Comments on I Rather Liked This Tower

OK, all you "We love Jen" asswipes - I challenge each and every one of you to come up with the answers to this question :

1. What point does this post serve?

2. What makes the writing and thought in it good, much less meaningful?

3. Why should she (or anyone) get paid for this?

um, you know they're not knocking down the building or anything, right?

Ignore @1

It was interesting to me. I came here to be interested. Job well done

(it was actually beautiful to me, not just interesting)

So what references to history does the older building have?

I was actually thinking about this yesterday when gazing at them that I believe the corner stones are heavily engraved and it got me thinking about what a trust of faith that is...

There's also an older building near westlake mall that they moved out of, right? I've seen the Washington Mutual Trust Bank seal there, can't remember the street

I had the idea for this exact "changing of the guards" photograph a few months ago when I was walking up Pike at 3rd, glanced back at the building, and saw the reflection of the old tower perfectly framed on the side. Nice to see someone else took the photograph for us to enjoy.

I disagree about the old tower, though. I love that building.

#1, as far as I know, no one gets paid for Slogging.

@3 - "I was actually thinking about this yesterday when gazing at them that I believe the corner stones are heavily engraved and it got me thinking about what a trust of faith that is..."

Ahh, congratulations. The "being an even bigger idiot and taking the bullet" ploy. Well done.

Are you kidding me? The old building is beautiful, has life to it, and will always look good. The new building is simply another example of the unimaginative glass exoskeletons popping up all over the city.

I wouldn't have seen this lovely picture were it not for Jen's post.

Though generally a fan of modernist architecture, I really like the old WaMu tower. It's solid and tasteful and is lovely and humane at the street level, which can't be said for many modern towers.

Also, there's nothing dishonest about referencing history in architecture. Most great buildings in the late 1800s and early 1900s tastefully copied centuries-old elements of Italian and Roman architecture.

w7ngman, they get paid per Slog I heard. Or some of them do anyway

1. No point, just an observation.

2. It's referential to the notion that post-modern architecture with it's allusions to historical detail blown up to ridiculous proportion is familiar and somehow comforting to the average citizen, while Miesian modernism is still viewed as strange and fundamentally unstable.

3. People get paid for less than this all time.

I have to admit it, the new Washington Mutual, Well the Chase Tower is a good looking skyscraper. Better than the Columbia tower as well.

At least they went out having good taste, and there is nothing more gay than that!

OK - OK. I give. Because if the original questions mean having to actually see words joined in sequence in the manner of #9's point 2 - well, I mean - a man can only vomit so many times in one day.

I would love to see all of you attempt something like, oh, I don't know, manual labor sometime. It would be a hoot to see.

@11: Are you commenting from a construction site? Or maybe a field somewhere?

I rather liked the tour in and around the core of downtown Seattle and the waterfront.

Just the sort of relaxing 'tour-is-tee' kind of fuzzy picture to keep one's head in the clouds and body safely on the sidewalks.

The fountains and hand railings and pergolas,

(possibly you [THAT WOULD BE THE READER OF COMMENTS, NOT OF COURSE THE AUTHOR of the Article] may consider the need to have to look again and "see if it disapears{"puuuurrrrgolas"})

that lend an ambiance to the lower sections of the view lines of Seattle that are obviously hard pressed to be valued like they are anywhere else on earth.

Following this art map will in fact, bring you very close to the the lower ventricle of the heart of duelism fondly debated over and over and over every couple of years while urbanites and frontiersman and women vie for tax based support and truth in spending laws between the local weeklies and their "ardent fans".

Perhaps, the twin response of this was already posted on the lower ventricles airline.

Serious... quickly... be alert and check for me darling the Seattle WEEKLY IN DUFF'S COLUMN, maybe the answer has been there all along!!!!

@12 - Why yes, my dear. Both. I'm in a lovely field of manure, being piled ever higher. You're right here with me - can't you smell it?

Dear seriously ill,

move to the bubble room with lot's of freah air and call the nurse.

I agree that the old tower is not a good building aesthetically. It already looks dated - like some 80's take on classical architecture.

It's phoney grandeur reminds me of an Eastside mcmansion.

The old tower won lots of awards when it was built. It does stand out among most of the Seattle skyline, regardless of one's feelings about its aesthetics.

I always thought the new building was the symbol of WaMu's excess and bellwether of their doom. They were already laying off temps and contractors and shutting down HLCs when it was going up.

nbbj did the 2nd tower. it is elegant.

the 1st tower is clunky & cliched, a relic of the short-lived postmodern era. look east of it to the dark brick deco seattle tower for true awesomeness.

Sorry, but to me it's always looked like a bottle of Burberry Brit cologne...

"The old building is not good."

Uh, wrong.

Unless you meant the lobby. It's terrible.

You can still enjoy the aesthetics of the tower. It'll just belong to someone else.

@22: Enjoyment(tm) of the JP Chase Tower(tm) is "not allowed"(r)(c)(tm)

I agree with your eloquent observations, Jen. I've wanted to dislike that new tower just on principal, but every time I look at it I am impressed by the attributes you describe.

Reminds me of the Church Office Towers of the LDS (Mormons).