Seattle, Greenlake Condo Projects

[Matt the Engineer]

The developers are limited by what the buyers want. If a developer thinks he can sell a high-end design, he'll build it. So part of the answer is simply to hope Seattlites put a high premium on beautiful buildings, and that developers know their clients well.

But real change can come from owners. If we could get a large corporation that's building its image, with enough money to build 3, 6, maybe 10 buildings downtown... Oh wait, thought we were in the SLU thread.

[mhays]

All you need is enough people willing to pay a substantial premium for a certain style, as well as pre-construction certainty that they'll do so. That's a big challenge.

Also, the photos don't strike me as examples enough people would pay more for.

[mSeattle]

Isn't there an assumption that the people in the cities where those buildings are built are paying more? What if they're paying comparable prices for sharper more artistic distinct-looking buildings?

[mhays]

Originally Posted by mSeattle

Isn't there an assumption that the people in the cities where those buildings are built are paying more? What if they're paying comparable prices for sharper more artistic distinct-looking buildings?

Only at the very top end as far as I can tell. Artistry usually costs more than the return.

In Seattle, excess zoned capacity is in relatively short supply, and every property is priced assuming you'll build the most space allowed. If you don't, you're dividing that same price by fewer square feet. So you don't indent buildings more than required. And we have laws against overhangs.

Artistic massing often involves costly structural designs, costly exterior envelopes, etc. Unusual materials generally cost a lot. And the jobsite crew can lose the efficiency of repetition. Office tenants worry about fitting standardized offices and cubicles into varying floor plates. Hotel rooms are even more standardized. Even condo buyers like floorplans that can be used efficiently, and generally fit common layouts.

[mSeattle]

Pics 1-4 that I posted are pretty simple. They're boxes except for #1, but the building envelope designs are cool, fresh, urban.

[mhays]

Pic 2 maybe. Hard to tell.

The others (the gold one, the funky balcony one, and the slanty roof) all involve not filling out the potential massing, plus expensive-looking facade treatments.

[mSeattle]

Well, I guess there's no hope.

[RMacherat]

I wonder where "building envelope" ranks on people's lists. From the looks of our city lately, not very high. For me, ultra-modernity chafes mightily after a while, a short while. There was a home in the Pacific section of the Seattle Times a few weeks ago that featured the self-portrait of an artist as the huge centerpiece of the living room of the stark, glassy, angular, concrete-and-steel home, right above their book. I couldn't help but wonder how many times you'd come home to that bearded thing before you'd have some kind of fit and chop it up for kindling.

On the other hand, look how much in demand traditional buildings are. People want to live in them even before seeing inside.

[mhays]

When I was buying, I cared way more about unit layout, square footage, quality finishes, and neighborhood way more than how artistic my building is, though I also like the building. I suspect most people are the same way.

[Capitol Hill]

Originally Posted by mhays

When I was buying, I cared way more about unit layout, square footage, quality finishes, and neighborhood way more than how artistic my building is, though I also like the building. I suspect most people are the same way.

I want a hot neighbor I can watch.

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by RMacherat

I wonder where "building envelope" ranks on people's lists. From the looks of our city lately, not very high. For me, ultra-modernity chafes mightily after a while, a short while. There was a home in the Pacific section of the Seattle Times a few weeks ago that featured the self-portrait of an artist as the huge centerpiece of the living room of the stark, glassy, angular, concrete-and-steel home, right above their book. I couldn't help but wonder how many times you'd come home to that bearded thing before you'd have some kind of fit and chop it up for kindling.

On the other hand, look how much in demand traditional buildings are. People want to live in them even before seeing inside.

That's just ridiculous, not at all connected to the photo examples I posted. A building should exist not just for the occupants but for the public. A building design can be "playful" and "inspire" with shapes, colors and the elements that are used.

[D Green]

Yeah but demanding things like "playfulness" or "inspiration" from all future projects 'for the public' defeats the purpose of those characteristics, which are based on free will.

Introduce "carrot-stick" incentives to better designs, such as tax credits, some design guidance leniency, or other pro-development incentives and watch designs explode in character. You'll be surprised how creative people can be when they're given incentives, not mandates.

[RMacherat]

If you intend to build your city so that the public has a greater say than the individual, fine. Enact that. Then appoint/elect people to make the decisions. Then, sit back and enjoy your Eastern Europe.

[Ruffhauser]

Vitamilk site aka "Green Lake Village"

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr