Comments on: Stating the Obvious

By: Old vs. New | hugeasscity

Old vs. New | hugeasscity — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:51:49 +0000

[...] These differences may seem subtle, and they certainly don’t apply universally to new and old, but I see them as reflections of a society that is losing its sense of community. And it’s this same lack of connection with the community that is at the root of why so many newer buildings seem to lack the sole and pride found in older buildings. [...]

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:15:15 +0000

I don’t disagree (except perhaps with “good basic design” – depending on what standards you base “good” on). What I see in the structure on the left is a lot of labor-intensive construction by skilled craftsmen.

Could we build the building on the left today? I’d argue we couldn’t, for my reasons listed above. The intricate part of the older building is the stonework, and stonework just can’t be used safely in a seismic region.

Not that we have to settle for plain boxes – but what is an appropriate intricate design using modern construction standards? I can imagine ornate structures built from glass, concrete, or steel. But the beauty of the building on the left is that the stonework isn’t just for looks – it had function.

By: danb

danb — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:50:47 +0000

@5: Matt your engineering-minded response highlights what I see as the core issue here. There’s more to architecture than utilitarian function, but that’s what our culture, for the most part, has stripped it down to. The building on the left has unquantifiable qualities — pride, beauty and soul, not to mention good basic design — that are missing from the building on the right.

By: Futzbutton

Futzbutton — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:25:06 +0000

Flotown

…I’m a developer of sharper minds, not property.

Good, proper, design can be cheap and efficient. Figure it out.

By: flotown

flotown — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:41:07 +0000

“Flotown: who cares how much it costs? or how much bank the developer can possibly make? He’ll make a profit, almost regardless – how big a profit is the question”

I’m shocked a statement like that would come from a “developer.” An architect – much more likely

By: Futzbutton

Futzbutton — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:29:17 +0000

Flotown

You obviously have no idea how to properly design a building. Cheap materials can be used properly, coupled with great design and you can create phenomenal architecture. Probably for cheaper than the monstrosity you see in that picture. Get with it. Educate yourself – simply saying “the cost of new construction” is too high is irresponsible and uninformed. As an architect and developer, I know it can be done.

By: quilsone

quilsone — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:15:52 +0000

I am not an engineer or a developer, but I have lived in Chicago, where most new construction (at least, residential construction outside of the city center) continues to be brick and mortar. I don’t think builders there have a ton more money than builders here, and from living there I know that it can be made just as energy efficient and accessible as anything else. I understand that brick and mortar is not realistic to build here since it tends to completely fall apart in earthquakes, but from a purely aesthetic point of view, middle of the road new construction in the Midwest is vastly superior to its seattle equivalent.

By: flotown

flotown — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:54:00 +0000

Steve-

That’s basically a rule of thumb number for residential in a 65′ zone (5 over 1 construction). Depening on land costs, construction cost variables, and viability of retail below, etc, it could be as low as $2.00 and upwards of $2.30.

Futzbutton -

you are not fully informed on this issue on the basis of your statement. I understand why someone who is not steeped details would feel this way, but I assure you this is not the case. Most for-rent projects are barely feasible at aggressive rent levels. You also need to consider the motivation of developers and understand the way in which they are compensated:

Some points to consider-

1) developers get paid on a per-project (fee) basis generally
2) the more projects, the more fees
=the more projects the better for developers
3) The largest segments of potential renters are people making less than $80k/year
4) Projects can more safely hit target markets at lower rents
5) Investors like safety, and will more likely fund a project that is safe
= developers want to target the lowest rents possible needed to provide threshold returns specified by investors
6) their are entire sectors of the city w/o new construction, for-rent product
=the rents possible do not support the cost of new construction
7) no new, non-subsidized developments are renting for less than $2.00/psf
=lower rents will not cover the costs of construction
8) even these new buildings “look cheap”
=additional costs would raise the necessary rents and not allow developers to target the desired market (people making 90%-120% AMI). You could make it nicer, but you’d have to target high-end rents and their is a fine line between hitting a high-end rental figure and going to high to a point where people opt for for-sale product.

By: Viva

Viva — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:09:36 +0000

Please leave the old Seattle and new Seattle new and take down the buildings where people can not see the pretty view anymore.

By: dave

dave — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 01:31:54 +0000

Not to be nitpicky, but if you get a little closer to that building on the left (the Urban League building, BTW), it’s not so great. It looks and feels like a bunker as you walk by on the sidewalk, although I suppose that may have to do with modifications that have been made over the years.