Ballard Developments

[Ginkgo]

Originally Posted by silence.kit

I don't mind Noma. I'm not sure what was there before. I just don't like the design of Canal Station and I especially can't stand the design of Hjarta. Also, canal station is huge and looks so sterile. It doesn't have any personality.

I didn't know there was a car dealership in that lot before. I suppose I'd prefer the condo, but I would like is to have some more retail, restaurants, bars, etc. These things add character to Ballard, while these mammoth condos take it away, in my opinion. I just don't want the streets to resemble Dexter in Queen Anne, which is the most lifeless street that I know of in Seattle.

We're not going to agree on every building. They are all somewhat different and that's a plus. Ballard is awash in retail, restaurants and bars already and almost all of the larger projects have retail space on the street level. That's a lot more retail than the parking lots or single businesses that many of these new developments are replacing.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by silence.kit

I don't even shop at that QFC. I just don't like all the condos taking away from the charm of the neighborhood. I don't mind the expansion of downtown, though. As long as they leave some of the old buildings alone.

Another thing, as a renter, it is getting harder and harder to find decent apartments within my price range in Seattle. I have no desire to purchase a condo and couldn't afford to even if I did.

Then you'll hate what I heard at a presentation this morning. One of the speakers was Mike Scott from Dupree & Scott, which deals in the apartment market. He said that rents are lower than they ought to be compared to incomes in this region...by how much I don't remember, but it was a substantial difference. We've had large income growth since 2000, say, but rents were stable for years and only recently started rising. I think his projections were around 7% for each of the next two years, moderating a little at the end of that period. Vacancies are near a historic low at 3.8% today, and are projected to get down to 3.2% next year, before rising a bit in 2009 due to a potential large amount of new inventory.

That new inventory will get built but only if rents are high enough to pay construction costs. Rents were too low for much of this decade, and groundbreakings are only now starting in earnest because rents have risen and are expected to keep rising quickly. What counts, of course, is what rents will be when a building is complete.

The new units will generally be expensive, but 2009 is still good news for moderate-income renters, because the new units will allow the people with money to vacate the old units, allowing the old units to remain more affordable.

Regarding the QFC, to me, the current store and parking lot are blight, and serious underuse of a key block.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by captredbeard

"I just don't like all the condos taking away from the charm of the neighborhood"

I hear you but the vast majority of sites they tear down and rebuild are eyesores, like an ugly QFC with a large front parking lot. Density needs to happen asap, I just hope they make the buildings attractive. I would also like to see many more 3 bedroom units, right now it seems like 99% of the new condos are 2 bdrm or smaller. Some of us want to live close to our jobs and have a kid or two.

Three bedrooms would be great, but they'd have to charge a huge amount. Apparently the market is thin for large units due to the price.

[mhays]

Regarding retail: I'd rather keep retail focused on a few successful streets (especially a short stretch of Market), instead of dispersing it on more streets but never reaching a critical mass. In other words, the Broadway model rather than the Belltown model.

These projects aren't dense enough to support retail everywhere. Basically what I'm describing is the London "high street" model, which also applies to many of the other great cities.

[SteveM]

Originally Posted by mhays

Regarding retail: I'd rather keep retail focused on a few successful streets (especially a short stretch of Market), instead of dispersing it on more streets but never reaching a critical mass. In other words, the Broadway model rather than the Belltown model.

As long as the sidewalks are big enough on the successful streets... (IMHO, they're too narrow on Broadway -- when I lived on Capitol Hill, I typically walked north-south along Harvard because dodging crowds of meandering teens made Broadway too painful. I wasn't the only one, either.)

[BoulderGrad]

Saw this happy little guy in the DPD notices today:

http://web1.seattle.gov/dpd/luib/Not...D=265&NID=6961

Land Use Application to allow a five story building with 25,000 sq. ft. of retail at ground level and 100,000 sq. ft. of office above. Parking for 262 vehicles to be located below grade. Review includes demolition of 14,000 sq. ft. existing structure.

25,000 sqf is enough to to quite a bit. Maybe another grocer?

[silence.kit]

Originally Posted by Ginkgo

We're not going to agree on every building. They are all somewhat different and that's a plus. Ballard is awash in retail, restaurants and bars already and almost all of the larger projects have retail space on the street level. That's a lot more retail than the parking lots or single businesses that many of these new developments are replacing.

I wouldn't say ballard has that many bars, but there are plenty of restaurants.

And the retail space you speak of is ugly. It's so plastic and drab. Like I mentioned before, this is why I think Dexter is void of personality. It seems that most of the shops, restaurants, and whatnot are at the bottom of condos.

The reason why I like Ballard ave so much is because the street is teaming with life. The stores, bars, and restaurants look welcoming.

[silence.kit]

Originally Posted by mhays

Regarding retail: I'd rather keep retail focused on a few successful streets (especially a short stretch of Market), instead of dispersing it on more streets but never reaching a critical mass. In other words, the Broadway model rather than the Belltown model.

Agreed. Most of the condos that bother me are right there on Market or close to Ballard Ave. The ones located North of Market don't bother me nearly as much, including the one that will be built on the grave site of the QFC.

[flotown]

new inventory will get built but only if rents are high enough to pay construction costs.

People are financing projects on faith that they will be high enough because right now rents by and large can't pay for new construction. So by the time we find out if rents do jump as much as expected, product will already be coming on the market. Should be interesting.

[SteveM]

Originally Posted by silence.kit

And the retail space you speak of is ugly. It's so plastic and drab. Like I mentioned before, this is why I think Dexter is void of personality. It seems that most of the shops, restaurants, and whatnot are at the bottom of condos.

Off-topic for Ballard, but I'd love to have a discussion of why Dexter is dead.

Personally, I'd claim it has more to do with topography limiting neighborhood access (Queen Anne is too high and blocked by Aurora, Westlake is too steeply downhill) than with bland condo-oriented retail space. Also, there's not a ton of connected retail space -- most of the office buildings have blank walls or office windows.

[silence.kit]

Originally Posted by SteveM

Off-topic for Ballard, but I'd love to have a discussion of why Dexter is dead.

Personally, I'd claim it has more to do with topography limiting neighborhood access (Queen Anne is too high and blocked by Aurora, Westlake is too steeply downhill) than with bland condo-oriented retail space. Also, there's not a ton of connected retail space -- most of the office buildings have blank walls or office windows.

I can't really speak on your proposed cause because I'm simply not educated enough on the topography of Seattle. I've only lived here and a year and a half. You may be right. Topography may be the cause. I'm only speaking about the current appearance of Dexter.

However, there definitely isn't a lack of population. It seems that if a business chose to open there, it would do well.

Another possibility is how accessible downtown is from Dexter. I have a friend who lives on the street and she goes to downtown for everything.

[CrazyAboutCities]

I'm glad that Ballard finally have ours attentions. I know that they're building many new condos lately. I think their condos are little nicer than most of the condos I looked at so far. Their prices are very reasonable.

I can't imagine to be being that woman who refused to sell her property to the developer. I don't want to live in the house with huge buildings surrounding my house. That would be too weird. That remind me of Disney cartoon that I saw when I was little when a small house being trapped by skyscrapers at the end of the story. I forgot the name of this Disney cartoon. I rather to sell the house to the developer and take that million dollar so can move on with life.

[mhays]

Dexter's steep hillside location is a big factor, plus the Aurora barrier and even the proximity to Lake Union, which means no customers more than a block to the east. Even if it were lined with six-story buildings there still wouldn't be enough people for continuous good retail...though in that scenario some good clustered retail would work.

[taiwanesedrummer36]

Originally Posted by silence.kit

I can't really speak on your proposed cause because I'm simply not educated enough on the topography of Seattle. I've only lived here and a year and a half. You may be right. Topography may be the cause. I'm only speaking about the current appearance of Dexter.

However, there definitely isn't a lack of population. It seems that if a business chose to open there, it would do well.

Another possibility is how accessible downtown is from Dexter. I have a friend who lives on the street and she goes to downtown for everything.

Just from a basic standpoint, i'm guessing that Dexter is "empty" is either because:

- Lack of car traffic. Vheicles would most likely use Aurora or Westlake. However, I have found Dexter to be a good, quiet route out of downtown (shhh, don't tell anyone).
- There doesn't seem to be enough commercial activity. The redevopment of SLU and Seattle Center should help.
- Topography probably is a problem. Dexter is on a secluded hill, what do you expect?

Maybe adding a streetcar on Dexter would help, but there might not be much demand though

[CityView Jim]

Believe me, as a Dexter residence. There is PLENTY of traffic during commute hours as many avoid the Aurora backups by sneaking down this way. And I've never seen more bicyclists (commuters) than along Dexter in the evening.

The small corridor that it is, is much bigger than Belltown which thrives in a fairly skinny market. The difference is that people will actually commute TO Belltown and not THROUGH it. Another Dexter problem is that the only feeder markets are Fremont to the North and SLU from the South. You can only cross Aurora by either going under at the north end or Broad or going over at Denny so Queen Anne is not a feeder neighborhood.

[taiwanesedrummer36]

From the Seattle Times:


Preservation on the menu for Ballard's shuttered Denny's

By Sanjay Bhatt
Seattle Times staff reporter

It looks like a cross between a barn and a ski chalet with a little Jetsons thrown in.

But the tired old Denny's diner in the Ballard neighborhood, where more and more condos are going up, could be preserved as one of Seattle's few remaining roadside landmarks.

Earlier this week, the city's Landmarks Preservation Board voted 8-1 to nominate the property for landmark status.

It did so after Benaroya Companies, which owns the site and wants to sell it to a condo developer, said the 1960s-era structure no longer fits the character of the increasingly upscale neighborhood.

In a pre-emptive strike, Benaroya had asked the Landmarks Board to look at the Denny's building, expecting the board would decide it didn't deserve to be nominated for landmark status.

"Developers want to make sure they can go ahead unencumbered," said Benaroya spokesman Louie Richmond. Plans call for a 260-condo tower with ground-floor retail to be built at the site.

But the board, which also heard from architects and preservationists concerned with the loss of Seattle's roadside architecture, surprised Benaroya.

The old diner, now boarded up, may not be grand, "but it's part of our daily life and documenting that is important," said Alan Michelson, head of the University of Washington's architecture and urban-planning library. He urged the board to nominate the Denny's for preservation. The board will make the final decision.

"It's not a throwaway McDonald's," he said.

Both sides are gearing up for what could be a heated public debate Feb. 6 about the value of old commercial buildings to Seattle neighborhoods.

The debate has a particular resonance in Ballard, whose business district in the past decade has lost places that served a working-class, industrial community to stores that cater to young professionals.

A gateway to the Ballard business district on the corner of Northwest Market Street and 15th Avenue Northwest, the distinctive building has been a familiar anchor since 1964, when it opened as a Manning's Cafeteria & Buffet.

Passing drivers couldn't help but notice its unusual parabolic roofline, evocative of the "Googie" architectural style that played on the futuristic optimism of the 1950s with lines suggestive of space travel and the atomic age.

This style got its name from a Sunset Strip coffee shop designed in 1949, according to a report submitted to the city, and featured upswept roofs, large plate-glass windows, boomerang shapes and starbursts.

Michelson said the Manning's chain started as a coffee shop in Pike Place Market in 1908, later expanding into meal service. At its peak, the chain had 45 restaurants in California, Oregon and Washington.

"It put Seattle's coffee business on the map," Michelson said. "It's a forerunner of important Seattle businesses like Starbucks."

But by 1983 the restaurant chain was ailing and the Denny's restaurant chain took over the Ballard property, operating there until recently. In spring 2006, Benaroya Companies bought the property from the Seattle Monorail Project, which had acquired the site for a future Green Line station but was forced by voters to cancel its plans.

Richmond said that Benaroya bought the property under the assumption the building could be torn down, then the site was sold to a developer. The Monorail Project had permission to demolish the Denny's structure, he said.

Benaroya expected its request for the landmark nomination would be rejected. It planned to sell the site to a developer, Rhapsody Partners in Kirkland.

"Ballard's changed dramatically in the last 10 years," Richmond said. "The restaurants people support are not the sort of Denny's restaurants."

Richmond said he's not sure what will happen if the building becomes a landmark. "It's very, very possible nobody will build on that site," he said.

The board's Feb. 6 meeting is scheduled at 3:30 p.m. on the 40th floor of the Seattle Municipal Tower, 700 Fifth Ave.

[CityView Jim]

I read that too. Give me a break! Is there a sale on red tape??! Tear the piece of shit down. Better still, tell Gregoire!

[tritown]

lolol well said, even though I like it

[taiwanesedrummer36]

Well, if it was originally supposed to be for the monorail, maybe they should save the space for maybe another couple of decades when mass transit reached Ballard; but since that's just crazy, tear it down. Old buildings with weird designs scare me (the Space Needle is an exception).

[AzChristopher]

Personally I'm extremely happy about this decision. Its a style worth having examples of. Instead of having another bland condo building a creative developer will end up utilizing the property for something worthwhile.