Now I'll have to get a car! Or two! Or NONE! Or something..
The designs for the new building look sweet. Fully wrapped in brick, none of that overdone "modulation", art space, and a cafe at the corner? Where do I sign up? Only problem is that it adds almost 100 parking spots that will spill right on to 11th. Next to a light rail station. Wtf.
Maybe this will get us a Veggie Grill on Capitol Hill!!! Or how about a Chipolte?? We can only hope!!
@1 I hope that meme never dies. Fuck NIMBYs.
Or how about a Horse's Ass Cucumber Garden?! Me and Trigger love cucumbers, if you know what I mean.
@5 put down the paint chips and go play in traffic.
Well said. In the past you told me pithily to "Go fuck yourself" or "Go kill yourself."
Have you finally taken that class in Toddler Sentence Construction? You dawg, i knew it would do you wonders.
"If building tall next to parks ruin the character, apparently New York’s Central Park must be the worst park in the world."

Actually there are protests about huge new buildings that would throw shade on Central Park:…
The truth is that no one gives a shit about old buildings. Just put up another fucking five over one so that the landowner can make extra buck$ and so the city can have its precious density. Never mind that every damned multi-unit construction on Capitol Hill looks like the same cookie-cutter design. What once was an interesting neighborhood has a homogenous look that just says come and take over you yuppies.

isn't Hugo House itself doing the development? That's why they'll be in the new building? If HH didn't own the land, why would a developer let them stay? That's space that he could sell/rent for Profit. Also, how can HH afford to live in a new building? I'm sure that rent will be higher than it is now. The whole thing smells fishy.
@3 where have you been! there's already a chiptole just a few short blocks away :)
Those comments give me some hope for this city. We should be building like hell in the walksheds of all the link stations; given the billions we're spending on it. And if Cal Anderson is the great amenity he claims it is, shouldn't we want to maximize the people who can walk to it?
@11: The founder of Hugo House owns the land, and *she is in charge of the development. She's nice enough to let us stay in the new building, because she cares a great deal about the organization/mission.

For more info, you can check out the press release:…
- Kristen at Hugo House
The Blue Moon was saved, and it is a stink hole that smells like old beer and piss. We could have had a nice building on that lot, but a herd of hippies and beatniks staved off progress somehow.
This building is much more important than the Blue Moon.
dude how dare you fuck with the Blue Moon
it's east olive STREET, not east olive WAY, dan. you haven't lived here very long, have you?
@15 I really don't see where assholes like you get off taking interest in capitol hill while simultaneously bashing the "hippie and beatnik (very current terms by the way)" types who've made this neighborhood what it is. Your ignorance is epic. Do you really not get it? That all the nightlife, galleries, bars, restaurants, shops and general culture and attention this neighborhood gets... it's all because of those detestable counter culture types you hate so much. We're the ones who've made this place what it is, so that attention-whore brohos like you see it as a destination, where you can flaunt your shitty tribal tattoos and put on an Ozzy tshirt and think you're blending in. But hey man, I get it. You want Capitol Hill to be Bellevue or Pioneer Square because you're stupid and ignorant. And hey, you'll get it. It's on the way, you pathetic turd. Though I honestly don't understand why you couldn't keep your retarded bro ass in one of the million other places that are already like that. Capitol Hill USED to be one of a kind.
So you guys are pro development but anti those who live in the development?? With all the hate for the new people moving in on the hill it's really surprising to see articles lecturing others for being upset with the changes on the hill...
@16 - you do know The Stranger stayed on Capitol Hill for 20+ years, yes?
1902 is not old.
Hang on to your single family homes if you want to be a Vancouver west ender because your million dollar home now will be worth $2 millions soon which is a good thing because you'll need every cents of that to continue to live there. And possibly even more now that foreign investors are buying the east side up and starting to look west. But be careful of what you wish for. For those of us who discovered and lived in Vancouver west end in our 20's many years ago, we've been priced out a while back. West end started to build up upward in the 1950-60s and had time to evolve. Unfortunately, Vancouver of today livability factor is intertwined very much with affordability as the cost of living, taxes, and fees have increased while wages stagnated. It has become a mecca for investors who want to park their cash in empty homes and condos. For those who wish to live in their homes, they head out of the city. As commute worsens, many are making the decision to work closer to where they live which means not in the city. (Part of the beauty of living in the west end was the walkability to work, leisure, entertainment, recreation, school, and shopping.)…

BC government & the fed have gotten out of building houses. In their heyday, together they built non-market housing. Some of these non-market units were right next to million dollar properties along beautifully landscaped public space and you couldn't tell one from the other from the outside.…

Still a great place to visit though.
Should clarify eastside refers to Bellevue and vicinity. Not sure Vancouver west end has any single family home left for some time. But nice to want to keep a few on Capitol Hill or make them cute B&B.
There are alternatives, Dan. You're on a polemical spree on the subject of density on the Hill. I know it makes for copy, but it seems a little unreasonable.
1.) Some of those quaint, single-family homes could be converted to multiple-family homes with extensions, attic conversions, etc. That would preserve some views, daylight, yard space and greenery, thus preserving some of the aesthetics that are part of quality of life. Even if I don't own it, I can look at it. But there are bigger bucks to be made with complete tear-downs and new higher-rise condos with more units.
2.) Clustered density throughout the city around transit hubs is a way to get people out of their cars for the commute. I live in Beacon Hill, share a small house, and take the bus. Still saving the planet without having to live in an expensive little box. So there.
Obviously we need more 40-100 story buildings.

Has anyone looked at the little changed Wallingford neighborhood?
@17 see @26
@14, thanks for the info.
Hi Dan,

You're a powerful speaker and writer, and I've often admired your unabashedly honest disclosures and stances regarding a wide variety of issues. Nevertheless, I would like to address the parallels between our hypocrisies. In 2015, I bought a condo unit in a building that, 11 years earlier, apparently replaced quaint, residential structures when it was built (and, yes, I get that you think it's really, really ugly). I bought the condo in large part because it was near Cal Anderson Park, which I really enjoy and which I visited a lot last summer when I lived in East Queen Anne. And, yes, the view of that park was one of the reasons I bought. Yet, I wrote an article arguing, among other things, against replacing what I view (no pun intended) as a quaint, residential structure with an even bigger building than mine, and which is also next to my building,directly across from Cal Anderson Park, and directly across from a quaint, old church. That church, in turn, is next to single-family residences. All of these other buildings are in a less intense, residential zone.

You live in a single-family home in Capitol Hill, yet, if you "ruled this fishing village," you would rezone virtually all of Capitol Hill for multi-family housing. You gloss over your hypocrisy, while you vilify mine. Should we both cure our hypocrisies by moving out immediately? Other than avoiding personal attacks like yours, I'm not sure what my moving out would accomplish. But if you move out right now, then you can avoid the accusations of further hypocrisy and self interest when you start to champion the changes to zoning ordinances that would be required to make your dream - - a single-family-home-free Capitol Hill - - a reality. That way, no one will accuse you of trying to make a change that would directly benefit you, financially. As another commenter pointed out, if you continued to live in your single-family home and it was upzoned for multi-family residences (as I assume you will be arguing it should be), you would make an even larger profit than you would now. Should your readers start to prepare immediately for your move out and for your assault on Capitol Hill's single family homes?


Will Hershman
The problem is not opinions. The problem is that you have a personal problem, and are trying to get the government to prevent otherwise legal activity in order to fix your personal problem. That's not what a city government is for. The government is there to protect the interests of the public, and unless you are willing to make your apartment's view accessible to anyone, on demand, then it is not in the public domain.
Why is it so deeply uncool for someone to make any money off real estate? Isn't it the most common way for Americans to get some financial security? Developers make money. They sometimes build ugly stuff. QFC makes money, and every single QFC in the world is ugly as sin. Why is it so uncool to build apartments? It's not like people don't want them or something.
The idea that I am opposing the proposed project at 11th Avenue and East Olive Street with the sole motive of saving my view is something that a lot of others have suggested, but not what I was saying or arguing here or anywhere else, and in fact, is not true. All of the comments and opinions which focus on me and my real or imagined hypocrisy, including the opinion expressed in the article with respect to which we are commenting, instead of focusing on whether the proposed project is right for the corner of East Olive Street and
11th Avenue, keep us from having a constructive discussion about the latter issue. I am not sure why many do not seem to want to have a genuine discussion about that. In fact, the government does have a role, here, in the form of the Design Review Board, to hear a lot of issues. Those issues include many of the ones I actually brought up in the article to which Dan Savage responded. I agree that they don't care about that which I never argued they should care about, the loss of someone's view.
@29, @32 The Hugo House plot has been slated for re-development since 2014, before you bought your condo? Surely that should have been a factor in your purchasing decision?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.