City Bringing Bowling Back
posted by on June 18 at 12:50 PM
Ballard hasn’t always been “hep,” or whatever. Fifteen years ago, Ballard Avenue was full of industrial warehouses instead of bars, there was no “NoMa” (*snicker*) and Market Street was inhabited by crappy bookstores, a rundown one-screen movie theater and tiny shops selling troll statues, lingonberry preserves and lutefisk to old swedes.
Just like the rest of the city, Ballard’s changed drastically over the last 20 years—not necessarily for the worse, either—but when the Denny’s and Sunset Bowl closed down last April, it was clear that ol’ blue collar Ballard was on the way out.
The bar at Denny’s was, up until the end, an indisputably a blue collar dive. The Sunset on the other hand, had become just as much a destination for irony-loving, Bud Light swilling karaoke crooners as it had for real, hardcore bowlers. But that was kind of the beauty of the Sunset. That weird mix of loud obnoxious twenty-somethings rocking out to “Don’t Stop Believin’” as grumpy, old men with bowling gloves puttered around the lanes was sort of the perfect balance between new Ballard and ye olde Ballard. Bowling was the great equalizer.
The Sunset’s gone—soon to be replaced by apartments and retail—but on Ballard resident is trying to keep old Ballard alive. Jim Bristow, the man behind Save the Sunset, has been talking to banks, businesses and Avalon Bay—the new owner of the Sunset Bowl site—about what it will take to bring bowling back to Ballard.
Bristow’s not a crazy, anti-development NIMBY. He participated in a bowling league at the Sunset last year, but prior to that, he says he hadn’t been in a bowling alley in 20 years. In fact, his initial interest in the Sunset came from his work as a “green” building contractor. Bristow had planned to approach the Sunset about installing solar panels on their roof, but found out they were closing.
When Bristow heard about the Sunset’s imminent closure, he decided to dedicate himself to keeping bowling alive in Ballard for the sake of density and for the children. “I just see there’s less and less for the younger generation to do [in Ballard],” he says. “You have to drive to West Seattle or Edmonds or Lynwood to [go] bowling. It’s getting really expensive to [drive]. What are we going to do on a rainy afternoon with our two kids?”
Bristow figures a new bowling alley will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million, and hopes to incorporate a new restaurant,a community gathering space and a rooftop garden into the building. His plans are still in the early stages—and he hasn’t come close to raising that much money—but he has slowly been amassing pieces of the Sunset which he hopes to reuse.
Bristow’s picked up 200 bowling pins and several benches which were auctioned off from the Sunset—along with several lanes—and he’s repurposed old beams and wood from the lanes to build a deck at his home in Loyal Heights.
In addition to picking up pieces of the old Sunset, Bristow also says he’s gotten 3500-3800 signatures on a petition in the hopes of getting Avalon Bay to provide a home for Ballard’s new bowling alley. However, Bristow says he hasn’t had much luck getting Avalon Bay to quote a price for the 20,000 square feet of space he’s looking for. Avalon Bay could not be reached for comment.
While Bristow says juggling his business and his bowling project has been a struggle, he’s not getting discouraged. “I’ve done a lot of things in my life people have said ‘you can’t do it’,” Bristow says.”It may take a couple of years, but I think it will happen.”
Like a lot of grassroots projects, Bristow’s plan could to out to be a complete pipe dream. But hopefully Bristow can use some of his experience as a contractor and business owner to bring bowling back to Ballard.
Bristow is currently looking for volunteers to help get his project off the ground. More info at Savesunsetbowl.com.
the answer is easy; more bowlers and less opportunity cost for maintaining a bowling alley.
The lack of bowling alleys in the city got me thinking of something I discovered the other day: there doesn't seem to be any mini (putt-putt) golf courses around here either. I'm fairly new to the area so I could be wrong. Are there?
Simple solution:
Put Sunset Bowl in the Sunset Tavern, that way you can bowl, drink, and see a rockin band all in one place.
@2, There aren't many. I actually researched this online last week because that's something I want to do this summer for the first time in years. Although there aren't many, I was pleased to find that there is an outdoor course in Interbay, which is pretty convenient if you live anywhere in Seattle proper. http://www.insiderpages.com/b/2540177340
@1
No, actually, the answer isn't easy. The opportunity cost of putting in a bowling alley instead of, say, an Urban Outfitters, fails to take into account lost economic diversity that will stabilize the local economy against fluctuations in the national economy. Another way to put that is that if and when the current recession deepens -- particularly if fuel prices continue to go up -- the large up-scale chain stores that typically buy long-term leases in new developments will begin to close up. If you allow them to take over an entire neighborhood or city when times are good, you force people who run smaller businesses that rely on higher density to de-capitalize. This means that, when the tide of external investment finally recedes, it leaves nothing but wreckage in its wake, with no surviving local alternatives to the former globalized economy.
See: every company town in the history of the Western United States.
Economic theories that make no distinction between the mobility of capital and the mobility of communities and culture are inherently unrealistic and, therefore, inaccurate and flawed.
Jonah,
A: Please teach Erica how to use a jump.
B: There is nothing wrong with old Swedes. I hope to be one someday.
Ain't nothing wrong with the bowling industry that $10/game lane fees won't fix.
Except for the unwillingness of bowlers to pay that sort of money to bowl inside the city limits...
I'm always confused about what putt-putt means. Is that miniature golf? If so, Bullwinkle Family Fun Center in Renton has a course. Also, on the damned side of the bridge at Willows Run there is a beautiful what I'd term miniature golf course. It may be spendy but they do have discount prices during certain times of the day.
I'm not sure why Seattle has gotten rid of their bowling alleys because we seem have several on the Eastside. There's the one at Eastgate, Tech City in Kirkland, and the new and strangely rule laden Lucky Strike in Bellevue. Hmm, but that may be because we're willing to pay more over here for the joy of wearing weird shoes.
Has everyone here forgotten about Kenmore Lanes? Huh?
Actually, cheap land prices and rents for commerical bowling spaces, combined with sufficient popular demand.
Solve those and you get bowling.
Bowling takes up a lot of space and has low revenue per square foot.
Basic land use planning, really.
Or ... you could subsidize it, or make it exempt like we do with the ultra-elite golf courses we give land to. Which will make it ... not bowling.
i've been working down the street from the bullwinkle's since december, and have yet to check them out...but def. looking forward to dragging coworkers there someday after work (when it's actually NICE enough outdoors to merit being outside for that long) - they also have go-karts and a bunch of other stuff that i have only viewed during travel by the place.
there's also bowling here in renton - 2 diff places - sunset bowl in the renton highlands, and acme bowl (a much newer, much more expensive place) that is east of southcenter.
now you've got me wanting to find coercive ways to get my coworkers to do this....don't think there's alcohol at bullwinkle's, damnit!
Judah,
You might have a some kind of point if you could show that bowling provides some kind of economic stability. as it is, bowling as an industry, as a form of entertainment, has been decreasing for years and years. there are plenty of substitutes to bowling for most of the public and there is little substitute for bowling for the most die hard bowlers.
anyway, the concept of opportunity cost isn't based on the needs of what other people want to have; it is based on the choices one person has to make and therefore anything outside the values that person has no relevance to the decision they make. If they valued economic diversity over cash in their pocket the opportunity cost to them wouldnt be overwhelming. if they valued bowling above cash in their pocket the cost wouldnt be overwhelming. if they valued cash in their pocket above all else, the opportunity cost of keeping an investment that continues to shrink nationally, would be huge.
and preserving economic diversity as a hedge for national economy woes doesn't make any sense if the diversity you're preserving is economically unfeasible in individual parts.
as fnarf said "why not go stand up for blacksmiths?"
Stating the obvious (to those on the Hill): the Garage on Broadway is expanding it's building to accomidate more bowling lanes... The numbers aparently work there. Also, although I haven't been, I hear the new bowling alley in downtown Bellevue, Lucky Strike, is quite popular. Avalon Bay is an apartment REIT - Bowling just isn't in their business plan.
Also, Bridle Trails anyone?
@14 - true, more subsidized land usage.
Well I miss the goddamn lingonberries.
And it's Norwegians who eat lutefisk. Swedes eat rotten herring.
The only cost-effective way to bring bowling back is to not let it be taken out to begin with.
Which is a little too late, I suppose.
@12
That may be the general trend, but Sunset Bowl actually increased their hours 10 years ago, from set hours to 24-hour operation, and that place was slamming every time I went in there, any time of the day or night.
I wasn't debating what's included in "the concept of opportunity cost". I was saying that opportunity cost doesn't provide a complete rationale for allowing a mass shift in the composition of the regional economy.
judah, the fact it was packed when you happened upon it doesn't mean it was economically viable business in comparison to other alternatives for the same space, short run or long run. revenue alone doesn't translate into profit, nor does revenue alone justify operating a business while other, more profitable opportunities are out there.
i'm not making a value judgment on the decision that one person makes when i talk about opportunity cost. im stating pretty plainly that the cost of choosing one thing over another is great enough to warrant the decision to close sunset bowl and do something else.
you seem to be making a value judgment on the decision process and are inserting what you value into the choices that other people made. the opportunity cost as you measure it will be different than as another person measures it because of the difference in what individuals value. the ultimate problems that i think you'd be unable to resolve is the conflict between respecting the values of an individual and their ability to pursue those ends without malice and whose values we use to determine an overriding limit on what individuals can pursue.
Funny how everyone keeps forgetting that there is a bowling alley just off Rainier Avenue. But SE Seattle is the forgotten city.
Seattle also hasn't had a skating rink since the early 80s. (Anyone remember Skoochie's? And that they started out as a roller rink before going all-dance club? Or the Greenwood rink that is now townhouses?) Not ice, not roller. Our bowling alleys have been closing rapidly over the last couple decades as well. (I remember bowling at Lake City and University Village.)
Seriously, what the hell?
#20 I haven't forgotten. I prefer the Imperial Lanes, but since I moved to Ballard, let me morn the lost of a more convenient bowling alley. I will probably start going to Kenmore or The Garage.
If you think I'm approaching this problem from a pure values perspective, or even that values are in the forefront of my argument, you're mistaken. There are many regulations on how, where, and what a person can build, or what kinds of businesses a person can operate, within city limits. Those regulations are predicated on a wide variety of concrete economic factors that concern the larger community. The proliferation of chain retailers has a number of tangible effects on the economy and tax base of the city. I don't care what they're selling and I don't care who's making it; interstate retail chains are economically harmful and their net benefits to regional economies are less than the costs over time. Rhetoric about opportunity costs is just a euphemism for "short term gain over long term stability and profitability."
Oh, and also:
Yeah, that's cute, but I also specified that they expanded their hours and that they continued to operate on the expanded hours until they closed.
Try arguing without a straw man.
in most of these cases in seattle though, the development is allowed to happen and doesnt violate any specific zoning law or legal test. you don't have any legal basis for your gripe against what kind of retail or property development takes place. it is all for what you perceive as more important.
you're totally imparting your values on the conversation. why shouldn't an owner be able to sell his land for short term gain if it conforms to existing laws?
what mechanism can you implement to compel the owner to hold on to something, or continue to do something that deprives them financial benefit. you're essentially saying that property owners are obligated to consider what you deem important (slower sustained growth) than what they consider important (cash in hand to spend in the economy at current time).
you're advocating a position where you know what is best for other people, and the economy as a whole. If someone likes what a retail chain has to offer, why shouldn't a retail chain be allowed to conduct business you're really advocating a position where people aren't free to engage or pursue opportunities they think are best for themselves because you think it has more negative effects in the long run.
i also highly doubt your claims that interstate retail chains are accurate for many reasons;
1. if they don't provide a benefit to enough people they will go under.
2. if they do go under the resources the were consuming will be freed up to go to places that have more demand
3. they employ people in regional locations
4. if people truly valued mom and pop or locally owned business they would patronize them instead of retail chains
5. if they don't it is a sign that they prefer to reap the benefits of a chain over mom and pop stores.
6. while i can see the point that profits are funneled out of state and not reinvested into the community, the potential windfall for consumers can be reinvested into the community. are the wages of chain employees not spent within the community?
you're essentially wanting to enforce a form of protectionism at the expense of these groups:
1. current property owners
2. developers
3. future businesses
4. employees in these future businesses and in the construction of these future businesses
5. future tenants in buildings
(all of which generate tax revenue)
for the benefit of people in these groups
1. current regional business owners
2. current residents that cherish the aesthetic of their area
essentially your entire premise boils down to regional protectionism and central decision making that conforms to your ideals.
one of my greatest gripes with your ideals of there needing to be some kind of government regulation and protectionism is that I will wind up on the wrong side of it.
judah, expanded operation hours doesn't mean they were generating any more marginal revenue above their marginal costs. if they made $2000 more dollars by being 24 hours but it cost them $1800 to do so, they'd only get a $200 profit per day...which is to say, they'd make 1.29 million dollars over 20 years above what they were projected to make.
instead of selling now for 20,000,000 and making 500k per year on 2.5% alone. and 10 mil over 20 years in simple interest
did some more calculations;
the bowling alley would have to generate 4.5k a day in profit alone to match 20 mil at 5% for 20 years.
that 20 mil gaining 5% per year is in a bank being loaned out to other people to start businesses, buy homes, etc etc.
and how far do you want to take this anti interstate retail protectionism? banks? internet sales?
BA: As usual, you're arguing with the point you wish I'd made, rather than the point I actually made. I can't really blame you -- you've spent a lot of time on the Slog, so I can see how you might get stuck in sort of an intellectual rut. Nonetheless, you're looking at what I'm saying from the wrong angle entirely.
Yes, that's true now. It was also once true that Coca Cola had cocaine in it. Just because an economic practice is currently legal doesn't mean allowing it to remain legal is sound economic or public policy.
I'm not proposing blocking the sale of land. I'm proposing altering zoning regulations to reduce the density of big-box interstate chain retail outlets. Real estate values will do what they do.
Yes and no. I'm advocating a position where I know what's best for my community. I've lived in Seattle for almost 30 years. I'm not some suburban expatriot who came here from California and am now trying to force the city into the mold of what I imagined it to be when I bought a condo here. Nor am I a carpetbagger developer who only views the region as a cash generating machine. I grew up here. I plan to stay here. I have informed opinions about what is good for the long term economic health of the region. I advocate those positions publicly. It's called civil debate. You should try it sometime.
Your model is based on what I believe to be a false assumption; specifically, that small business owners and large business owners are competing on equal terms. Leaving aside the question of economies of scale, corporate retail chains play a particular role in a real estate speculation bubble: when developers gather money to fund a given project they're required to have a certain portion of the project leased prior to construction. Large interstate retailers make good tenants for these sorts of developments because they can sign long-term leases and guarantee a certain baseline return on investment for the speculators who are investing in the project. They also use up a lot of square footage, so you have fewer leases to negotiate at the beginning of the project.
So basically your whole classic supply/demand model is undercut here by the dynamics of real estate speculation.
No, I'm essentially wanting to mitigate the effects of speculation on adjacent markets. Regulating speculation is one of the most basic functions of government.
If you understood my point even a little bit, my feelings might be hurt.
Shocking. Really? I never would have guessed.
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.