Comments on: Wretchedness

By: Nate

Nate — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:24:21 +0000

Um. That’s the good side. Isn’t the side facing west (you know, where views of the bay would be) almost completely windowless?

By: keith

keith — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:04:00 +0000

just to clarify: my post about the “welcoming” function of the glass canopies has nothing to do with the folks hanging out beneath them. i agree that belltown is indeed a magnet for these guys and that’s fine (i’d want to get out of the rain too).

i just meant that, architecturally speaking, the canopies “invite” people to walk/linger/whatever at the base of the building, when it might be more appropriate to continue the theme of “unapproachability” all the way down to the sidewalk.

couldn’t be any worse that it already is, and at least it would be consistent.

By: uptown

uptown — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:02:40 +0000

I see that many people hanging around the store fronts of Uptown. Doesn’t have anything to do with the building.

Personally I like that building, some store fronts would have been nice. Better than some glass covered piece of crap.

By: dang

dang — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:04:23 +0000

@10 – I’m with you Gus. Its great that these guys have a spot to sit and keep dry and lend a bit of life to an otherwise dead street front. Since you all are talking about pedestrian un-friendly street fronts, what about other buildings in the area? What about the new Four Seasons? Does it make it okay if there are windows to view into a grade-separated and otherwise sealed building front? Or the big departments stores… think the north side of Macy’s along Stewart Street. Is this somehow better than Qwest? I find that street front far and away more offensive than the Qwest building. It completely lacks any humanistic touch, presenting an incredibly cold, defensive and insular street front. Is it really the Qwest street front that bothers you or the down-and-out that it harbors?

By: Hudson

Hudson — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:08:54 +0000

Lance, I think this is the building you are thinking of – built to withstand a nuclear blast.
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=att10southcanal-chicago-il-usa

By: Gloomy Gus

Gloomy Gus — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:18:58 +0000

An ex’s uncle was a muckity-muck at the phone company back in the day this was being planned and built. He once told me the phone company’s original plan was literally a windowless, featureless, smooth sided box. The City had to threaten all kinds of murder to get the facing changed to brick, the windows put in, the detail along the blank streetfront.

And as for the pedestrian, er, hangout aspect: one permanent aspect of Belltown is its function as a neighborhood of last resort for people who’ve fallen through the social safety net we’ve so happily dismantled. I like that there’s nothing going on that keeps down-and-outers from enjoying a little shelter from the rain on this one stupid part of one stupid block. It harms nothing except Cristalla property values. I’m left unmoved by the plight of anyone who mortgaged their way into a Blaine Weber project.

By: Keith

Keith — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:16:08 +0000

i actually think the biggest problem is those ticky-tacky glass canopies that lead folks to believe they are welcome at the base of this citadel. i say celebrate the building’s standoffishness for now; if and when the switchgear is no longer needed because everyone is on wireless, it can be that new jail nobody wants in their neighborhood.

By: Lance

Lance — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:16:44 +0000

I’m kinda interested to know what technical and regulatory policy requirements defined the architecture? All I know is (I think anyway) a bunch of old switchboards are back in there (maybe they’re upgraded now?)

I can’t help but think this looks like some radical Chicago-school building. I agree, the brickwork is awesome.

By: Lee

Lee — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:43:02 +0000

I took a “government regulation of business” class in the econ dept during my undergraduate schooling. Several authors made convincing cases that the regulatory structure for phone companies during most of the 20th century made heavy capital investment a lucrative activity. This in turn affected what and how they built. Government regulatory policy (and technical requirements), not architectural aesthetics are responsible for the general appearance of this building. That’s another reason why these sorts of buildings look pretty much the same all over the USA.

By: MikeP

MikeP — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:27:15 +0000

At least it has some windows, as opposed to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Thomas_Street