Post navigation

Prev: (10/16/10) | Next: (10/16/10)

Harvard Ave apartment fire sends two to hospital

A quickly extinguished fire in an apartment building at 317 Harvard Ave E sent at least one person to the hospital Saturday morning. At least three people were reported by eyewitnesses to have been removed from the building by emergency crews but we have yet to confirm their conditions with SFD. One witness told us a neighbor broke down the door of a 3rd floor apartment when smoke appeared just after 9 AM.

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

15 thoughts on “Harvard Ave apartment fire sends two to hospital

  1. But I’m very surprised about it. That building is held together with duct tape and paint….Frank, the maintenance/leasing manager refuses to do anything around that place. When I moved in, my kitchen lights weren’t working, so he gave me a lamp. For 4 years, when I had a complaint or problem, he fixed it with duct tape (if at all). Every time it rained, my basement apartment flooded through the walls & ceiling…Frank nailed boards up to the ceiling to flatten the pregnant belly look after one particularly bad storm, and painted over it and called it fixed.
    Walking around the back of the building this morning, you can see where there seems to be smoke/fire damage (confirming Franks report when I saw him this morning that the fire was in unit 304). You could also smell the electrical fire/burning rubber smell that the fire put off.
    I’m glad that the people are okay, but with the lack of real maintenance in that place, it’s only a matter of time before the whole thing comes down.
    Also, here’s a pic I snapped this morning….note to self: don’t sleep naked, and if I do, cover myself up with a sheet if being placed into an ambulance so people can’t see that I do sleep naked.
    Too soon?

  2. Thanks much for the pics Luna and all. The comment pic system isn’t perfect but it’s a cool start to opening up coverage of incidents like this to the community. Really appreciate the information.

  3. I lived there in the early 1990s. That guy Frank was an idiot then. Same stuff- bad repairs, leaky roof and water damage covered up with paint.
    , only
    It is a shame the owner doesnt care because the exterior building is nice architecture. But the building is a flop house with Frank running it, a fire trap waiting to happen. Sad.. and dangerous to its neighbors.

  4. I live in this building. As we were all standing around outside watching the fire crews at work; we witnessed Frank openly denying to reporters and others that he is our manager. That’s a pretty good example itself of what a “responsible” and “caring” manager he is.

    Btw, about at least half of the units in our building don’t even have smoke detectors!

  5. If there aren’t any smoke detectors in half the units, it should be reported to the City as that violates the Seattle Municipal Code and just about every building/fire code I’ve ever come across. If you know about it and don’t do anything about, then you are just as culpable as Frank.

  6. I used to live in the Roycroft. I found the manager Frank to be a caring manager. As far as the building goes, it is not his fault the building is over a 100 years old.

  7. The owner is ultimately responsible, its pretty clear the owner is absentee or one of those trust fund deals, or something very hands-off .. Franks lived there forever and managed it the same — slipshod and minimal. Its probably not his “Fault” but he still is part of how it got to what it is today. The building is on record at the city as being 1908 — historic. One single little napkin plan thats all they had on it. So it could be even older maybe… It deserves better treatment than its being given now, I think we can all agree there. And if I owned the DeLorges next door or the building to the south I’d want my neighbor not to be such an obvious fire hazard….

    I’m sure its not the only building around there that is on its last and needs a rehab but it would certainly make a big mess if it burned. Kudos to the Seattle FD for preventing that this time.

  8. Should we express surprise at this point?

    Does City law allow (and more to the point help enforce) non-smoking rental buildings?

  9. I currently reside at the Roycroft and yes it is a bit of a sheisty building, but that is by no fault of Frank. The building is over 100 years old, and ultimately any major repairs would come at the responsibility of it’s owners. Frank doesn’t live on the premises but is around all the time. Anytime I’ve ever needed anything he has been extremely timely. And all in all I think he is a very nice man. It is too bad about the fire, someone could have seriously been hurt. Wake up call to be more careful and cautious regarding fire safety.

  10. I used to live at the Roycroft and as all the tenants in that building, I too had to sign a form confirming that the smoke detector was working when my tenancy started and that I will be responsible for the replacement of the batteries in the future. It is my understanding that it was the buzzing of the smoke detectors that alerted the neibhors who then follow up reporting the fire – definaly a proactive preventative maitenance on the part of the resident manager – while the building is 100+ years old and requires a lot of maitenance, that smoke detector in unit #304 was working last Saturday and it was working because Frank made sure that a new batery was in when the tenancy started.