Comments on: Hallucinating on 1st Ave

by: Rbj

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:55:54 +0000

“This building is not much interested in being involved with, or contributing to what’s happening on the street. Given the average income of the Four Seasons clientele, this shouldn’t come as a big surprise. It’s an urban enclave, and as such, it’s an affront to the community.”

That’s hitting the nail on the head!

Thank you.

by: Dan Staley

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:04:56 +0000

Sheesh. So much for my site and plan review conclusions in 5. Didn’t even think of restrictive covenants in that area. And the architects’ work? Sorry, Bonnie. I feel a little a-holey, not to mention perturbed at land-use attorneys.

by: Fredrickson

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:54:00 +0000

The architect and developer were actually quite restricted with what they could do along the east elevation. There is a covenant running with the land that was imposed when washington mutual sold them the property. Things like height, right of way overhangs, and materials are all spelled out in it. That is why there is the less reflective material on the east side and the building is a few floors shorter on the north. Washington mutual and the museum didn’t want the glare and they didn’t want their rooftop deck along 1st to have an obstructed view.

by: Sabina Pade

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:20:18 +0000

It might be worthwhile to do a careful photographic documentation of the Four Seasons east elevation, at pedestrian level particularly, once the building and sidewalk are completed and occupied.

One can agree or disagree that this elevation is aesthetically handsome and its defensive posture appropriate.

One can argue back and forth as to whether the hotel itself constitutes a significant public amenity.

Certain, however, is that the interruption of pedestrian-level street-wall transparency presented by the building’s spine does not find its counterpart in extent elsewhere along 1st Avenue. Further, that this interruption is -very- blunt. Rare will be the pedestrian that does not experience this interruption as inappropriate.

Documentation with local examples illustrating the value of pedestrian-level street-wall transparency could help prevent a recurrence of blankness.

by: dan bertolet

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 07:38:12 +0000

Sabina @2: Yes, there is a place for residential buildings without retail on the first floor. First Hill, for example, has lots of them, and those streets have a nice quiet feel to them. But that’s not what 1st and Union is all about, as noted by Brian @7.

For the record, I think the building is interesting to look at. I like the colors and the materials and the design. It’s an expensive project, so it’s not surprising that it has high quality details. Somebody just paid $7 million for one of the units.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004437179_sundaybuzz25.html

To help command those prices, this project takes full advantage of surrounding amenities like SAM, Pike Market, and Harbor Steps, but gives almost nothing back to the public realm. Yes, there will be big property taxes coming from those units, but that’s no justification for allowing it turn it’s back on the community.

by: Ryan

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 01:46:25 +0000

I’ve become more and more disappointed with this building and NBBJ the further the project goes along. The initial renderings portrayed a light, gleaming, abstract glass cube. What they built is dark, heavy, and boxy; dare I say even jail-like. It seems to virtually suck the light out of that intersection with the dark panels and small windows of the hotel floors. Most disappointing is that there was seemingly little thought given to the street-level interaction on First. The building may be the location of private homes, but it’s on one of the major intersections of our city, and they could have done better by those of us who live outside of, and have to look at, this thing.

by: Brian

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:28:00 +0000

It’s true, the building isn’t finished and the street level is not yet occupied. We should of course see how things turn out. But the concrete is the concrete, which I happen to love as a material but I’ve yet to find a way to walk or see through it.

The changing grade too is always a challenge for multiple entrances, changing floor levels, etc but welcome to Seattle.

by: JesseJB

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:14:51 +0000

ehh…I dont know.

Maybe the streetscape will make it look nicer. Like how the 5th Ave side of the Fairmont is. Its a long brick wall but theres such nice stuff to look at inside.

BTW I know that Fran’s Chocolates is opening up in the FS…is it going to be inside or at the street?

by: Cale

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:11:55 +0000

I really feel what Mudede is trying to say about this building. I try to explain to people how much I love the building but most just don’t get it. Oh well, it’s my joy to have alone I guess.

by: Brian

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:52:28 +0000

One block away from the largest and most pedestrian-intensive tourist destination in the state of Washington and they “forgot” about the street? No way. That streetscape is the tinted-window SUV of 1st Avenue and not an accident. Doesn’t mean the designers were incapable of better, but regardless of who decided/allowed it, the total lack of contribution to street life is still inexcusable.

You don’t always have to give the street a big hug, but you also don’t have to give it the finger.