Search

Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Boom March of the Six-Story Residential Buildings

Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Defying the laws of economics as we know them, developers proceed with—and even introduce new—plans to build around Seattle. The designs are more humble. They are apartments and not the luxury condos that we saw a few years ago. And, my, are they ever attractive. Look at this masterpiece proposed on 13th Avenue and East Pine Street that really says "welcome home."

faf6/1236215742-13th_and_pine.jpg

What a glorious example of everything architecture aspires to be. I'm ready for more.

Here's one of the latest drawings for the building slated to replace B & O Espresso on East Olive Way. I can't tell you how much I like it. But I go into some detail over here.

62c8/1236215794-b___o_building.jpg

And finally—moving quickly now, sweetie—a rough proposal for a new building on lower Queen Anne. This is the old QFC site.

2e30/1236215766-100_republican.jpg

Like an unripe starfruit, we cannot yet feast our eyes in the sweetness of the finished design. End snark.

All three buildings are up for design review tonight. Information about the meetings, in their respective order above, are here, here, and here.

Share via

Comments (42) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

that one's not so bad.

Posted by infrequent on March 4, 2009 at 5:44 PM

i must confess, i am unable, utterly, to predict, upon seeing renderings of new buildings, which ones the slog authors will like or not like.

Posted by aren on March 4, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Every day, in every way, we build better and more energy efficient buildings that make the giant energy-wasting mansions in the suburbs look like the monstrosities that they are.

Personally, I liked em all.

Posted by Will in Seattle on March 4, 2009 at 5:54 PM

At least they're not clad in five different textures and a rainbow of colors. And anything would be an improvement on the old derelict QFC/parking lot across Key Arena.

Posted by Pat on March 4, 2009 at 6:09 PM

It's hard to figure what's so objectionable, especially since most of them are replacing crappy-ass leaky-sieve "classics" (or vacant lots).

Posted by Good Grief on March 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM

dominic, who made you arbiter of architectural design in the city?

Posted by z3381300p on March 4, 2009 at 6:12 PM

Grass? Trees?

You can find much more beautifully landscaped yet urbanesque designs perfect for Bohemians in Kent East Hill's apartment complexes...ones the fulfill Christopher Alexander's precepts.

Posted by Life's Better Here on March 4, 2009 at 6:22 PM

The last one is just a massing study, they all look like that. All you Stranger writers do is whine!

Posted by Stop yer bitchin on March 4, 2009 at 6:26 PM

Interesting approach to the first one. Use camouflage on the first 2 stories, to fool people into thinking it's a 4-story building.

Posted by eclexia on March 4, 2009 at 6:32 PM

Well in the conceptual picture, it would appear the first one is slated for REAL porches! That's a step in the right direction in my mind.

Enough of the "euro-porches" already.

Posted by Derek on March 4, 2009 at 6:43 PM

@6 Seattle zoning code is the arbiters. Thanks to one-size-fits-all height limitations, the only way to maximize rentable (or salable) floorspace is to build these "bread loaf buildings." (Top out the height limit and build out to the property lines.) After you've seen about 5th bread loaf, you've seen them all... Zzz...

Posted by Hey Wait on March 4, 2009 at 6:48 PM

The B&O replacement is better than most. Although the 13th and Pine building looks like it's better suited for offices.

Posted by keshmeshi on March 4, 2009 at 6:57 PM

How about you focus on giving us a 200 page Stranger every week, with only 3 pages of ads, and every article a Pulizer winner? Can you do that for us? Let the architects do what they do best: design small-yet-spacious and of course affordable low-income apartments with all the amenities that please everyone and look like the Mona fucking Lisa every one. That's what they learn how to do at architect college, right?

Posted by Mr. Roark on March 4, 2009 at 7:26 PM

the first two proposals are shitty. i'll let the last one slide since it's a weak sketch up massing model.

derek, do you mean loggia? this has been the trend for european housing for the last decade:

http://www.architekten-haus.ch/immobilie…

http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/internet/mm/…

http://www.burckhardtpartner.ch/projectI…

http://www.burckhardtpartner.ch/projectI…

http://www.burckhardtpartner.ch/projectI…

http://www.mimoa.eu/images/498_l.jpg

http://www.mimoa.eu/images/1423_l.jpg

http://www.mimoa.eu/images/3140_l.jpg

http://www.danda.be/gallery/plaza_de_lie…

http://www.danda.be/gallery/brunnenhof_r…

http://www.danda.be/gallery/eichgut_resi…

http://www.danda.be/gallery/achslengut_r…

http://www.danda.be/gallery/schwarzpark_…

http://cubeme.com/blog/wp-content/upload…

i don't know what it is about residential architects in this city, but they produce some of the weakest shit. maybe we should be blaming the developers for being dbags and paying for gross, fugly projects to make a quick buck instead of investing in something the city could be proud of.

in basel, the locals follow the successes of the local architects. maybe if developers weren't such pussies, it could be the same here.

More...

Posted by mike on March 4, 2009 at 7:35 PM

Why do people keep bitching about how multi-family housing looks? Is it really that important? What do you want, bricks and marble? Glorious columns? Fancy stone and chrome? They're apartment buildings, not works of art. And all the designs in this post could be a LOT worse. Sheesh.

Posted by Rainier Valley Guy on March 4, 2009 at 7:40 PM

Perhaps rather than simply calling every possible option "ugly", you should try sitting down with a client on a budget, Land Use Codes from Mars and a neighborhood so attached to a crappy old building that nothing short of the Taj Mahal will suffice. I know the people who designed this. They are good people trying to do good, thoughtful work and who agree about how bad some of the things that have been built recently are. This is what the city wants here, according to the codes, so this is what they get. Don't slam the architect, slam the city's terrible building code.

Posted by sarah on March 4, 2009 at 7:40 PM

At least the first one has balconies (can't tell if they're big enough though). The second one has window fences.

Euro buildings have a big balcony for each apartment. Sometimes two. They're particularly well suited for a rainy urban climate. Our lack of balconies, or tiny unusable "Juliette" balconies, is insulting to humans.

Posted by Amelia on March 4, 2009 at 7:51 PM

"good people trying to do good, thoughtful work..."

project 1:roger newell
http://www.rhnewellaia.com/index.php

project 2:nicholson kovalchick
http://www.nkarch.com/

project 3: runberg
http://www.runberg.com/Index.shtml

please look through their websites and point out any good work. any thoughtful work. any thought provoking work.

let's not blame tough city codes for lack of creativity. tough codes require creative solutions to be successful. unfortunately, most projects don't present any creative solution, just the same old "tried and true" banal system repackaged. oooh, yay.

Posted by mike on March 4, 2009 at 8:02 PM

I love how you don't even say what you don't like about these buildings.

Tell me what is wrong with them, don't just talk shit, say what is wrong! Can you articulate that?

Posted by andrew on March 4, 2009 at 8:29 PM

This is the FIRST place in the world that complains when crappy old buildings, rat and fire traps are torn down and - the glory - of open space is there for a few months.

Oh, I forgot, the Danger crew got free drinks and head in one of the old sleeze bars in the block.

The leading question is --- do these projects pencil out and do they hire during construction - and is the rent passable if shared by three people?

VOILA, the real world intrudes.

(Posters, rember Dom has been to Paris, and - truth - this stuff looks nothing like the 16e ---- nor Les Champs ....)

Posted by ROY on March 4, 2009 at 8:33 PM

mike, are you an out of work designer by chance?

Posted by derek on March 4, 2009 at 8:36 PM

this is most dickish slog post in weeks.

i hope these get built just to piss you off.

Posted by oh yes, i turn to The Stranger for architecture reviews on March 4, 2009 at 8:38 PM

i didn't say anything because i thought it was painfully obvious.

1: banal, boring, proportions of a midwest office park. the canopy is dysfunctional, the street facade on (pine) is the only positive aspect of the whole project. the top and bottom aren't very cohesive. is it a pile of shit on a sockle? i can't really tell what it is. all i know is frank gehry's crap would make a more interesting and viable addition to the city than the oversized office park cum apartment newell's proposing.

still gainfully employed. you?

Posted by mike on March 4, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Mike, could you link some residential stuff that you do like? Just curious to see.

Posted by sad suburb dweller on March 4, 2009 at 9:23 PM

local v. foreign?
urban v. semi-urban?

Posted by mike on March 4, 2009 at 9:33 PM

What's that glassy building around or about 1119 East Pike? For some reason, that one really appeals to me. Sufficient golden rectangles?

Posted by Amelia on March 4, 2009 at 10:00 PM

Mike,

I like those porches/balconies on the first building.

When I said "euro-porches" I was referring (maybe incorrectly due to a foggy memory) to the euphemism developers use for a door that opens up to railing situated about 6" past the outer building wall. See for example:

http://thebraeburn.com/hoa/assn12986/ima…

...or most any other condo constructed in the last 5-years.

Posted by Derek(10) on March 4, 2009 at 10:15 PM

i figured. i think the correct term is juliette balcony. they're pretty much worthless. christ, when i was living abroad, we had a balcony that was at least deep enough for a small table and 2-3 cramped chairs so you could eat breakfast outside and enjoy the sun and view. of course, the streets were full of pedestrians so you could have conversations with your neighbors as well.
http://flickr.com/photos/estherkluth/205…

as far as projects, i'll stick to local-ish, low-rise and semi-urban since that seems to be what we're talking about.

johnston's fremont lofts
http://www.condos-lofts-seattle.com/dyna…

johnson's lofts on 19th
http://leung.typepad.com/photos/uncatego…

olson walker's pike & virginia
http://www.oskaarchitects.com/gallery_ca…

gordon walker's Nicholas Court Townhouses
http://www.shinstine.com/15thdusk.jpg

miller|hull 1310 e. union
http://aianwpr.org/NW%20Region%20Design%…

build's park modern
http://jeansho.files.wordpress.com/2008/…

brett crawford's 1310 condo
http://www.jcestnik.com/wp-content/uploa…

holst's belmont lofts
http://www.archidose.org/Blog/HD25a.jpg

holst's clinton
http://buildllc.files.wordpress.com/2008…

lang wilson's roar one
http://www.raic.org/honours_and_awards/a…

arthur erickson - waterfall building
http://www.hillside.ca/1540/atrium_north…

others:
banner bldg, agnes lofts, harbour steps

other u.s.:
Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects & Paulett Taggart Architects - Plaza apartments
http://buildllc.files.wordpress.com/2007…

saitowitz - Yerba Buena Lofts
http://buildllc.files.wordpress.com/2007…

More...

Posted by mike on March 4, 2009 at 10:34 PM

At least they don't have frosted glass resembling faux PVC piping and binder tabs affixed to the building. :) hehe

Posted by You know who... on March 4, 2009 at 10:43 PM

If I buy a condo, it darn well better have 3 bedrooms, a claw foot bath tub, bamboo flooring, and a propane or whatever fuel is greener fireplace.

Posted by orly? on March 4, 2009 at 11:04 PM

@14,

Mike, Mike. Didn't you get the memo? Density is ALWAYS GOOD IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. DO NOT DARE QUESTION BORG ARCHITECTURE WRAPPED IN ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY SOUNDBITES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO DISTRACT YOU FROM UNFORTUNATE SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPLICATIONS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT.

With that as the starting point of what passes for planning, design, and or architectural discussions here on Slog, do you think they would deign to quibble about mere design questions?

BTW - in my experience, when developers bitch about Juliette balconies (which certainly aren't as good as the real thing), it's usually because they want a waiver from their open space and setback requirements.

Posted by Mr. X on March 5, 2009 at 12:35 AM

I'd have to do some digging, but I'm pretty damn sure I saw some marketing sheet calling those things "Euro Porches" or something similar, but then again marketing=lowest common denominator. All that said, Juliette Balcony...got it. Seriously though, what's in a name? They should really be called "pandering useless shit."

Mr. X, what do you mean by developers bitching? Are they trying to say the J. "Crap" Balcony should substitute for open space or that they shouldn't have to make them all?

@29: Are you referring to a bldg somewhere near Olive and 10th'ish downtown?

Posted by Derek(10) on March 5, 2009 at 8:46 AM

I don't quite get the bitching about the wee little balconies, given the alternatives. If I'm an apartment-shopper, I can either:

1) have a tiny balcony
2) have no balcony
3) have a smaller living room (which I'll use daily) and a large balcony (which I'll use when it's nice out)
4) pay more than I can afford for a bigger place

Seems to me that #1 is a reasonable compromise, at least some of the time.

I've got no private outdoor space at all in my current place, and would love to have some, but I'm not going to take a chunk out of my bedroom for it, and my rent's high enough already, thanks.

Posted by cdc on March 5, 2009 at 9:06 AM

@32:

Do those even qualify as Juliette balconies? In the case of most of the ones I've seen, "Juliette" would have to be an anorexic six year-old with bound feet to even be able to stand on one.

And I think you're right about the "open space" dodge, but does ANYONE, from the architect, to the developer, to the City, to the tenant REALLY think throwing up a steel railing six inches beyond what is essentially a door into thin air constitutes "open space" as defined by the City design codes?

If everyone involved is simply going to give a wink and a nod to this obvious circumvention, why do they bother with it at all? Why not just put in a half-window that opens outward and call it good? It would be just as useful, and probably save a few grand on the construction/sale price to boot.

Posted by COMTE on March 5, 2009 at 9:27 AM

The B&O replacement building isn't that horrid of a design; I think it would look ok on Broadway, or better yet South Lake Union, but it's a horrible design for that lot...waaaaaay too big and looming for a sloping site and for that neighborhood.

It's also a little cold...looks more like an office building than a residential building.

Posted by michael strangeways on March 5, 2009 at 9:43 AM

I say we go all retro and just build single family homes on the lot.

Posted by downtown clown on March 5, 2009 at 10:38 AM

@32,

That they shouldn't have to do them at all. And I'm with @33 on that topic - a sliver of open space per unit is better than none. They also add some variety to the facades of buildings that would otherwise be slab-sided walls built to the lotline to maximize revenue.

Posted by Mr. X on March 5, 2009 at 10:56 AM

@34

Not the foremost expert as it's a term I just learned this morning, but judging from the world o' wiki, I'd guess yes. Seems the whole point of those is having an indoor part of the building from which you can lean outside, not actually being able to stand outside. Seems it's really just a big window with a railing.

Agree on the open space dodge, but I'm not sure that's what Mr. X was saying.

@33

My point is they don't really seem to qualify as a balcony in my mind, and much less as "open space." Would I rather have a big window than not? Yes, but I don't think it's the same thing as saying it's an outdoor area. Shit, you can barely even put a small plant on those balconies. A good example that comes to mind is the building on the east side of 12th between Cherry and Columbia, right next to SPU. Besides, think of the poor pet ferret that would fall right through those metal railings.

In theory, a balcony could be placed out past and over the edge of the building and not compromise interior living space. As I type that though, I guess the zero lot line construction typically used these days would have balconies extending into the right-of-way.

So no easy solution, but can we not confuse a railing clad window with a balcony?

Posted by Derek (10) on March 5, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Good point Derek.

I've got a real deck you can stick an outdoor cafe table and a couple of chairs on, but it rains too much around here to use it except in the summer.

In some ways, it might be better to instead use the space for a large picture window with seats that double as book storage and spare blanket/pillow storage for guests who crash on your living room couch.

With a nice external window box for flowers.

Posted by Will in Seattle on March 5, 2009 at 11:28 AM

@22

what about the post was dickish? I must have forgotten to turn on my "it's written on slog, therefore it's dripping with sarcasm" filter.

Posted by Layne on March 5, 2009 at 11:29 AM

If every apartment in a building has a balcony (deep enough to use and prevent your hindbrain from reflexive fear of heights) then, with one exception, each balcony functions as a roof keeping rain off the one underneath. So you can sit out there all year, in our relatively mild climate. And watch your neighborhood's kids grow up.

Posted by Amelia on March 5, 2009 at 1:41 PM

The other benefit of a balcony (or maybe porch is the better word), well you can stand outside and look around and it's ok. Stand inside your apartment window and look out, well that's a lot more creepy...at least that's my read.

Posted by Derek (10) on March 5, 2009 at 2:39 PM