Capitol Hill development melds landmark Anhalt with modern apartments

(Images: Public47)

(Images: Public47)

A development mixing some of the most well-regarded architectural design of Capitol Hill’s past with a modern addition is under construction at 16th and and E John.

A somewhat unusual home for Group Health administrative offices since the late ’60s, the Frederick Anhalt-designed building was originally build as apartments in 1930. It was acquired in 2012 by Trinity Real Estate and real estate mogul Richard Leider for $2.7 million.

The building had been vacant since 2008 “after it was determined the facility’s infrastructure could not be modified to meet Group Health’s business standards,” a spokesperson told CHS.

Last year, Leider told CHS his plan was to “retain as much as possible,” but the overhaul would “fully rebuild the interior” of the building to accommodate future residents and include the modern addition designed by Public47. The end result will be a 39-unit apartment building melding Capitol Hill past and present planned to open in late 2014.

The more than 80-year-old Anhalt apartment building is protected as a City of Seattle landmark as “it embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style, or period, or a method of construction” and ”is an outstanding work of a designer or builder,” according to the Seattle Landmarks Board.Screen-Shot-2013-07-18-at-3.43.27-PM-600x165 (1)

Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

12 thoughts on “Capitol Hill development melds landmark Anhalt with modern apartments

  1. We at SCCC have been missing one end of our main building on Broadway. The temporary aesthetic improvement to our campus notwithstanding, we greatly appreciate your assistance in locating it.

  2. At least the addition is in the back side and kinda breaks up the architecture. I’m really surprised the addition isn’t in the front courtyard the way developers are cramming things in now.

  3. As one of the owners of the building to the north, we are not happy about this, but it could have been much worse. At least they agreed to change the exterior to brick to try to blend it in. The larger question I have is how does one get on the design review board? It seems to me these people generaly just approve anything. Maybe they do not have any guidline to follow?

    • Yeah, I don’t blame you for being unhappy with this. Unfortunately, the design review board has little (possibly no?) authority to enforce its recommendations.

  4. I am continually amazed at the creativity in which architects are so lacking. They seem more concerned with churning out the lowest common denominator of what they think makes them look cool and modern (and most of what passes for modern since around 1950 looks sad and tacky twenty years on) rather than creating intelligently designed exteriors that bring harmony to the community in which the park their sad excrement.

    • I concur wholeheartedly. Couldn’t there be just ONE outstanding artistic touch to differentiate these buildings from one another and cause them to be, if not celebrated and loved, at least regarded as unique at some point in the future? Look at all of the personality incorporated into so many of the older buildings with their decorative elements. Although there are notable exceptions, I sadly haven’t seen that in far too many of these newly constructed edifices.