Last night, developers unveiled plans for an eight-story building—Market Street Landing—on the site of the former Ballard Denny’s. MyBallard has a brief write-up about the presentation before a city design-review board and neighbors. I gotta say—man, this is an ugly building.
Freiheit & Ho Architects
And it’s not that all new buildings are crap, or that condos are invading our sacred burg, or that this design doesn’t relate to the neighborhood, or those other red-herring excuses from people who want to send Seattle back to 1974. And it’s not that the Denny’s was especially special. The problem here is that this eight-story building, donning little pitched rooflets, is attempting to look like a set of small Craftsman-style houses. But it can’t look small: It’s a huge building. If you’re building big, go big. Be bold.
I agree with #50. I want more cheap shit so I can afford to live in the city.
Cheap buildings = old buildings. New buildings will never be cheap, big or small, period.
I’m sure I’m setting myself up for a good old-fashioned smackdown by the Seattle Good Taste Police, but do you folks actually think that mess looks better than the old Denny’s?
Granted, the building didn’t look its best in it’s last days, but with a little *imagination* it could have been part of a unique and interesting development.
This proposal is just crap some developer bought from some architectural sweatshop. Designed to maximize square footage, and to look at home in Omaha or Seattle or Atlanta or whereever.
How creative.
Is that a lighthouse at the corner? Craftsman-style eaves over bay windows? Blue and baby-shit brown together? I just don’t get what’s going on with this building. It looks like a Safeway with cheap apartments sprouting from the top, with a design that’s supposed to be giving a nod to Ballard’s maritime heritage. Whatever it is, it’s hideously ugly. Grade: F-
“Last night, developers unveiled plans for an eight-story building—Market Street Landing”
Ugh. I missed that awful little detail on the first reading. Who thinks up these stupd names, and who are they meant to appeal to?
Apathy and love shouldn’t be confused. I don’t think people love them so much as they don’t care that much about the exterior of a condo or apartment. Most the world is apathetic as evidenced by what developers and landlords do to entice buyers. One that truly cares about the aesthetics can’t be bribed. The sales and rental numbers as well as future development show the majorties apathy to aesthetics in architecture.
Geeeeerrrrrrrrosssssss! I will be sure to avert my eyes when I hurry by it. Definitely Craftsman on steroids AND crystal meth.
Who thinks up these stupid names? Traditionally, developers used a device called “Dial-A-Name.” The innermost wheel has a bunch of words like “Landing,” “Pointe,” “Estates,”Glen,” Towers,” “Square,” etc. The middle wheel will generally contain a word that evokes a former wildlife species present at the site or habitat signifier such as “Eagle,” “Chinook,” “Blue Heron,” “Salix” or whatever. Sometimes they just skip the outermost wheel, but if not it can refer to a cardinal direction or a place like “University,” “Bell” (short for Bellevue), “Woodinville,” and so on, sometimes preceded by the word, “at.”
Recently developers have been slacking off and calling their shit names like, “The Parc,” “Olive 8,” “The 400,” “Gallery,” etc. These are very lazy-ass names. I think they should go back to the wheel.
@28 for the win. It just looks like someone focused-grouped the question “What architectural features make you think of the word ‘home?'” They then took the top five responses and created this Disneyfied monstrosity.
Density does not require bad design.
@48: Fnarf, I disagree that Anhalt’s fake-Tudor buildings are Seattle’s best.