Monday evening is the Early Design Guidance meeting for the proposed development at the Old Ballard Library branch location at 5711 24th Ave NW.
Sketch from the design proposal. (.pdf)
The plans call to demolish the current structure and build a seven-story apartment/commercial building. According to the design proposal (.pdf) created by Weber Thompson, the building will have one-and-a-half to two floors of parking below grade. Street level will have 10,000 square feet for commercial use along with three live-work spaces and seven apartments. Floors two through six will be 100 studio, open one-bedroom and some true one- and two-bedroom units. The top floor will be a roof deck and garden.
This evening’s meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. at the Ballard High School library. It is open to the public.
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
GROSS
More of the same…
Wait, this looks familiar! Oh yeah, that's because there's far too many of these hideous cookie-cutter buildings all over the city already! Ugh!!!
yep, i'm with the others so far – freaking boring, ugly, soul-less, what else…oh yeah, redundant. yeech.
As someone who grew up in a lovely old town that got the 1970's Urban Renewal treatment, turning useful and well built into rubble and replacing it with bland walls of cement, I wonder how long it will be before this current building crap will face the fate the 70's rehab is going through back home. Cities did not listen to the neighborhoods, and now much of it is abandoned, underused or just hated.
I get how this design is supposed to work, but the awful looking designs and refusal of normal people to behave the way they do in architect's sketches means we are going to have to undo this in 30 years, just like so many cities are doing now with the 70 dreck.
What if we break the cycle now?
whew, I was worried that this housing shortage wouldn't be addressed…
…and with such a beautiful building too!
Q. Do the store front windows come all boarded up, or do we have to do that?
Looks great. Yay density!
Wall to wall high rises, say goodbye to the sun and the sky.
Sorry I heard about this too late to attend the meeting. All I want to know is: How can architects live with themselves knowing they've designed such crap?
I think their money comforts them at night.
actually, architects dont make as much as you think. And they are making less and less every year. Developers and contractors are taking bigger and bigger salaries and squeezing down the rest of the design team. archs, engineers, etc.
Such well articulated, thoughtful points here……………actually, that was sarcasm.
So anyone here want to explain SPECIFICALLY what they would do with the existing building/land?
I mean, so many strong opinions here surely it must be based on an understanding of the integrity of the structure, potential revenue producing uses, how to fund conversion, etc.
I hope for and will encourage more of these developments in Ballard: they keep construction workers employed, mill work employees working, window companies working–and……create housing options for people who already have jobs, unlike the housing options being created for the new state of the art homeless castle we are building (just saying).
But seriously, one legit well thought out alternative provided by someone who could actually speak from experience? Great. Thought so. I will be the one picketing on the bridge with the sign “More condos in Ballard NOW!!!”
Thank you Snoopy. Yes, believe me, the architect is not the big evil enemy here, he is just the guy getting blamed. Turn your sour comments towards the developer. The architect, right now, is just trying to keep himself off food stamps.
I have to agree at least partially here. Let's have some suggestions of what to do with that old library instead of just cracking jokes about this (admittedly ugly) building. It might be pointless, but at least some legitimate suggestions would have been offered. I, for one, think anything is an improvement over chain link fence and graffiti (although if this project follows the ones on 15th, we'll get that for a long while too).
While I am not a fan of all the big box condos going in around here architecturally (and I am an architect), I understand that the bigger issue is what developers are allowed to do with the properties they purchase. If you want to complain, complain about the land use code. That is the reason all this density is going in. The master plan for the city is to add density. If that is not what we want for Ballard, then we need to be directing complaints to the DPD and the mayor.
Yes and no. Weber Thompson as a firm has consitently aligned itself with bottom-line developers, and together they crank out these uninspired buildings. Of all the bad ones they've produced, the NoMa is perhaps at the top of the heap. Rest assured we'll get a mediocre building, at best.
Can I has traffic study plz?
But seriously, these oversized condos should prove that the current transportation system (roads and buses) in and out of Ballard can handle additional capacity.
what to do with that old library? how about we knock it down and build a new building? am I missing something where exposed aggregate walls and giant street level parking areas are passe?
such funny comments from you guys:
“Wait, this looks familiar! Oh yeah, that's because there's far too many of these hideous cookie-cutter buildings all over the city already! Ugh!!!”
so I suppose your house is unique then? doesn't look like every other house on the block or in the city? is that a bad thing?
look I'm not defending the design here, but this building does what it should. it's a background building meant to serve as housing. if you're waiting for something fancy, maybe you should check out bilbao.
That's a good point about transportation. We really need to get serious about light rail into Ballard. I don't necessarily think we shouldn't build anything until then or that “these oversized condos should prove” anything, but it needs to happen sooner then later. Transportation demand is only going to grow in the following decades. We might as well get the ball rolling now.
Or you can blame the real culprit, the city, for encouraging the developers to go with this type of design.
A key problem with these designs is the greedy use of the maximum land footprint serves to make ballard increasingly unwalkable. A brick wall (even if it is painted in southwest colors) and a few “landscape plants” do not make the city more livable. There are some streets in Ballard that I can no longer walk down because the cheek to jowl buildings surrounded by tufts of landscape grass are so exhausting I just want to hop in my car. One thing I can't figure out is why the condo developers seem to be immune to the same regulations that limit land usage by homeowners in the area. Why is that?
If it were affordable, this is the type of building a company like McMenamins would invest in and turn into a restaurant (though their particular food and beer is extremely overrated IMO).
So we shouldn't add density to the city? Seattle should just stay the size it is, with just as many residential units in the future as there are today? Without increased supply, demand is just going to continue to drive prices up higher and higher. What we should be doing is writing the mayor and city council to increase incentives to develop dense, affordable housing within the city in strategic livable neighborhoods like Ballard. Without it the working class is going to continue to be pushed out and the region will continue to sprawl.
It's called zoning, these condos are zoned a little different then a single family home. They aren't immune to the same regulations, they're different regulations.
I'm really a fan of 1521 second ave. I'm sure there are more of their projects I would like too. Guess it really does depend on the developer.
Let's not forget that Nickels wanted this to happen to Ballard. Excuse my double preposition, but Ballard was overrun by condos by design — to prevent urban sprawl, supposedly.
Bringing light rail into Ballard would be a natural extension of this plan (although I don't think it will happen for decades). Perhaps the old library could be the light rail tunnel entrance?
I suspect they've consistently aligned themselves with where the work is in a down economy. No-one wants to pay for spacious and nice these days.
I'm totally for density. I actually LIKE some of the condos and apartment buildings that have gone in (not the one over QFC, though — bleah!). But my impression is that we've already got quite a lot of density in this area: are there any hard figures on the demand for this kind of thing?
I thought I read that Ballard had already met the density goals of the city. Why does that mean that those density goals now get increased? The building above QFC is NOISY and now we are going to have another 7 story monolith adding more density, more noise and more congestion. I would like to see a smaller building with more open area accessible to all.
Loonie Libs.
They complain about urban sprawl one day and those who live in suburbs. They like to feel superior by biking to work or taking the bus. They look down suburbanites who have jobs that force them to commute. They love to trash America while praising Europe and how wonderful it is that people can walk everywhere they need.
But, the moment that someone proposes a large building in an urban area that would add density they cry foul.
I'll bet dollars to donuts that not one of them has ever had to work on a large project like this (or any other) that requires a very delicate balance between cost and design / function. They have no idea what kind of investment it takes upfront and how difficult it is to design something that meets both – AND make a profit. You can build something with lots of style and function, but nobody can afford it. You can go dull and boring and nobody will be interested.
You can sit back and mock the developers and pretend that they are all incompetent boobs with no sense of style who care about nothing but money, but the fact is that they are very smart people who know what they are doing. They went to school for a long time, have been working in the industry for a long time, and have earned the trust of people who are willing to give them money to do their job.
So, go ahead and play armchair developer. Try and act like you could do a better. Draw up some sketches. Get a business plan together. Look at all the coordination and people you'd have to get involved and develop a schedule. Then, go to a bank and try and get financial backing. I'd love to see their reaction.
And, PLEASE post pictures of your concepts. I'd love to see them too. I'd bet we'd end up with a bunch of buildings like the experience music project (what a monstrosity that is).
No, I'm not a developer or any way involved with construction. I work for a large corporation and see the balances and compromises that must take place for a large project like this every day.
I think that's the problem with you loonie libs – you can't make a compromise. You all want it your way, but don't recognize that everyone is different and can't stand the thought that someone else doesn't agree with you.
“There are some streets in Ballard that I can no longer walk down”
Why, do you weigh 300lbs? What streets are you having a hard time walking down?
Seriously, you must be a pretty bad walker…do you get nose bleeds when you see buildings higher than a craftsman?
Thank god the internets wasn't around when they built all the hideous homes and apartment buildings in Ballard in the 60s-70s-90s.
“Can I has traffic study plz?”
Traffic study? Hah, that's a hoot.
You want a traffic study? OK, here's your traffic study: You must ride the bus, or a bicycle, period. Never mind what you want or need, those are your choices. Don't like it? Take it up with your mayor. Good luck with that.
Sorry, Bark More, but Another Ballardite is right. It is proven that people will choose to make fewer and shorter walking trips in places where the street frontage is monotonous, uninteresting, of hostile scale, and lacks potential for human interaction.
This is true whether the area in question is low-density suburban or a high-rise that lacks street-level openness.
The human sense of distance is not immutable. A 1-mile walk in Boston, with its myriad architectural styles and multiplicity of street usage, passes in an instant. A 1-mile walk down many Seattle streets is unmitigated drudgery.
Smaller building with a large open public area sounds great. The problem with that though is it would just drive the cost per unit up and probably wouldn't pencil out for the developer. And of course smaller buildings mean more buildings, less room for single family homes, parks, etc. There is a need for density in our city and I think that this is a good spot for a building of this scale. On a bus line, surrounded by similar buildings, within easy walking distance to a grocery store, restaurants, and shops. Now if we could just get some light rail to Ballard we'd be set.
Yes, I know exactly what you are referring to when you say the hideous apartment buildings built in Ballard in the 60-70s. Horrid!
What concerns me is this: is there that much of a demand for this type of building right now?
I was just at the Greenwood Fred Meyer. Directly to the east of it is the new Piper's Creek apartment buildings with retail space underneath. At least 75% of the retail space was vacant. Like a ghost town.
I say let it be until the time comes when density calls for another condo/apartment/retail space underneath kind of building.
“I think that's the problem with you loonie libs – you can't make a compromise. You all want it your way, but don't recognize that everyone is different and can't stand the thought that someone else doesn't agree with you. “
LMFAO. That's exactly how I feel about you crazy conservatives….
The demand might not be there right now but I think the idea is to get projects started so they are ready once it picks up. As a renter myself, I would rather have a surplus of units on the market then a shortage.
But where's it going to go? Downtown? UW? Northgate-way? The problem with any fixed-track system is that it's too expensive to build it to go most places people want to go unless there is really heavy demand on a particular route set (such as in/out of Manhattan).
Have you even been by 24th and 57th in the past 5 years?
Hate to see the old building go, but these things happen. What bothers me the most about it, is how dumb and ordinary the plan will be. There will be no set back, and they'll put the driveway in a screwed up intesection to start with. It is not as if anyone who NEEDS access to 57th can get there from 24th these days!
Missed the meeting cause I forgot to put it on the calendar. I'm ever so angry with myself.
I didn't bother to read past “Loonie Libs”. If this wingnut/teabagger/libertariatard wants to throw labels, I will too and we'll just ignore each other.
Woah, woah, woah drinkypoo and yepp. I'm not saying that at all. I actually don't really mind this building going up. I'm just saying that all these naysayers need to point their complaints towards the city, not the developers/architects. Look at a city like Vancouver, BC. They have lots of incentives to build up while leaving public open space on the ground. It works fantastically and although it is a fairly dense city, it is really comfortable to pedestrians.
We aren't going to be able to get away from density, no matter how much people want to, so I just think we should find ways of building density that is actually *comfortable* for people to live in. This does not mean expensive.
Wow. You are angry. I'm an architect, remember? I don't have any money. I don't even live in a house.
The developer of 1521 was Opus, who I don't think is even around Seattle anymore. I worked directly with them on another project and this is a direct quote from the Opus guy in charge of the project, “Corners cost money. We need to have as few of them as possible.”
Darn it, I missed the meeting, but I'm really surprised that this is the only option for that building. Personally I think the interior space is great – open and interesting -and it could be a wonderful restaurant (plenty of room for outdoor seating) or live music venue. Tom Douglas, where are you?