Comments on: Remaking 2nd Avenue

By: 1915 Second Avenue « Downtown Seattle Area Condo Blog & Active Condos for Sale

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:05:13 +0000

[...] Twenty-One and a few other proposed residential high-rises (Ben has an excellent rendering of the Remaking of 2nd Avenue on his blog). With that being the case, in addition to the esteemed reputation of Weber + [...]

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:53:37 +0000

1931 Second ave has a gorgeous 20th century building on it already, which I believe has Historic Status. They better not tear down the buildings on that block! If you want to build something on that block they can tear down the parking garage in the middle, but everything else must stay. It’s time Seattle fought for the little bit of historical architecture that it has. There are plenty of empty parking lots and unused land else where in downtown. There should be no need to tear down the great urban fabric that exists on that street.

By: Carl W. Shepherd

Carl W. Shepherd — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 04:24:29 +0000

Ben, thanks for the info above. Two separate design review meetings were announced, the first for 1931 2nd Ave and the second following meeting for 2015 2nd Ave. I could only attend the second one. Unfortunately without any prior announcement the design review folks rolled the meetings together, with the proposal upfront, comments, then discussion by the committee, so I missed the proposal and most comments. What I did hear of comments was concern about winds, that the towers might focus such down Virginia (2nd and Virginia is already a very windy spot since its the highest point along the water front – rump Denny Hill). There was some uneasiness about the twin towers aspect. The committee folks mentioned concern about the alley, hiding dumpsters, and how nice it would be to have it pedestrian friendly (hardly a practical concern given the traffic it would have to accommodate if only a 16ft clearance occurs, they mentioned building “massing”, and a variety of arcane stuff at least to me. Since they regard the code as sacred entitlement most of their concerns were marginal. Private views are not within their purview directly but perhaps indirectly with respect to “massing” considerations (?). Hopefully someone else who was there heard the earlier comments and has more background than I do.

What I do not understand about new code is how it can allow set backs of only 16 feet as between the north tower and One Pacific Tower. You see much greater distance between towers in much ballyhooed Vancouver a supposed aspiration of the code. But then I haven’t heard much complaints from One Pacific Tower folks.

By: Ben_Kakimoto

Ben_Kakimoto — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:12:15 +0000

Here's some additional information on the 2nd & Virginia towers from the developer. Click to view the proposal (opens a 76-page PDF file from the Seattle DPD website). I reposted one of the renderings above showing the location of the Cristalla, One Pacific and 1915 2nd Ave towers in respects to these high-rises. Carl - did you make it to the design review meeting last week? If so, how did that go?

By: Carl W. Shepherd

Carl W. Shepherd — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:43:48 +0000

Oh yes, 1521 “designed exclusively for the confident few.” The same designer for AVA, the same for the proposed “AVArice Towers” at 2nd and Virginia. So, if there’s to be another tower at 2nd and Pike we will have a veritable phalanx of towers marching grimly along a canyoned avenue stealing the sunset from the rest of city. And oh yes, I can see the the crass advertisement tag, “capturing the light for only those audacious enough to live serenely above the fray.” (But then, can we still have “Seattle sensibility?”)

Speaking of crass, reminds me of good old Marcus Licinius Crassus, last days of the Roman republic, was famous for making much of his great wealth through various apartment development schemes (insulae – high rises of the day). Guess he’s still around.

Ironically, if you go to Rome today you’ll find a city with vibrant, crowded street life despite not a building over ten stories. And unlike Seattle, it has many large and small piazzas, as well as, large open spaces such as the Forum Romanum. So you don’t need block by block towers to achieve density. Now I happen to like high rises and grand architecture, but such needs to be tastefully and contextually designed and spaced to create an attractive and humane cityscape. Otherwise, we risk creating latter day Stalinist hulks where humans merely creep about like belittled bugs.

By: LTRANE

LTRANE — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:19:14 +0000

There is also word that the south east corner of 2nd and Pike will be 37 story hotel.

For me, the most heinous is 1521. 40 stories in front of the Market, obtrusive garish advertising by Opus. I have heard that this building is 75% sold. I bought in the neighborhood years ago, and am concerned about what all these luxury buildings are going to do to my property tax. Not looking forward to it.

By: Carl W. Shepherd

Carl W. Shepherd — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:14:02 +0000

While real estate demand is very tied to local conditions such as the local economy, strong in Seattle and WA now, it cannot remain unaffected by general national and even international trends. A CA family’s ability to buy into the Seattle market is reduced if it can’t sell its house in an acceptable amount of time or for a sufficient amount. If less folks move here then it’s that much more difficult to sell your house here and move if you desire to, say, downtown Seattle. Additionally constant bad national news spooks the local real estate and lending markets. Tougher lending conditions cuts the number of potential buyers. On the demand side, you can always count on greed or great expectations to drive developers either over a cliff or into a bog of some kind. Plenty of examples of that around the nation. Folks almost never think their own happy frenzy will end. The fact that the credit market is more national than the real estate market may moderate Seattle’s condo frenzy with good result. In any case you can count on it cooling down in the not too distant future. Of course, there is a long lag time between the initial proposal for a project and its completion that has to be considered. While it’s subjective, a useful indicator of impending decline is the rise in the number of silly (over the top or just stupid) projects (and the degree to which you began to gag over those cloying, pretentious project descriptions in the Saturday newspaper real estate edition). To get some general idea of how often projects fall through or never materialize in the end check out Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development website and you cant track the history of proposals for particular land parcels over the years, http://web1.seattle.gov/dpd/luib/NoticeSearch.aspx

By: Ben_Kakimoto

Ben_Kakimoto — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:18:53 +0000

Mark – I can’t speak to 2015 specifically. I believe a combination of factors – over supply, focusing on high-end projects, financing, rising construction costs and better return from other uses may all impact the number of properties that’ll eventually be built. Already, at least 4 previously proposed condo projects have come off the table. Three have switched to apts and one to an office tower. I remember reading that another condo project switched over to a commercial bldg but I can’t find the info on that one.

The 1931 2nd project might run into a possible obstacle. I believe one of the buildings that will need to be demolished has been put on the list for possible historic landmark status.

By: Mark H.

Mark H. — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:47:13 +0000

Ben – do you think that 2015 2nd project might not get built due to the reasons outlined by Carl Shepherd and 5 newbuyer? Just curious.

By: newbuyer

newbuyer — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:16:47 +0000

By the way, I really like this blog. You seem really up to date with information and it’s a great resource for staying in the loop! Thanks!