WaMu and SAM co-own the land (as mentioned in
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/visualart/379714_samwamu19.html ), and WaMu actually rents part of SAM's building -- not the other way around. If JPMorgan wants to shitcan the museum, they will need quite a few lawyers to do it. Note that this is a PROPOSED land use action.
Posted by
Nandor on September 29, 2008 at 11:45 AM
#6, I did read the notice, although it is difficult to see the map. What I'm confused about is this: If SAM own their own building, what gives JPMorgan the right to tear down their building?
And Fnarf (#5) and the general public: I am admittedly an amateur -- I don't really know what a "proposed" land use action means. I was just using a non-legal definition of "proposed". Sorry about that. But please help me here: What is this about? Does JPMorgan have the right to demolish SAM?
Something that is unclear to me is whether SAM own the land. I believe they do, but I've looked through a couple articles and haven't found that (and don't have the time to look through more articles).
Posted by
Nandor on September 29, 2008 at 12:19 PM
You know, it's a clever joke, but it's really not that far off the mark. After all, the Renaissance Madison Hotel (or whatever it's calling itself these days) was built to be either a hotel or an office building, depending on the economy. And the Red Lion hotel used to be a bank building.
Posted by
Catalina Vel-DuRay on September 29, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Yeah, many former office buildings in Lower Manhattan have been converted to residential buildings over the years. It happens, just maybe not with such new buildings.
Posted by
Andy F on September 30, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Comments (16) RSS