Comments on: Ugly Seattle condos and design reviews

By: Pistol

Pistol — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:48:23 +0000

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!

By: Kristy

Kristy — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:45:40 +0000

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

By: ann

ann — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:42:47 +0000

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.

By: mhays

mhays — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:58:55 +0000

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

By: mhays

mhays — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:58:18 +0000

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

By: imby

imby — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:36:11 +0000

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.

By: K

Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:57:35 +0000

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.

By: newbuyer

newbuyer — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:27:36 +0000

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.

By: mhays

mhays — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:12:29 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:24:59 +0000

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