Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Saving the B & O Espresso Building Versus the Right to Do Whatever the Hell You Want with Your Own Property

Posted by on Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Neighborhood activists are crusading to rescue a one-story, black wooden building at East Olive Way and Boylston Avenue East—home to B & O Espresso for 33 years—from being demolished for a new apartment building. Tonight they will amass an army at a meeting in Seattle Central Community College, where the developer will unveil his plans for the site. “I called the college and requested a larger room,” says Mike Bush, who lives a half-block east of the threatened building and is an organizer of the Capitol Hill Organization Insuring Cultural Equity. Using its website, the group has gathered over 1,400 petition letters to present to the city’s Department of Planning and development (DPD), pleading to preserve the 1923 structure. “I would like to see the building remain as a permanent fixture in the neighborhood,” he says.

111b/1232577589-b_o_building2.jpg

But the building lacks architectural zing. “It’s part of the culture of the neighborhood,” Bush explains. He wants to save it as a charming neighborhood anchor. Moreover, he dreads whatever would replace it. “It is just going to be another huge monolithic ugly structure.”

However, the strategy to save the building through petition and outcry is flawed: DPD couldn’t block the project even if it wanted to. The department doesn’t designate landmarks; the landmark preservation board does that. And, Bush acknowledges, the building lacks the architectural prominence or historical significance to quality as a landmark. “We really don’t have a lot of leg to stand on,” he says. And despite the web-generated petitions collected by Bush, Bruce Rips, a DPD planner who oversees the proposed building for the city, says only one person has called him about the project.

Meanwhile, Bush’s wife and member of CHOICE, Sally Knodell, suggests the city needs a “new type of landmark designation that allows for architecture that has significant socio-cultural value.”

I agree with Knodell—we should designate certain buildings as landmarks if they fall short of architectural phenomena but do provide something especially unique. For instance, some of the masonry warehouses in the Pike-Pine neighborhood would be ideal: They contain uncommonly large spaces and together they form a district of historical arts and nightlife uses. But the B & O building is extremely average, houses a bland restaurant, and designwise stands alone.

The same compulsion that drives the notion that we have the right to paint our houses with rainbows and pink triangles—and neighbors have to suck it up—also grants a building’s owner to cover up those rainbows: or even tear down the building. There must be compelling public interest to supercede a person’s right to do what they want with their own stuff. The B & O building—despite the fact that the B & O has been lovely—doesn’t meet that bar, nor should it.

de2c/1232577656-b_o_building.jpg John Stoner, who bought the property 12 years ago, plans to build a six-story, 75-unit apartment building on the site. In a drawing submitted to the city, he even uses the "B & O" name on the building. “I think that it currently isn’t used for its highest and best use, and I think the proposed development will improve the quality of the neighborhood,” he says. He hopes to begin construction within two or three years, and he wants B & O to return when the new building is complete.

But that may not be possible, says B & O Espresso’s owner, Majed Lukatah. While going on hiatus during construction, he says, “I don’t know if my customers would wait for me to come back.” Lukatah is also skeptical that he can still open a second location on Broadway—which could serve as a substitute location while the B & O is closed—even though he has already obtained the permits. Banks won’t offer him a loan to remodel the space, he says. Moving into the new building would be cost prohibitive, as market rates for new buildings are typically double what he pays now.

Stoner says that, while he hopes B & O could return to the new building, he won't offer any rent control to ensure the B & O's return. “I don’t think we ever have over the years made the assurance that it would be anything other than market rate after [a tenant's] current lease has expired,” he says.

The meeting begins at 8:00 p.m. tonight in room 4106 at Seattle Central Community College.

 

Comments (32) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
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.
Posted by AJ on January 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM
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.
Posted by i'm a lime on January 21, 2009 at 3:13 PM
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.
Posted by TTH on January 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM
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.
Posted by Trouble on January 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM
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?
Posted by cdc on January 21, 2009 at 3:28 PM
6
@3 what if there isn't any profit?
Posted by Back to square one on January 21, 2009 at 3:34 PM
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.
Posted by doug on January 21, 2009 at 3:46 PM
8
Doesn't B&O already have a new place?
Posted by keshmeshi on January 21, 2009 at 3:48 PM
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.
Posted by tomasyalba on January 21, 2009 at 3:53 PM
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.
Posted by Joseph on January 21, 2009 at 4:09 PM
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.
Posted by Max Solomon on January 21, 2009 at 4:10 PM
12
I got stood up for a date at the B&O. Tear that mother down!
Posted by mint chocolate chip on January 21, 2009 at 4:16 PM
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.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on January 21, 2009 at 4:18 PM
14
Density > B&O :)
Posted by TYrone on January 21, 2009 at 4:19 PM
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.
Posted by Will in Seattle on January 21, 2009 at 4:24 PM
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.
Posted by tomasyalba on January 21, 2009 at 4:33 PM
17
Will read the fucking post, idiot
Posted by McG on January 21, 2009 at 4:34 PM
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.
Posted by elenchos on January 21, 2009 at 4:52 PM
19
Joseph, until you own a parcel of land, you don't have much of a basis to speak from.
Posted by 19th Century Plutocrat on January 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM
20
Elenchos, I welcome a return to the Art Deco style in all its glory.
Posted by Early 20th Century Plutocrat on January 21, 2009 at 4:54 PM
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.
Posted by Trevor on January 21, 2009 at 5:13 PM
22
Fuck Density!
Posted by Enough Said on January 21, 2009 at 5:43 PM
23
@17 - i read the post.

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

Change is here. Get used to it.
Posted by Will in Seattle on January 21, 2009 at 7:07 PM
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.
Posted by mcFly on January 21, 2009 at 7:14 PM
25
Betcha they tear down the building, then lose financing and the rest of us are left with another goddamned hole in the ground.

Posted by Jeepers on January 21, 2009 at 8:50 PM
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.
Posted by elenchos on January 21, 2009 at 8:53 PM
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?
Posted by Troy on January 21, 2009 at 8:55 PM
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
Posted by elswinger on January 21, 2009 at 10:23 PM
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.
Posted by ilikeithot on January 21, 2009 at 10:48 PM
30
#25 FTW
Posted by Enough Said on January 21, 2009 at 10:51 PM
31
@28- They're next.
Posted by Agent of Chaos on January 21, 2009 at 11:46 PM
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.
Posted by I am your Mother on January 22, 2009 at 12:47 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy