Daily news for Seattle's Ballard neighborhood
My Ballard header image 2
 

A look inside the old Ballard Denny’s

Posted by Geeky Swedes on January 31st, 2008

Seattle’s Landmark Preservation Board toured the boarded-up Denny’s yesterday, and today the property owners invited members of the media to tour the building. Benaroya Companies’ Marc Nemirow and architect Arthur Chang took us inside the restaurant to point out the differences between the Denny’s and the old Manning’s Cafeteria: for one, the old Manning’s had a vaulted ceiling with expansive windows, but a renovation in 1984 created a flat ceiling and eliminated the tall windows. “It had a very different feel than this restaurant right now,” Chang said, adding that the building is not up to code and is suffering from dry rot in some places. “If they landmark it, it’s to be preserved in its current state,” he said.

“I have no plan B,” admitted Nemirow, when asked what he would do if the board votes to designate the building as a landmark. “I have no idea what we could use this site for.” When a reporter asked him why they don’t just invite Denny’s back to the restaurant, he said Denny’s had paid “an incredibly low rent” and it wouldn’t be “financially feasible” for the $12.5 million Benaroya paid for the property. “The issue here isn’t growth… or condos or no condos,” Nemirow said. “It’s whether this building is a landmark.”

A shot of the inside, with the boarded up windows.

The ceiling. The media was allowed to walk up a ladder and peer through the hole to see the vaulted ceiling that once was with Manning’s.

The old Denny’s bar. Dark. Cold. A little creepy.

As some will point out, it was smart of Benaroya to tour the media through the building and illustrate the differences between Manning’s and the renovated Denny’s. To an untrained observer, the building is old and tired. It just looks like an old Denny’s. Of course, that decision isn’t up to Nemirow and company, but the Landmark Preservation Board, which meets on February 20th.

Tags: Ballard   Share

  • Ben
    If they removed the fake ceiling and replaced the windows then maybe they would have something worth saving...maybe.
  • strike
    Even if they removed the fake ceiling and replaced the windows, the architectural style of this building is still awful. You can spit shine a pig all you want but at the end of the day, you are still left with a pig.

    The property is under-utilized and deserves to be renovated in the manner proposed by the developer. It must meet the development criteria set forth in the zoning codes, and design criteria required of the Ballard neighborhood. This will ensure consistency with the long-term population density goals in the Seattle metropolitan region, and the aesthetic appearance of Ballard. Beyond that, the open hand of the free market should determine the size and scope of the project.

    Any resentments towards "big developers" is simply misplaced. Your local legislators are the ones that should be petitioned if you disagree with development in Ballard. Personally, I welcome the growth and look forward to the removal of the Denny's eyesore.
  • strike
    I should add that in seeking out local legislators, I am referring to your City of Seattle representatives. They set the zoning and development codes. If you disagree with the long term development of Ballard, you should be seeking changes to the codes.
  • Ben
    Well put, sir.
  • kelly
    I guess they should just tear down Pikes place market too..It's old and junky as well. Hell, they should build condos there and put a new market on the ground floor...like a qfc or something. We don't need any of those old junky building around. While you'er at it, go ahead and tear down the dicks drive ins and replace them with nice new McDonalds. Those old building are just eye sores... with there old outdated architectural details and all.

    remember They wanted to tear down the old run down Cinerama at one point...look at it now...it's the best place to see a movie in town.

    hmmm.
  • strike
    Kelly - I respect the ethic but think your example of the Pike Place Market is off base. A better example would be if a developer was proposing the demolition of the brick buildings along Ballard Avenue. There is character to Ballard Avenue that is closely tied to the origins and fabric of the area. It is part of the vibrant history of the neighborhood and I would be on the front lines opposing the destruction of the important buildings on that street.

    The Denny's building, on the other hand, is not iconic, nor will it ever become a landmark in Ballard. If it was, there would have been a public outcry when that site was slated for redevelopment by the mass transit monorail system. Yet not a word of opposition was heard regarding the demolition of the Denny's building for that purpose.

    However, when it is a "for profit" developer seeking to build condos on that site, the anti-development contingent screams about the sanctity of the Denny's architecture and the importance of the building to Ballard's character.

    It can't be both ways. The Denny's building is unattactive to just about everyone except those who philosphically oppose development by "greedy developers". Such a philosophy makes very little sense to me. Landowners have rights, and one of those rights is to develop the property in a manner that puts that property to its best economic use, consistent with development criteria set forth by our representives.
  • Duncan
    I'd love to see some stats to back up the claim that everyone save anti-development ideologues.

    Maybe it's taken the wave of new development to make folks realize that Denny's is, in fact, a landmark. Or maybe people were willing to ignore that fact during the Monorail project because, hey, there was going to be a space-age train coming through -- why can't folks change their minds once in a while?

    In any case, no one's denying the developer's right to seek a profit, but come on -- the Denny's property is a fraction of the land to be developed.
  • kelly
    Strike - you may not know this but the pike place Market was slated to be torn down at one point.

    In 1963, city leaders called for the complete demolition of the Pike Place Market, which was partially abandoned and deteriorating. A group called Friends of the Market mounted a public initiative calling for the matter to be placed on the ballot; the Market was saved by a public vote on November 2, 1971.

    It's very relevant to today situation.

    Also, during the Monorail project the Denny's never closed, so no attention was really brought to it being torn down.

    You might not like the building but most residents of Ballard do and would like to see it saved. In fact they saved it once before…back in the 80’s (see Below).

    In LA they keep these cool old buildings...they’re funky and strange looking but super cool to visit. I think everyone is looking at the building in its current state....I agree it looks like crap but take a look at the pictures of it when it was mannings...it was so cool and can be again.

    anyway …Read this blurb from the LA times....

    "The building is being nominated because of who designed it and its architectural significance. Denny's was, however, very sensitive to community opinion when they took over the building in the 1980s. They intended to tear it down but agreed to keep it when Ballard residents objected to losing it, an unusual move for a corporate chain. Such willingness to work with existing structures is key to historic preservation" - LA times

    See, People cared enough about in back in the 80's and people still care today.

    If you want to talk about ugly buildings go look at the EMP…and some day it too will be a classic.

    And that’s all I have to say about that.
  • strike
    I'm sure there are people that disagree with my opinion regarding the attractiveness of the Denny's building. And I'm sure there are people that want to save the Denny's building that are not taking that position just because they are against the concept of development. I probably shouldn't have painted the opposition with such a broad brush.

    Nevertheless, I was aware of the history of Pike Place market, and that is why I compared saving it to saving Ballard Ave. There is historical and cultural significance of the Pike Place Market to Seattle, just as there is historical and cultural significance of Ballard Ave to Ballard. But placing an isolated diner/Denny's with a "quirky" architectural style in the same level of importance to the community as the above examples is a difficult stretch for me.

    As an aside, the EMP is quite possibly the ugliest building ever constructed in the history of mankind. Let there be no doubt that I would be a proponent of bulldozing that sucker if the question ever came up about redeveloping that site.
  • Brad
    The only way that bldg can be given landmark status is if the city and Benaroya can arrive at an acceptable agreement to develop the entire lot around the existing structure. As evidenced by the PI/Crosscut articles and resulting sound offs, the movement to landmark the old Denny's is primarily to halt the mixed use condo/retail development that was set to replace it. A quick check of the facts shows that the city was going to level the entire lot (including the Googie) for monorail without further ado. When monorail fell through, Benaroya purchased the property from the city at a premium knowing that the entire lot was going to meet the wrecking ball.

    The fact that several of the members of the landmark designation board are Ballard residents is a definite conflict of interest. Factor that in with the non-action of the landmark committee when the city had leveling plans and the ethics of this entire scenario are stinky.

    In the end, with all the good Benaroya has done for the city of Seattle, I can't imagine Nickels allowing anything other than a favorable compromise to Benaroya to be the end result.

    With that said kelly, I have lived in Ballard for over a decade and am all for knocking down the Denny's. So you do not speak for me when you say that Ballard residents want to save the structure.
  • Todd
    lol....
    I have friends in other parts of the country who often refer to Seattle as “The Peoples Republic of Seattle”. I wonder why?
  • Judy
    Kelly,

    You say, " You might not like the building but most residents of Ballard do and would like to see it saved."

    Do you have a metric to support the "most" or is this purely subjective and measured by the evidence of a vocal minority?
  • kelly
    Judy and Brad, I’m merely commenting on the fact that the people of Ballard saved it once and are trying to save it again. If the majority people in Ballard didn’t want it saved then it would have been torn down years ago.

    It’s pretty obvious that this is a disagreement is between the new residents of Ballard and people who have lived here there entire lives. Sorry Brad, but ten years make you part of the new Ballard residents. I’d like to hear your option on change after 37 years of living here.


    Strike, your reference Ballard Ave. and how you wouldn’t want to see those building torn down…well, how do you thing they became old buildings? They didn’t tear them down, back in the day. Now there’re part of Ballads early history. Are buildings from the 60’s not worthy enough to become part of ballads history as well? Nowadays the “throw away generation” just tosses everything out rather then fix it.

    Anyway, we all have options and we all get to voice them…that’s what makes it so great to live here. All I’m trying to say is it makes me sad when Neighborhoods become over developed and loose there quirky-ness and character and become “every city USA”. I know cities or towns change over time…it would be nice to preserve some of the more current history rather then erase it…even if you think is ugly.



    If I had the money I’d buy it and make it the coolest, hippest, coffee shop/deli in the city.

    Done and done
  • Tristan
    Kelly has it right. The Manning's (Denny's) building is an important part of the Ballard neighborhood and City's legacy from the 60's. It is one of the best remaining example's of its architectual style. While Modern architecture and design is not to everyone's liking, this distinctive structure is important to the community and there has been a significant outpouring of support—everyone in the neighborhood is talking about it.

    The City's Landmarks Preservation Ordinance was established to enable the citizens of this City to set aside historic structures and landmarks that they feel are distinctive. To be a City of Seattle Landmark, a building must meet at least one of six criteria. In the case of the Manning's building, it may meet four of the criteria.

    What is not a criteria is the building's current condition. The owners of Landmark designated buildings receive tax (and other) incentives to accommodate and facilitate renovation and preservation--something the Benaroya group is not telling you.

    Something else the Benaroya group is not telling you is that they could meet their development objectives and save the Manning's building by creatively using the rest of the block. It's easy to mow down the building and start with a blank slate, it's requires creative thinking to preserve a cherished community landmark and build around it. And in so doing, perhaps they can create a project that is better for the community.

    Lastly, something else the Benaroya group is not telling you is that they have known that this site might qualify as a Landmark since last summer when they hired a historic preservation consultant to survey the building. The consultant came back with a report saying that the building qualified for Landmark status under several criteria at which point, they fired the consultant and looked for a different one who would support their plans to demolish the building. (See Knute Berger’s columns in Crosscut.)

    So if we take this out of the subjective and put it into the objective, this building is important to the community and possesses the criteria required by the Ordinance to designate it a Seattle Landmark. It is a distinctive building that plays an important role in telling the history of our region and the people who live(d) here. While the style of architecture may not be to everyone’s taste, it is to others and as Kelly suggests, it would be an awesome venue for an enlightened individual to restore it to its original 1964 state and then it would be the coolest restaurant or coffee shop in Seattle. And hey, there was a time when the Victorian-era buildings on Ballard Avenue, Pioneer Square and the Pile Place Market were not seen as stylish but ugly and where would we be today if they had met with the wrecking ball?

    Lastly about the Benaroya family. Yes they have been supportive of the community and the region over time and are very generous and community minded. And that gives me pause in this instance. Why wouldn’t they want to preserve a building that is important to the community and still achieve their development goals if that was possible? I can only surmise that the Benaroya family itself is not driving this and it is their lawyers and business managers who have become so wrapped up in “winning” that they cannot see there is an opportunity for everyone to win, something Jack Benaroya would never overlook.
  • Joel
    Cool to see a dialog going on here about this subject on which the opinions are so diverse! Sometimes I wonder if we still have the ability to disagree but remain civil. Seems like here, we do.

    To me, a lifetime Ballardite, its not about the building, or a Denny's (god no!), nor is it necessarily soley about evil developers :-). It's about a building that is central to the history of the neighborhood over my lifetime as compared to the recent development and losses of other buildings recently. I still miss the old Eagles Hall.

    I admit, my position is very much an emotional one. But I do feel that Ballard is slowly losing what identity is has left, and this effort is one slim chance of retaining some of that.
  • strike
    An interesting "eye of the beholder" debate to be sure. I have yet to actually speak with someone in person who likes the building but obviously, there are those that do. Even so, if this building is granted landmark status, the economics will not be bright for operating a business there. And I think it sets the stage for the blighting of that entire corner.
  • Fran
    For those of you who may not be as informed as Tristan, please know that there are other architects who are working on developing this corner in a more thoughtful and respectful way. It IS possible to restore the restaurant, and build condos or mixed use around the old Manning's building, setting it up to be an outstanding corner for this area, and one that will bring vital tax dollars to this corner and neighborhood. Many of the people who live in Ballard (and no, we have no actual numbers, yet) remember this building for a number of reasons, including it's likeness to Nordic longhouse design and as a community gathering spot. Further, when the building and land was purchased by the Monorail, they had a mandate to look into buildings that were over 50 years old- which is the reason nobody made a 'fuss' over this building. In addition, to be a landmark in Seattle, a building or structure needs to be only 25 years old. If you don't like the building, that's fine, but for those that do, or for whom it has special memories or significance, their voices are just as important to be heard.

    Finally, none of the preservationists or other citizens trying to get this building landmarked are against development, which has been trumpeted by the building owner and developer. They are for development, as long as it is done thoughtfully. If anyone is interested in more information, with facts about the building, as well as the architect, contractor or Manning's company, go to www.docomomo-wewa.org.

    One more thing- no one is trying to landmark a Denny's- they just happened to be the last tenant in the building, which was built in 1964 for Mannings Cafeteria.

    And anything the proponents for landmarking are doing is factual, and based on a lot of research into historical documents- most of which are public record.
  • Tristan
    Strike, on what do you base your assessment that a viable business cannot exist on that site? Each of the two prior tenants operated successful businesses for more than twenty years and the most recent one, Denny's, has said if the opportunity arose, they would open back up tomorrow. I'm not advocating for a particular operator or use, but if Denny's is willing to re-open at that location, they have to feel it is viable.
  • Ben
    I have been a Ballard resident for all my life and as such I know many other lifetime Ballard residents and I would say that the vast majority think that the Denny's building is ugly. Some people have been implying that all born-and-raised Ballard residents want this building and that is simply not true. This corner is very important for Ballard so why condemn it to ugliness? Why not focus these efforts into some ideas for what could be done to make that corner something to be proud of.
  • Fran
    Ben- this is exactly what other architects have been working on- with the intent to make the site more striking and inviting. For you (and all the other Ballard residents you claim to know) who do not like the building and think it is 'ugly', there are just as many lifetime Ballard residents who find the building engaging and worthwhile to save. Contrary to any phone polls or petitions you may have been privy to, the building does not have to stay in it's current condition if landmarked. It can be refurbished, if so chosen, it can become part of a larger development that is economically viable, and it can be done with creativity and thoughtfulness. Your 'vast majority' is also met with a vast majority on the pro side. The likelihood of the owners leaving the site undeveloped or unsold is remote.
  • kelly
    If they do decide to tear it down....I'm wondering if it can me moved to a different location...kinda like when they moved the Red Door in fremont. Just a thought.
  • strike
    Moving the building isn't a bad idea. Maybe there is room for it in Kelly's backyard.
  • Dan
    Forget the building! I really hope they build more ugly, overpriced and identical condos on that site. Someday I dream of walking down Ballard Ave surrounded by yuppies walking their pomeranians and discussing about how much debt they incurred for their $400,000 one bedroom box.

    How about some COMMERICIAL or RETAIL development on ANY site? We are drowning in go**amn condos and townhouses!
  • biff henderson
    It's hideous and it would have been torn down for the monorail. This is what happens when cities have no architectural language of their own -they attach themselves to the kitschy. I'm looking forward to the Benaroya lawsuit if this is landmarked -the city sold it and now prevents the development of their sale after they intended to develop themselves.
  • Larry
    Preserving the building as a Denny's restaurant is getting mashed up with whether the building is valuable enough to the city and neighborhood to be preserved. When Mannings owned the property, the interior had the high vaulted ceilings that mirrored the outside roof in a way that made it seem like a significant public structure.
    As a Denny's, the inside was similar to most other Denny's restaurants. For me, the significance was lost. I don't see much use in preserving only exterior appearance if the inside doesn't have the openness of the original building and serve as some place for people to gather.

READ MY BALLARD'S COMMENT TIPS AND RULES