First on My Ballard: The Seattle Landmarks and Preservation Board voted unanimously tonight that there’s no economically-feasible solution to preserve the old Denny’s in Ballard. The attorney representing the developer, John McCullough, said they are “reactivating” the approval process for their planned development, which will result in the demolition of the Denny’s.
“It’s a very sad situation,” said board chair Stephen Lee (in foreground). “It’s a bad situation to be in.” Lee said it’s the first time in his memory the board has designated a building a landmark and then not voted for controls and incentives — the next step in the landmarking process. While the old Manning’s Cafeteria remains a landmark, the developer is not restricted from demolishing it. “It breaks my heart,” said board member Christine Howard.
McCullough presented the board with 12 different options for the property. The scenario that came closest was a high-end restaurant on the site with no parking, but it still fell short, losing just over $1 million. Other scenarios looked at office, retail and even bringing Denny’s back to the building (see below). “We never even got to zero,” McCullough said.
Following the board’s staff recommendation, no one on the board disagreed with Benaroya Company’s analysis. “Nothing works,” said board member Alyce Conti, who ran the numbers on multiple scenarios. “No lender is going to lend… these people will not be able to get a loan.”
The board agreed that an outside proposal to raise the height limit on the property — which would require a change in the city zoning ordinance — was risky and should not be part of their evaluation. Conti said that even with the rezone, the property would not be economically feasible.
“We have nothing to be ashamed of,” said preservationist and Ballard resident Eugenia Woo after the vote. “We put up a great fight.” Board chair Stephen Lee — who rallied the board to preserve the Denny’s three months ago — refused to talk to the media and was overheard telling someone, “I need a drink.”
McCullough did not give a timeline for the demolition, as the permit process has not yet begun. As always, stay tuned to My Ballard for updates on this story.
49 responses so far ↓
1 Nina // May 21, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Weeeeee! Yay! Sorry old Ballard folks but I am tired of lookin at it. :)
2 Suthii // May 21, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Can I suggest they not demolish it, but burn it to the ground so the night sky is lit up for all of Ballard to see? It’ll be like Guy Fawkes, we can even throw an effigy of old Seattle on top to sound the final liberation of Ballard from squalor and despair. I’ll come dressed as a condo (all beige and earth tones), wearing my Sunset Bowl bowling pin earrings ($9.99 on Ebay), so the old Ballardites can spot me in the delirious and joyous crowds and try to run me down with their beat up pick up trucks with their ‘Save the Viaduct’ bumper stickers.
Hell, maybe we can start a new annual parade in Ballard to celebrate Liberation Day.
3 Jasmine // May 21, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I’m strangely saddened by the decision. I loathe the building - it’s an eye sore and a waste of land, but I’m not excited for generic condos to be slapped up in its place.
4 Ben // May 21, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Maybe if it were better economic times it could have been saved. Personally, I don’t care as long as the architecture on the new development is really good.
5 Geoffret // May 21, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I was first shocked that someone tried to save this horrendous building. It sticked out like a sore thumb in Ballard. I am relieved that I will not have to see this thing every time, I drive/ride to work. I am confident that the developer will be doing something tasteful and great for our community.
6 srcsmgrl // May 21, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I wonder if Suthii even lives in Ballard or if he/she just likes to taunt us.
I actually like the fire idea. We can use it as a community builder. I will bring the marshmallows!
7 joe // May 21, 2008 at 8:55 pm
i have to say, i’m a little dismayed by all the excitement to burn the thing down. it shows that nothing, quite frankly, can be preserved in red-hot Ballard, because property values have shot to the stratosphere. economics trumps history. which is sad, really.
8 robert // May 21, 2008 at 9:22 pm
hey s…ie-
we will burn it only if you huff the fumes.
ebay is printed all lower case.
9 Eric // May 21, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I’m not even a fan of the building, even though I’m a fan of googie, but I am kind of insulted by the notion that in a prospering neighborhood like Ballard, there’s nothing that could go into that historic building — on the busiest corner in the neighborhood — and be profitable. I think it’s more a matter of it won’t maximize profits.
Again, I’m not a particular fan of the building, but on the other hand, I’m not sure there’s been a single condo development in Ballard in the last five years that has been an aesthetic or cultural improvement on the neighborhood. So my faith in the future of Ballard continues to slowly erode. I’ve lived here 15 years and actually welcome the increasing urban density of Ballard but feel like the generic architecture is slowly eroding its soul. I find it impossible to believe that a complex like NoMa will be as beloved in 100 years as the glorious buildings on Ballard Ave. (arguably Seattle’s most gorgeous street). It saddens me. The Denny’s building in and of itself is not a major tragedy, but it’s symptomatic of one.
10 Joel // May 21, 2008 at 9:29 pm
here here Eric.
11 Bill // May 21, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Nice scoop, Swedes!
12 Joel // May 21, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Yeah, the building was ugly as hell, but it was one of the few reminders of the old Ballard that I grew up in. I know there isn’t one single sentimental folk reading here, but there you have it.
13 Eric // May 21, 2008 at 10:52 pm
And I should add that whether you are a fan of the Denny’s building or not, it is not soulless or generic. That alone is worth keeping it around, because the odds of something more soulless or generic replacing it are at least 99% in my thoroughly unstatistical estimation.
14 CK // May 21, 2008 at 11:28 pm
I’m kind of surprised the building couldn’t be moved to another location.. set up as a community center in a park or something. In Colonial Williamsburg where I’m from this was done (moving historic buildings) to make way for development when necessary… granted they were more historic than the Dennys building, but how about in 200 years… what will be the old Ballard landmarks then?
15 M // May 22, 2008 at 5:28 am
I’m not surprised at the outcome. My affection for the building was purely sentimental, but I recognize that sentiment alone does not grant historical status.
My concern is around what will replace it - another shoebox condo? The main arterials into Ballard are already condo canyons - is it too much to hope for something stylish and multifunctional with a bit of historical flavor?
16 Stephen R Lasky // May 22, 2008 at 6:28 am
I am not a big fan of all the condo’s beng built, in fact it really scares me, but I am thankful that someone in planning wasn’t afraid to make a decision that is not “politically correct”. Who elected those guys, the ones who tried to call that monstrosity a historical landmark. Every time I travel past that corner I think of how ridiculous our society has become when we can say “its a bad situation”, or that it “breaks my heart”… to get rid of something that ugly. Pul-lease. That structure was hideous at best. Its good that it will be gone.
srl
17 mr fantastic // May 22, 2008 at 6:43 am
why are we limiting our options for action to either pining for the ugly, not-so-old building or fretting about the soulless shoebox that will be put in it’s place? How about a third option like making demands for art/neighborhood consistency in whatever goes up there. I think we can do better than fremont did, but at least they got the developer to do something when they replaced the red door. Forcing them to have a “Googie” theme? Let’s get a little creative people!
18 AkGru // May 22, 2008 at 6:51 am
This marks the beginning of the end for Ballard’s rise. A slow decline into irrelevancy will be noted by historians. A line in the sand, a tear in the fabric, a cleave in the woody flesh…
I weep for you old Denny’s building.
19 mary // May 22, 2008 at 7:36 am
mr f - I agree with you, but I don’t know how to even approach the third option.
20 Bella // May 22, 2008 at 7:41 am
I didn’t love that building either, or Denny’s for that matter, but it was a landmark in Ballard in the respect that when someone from out of Ballard came here, you could tell them “just past the Denny’s” when giving directions. And even though I didn’t go to Denny’s all the time, it was great to have an all night diner close to home, not to mention a place you could take kids besides Mc Donald’s.
And whatever, condos, like we need more. Are condos really selling so well that building more is financially viable? As far as giving directions using landmarks goes, pretty soon people will be lost in the Valley of Banality.
21 Suthii // May 22, 2008 at 7:54 am
” a place you could take kids besides Mc Donald’s.”
So simply having knives and forks is what defines a ‘good’ restaurant in Ballard? Hmmmm, yummy Dennys.
“A line in the sand, a tear in the fabric, a cleave in the woody flesh… ”
So much drama over change. Where’s the next line in the sand, when they turn Mike’s Chili into a Italian shoe emporium?
I’ve got my can of gas and matches ready, when’s the celebration?
22 Duncan // May 22, 2008 at 8:56 am
A good restaurant in Ballard, I think, is defined by the fact that internet trolls refuse to eat there.
23 Suthii // May 22, 2008 at 9:06 am
“A good restaurant in Ballard, I think, is defined by the fact that internet trolls refuse to eat there..”
Which is why they also get bulldozed…..go figure?
24 mary // May 22, 2008 at 9:07 am
Suthii - you’ve already used the “Mike’s Chili into a Italian shoe emporium” elsewhere - yawn…
25 tj // May 22, 2008 at 9:43 am
Money, Money Money, Another Condo, another unaffordable housing. No Parking! More expensive restraunts, Oh Boy!! Ballard is Looking more taxable everyday!! BALLARD IS RUINED!!!
26 Suthii // May 22, 2008 at 9:57 am
“another unaffordable housing.”
To who, you? That’s doesn’t make them unaffordable to others. For some folks, $300-400K is affordable and I say, good for them, welcome to the neighborhood. Eventually condo owners have kids, earn more and will move on and hopefully buy homes in Ballard, keeping the community growing and thriving for years to come.
Or maybe some people prefer boarded up businesses, trashy restaurants, bums and general squalor? It’s the only way to validate their grim world views?
“BALLARD IS RUINED!!!”
So leave. It’s a free country you know.
27 Dusty // May 22, 2008 at 11:36 am
I guess I am confused on the term “economically feasible”. Did no one mention inviting Denny’s back into the buildin? It’s hard to believe that having Denny’s in that location for years was not ” economically feasible”. Did the owners really think to themselves “having Denny’s here is not economically feasible, but oh well, lets keep it that way for years on end.
Maybe the reason for letting them tear it down should have been that there is something “MORE economically feasible”.
28 Suthii // May 22, 2008 at 11:41 am
“It’s hard to believe that having Denny’s in that location for years was not ” economically feasible”.
Unless the land became more valuable and their rents went up. What d’ya think?
” Did no one mention inviting Denny’s back into the buildin?”
Maybe Ballard doesn’t need more junk food?
29 Duncan // May 22, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Dusty — Suthii does have a point, though I doubt it’s the one he/she is trying to make. The Denny’s was doing fine financially under the old ownership, because the old owners (SMP and whomever before them) either didn’t have a mortgage or generated sufficient rent revenue to cover that mortgage.
The Benaroyas, though, dropped a ridiculous sum of money on the property. There’s not a tenant on earth — at least not that the Benaroyas could find — that would generate sufficient rent revenue to generate a positive return on their “investment.”
“Economically feasible” means feasible for the ownership, not the tenants of the building.
30 Suthii // May 22, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“Benaroyas, though, dropped a ridiculous sum of money on the property.”
As is their right.
It’s the concept of ‘ownership’ that seems to rile up so many Ballardites; it’s as if they expect to be paid less than they are worth at their jobs.
31 tj // May 22, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Sorry Suthii I don’t make 50 to 100K a year, and able to pay a $2000 a month morgage. I lived in Ballard all my life, and I work in ballard. I had to move out of Ballard to be able to find a affordabe place to live. And to be able to keep food on the table for my Kids and My husband who has a full time job.. $300K to 500K is unaffordable for alot of hard working people, who can’t afford it!
32 Suthii // May 22, 2008 at 2:26 pm
” I had to move out of Ballard to be able to find a affordabe place to live.”
I had to move out of a city I couldn’t afford, but I wasn’t angry and bitter at the people who could afford to live there.
33 Suthii // May 22, 2008 at 2:45 pm
“$300K to 500K is unaffordable for alot of hard working people, who can’t afford it!”
What do you want me to do about it, sell you my home for less than it’s worth?
34 Phins // May 22, 2008 at 3:35 pm
“Sorry Suthii I don’t make 50 to 100K a year, and able to pay a $2000 a month morgage. I lived in Ballard all my life, and I work in Ballard. I had to move out of Ballard to be able to find a affordabe place to live.”
*TJ, I completely respect the fact that you and your husband are hardworking, taxpayers who are raising a family and really trying hard. That is awesome.
However, you mentioned that you have lived and worked in Ballard your entire life. The logical question I can’t get out of my head is why didn’t you buy that “1930’s charmer on 48th and 8th” in in 1995 for $160k? You’ve had your entire life to scope out the market? I am sure that you had plenty of opportunities along the way. If you’d have bought a $160k house when you had the chance, a combined salary of $50k between you and your husband (which is very burger flipping territory) would suffice in present day. You being unable to afford a $300k to $500k property in Ballard doesn’t warrant you calling Ballard “ruined”. That’s quite the bitter attitude. I bet in 10-20 years, $300k - $500k in Ballard will seem very cheap.
News flash, buying a house/condo/townhouse is never a bad idea. Even if it the property never goes up in value (which, besides the past couple years, is extremely rare), you’ll still be building equity, have protection against inflation, and eventually have the property paid in full at some point. The price of renting is always going to increase, and you’re just paying off someone elses property. I bet in 10-20 years, $300k - $500k in Ballard will seem very cheap.
I wish I would’ve bought $200k worth of Google when it IPO’d at $85 per share. I’d be set for life. I do not think Google is “ruined” because it is 6-7 times more expensive at ~$550 a share though.
C’mon now.
35 gooner // May 22, 2008 at 3:43 pm
while the cost of condos is a little off topic, as a ballardite, who is on vacation in SF right now, i thought i would weigh in.
was reading the newspaper yesterday morning and it said that the starting (not median/mean/etc) house price in SF (including condos) was 580ki. yes, starting. average was in the 800’s i think. So it sucks if you can’t afford ballard or anywhere in seattle. when there are other west cost cities like this, seattlle is going to seem very cheap to some.
36 Suthii // May 22, 2008 at 3:47 pm
“seattlle is going to seem very cheap to some.”
For a coastal city with good jobs, great environment, great neighborhoods (that get better every year) but limited space, it is reasonable. But prices are still going up:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/364197_housing23.html
37 Tallman // May 22, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Suthii, just wondering what’s up with all the attacks? You’ve posted 9 times on this blog alone… expressing a very angry tone each time. It seem like you must have the last word and your option is the only right one. If you must reply try not to be so mean about it. It’s easy to be nice
As far as home prices it would seem everyone has an option. People make all sorts of different amounts….some make more some make less. It seems like everyone can produce some sort of statistic that backs up there point of view. Either way the one thing that is true is housing prices are going up. The days of renting a $600 apartment in Ballard are quickly disappearing as well. Many people are moving out and many new people are moving in. Things are changing.
I did want to address one issue. Someone may have purchased a home in Ballard years ago for 100,000 to 160,000 or whatever. Even thought they may have purchased it for a low amount that does not mean they are living the good life. Because of all the recent re-zoning their neighbor’s old hose is now 6 town homes. Not a big deal but now the value of the property there home is on is worth more than the house…and the property tax on there house is $6000 to $8000 a year…That’s about $600 a month Just something to think about. Some older people have had to move because just they can’t afford to pay the taxes anymore.
Be nice.
38 Phil // May 22, 2008 at 5:32 pm
That property was seized for $7.5 million from underneath Dennys in 2005 by the monorail project. Then ransomed off to Benaroya for $12.5 million in 2006 after the monorail predictably failed. Denny’s had paid $5,295 a month for rent in 2007 and covered the site’s $26,485 property tax bill.
What a great scam, seize a property under the guise of eminent domain , then sell it shortly afterwards for a tremendous profit.
39 Michael // May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm
We should change the subject to the true dilemma for all Ballard residents, new and old.
Denny’s, Manny’s or whatever you may call it is not the problem, but only a boarded up structure that defines a much more pertinent predicament. We have no say.
We bicker amongst ourselves, while our city is being drawn by outside profiteers, lawyers, and bureaucrats. I am not saying that these people and their professions are unholy but only that their interests are not to benefit our Ballard.
If we do not want a soulless, unplanned suberbia on stilts then we should stop knit-picking the inconsequential like we’re a news agency during a Presidential Election.
Instead we should develop a system to bring our voices together in such a way that developers would be forced to listen to and learn from the community that they are attempting to profit from. Without a local system of communication and cooperation we are left as individuals while our rulers do as they please.
Shall we develop a conversation? Does anyone have any ideas on how to set up a democracy?
40 appreciatethesaltydog // Jun 7, 2008 at 1:04 pm
This is great–kudos to all of you for having an opinion about this building, and development of this (and other) neighborhood(s), in general. Disagreement helps draw out the issues that are important to people, and the fact that there are many “right answers” to any problem.
Case in point, I’ve heard a lot of gripe about “another condo building”. Allow me to point out other sections of Ballard that have turned into block after block of six-pack townhome developments, equally generic and not likely to make historic landmark status in 50 years. These arrangments came about to quickly add housing units to the pool during the housing shortage in the late 90s. Great view into your neighbors bathroom, and nice tight driveways for your segue or smart car–that’s all that can fit in the “garage”. Personally, I’d rather have a few high-density condo buildings located in the urban centers of the neighborhood for empty nesters looking for a more urban experience, and young professionals who are able to live out of their car, making a 500 s.f. studio seem spacious. Hell, someday it may be my parents, or even me (assuming I’m eventually in a position to afford such a place)–great to have that option in the neighborhood.
The fact that they may look “generic” or monotonous, well, how is that different than most other residential buildings in Ballard? Do you like the faux-stone flats over open-parking that were ubiquitous construction during the 60s and 70s? At the very least, the new condo buildings are more energy efficient than any other housing type, built with green building standards (required by city of Seattle building and zoning codes) that far surpass the single-pane windows and inefficient air conditioning units (is air conditioning in Seattle really necessary?!) that graced the Ballard Denny’s/Manning’s/Googie drive-by.
Yes, it’s an interesting looking building, but is that reason enough to retain something? That’s almost as ridiculous as going to war to spread the word of the “Prince of Peace”…but that’s another story entirely…
41 appreciatethesaltydog // Jun 7, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I should point out that the six-pack townhomes are an excellent way for people to get into the housing market (so, not all bad). They have their place, and if done correctly, they have the potential to add something interesting to a neighborhood.
Everything in moderation makes for a nice dose of variety.
42 Wanda // Jun 9, 2008 at 10:21 am
Here’s the real scoop……..
People got lured into the Idea/value of real estate going up. Woo Hoo everyone’s selling and buying like crazy and bragging about how much they sold that property for 3 times or more then they paid for it in just a few years.
Here comes reality…..
The value of the property went up but so did the taxes.
Some people bought more then they could realistically afford and the bottom falls out. I mean come on. Who can really afford $2,000.00 TO $3,000.00 or more a month every month for 30 years?
Only people who have 100% Job security, regular raises, no health health problems, never miss a day of work and never get divorced. Never get in accidents and have kids that never get sick.
How many people fit into that equation?
That’s why the bottom falls out. But even when the price of real estate goes back down the taxes don’t. That means only one group benefits long term from all this.
In the end, everything goes so sky high taxes, utilities, rent, buying a home, medical, dental, transportation etc. that people enslave themselves.
If you want to be free, be realistic. Live within your means and always be prepared for worst and hope for the best.
43 Unfimicit // Jul 4, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Buy Propecia online!
Buy Propecia
44 Evripides // Aug 18, 2008 at 12:48 am
9N)’&NFb”QEh)JBQpKG(-X)(PKBfKdFb`JB b)$Fe-
http://rihaza.2222mb.com/boat2632.html boat jR,
45 christiansingles // Aug 29, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Hey fellow www.myballard.com members
Hows everyone?
Well I just thought I would introduce myself.
My name is Elizabeth
Im 22 years old..
My favorite food is sushi
Im a christian for life lol
I work at Burger King
I guess thats enough of an intro lol
Nice to be here! Nice to meet you guys!
46 caow vwalqhxs // Sep 2, 2008 at 8:12 pm
hvau htki fneqjp zprhm drzum ozkjdcg dymha
47 Sceveaple // Oct 5, 2008 at 11:15 am
Golf cars and conveys are for s squaret second-hand and new, and emconfederation galvanizing motors that use batteries.
cart golf maintenance Now days you can ascertain duty golf kits and accessories to clothes your unitary refinement and preferences. If you’re ethical getting into golf cars and trolleys, a few issues you may paucity to excogitate are attribute, how affordable and twopenny they are, if they’re drive acceptable, covers for them, battery chargers, motor sizes and additional bring supplies and confederation types. straight away you’ve understood it some consideration, you may hold a clearer notion of what you’re looking for. Some people self-possessed dutyized golf convey bodies, appliance, hold, and with air bags. Hop online and get the revelation on all golf conveys and cars currently on the market. anyhow, up front you decide to do area with any demanding cast-off or practice golf convey shopkeeper, you should inspect out their retinue’s unnoticed a bit. muster up out whom all they’re combined with and how want they’ve been selling golf convey kits, replacement batteries present, covers, up and take off parts and accessories. It’s not ethical up which wholejumble r is donation the biggest car-boot on galvanizing and gas golf trolleys, but it’s also up who you can certainty as a consumer. Jot down the association email putting and a call slews, which is less many times present oneselfed on the comrades’s ritualistic website. This way if there are questions that the website fails to present oneself, you can with the area yourself and assail c promote any and all unavoidable inquires notwithstanding prominence, price, their laying and more.
48 titUnevylidly // Oct 8, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Picking up a consumable worn golf convey doesn’t possess to get through a disband the bank. utilized golf brings can be ground that run on stimulating, gas, or soul power (deny and arrive) and can be ground reasonably priced, and also with much doll-sized garb and tear. If you over recall in it; multitudinous golf brings undoubtedly are not definitely ‘acclimated to’ utter much at all. time again, they were heretofore owned by the uninterested golfer who surely lone perhaps got a take place to hit the tack a few times each Summer. gather the scratch you could scrape on rental fees by owning your own golf convey.
canada cart golf yamaha
utilized Golf moves are also at in multitudinous strange sizes. Depending on how varied people resolve be playing, you can get a worn golf convey that can shelter more than two people in preference to of the normal one; accordingly, allowing eutterone to liberate small change on renting an additional golf move. utilized golf moves can be ground from multitudinous top Manufacturers such as EZ-Go, trounce band Car, Yamaha, and others and on, they purpose already be customized with some th extras.
49 eduk vxrsmwa // Oct 14, 2008 at 1:22 pm
eimvjsb uierlnca wlem ycqsur bwsxncmvl kspdhqbyw krafhsnwb
Leave a Comment