Presentation now viewable for Conner project’s Thursday review

| Development | West Seattle news

We showed you new images like that one last Thursday (WSB coverage here) when Conner Homes brought the “alley vacation” portion of its Junction megaproject (California/Alaska/42nd) back before the Seattle Design Commission. Now, two days before its next Design Review meeting here in West Seattle (6:30 pm Thursday @ High Point Library), that entire planned presentation is available online – download it here (15 MB PDF). Many are images we’ve shown you during and after the past few Design Commission presentations (courtesy of architects Weber Thompson), but there’s lots of additional detail you’ll want to see if you’re interested in this closely scrutinized two-building project at the heart of The Junction. Here’s another image, showing the east building on the Alaska/42nd corner:

Mike March 10, 2009 (4:01 pm)

“Bamboo — Dramatic branching and bold
‘trunk’ rhythm, dynamic character influenced
by wind and strongly suggestive character.”

Have fun controlling the overgrowth of that and preventing it from lifting everything it grows under.

jaems March 10, 2009 (5:18 pm)

It project looks pretty nice to me, if somewhat huge. Re: Bamboo, Mike, as long as a root barrier is used to contain growth, it will need very little maintinance, and will not get out of control.

BORN&RAISED WEST SEATTLEITE March 10, 2009 (6:34 pm)

It is still ugly, and there is bamboo that does not spread and ruin the sidewalks.The bamboo is the only part of this project that I like.

Been here a few decades March 10, 2009 (8:20 pm)

I remember a short 7 years ago during a West Seattle planning meeting that we successfully voted to have the 2 blocks of the Junction left as one story. Not a lot of space; just two simple, little, short blocks where you could be free from MacMonster buildings. If you do have to build big, do you have to build generic? This is just as ugly as the NEW Ballard and the NEW Fremont. Maybe the New Junction likes how generic Wallingford, Ballard, Fremont look.

Steveed March 10, 2009 (8:36 pm)

not special enough to be ugly. It’s deeply boring.

huh March 10, 2009 (8:38 pm)

“as long as a root barrier is used to contain growth” it can break through concrete

“and there is bamboo that does not spread and ruin the sidewalks” actually bamboo by nature spreads, it’s a grass, it’s also one of the strongest fibers you can find and will ruin most anything around it if not consistently maintained.

DALYDBL March 10, 2009 (10:05 pm)

Bamboo is destructive. This building sucks.

Keith March 10, 2009 (10:30 pm)

That 42nd/Alaska view really is the “backside” of this mega-monster, isn’t it?

jeannie March 10, 2009 (11:03 pm)

Ugly, bland, impersonal, generic. Blocks the sunlight, too. I think Conner conned West Seattle.

DrD March 10, 2009 (11:29 pm)

I could live with the height if it wasn’t so profoundly soulless.
The technically impressive rendering shows how out of place that structure will be. It reminds me of the old city hall (then again, “Maxi” dresses are coming back into style, so I guess I’m just fashion-backward). And yes, I’m grumpy tonight.

Herman March 10, 2009 (11:51 pm)

Yawn. Conner loves extracting value from West Seattle. Don’t forget how hard he tried to raze the landmark home on Beach Drive so 6 homes could be built on the front yard.

Herman March 10, 2009 (11:52 pm)

It is tough to do worse than Mural, of course. That one is truly an abomination.

Hmm March 11, 2009 (12:11 am)

Wow, I look at that building at I see none of the things I love about West Seattle in it: history, character, ease, and heart. West Seattle is truly losing its character.

acemotel March 11, 2009 (1:27 am)

OMG this is awful.

Jill Loblaw March 11, 2009 (8:12 am)

Out with the old and in with the yuck. Will West Seattle become Bellevue West?

Kayleigh March 11, 2009 (8:57 am)

Ok, so the white part looks like a hospital or something. It’s still an improvement over the Rocksport.

swimcat March 11, 2009 (10:05 am)

It’s a cool looking building, but it certainly doesn’t fit the character of the Junction. I will certainly miss the ‘Main Street’ appeal that California has now with the quirky store fronts and one or two story buildings. I like the current variety of shops and restaurants, and like that the rents are (I’m assuming) low enough for our local businesses to stay in business.

Jeremiah March 11, 2009 (11:26 am)

Neighbors, this is no longer a bedroom community. This is a vibrant, urban neighborhood. The character, the soul… its still here. There’s just more of us. And I applaud that.
This is Seattle’s future, this is what urban density should be. (The traffic infrastructure should have been put into place prior to all of these developments, but that’s another story.)
Change is the essence of existance.

furor scribendi March 11, 2009 (11:44 am)

We need a community preservation district for a block lining California, from Edmunds to Oregon. There’s enough land for big ugly multi-family projects in the Huling acres, east of Jeff Square, to keep developers happy for a while. If you want to know how bad this project is going to look, imagine it in black ‘n white, which is how it will look thru time with our clouds and rain. Show up at the meeting to voice your opposition to this project!

m March 11, 2009 (3:56 pm)

The character and soul will not be in this structure Jeremiah- it will be yet another generic, sterile boring mixed use building where the only stores/restaurants that can afford the overpriced rent are chains. Where’s the heart and soul of a community if it’s the same thing that can be found in Bellevue or Ballard or Renton? If I wanted that, I’d move to those places. Instead, I like the quirkiness that old-fashioned main streets bring to a town.

I’m not afraid of change either- I just feel that there are some things that are worth preserving. There’s a huge difference.

swimcat March 11, 2009 (3:59 pm)

I’m not afraid of change either- I just feel that there are some things that are worth preserving. There’s a huge difference.

acemotel March 11, 2009 (10:42 pm)

It’s not the density that’s awful. It’s this building.

pam March 12, 2009 (12:20 am)

I actually do not mind the smaller brick buildings. The giant (though set back) building is the one that worries me most. The dark grey massive ‘monolith’ will just loom like the death star over the other 2 buildings. Maybe switching the colors of the light brick building and making it darker and make the giant building lighter (not white). Maybe a light moss color. Something different so it isn’t so looming – and add some character as well. Everything needs some ‘architectural details!’ Brick detailing, features and accents. Not overly modern so it stands out like a sore thumb. It should be apart of the area, not fight with it. The shorter brick buildings are a start. Continue down that same path with the rest!

TDe March 13, 2009 (6:49 am)

The giant building IS ugly…and of course will not match the rest of the neighborhood, so the other buildings will have to be destroyed and larger ones put into place to match.. And soon we’ll have that lovely canyon effect on the street, with limited sun. We’re almost there now in the Jefferson Square area. Don’t forget to add lots of parking meters for the cars that will jam the area because of overpopulation, and I’ve no doubt that zoning laws will soon change in the neighborhoods nearby to add more apartments and condos and soon we’ll be even more generic looking than Bellevue ever dreamed of being. I really wish a large brick office/apartment building could be built next door to the Mayor’s house so he could enjoy the same views and lack of sun that some of the rest of us will soon enjoy.

Sorry, comment time is over.