urbnlivn, a seattle condo blog

20 responses so far ↓

• 1 al // Oct 25, 2007 at 1:04 pm

  the stranger is always complaining about something.

• 2 Cosmo Seattle // Oct 25, 2007 at 1:36 pm

  i don’t mean to be offensive, but i think escala is (will be) one of the ugliest structures on the seattle skyline. sure it’s fancy and all, but the renderings are ugly in a suburban (pun intended) kind of way.

  by comparison, 1, judging from the renderings, will likely be the most well-designed from an urban aesthetic point of view. too bad all that good design (particularly the interiors) is being wasted on a hotel/condo hybrid.

  imho

• 3 jo // Oct 25, 2007 at 1:59 pm

  the meritage, a winner? brings a tear to my eye

  i also think escala will be ugly when finished. not a fan of avenue one or the parc

  one of my favorites downtown is the concord as well as mosler

• 4 Chris // Oct 25, 2007 at 2:41 pm

  Best new or proposed (excluding rehabs/conversions)

  1) Kinects apartments (not condo…)
  http://seattlecondosandlofts.com/2007/09/stewart-minor-downtown-seattle-lofts
  1) Mosler
  2) 1521
  3) 1
  4) Olivian (not condos…)
  5) 8th and Seneca

  Honorable mention - Veer, Brix, Gallery, Equinox - props to SNW (last three) for hitting the “nice but not over the top ostentatious” niche

  Worst:
  1) Trio
  2) Parc
  3) Escala
  4) Domaine
  5) Rollins

  Most overrated, but not bad design: Four Seasons

• 5 newbuyer // Oct 25, 2007 at 3:26 pm

  Sorry Chris but I will have to disagree with you on Rollin St. as being in the “worst” category. Have you really checked out the design? There are features at Rollin (not talking amenities, but features) that are unparalleled in my opinion. Of course that’s why we bought there. I believe that everyone wants something different in a condo. For us, it was a large deck and a one bedroom with LOTS of space. Also, the building is far from ostentatious — which suits our laid-back style well. I think you will be able to tell when it is finished.

  Believe me, I really do appreciate others’ opinions, so please let us know why you label it “worst”. I am just curious.

• 6 Confusa // Oct 25, 2007 at 3:35 pm

  I have to say the faux craftsman style “townhomes” are the absolute worst designs I have ever seen. They are all EXACTLY the same. I mean are all the builders sharing the same plans?

• 7 fooman // Oct 25, 2007 at 4:06 pm

  The quad townhomes with the internal ‘alley’ have got to be the worst idea I have ever seen. I have yet to see a single occupant of any of these crap-boxes use their garage. Why? It is geometrically impossible for them to get their car into the parking spaces.

  What does this mean for the city? It means that for every one of these that goes up, at LEAST 4 cars are parking on the street. What great urban planning going on in our emerald fiefdom.

• 8 vc // Oct 25, 2007 at 4:24 pm

  Monique lofts, of course. Built 1913 (converted 1999). Classic. =)

• 9 EconE // Oct 25, 2007 at 8:22 pm

  Hard for me to vote on unfinished buildings as the aerial shots and artist renderings don’t give me a real feel for the building.

  WRT newer completed buildings…judging only by the exterior “looks” and no other factors such as interior, floorplans or views

  I like…

  Concord (has a modern coolness to it)
  2200 (comes together nicely as a complex)
  Cosmopolitan (nice in an understated way)
  Banner Building (small and cool)

  I have mixed feelings about Cristalla only because of the yellow neon light. I know that some people love it but to me it just screams VEGAS!

  I’m not so fond of…

  Lumen (no need to elaborate on what’s already been said)
  Canal Street (looks like a block of ugly apartments to me)

  YMMV

• 10 klt // Oct 25, 2007 at 9:30 pm

  I like:

  Mosler (I bought there, so I am biased)
  5th & Madison (the neiborhood is not ready yet, though)
  2200 (nice complex)

  imho - these places will look good 5, 10 20 years from now.

  some of these, however, I believe will look dated:

  Lumen
  Parc
  Trio (maybe already looks “wrong”)

• 11 Chris // Oct 26, 2007 at 8:24 am

  Newbuyer, I’ll give you that. I shouldn’t have out it in the worst category. Its just, IMHO, a missed design opportunity given its prominent location. And I was critiquing its external design, not interior features.

  Reasons:
  -the continous decks make it look like a a giant walk-up motel;
  -Very blocky proportions - takes up the entire west side of a typical, large SLU 80k sf block. If you walk around Denny triangle/SLU, you’ll see a bunch of blocky, monolithic 6-10 story building built in the 60-70’s. Several are on the Clise properties, then there’s the SHA office building, a smattering of hotels. This is the 2000’s version of the same envelope. Its not necessarily the designer’s fault (the zoning) but its still monlithic and boring;
  -The colors in the rendering will make it look dated from day one;
  -There’s only one major facade modulation (at the entrance) across the entire 400′ long structure, so it looks very institutional

• 12 mhays // Oct 26, 2007 at 2:12 pm

  I like Escala and even almost bought there. I like the curves and the (hopefully well done) terra cotta like detail at the second-level cornice.

  1521 Second, AVA, and Olivian will look great. I also like Fifth & Madison, partially since it’s tall and skinny.

  Some buildings manage to incorporate their above-grade parking into the overall building, while others unfortunately think it’s better to highlight it. That makes for disjointed, awkward buildings.

  I don’t like large shear walls or CMU walls that are prominently visible from the street. Some are pretty blatant. Generally these are at zero lot lines. They could at least moderate these with paint — but not gray, which is just as bad!

  Speaking of gray, I the last gray building I really like is Continental Place. It works because of the white accents, the more interesting base (with brick), and the sheer height. Height is often helpful for a building’s looks.

• 13 newbuyer // Oct 26, 2007 at 3:27 pm

  Chris,
  Your comments are appreciated. Thanks. Maybe it will exceed your expectations when all said and done! I guess I am glad that I prefer the more blocky, wide buildings as opposed to all of the super- tall ones that are everywhere. I think it will compliment the others around it. Oh, and thankfully I like the colors.

• 14 K // Oct 28, 2007 at 12:57 pm

  I have to give a shout out to the folks at Live Historic for converting beautiful old buildings to condos instead of tearing them down and building more schlocky townhouses. In the interest of full disclosure, I bought a unit in one of LH’s buildings, so yes, I’m biased. I’ll also say that LH’s finish work isn’t perfect and they need to work on their communication skills with owners. But every time I visit friends who have units in new, cookie-cutter buildings or townhouses, I appreciate my condo more and more.

• 15 imby // Oct 28, 2007 at 4:36 pm

  Not all townhomes are bad.

  I’d let PB Elemental or G Projects multi-family townhouses be my neighbor anytime. They’re definitley winners.

  More architect/contractor firms like these guys - who care about good design, quality, innovation, and green - should be encouraged to build in Seattle.

• 16 mhays // Oct 29, 2007 at 2:58 pm

  I’ll take the “fake” historic townhouses over the modernist ones anyday.

• 17 mhays // Oct 29, 2007 at 2:58 pm

  I should add “when done well”. Actually, modern can be done well too, and I like some of it, but I mean on average.

• 18 ann // Nov 2, 2007 at 11:42 am

  matt, i’ve thrown this on my list of reads, seeing that my firm is doing the landscape for some of the projects you mention. as for this thread:

  first, i think that it’s really important to stress the role of the developer & the architecture team in these projects. while i’ll admit that there are some architecture firms out there with little clue, even when they do, developers are most likely to cut design first. the architecture team is at the developers mercy.

  second, it seems like such a messy pile of opinions. i think that i agree with most people about the quality of design, but i think that building/renovating/restoring in the character of the neighborhood is the most important part of the design problem in seattle. i wish that more developers would think a little differently to find a way to maintain the integrity of an neighborhood while pushing it forward.

• 19 Kristy // Nov 2, 2007 at 11:45 am

  Any comments or insights about Live Historic is appreciated. I am considering buying one of their studio units. Thanks!! (P.S. Love this site)

• 20 Pistol // Dec 6, 2007 at 12:48 pm

  we can all complain, whine, and whatever else we want..but the bottom line is…time=money. these developers are only interested in the bottom dollar. i’m sure a lot of these architects and developers can design beautiful and lasting buildings/homes, but why go to that extent when they can build ugly and still have people buy? they will never change unless buyers speak up by not buying them. cheers!

Leave a Comment