This Thursday night, the city’s Southwest Design Review Board meets to consider the plans for those two Cali Ave teardowns we 
lamented in extended posts a couple weeks back: 3811 Cali (left) and 6053 Cali (right). It’s at the SW Precinct (near Home Depot) — 3811 is first on the agenda at 6:30; 6053 follows at 8.
The architect and maybe the developer of the 3811 California project will be at the Admiral Neighborhood Association meeting this Tuesday at 7pm. We meet in the basement here: http://www.admiralchurch.org/
NK Architects is the design firm for both projects, but we’re hopefully focusing on the 3811 California project, as it’s ALMOST in the Admiral Neighborhood. The other one to the south probably falls into the Morgan Plan area.
Admiral Neighborhood Association info here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AdmiralNeighborhood/
Hope to see you there!
Mark
What are the odds the public will have any say over whether 3811 gets torn down? If it’s already a done deal as are most (all?) of these “proposed” land use things then I wont waste my time. Architects, developers, and their ilk appear to be able to do whatever the property is zoned for. This block is already congested enough. Did anyone else notice the businesses that are in houses just south of the Charlestown St Cafe have proposed land action use signs infront of them?
The public will have no say over whether either building is torn down, absent intervention through the landmarks preservation process. The purpose of design review is to discuss the look of the replacement building.
Why is it worded as proposed when 99% of the time, the structure is razed or changed? That dosen’t sound like a proposal, sounds definite to me. Re-word to definite land action use.
Unfortunate update…
The architect for the 3811 California won’t be able to make it to the ANA meeting on May 8th. We will try again soon.
Note to everyone’s comments above…
“We must be the change we wish to see in the world.” – Gandhi
MW
What I’d like to know is why charming, well-maintained buildings are torn down, when absolute eyesores like this one continue to be a blight on California: http://www.cayceandgain.com/listingview.php?listingID=94 (4116 California)
Who the heck would rent that place? Aren’t there any city ordinances that could force a building owner to at least minimally maintain their property?
MW – perhaps Gandhi quotes are more suited to the lying property owners in this case who didn’t have the backbone to be honest with their tenants? In another thread, a tenant of 3811 stated thsi fact. Why are you for tearing down a perfectly good building and displacing those who already live there? You are involved in all of these development issues.. what do you have to gain? You claim to not be an achitect but you must work closely with them or something based on your previous comments. I know I am not alone in my over development concerns from what has been posted in other “development” threads. It has been a few weeks and I don’t quite understand what you meant by the change comment. If it was directed towards me, I’m for preservation but I don’t have a voice because of zoning so forgive me for being frustrated by it.
I see over and over again in comments that people understand the need for development but why do the developers always use such poor taste when designing their new buildings. As a person who works with many developers I wish you all would look for development either in Seattle or elsewhere that is pleasing to you. Most developers wish to offer the public a desirable product but find it hard to be real creative with all of the zoning constraints. Please don’t just complain but give some needed input as to what would be something that you think would fit into the area and would be financially feasable too. If you like it or not many people are moving to the Seattle area due to the many jobs and the great city we have here. They all need housing too so the more input and constructive help you can offer the better the end result will be!!
Sorry, comment time is over.
| 9 COMMENTS