To construct a 22 story building with 92 residential units above 23,000 sq. ft. of administrative office and 3,000 sq. ft. of retail at ground level. Portions of existing structure (floors one through six on second avenue and on Pike Street) to remain. Review includes demolition of 30,000 sq. ft. of existing building.
Huh? So portions (floors one through six) remain despite demolition of 30k square feet? Yet a 22 story building goes up? Where exactly? On top of the building? The Eitel is sandwiched in between two other structures and the old building to the west of it has its own d istinct Land Use Action and corresonding demo plan. Before I give DPD a call to ask about it, who’s got a theory as to what this means ?
 |
| The Eitel Building at Second and Pike. |
 |
| The building entrance. |
 |
| Southeast corner of Eitel Building. |
 |
| South face of building. |
 |
| Notice of proposed land use action, posted in Eitel window. |
I have no theory. But I am glad if some of the building remains. I worked for a few months in the comic shop that used to be in that building.
i think it means that “portions” is code for plans to keep the facade. the 22-story building will be all new inside, though, from the ground up.
Elisa wrote exactly what I was thinking–they’ll keep just the facade in the front and construct behind it. It’s Seattle’s half-assed way of “preserving history” to kowtow to the local govt’s ill-conceived “urban density” plan. A poor compromise, as far as I’m concerned. Well, at least they are preserving some of it, as opposed to suffering the probable fate of a historic building a few blocks away:
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/10/smashing_history_for_profit
Sorry, do I sound bitter about Seattle continuously trashing what little history it has left for profit? I am. It’s really sad.
Agree with Elisa that this means they are going to gut the insides of the building and keep only the 2nd Ave and Pike St. facades. Since the 7th floor was a later addition it looks like they are going to remove that floor from the remaining facade as well. Then it sounds like they will build a brand new building within the facade that will rise above the facade up to 22 stories. It may be possible that the building to the west is part of the same project as well with the new building expanding into that area too, but haven’t read anything on that DPD notice.
This kind of facade saving and building a new building within has seemed to be more common in recent years. They did it with a building at 2nd and Lenora in Belltown several years ago where they kept the one story ornate facade of an old building (possibly a theater at one time) and built a new high rise behind the facade. It looks like they are doing similar at 12th and Pine on Capitol Hill across from the East Precinct Police Station as well.
Everytime an old building is torn down people just say ” what’s one more building?” every day. One day were going to turn around and nothing will be left but hollowed out buildings and high rise condos. You should see Downtown Muskegon, Mich. If it were there…..
What about that nice, big ,fancy new building down the street? Isn’t that for sale?
I asked Bill Zosel, from my old neighborhood’s comm council (who deals quite a bit with land use and local gov’t). Here’s his response:
“Good question and I’m not sure. But take a look at the building on 12th Ave. and Pine St. (across from the cop shop). Maria Barrientos and her group is developing a new and taller building there while “preserving” the existing building. The shell of the existing building is all that remains. All of the interior (floors, walls, etc.) has been removed. If you get a chance to go by there it’s a pretty interesting sight/site. I’m assuming that the new building’s structure will be put in place inside the shell and proceed from there. “
Good news everyone. I e-mailed Historic Seattle and this is what they had to say:
———-
Jess – That is an old sign. In 2006 the Eitel Building was landmarked without the owner’s consent. He allowed it to deteriorate for decades with the hope that he could demolish and build a new skyscraper in its place–he remains resentful that it was landmarked. In 2007 the owner and his architect proposed a 22 story addition which would have overwhelmed or demolished the landmarked building. When the addition proposal was reviewed at the Architectural Review Committee, a subcommittee of the Landmarks Preservation Board, it was resoundingly disapproved. This application remains on DPD’s records, but cannot move forward without approval from the ARC. The owner has not yet returned with another revised submittal to remodel or add to the building. Because it is on a corner, this property uses two addresses (120 Pike Street and 1501 Second Avenue) which makes it difficult to search on the Department of Planning and Development Permit Records website. The landmarking process used 1501, but the DPD permit process used 120. You can read the permit application at:
http://web1.seattle.gov/DPD/permitstatus/Project.aspx?id=3004150
The DPD planner is Bruce Rips (206-615-1392).
Maybe I’m alone in this, but I’d argue preserving the shell of a building is a lot better than tearing it down. Old buildings have two major uses: 1) a sense of history, which for the 95% of people who don’t enter a given building is largely about seeing the detail and quality of materials used in the facade and 2) cheap real estate. If a building can’t perform #2 (because the land it’s on is becoming too valuable), preserving the facade at least preserves #1.
I have a friend who works in commercial real estate who has been inside this building, and she says it’s quite cool: There is a staircase that is especially striking.
I hope they save it.
The building alluded to at 2nd & Lenora is the former Crystal Pool, later Bethel Temple, now Cristalla. It is arguably facadism, but I believe not much was left of B. Marcus Priteca’s original building except what they saved. What they did on the corner is actually closer to Priteca’s design than what Bethel Temple had there. Not that he planned a skyscraper to rise out of his facade or anything, but I’ve seen worse.
I also found your entries very interesting. In fact after reading, I had to go show it to my friend and she ejoyed it as well!