See 4 new options for next Conner project Design Review meeting

56bricks April 21, 2009 (7:54 am)

Aaaaarrrgghhhh!

bridge to somewhere April 21, 2009 (8:11 am)

i find it curious when architects offer renderings that assume the viewer will be floating in space. with the exception of the last rendering, all perspectives assume we will be enjoying this building from the southwest corner of the rooftop of speak easy records. so much for human scale!

brandon April 21, 2009 (8:27 am)

Been to Mercer Island lately? Bellevue west. Just like this. Why is an industrial blob so popular with builders? Guess what in 10 years the look will be like? The rest of Calif will be transformed into this mess.

J April 21, 2009 (8:38 am)

I’m feeling stupid…can someone please explain what’s different, other than the colors?

KBear April 21, 2009 (8:41 am)

Just imagine that you’re looking at it from the balcony of an empty condo on the third floor of an even larger development on the opposite corner.

bridge to somewhere April 21, 2009 (8:55 am)

hahaha, good suggestion kbear!

Gene April 21, 2009 (9:02 am)

J,

Looks like you’re about right – main differences are the colors. Yipee. The other differences I see on quick glance:

1. More movement/jutting out of the front facing wall in the 4th design
2. Extra tree/shrub in the third design

I don’t really see how any of these designs really fit in with the character of the junction, especially at street level. The architecture is something I’d expect more from parts of downtown or SLU.

If they are going with such a different look, one would think people would be demanding something beautiful – not another “modern box” that will look dated within a few years.

KBear April 21, 2009 (9:30 am)

“2. Extra tree/shrub in the third design”

Congratulations, Gene! You spotted the “architectural detail”.

Andre April 21, 2009 (11:09 am)

There are 2 facts I think you need to get used to: 1. The Junction will become an urban hub for West Seattle. 2. The predominant architecture will be modern. I personally happen to like these facts, but can also see why others do not. Never less, it’s going to happen.
In terms of the upcoming design review I do prefer Option A. I like how they brought in color without making it look gaudy. I also like how they created horizontal bands, which will make the building look shorter than it actually is. At the same time they also have strong, yet broken up, vertical elements through the way they arranged the decks.
I’d be happy with that option as long as it actually gets build that way.

Adrienne April 21, 2009 (11:15 am)

I agree with Andre about the two facts of the Junction. I also agree about the horizontal bands making the building appear to be shorter.

I am curious what people dislike so much about modern architecture.

Courtney April 21, 2009 (12:28 pm)

par for course with all the new junction construction, these all look like boxes painted different colors and stacked haphazrdly! Street level retail doesn’t look inviting and the tall apartments above are going to remove the charm of the junction (not to mention blocking sunlight!)

I don’t resent mural and Altamira because they’re not on main streets of junction. This feels like we’re turning the junction into downtown high-rises.

I just wish there were better ways to revitalize the neighborhood; I like mixed use buildings but some of the character of our neighborhood could be retained.

ang April 21, 2009 (1:02 pm)

well said courtney! i really don’t like that they are changing those two blocks of the junction. I love going to dinner or going out in my town because of the fact that it’s still “small town”-ish… Yes, we’re starting to see a trend of chain restaurants, yes, there are WAY more condo’s going up everywhere… but do you really have to mess with the heart of west seattle? why can’t those two blocks remain “small town”?? It’s sad… I know i’ll have to get used to the change. It reminds me of how alki has changed. It went from quaint beach homes to condo central. I guess it was only a matter of time before the junction did the same :(

Mike April 21, 2009 (1:03 pm)

I think the developers and (those approving these boxes) have forgotten what makes West Seattle so appealing. The small town feel and pedestrian friendly sidewalks make for great window shopping and other outings. If they want more density, be sure to work on the infrastructure and the street level appeal first, then they can choose whatever color building they want next. And where are these businesses going to go btw? Rocksport? SuperSupplements?

J April 21, 2009 (1:39 pm)

Actually, I don’t object to the junction building up–I think the urban density is both inevitable and a good thing, because living densely leaves a lighter carbon footprint.

And I find nothing wrong with modern architecture per se; there’s lovely modern architecture and chintzy or tedious modern architecture. I do think these examples lean toward the latter, and we’d do well to push for better, as this building will greatly affect the atmosphere of the heart of our town for decades.

MellyMel April 21, 2009 (2:45 pm)

Can some one point out to me the difference between scheme A and the old scheme? Thx.

Adam April 21, 2009 (2:59 pm)

Here’s my opinion:

Take the orange lower block of A, the style of the main block (secondary gray block, tertiary green block, and repeated cruciform penthouse window mullions) from B, and the penthouse window mullion color (and extra tree) from C.

You get a unique coloring, a triple-building massing that is pleasing to the eye and horizontally-oriented, and a penthouse mullion coloring that matches the street-level awning color, making the building seem shorter.

Adam April 21, 2009 (3:03 pm)

MellyMel-
old: Red corner block, solid green main block, windows of main block are isolated and variously shaped, windows and balconies are smaller

A: Orange corner block, solid green horizontals w/ solid orange verticals, windows of main block are basically horizontal ribbons broken into standard shapes, windows and balconies are larger.

brandon April 21, 2009 (3:16 pm)

Yes, we are all doomed to be shaped like mindless cookie cutters. Soon, we can look like every other neighborhood in Seattle. Reminds me of the old tract housing on the eastside and points north. Not modern. B-O-R-I-N-G. because they have no charactor, just blandness. Older style buildings such as the existing ones give charactor, not butter. High Point is another great example, just paint it different colors. There are places to update, and places to cherish some of our roots.

K April 21, 2009 (3:42 pm)

I don’t have any problem with Modern Architecture, in fact I like it. That being said, this is not modern, it is just what is in vogue right now. My problem is that when you look at Ballard and Queen Anne, both have lost their souls because of developments like this one. Old town Ballard is still wonderful but Market street has lost its charm. Queen Anne Ave now feels like the Eastside. West Seattle is changing and it will become more dense but it should be done in a way that doesn’t kill the character. Morgan Junction is fantastic and would actually be a great place for a development like this one. For that matter just move it down California towards Right Aid and preserve the heart and Soul of West Seattle without being NIMBYesc

Jen April 21, 2009 (3:57 pm)

Really – do we HAVE to just accept this? As mentioned by others, MERCER ISLAND has become a dull, boring, uninspired downtown, based in a large part on city planning like this. While I’m sure the architect has done the best they can, the city can be really be considering the long-time impact of these decisions more closely. Growth for growth’s sake (in any economic time) is a mistake: we can’t afford to allow our neighborhoods to all look the same. Nor to become dark, enclosed corridors (as in Mercer Island). What about maintaining some intergity as a city? Why not look different, and not be identical to MI, Bellevue, Renton, and all those other places that are trading their heritage for cash. Yes, more apartments and retail units could be great for tax revenue – but let’s really think about the long-term impacts. I grew up in a small town in that stayed small due to choices made by the citizens: a slow growth policy that accommodated low-income housing along with the agricultural and historical heritage of the valley. It’s grown from 50K to 65K in 30 years, which is admirable. It’s vital, it’s lovely, it’s thought out and it’s smart. Let’s not succumb to the influences that have given us no trees in the Issaquah plateau area, that have given us clear-cut hillsides in the Eastside, that have given us Mercer Island looking like downtown Middle Of America, that has turned lovely Eastside into suburban dreariness. Let’s grow – but let’s be unique about it and maintain our neighborhood feel. Let’s stay Seattle!

Denny April 21, 2009 (4:39 pm)

is “none of the above” an option?

I’m disappointed that I have read significant feedback on this site and through its coverage of the multiple design review boards crying out for a more uniquely WS style, incorporating more of the historical look of the area, and those requests have clearly been ignored.

This building will age as well as Jefferson Square, and we will be stuck with it. Only it will be on the most prominent corner in our little burg.

Thanks a lot, Charlie.

publicadministrator April 21, 2009 (5:39 pm)

I have only two objections to this design.

First is the bland spareness of the design for what is arguably the most prominent intersection in West Seattle. The modernerity isn’t so much the problem, but rather this corner deserves a structure befitting the location, rather than a generic monolith common to anywhere and nowhere.

The Weber Thompson made no real attempt to include architectural detailing, and the DRB has proven spineless to respond to the public input. The result is the four final choices have more visual continuity with Jefferson Square than the brick & mortar of the Junction. It also has little appeal on a pedestrian scale in what an area of heavy foot traffic. In my opinion this is a great loss.

I applaud the increased urban density right next to multiple bus routes in a vibrant merchant district, and look forward to welcoming the future residential and commercial tenants.

My second objection: There is still no definitive commitment that the landscaping and sidewalk amenities of the eastern building will compliment the new park being planned right across the street, missing the chance to develop a visual gateway to the Junction.

John April 21, 2009 (9:34 pm)

I don’t object to the building quite as much as the retail that moves in. Subway, Kinkos, and blah blah blah. The junction might become another bad strip mall some day. Not that losing Super supplements would be tragic. It’s too bad that we the people who live in W. Seattle have little to no say. These design meetings are an illusion to make the public think they’re involved in the process, but at the end of the day it’s $$$$$$$$ that decides the outcome.

Dis April 21, 2009 (11:03 pm)

What a great future we have to look forward to when any place looks like every other place. It’s what happens when the motive is profit. It’s about money – not art, or community, or character, or charm, or beauty.

jetcitygirl April 22, 2009 (12:41 pm)

This current design is not really “modern”, it is sadly “mundane”. I think we have enough generic “mundane” in the world.

West Seattle Junction neighbors and anyone who grew up here should embrace the city and ask them to help us design a “great” building for this location.

Look around the area and look at our history. We’re a quirky mix of a neighborhood with retailers and restaurants that have personality, both hip and traditional.Our West Seattle building personality can and should be better than this. West Seattle HS and Madison Middle School, and Holy Rosary School & church building all have preserved and endured. Can’t we make a building in the junction that will compliment these and last?

Can we ask this developer to put some better materials into it – something that shows love and respect for the character of our neighborhood?
Maybe we can get some public works dollars for the developer.

This building should be better. Look at the new Dakota building up the street on California AVE,nof the Post Office: Nice materials, design embraces the old and the new, it has a inviting street level experience. The Dakota building will look good 20years from now.

WS Residents love our small retailers and tasty restaurants. A better building that compliments the junction and has more to offer for small retailers with cool ambience at street level would be great.

You can ask the city for more time to get it right for the future tomorrow:

Thursday, April 23rd, 6:30 West Seattle Christian Church

Thank you West Seattle Blog!

jetcitygirl April 22, 2009 (4:07 pm)