structure.

Oh, and one other thing: Anyone who whines about how the building isn't historic are the mental equivalents of those same folks who thought that Westin's idea of demolishing the top ten floors of the Olympic Hotel and replacing it with a cylindrical tower was just ducky. Or the same big thinkers who wanted to tear down the public market and replace it with some nice international style hotels.

Ha-rumph!

I'm sure there are better "icons" in Ballard. That building is ugly, and doesn't deserve landmark status. It's a joke to the designation.

I agree: Anyone who whines about how this building isn't historic also thinks that tearing down the public market is a good idea.

Thought, Daniel dear - those people THOUGHT the market should be demolished, because it was old and dirty. Then they saw how neat it was once someone paid some attention to it, and they changed their mind. Now they take out of town relatives there and watch people throw fish.

The same is true of Pioneer Square, but it took the Seattle Hotel being demolished to wake people up. Now they send their young adults there to drink too much and fornicate in public.

...And don't even get me started on the R. H. Thomson Expressway, which many people were happy to see slice through the arboretum.

Catalina, your posts assume that Stranger readers (and writers!) have at least a modicum of institutional memory and historical context - which is a dangerous assumption, indeed...

love the building - always thought it was a modern version of the Native American long house

is it historic, no

tear it down, no, use it somehow - maybe a fast food joint

Well, my bad, I rather poorly mis-stated your point. Doubtful we'll ever know whether you would have been proven right about this site though.

#7 - take your meds. #9 - wrong. Pike Place is interesting, useful and culture-y, while Denny's is a useless piece of shit building made of cement.

The site needs to be nuked and replaced with a parking ramp and a bus terminal, which will shut the Ballard-oids up for at least 5 minutes.

For a true historical representation of Ballard, add a giant neon sign outlining a drunken sailor vomiting up his Blatz on the sidewalk while fondling a one-eyed whore.

Imagine paying $400,000 for a house - after years of saving, perhaps, and months of planning and research - and then having it declared unfit for occupancy.

Now imagine the price was $12.5 million and the decision was made by a dozen people for whom it has zero impact, negative or positive. They won't even walk by it, let alone tour it or get hit with any cost.

Make all this happen in Seattle, a city that just built a $165 million library and had the rest of the country thinking it knew architecture.

Finally, imagine the decision came while the house band, er, Symphony, performed in a hall that you substantially paid for.

Then add a fully-loaded peanut gallery who, despite recognizing this is nothing like a landmark, love the idea of soaking someone else. Stir.

@15 Stop! My heart is breaking!

@14, I need no meds, thank you. But perhaps you should consult your physician, or at least learn something about the building, and the neighborhood, of which you speak. For one thing, Manning's is mostly wood and glass. For another, sailors never hung out in Ballard. You may be thinking of fishermen. While they both go to sea, they are two very different groups of people.

And Troy, the Benaroyas are far from victims. They did not scrimp and save to buy Manning's, only to have their dreams squashed by an uncaring government. (Which is a ridiculous cliche in and of itself. Have you been listening to KVI?) The Benaroyas have had a lot of money for a long, long time, and they got the building at fire sale prices. This judgement will not significantly impact their finances, and is just part of the cost of doing business in a town that has made them very, very rich.

And your suggestion that we should somehow give them special consideration because they donated a percentage of the cost of the symphony hall is insulting to the Benaroya family. They did that out of a sense of civic duty, not to use it as a club to push their business agenda through. They don't have anything to prove to anyone. They have already arrived.

Additionally, Troy, it was clear to all parties involved in the transaction that the building had landmark potential. In theory, that potential was baked into the price paid by the Benaroyas. The Benaroyas themselves applied the building for landmark status -- I have no sympathy just because they didn't like the answer.

See--the smart thing would've been to buy it and start demolish the same day/night. Problem solved. Lawsuits? Maybe, but cheaper to defend...
ps. It's not a landmark.

Catalina/@17, my point about Benaroya Hall was that "Good, they deserve it" and "Who cares, they're rich" comments (see past Slog posts) are misdirected.