Wednesday night brings the latest round of discussion in the public design review process for the 1020 E Union mixed-use apartment project. We dissected the latest proposal and the plan to preserve portions of two of the four historic structures on the land earlier this week. As we told you Monday, not everybody in Pike/Pine is satisfied with Alliance Realty’s version of historical preservation. The Pike Pine Urban Neighborhood Council’s call to action for the Wednesday night design review meeting is below. Pack a cushion. The developers have signed up for both of the East Design board’s two sessions — expect a long night. Here’s PPUNC’s response:
New real estate developments in Pike/Pine have the potential to significantly alter the historic character of our unique neighborhood. As engaged community members, business owners, and allies – we aim to ensure that these changes add to – and do not detract from – this special neighborhood character.
One of the largest of these potential developments is coming back to Early Design Guidance this week – the 10th & Union project, AKA “Madison Group/Pravda” buildings. At the intial design review in March, the East Design Review Board informed the developers of the project that their plan did not do enough to maximize preservation. This week, Alliance Realty Partners brings back their revised plans which includes still tearing down the Pravda Building.
If you are committed to preserving Seattle’s most vibrant, undeniably urban neighborhood and saving its architectural legacy for the future, please come out to Design Review this Wednesday and provide your comments at the meeting. Your voice matters!
When: Wednesday, June 6th, – 6:30 PM
Where: Seattle University Student Center, 901 12th Avenue, Room 210
If someone really cares about the older buildings on this property they should be talking with the Department of Neighborhood about nominating them as Landmarks like now. I think it’s pretty certain they would be considered landmarks and would not be allowed to be demolished.
Why should they be considered Landmarks?
Many of these older buildings were built almost 100 years ago, and have become defining features of our neighborhood. The bricks and thick, heavy, old growth timber beams were lugged around the site and the brick were laid by hand, one by one. Without computers or power tools, they were designed and built with pride and attention to detail. The lazy, arrogant architects and developers of today should display a reverence for these buildings, and the teams that designed and built them with their bare hands; instead, they find a cookie-cutter design on a computer program and build them Ikea-style from a kit of crappy materials. They don’t live in our neighborhood, and they could care less about its history.
…as important as the Bauhaus Block. When folks say build in empty parking lots instead of on the Bauhaus Block, they need to pay attention to what’s going on up here. At least three huge development companies are building significantly large project: the one on review tonight, the BMW site in Pike/Pine and the Phil Smart Mercedes Benz site. Each of these has character structures of some sort that can be saved, and the developers want to build that extra 7th floor. The issue is building design and massing, and how much preservation has to happen to get the 7th floor across an entire huge site. PLEASE ATTEND TONIGHT!
The business displacement issues are separate from the building conservation issues. As a neighborhood we need to find a way a way to keep our small exciting retail in the mix. The solution requires cooperation of property owners, curated retail, and niche spaces in which the smaller businesses can function.
I’m all for designating certain buildings landmarks, but just because a building is old doesn’t mean it warrants landmark status or is necessarily worth preserving. Sometimes they are, I’m just not sure “I like the old style” or “it was built with good materials” is enough to warrant that status. I don’t personally have an opinion on this building since I don’t often travel to Union, but it doesn’t sound it tells a very compelling story or represents something seriously meaningful to a large group of people.
And to ImaLocal, your complaint about developers may be warranted but I sincerely doubt architects lack appreciation for good architecture. My understanding is that many architects are really disappointed with the field because they never get to build what they actually want, and are instead financially constrained to the boring, boxy type of buildings you tend to see popping up most often.
Honestly, I think the auto-related buildings are ugly as hell. I can’t imagine why someone would want to preserve them, they just feel like a blight on the area every time I walk by them.
The threshold for Landmark status is pretty low in Seattle. This is why I think the argument can be rather simple. There are many buildings in Seattle with significantly less architectural significance, character, and detail than these buildings which have been nominated and approved as a landmark. Just sayin.
Please come and support the community in saving these historic structures!
I think those interested in saving the buildings should study them up very close – right at the sidewalk. So many changes have occurred and the buildings have been chopped and hacked quite a bit. Spend the time to see for yourself. A lot of things look good from a distance but up close really aren’t what you think they are.
I like the courtyard the new project has proposed
I could not make the meeting tonight. It would be great if someone who attended could provide an update here. Thanks.