LOL WUT

This is so fucked up. I work with an urbanist organization and this makes it all the harder to have the discussion about density done right. Shame on these property owners.

Hey, if you ask Mudede, he's all for vandalism and replacing things with concrete and glass.

The historic preservation board screwed up. Blame them. Otherwise you're basically asking to developers to consider the historical importance of buildings beyond the role of the historic preservation board. You want a two-fold consideration of historical buildings in which developers are held to a higher standard than the board? Not too plausible.

I guess the words "property owner" no longer mean what I thought they mean?

@5 I agree. You can punish this particular developer all you want, but it won't stop other developers from exploiting this loophole in the future. The owners of this building did what they did as a direct consequence of the historic preservation board's failure to act. The property owners did a bad thing, that's for sure, but it was entirely preventable if those board members had actually met their responsibilities and showed up for the meeting.

I'm sorry Dominic, but I don't think this is/was the building to do a Last Stand on. Preservationist ride a narrow line between preservation and being the neighborhood NIMBYs trying to cry wolf to save everything. This building didn't have any historic significance to the city, while it was pretty and the terra-cotta nice, there are other more worthy battles to be prepared for especially if you/we are wanting to keep our pro-density creds.

@5:

If ONLY the preservation board is to blame for this, then what are we to make of the fact the property owner deliberately defaced the building? Why would they do such a thing, especially in light of the pathetically weak "excuse" given for the removal of the tiling? Why wouldn't they just leave things as-is?

Well, the obvious answer is they knew the preservation board would reconsider granting the building historical status next time around, and decided to ensure that wouldn't happen by peremptorily destroying enough of the building's unique design elements to make such a designation pointless.

I don't think for a second the property owner should be rewarded for this egregious and flagrant attempt to circumvent due-process. If they have a problem with that, they can settle it the old-fashioned way, by taking the City to court.

Comte, settling things "the old-fashioned way" involved counting off 10 paces at high noon. Come to think of it, that didn't work very well either.

The main thing that'll keep Seattle from becoming another LA or Phoenix is that both of those cities were created in flat open desert during the time of very cheap gas, making sprawl inevitable (see also: Houston, Dallas).

@10:

Due-process did occur and the board voted "No". You can't run a city on well-meaning intentions and wishy-washy half-efforts. If you want to prevent a property owner from defacing or demolishing their own property, you'd better get your ducks in a row. This incident should be an important lesson not a whiny call for 'backsies'.

What can I, as a concerned commenter do?
Please give us an outlet in which to channel our rage.
That would be even more helpful then just this article alone.
Can the Stranger initiate something that would help to protect these buildings?

Ugly building then, ugly building now. Old <> better. Move on, there are much more important issues to fret about. Either the stranger is pro-growth, or it isn't.

Comte has it right. The property owner deliberately defaced his building to avoid preservation, and he should not be allowed to get away with it. Yes, the building is now unimpressive, but it is part of the fabric of the city, and could, with sensitive remodeling, be a valuable part of it. The new building does nothing for the neighborhood (though I am glad to see new buildings occupying footprints smaller than entire blocks). The very shape of the thing is an assault on the nature of the city.

Who are these putative "Generation Y" asswipes who are supposedly going to be renting these apartments at two and three thousand a month? Wouldn't it be wonderful if they did a Second-and-Pike number here, dug a big fucking hole, and then decided it didn't pencil out?

When is Seattle going to learn not to second-guess history? No one in this city knows ANYTHING about our past. Quick: what's the oldest building downtown? Don't know, do you? I don't even think it has a plaque. Nobody gives a shit. Just pile up more glass towers; Houston here we come (though Houston probably has more interesting downtown historical remnants than we do). Even those "flimsy buildings from the 50s and 60s" might be interesting someday; twenty years ago modernist architecture was abhorred; now it's being cataloged.

[BTW, it's the former Drexel Hotel, now Bobbi's Bail Bonds (speaks volumes, that), 519 3rd Avenue -- the only building downtown that predates the fire (upper floors only).

Historical preservation is the only thing standing between us and Phoenix. Beauty has nothing to do with it. Say no.

Yes, #16, defacing a building that's been in place for generations to make razing it easier to swallow a few years later is just peachy, because you consider the building ugly. Maybe the city should get rid of all historical preservation boards and just consult you on attractiveness. Or the world, for that matter: The Sphinx: ugly! Blow it up! And all issues are either pro or con! Fuck nuance! Maybe we should build an office tower on the Space Needle's footprint: it's old, nobody likes that Googie-era stuff anyway, so fuck it!

While we're on the subject, hats off to the developers who expanded and refurbished the exterior of the building currently housing Masins in Pioneer Square. They did a beautiful job and it is a wonder to behold.

Yes, #18, maintaining a building that's outlived its utility for generations to come is easier to swallow because you consider the building pretty. Maybe the city should get rid of all new construction projects and just consult you on attractiveness. Or the world, for that matter...

@12:

That's so 19th Century. Back in the last Century, they did things a little differently.

@14:

The Landmarks Preservation Board did NOT in fact vote "no" on granting the building historical status, they deadlocked 4-4; a semantical difference perhaps, but a significant one nevertheless.

But regardless, is this really the sort of end-run around the intent of the law we should be advocating? Just turn a blind eye and allow any developer who wants to avoid the pesky do-gooderism of a Historic Preservation Board to take a jackhammer to the side of their building? Yeah, that's a great solution we should all be encouraging, right?

Look, Cascadia KNOWS the building would most likely have been reconsidered again for preservation status in less than a year. They defaced the building solely with the intention of making certain that status would never be granted. While what they did may have been technically "legal" within the letter of the law, it's also clearly a violation of the "spirit" of the law, and I see no reason why their actions should be rewarded with a rubber-stamp of their development proposal. It's also perfectly legal for the City to refuse to approve the development, and I'll bet the DPD can find any number of perfectly legitimate reasons for doing so. If Cascadia wants to challenge that decision, then they have recourse to do so through the legal system. The City doesn't owe them automatic approval, and based on their actions to date I for one don't think they deserve it in any case.

I believe the old expression for this is "Sauce for the goose".

"There are also plenty of flimsy buildings from the '50s and '60s that will never be historically significant."

People probably said the same thing about the 1925 building back in the 50s and 60s. I'm all for preserving historically-significant buildings, but looking pretty isn't enough in my book. I'm reminded of the "controversy" surrounding the demoltion of the Ballard Denny's. It was a fucking Denny's! Nothing of importance ever happened there, but people got their panties in a wad because of its architecture. There's pictures to preserve that shit.

I do 100% agree with the idea that we should be ripping out those parking lots first though. Those lots should be given priority for density development. While I can also agree that developers should be discouraged from this practice in the future, the 1925 building in particular was a fuckup on the part of the preservation board. Since it failed to be designated a landmark, the owner was free to do what they wanted with it, and I can't blame them for doing what they did.

I'm wondering if the aesthetes commenting here happen to be town home dwellers? Ugly buildings? That's not what developers are putting up all over the city? Most civilized cities (that is, outside this country) have regulations/incentives in place to protect neighborhood integrity. There should be other means of encouraging or enforcing the protection of historic structures other than designating them landmarks. Not many buildings qualify as landmarks.

As an educated and professional architect, I can't believe some of the comments on this thread. I agree with Lumpmoose, the historic preservation board handed this parcel of land it's fate when they negligently failed to show up and vote on it's historic relevancy.

Historic buildings are incredibly important to the life and vitality of a city but we can not demand that someone's personal property remains in tact while the officials that are in charge of that are apathetic at best.

Yes we should to fill in the parking lots and there are much better ways to develop new construction around Seattle but again, if you are trying to place blame, blame the only people that could have stopped this from happening in the first place.

I personally would love to see more development in Downtown/Belltown that re-utilizes existing structures and to breathe new life into a building like they did to the Packard Building here on Capitol Hill. But until we hold those accountable for their lack of actions, we have no right to tell this land owner what to do with his land.

Shouldn't ornamentation be among the least relevant criteria for architectural significance? If defacing the tiling of this property rendered it historically unimportant, exposing it as merely another boring, squat, square building, then it probably was never worthy of permanence in the first place.

I agree, though - the loophole is an ugly one. Someone needs to close it up before the walruses are shorn from the Arctic Building.

@25:

No offense, but that's an utterly ridiculous conclusion: we have all sorts of laws that limit what property owners may or may not do with or on their own land. The 18th Century agrarian model of unfettered property ownership you seem to be advocating hasn't existed since the conclusion of the last "range wars" of the 1890's.

To suggest Cascadia has some inviolate "right" to destroy this building, particularly when their intentions and actions have been so unabashedly bald-faced, essentially requires the City to completely abrogate its stewardship responsibilities in the areas of managing development and historic preservation, something its citizens have repeatedly indicated they hold in esteem. Such a step would inevitably lead to complete anarchy so far as land use, development and historic preservation were concerned, and the City, with appropriate citation would be well within its rights to deny Cascadia's request for permitting, regardless what actions the LPB did or did not take.

Holding the LPB accountable for failing to act is one thing, but it doesn't simultaneously preclude holding Cascadia accountable for its own actions, either.

@27 - I never once advocated that owner's could do ANYTHING to their property. There will always still be checks throughout the design process.

My point is, why do Seattlites always throw their hands up in the air and bitch and moan after something has already happened. If this building was truly relevant and historically important, the historic preservation board should have acted on it. The last thing we need to do is to continue to drive up building costs and costs of living because some people feel like they have an opinion now that it is too late. Wanna get involved in saving these buildings? Then get on one of the boards or shut the hell up....

Do you really want to see another hole in the ground like at 2nd and Pine or and empty parking lot like and Pine and Belmont on Capitol Hill?

Now my biggest question is how long the property was under the current owners? If was indeed a recent transaction, I beg to question if they could have just as easily purchased an empty parking lot. That DOES make things different....

if you leave any loophole, any whatsoever, an american will find it and exploit it for money.

@28:

Saying, "But until we hold those accountable for their lack of actions, we have NO RIGHT (my emphasis) to tell this land owner what to do with his land", seems pretty unambiguous to me. But, whatever.

And maybe the reason we Seattleites "always throw their hands up in the air and bitch and moan after something has already happened" is because we've learned from experience (e.g. Safeco Field, The Green Line) that "already happened" is never a foregone conclusion. If TPTB can change the outcome of "already done deals" or "final voter approvals" to suit their own agendas, well then WE can do the same.

This defacement-for-future-profit problem (endemic in New York and other places in addition to Seattle) is SO SIMPLE to fix, but political will must be gathered to do so:

Iron-clad regulations:

1. NO exterior changes, nor major interior changes, can be made without a permit of some sort. EVER!

2. If the changes to be made involve the permanent obliteration or covering over of ANY extant architectural elements, the permit is AUTOMATICALLY flagged for review, and a temporary injuction implemented. The injunction cannot be allowed to expire by default or delay; it can only be lifted proactively.

3. No Preservation Board vote may be allowed to occur without a quorum. If even one board member is absent, and a vote in favor of preservation does not prevail, a RE-VOTE must occur with all members present before the rejection can be considered firm.

@20, I never said I thought it was pretty, I said it was lame to intentionally deface a historic building and be dishonest about the reasons in order to get around a historic designation and demolish it. So what's your angle...think we should never preserve old buildings? You're going to go around and declare that various buildings have "outlived their usefulness" while your pal decrees them "ugly"? Have fun.

@22, what does the fact that the building in Ballard most recently housed a Denny's have to do with its significance?

@31 Wow, did you pull those rules straight from the bylaws of a gated suburban development?

Some people here seem to be pretty confused.

Developers are there to develop properties.

Historic Preservation Boards are there to preserve historic shit.

Someone here failed to their job, and could be deserving of blame (personally, fuck that building) but it wasn't the Developer.

As to 'violated the spirit of the law' SCOTUS has ruled that there is nothing wrong with exploiting loopholes as long as the law is not violated. If you want to stop this from happening, punishing those WHO DID NOT BREAK THE LAW is not the way to go about it. Fix the laws, or possibly more relevant here FIRE THE PUBLIC SERVANTS THAT FAILED TO SERVE THE PUBLIC.... Jesus, you wouldn't think it would be that complicated Sloggers....

@36, none of that doesn't make it a douche move to destroy antique terra cotta for phony reasons. I can buy a nice painting and legally set it on fire, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't call me out on it.

@37, I agree, but both the OP and many commenters here want to do more than just 'call them out' but instead want to use the state to punish them. Big difference.

Preservation probably wouldn't have stopped facadism like Vulcan's doing with the former Ford McKay on Westlake (the building is gone, but the terra cotta was removed and is being "preserved" to slap on a new building).

I have to say that situationally I agree with the post, but in this specific instance I can't wait for a new building. The building is already more or less a parking garage (albeit one with a pretty facade): it's an auto repair shop that uses the warehouse space for cars waiting for or finished with work, plus their customers are constantly blocking the sidewalk. As for the new tower, the DJC snippet indicates these will be smaller units with more shared space in the building which should mean lower rents and better interactions between residents.

Incidentally this is right next door to the Washington Talking Book and Braille Library, which is a former auto dealership with awesome street presence.

Maybe someone should have told the guys with the jackhammers they were supposed to demo those godawful statues in front of Whole Foods instead.

@35: Um, no. Not even close. A suburban planned community's bylaws would be dictating uniformity. Historic preservation is about protecting architectural difference, and details of unique significance are necessary. The regulatory framework I suggested would serve to make sure such things are always recognized before they can be obliterated, and never after the fact.

My feelings are basically in line with @36: Legislate this loophole out of existence, and make the preservation board accountable for doing its job.

And @39: Facadism is bad architecture, bad urbanism, and just plain bad. Better an Edith Macefield situation (new building built around old) than facade-attachment fakery.

Huh, just did some quick wiki and googling of facadism and it appears to be pretty hit or miss.

When it works though, it really works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Csav.j…

sounds to me like the writer of this article needs to get a life. just because a building is OLD does not mean it should be kept intact. This building is an eye sore. Additionally, I don't know much about the building or the owners but it sounds like this is just one writers opinion and that perhaps the other side should be heard.

@31: Yes, I understand that you want to use the law to force people to align with your personal aesthetic sensibility, rather than someone else's. And it's impressive to see that you're so confident in your judgment that you are comfortable in making laws that penalize those who disagree with your particular visual preferences. But personally I object to any laws that dictate aesthetic sensibilities, and especially ones as stifling and inflexible as those you propose.

Let's face it. We can't save every old building beautiful or not.In order to grow, we're going to have to accomodate a lot more people than we can now. I wish we could keep all the old buildings, but they arn't all worth saving.I'll be happy if we can just blend the new with the old.There's so much history here. Why scrap it all? I'd like to see some rules and regulations about what can be built and how it can be designed to fit in with our historical buildings.

I think what is at stake is not what is best development or preservation on this block. It is about deplorable custodians of history.

The current generation is responsible to hand off the best of who we are as a culture and people to our children. If we get more jack asses who value their own bottom line and consistantly get away with cultural murder because of all the loopholes that exist, then we might as well all learn to tolerate more strip malls and cheaply built skyskrapers.

And, by the way, that building isnt a parking garage any longer.....it has a cool import furniture store called Inform Interiors. Would rather see furniture there than another Starbucks or Walgreens on the corner.

CG @46: You'll notice that my proposal says NOTHING about dictating the DETERMINATIONS of the review board.

It simply mandates that there BE a review before taking the jackhammer to a building's detailing, thus preventing situations such as this (where detailing was willfully destroyed JUST IN CASE it could be found significant and preservation-worthy).

You cannot accuse me of imposing my aesthetic judgment upon anyone else, because I have made no aesthetic judgments.

(You, on the other hand, have clearly implied that a profit-knows-best worldview has moral superiority. That's something with which I can confidently disagree.)

@42: Those examples on Wikipedia aren't horrifying (or are at least photographed from the angle at which they seem least atrocious), but most of the time facadism is just ridiculous:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3071/2872…

@50 From my (limited) look at the style, it appears that facadism works best when it embraces itself instead of trying to pretend it is original. The ones that (to me at least) really impressive and not vomit inducing all tried to synthesize old and new, instead of attempting to hide the new in the old.