Image: John Feit/Schemata
The City of Seattle is about to overhaul its Design Review bible. Like an apostle with a deadline, you have a week and change to provide feedback on the overhaul — all comments are due by May 9th. CHS isn’t — yet — prepared to do any lobbying for feedback but the occasion does inspire us to share a useful document given to us by John Feit, the architect behind the CHS Schemata series of posts we’ve run on the site periodically over recent months. It outlines what he and his firm feel are the 12 best examples of Capitol Hill architecture. Along with the updated Seattle Design Guidelines, also embedded below, we feel like the packet will put images, words and concepts to many of the ideas that repeatedly are raised on this site about design in our neighborhoods.
John writes:
The twelve buildings documented on these pages reflect diversity of design approaches, scales, and, to a lesser extent, uses representative of the urban architecture on Capitol Hill. The primary selection criteria was for building types that are most likely to go through Capitol Hill’s design review process; namely, multi-family, mixed use, and institutional. The buildings range from the well know (such as the Loveless Building), to the anonymous (such as the Kensington), while two are not even on Capitol Hill, yet were still included due to proximity and quality. All share some or all of the following qualities, which make them good examples for analysis:
1. A simplicity of form and massing;
2. A restraint in the number of materials and or colors used;
3. A reliance on either quality materials or detail to achieve design success.
These qualities in their own right are worth pursuing, but do not necessarily lead to good architecture. What makes them relevant to the task at hand is these qualities, which as residents and business owners we hold dear, are absent in the majority of new development in our neighborhood. The hope is that in documenting them in a consistent and rigorous manner designers and developers will have another resource in understanding the physical context that is Capitol Hill. The analysis is not meant to be all inclusive, and the buildings chosen and type of analysis undertaken serves the author’s pre-disposition towards economy, in the broadest sense of the term.
Most of the buildings are small, for several reasons. The smaller buildings are usually easier to document than larger buildings within the constraints of the format (because of this, there are some larger, notable buildings that are not presently included, such as the Odd Fellows Building or St Joseph’s Church); and, more importantly, there are many good smaller buildings on the Hill and not as many good larger ones. Likewise, there area number of smaller building’s (some with global recognition) that were not documented, including St Ignatius Chapel and 1310 East Union. Both are excellent buildings, and may be included in future iterations of this study but were left out of this present volume because they are perhaps too idiosyncratic (exotic construction or material choices, or unique patronage history) to be an example of future, market driven development. Another noticeable absence is that of the Anhalt buildings, which share most if not all of the qualities listed above. It was felt that they merit their own future documentation, as a distinct body of work. While this report is not exhaustive, we feel the lessons learned are transferable to most buildings, regardless of heritage or size.
Capitol Hill Building Analysis for PDF
Here's more info on the changes to the Seattle Design Review program. We've embedded the new guidelines below.
The City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD) is proposing to amend the Land Use Code (Title 23) and to update the Seattle Design Guidelines to implement the following proposed changes to Seattle’s Design Review Program:
- Replace the design guidelines used in the Design Review Program entitled “Design Review: Guidelines for Multifamily and Commercial Buildings” (October 1993, November 1998) with updated design guidelines entitled “Seattle Design Guidelines.”
- Revise the 19 sets of Neighborhood Design Guidelines in order to be consistent with the updated Seattle Design Guidelines in organization and layout. No substantive changes are proposed.
- Amend the Design Review regulations in the Seattle Land Use Code, SMC Sections 23.41.002, 23.41.008 and 23.41.010, to reflect the new Design Guidelines and revised Neighborhood Design Guidelines.
Here is the link to the official notice, including the proposed ordinance and director’s report:http://web1.seattle.gov/dpd/luib/Notice.aspx?BID=611&NID=12095
Here is a link to the draft design guidelines:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/CitywideDesignGuidelinesUpdate/DraftGuidelines/default.asp
The Laurelton is a lovely classic design, but it looks like it’s pretty much falling apart as you look at it: the single pane windows look in particularly bad shape.
I almost called the Fire Department once when I was walking by and saw thick black smoke coming out the chimney, but a resident told me that it was always like that when the furnace starts up: big clouds of (carcinogenic?) oil wafting into the neighborhood.
i.e. Lovely design but need a whole load of TLC
Interiors need to be considered. Many of those buildings have miserable cave-like spaces. Light in interiors is so important in Seattle! Plus, where’s the Maryland!? Best apartment living in Seattle!
On building #4 – Serena Apartments at 12th & Roy: Bottom photo & Photo #3 say “West Elevation (12th Avenue).” That entry on 12th Ave. is actually the east side of the building.
I just wanted to point out that the address for the Laurelhurst building is not 102, but 105 Harvard. Also, the apartments are called “La Salle” not Laurelhurst. Do buildings usually have fixed names from when they were constructed?
I’m a little disappointed that John didn’t talk much about the environmental or functional considerations of the buildings he selected. For instance, the Loveless building is exceptionally inviting to pedestrians and the sidewalk. The Kingshire’s rooftop garden is especially sympathetic to the rain.
Most of the photos are also taken on clear days, in the middle of the day. The neighborhood looks considerably different when it’s rainy, overcast or dark out. As one example, the Serena apartments can’t rely on light and shadow when it’s overcast, making them appear more uniform. The 11th street streetscape consists largely of bars and would be visited (and viewed) at night from the perspective walking up and down the stretch.
I would also be curious to see some more formal discussion of lighting, which often feels somewhat ad-hoc walking around the neighborhood.
A lot of brick facades. They’ll provide amusement during the next earthquake.
Nos 5 and 6 are two of the most automobile-focused buildings in the neighborhood, and both have, in comparison to the buildings that make the local residential neighborhood pleasant for pedestrians, very little in the way of visible green space. No 5’s deco style is an interesting accent to Malden Avenue, but its street presence (fortified by the lack of green) is very much like that of many recently built townhouses that are perched far above the sidewalk, suggesting a fear of pedestrian hoi polloi (the narrow approach stairway is an excellent conduit for boiling oil, or a deluge of planning bullshit, or other means of defense). Is the mention of the Kingshire’s windows an attempt to excuse the cheap-looking non-recessed fenestration so common in recent construction?