http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2008/12/01/gutted_buildings_are_not_histo Comments On: Gutted Buildings Are Not Historic Landmarks by Dominic Holden en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:30:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Dalton]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:36:08 -0800 The Stranger
better condo markets will develop as supply goes down and there are few brand new units under construction - say in five or six years

If you want to be a landlord, this might be a good time to invest. Long term only, consider a 15 year hold. Drive a hard deal on price and terms, remember tax incentives by owning rental real estate.


Posted by Buck Chaser]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:17:04 -0800 The Stranger Posted by r]]> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:19:03 -0800 The Stranger
I just have to say: wow. Is Seattle going to be renamed condo-ville?
Posted by kristinbell]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:28:05 -0800 The Stranger Posted by avatar133]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:46:16 -0800 The Stranger
If they didn't want to deal with that kind of government interference, they should have invested in one of the many, many shitholes that let you do as you please.

Why don't they invest in those shitholes? Because the profits aren't as good. Why are places like that shitholes? Because developers are allowed to do as they please.

It's the same deal with the Critical Areas Ordinance and similar environmental regulation. If you really hate having hippies tell you what to do with your property, sell it and buy five times as much land in Idaho, where the rivers overflow with lead and mercury. I wonder how they got that way?
Posted by elenchos]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:20:06 -0800 The Stranger
"You don’t want that nomination. Why? Because it forever limits what you can do with your building/land. And for those who aren’t already aware of this, the value of commercial land is completely tied to what you can do with it. Limit your development rights and you lose your value.



Hmmm anyone else know what this sounds like?

Welcome to your version of the Critical Areas Ordinance! Folks with open farm country property are having to fight the same types of battles.

Sorry Preston, I hope you don't expect any sympathy from your outlying neighbors. Many of you eco rabid hippies deserve an example of your own medicine.

Maybe now you'll understand when someone who owns property out in the county is fighting for their right to do with their property as they wish to...

I'm sure you all can see the irony
Posted by Kurious G]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:56:53 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fnarf]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:47:58 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Tiktok]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:33:18 -0800 The Stranger
And blame the developers (they are pretty much scum who don't give a flying fuck about the community they are destroying as long as the money is good) I agree with you but it is also the architects who simply punch in lot size and number of floor info into a computer to produce a variation on every other building that is built in Seattle (Hell, a strip mall in LA has more originality).

But here's to taking the path of least resistance. Seattle becomes a shithole so that we can line the pockets of some developer who doesn't even live here.
Posted by Just because it's taller Doesn't make it Better]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:15:45 -0800 The Stranger
@18: If buyers aren't offered better looking or better designed buildings, how much can they be blamed for making the best of the bad choices offered to them?
Posted by Dawgson]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:08:04 -0800 The Stranger @17 - I ask the same question about the wood. Real and beautiful wood doesn't seem to be in big supply, why sentence the lanes to a garbage dump? This type of thing probably happens everywhere every day though.
Posted by E]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:06:03 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Timothy]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:54:46 -0800 The Stranger
What? I'm doing some remodeling!
Posted by Y.F.]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:42:50 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Hernandez]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:37:09 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Just because it's taller Doesn't make it Better]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:30:08 -0800 The Stranger Posted by tomasyalba]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:29:20 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Frank Lloyd Wrong]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:10:10 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Dominic Holden]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:06:32 -0800 The Stranger
I work at a commercial appraisal firm that has been dealing with the historical preservation board on two separate projects. In my opinion, the system is terribly flawed. I could speak of its flaws for days, but here I’ll just give some brief examples. In one case, the building that was nominated was done so in a form of attack. The nomination was meant to keep the building's owner from ever redeveloping and potentially denying views at the nominator's new condo tower. The second nomination (different site) was put forward by the board, however in both cases the nomination was not something that the current owners were interested in obtaining. In fighting the nomination, which would cut the value of these sites by at least 70%, the owners have each had to spend more than $50,000 (so far) in mounting what any rational person would think is a comprehensive and well founded defense. Of course, that means nothing when you have to explain what a proforma is to the board’s “real estate finance guy,” if you catch my drift.

Shameful as it was, I can completely see why the owners of the building at 2nd and Stewart defaced it as they did. The system is fucked up, not the owners/developers who are doing shitty things to avoid potentially huge losses. There just aren’t any incentives that make up for the incredible loss in value and implied hardship that goes along with historical preservation.
Posted by Preston]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:02:46 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Urgutha Forka]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:59:54 -0800 The Stranger
@5, Sunset Bowl was increasingly profitable over the last few years, and was profitable until the day it closed. At a point, though, the profits realized by the owners were dwarfed by what they could raise by selling the underlying land to Avalon. A bowling alley was profitable, but it wasn't the most profitable use.
Posted by joykiller]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:57:51 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Dawgson]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:55:58 -0800 The Stranger Posted by tuesdayharmony]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:54:57 -0800 The Stranger may be nominated should be protected until the Landmark Preservation Board makes a decision? Who designates which buildings may be nominated? The May Be Landmark Preservation Board?

Wouldn't developers game the process by destroying parts of buildings that might could May Be Landmarks? You'd need a Might Could May Be Landmarks Preservation Board to protect these buildings until the May Be Landmark Board makes a decision.

Or perhaps we need a Not A Landmark Board to designate what is fair game.

Or perhaps the existing board could simply get a move on and protect what needs protecting instead of dithering until it's too late.
Posted by elenchos]]> Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:45:40 -0800 The Stranger