Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Tonight's Design Meetings

1

Man, that 'new and improved' design for the lower Queen Anne building is BORING!

Posted by Darrell | May 7, 2008 3:29 PM
2

Dominic is right; the first version of that Queen Anne building is waaaaay better than the "improved" version.

The Blume buildings are delightful, if your political aim in life is to invade Poland and massacre all the Jews, Gypsies, Commies and Homos...

Posted by michael strangeways | May 7, 2008 3:48 PM
3

I agree with Dominic. And the SLU buildings are NOT ped friendly. If you've ever walked around there in the summer, it just feels like walls after a while, almost like a desert. This just increases that disconnected feeling.

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 7, 2008 3:54 PM
4

“The Board felt that that architectural statement could be simpler.” means “we want it to be boring”.

Posted by Alan | May 7, 2008 3:55 PM
5

Anything that might possibly wipe out that shitacular Paragon restaurant n' bar is endorsed by me!

Posted by QA res | May 7, 2008 4:05 PM
6

God the downgrade in the LQA project makes me sad.

Posted by Cale | May 7, 2008 4:23 PM
7

Here we go again. More square buildings that have no greenspace. The residential buildings have the same lack of any type of deck. Those cookie cutter proposals just keep rolling in don't they? Will they ever stop?

How about designing a patio deck that is 6 feet wide by 20 feet long? How come every proposal has a deck that you can barely stand on with 2 people, let alone want to set a table up for 4 with chairs and grill? Has any developer actually laid out that type of furniture and then figured out how many square feet it would take? Why even have a deck at all?

Seriously. If I ever consider dropping $400,000-$700,000 on a damn condo, it better have a deck large enough to put a hottub on it. I'm very sick and tired of the crap options prospective condo buyers have to swallow at the whims of these developers.

And for those of you who mock or jump for joy when you find that there is no mandated underground parking, I'd like to give a big fuck you to all of you also. For those of us that can actually afford to buy that type of property, it is likely we have a higher paying job not located within blocks of our condo. Thanks for hamstringing our options to be able to have a vehicle to get to work, else we need to have a commute that exists solely within the bus lines.

It sounds all touchy feely to have less parking spaces, but the reality is... people need to get to their job. And if I can afford to buy that property, I shouldn't be forced to consider giving up my driving because some eco-rabid middle class granola cruncher thinks they are doing the environment a favor on my behalf.

Don't even bother replying, unless you too fit the demographic of being able to afford to live in Queen Anne.

Posted by Can any of you even afford a condo in Queen Anne? | May 7, 2008 5:16 PM
8

that barely consitutes a woonerf... and i know the designers pretty well...

Posted by holz | May 7, 2008 7:20 PM
9

The MM development on top of QA looks like it's going to demolish that cute brick apartment building between it and Safeway. Way to go, developers!

Posted by madamecrow | May 7, 2008 7:49 PM
10

just wanted to thank the stranger, the slog and dominic for keeping readers posted on land use projects around town. your analysis is helpful too.

Posted by saucy | May 8, 2008 1:06 PM
11

Condo buyers hate Seattle's developers too? Interesting.

Posted by keep seattle seedy | May 13, 2008 3:11 PM

Comments Closed

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