To be fair, the building is bright orange with no windows. Pretty shitty design.
I don't understand how Prince Tugboat could become "injured as a result of the shoddy design or craftsmanship" of this project. Will it be surrounded by an anti-freeze-filled moat?

More likely Prince Tugboat, confused by the sudden disappearance of his regular ingress/egress, will attempt to scale down the side of the new structure, probably dislodging the cheap pergoe siding that will no doubt be used as an exterior design element, fall several floors and get walloped on the head by the debris in the process.

Aren't these complainers just renters themselves? Renters are by definition not permanent residents. What then gives these transients the right to dictate what happens to land they are merely borrowing (for a fee)? They have no stake. Their opinions cost nothing and are worth exactly that price.
Once upon a time, when we lived in an upstairs apartment but indulged our cats to go outside, I built a cat ladder out one of the windows to let them in and out of our apartment. It worked great for them, and gave them a perch from which they could survey their domain.

Prince Tugboat's parents are going to have to suck it up and get creative.
Genuinely curious: would a near-exact replica of their building be good enough? If not, shouldn't that building be considered "out of character" for the neighborhood?
And this, people, is why discretionary review is a fucking farce.
That is one shitty looking building.
@4 The Maryland is a co-op. The Fairhome, I believe is an apartment building

The earlier story on CHS had some of the neighbors opposed to the development flesh out their concerns. The woman who wrote about the cats gave some background as to why she included that bit and has quite a bit of humor about it.

@7 I strongly disagree with taking out the public review process. There have been plenty of times that public input has dramatically improved design (and plenty of time that the final building differed from the approved design - but that's a different issue). And haven't some design permitting changes come after repeated public input on the same issues? I would consider that progress.
@4: Nope. The Maryland is a co-op building.

And anybody who lets their cats roam freely around the neighborhood has relinquished any right to be concerned about its well being. You're lucky your cat hasn't been run over, eaten by a dog, or torn apart by a raccoon.
What the neighbors are complaining about (size, height and bulk) are zoning issues, not design. If the developer has met the zoning, then the neighbors don't really have much of a leg to stand on. Now, when it comes to materials chosen, this is where they can have some impact. Brick on the north to complement the neighbor, or mock Tudor to complement the southern neighbor. Honestly, something modern with some height would probably be less offensive than trying to blend in. My suggestion for these issues is to build a treehouse type affair, the lowest floor (other than lobby) would be the equivalent of the fifth floor, and then there would be five floors of residential above that. No neighbors looking in each other's window, more 'space and air' for everyone concerned, and better views in the new construction.

But my guess is the neighbors just wanted to pull up the drawbridge after they got in to the castle, and don't want anyone else to join their realm.
@4 - I live in an apartment building in Queen Anne with multiple residents that have lived in the same units for 10+ years. Every resident of this city has equal standing in land use decisions regardless of their socioeconomic status (or whether or not they live near the project in question or not.)
Same arguments, different city. NIMBY's in every city are alike, decrying construction for new residents using the same litany of criticisms, as real estate prices in urban areas rises beyond what average income earners can afford.
How many birds have been slain by Prince Tugboat? When will this menace stop ruining the avian character of our fine urban neighborhood?
I get it, it really does suck to lose a view or sunlight or whatever else you loved about your home—but we're all in this together, and somebody probably felt that way about the building you live in before it was there. Living next to an underused lot can have it's advantages, but the only way to make them permanent is to pony up the dough yourself.
The article writer likely does not live next to a huge building that blocks the light so of course the writer doesn't care. Probably the same one who defends people papering utility poles all over the hill but doesn't care just as long as they don't paper polls in his neighborhood.
Can't pander hard enough to your new yuppie broho Macklemore clone masters can you, Stranger? They're the ones paying the bills now, so you better stroke their ignorant, self-righteous, "money=virtue" egos as aggressively as possible. I mean, it's the only thing that can justify their appropriation of the homes, and desecration of the community and culture of Capitol Hill: their self-righteous, intellectually indifferent-concept that their privilege is due to having greater personal virtue. They're Republicans in fedoras, you realize this don't you?? And hey, make sure the language is unchallenging and clownishly inviting - you gotta make sure those mentally-challenged bros don't feel alienated by any "dykey" intelligence or anything. Intelligence really kills their boner. Your social media taglines read like you're trying to explain gravity to neaderthals. Make sure you don't have a legitimate voice or any integrity, because self-righteous rich people do NOT like to be challenged, and only fucking pussies are smart. Let's beat 'em up along with all those goddam fags, right? Excluded, of course, for the incidences when Stranger writers are sucking the dicks of Seattle developers.
God forbid the homeowners around here have any sovereignty or influence over what happens on their fucking street.
Meh. Times change, neighborhoods change. Besides, this will only help their property values.
@19 God forbid the landowners around here have any sovereignty or influence over what happens on their fucking lot.
@20 Fuck your ambivalence man.
Oh calm yourself, SeattleCattle. You're overwrought. Someone owns that lot and has decided to sell or develop it - either because they wanted the money or they couldn't afford the taxes anymore. What do you suggest should be done with the lot? Single family home? It would be a McMansion, you know - probably owned by one of those "bros" you despise. Park? Where would the money for acquisition and maintenance come from?

You live in a very popular city. Maybe you should go someplace that's not so popular. May I direct you to Spokane?

We need the public review process. Otherwise, we'd be living in a hilly Houston - an uninhabitable, disgusting libertarian utopia, where the church is next to the highrise is next to the strip club is next to the single family home is next to the gun store...etc.
It doesn't matter if neighbors are "progressive" or "reactionary", they always come together to find ways to dislike change and disruption. The role of the city is to have a spine and a fine sieving process to sort out the occasional rational objection from the chaff of knee-jerk responses from overly-protective pet owners.
@26 Didn't we just build a few of the Amazon highrises next to a strip club? And a highrise next to (well, over) a church? And the only gun store I know of (Aurora at Greenlake) is surrounded by SF homes.

Anyway, design review doesn't have a say on any of that. If it's legal from a code perspective, then they can build it no matter what DR says or how much the neighbors complain. DR is a trade-off process where a developer asks for variances from the code in exchange for what the neighbors want (say, cat-proof construction).
Achaiwoi and SeattleCattle: whoops, I forgot, your opinion counts double because you got lucky in real estate.

Thanks for the reminder that classism is alive and well even in the neighborhood that voted for the socialist.
@26 yes, godawful Houston. Terrible, terrible Houston with its average 2BR rent that's almost 30% lower than Seattle's and a median home price that's less than half of Seattle's. God forbid Seattle ever lower itself to take any lessons from a booming city that has somehow remained substantially more affordable than Seattle.
@26: ah yes, Houston. Terrible, awful Houston. Stinky unzoned Houston with its average 2BR rental price that's 30% lower than Seattle's and median home sale price that's half of Seattle's.

God forbid Seattle lower itself to take lessons from a city in a red state that somehow managed to have a booming economy and population while remaining substantially more affordable than Seattle.
@27 What gun store? Precise Shooter closed and moved to Lynnwood after Burgess's stupid tax went into effect. Is there another I don't know about? Most Big5 locations still stock guns, but I can't imagine they sell many when you can drive to a store outside of Seattle for less than the fool tax.
@4 You disgusting fucking pig. Being a renter doesn't make you a transient, it makes you a person who wasn't born to rich parents, who isn't privileged enough to buy, someone who only has what they can make with their own hands. And guess what, that's not a fucking sin. Though I can see why a dick like you holds this card over others - it's the only card a self-righteous, idiotic asshat like you has. Guess what man, money does not equal virtue. It's a matter of pure fucking luck. Although it's difficult for your ignorant, pea-sized brain to hold in enough data all at once to come to this conclusion, many people rent their entire lives, in the same city, until the day they fucking die, because they have no other option.

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.