Dear Stranger readers,
2020 is finally behind us, but our recovery is just beginning. Reader support has ensured that our dedicated and tenacious team of journalists can continue to bring you important updates as only The Stranger can. Now we're imploring you to help us survive another year. Ensure that we're here to ring in our upcoming 30th anniversary by making a one-time or recurring contribution today.
We're so grateful for your support. Thank you.
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.
Sign up for the latest news and to win free tickets to events
Buy tickets to events around Seattle
Comprehensive calendar of Seattle events
The easiest way to find Seattle's best events
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
If this rant doesn't make sense, go down the street to the Kolstrand Bldg and see how proper urban infill should handle itself
Maybe it's because I walk past it on such a regular basis and couldn't help but notice it being built, but I'd bet a new-comer walking through the neighborhood for the first time would instantly identify it as new rather than mistake it for refurbished.
You don't see any problems with a behemoth of yellow stucco punctuated by air conditioning vents and balconies that wandered in from a Southern Plantation mail-order catalog? You have no qualms about archways of chalky, chunky sandstone on loan from the Magic Kingdom collection?
The entire Hotel Ballard facade (and the hotel interior, I'm told), screams of money without context or taste.
The design that was approved by the Ballard Avenue Landmark District was already mediocre and of questionable appropriateness. Everything about the final installation (which strayed far from the approved version) is worse.
In a city with only three moderately intact historic districts (Ballard Ave, Pioneer Square, Georgetown), a crime like the Hotel Ballard should be met with 7-digit fines. In fact, a similar debacle in Boston was squashed when the mayor personally revoked a Disneyfied hotel's permits; the hotel wound up spending $2 million to completely replace the facade.
And yet Hotel Ballard operates unimpeded, and idiot Seattleites see no problem with that.
I am sure that the price is a fair market value etc etc. and well prepared etc etc
But does The Stranger audience actually spend that kind of money? For eating out? (Or maybe it's "dining" out?)
I thought this newspaper (Seattle's Only Newspaper, I think) trended younger and poorer. Is there really a mass market of Stranger readers who go out for dinner with that kind of price? If so, then "Great! Congratulations!" and they certainly no need for housing rental subsidies or even any worries about affordable housing at all.
Also, as pretty as this restaurant group's restaurants are, their food is frequently bland (Poquito's) or terrible (Von Trapp's & McLeod's). To be fair, I've had a good couple of dinners at Bastille's, so they will probably sucker me in to going here too..
@5, agree. How this Carnival cruiseliner passed Landmarks review is a travesty. I personally don't object to historicism, but urban scale and authenticity are what Ballard has to offer and the new structure does not relate to these qualities in any way. This is the real story the Stranger should have been covering. BJC up your game please, Min Lao would have been all over it.
@2, whatever.
(Stranger, please get some of those indent thingys so we can comment on each other's post)
You brought up the Kolstrand Building as an example of what should be emulated in our best urban districts. I agree, though it's worth noting that the Kolstrand was a retrofit, rather than infill.
For a good example of infill, you need only walk 250 feet from Hotel Ballard to The Noble Fir, the kitchenware store, and Moshi Moshi -- all attached to and a part of the megablock assisted-living home that fronts on Leary. Partly new construction (Moshi) and partly a rehab with added stories (the other two), the complex comports with the neighborhood through reasonable massing and unassuming materials. It doesn't try to fake "oldness" -- an impulse which almost always fails -- but simply employs humility to show respect for its surroundings. Barely five years old, it's easy to forget it hasn't been on Ballard Ave forever.
Hotel Ballard seems to be trying hard to be a swollen thumb.
I think this is the source of some of the complaints, but I don't think it is necessarily a good criticism. Not everything has to look old to fit in or be similar. As @13 says:
I might have to take another look when I walk by next time, but I think the impulse is to hate new things and new things always seem to stick out like a sore(?) thumb.
Mark my and everyone's words though, Ballard cannot last in the form it is now. Greed has destroyed what made it unique and thus desirable.
So your whole premise is grossly inaccurate.