Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, January 22, 2009
Architecture Enough With the Ugly-Ass Buildings
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Last night, I went to that meeting where neighbors planned to storm in and convince the city to save the B & O building. When I arrived at the Seattle Central Community College meeting room, an architect was standing in front of 30 cross-armed neighbors and the Capitol Hill design review board, which oversees new construction. Easels held drawings of the building. The drawings looked terrible. The vibe was passively hostile.
But questions from the design-review board—for the portion of the meeting I attended—were typical. Board members will ask why an architect made certain choices, they might point out that design elements are incongruent, and then listen intently as the architect spews excuses for a design that sucks. But what the board members don’t say—what you’re gritting your teeth waiting for—is, “Look at these ugly drawings. Nobody wants to live near this pig. Here are some pictures of an excellent building; now come back with something that doesn’t suck.”
Vince Lyons, manager of the city's design review program, says the design review boards sometimes couch their criticisms in very tame language, in the name of maintaining a professional relationship with the architects. "Often, even downtown, what we generally would think of as the most elite board, we have board members who defer a little bit too much to the architect because they are high end architects and developers," he says.
In a post yesterday about the B & O building, I had defended a property owner's right to build—or demolish—whatever the hell they want on their own property (within reason, no 12-story swastikas or anything). I stand by that. However, I strongly harmonize with the widespread public resentment about ugly-ass buildings.
Buggy little windows, that weird textured shit on the exterior walls, mismatched cladding and brick and paneling thrown together slapdash like on the Mirabella (the picture to the right with dark brick, light brick, lighter brick, white bits, and blue bits), functionless narrow courtyards, balconettes, and shallow retail are all common cop outs. More than just eyesores, many relate poorly to the sidewalk because few tenants actually want to rent the retail spaces, and thus the buildings are bad for street activity and neighborhoods. And the design review board—and pro-density folks and anti-density folks alike—know these buildings are crappy.
We need templates for better buildings.
Design review boards should, from the outset, tell developers that we don’t want. Then they should provide examples of buildings that we do want, which function as flexible templates. Buildings with warehouse-style commercial space on the ground floor that opens to the sidewalk, windows that reach high or expand wide, broad sidewalks, finishes that are quirky or confident.
The city's Department of Planning and Development currently maintains a "Gallery of Great Examples" that developers can look at. But—unfortunately—some are god awful. The Great Examples should not include this dog.
If a developer can't imagine which buildings to emulate—at any price point—we have plenty of examples. Look, here to the right is a building on 13th and East Union. Or there's one below of the Pearl Apartments on 15th and East Madison Street. These aren't the best pictures. Hell, they're not even the best buildings. They're just what I saw as I walked to work this morning. But we can pick the best new buildings in Seattle and replicate them.
The city could even offer incentives, like an extra floor or a tax credit, for developers who go beyond the existing design guidelines—which clearly aren't guiding us away from crap—and construct these sorts of buildings. Sure, templates potentially lead to repetition of the same style of building. But we already have repetitive styles of ugly buildings—we should be repeating the sort of architecture that we like.
1
Those aren't all "God Awful" the IDX is great, for one, and so is the 5th and Bell building. The press is just so-so, but it's better than many others, especially the ones that went up in the other parts of capitol hill.
I do agree that single-use retail complex sucks.
I do agree that single-use retail complex sucks.
2
There's nothing wrong with the same style of building when it's good. Been to San Francisco, the Lower East Side or Bath?
A single style can actually be awesome.
A single style can actually be awesome.
3
We HAVE a template. It's called Boston, Cambridge, New York, Hoboken, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston, Chicago, San Francisco, ad infinitum. Many thousands of examples: narrow fronts, deep lots, bay or oriel windows, four or five stories high, no parking or parking around back, build to the curb line, uniform rooflines in any given block.
It's true that the building is hideous. A large part of that is due to the endless variety of facade elements, as you point out -- but the reason they do that is to break up super-huge buildings into something that is at least supposed to LOOK like a more traditional front, with many narrow units rather than one megablock. This is the kind of shit that is IMPOSED on the design process by stupid city design review board standards. The real problem with the building is its mass. It's too fucking big.
I think they should just scrap the design review altogether, and instead put a size restriction -- a HORIZONTAL zoning rule, instead of a vertical one. Make it so you can't get permission to exceed, say 100 feet of frontage within three or six blocks of any other project approved within a twenty year period. FORCE them to go with individual lots, not whole blocks. If they can't afford to do it that way, tough; go away.
It's true that the building is hideous. A large part of that is due to the endless variety of facade elements, as you point out -- but the reason they do that is to break up super-huge buildings into something that is at least supposed to LOOK like a more traditional front, with many narrow units rather than one megablock. This is the kind of shit that is IMPOSED on the design process by stupid city design review board standards. The real problem with the building is its mass. It's too fucking big.
I think they should just scrap the design review altogether, and instead put a size restriction -- a HORIZONTAL zoning rule, instead of a vertical one. Make it so you can't get permission to exceed, say 100 feet of frontage within three or six blocks of any other project approved within a twenty year period. FORCE them to go with individual lots, not whole blocks. If they can't afford to do it that way, tough; go away.
4
Puget Sound is in desperate need of what Portland thinker Brian Hansen calls "Subtractive Architecture".
Puget Sound is in desperate need of what Portland thinker Brian Hansen calls "Subtractive Architecture".
5
enough with the ugly-ass misuse of the bold tag. or did you mean to bold 8 paragraphs with no breaks?
6
I really don't think templatization is the right way to go, because then you enforce a lack of creativity; right now, we merely tolerate a lack of creativity.
Requiring warehouse-style commercial space would be good, however. You're right that positive reinforcement works better, so how about giving juicy tax incentives or breaks to developers who meet certain recommended (but not required) guidelines, or who place in the top 10 in a city-wide architecture competition or something along those lines.
Requiring warehouse-style commercial space would be good, however. You're right that positive reinforcement works better, so how about giving juicy tax incentives or breaks to developers who meet certain recommended (but not required) guidelines, or who place in the top 10 in a city-wide architecture competition or something along those lines.
9
If this was in Germany, you'd say it looks nice.
Look, developers build what sells. If you want something better, start getting people to show up at the Code Review hearings for DCLU and work on the County.
By the time you show up at these final hearings, it's way too late.
Look, developers build what sells. If you want something better, start getting people to show up at the Code Review hearings for DCLU and work on the County.
By the time you show up at these final hearings, it's way too late.
11
One of the many problems with development in Seattle is that some members of the design review boards volunteer for them as networking opportunities. If you are a young architect, the best way to get a job is certainly not to bite the hand of the developer that you hope will feed you.
12
Why would developers give a shit what their latest apartment/condo cardboard shitbox looks like? That would imply a pride in creation or a respect for the eventual overpaying sucker/dweller in said shitboxes.
13
You can't legislate good taste and you can't write good taste into the building code. Why? Duh. Good taste is subjective. What you call an ugly ass building, other people love. That bland featureless cube you love is butt ugly in the eyes of some people.
I agree that developers should be encouraged or forced to design in retail space that is functionally more useful than some tiny spaces we get now. That CAN be written into code. That and practical stuff like how pedestrian friendly it is, parking and access issues, and so on.
But trying to legislate aesthetics is a lost cause.
I agree that developers should be encouraged or forced to design in retail space that is functionally more useful than some tiny spaces we get now. That CAN be written into code. That and practical stuff like how pedestrian friendly it is, parking and access issues, and so on.
But trying to legislate aesthetics is a lost cause.
14
It's the code, not just the architects or design review. The zoning code dictates "breadboxes" -- squat buildings that fill the lot. All that is left for design review and the architects is the "articulation" and "breaking up the mass."
We should junk our prescriptive code that dictates height, setback and therefore building shape, and replace it with a code that starts with what does the public get from a building. Good streetscapes, affordable housing, good design, retail spaces, public plazas, etc. If the developers give us what we want, we should give them what they want, enough height and development capacity to generate a profit and community investment.
We should junk our prescriptive code that dictates height, setback and therefore building shape, and replace it with a code that starts with what does the public get from a building. Good streetscapes, affordable housing, good design, retail spaces, public plazas, etc. If the developers give us what we want, we should give them what they want, enough height and development capacity to generate a profit and community investment.
15
There also should be some sort of guidelines for landscaping and plantings. Most recent developments are surrounding by completely ugly, out of the box choices of plants that a) look like shit b) are non-natives that look totally out of place in the Northwest and are at odds with the landscape and c) are a menace to local plant communities. Oh, and no value to wildlife whatsoever.
16
Totally agree with #3. In my neighborhood in particular (mission district), which is one of the few left in SF to permit as many uses as it does anywhere in the city (commercial/light industrial, retail, single home, and larger apt./condo) for the most part works very well because very few of these structures have a facade longer than a fraction of a block. Designs can't fail as badly when their nestled shoulder-to-shoulder. Mediocre designs are even elevated by the architectural diversity of their neighbors, and great designs stand out that much more.
That Tribeca building is one of the most inhumane pieces of architecture I've ever seen - baring the hundreds of clones that sprung up around the same time, of course.
That Tribeca building is one of the most inhumane pieces of architecture I've ever seen - baring the hundreds of clones that sprung up around the same time, of course.
17
I, for one, think that putting retail everywhere is GENIUS.
It will drive down rents for everyone making quirky, independent shops a reality. If it's far enough off the beaten path these spaces can also be artist studios, offices, you name it. Overbuild rather than underbuild with the retail I say.
It will drive down rents for everyone making quirky, independent shops a reality. If it's far enough off the beaten path these spaces can also be artist studios, offices, you name it. Overbuild rather than underbuild with the retail I say.
18
Why isn't allowing them build at all incentive enough to meet the aesthetic dictates of the people of Seattle? If landowners hate that so much we could offer to exchange an equal-sized parcel of in the middle of Wyoming. No doubt they'd be free to build anything they like on it, no questions asked. Wyoming respects private property and I think they'd be happier there anyway.
I have no clue what a good system to choose better buildings would be, but it would have to be described as "with teeth" I think.
I have no clue what a good system to choose better buildings would be, but it would have to be described as "with teeth" I think.
19
Are you saying the last two boxy apartment buildings are the desired template?? You must be a big fan of the Stalinist school of design.
Usually love your take, Dom - but count me out on this one. Much prefer a little curve and color.
Usually love your take, Dom - but count me out on this one. Much prefer a little curve and color.
20
I hope just reading these comments, y'all start to understand the problems with legislating design. In fact, there are incentives built into the design review program that are intended to create better design - they're just not used to get good design, because of the issues with the design review boards that have been noted. (And maybe Seattle's culture of not critiquing people to their faces.) There are landscaping requirements - but do you really want to require specific plants be used everywhere? Many native plants don't do well in urban environments - they're happy in dense forests.
Most people enjoy neighborhoods with a consistent scale of development - height limits, setbacks, etc. that are uniform. The problem comes when you get full block development, rather than multiple small developments. It's very hard to create an appealing full block development. Most really appealing areas are broken up with smaller buildings that together make a unified (or semi-unified) whole.
Most people enjoy neighborhoods with a consistent scale of development - height limits, setbacks, etc. that are uniform. The problem comes when you get full block development, rather than multiple small developments. It's very hard to create an appealing full block development. Most really appealing areas are broken up with smaller buildings that together make a unified (or semi-unified) whole.
21
@18
Unfortunately, it doesn't tend to work very well in Seattle. What usually happen is that the quirky independent stores are forced out by the construction projects only be offered the opportunity to rent a space in the new building which offers them a third of their previous floor space at 10 times the cost. After they pass the space either sits empty or is rented by some lame ass corporate store like a T-Mobile store or a Desert Tanning Salon. Perhaps there could be legislation for independent business rent control. And I don't want to hear any whining about the rights of fucking developers. Most of them don't even live in this state, so, they couldn't care less about what they do to a community.
Unfortunately, it doesn't tend to work very well in Seattle. What usually happen is that the quirky independent stores are forced out by the construction projects only be offered the opportunity to rent a space in the new building which offers them a third of their previous floor space at 10 times the cost. After they pass the space either sits empty or is rented by some lame ass corporate store like a T-Mobile store or a Desert Tanning Salon. Perhaps there could be legislation for independent business rent control. And I don't want to hear any whining about the rights of fucking developers. Most of them don't even live in this state, so, they couldn't care less about what they do to a community.
23
It seems to me, with no real data to back it up, that these new buildings go up and there is usually not much local retail - it's all chain stores or franchises. That's not the building's fault - it's the owners.
As far as the fake balconies go: To me, there is no greater offense to all parties involved. What's the point? I'd be embarrassed to live in a place like that, and I hate to look at them. They're just corny. If you are going to have a balcony, it needs to be deep enough to have at least a table for two, and wide enough for someone to stand next to that table (preferably while grilling) Extra points if there is room for plants.
Oh, and the new apartments/condos should be at least the size of a midscale 60's apartment. My dearly departed Olive Crest Apartments (Corner of Belmont and Olive Street) had studios that were bigger than some of the one bedrooms in that thing that replaced it. AND a pool, AND a fountain!
The rest of it - ornamentation, etc - you really can't control. It will change when some southern California developer will come up with a new look, and somebody here will buy a copy of the prints, and suddenly all the new construction will look exactly like that. That's pretty much the way it has always been here, at least since the end of WWII.
As far as the fake balconies go: To me, there is no greater offense to all parties involved. What's the point? I'd be embarrassed to live in a place like that, and I hate to look at them. They're just corny. If you are going to have a balcony, it needs to be deep enough to have at least a table for two, and wide enough for someone to stand next to that table (preferably while grilling) Extra points if there is room for plants.
Oh, and the new apartments/condos should be at least the size of a midscale 60's apartment. My dearly departed Olive Crest Apartments (Corner of Belmont and Olive Street) had studios that were bigger than some of the one bedrooms in that thing that replaced it. AND a pool, AND a fountain!
The rest of it - ornamentation, etc - you really can't control. It will change when some southern California developer will come up with a new look, and somebody here will buy a copy of the prints, and suddenly all the new construction will look exactly like that. That's pretty much the way it has always been here, at least since the end of WWII.
24
Ayn Rand is rolling over in her grave... that alone should make some of you commenters happy.
Awful. Design by committee. Pastiche of the successful elements of other buildings with no respect for the gestalt.
Crap.
Awful. Design by committee. Pastiche of the successful elements of other buildings with no respect for the gestalt.
Crap.
26
Ayn Rand..... wasn't she that romance novelist who wrote that book about the sociopathic architect who was also a rapist, and had some damaged woman stalk him?
27
6-story "bread-loaf/shoe-box" buildings are the new townhouses...
The reason Seattle gets 6 story boxes has everything to do with the zoning code and the strict 40', 65', and 80' height limits.
As a result of the height limits, developers maximize the rentable (or saleable) floor area under the height limit. That naturally means building as large a floor area as you can, and then stacking it until you have a large, unwieldy box right up to the height limit. (The zoning code's "fix" for this is to force some modulation and material changes on the building face... which results in some of the worst travesties this city's seen in recent years.)
If Seattle threw away the height limits and focussed on floor area ratio limits (FAR-- we have it now but it doesn't do much thanks to the height limits), we'd have some tall, skinny buildings with open space, some short, wide buildings only a floor or two (and no open space), and some medium-built in between.
In other words, there'd be some fucking variety in this town's neighborhood commercial zones!
Every city planner/architect/full-wit council member/developer/builder gets this, but the wacko neighborhood groups don't get it. They hear taller buildings and freak the fuck out. And so we all suffer.
The reason Seattle gets 6 story boxes has everything to do with the zoning code and the strict 40', 65', and 80' height limits.
As a result of the height limits, developers maximize the rentable (or saleable) floor area under the height limit. That naturally means building as large a floor area as you can, and then stacking it until you have a large, unwieldy box right up to the height limit. (The zoning code's "fix" for this is to force some modulation and material changes on the building face... which results in some of the worst travesties this city's seen in recent years.)
If Seattle threw away the height limits and focussed on floor area ratio limits (FAR-- we have it now but it doesn't do much thanks to the height limits), we'd have some tall, skinny buildings with open space, some short, wide buildings only a floor or two (and no open space), and some medium-built in between.
In other words, there'd be some fucking variety in this town's neighborhood commercial zones!
Every city planner/architect/full-wit council member/developer/builder gets this, but the wacko neighborhood groups don't get it. They hear taller buildings and freak the fuck out. And so we all suffer.
28
Big balconies, please. ("Balconette" is so much more accurate than "Juliet balcony"!) The balcony has to be deep enough to keep your brain stem from fretting about falling from a great height. Six-inch balconies, balconies where you can only sit sideways, are a mortal insult. Big windows, please. How about natural light from more than one direction, even for smaller apartments? The affordable Seattle condo tends to be a low-ceilinged tunnel with windows at one end, so that your only source of natural light blinds you and the rest of the apartment is too dark. Flat-screen monitors tuned to a local webcam? Any brave decorators want to open a periscope business?
29
Who cares about buildings? Mr. Poe and Bellevue Ave have been absent from the Slog for WEEKS. The world is a beautiful place without them, regardless of ugly buildings.
30
The second to the last one is right next to my apartment building! It's so ugly compared to mine.
31
@3 is right.
The parking requirement prohibits the kinds of brownstones and townhouses we love in Brooklyn and DC, etc. The reason developers build whole block buildings is economics of the underground parking garage. It's fantastically expensive. Too expensive for a smaller building. So on the smaller lots they put up the ugly townhouses (they get to have above ground parking; far cheaper but destructive of streetscape). The prob. here is they are just one unit, they are actually vertical sprawl since they are often in 4 or 6 story zoning where we would want about 4-6 units on a lot.
But you can't build that because there's no way to put in the underground parking the code requires.
You want a car, that's lovely, I celebrate you, you can park it in a large garage 2 blocks away, ok? Then you use transit and walking M-F and use the car on weekend getaways.
Illustrative examples: Moonstruck; The Cosby Show; Crooklyn; Family Affair; George Costanza's parent's house; Archie Bunker's house; that fat guy's house who plays the mall cop.
They're all a hell of a lot nicer than the shit we are seeing here. Funny how middle class housing in Queens is nicer than what we are getting put up here in Seattle.
When the Costanzas outshine you esthetically and environmentally -- you ain't hip a 'tall.
Capisce?
The parking requirement prohibits the kinds of brownstones and townhouses we love in Brooklyn and DC, etc. The reason developers build whole block buildings is economics of the underground parking garage. It's fantastically expensive. Too expensive for a smaller building. So on the smaller lots they put up the ugly townhouses (they get to have above ground parking; far cheaper but destructive of streetscape). The prob. here is they are just one unit, they are actually vertical sprawl since they are often in 4 or 6 story zoning where we would want about 4-6 units on a lot.
But you can't build that because there's no way to put in the underground parking the code requires.
You want a car, that's lovely, I celebrate you, you can park it in a large garage 2 blocks away, ok? Then you use transit and walking M-F and use the car on weekend getaways.
Illustrative examples: Moonstruck; The Cosby Show; Crooklyn; Family Affair; George Costanza's parent's house; Archie Bunker's house; that fat guy's house who plays the mall cop.
They're all a hell of a lot nicer than the shit we are seeing here. Funny how middle class housing in Queens is nicer than what we are getting put up here in Seattle.
When the Costanzas outshine you esthetically and environmentally -- you ain't hip a 'tall.
Capisce?
32
@ all of the above. Dominic! PLEASE review the "Capitol Hill Neighborhood Design Guidelines" - these specifically supplement the Citywide Design Guideline and were specifically drafted to give citizens of Capitol Hill another tool to express to/yell at/hammer on the head of developers, architects, and designreview board members what is good design for Capitol Hill. But the trick is they are just a stack of papers - or a pdf file on the city's website - until real live prople read it and then use it at Design Review meetings. I DARE YOU - and anyone else reading this - to read and use them att he next meeting for this project. Just watch what happens . . .
35
The two examples you gave of "good designs" are crappy. If I had my choice, I would totally pick the B and O design. In fact, what is wrong with it? I think it looks great and have no problem living with it on my block.
36
These building are the equivalent of junk food.
They look like crap and will look even worse in a few years.
Developers love this shit because it is easy to throw up. City halls love this shit because it gets development happening fast, fast, fast.
It is all a big scam to build cheap and sell high.
They are just excuses to open convenience store franchises that crack heads can hang out in front of.
I think they call it progress.
They look like crap and will look even worse in a few years.
Developers love this shit because it is easy to throw up. City halls love this shit because it gets development happening fast, fast, fast.
It is all a big scam to build cheap and sell high.
They are just excuses to open convenience store franchises that crack heads can hang out in front of.
I think they call it progress.
37
Just a thought -- your ugly is my pretty, and your pretty is probably my ugly. I know it's radical and all, that there might actually be people who LIKE that architecture, but it's true! Shocking.
So yes, let's tell the developers what we like. Maybe you'll realize you're not the only person living in Seattle with an opinion?
So yes, let's tell the developers what we like. Maybe you'll realize you're not the only person living in Seattle with an opinion?
38
Go ahead and complain, but the "ugly" buildings you're complaining about would look like monuments in many less hip cities. Yes, maintain design standards and encourage good architecture, but remember the practical non-architectural objectives of building density, preventing sprawl, and keeping down housing prices.
39
That drawing looks identical to the already-existing Neptune building at Dexter and Aloha in South Lake Union. I stayed at the Neptune for 30 days when I first moved to Seattlethanks to a corporate housing package offered by my employer. While I appreciated the extra time to get on my feet, the place was awful; it was like being in yuppie jail.
40
Do the alternating materials on a facade really do anything to make a big-ass building smaller? Is anyone really thinking, "oh, how charming!"? A lot of the problem is the shear size of the buildings being built. Some of the above comments suggested regulations to limit or otherwise forbid big buildings. I am all for it. Especially when the results are tarted up, tortured facades that we all will be stuck looking at (or away from) for the next 40+ yrs. There are things in the code that call for big buildings to be modulated. This too often results in the aggregated, mulit-hued piles-o-crap that seem to think that the best way to disguise their presence is by attracting more attention to themselves... WTF?
DPD missed a great opportunity to regulate the size of the buildings getting built when they did away with parking requirements across the board for NC zones in urban centers. Developers hate parking. I hate it too, but for far different reasons. For me, it a question of the overall environment--that is, less cars, more peds and bikes, et al. For developers, it means money. More parking means bigger holes in the ground which means more money for construction... Doing away with requirements has so far resulted in parking being built to accommodate perceived need and the developers pocketbook. This is really a great thing. But, it means there is no real incentive to build small(er) when developers can capitalize on economy of scale. I say do away with the parking exemptions once your building hits a certain threshold. 40 units sounds good? 30 sound better? The city could further encourage smaller buildings by offering up tax breaks to offset the bigger costs for smaller buildings like utility connections...
One last rant... er thought... what happens when these big-ass buildings outlive their useful life? Who will redevelop these parcels? Who will have the means? By allowing these big buildings to go up, aren't we ensuring that they will remain in perpetuity? And that they will very likely be redeveloped by someone outside the community, not from within?
More...
DPD missed a great opportunity to regulate the size of the buildings getting built when they did away with parking requirements across the board for NC zones in urban centers. Developers hate parking. I hate it too, but for far different reasons. For me, it a question of the overall environment--that is, less cars, more peds and bikes, et al. For developers, it means money. More parking means bigger holes in the ground which means more money for construction... Doing away with requirements has so far resulted in parking being built to accommodate perceived need and the developers pocketbook. This is really a great thing. But, it means there is no real incentive to build small(er) when developers can capitalize on economy of scale. I say do away with the parking exemptions once your building hits a certain threshold. 40 units sounds good? 30 sound better? The city could further encourage smaller buildings by offering up tax breaks to offset the bigger costs for smaller buildings like utility connections...
One last rant... er thought... what happens when these big-ass buildings outlive their useful life? Who will redevelop these parcels? Who will have the means? By allowing these big buildings to go up, aren't we ensuring that they will remain in perpetuity? And that they will very likely be redeveloped by someone outside the community, not from within?
41
WTF!!!!
I NEVER USE CAPS BUT THE PEARL IS FUCKING AWFUL!!!!
It's like a multi storied gulag designed by Corky from Life Goes On.
I NEVER USE CAPS BUT THE PEARL IS FUCKING AWFUL!!!!
It's like a multi storied gulag designed by Corky from Life Goes On.
42
@38: The buildings are ugly -- they look like something from an amusement park ... the inside of a mall... or... gasp... Southern California.
Hmmm... maybe we should blame Californians.
Hmmm... maybe we should blame Californians.
43
41 is right -- the Pearl sucks. Yes, it doesn't have a million unmatched colors and textures. But so what -- it is gray, dreary and ugly in its own way.
44
The PEARL? A Good example? I'm sorry your walk to work is so dreary it makes That building stand out. That such a banal, grey and detestable hovel got permited in a decent neighborhood is a sad state of affairs. The pearl apartments are so crappy even the neighboring 7-11 should be offended.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Republicans Put Gay Marriage on the Ballot at Their Own Risk by Goldy
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (44) RSS