Comments on: Ballard Denny’s Gone! http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/06/24/ballard-dennys-gone/ Efficiency is the straightest path to hell.* Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:40:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: PostModernDecay http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/06/24/ballard-dennys-gone/#comment-3214 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:24:55 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/06/24/ballard-dennys-gone/#comment-3214 "BTW, it seems a little much to claim that the people of Seattle wanted to save this building." Not claiming that in any way about the Ballard Denny's, I am referring to a future, hypothetical situation. “BTW, it seems a little much to claim that the people of Seattle wanted to save this building.”

Not claiming that in any way about the Ballard Denny’s, I am referring to a future, hypothetical situation.

]]> by: dorian gray http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/06/24/ballard-dennys-gone/#comment-3209 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:23:52 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/06/24/ballard-dennys-gone/#comment-3209 Agreed, as Frelard citizen most of us wanted this gone -hence the boards retraction. At the first hearing they agreed it wasn't historic due to changes made and then in a bid to stop development gave it landmark status -a move which cost them they're credibility. A landmark building CAN BE TORN DOWN -or moved etc. This is a common misconception. Benaroya would have won eventually since the City held and auction for it's development rights then rescinded the rights after the sale, which was actually the reason the board switched direction under the phrase of "economic hardship". The replacement project however is hideous. Agreed, as Frelard citizen most of us wanted this gone -hence the boards retraction. At the first hearing they agreed it wasn’t historic due to changes made and then in a bid to stop development gave it landmark status -a move which cost them they’re credibility. A landmark building CAN BE TORN DOWN -or moved etc. This is a common misconception. Benaroya would have won eventually since the City held and auction for it’s development rights then rescinded the rights after the sale, which was actually the reason the board switched direction under the phrase of “economic hardship”.

The replacement project however is hideous.

]]> by: Victory Heights http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/06/24/ballard-dennys-gone/#comment-3208 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:12:26 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/06/24/ballard-dennys-gone/#comment-3208 I think the city's approach is a good balance. Having a building designated a landmark should invoke increased scrutiny, but it shouldn't forbid development. If the city really wants to save a building, then they should be required to purchase it. BTW, it seems a little much to claim that the people of Seattle wanted to save this building. Almost everyone I know couldn't wait for it to be torn down. We shouldn't assume a group is in the majority simply because it is loud and organized. I think the city’s approach is a good balance. Having a building designated a landmark should invoke increased scrutiny, but it shouldn’t forbid development. If the city really wants to save a building, then they should be required to purchase it.

BTW, it seems a little much to claim that the people of Seattle wanted to save this building. Almost everyone I know couldn’t wait for it to be torn down. We shouldn’t assume a group is in the majority simply because it is loud and organized.

]]> by: NickBob http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/06/24/ballard-dennys-gone/#comment-3205 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:53:00 +0000 http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/06/24/ballard-dennys-gone/#comment-3205 This is nothing compared to the similar loss of the Twin TeePees, which sadly were never given landmark status. http://www.historicseattle.org/advocacy/twinteepees.aspx This is nothing compared to the similar loss of the Twin TeePees, which sadly were never given landmark status.
http://www.historicseattle.org/advocacy/twinteepees.aspx

]]>