Ballard Denny’s Gone!

Putting aside whether or not is was a piece of architecture worth saving for any reason, noble or otherwise, the fact is that a designated city landmark was demolished.  What is the point of the designation if there is no viable mechanism for the protection of such properties?  What is the point when those who are charged with such a responsibility let it happen because “There was no viable way to save it?”  What happens when a well funded, well lawyered-up developer or even a government agency decides to tear something down that people in this city actually want to save?  Without revealing details that might cost me my job, it has nearly happened in the past, right under the nose of both the press and the public.  What then?

4 Responses to “Ballard Denny’s Gone!”

  1. NickBob

    This is nothing compared to the similar loss of the Twin TeePees, which sadly were never given landmark status.
    http://www.historicseattle.org/advocacy/twinteepees.aspx

  2. Victory Heights

    I think the city’s approach is a good balance. Having a building designated a landmark should invoke increased scrutiny, but it shouldn’t forbid development. If the city really wants to save a building, then they should be required to purchase it.

    BTW, it seems a little much to claim that the people of Seattle wanted to save this building. Almost everyone I know couldn’t wait for it to be torn down. We shouldn’t assume a group is in the majority simply because it is loud and organized.

  3. dorian gray

    Agreed, as Frelard citizen most of us wanted this gone -hence the boards retraction. At the first hearing they agreed it wasn’t historic due to changes made and then in a bid to stop development gave it landmark status -a move which cost them they’re credibility. A landmark building CAN BE TORN DOWN -or moved etc. This is a common misconception. Benaroya would have won eventually since the City held and auction for it’s development rights then rescinded the rights after the sale, which was actually the reason the board switched direction under the phrase of “economic hardship”.

    The replacement project however is hideous.

  4. PostModernDecay

    “BTW, it seems a little much to claim that the people of Seattle wanted to save this building.”

    Not claiming that in any way about the Ballard Denny’s, I am referring to a future, hypothetical situation.

Leave a Reply