I have fond memories of that building--I remember having an iced coffee there on one of my favorite visits to Seattle back in 2002 or so.
There was a huge rubber plant, or maybe a monstera, in the entranceway--does anybody know what will become of it? It won't be easy to move ... poor thing.
I missed why this was inevitable. Were no alt locations in Capitol Hill considered, including the funeral parlor and vacant lot parking lots just a bit south?
That building on 8th and Seneca is the Alfaretta. Lived there for a year or so. Had a great old lift with one of those iron accordion doors. Right next door to the Jinsonia Hotel which was a flop house/ halfway house type thing that eventually was gutted by fire (is it still standing?). Was a pretty sketchy neighborhood. not too nostalgic about it. Still sad to see old buildings go and not so great ones take their place.
The only complete memory I have about Vivace was that every time -- I mean EVERY time -- I went in there I saw someone from Manhunt and thought, "Wow, they are not as good looking as their pictures."
On the bright (?) side, it will be better not to be anywhere near an older masonry building when the big one hits.
Word is the Bonney Watson funeral home people are friends with Mayor Nickels. Stranger, did strings get pulled?
I'm glad all the businesses got to relocate before our local economy goes into a downturn.
Is Vivace relocating?
Scholar tree's last shade
Over milk heart morning brew
Let them drink at Peete's!
If one of the London bridges can be moved to Arizona, why can't some of these buildings be moved? (Assuming some rich person wants to pay for it.)
@10, because unlike one of the London Bridges a brick building is not all that remarkable. It would be infinitely cheaper to build a new one to look like it.
I don't think we need to do anything really about such things. We are not talking about significant or unique structures or even anything all that old. Hell a lot of these buildings are rather poorly laid out and suffer from all kinds of problems from earthquake readiness, to sufficient bathrooms and handicap access.
This is a keen example of why progress in Seattle so rarely is achieved.
Why does "Seattle need a better mechanism in the future for preserving these old buildings"? Maybe the nostalgic need a better mechanism in the future for coping with change.
@13 made me snort.
My little hope at times is that an earthquake destroys most of the brick piece of crap buildings beyond the point of salvage and we start with fresh new ideas and all the preservationists are smote out of existence.
I'm all for preservation, but I have to agree with the realists. Masonry buildings are HUGE earthquake dangers and retrofitting them with earthquake proofing is monumentally expensive. I also agree with those who point out that those old buildings are usually not up to code, especially when it comes to wheelchair access. Bricks are nice of course, and there is something that feels cool about those old buildings, but I'd much prefer to be somewhere safe during the big earthquake, or even any smaller ones!
I will desperately miss this place. When I first visited one year ago, it was by far the best cup I've ever had, and in a cool atmosphere to boot--one impossible to replace. Atmosphere goes a long way in creating a great hangout spot. The lesson here is that, for once, we need to learn how to build structures that aren't disposable.
Trevor @2, yes lots of different configurations were explored for the Capitol Hill Station on the Link light rail line. Moving it north enough to miss Vivace would've taken out the block north of John St., the block with Bank of America, etc. Moving south would've put the station closer to Pine St. and farther away from the retail core area north of John St.
Sound Transit has to dig a mighty big hole in the ground, and there's no way to do it without taking out buildings. On the positive side, when construction is finished, nearly all that land will be made available for redevelopment of the type typically championed by The Stranger. There IS a brighter future ahead.
Yes. Vivace is relocating to the Brix building (where the old Safeway used to be). So is Diletante. And B&O is relocating to Diletante's old space on Broadway.
Masonry buildings aren't inherently unsafe in earthquakes, UNREINFORCED masonry buildings are unsafe.
Vivace is moving to the aptly named (and reinforced) Brix at the other end of Broadway. The building was scheduled to be done already but is delayed until September.
I really hate people who imply that a love of classic old, perfectly good buildings is somehow lame and suspect, and that nothing must stand in the way of progress.
People like that wanted to tear down the French Quarter and Pike Place Market in the 60's to make way for "progress".
The wonderful thing about light rail is how it has transformative effects outside stations. There will be great TOD nearby. For example, plans are underway for the UW to build new green dorms within walking distance of that light rail station. That TOD will benefit the businesses of the area, and the transit to the main campus will be, shall we just say, superb. This is smart urban evolution.
@21 - actually, we're already converting the UW dorms to green building techniques ...
No, Will, I was referring to the new dorms on Capitol Hill near the LRT station - not the rehab work on the main campus dorm buildings.
it is suspect strangeways given the tone of anti development culture that has plagued Seattle for decades. Preserving old buildings for aesthetic reasons is nice but I am seeing this over and over again where outcry and sadness is thrust upon and old brick building being demolished simply because it is an old brick building, not because there was great love and support for this building before it was slated for progress.
The entire anti development and progress streak here is so reactionary and is always one step behind. That is why I don't find it genuine and why I question it at every point.
Bellevue is the living embodiment of the soubriqueut "Philistine."
New York, Paris, and London have preserved lots and lots of workaday older buildings and in so doing enhanced the value of those cities immeasurably. Seattle, on the other hand, is starting to resemble (architecturally, at least) Ventura Boulevard in LA's San Fernando Valley more and more by the day.
Woo hoo - now THAT's progress!
Oh, and Bellevue, if you don't like it here, don't let us keep you against your will for another minute longer. Really.
You say that the older buildings have materials and details that are too expensive for new buildings. I don't argue that most new buildings I see lack old-school ornamental touches, but is it really an issue of cost? Are the real (vs nominal) prices of those features too high for our market to bear? Or is it a matter of taste on the part of the architect?
Mr. X, you're too smart to use love it or leave it as an argument. Do you love the Iraq war? Well don't let the rest of the nation keep you here any longer. Do you love states passing bans on gay marriage? Do you love this ,that and the other?
And I'm sorry but the comparison to NYC, Paris and London are totally ridiculous and stupid. Seattle will never be like any of those cities and will rarely have anything influential worth preserving in the the field of architecture. It's one thing to preserve a building that is one of the finest examples of Art Deco style, it's another to preserve a brick building simply because most other buildings go up aren't brick facade even.
Just a matter of time before Dick's gets bought out and turned into Condo's.
Dingo, want to make a bet that won't happen?
Poor analogy - Portland is only 170 miles away, and you don't even have to get a passport and/or change your citizenship.
There are thousands of ordinary brick buildings in lower Manhattan, Paris, etc etc. that define those places every bit as much as the Chrysler Building or the Eiffel Tower do.
Beauty may well be in the eye of the beholder, but generic modern sure looks the same (and drives longtime residents and business out) whether you plunk it down in Phoenix, LA, or Seattle.
That said, by the way, I can deal with the fact that this particular building is being demolished to fulfill a truly public purpose just fine. It's your cavalier attitude toward the rest of Seattle's history and local architecture that I find puerile.
It seems to me that in your philosophical (if one can call it that) world view you would likely consider a generic 6-story box where Dick's now stands as "progress".
To draw a New York analogy, that would be almost as bad as condo developers finally demolishing Art's Deli. I would hope you might regard that as a bad thing, notwithstanding the fact that their building isn't exactly an architectural marvel.
In Europe, you can walk in to a place like the Blue Moon, the Central Tavern or Jules Mae's and they'll look exactly the same as they have for the last 200 years, and as they will for the next 200. Seattle will be a better place in 200 years if a bit of our local history manages to survive despite greedheads like you.
Egads - I've conflated Art's Deli in Studio City with Katz's on Houston (though the same point would apply to Art's - or to Canter's on Fairfax for that matter!).
Comments are closed on this post.