Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement


Most Commented

Crosscut articles of the past 10 days with the most reader comments.

The case for more rail transit
(121 comments)

Sound Transit showdown
(22 comments)

Last stand for the Alaskan Way Viaduct
(18 comments)

At the top floors, the high and mighty are in denial
(16 comments)

Little boxes, crammed together
(10 comments)

Our cultural amnesia
(9 comments)

More fun than Deliverance!
(7 comments)

Campaign strategy session
(5 comments)

The governor releases her IRS return; Dino Rossi still won't
(5 comments)

Bus envy
(5 comments)

Mossback »

Jun 26, 2007 12:00 AM | last updated Jun 26, 2007 1:58 PM
Ballard Denny's.

The Denny's restaurant in Seattle's Ballard neighborhood (top and bottom), with a resembling information booth at the 1962 World's Fair.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Another roadside attraction is about to be demolished

Hold the wrecking ball. You know that funny looking Denny's in Seattle's Ballard neighborhood? It's slated to be razed for condos. So what? It turns out it's an important piece of modern architecture with historic links to Seattle's coffee culture.

By Knute Berger

Last week, the Ballard News Tribune reported that the landmark Denny's restaurant on the highly visible, very desirable corner of 15th Avenue Northwest and Northwest Market Street in Seattle is slated for destruction in early 2008.

In a sense, this isn't news. The property was purchased by the Seattle Monorail Project. They were going to put a station on the site to serve the Ballard neighborhood, and it was assumed the Denny's was going to come down. But the voters nixed the Green Line, and the property was sold off. Now Ballard is booming and the highest and best use of the site, they say, is condos and retail.

All of this is part of the too-rapid transformation of Seattle's low-cost, working-class, Scandinavian enclave into into a densely developed tribute to New Urbanism. The scale and speed of the change is shocking. Every week, there's a new story about the remaking of the face and fabric of Ballard. Chains are moving in, condos are rising, and the old character is disappearing. Some even say you better see Ballard before it isn't Ballard anymore.

One longtime icon has been that tacky Denny's — and who, after all, is going to love a Denny's or consider it part of Ballard's heritage? But that distinctive roof, a kind of A-frame with a curl that has the look of a Norwegian stave church crossed with a Japanese pagoda, has always attracted attention and set it apart. And despite its rather seedy present appearance — how many Denny's have a hermetically sealed bar? — for decades this diner, especially in its pre-Denny's incarnation, was a major social center for old Ballard.

I thought the building might be a refugee from the Seattle World's Fair of 1962 — various pavilions and structures found their way around the region after the fair. One became a pancake house in South Seattle; the Bubbleator is a greenhouse in someone's yard. If you scan postcards of the fair, you'll find a similar roof on the World's Fair Information Booth. I asked around, but no one seemed to know if the Denny's had been a fair building, but it's definitely of that era. I must have been holding the memory of that roof line in my head since I visited the fair at age 8.

So I went down to the city's Department of Planning and Development and pulled the building permit and plans. My hunch about the fair was wrong, but what I found was way more interesting.

It turns out the building was designed for the Ballard site in 1962 just after the fair and built in 1964. It opened as a Manning's Cafeteria, one of a small chain of restaurants. At its peak, there were about 40 Manning's in nine western states. Manning's was family-owned and founded in Seattle at the Pike Place Market as a coffee company in 1908 — so Starbucks wasn't the first coffee chain that started there. The original flagship Manning's is now Lowell's, a Market institution. The business expanded from coffee into cafeterias and food service. The Manning family relocated to the Bay Area in the 1920s, and so did the headquaters of the growing chain.

That probably explains the most significant part of this architectural saga. It turns out the building was designed by a major Bay Area mid-century modern architect named Clarence W. Mayhew (1906-1994). Mayhew is primarily known as the designer of modern houses in the 1940s and '50s, many of them high-end commissions in the San Francisco suburbs where folks had space, view property, and money.

But that era of architecture in California was also known for what we think of as modern roadside architecture, also know as "Googie" architecture, named for an early Los Angeles coffee shop that epitomized the style — the essence of which is post-World War II fast-food eateries, motels, gas stations, and Vegas casinos.

It was cutting edge, it was commercial, and, unlike most modern architecture, it was popular, according to author and San Jose Mercury News architecture critic Alan Hess. Hess is the author of Googie Redux: Ultramodern Roadside Architecture (Chronicle Books, 2004), a guide to the genre.

The Googie style of space-age motels and diners that look like car fins have, he writes, "become as much a symbol of the fifties as Elvis Presley or a '57 Chevy." It's the same era of architecture enshrined at the Jetsons-era Century 21 Exposition of 1962, the Space Needle perhaps being the ultimate example of Googie. It's been revived in the retro marketing of local condo project, Expo 62. You can see a gallery of Googie here and some examples of Seattle Googie here.

Preservationists are particularly interested in Googie designs because many of these structures are being torn down just as critics and historians have found them to be important expressions of the modern, exuberant, high-tech suburbanism that defined the era. Modernism, says Hess, is more than the International Style.

Mayhew's firm was in the middle of things. According to Mayhew's surviving partner, H.L. Thiederman, they did restaurants for Manning's in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and other western cities. Hess says, "I've just written a book that includes Mayhew as one of those excellent but neglected West Coast architects who deserve more attention."

The Mayhew connection with the Denny's in Ballard was news to Hess, who calls the building "fascinating." Alan Michelson, head of the Architecture-Urban Planning Library at the University of Washington, says that when it comes to examples of Googie, the Ballard Denny's is "a pretty damn good one." He laments that "Ballard's changing too quickly" and that all traces of the old neighborhood are being wiped out. "The line should be drawn at some point," he says.

In an email, Hess writes: "Is there any chance of saving the building? Is there any organized preservation group that can make a case for it? Even if you lose this one, it puts the issue of mid-century architecture on the map for future threatened buildings — and if it could be saved it would be a great piece of urban design!"

The UW's Michelson says that tearing the place down won't do Ballard any favors. "People move to a place because of the quality of the environment including the historical environment, and you have to strike a balance. They don't need another six-story building there." The Denny's is "kind of a gateway structure to Market Street and sets the tone, it's unorthodox, sort of eccentric, symbolic of the whole place."

So is there someone who will give this Mayhew building the attention it deserves?

One group devoted to such causes is Documentation and Conservation of the Modern Movement, Western Washington — or DoCoMoMoWeWa, which sounds like a '50s doo-wop lyric. The group is the local chapter of an international group. It is committed to saving the mid-century modern architecture of the region, and they have worked to save a number of "endangered properties." They helped obtain city landmark status for the old Hat 'n' Boots filling station in South Seattle, for example.

Another group that could step up is Historic Seattle, also dedicated to preserving of the city's architectural legacy.

The subject of saving ultra-modern architecture is new enough that the National Trust for Historic Preservation has actually put out a booklet about why it's important, Preserving Resources from the Recent Past. These post-war structures are "too new to be considered 'historic' by many, but old enough to be in danger of alteration and replacement." Ignorance about their significance is a major issue.

There is irony here: The unleashed, sprawling modernism of Googie was driven by growth. That's also the force that's reshaping Ballard and putting places like the Denny's in jeopardy. On the other hand, now that more is known about the background of the diner and the Clarence Mayhew connection, it's not good enough to say that the only vote that counts is the wrecking ball's.

  • Knute Berger is Mossback, Crosscut's chief Northwest native. He also writes the monthly Gray Matters column for Seattle magazine and is a weekly Friday guest on Weekday on KUOW-FM (94.9). You can e-mail him at mossback@crosscut.com.
Comments
totally disagree
Report a violationPosted by: mhays on Jun 26, 2007 8:48 AM
Yeah, but that building is still a piece of shit. It's ugly, and it's suburban, wasteful land use.

The intersection's role as the "entrance" to Market Street's business district is a very good reason why something denser ought to be built.

I'm thrilled by the new vitality coming to central Ballard, and the pace of the change. Ballard is turning into one of our best urban villages. Nice and walkable, good businesses and public facilities, decent bus transit.

I used to live in Ballard. Now I just visit, pretty often. Had a nice tour on a long walk home from the parade in Fremont.
History vs density is a false choice
Report a violationPosted by: Sean on Jun 26, 2007 9:52 AM
I reckon that most people in Seattle value neighborhoods that are both vibrant and walkable, and that have some history and character. That's the whole point of living in a city like Seattle, as opposed to, say, Woodinville or Kirkland. It seems both desirable and possible to accomodate both interests.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion about the building, mhays, but the decision to designate a building as historically significant should be based on more than personal taste.
Save It
Report a violationPosted by: ctb on Jun 26, 2007 10:11 AM
My Dad and I ate at Mannings in Ballard which was near his plant, Vaupell Industrial Plastics. Yum yum, save save.
Two obvious solutions
Report a violationPosted by: David Sucher on Jun 26, 2007 10:29 AM
Editor's Pick Personally, I don't care about preserving this Denny's (and that is not because I don't like Denny's —I do; give me a Denny's any day as my venue of choice for first dates)

But I think anyone arguing in favor of it is simply using it to try to stop development, not because they really, sincerely, in their deep-down hearts care a rip about it.

But if you are going to try to preserve then there are (at least) two realistic options (the City is not going to stop development at that corner to save a Denny's):

1. Move it somewhere else, though I doubt Knute would like that and would start muttering about "context" and "authenticity."
2. Build around it and incorporate it in a new structure.

You want personality and uniqueness, chose option #2.
Gone but no forgotten
Report a violationPosted by: My Hammy on Jun 26, 2007 11:29 AM
Editor's Pick Who's the guy that bought the Kalakala ferry? Maybe we can convince him to haul the Denny's away to where we know it will be safe and preserved. Then we won't feel guitly about getting rid of the damn thing.
Denny's should go
Report a violationPosted by: newSeattle on Jun 26, 2007 12:05 PM
I'm encouraged that the remarkably ugly Ballard Denny's is slated for demolition, to be replaced with retail and condominiums. This supports the transformation of Ballard's town center into a lively, walkable place.

There may also be an opportunity to get a volume discount from the wrecking company: hire them to level the Denny's AND the Seattle Center Fun Park while they're at it. Two prominent eyesores removed, for the price of one?
RE: Denny's should go
Report a violationPosted by: Sean on Jun 26, 2007 8:24 PM
Level the Seattle Center Fun Park? My kids vehemently disagree with you.
Reuse is best...
Report a violationPosted by: hacknflack on Jun 26, 2007 12:43 PM
You cannot preserve them all, then ask for density and urban villages... and sadly, Ballard is changing... no more Lutefisk on the local menus, Yachts are now parking at Fishermans Terminal. And the trains are controled out of Texas somwhere...

But I love the comment about selling / giving it to the group that owns the Kalakala... How wonderfully retro... use it as the office pier side...

Other retro uses that could help save money, too:
-As the new destination of the Dinner Train... From Tacoma to Mannings...
-Perhaps as part of the new cruise ship pier at 90/91... it could not be any more disfunctional then Pier 66 currently is...
-Perhaps as the end depot at Sea Tac for the new "light rail" or the Beacon Hill station...
-Maybe as the car barn for if, and when the waterfront street car ever returns
-Wild Waves in Federal Way to house the new "Jetsons' water pool
-Employee lunchroom at the new King County Brightwater plant (perhaps TOO ironic?)

Reuse has merrit.
personal taste?
Report a violationPosted by: mhays on Jun 26, 2007 11:30 AM
When I say it's ugly that's personal taste.

When I say it's wasteful land use that's environmentalism.

When I say it's a waste of space in what should be a vibrant spot that's about neighborhood health.

On the taste issue, preservationists are being intellectually consistent, but they're also taking preservation away from what non-intellectuals will support. In other words, hurting the image of the cause. Often preservationists get in uproars about buildings the general public hates, and it's generally because something of questionable significance once happened there (film depository in Belltown anyone?) or it's an example of an architecture type that few except architects like (international style, etc.).

The preservation I support is the preservation of dense, walkable neighborhoods and nice buildings, not the preservation of parking-side sprawl or architural genres.
RE: personal taste?
Report a violationPosted by: Sean on Jun 26, 2007 8:23 PM
It's totally feasible to save this building while making better use of the land. The simplest solution would be to lift it up, plunk it down on a corner of the lot, and build the mixed use structure on the rest of the lot.

I repeat - history vs density is a false choice. We can and should have both.
Mannings
Report a violationPosted by: alhess on Jun 26, 2007 1:49 PM
Some of the best, most livable, and appealing neighborhoods have variety. That's what the preservation of various types of buildings insures -- it shows that these neighborhoods were not all built at the same time (like those recent suburban towns.) But the list of approved old buildings can't end with Victorian or Craftsman style buildings -- the buildings of the 1950s and 1960s are just beginning to be rediscovered and appreciated anew. Does everyone like them now? No, but Victorians and Craftsmen houses were also once reviled as ugly and bulldozed wholesale -- until preservationists called attention to their qualities. That movement has had a tremendous impact on the livability of most American cities.
What it will take to save it
Report a violationPosted by: Christine on Jun 26, 2007 2:55 PM
Editor's Pick Once the Master Use Permit sign goes up for a demolition application, it then becomes very difficult to save any building, object, or site. All residents of Seattle need to be vigilant about protecting the properties they love BEFORE the sign goes up. Get to know the owner and your neighbors to build support for saving the site. Unlike the National Register, only a City of Seattle landmark designation can protect a property from demolition or insensitive alteration. Enroll in Historic Seattle's Landmarks Nomination Workshop to learn how to prepare a landmark nomination, how to locate funding, how to organize your neighbors.

In order to be designated as a City of Seattle landmark and protect it from demolition, the building, object or site must be at least 25 years old and must meet at least one of the six designation standards listed below. In addition to meeting at least one of the designation standards, the building, object or site must also possess integrity and the ability to convey its significance.

A. It is the location of or is associated in a significant way with an historic event with a significant effect upon the community, city, state, or nation
B. It is associated in a significant way with the life of a person important in the history of the city, state, or nation.
C. It is associated in a significant way with a significant aspect of the cultural, political, or economic heritage of the community, city, state or nation
D. It embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style, period, or a method of construction
E. It is an outstanding work of a designer or builder
F. Because of its prominence of spatial location, contrasts of siting, age, or scale, it is an easily identifiable visual feature of its neighborhood or the city and contributes to the distinctive quality or identity of such neighborhood or city.

Historic Seattle, the Washington Trust, and DoCoMoMo-WeWa prefer to see a grassroots effort from the Ballard neighborhood to save this building based on one or more of the above criteria. Then we can all join forces in a battle with the owner to preserve it.
You are kidding
Report a violationPosted by: edmcg on Jun 26, 2007 3:33 PM
I realize this city is relatively young, but this building is shite. I am sure we can find a mcdonald's that should be preserved as well. There is NOTHING worth saving - blow it up
I just had to google googie...
Report a violationPosted by: Stuka on Jun 26, 2007 4:15 PM
Good gosh! Gagging gigabytes of gooey grotesqueness grandiloquently grown to giggling greatness! Gadzooks!
What's your Visa number again?
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Jun 26, 2007 6:12 PM
Crosscut WriterEverybody is eager to spend everyone else's money but their own, and they're equally eager to stop everyone else from making money - that would then be spent - by preventing everyone else from using their property to make some of their own.

If that ugly building is so precious to some, then among you take up a collection and pay fair market value for the property. If you're not willing to buy the silly thing out of your own pocket, then please stop the complaining. True philanthropy, genuine charity, and authentic civic mindedness starts by ponying up your own dough, not everyone else's.

I'll bet if an eye-appeal vote were taken, that sucker would come down in nothing flat! But even this is beside the point; it's the money, baby! People who spend other people's money or claim it virtue to prevent the making of money because of their own sense of esthetic purity haven't quite mastered the whole "We the people..." thing.

The Piper
Added historical note
Report a violationPosted by: Harrybari on Jun 26, 2007 6:54 PM
So far, no one has mentioned that the corner of 15th NW and Market has been a major dining location for more than a half-century. The current building may have been built about the time of the World's Fair, but Manning's cafeteria was located at that spot many years prior to that. When I was working in the office of a Ballard ship yard in the early to mid-1950s, I frequently walked down to Manning's for a delicious, inexpensive lunch.

I think it's a bloody shame that some of these respondents see no value in preserving part of our heritage. A restaurant on this corner is of far greater value than more urban density. Urban density is the essence of ugliness.
RE: Added historical note
Report a violationPosted by: edmcg on Jun 28, 2007 3:04 PM
if that thing is part of your "heritage" I feel pretty sorry for you - and if that is your idea of "major dining" that is doubly tragic
This Effort Would Hurt Historic Preservation
Report a violationPosted by: Ebenezer on Jun 26, 2007 9:59 PM
Historic preservation efforts are important, but these efforts need to be used with care, not just as a tool to bluntly stop any sort of development. Otherwise, you'll discredit the movement, and Seattle will be featured in the national press as a laughingstock. If it's so important, as Piper says, then buy the property and save it.

Now, we could go ahead and save it to prevent the type of New Urbanist development Berger hates, that which allows people to safely walk to work, stores, etc. That would also allow us to preserve that time in Seattle's history when many fewer people wanted to live here. In that case, why don't we go all out? Let's take wrecking balls and remove all development from Seattle so it can be as it was in 1850, before the Denny Party landed on Alki. That would be truly authentic.
You've All Missed the Point of Preservation
Report a violationPosted by: jfollansbee on Jun 27, 2007 7:19 AM
Editor's Pick Virtually every poster on this column has missed Skip's point! You don't really understand the purpose of historic preservation. The movement is not about buildings. It's not about New Urban versus older enviroments. It's not about "density" versus "suburban."

It's about memory, and the need for a healthy society to have continuity with the past. Every healthy culture keeps stories and objects from its origins to show how it came to be. You can't understand your own identity without these objects. That's why we preserve the original documents of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That's why we venerate places like Monticello and Mt. Vernon. That's why families keep photos of grandparents and great-grandparents.

It's the same reason behind preserving Pioneer Square buildings and the Pike Place Market. They show how Seattle came to be what it is, and the Mannings/Denny's building is arguably part of that heritage.

I personally don't know how significant the building is, or whether it qualifies for historic status. (City rules say a building has to be at least 25 years old, and under that rule, the structure is eligible.) But if we follow the troglodytes in this thread and "blow it up," consider how you will tell the Ballard neighborhood story without the structures that make it a living story.
Memories...like the corners of my mind...
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Jun 27, 2007 8:04 AM
Crosscut WriterI'm all for preserving links to our history. Documents, artifacts, and even historic places need preservation in order for the present and future to connect with and learn from the past. But the Ballard Denny's is no Gettysburg...Hell, it's not even a Waldo Hospital! And that's the point.

Not everything that everybody thinks interesting, unique, or valuable deserves preservation. So far as I know, nothing of significance - no landmark treaty negotiation, historic event, prominent personage - every happened or visited the place. It's just a building! Some find it interesting, and that's fine for them. If they're so interested, then let them buy it and preserve it...just as the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association did in 1853 when it purchased George Washington's estate in order to preserve it. Go here to learn that not a penny of public money is spent on preservation or even accepted by the Ladies' Association for any purpose whatsoever. Mount Vernon is perhaps as pure a case as can be found of putting your money where your mouth is.

And Waldo Hospital? Landmark states for the old Maple Leaf neighborhood site currently owned by the Girl Scouts was rejected much to the relief of the descendents of Waldo's founder and others. The story here is also a classic case, only this time it's one of either putting someone else's money where your mouth is or taking away the opportunity of an owner of a building of dubious historic value - in this case the Girl Scouts - to profit from selling the land and using the proceeds to do good things. Whatever happened to, "It's for the children?"

There's too much "feel good" sans commitment about all this. Just because Mossback or some San Jose architect or a lot of people think the Ballard Denny's is quaint or interesting or esthetically significant doesn't qualify it for preservation at both public and private expense.

My judgment about the best use of your property isn't sufficient to trump your right to ignore my judgment. If I want my judgment to prevail, then I must ante up and buy your property thus making it my property. When it is my property, then my judgement prevails.

Is a Grand Slam Breakfast really worth all this fuss?

The Piper
Piper is Wrong About the Costs of Preservation
Report a violationPosted by: jfollansbee on Jun 27, 2007 8:38 AM
The Piper seems to suggest that the prospect of preserving Mannings/Denny's would cost the taxpayer money and force the property owner to spend his/her own money. False. False. False. In fact, preservation could actually save the property owner money and create jobs that increase tax revenue.

First, official landmark status makes a property automatically eligible for numerous property tax breaks at the county and state level. (Lower taxes! Whooda thunkit!) Incentives are also available for federal designation. The tax breaks exist to encourage property owners to upgrade and/or reuse the property while maintaining historic character. Landmark status does NOT force the owner to do anything. He/she can even tear the building down, which has happened numerous times over the years.

Second, a recent study by the state Dept. of Archeaology & Historic Preservation found that rehabilitation of historic buildings in King County from 2000 to 2004 annually generated $106 million in sales of products and services, supported 1,230 jobs, and added $43 million in wages to the economy. I'd bet that the economic boost of preserving Mannings/Denny's would more than make up for any revenue lost because of the tax breaks.

(Full disclosure: I did contract work last year to help promote this study. I'm writing this post on my own time.)

So before anyone says "tear the old shack down," think of what you're losing, not only in terms of memory, but in terms of increased property values and potential jobs for your neighbors.
RE: Piper is Wrong About the Costs of Preservation
Report a violationPosted by: mhays on Jun 27, 2007 9:47 AM
Saving this building would force the same square footage to be built elsewhere, likely contributing to sprawl, which costs money.

Residents of that sprawl would spend more on transportation.
_
Report a violationPosted by: mhays on Jun 27, 2007 9:44 AM
Tax breaks and tax credits are a public subsidy. Is this confusing?

I'm all for subsidies for historic preservation. But I'd rather save the good stuff. Not this little worthless building with goddamn surface parking, especially given its prominent location.

And yes, if preservationists want to save the unloved buildings, let them pay the purchase price. The public can support buildings we like, generally for aesthetic or emotional reasons, not intellectual ones about ugly architecture being significant.

Some say the public is too wishy washy to be the judge of what should be saved. I say we like most eras of architecture (built upon the lessons of centuries), except a large percentage of the trendy stuff, and tearing down Victorians was an unfortunate side trip that won't be repeated. Fortunately, while quality levels vary and you can argue scale and finishes, most new urbanist projects at least adhere to the basics of what makes buildings work well in their communities.
It's Not About Pretty vs. Ugly
Report a violationPosted by: jfollansbee on Jun 27, 2007 2:28 PM
Again, mhays and others miss the point. Preservation is not about beautiful versus ugly. That's purely a matter of taste. Preservation is about maintaining continuity with past built environments in the same way we preserve daguerrotypes of the 1850s to understand the growth of photographic technology, of dress, of cultural norms, all sorts of things. Commercial buildings tell us how our economy developed, and they are particularly vulnerable to destruction, because their original use often goes away, unlike a house. At the very least, we ought to study whether the building is significant before placing the dynamite charges.
Threatened historic buildings-who speaks for them?
Report a violationPosted by: SeattleNater on Jun 27, 2007 2:59 PM
The loss of suburban-style roadside architecture is lamentable. What’s surprising is that at the same time, we’re facing the impending loss of a contributing building within the Pioneer Square Historic District. And it begs the question, isn’t there a Preservation Board to prevent just such a thing?

As Alan Michelson points out, a line needs to be drawn. But even the line that demarcates the Pioneer Square Historic District may not mean as much as it once did. It’s not just aging modern architecture that’s at risk, the Pioneer Square Preservation Board is poised to approve (at a public meeting the morning before the 4th of July) Nitze Stagen’s massive, height-tripling modification to a century-old, humble, two-story brick building in the shadow of Qwest Field. It’s worth noting: this is not the only proposal King County received for this surplus property. It is the only one that proposed adding stories to the structure.

Nobody seems eager to jump in the way of this freight train. (To my amazement, Historic Seattle is actually their partner in this endeavor.) The question becomes, do we throw historic preservation out the window just because there’s little public objection? Take a look at the coverage of this story, especially Nicole Brodeur’s column. I think some of the justifications of the people behind the project are, um, interesting:
Seattle Times: Money trumps history
Seattle P-I: Balance preservation with economics in Pioneer Square
RE: Threatened historic buildings-who speaks for them?
Report a violationPosted by: mhays on Jun 28, 2007 9:57 AM
Seems like a good reuse of the building to me. Preservation (the kind I like) isn't about buildings as museums, but about buildings remaining as living, adapting parts of the city. In this case I'm also a fan because South Downtown needs housing, preferably at market rate so we get more of a balance.
_
Report a violationPosted by: mhays on Jun 28, 2007 9:50 AM
Cities are for living in. It's great to study history, but that's not the primary purpose of the built environment. We want to save pieces of every generation, but there are plenty of examples in less-prominent locations or in denser form.

Plus, in this case the new building will be infinitely better than the existing. Even if Reagan had been shot at the Denny's I'd still say the benefit of the new building is great enough to trump preservation.
Study, study...who's got the study?
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Jun 29, 2007 11:28 AM
Crosscut WriterThere’s a story kicking around on how excessive computer game playing should be classified as an addictive behavior and listed in the DSM-IV, which is the bible of mental diseases and disorders. Published in 1994 (to be supplanted in 2011 by the DSM-V) it lists 297 disorders in 896 pages. Whether non-stop gaming qualifies isn’t a subject I’m competent to address, but there is a condition unique to this area that deserves mention: Acute Study Syndrome, or ASS.

Characterized by an unremitting obsession for substituting so-called professional studies for obvious common sense, the condition is prevalent among those belonging to groups or organizations that promote studies then flog them as the end all and be all when – surprise, surprise – they support the mission of the group or organization. The only known therapy? Ignore or shred the studies.

Akin to Borderline Personality Disorder, ASS-affected individuals project their own disdain for all who disagree with or question their intellectual or esthetic purity by projecting upon them a less-than human definition (for example: troglodytes) such that applying on-line for Geico insurance is considered too complicated.

The pressure exerted upon the unwary by ASS-affected individuals is unrelenting. To paraphrase Tennyson:

“Studies to right of them,
Studies to left of them,
Studies in front of them
Statisc’d & data’d;
Storm'd at with sum and surmise…”

It never ends, never lets up. Exhibit A: A recent Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation that, of course, “found” all kinds of benefits from preserving “historic” buildings. Would that a study commissioned by anyone find against what its propounders advocate. That would be on the order of man bites dog.

While some benefit may inure to the local economy by preserving old buildings, it shouldn’t be presumed that it’s the highest benefit. And somebody, somewhere has to pay for the preservation/renovation, and it’s a pretty safe bet that unless that somebody is paying out of his or her own pocket, Terry and Tiffany Taxpayer will eventually foot the bill. It’s symptomatic of Ass-affected individuals that they demonstrate an annoying propensity to be free with everyone else’s money but their own.

When I was in junior high school – early to mid 60’s - my buddy Treadwell and I would hop a bus operated by the old Seattle Transit and go to First Avenue to cruise the hockshops, browse the Amy – Navy surplus stores, and be denied admission into certain…uhm…entertainment venues. When that area was gentrified, nobody to my knowledge saw fit to preserve any of those establishments.

It was suggested that preserving the Ballard Denny’s is necessary because it’s a “memory.” Yet not all memories are pleasant, and one purpose of mental health therapy is to deal with the negative effects of unpleasant memories. In this case, warped nostalgia for that which is both esthetically butt-ugly and historically minimalist in the overall scheme of things is also symptomatic of ASS-affected individuals. Some things not only deserve to be bulldozed, but they literally cry out for demolition as an act of civic mercy. So let it be here.

If there be any among you who hold a belief to the contrary, then pass the hat, buy the thing, and make merry among you. But please refrain from your lecturing on what other people ought to do with their property.

The Piper
Ballard is Dead
Report a violationPosted by: skips on Jun 30, 2007 3:42 PM
Just bury it along with any nostalga if you can not spend it build on it.
Save Dennys?
Report a violationPosted by: bradhambleton on Jul 27, 2007 10:01 AM
Ok, now I have heard it all. Seems like the author is "scraping" for a cause here...historic links to Seattle's coffee culture? Mannings....c'mon.

I agree with a large majority of posts in response to this article. The building is an eyesore with a lot of wasted space (parking lot). Tear it down and put a 6 story building of condo's with ground floor retail. That will be a fantastic gateway to the most walkable and self sustaining community in Seattle.

If you want to save buildings in Ballard, put your energies towards saving the beautiful old brick buildings on Ballard Avenue. How many buildings were knocked down for the new senior living community? And what senior wants to live across the street from Kings Hardware, DiVino, Peoples Pub, etc.?
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign up for Crosscut's free weekday newsletter e-mail.
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Crosscut »
Crosscut Seattle is an online newspaper for the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. It's a guide to local and regional news, a place to report and discuss news, and a platform for new tools to convey news.

• More about Crosscut

Contact Crosscut

Tools

Sign up for Crosscut's daily newsletter
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.
Advertisement