Update: Conner project to get one more Design Review meeting

That’s one of the new images we’re seeing as the Conner Homes two-building project along Alaska from California to 42nd comes back for its fourth, and potentially final, session before the Southwest Design Review Board; more than 30 people are in a meeting room at West Seattle Christian Church, where Jim Westcott from Weber Thompson architects has shown some of the “architectural detail” that the board and members of the public asked about last time. That detail will include panels and trim on balconies, as well as different colors of brick; another major issue to be settled, will the developer be allowed to have the parking-garage entrance/exit on 42nd, instead of on the alley as per city policy? More details on all this later, and when there is a decision, we will post it here (with a detailed article to follow afterward). 9:25 PM NOTE: Meeting’s still going, after almost 3 hours, in case you were wondering. Betting at this point it won’t be over before 10. 9:47 UPDATE: The board’s decision: The project is going to have one more Design Review meeting, meant to be “focused.” When that was proposed, a lawyer for Conner Homes said, “This project has been through 15 hours of public meetings,” and the two veteran board members who are about to end their terms snapped back that this is such an important project, what’s another meeting? Plus, Foster noted, “You could have done a better job” adding later, “Give us your best work.” They’re proposing April 23rd, which would be a regular DR meeting if there were any projects to decide (and right now, for that night, there aren’t – we’ll confirm the date/time/place as soon as city planners finalize it). The main remaining concern, the issue on which that meeting will focus: The form of the west building — the one at California/Alaska — looking for a little more modulation, a little less of a “monolithic” feel, more interest to the facades along the street. “I know you’re frustrated,” said outgoing board chair David Foster to the project architect, “but you’ve come a long way.” FRIDAY MORNING NOTE: Working on the detailed article now; two other things we wanted to note from the hearing toplines – the board did agree to let the project keep a residential entrance on California SW, instead of having retail entrances there, and they also agreed to grant a “departure” to allow the entry/exit for the underground parking garage to be on 42nd SW, though city policy usually requires such entries to be on alleys.

22 Replies to "Update: Conner project to get one more Design Review meeting"

  • B April 3, 2009 (7:50 am)

    It was nice to see a decent turn out last night! I have a feeling that contributed to the decision for one more review. Can’t hurt!

  • Meghan April 3, 2009 (8:16 am)

    Maybe the committee will be able to junk it up a little bit more with yet another design review meeting. Everyone can put their 2 cents worth in and the final project will be further away from the architects’ vision than ever. Heck, why not stick some big Victorian ironwork on the facade? That’s what most people understand. Ugh.

  • west side sun lover April 3, 2009 (8:26 am)

    Meghan, nice to see someone else shares my feelings on the design review board. I have attended some meetings in the past and have left feeling just as frustrated. It would be nice if we had a little more true local representation on our board.

  • Michael April 3, 2009 (9:06 am)

    That is (and likely will be) one very generic building. It’s likely the architects used a one-size-fits-all blueprint that “worked” (got approved) before.
    .
    Frankly, “junking it up” at least might leave us with something a tiny bit unique, rather than something that has no grounding in its neighborhood or a vision of any kind.

  • sam April 3, 2009 (9:16 am)

    Re: Monday morning note; ‘the residential entrance is on California’ are there ANY commercial entrances on California ?

    regardless of whether or not this is a flat 7 story white box, poor attention to the urban design and the way the project meets the street on California is what will hurt the junction more than any type of architectural decoration or lack thereof.

    I also understand there is a cut out and overhang at the corner- but there are no commercial/ business entrances there. that seems unwise as well.

  • KT April 3, 2009 (9:19 am)

    A builder should really just go to the DRB and say “I want to build something, will you design it for me”? It would save a lot of time and money. How many chances does the DRB get to demand changes? This is ridiculous and I fail to see why anyone would build something in this city.

  • aia April 3, 2009 (9:41 am)

    Well, maybe if Conner Homes wouldn’t have hired the laughing stock of the Seattle architectural community, they would have an approved design by now.

    This is an extremely important project that will set the precedent for all of the inevitable development that will change the face of the Junction as we know it.

    I agree that some of the public’s desire for 19th century masonry detailing might be impracticle, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are many problems with the Weber Thompson design.

    The architect’s seem more concerned with the appearance of resident amenities in the 75′ deep cavern of an alley than the appearance of the building from the pedestrian’s point of view from the street, or from the car as one approaches The Junction from Alaska.

    The idea that a few dozen pastel-colored balconies tacked on to a 75′ tall dark-rey box of cemetitious panels with no relief or patterning except an orange-peel texture is emblematic of the spirit and the character of West Seattle is laughable…no actually it’s insulting.

  • I had heard April 3, 2009 (9:49 am)

    Why would anyone build in this city? Huh, and yet…except for the recent nation (world) wide economic downtown recently…LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of folks love to build in Seattle. From reading local blogs I hear that we have the worst city government in the world, pay more taxes than everyone else, are more anti-business than everyone else, and have the most intrusive evil gov’ment telling people what to do, blah blah blah…and YET I saw NOTHING but giant towers and construction cranes in the last 8 years. South Lake Union is still FULL of construction cranes. That is odd? Why ARE so many people moving to Seattle, and building here since it’s SO bad (supposedly) compared to everyplace else? Why isn’t everyone moving in mass to Walla Walla, or Alabama or some other part of “real America”? Since they have lower taxes and are more business friendly, the free market should naturally move people/business there. SO why isn’t Mississippi or Alabama the corporate/business center of America instead of New York, Chicago and LA (the most highly taxed and liberal parts of the country)? I’ll worry when Microsoft, Starbucks and Amazon move to Troy Alabama. Tell then, relax, Seattle is doing just fine. It reminds me of that quote, “America has the worst form of government on earth, except for all the others”. And also note that Congress has a 15% approval rating and a 97% re-election rate. Everyone just loves to complain. ;-)

  • villagegreen April 3, 2009 (9:51 am)

    Meghan – I’m all for progress and am glad the ugly buildings in that corner of the Junction are going to be razed. Also, I’m a big fan of modern design.

    However, I actually laughed out loud when you mentioned the “architects’ vision.” If you see a “vision” in this building other than designing the cheapest building possible that is just barely passable as a feasible project, then I seriously question your vision.

    Sure, the building doesn’t look that much different from a lot of newer buildings around Seattle, but is there something wrong with expecting a bit more? I have many friends who are architects and it’s laughable if you think this is the best that Conner can do. What we’ve learned (or should have) from the condo/development craze of the early 2000’s is that replacing one piece of junk with another subpar effort only leads to more problems down the line.

    Maybe it is too late to make any real significant changes to this genero box of a building. But I applaud those in West Seattle who aren’t willing to sit idly by and watch their neighborhood change for the worse.

  • sam April 3, 2009 (10:24 am)

    regarding the design review process…
    WT is not willing or able to break down the massing of the upper residential floors on Calif. as the image shows they’ve brought back essentially the same envelope as they did the last time.
    and it’s too far into the project to make substantial changes to the massing or add visual interest to the Calif. facade by any type of meaningful vertical articulation.

    I think requiring them to come back to the DRB to try and get them to dress up the flat facade with architectural decoration (didn’t somebody mention gargoyles) is a waste of time.

  • B April 3, 2009 (10:48 am)

    These meetings are never pretty. I would agree that the board could do better. I felt that some of the questions being asked by the board were completely loaded. The more of these I go to the more I learn why things are the way they are. I’m not a design professional by any means and I think sometimes people do suggest things based on personal preference. Everyone is an expert. :) I don’t think the developers started off on the best foot either. But it’s not like they are doing everything wrong. My biggest concern is that the project is started and FINISHED. I’ve got a huge “whole” behind my house that isn’t going to be filled anytime soon. :(

  • WSB April 3, 2009 (10:49 am)

    Still hacking on the very long form of this so we can publish a lot more of what was said, shown, and suggested. Gargoyles were mentioned in a somewhat joking reference, although there also were appreciative comments made for Rene Commons, who showed up at the last meeting showing some of the historic architectural detail in the area – TR

  • B-Squared April 3, 2009 (11:37 am)

    i think it should have walruses not gargoyles. at least there is precedence;) or maybe narwhals.

  • publicadministrator April 3, 2009 (11:45 am)

    After speaking up at this meeting and once more being ignored, I’m still confused and frustrated.

    The DRB appears ready to stamp approval to this souless, generic schlock of a design without addressing the popular concern that these buildings have little visual continuity to neighboring structures. There is no architectural detailing that ties this dvmpt to the others at the intersection occupied by Easy Street and Cupcake Royale.

    How can so many architecture and design professionals in the room repeatedly fail to see (or willingly ignore) the public’s fear that this
    se corner of the junction will soon resemble a discount factory outlet?

    When one board member described Jefferson Square as the ugliest dvmpt. in West Seattle I thought ‘at least someone gets it’. But that was dashed when he later said retail tenants of the Connor building will do the most to provide the visual appeal.

    Does that mean the DRB is counting on the logo of Subway sandwich shop, or some other franchisee, to provide aesthetics?

    At the very least could DRB request that the landscaping along Alaska Street, be coordinated with the park going in across the street? This is the entrance to the junction from those arriving from the bridge. A symmetrical canopy of trees would go a long way to improve the streetscape.

    DRB ask yourselves: WWOD (What would Olmsted do?)

  • Andre April 3, 2009 (11:59 am)

    I’ve been at the meeting last night (my first one in a long time due to the joys of parenthood). Compared to other meetings the architect’s presentation of what they changed from the last meeting lacked any substance making it feel a little bit bizarre at times. The task was to work on the tall part of the West building to make it look less like a shoe box. To counter Meghan and echo what AIA said, there is no vision for this part of the building – it is just crappy architecture.

    I was expecting them to play with the modulation, add overhangs, recess the decks or add some bold, yet simple elements. Instead they came up with dressing up the existing decks in way that left many speechless. It was kind of the equivalent of adding a carbon spoiler on a Dacia Sandero.

    I think the architects (or Conner?) played dumb and hoped to squeeze through. Hence it was great to see that the review board called BS on that and asked for another meeting solely focusing on this part of the building.

  • KSJ April 3, 2009 (3:16 pm)

    One of the main problems is, and will be, the developer’s desire to maximize allowable building space to make maximum money. Overhangs? Not usually allowed by the city. Recessed decks? Eat into unit square footage, only interior square footage counts. Modulation? Again, cuts into interior square footage. Unless architectural requirements are changed to require these details so that developers base their original proforma on better design, it’s not going to happen.

  • B April 3, 2009 (3:33 pm)

    KSJ – That is good insight! A lot of the design elements get canned by the all mighty dollar (a little less mighty these days). I don’t think they always ignore people on purpose, but I also think they don’t want to just come out and say “we can’t afford to do that” which would get mixed response. Also, I don’t think the design review board has as much “teeth” as people think they do. They can make it difficult for the developer but at the end of the day they can push it through and wear them down. Am I wrong in thinking that?

  • I had heard April 3, 2009 (3:58 pm)

    I totally agree about the ugly “shoebox” nature of this thing. But lets not get TOO carried away with rose colored glasses about how great it USED TO BE. Most of the buildings up and down California are HORRIBLE! There are a few exceptions, the apts across from Charlestown Cafe, the Cupcake Royale and Easy Street buildings. But the PetCo building, Jefferson Square, RockSport, and most of the retail in that area consists of the worst of nasty 60s/70s design. The sort of thing that took King Street Station and ‘updated it’ with drop ceilings and drywall over marble. Just sick. So this building DOES need help, but lets not pretend it’s JUST a modern trend to build crappy looking places. :)

  • Michael April 3, 2009 (4:13 pm)

    Again, everyone can go around and around, but before you can get what you want, you have to know WHAT you want – which is precisely how developers are able to shove through their low-risk, low-cost generic any-city boxes.
    .
    Look at the photos. This is a standard-issue apartment building. There is nothing whatsoever that nods to its walkable neighborhood, thereby spoiling the very reason people would want to live there. 15-foot-high glass and non-functional awnings say “we haven’t really BEEN to the neighborhood.” Get that lower story into scale. This isn’t Redmond. (Hell, look at the places like it downtown. They’re having trouble getting merchants.)
    .
    Do they have merchants lined up? Replacements for the neighborhood places they’re displacing? No? What a surprise!
    .
    I actually don’t mind density, but not the kind where the developer and architect don’t think.

  • sam April 3, 2009 (8:45 pm)

    KT- the DRB kind of does- tell people how to design…
    they have design guidelines.

    http://tinyurl.com/cz5l9g

    these are the guidelines for the junction.

    A-10 has recommendations for addressing the corner.

    then, there’s the height bulk and scale diagram under section B, page 8- the DRB recommends diagram B, but WT went with something more like A.
    If they had started off by taking some of these recommendations under consideration, we wouldn’t be where we are now.

    and the guidelines acknowledge that the code allows development that is much larger that what is there now, but it give recommendations on how to better introduce a larger development into the current scale of the junction.

  • g April 3, 2009 (8:58 pm)

    this building lacks creativity and charm, but so do 60% of the buildings in the junction or, for that matter, west seattle. this building will bring some much needed density to the junction, hopefully at night. wouldn’t it be great to actually see more than 15 people in the junction after dark? my one concern is they lease the ground space out to some useless retailer like super supplements again. get those bozos out. let’s get a bookstore or a killer take out joint. i’d love to see a great family friendly diner there even.

  • Dis April 3, 2009 (9:25 pm)

    Villagegreen, I had the same reaction to the comment about the “architects’ vision.” The only vision evident here is for the bottom line. This building is not about art, or beauty, or community, or location, or context. It’s about profit and nothing else.

Sorry, comment time is over.