Comments

1
I'm ok with fascadeism. Reusing entire old buildings is best, but sometimes it just doesn't make sense. Saving at least an old fascade keeps a neighborhood looking interesting.
2
I don't think there was much to save from the inside of that building anyway.
3
I agree with that. It forces the architects to come up with something creative using the existing façade's style, a worthy constraint. And it's far, far better than the alternative... good lord.

Does our Unpaid Intern know what the proposed structure will look like? Can you post the architect sketches?
4
It's such a shame that they didn't save the interior. I mean, look how awesome it was.

Treacle @3, you can see renderings here.
5
Because lead paint and asbestos are what help fat hipsters squeeze into skinny jeans apparently....
6
Reusing old buildings (with tastefully complementary, rather than falsely retro, additional floors) is definitely the ideal. See Trace Lofts for a pretty good nearby example.

Façadism can be interesting or awful, and is rarely anything in between. I'd definitely prefer an interesting, brand new, permeable-frontage-conscious building to a lazy exercise in façadist appeasement.
7
Thanks Slog, for doing such a great job of sniffing out all the exciting things that are happening all over Seattle!
8
@3's renderings are not bad, though.
9
@5, self-righteous indignation and stuffing your nose in others' business uninformed is also great for the hips.
10
There's also the matter of energy efficiency, and earthquake survivability of buildings. If only a shell facade crumbles and kills a few pedestrians that's not so bad.

But global warming is NOW, kidlings. You're already soaking in it.
11
@10 Keeping a fascade doesn't exempt a builder from bringing the entire building up to code, which includes structural and energy efficiency.

An argument can be made that reusing existing materials (like a fascade's bricks) can save quite a bit of embodied energy. But that's only true if you also retrofit to match the alternative's energy efficiency (which you have to, thanks to our building codes).
12
Is this building going to have a Metropolitan Market in it? I heard that but not sure if it was true.

I wonder how long before the building the Stranger is in gets redeveloped? Who owns that one?
13
If you've going to rebuild then do so...come up with something really new using the materials of the age. Put in a stationary fuel cell for power. Use nanotubes. Anything to kick this lethargic city into the 21st century.
14
@12 Or until the building falls down.
15
@12, the rumor is Metropolitan Market but not in that space, in the Value Village space.
16
P.S. @12, the same Bellevue family that owns Value Village (the chain) also owns the Value Village building and the building the Stranger's in.
17
I agree with you, Unpaid Intern; historic preservation in Seattle is a complete joke!
18
Thank you, 15/16
19
Unpaid Intern ftw!
20
can't say that i think that facade merits preservation. or that the upper stories mesh well. charles would say it lacks boldness.
21
We've seen better, @20.

We've also seen much, much, much worse.

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.