27 Replies to "Save it or raze it? Last comment chance for Charlestown Court"

• etherhuffer March 31, 2008 (9:53 am)

  Tear it down. Sentiment is nice, but it is not all that charming.

• jillloblaw March 31, 2008 (10:07 am)

  I am in favor of saving this beautiful building in West Seattle. There are all too many new construction condos rising in the area already. West Seattle does not seem to have a lack of housing for condo owners and tearing down this well kept building will help to destroy some of W.S. history that is slowly but surely being consumed by greedy land developers. One of the key aspects that many people love about W.S., myself included, is the small town feel it exudes. When all is said and done, the developers will be gone and we’ll be left with the ticky tacky history-less, buildings that only a few can afford and that will probably not withstand the test of time such as Charlestown Court.

• ann March 31, 2008 (10:56 am)

  I’m all for keeping old buildings and think this one is very charming. And…I hate townhouses as much as the next, but lots of buildings and houses have character that no longer exists. They aren’t making any more of my post-war box and they are a unique part of history. In 50 years will these too become landmarks?

  I’d love to see this building stay, but think the laws should be changed so owners are reimbursed for money lost when something is designated a landmark.

• TeaLady March 31, 2008 (11:25 am)

  Save it and put some money into it. I love it. It reminds me of some old places back east.

• Paul March 31, 2008 (11:33 am)

  SAVE IT PLEASE! I have yet to see interesting new construction, and even more the new townhouses, ick!

• westseattleite March 31, 2008 (11:34 am)

  Does anyone have pics of the inside? I like the charm of the outside, but it’s hard to form an opinion just based on the facade. Can anyone tell us about some architectural characteristics that may be unique on the inside?

• JenV March 31, 2008 (11:38 am)

  http://www.cityofseattle.net/neighborhoods/preservation/LPBCurrentNom_3811CaliforniaAveSW.pdf

  Good reading on Charleston Court.

• WSB March 31, 2008 (11:41 am)

  Westseattleite – the link that JenV put in her comment, which is also featured in one of the previous posts we linked inline above, includes interior photos as well as exterior. The Landmarks Board specifically decided to consider only the Charlestown Court’s exterior architecture, because there’s nothing particularly distinguished inside (although the fireplaces are interesting).

• JanS March 31, 2008 (12:31 pm)

  It really is an interesting little complex. I wonder if it could be added to by going up…and then converting the inside, keeping some of the charm, but really making them up to date, up to code, with all new bath and kitchen, etc. Most of the charm would still be there, and they could be sold as condos. I guess that would have to take someone very creative…and I sometimes wonder if that would simply be too much of a challenge.

• Koni March 31, 2008 (12:34 pm)

  Save it! Every time I drive by it I say to my boyfriend, “Don’t you wish you could live there?” It has great charm, much more than any N.W. modern box they can replace it with. I am Seattle born and raised and it makes me sick how my city is disappearing and turning into an homogenous faux craftsman nightmare. Please pass laws to make it more difficult for greedy developers to kill our neighborhoods!!!

• SomeGuy March 31, 2008 (1:12 pm)

  I too support saving this wonderful example of Seattle architecture from years gone by.
  Unless there will be a Trader Joe’s built there.
  In that case, raze that SOB today!

• MAS March 31, 2008 (1:22 pm)

  Are any of you that want to preserve this building willing to pay the owner the equivalent to what they would have made if they were able to use the property as they expected when they bought it? You are all talking about costing someone possibly a couple million dollars because you want to be able to occasionally glance at a cute brick building instead of a townhouse.

  This isn’t a building that already was designated when the owner bought it and they should have just known there would be restrictions, it’s only now being considered for special status.

  Also, what is the definition of a “greedy developer?” Someone that’s developing housing that meets an economic need, promoting density or just anyone that’s making money by selling real estate?

  I’m not a developer, don’t make any of my income in real estate, just think it’s too easy to try to limit land use post purchase in a way that is seriously damaging to the owner.

• Ron Burgundy March 31, 2008 (2:06 pm)

  2715 California Ave is the business location of Omni Construction. This is the business that tears down old houses and builds 2 big houses on top of one another with the stone base and those things that stick out over the windows on the 3rd floor. They’re all the same. These houses are all over West Seattle. What I’m worried about is that their design is like every other teardown to townhome complex in West Seattle. Why is it that these people cannot seem to keep some of the old West Seattle charm in these new buildings?

• etherhuffer March 31, 2008 (2:19 pm)

  Why all the hubbub about townhouses? The population is aging, and large single family houses will not be so desireable to old bones. Condos and townhouses will help younger people live in our neighborhood as well. Building along the major thoroughfares to increase density will help us with transportation in the future, since we got crap for now.

• Paul March 31, 2008 (2:55 pm)

  I still cannot figure out the need for Trader Joes. Its not THAT great of a store.

• etherhuffer March 31, 2008 (3:12 pm)

  Its not that BAD of a store if you are faced with $20.00 a pound fish at Thriftway.

• grr March 31, 2008 (3:29 pm)

  LOL Paul..I agree.

  Well..I DO like that Court Bld..but, is it structuraly sound? Does it need too much repair to justify the expense? It does indeed have a lot of character, but, if it’s falling apart, then it should come down. –

  and, like the Ballard Dennys…it’s simple WRONG to come in AFTER the fact and give something ‘historical’ status, and tying up YOUR money.

  either way…I’d love to see this building stay, if it makes financial sense for the owners. And there are PLENTY of DAMN UGLY war boxes that SHOULD get torn down and replaced.

• JW March 31, 2008 (3:31 pm)

  Has anyone seen any of the Live Historic buildings? (www.livehistoric.com) These kinds of old buildings are starting look more desirable as condos, at least in some of the more centrally-located neighborhoods. I wonder why these couldn’t be renovated by them or a similar company?

  Just noting that historic preservation sometimes does make economic sense.

• BGH March 31, 2008 (3:34 pm)

  Please save it!

• grr March 31, 2008 (3:37 pm)

  …and, looking that document that WSB posted..one would THINK the tenants would have cleaned up a big for the interior photos..sheeeesh.

  I dunno…it looks like it needs a LOT o work :(

• WSB March 31, 2008 (3:47 pm)

  One clarification re: the issue of “after the fact” historical status – I learned while reporting on this situation in recent months that when you propose development for a site with a building that is older than 50 years, this kind of evaluation is apparently required, and if it is determined that you might have a landmark on your hands, this process is triggered. So in theory this is not something that would have been a surprise to the buyer/developer. The explanation is in this city document:
  http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/dclu/Publications/cam/cam3000.pdf

• lg March 31, 2008 (3:49 pm)

  MAS, I am not willing to reimburse the owner of the building, but he/she/they took a risk in buying a building of that era. There was NO guarantee of making MILLIONS, it was a speculation, period–just like when I bought my house, there was NO guarantee that it would appreciate in value. It was a risk, and it was a risk they took to make money, a lot of money. Besides, since there was no guarantee that the developer would be able to build this 4-story condo (even if it wasn’t up for landmark status there would still be the permitting process, etc. which they must have known about or are probably too naive to be in business) there is NO LOSS of millions as you say, the developer still has exactly what was purchased–a lovely brick apartment building on a nice lot. Granted, the developer may not MAKE the millions they would have, but there is certainly no LOSS. There are no guarantees when you buy a piece of property that you will be able to do whatever you want there, cities have regulations, and I certainly don’t feel sorry for a developer that must have known that when the land was purchased. I don’t feel sorry for the developer at all.

• JT March 31, 2008 (6:06 pm)

  It is charming and I’ve always enjoyed driving by as well, but after viewing the photos of detail, I just don’t think it comes close to historical status. It’s the brick itself and courtyard style that is so appealing, but i don’t think there would be much emotional attachment to it if it were made with wood siding.

• Vio March 31, 2008 (9:24 pm)

  Charleston Court, and the other “courtyard” housing scattered across the city is an old form of relatively high density development that fits well within lower density neighborhoods. Instead of demolishing these fine structures, our community would be better off having more like them built in West Seattle. I hope that Charleston Court can be saved. I also hope that the city changes regulations to ensure we get development that fits with its surroundings.

• CMP April 1, 2008 (7:51 am)

  I really hope that this building is given landmark status so that it won’t be torn down. I live in a 1920’s brick building that’s in about the same condition as Charlestown Court and I love it. Yeah, the windows are awful and I sometimes wish I had a dishwasher, but the space is amazing and spacious. They’re just not built like this anymore and the new owner should just continue to rent them out so those of us that can’t afford overpriced condos and townhomes can continue to appreciate the building.

• Near Alki April 1, 2008 (11:00 am)

  I really love the looks of the outside of this building…brick gate with arched openings on the sides, high pitched gable roof, etc. The inside as well shows charm and character, old growth oak floors, tile bathroom floors, coved plaster ceilings, mahogany doors and woodwork, etc.

  Enough of the greedy developers. How about the Seller(s)? They and all the other sellers of real property to developers knowingly sold to company’s/people they knew would demolish the existing and replace with something else. They sold to developers because unfortunately the raw land value is worth more than the land and building together…approximately 20%-30% more $ What’s a Seller to do? Sell to someone at a 30% discount who “promises” to continue to operate it as a 4-plex?

• Beasley April 1, 2008 (1:43 pm)

  I don’t know the details behind the actual sale of this building but I can provide some insight regarding the previous owner.
  The only reason this building went up for sale at all was because the owner passed away. For a while we made our rent checks out to “the estate of” c/o a law firm downtown. If the previous owner had not passed away, the future of this little gem would not be in jeopardy.
  FYI he also owned the little grey number that was razed a few weeks ago, 2 block N on Cali. He took wonderful care of his property and his tenants, in fact he was the best landlord I’d ever had.

Sorry, comment time is over.