Comments

1
Still, it looks as though the 70s threw up on them. Don't even get me started on the ones that look as if they took potluck from the finish panels pile at the warehouse.

I predict it won't matter how bad the retail space is, because they're so ugly and so badly built that they'll have to be torn down in a decade.
2
Meh. It's Seattle. Whiny little bitches are going to be whiny little bitches. The good news is that nobody fucking cares. (And there's nothing wrong with the colors on that building, either. Grow the fuck up.)
3
Let me guess, the foyer is carpeted with avocado green deep pile shag.
4
Cosmetic design doesn't matter. Within a couple of years, you won't even notice these buildings are there. I could show you dozens, hundreds, of uglier buildings from the 70s, 80s, 90s. They're all around you.
5
It's a bank. The ugliness is inside.
6
Crap, clicked OK too soon. What I meant to add was, the problem with this building is not the color but the way it says "fuck you forever" to the street, at street level. Those "retail spaces" are a bad joke.
7
That whole thing really is hideous.
8
I can't imagine any businesses jumping at the opportunity to occupy that space that have any heart or soul.
9
Fnarf, Fnarf, Fnarf... Everywhere it's all about Fnarf likes this, Fnarf thinks this! ;)

10
We have this issue in Wedgwood too. A new apartment building just completed at 35th Ave NE and NE 86th. So ugly I want to puke every time I drive by it.
11
you're so right, it's the architects.

they pick horrible colors and make shallow retail spaces and over-build parking for the hell of it. the parking ordinance is just a suggestion, anyway.

the developers with their marketing and realty consultants are probably screaming for the architects to stop, for god's sake STOP and THINK. this is Capitol Hill - be fresh! privilege the pedestrian over the car! stop putting in so many parking spaces!

but architects won't listen. they are JUST TOO POWERFUL.
12
@11, not only that, the new style of willing-to-pay-anything-give-me-granite-and-stainless Pike/Pine apartment hunters are begging the developers to PLEASE STOP THE ARCHITECTS from making buildings comfortingly generic like this so they can flock to fill them to capacity within weeks of opening.
13
@11 God, thank you.

Y'all realize that 99% of architects are not Frank Gehry or Rem Koolhaas, right? Most are just trying to stay afloat and keep people employed in a world of ever-shrinking fees and ever-expanding constraints. Yeah, Baylis drew that. They drew it in response to whatever programmatic demands were placed on them by their client, the developer. And plenty of developers like to get reeeeeeally involved with design decisions, to an extent that would surprise many of you.

@9 Now you're catching on!
14
@9, I don't recall authorizing you to make this statement, but you mentioned my name so I'll let it pass. Five times, actually; whoo, I'm a little flushed.
15
If you want to see a building done right, check out Mt. Baker Lofts (presentation PDF here). Potentially 16 storefronts, most of which are skinny and deep. Ok, sure - it's built by a non-profit for low-income, car-free artists. But it's awesome*.

* Yet still brown-orange. Go figure.
16
@14 Oh, eh, er...your name keeps repeating in my head over and over again as well. But just for personal use! I swear! I almost sure that no one is listening to my thoughts...
17
I've seen worse. At least it has lots of windows.
18
Really? Complain about the paint color? So it looks like the HQ for the Cleveland Browns, big freaking deal!
19
LOOK AT BANNER, MICHAEL!!!
20
Just buy all the buildings yourself and paint them the colors you want.

I suggest vibrant rave green and dayglo orange as a nice mix, myself.

Otherwise, just avert your eyes and grow a pair.
21
@14 - that flush is probably the gin.

That building looks like they took the design considerations of the average eastside stripmall and put it up against the street instead of a parking lot. How would I ever know what's in any of those retail spaces? They all look the same, and there's no space for any sort of unique signage. Perfect for a Quiznos bu not much good for a funky clothing store. When I drive or walk by I would simply assume there's nothing interesting to do there and not even try to look deeper.
22
@16, "just for my own personal use" -- what kind of sicko are you? This is exactly the kind of thing they warned us about.

@21, I just wouldn't feel right drinking gin before 2:00 PM on a thunderstormy day.
23
You know, this might not be so bad if the entire building were the width of the the concrete/orange trim section. Instead, it's footprint really give a person walking past to hate it, then hate it some more... still going? Still hate it. Now I'm bored. When does this fucking building end?

24
#5 FTW.
25
It's the color! I hate the color, it makes me barf! It was much better in the rendering, which was all beige. Wait! It's not the color. I hate the composition, it makes me barf! I hate it because, well, composition! Plus it was designed by architects and architects make me barf! Wait! It's the shallow storefront space. I hate the shallow storefronts. Never mind that to make buildings more marketable developers build above-ground parking that necesitates shallow retail space. I want them to build underground parking and deep, deep retail space with brick walls and heavy timber so it can be rented by funky vintage clothing shops if they could only afford it.
I hate development! It makes me barf! I could design these buildings but nobody ever lets me. I think I'll go barf.
Dominic, why aren't you on a design review board, or do the architects all threaten to pants you if you try to join?
26
Stevie Wonder and Helen Keller jokes. Always funny, Dominic. You card.
27
Well, at least it is a color.

Do any of you remember the 1980s? When every building (and house) was painted battleship-grey? In a city that is grey and cloudy 9 months of the year?

I don't care what color they paint it, so long as it isn't grey. Painting any building in Seattle grey should be a crime.
28
@27, sometimes with grey railings, sometimes pale blue, sometimes lavender. Yes, I remember. Many of them are still with us.
29
@9 I think he runs grep on the output.

@24 for the clueless use of the powerful FTW nom. Just for that you get to paint the sharrows.
30
@16 A girl's gotta satisfy her kinks! Don't make me write a letter to Dan... ;(
31
@29 You, sir, are incorrect!
32
90% of the "mixed use" buildings that are being put up look like the same damned crap over and over. Any character that an area once had is gone. It's great for land owners so they can make skads and skads of money or more money than they ever could with small buildings. Is a six-story building supposed to be a huge improvement over the auto shop that was there before?
33
Anybody who finds this building to be the ugliest thing a human brain could imagine has a deeply impoverished imagination.
34
I think the very blue tint to the windows is the issue - it clashes with the orange and avocado, which would be just fine on their own, used sparingly, as they are here.

Many years ago I worked at the agency the became SoundTransit. They had a meeting one day to present new logos and color schemes for the unveiling of the official Sound Transit. SO MANY beautiful options were presented to the 100 or so people (employees) in the room, including one amazing pink/orange/white wave or curl-type combo that would have looked spectacular on the trains flying through the city. It was so unique I can remember it vividly to this day.
What happened was that the management and board was terrified that the colors the employees chose would be offensive/seem too "fancy" and citizens would complain about perceived over-spending with money, though all of the ideas presented were within the same price range. These managers then went around and made sure everyone new of their concerns and knew that THEY would be voting for the most inoffensive designs. And that is how we came to have the boring blue and green train and light rail colors!
35
OK, somebody has to step in here. You may think the building in the picture is ugly, but it's all about context. This building is positively beautiful in context. Don't believe me? Stand where the picture was taken. Go ahead, stand at 13th and Madison. Now, turn 90 degrees to the west. See what I mean? You're now looking at Pony, one of the ugliest structures on this planet.
36
The combination that is killing me are these town homes that have what I can only describe as PNW primary colors: muted reds, greens, yellows, and other colors of ick. Throw in some corrugated metal and you've got cliched, been there, done that, PNW blah.
37
traditional and classic homes and row houses look best. a;lso the grander type apt. and condo buildings. first you need more of a setback, so there's some kind of SPACE for the defined entrance. the lego block crap built today has no defined entrance. second, you need the building to occupy the parcel and announce "I am a building" and not be all cut up by view corridors or differential facades because the idiots at design review think it's cool if we try to "make that big building not look like one big biulding." third, you need some symmetry, some ornamentatoin and some style. we can all gasp in pleasure at anhalt buildings, then wonder how come no architect today just builds the same thing. we have thousands of examples not just from seattle but from other cities, yes, including the feared east coast and south, for exemplars and still we build shit. total shit. ultimately, it's us who're at fault because these crap condos actually sell and until they don't there's no incentive to not build crap right? also, can SDOT please stop taking pedestrian bulbs and trying to fill them up with river rocks and trees as if the thing we're dying for to really make this a city is to imitate a bit of national park on our sidewalks? we'd rather just have cafe tables sprawling out over the sidewalk without regulated regulation approved fencing, you know, like la coupole. it's as if conscious of the fact that other cities are beautiful, we deliberately avoid copying their forms and pattern languages as this would prove in fact, we're neither unique nor special and like everyone else we, too, like a plaza with a fountain, rounded paths with benches, a portico, an arch, and traditional colors and forms. but no, that would be too painful, therefore we build lego style buildings that are a Homage to the Rectangle with odd panels of orange and brown and sometimes mauve color to pretent it's 4 separate buildings not one great big one here on broadway.
38
I agree that it probably is not the ugliest building and certainly not in large development areas There are a few desirable design details as you drive by. I am not sure that they extend to walking or biking. We are in the PNW, and there is no reason to hide that. I don't want to be in Phoenix or LA or Manhattan. This is where I am. What is sad is the lack of thinking what could have been very nice for the same $s. Part of the problem is that much of Madison in this area has not in anyway reflected the design of the surrounding areas. Nor, have recent additions reflected great design, making it difficult to maintain a standard of architectural design. If the standard becomes what currently exists on Madison, this may be appropriate. This is not the worst of what happens when developers are set free from standards and no one is paying attention to the details. However, it certainly falls short of any pretense to reflect the potential that could have heartened any modern architect. Remember the mural of grazing cows.

Color is temporary, and design is permanent. However, at times both often need each other to be look great. Materials are also important.
39
What's hideous is that pastelish peachy color so many houses are painted here- ugh. But who cares. It's only my opinion. What concerns me more are the ways eyesores like Adobe in Fremont (aka THE BURKE-en WALL) manage to completely cut off what was a beautiful somewhat quaint COMMUNITY view of Lake Union from the darling bridge, leaving the rest of the neighborhood to stare at it's bricks (and frequently empty store fronts-how's tenancy at the old Burke Building, Suz?). Tell me a thoughtful architect could not have found a way to reframe the view which should have remained public. By comparison (though I know it has it's critics, too) South Lake Union Park is a lovely and considerate development in that rapidly changing area. I'm excited by all the changes happening around the stadiums, but disappointed that our water front will become invisible to those of us who live, work, and move through the city each day. We will have to take the day off and join the tourists when we want to remember where we are-which is too bad. I'm surprised that cities like Chicago could have better sense than we do here, believing that a city belongs to it's people and not just the very rich.
40
Great Comments Veavote, I will make a special trip to see the building Dom is writing about. I am familiar with this architecture firm.

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.