Comments

1
If Seattle were like other cities, the change-up would be turning the neighborhood into a historical neighborhood with prescribed paint schemes, a requirement that amenities outside of the house are to a special code (no air conditioning units on front windows, to borrow an example) and so on and so forth.
2
We had such a meeting in my 'hood once, when a neighboring business decided it wanted to tear down its blah building and put in something taller (but within code restrictions). I was amazed at how badly everyone wanted to stop the new building, and that they thought they could by coming to the meeting. In any case, the building was never built, but not because of the neighbors. Apparently, the current owners had been dumping used motor oil, and so building a new building would have involved a costly cleanup. So, if you want your neighborhood to stay the same for as long as possible, dump your toxic soup into the dirt.
3
would be nice if tenants who have been in the existing building could work with the owners on the new spaces to allow for a sliding scale of rent.... such as a percentage of the profit for rent so things are not a surprise... I dunno. I like B&O but I agree, the building doesn't merit having it stay--- but at the same time I am tired of the cookie cutter approach to the new buildings going up- even with their three different colors they are now required to use.
4
I have a very specific reason to not want that new building to be built. It will break up my current panoramic view of the downtown skyline.

That said, I will never go to one of these meetings or sign a petition, because the owner is well within his rights to build what he wants. I knew and accepted the possibility when I bought my condo.
5
Moving into the new building would be cost prohibitive, as market rates for new buildings are typically double what he pays now.


I've always figured this was the case; it explains why most new construction has well-funded chains and such while the little mom n pop restaurants and the like are in older buildings.

But for retail real estate like this, I don't really understand it. Seems to me a big part of what B&O (for example) is getting for their rent money is a prominent storefront - but that'd be exactly the same in a new building.

So what extra value does new-construction retail space provide that supports much higher rents? I can't imagine it's really explained by marginally shinier facilities, newer windows, or whatever you get.. Can anyone explain?
6
@3 what if there isn't any profit?
7
i hate every new building/apartment complex in seattle. they are all ugly. all of them.

i don't even consider going to the shops that are housed on the ground floor, no matter what it is -- most of the time my eyes just glaze on past the whole building. being raised in the suburbs of los angeles trained me to ignore entire cities of mediocrity.
8
Doesn't B&O already have a new place?
9
@5, space in new retail-under-residential is usually perceived as worth the extra rent to a tenant if the anticipated greater profits pencil out: for a restaurant/bar/cafe like B&O that might include reduced pest control costs, newer plumbing & electrical, tenant improvement incentives toward a more versatile kitchen/dining layout, and a customer base happy to vault the aesthetic hurdle of going to the ground floor of a new residential building for a bite to eat. That last one is sort of important to some of us wackos - we'll pick Quinn's over Boom!, Piecora's over that place in Trace Lofts, Macrina Queen Anne over Macrina Belltown, Chez Gaudy over Cafe Metropolitain.

The B&O fella has a lot to weigh - I don't envy him.
10
You might as well throw up your hands since the developer$ are going to do what they want and the property owner$ only see $$$ and could care less that all these cookie-cutter buildings take away any vestige of character that our neighbbourhoods have. I don't understand how all these condom projects are going forward with the economy and real estate in the crapper.
11
as long as they don't build the mansard-roofed monstrosity in that sketch, i don't really care too much about the B&O. i'm not 19.
12
I got stood up for a date at the B&O. Tear that mother down!
13
I have many fond memories of B&O.

However, B&O doesn't own that property. They've had 30+ years to buy it, or arrange something with the owner to buy it, and they chose not to. Their loss.

Other than fond memories of B&O, the building itself is an ugly piece of shit, and should be torn down at the first opportunity. The notion of preserving it is absurd.
14
Density > B&O :)
15
Or ... they could build a 6 story tall apartment building with a coffee/bakery on the ground floor.

And call that B&O.

Just sayin.
16
@10, my understanding is that as land and speculative housing prices start to drop, every developer's "unused" parcels start burning holes in the balance sheet, and it hurts. At this point everybody who stockpiled land is trying to swing construction financing and permits to put up any building they can, in order to move the the whole deal into cash flow. Though the market may ultimately turn it all into cash flow losses, those can be dealt with much more easily as accounting/tax matters than undeveloped land.

That's why all the seemingly pointless development activity still.
17
Will read the fucking post, idiot
18
I think Domnic's suggestion to add a socio-cultural landmark designation is interesting but it doesn't address the need for density, or the fact that the B&O's building really is not inherently worth saving. Or that you can build total crap on land that has nothing of value on it.

The real problem is that new construction is ugly. Somehow we need higher aesthetic standards for new construction, and a mechanism to enforce them.
19
Joseph, until you own a parcel of land, you don't have much of a basis to speak from.
20
Elenchos, I welcome a return to the Art Deco style in all its glory.
21
"Moving into the new building would be cost prohibitive"

A helpful explanation for why people who promote alternatives to giving developers whatever they want oppose something called DISPLACEMENT.

What is the Stranger's answer to the problem of displacement of people and small businesses that comes from runaway development? I haven't seen a coherent argument yet.
22
Fuck Density!
23
@17 - i read the post.

My point is, you're all so NIMBY it's disgusting.

Change is here. Get used to it.
24
Until people in Seattle stop buying ugly condos in ugly buildings, you'll continue to see more of these things appear. If people wanted to have nicer places, they would demand them, right? It isn't like these are government subsidized projects.

As it stands, this is what the market wants, and the B&O and its ugly building will vanish into the ether of uninteresting progress. Sad, but people get the culture they demand.

I also, the county would prefer the tax revenue from 75 condo units over a "new type of landmark designation" coffee shop 9 out of 10 times.
25
Betcha they tear down the building, then lose financing and the rest of us are left with another goddamned hole in the ground.

26
@24

Well you know the market thought it wanted weird novelty mortgage backed securities instrument thingies, and look what happened when it got what it wanted? I think we're done letting the little piggies in the market stuff their fat faces with any old thing their hearts desire. Over here at the grownup table we're sitting down to decide for the market's own good what it may and may not have and how much it will get.
27
Each of the 1,400 people who want to keep it can put in $1000, and voila, the building is theirs.

Oh, things change when it's not someone else's money?
28
It's been about 12 years, but I remember that the chocolate chip cookies with walnuts were great at the B&O, but the seats hurt my ass. If I wanted to eat something, I'd rather go to The Green Cat for Pablo's Potatoes or to Glow's for Steak & Eggs
29
I'd be more into caring about B&O if they had better food and service. Last time I was there my coffee was poured lukewarm. If I'm paying 3 bucks for drip I want it HOT! In my shallow assessment, it would survive on its own (i.e. in a new location) if it were better. It used to be better. Now it feels reminiscent of Minnie's on Broadway toward its end.
30
#25 FTW
31
@28- They're next.
32
It's time people reread ' The eath and Life of Great American Cities' by Jane Jacobs. I agree with the crappiness of most of the new developments, but I take heart in the fact they will be the affordable residences in 15 years because they are too crappy to hold their value long. I mean, look at all the two or three story concrete slab buildings in Capitol Hill that date back to 1962. I'm also constantly amazed at how many Seattlites have a strong belief in their god-given right to tell their neighbors what they can and cannot do with their property (irrespective of any financial reality) while at that same time becoming outraged at the notion that anyone would ever dare tell them what they can or cannot do with their own land. Now if only those 1,400 people were focused on something they might actually be able to influence, like getting a bank to give B&O a goddamed remodeling loan.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.