- Wes Andrews
Couple days ago I expressed my feelings about an awning at Sixth and Pine, and badly designed awnings generally. You know, the kind that are designed to dump the most water on you possible. Eagle-eyed Slog tipper Wes Andrews saw this one at 3rd and Pike and I gotta say: You’re right, Wes. This one’s worse. Imagine the thick drip-drops that sucker would make. He writes:
I’ve been thinking about your awning complaint all day. You’re totally right, this is Rain City, why would we have anything less than the world’s best awnings? I just took this picture at 3rd and Pike. It’s an awning-shaped frame with nothing in it! At the city’s busiest bus stop! Inexcusable.
Hear, hear!
The building’s owners were attempting to dissuade sketchy people from congregating there.
It didn’t work.
I gotta say, I work next to that building and as lame as that awning is (the entire building is a big WTF), NOT having coverage there is probably a good thing – that block is riff raff central. It’s hard enough to get to those businesses or just walk down that section of street as it is.
God I hate that building.
This is, far and away, the most maddening example in the entire city.
Dry crackheads are happy crackheads and we don’t want that.
Oh I abhor these awnings as well. It’s like all these big new buildings just sneering at the people. Design that makes cute or ironic references with the function removed, I hate it.
Hey look, here’s where the “awning” would be on one of those old “buildings” we used to have.
Remind me not to commission you to design anything having to do with architecture. There are the previous accurate comments, plus look at the signs mounted on the overhang – got a clue on the main purpose of the thing?
I’ve had enough. You bunch of fucking losers.
It rains in Seattle. Protect yourself. Why the fuck do you worry about how the architecture looks and will it protect you from the rain. You have something called the Bumbershoot Festival.
You are all such whiney pussies. Please–I cannot believe that my adopted hometown is attracting this kind of stupidity.
The worst thing is that the developer probably got some sort of zoning bonus from the city for having public awnings.
Screw umbrellas. Umbrellas don’t work in a crowd; you’re either bumping it into other umbrellas or dripping on your neighbors. And then when you get inside a building, you’ve got a wet, drippy umbrella to stick somewhere.
Be considerate and just wear a hat.
@5: This is, in fact, one of your older buildings:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s…
It’s in terrible shape and has been stripped of most of its historic detail, and it contains some of the worst businesses in downtown, but why would any landlord or tenant invest in a property where the worst of humanity is allowed to congregate and harass passers-by all day and night?
(But at least there’s an army of cops half a block away handing out jaywalking tickets!)
If that’s the building I think it is, it used to have a perpetual scaffolding on it (from at least 2002 up until a few years ago). That scaffolding and the bus shelters at that stop (and the protection from the rain they provided) attracted large numbers of skeevy people. The city (or Metro or whatever) took down the bus shelters, forced the building owner to remove the scaffolding, and increased the foot patrols in that area. While 2nd/3rd between Pike/Pine are still sketchy as fuck, it’s much better than it was nine years ago.
Immediately after graduating, architects should be enrolled in a reeducation camp. There they should stay until they learn how to design buildings that actually serve the people who will be using them rather than their outsized, hyper-masculine egos.
It’s not necessarily a bad thing, considering there’s always crackheads and creepers hanging out in front of the cigar shop at all hours.
@11: hyper-masculine egos? have you MET any architects?
plz learn who controls the pursestrings in the development process. it is very likely that the awning had glass panels when the project went to bid.
@6 – To get people wet? Seems like an expensive structure if its sole purpose is hanging signs. Signs could be put in those exact positions using poles, after all.
I can’t imagine this awning would make any architect proud.
Awnings aren’t optional for skyscrapers. The code includes awnings capable of stopping huge chunks of glass.
I’m sorry, I don’t buy the “if we make a functional awning, it will encourage drug dealers and homeless people” argument. The reasoning is really: “Let’s inconvenience hundreds of people a day by having a useless awning, in order to also inconvenience ‘riff-raff'” ?? Which, in the end, doesn’t work like that anyway.
There are plenty of functional awnings in Seattle, and I don’t see dope deals there during the day, and homeless people attempting to sleep there at night.
Wouldn’t the solution to drug dealers et. al. be a greater police / downtown-ambassador presence? I’m certain those high-revenue businesses there are in communication with the authorities about that if it is in fact a problem.
In any case, many of you don’t know that there is a police surveillance operation on the 5th floor of a building at the corner of Pine and 3rd. I used to work in that building and personally witnessed their camera setup and office operation. So perhaps, just perhaps, they are allowing it to continue so they can surveil and bust them.
@7 – The point, Mark, is that if someone is going to construct an awning, then fucking make it functional, or don’t fucking construct an awning at all. It’s just bad architecture. It’s a valid criticism.
If you’ve really “had enough”, then don’t read and don’t post. Simple. Whining about perceived whining is a little redundant, don’t you think?
‘ it rains in seattle’…is this why a large chunk of condos have these fake balconies that hold only potted plants ?
http://seattletransitblog.com/wp-content…
I used to work in the building next door (Century Square, that houses Borders and the food court) and can attest to the fact that that awning had glass until fairly recently. I don’t know if the glassless awning is temporary or not – there seems to be perpetual construction and scaffolding at that building, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was removed to deter the huge number of crack dealers/smokers/degenerates* that congregate underneath. That whole block is a menace. That said, from what I understand, awnings are mandated by the DPD, so it would be interesting to know if a building can just remove the glass indefinitely. The awnings on the Pike Street side of the Sheraton used to be worse than worthless, but the they were swapped out during the renovation. Regardless, I wear a jacket with a hood. Those awnings ALWAYS drip giant drops down your neck.
*I myself am a degenerate, so am generally in favor of such activity, but 3rd between Pike and Pine is seriously fucked.
If the idea is to deter the undesirables, why not explore other options? Install air horns that go off at random intervals all night; this should keep the lower-class sorts from sleeping in front of our precious buildings. During the day, poverty-sniffing dogs should keep the place clear for the upstanding, well-dressed folk who belong there.
@7 put the aggro-mocha down, close your laptop and spend some time outside in the rain – I think you’ll discover that a functioning awning is pretty nice.
Does no one in this town have a memory? The awning had glass before.
Yeah, I never understood the awnings with holes in them to let the rain through (as pictured), and I never understood the clear, flat ones that let rain (and wet soot) collect in puddles. It’s like an umbrella with just the spindles or one that collects the rain and dirt.
Californian architects, that’s why.