2030 8th Ave | 39 stories | Approved

[Matt the Engineer]

And here's what they did to it with a jackhammer.

[RMacherat]

I would take issue with this statement:

"we need to send a message to every property owner in Seattle that they can't buy gorgeous and historically valuable old buildings, vandalize them to avoid a historic designation, and then demolish these buildings to build new towers."

Then pass a law, show up for meetings or buy them youselves. I'm as much a protector of old stuff as anyone, much more than most actually, and I regret what these OWNERS did. But who the heck is "we" and where do we get the right to tell other people what they can/cannot do without due process?

[Matt the Engineer]

Reminds me of the Fountainhead where Dominique buys a Greek statue and smashes it so no one else can see it. I think I agree with you fundamentally, but that doesn't make the loss of priceless historic artifacts less painful, be it sculpture or buildings.

It may be a developer's right to destroy beauty, but it's the citizens' right to hate them for it. And to later go on and change the developer's rights. We don't want them motivated to go further in that direction.

[LCIII]

I think theyre approaching it the wrong way. Instead of punishing people who do an entirely legal however unsavory thing to their own property we should reward owners/developers who preserve with enough attractive bonuses that they'd be crazy NOT to take advantage. Rather than use historic preservation as an activist tool we should make it so that developers want the designation and allow them economical leeway to more easily use old buildings with great character as a starting point for new development.

They have no right to punish or make an example of these property owners. It's a shame sometimes when these old buildings go but such is life.

[Ruffhauser]

Originally Posted by Matt the Engineer

Reminds me of the Fountainhead where Dominique buys a Greek statue and smashes it so no one else can see it. I think I agree with you fundamentally, but that doesn't make the loss of priceless historic artifacts less painful, be it sculpture or buildings.

It may be a developer's right to destroy beauty, but it's the citizens' right to hate them for it. And to later go on and change the developer's rights. We don't want them motivated to go further in that direction.

I'm not sure using the force of the state to punish bad taste is where we want to take things.

[Doomgoggles]

I don't think this building is all that important, architecturally. If it were 10+ storeys, I'm sure things would be different.

[Capitol Hill]

And this property has been sold to a different group who is going to proceed with the development. Do we want to punish somebody else for anothers (legal) poor choices?

It would be like a beautiful Victorian home that somebody covered in aluminum siding that you bought, amd none of the neighbor would speak with you.

Well, any of you who bought a house with aluminum siding I'd question your choices, but I think you get ny thought process.

[Matt the Engineer]

To be fair, that article was written in 2009, when the offense occured.

I agree it's not government's job to single out individual developers that are technically following the law. But when one of the few buildings in the neighborhood with interesting architecture are defaced with the intent of avoiding a historic building designation, something has to change.

I like LCIII's solution.

[cameronrex]

I like LCIII's solution too.

[Bond James Bond]

I do kinda like that old building. Would be nice if they could at least preserve the facade, somehow.

[Rogue Linguist]

The defaced portion is so minimal. You'd think it would be relatively cheap and easy to repair it, since it would still be noticeable.

[Ruffhauser]

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr

[CityView Jim]

Yeah!

And adios

[Tespia]

So they are keeping the facade!?

[cameronrex]

Originally Posted by Tespia

So they are keeping the facade!?

No. Drove past today and they are definitely taking down the facade unfortunately. C'est la vie.

[jessejb]

Just walked by tonight. I mean, the facade really isn't that amazing. I don't think it was ever meant to live 300 years. I'll let this one go.

[CityView Jim]

Originally Posted by cameronrex

No. Drove past today and they are definitely taking down the facade unfortunately. C'est la vie.

And my "yeah" was that it will be demolished. Doesn't fit with the new building or the existing neighborhood comprised of new construction and nothing really preserved (as a neighborhood) like Capitol Hill.

[CrazyAboutCities]

Wow! I didn't realize that they already got started. Finally!

[mhays]

The park replacing the rental lot will be good too.

Some people seem to be afraid of new parks. But in addition to helping diffuse the bad elements, this one should get good use if designed well. Good mix of residents, office workers, college students, etc. nearby.

[CityView Jim]

Originally Posted by mhays

The park replacing the rental lot will be good too.

Some people seem to be afraid of new parks. But in addition to helping diffuse the bad elements, this one should get good use if designed well. Good mix of residents, office workers, college students, etc. nearby.

So what IS the latest on that? Haven't seen anything for Seattle Parks Dept. Waiting for $$$ from donors/sponsors?