March 14, 2008
Denny's Owner Sues
These guys are serious too. They want to tear down that Denny’s something fierce. The PI says that they brought more than a dozen legal theories down on the heads of the Seattle Landmarks and Preservation Board. Oh, and they’re pissed:
"The Board's decision ... was sentimental and capricious, but not legal," says one of the two filings that make up the suit. "The Board's action was improper and illegal."
Apparently the company that owns the building and the land is a partnership between The Benaroya Company and Real Property Investors. Both are Seattle companies and yes, it’s that Benaroya.
Along with their disdain for sentimentality, the company is also claiming that the hearing wasn’t fair because its chairman lives near the site. They also say the process is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the state’s Growth Management Act, that the reasons given for granting the designation were vague, and that the designation may make development of the property not viable economically and that’s against their constitutional rights too.
According to Crosscut, they also say the makeup of the board is flawed because it is "intentionally made up of people sympathetic with the purpose of landmarking."
We only wish we were kidding. At least there’s some good news for Sunset Bowl.
Thanks to mary land for the photo in the Seattlest Flickr Pool.
|
Of course, the legal strategy is to throw everything into a lawsuit and see what sticks, so some of the arguments may be laughable. But they have at least one valid point: The landmark commission's own staff essentially laughed at the idea of that thing deserving landmark status.
Being in favor of preservation doesn't mean you support saving every old ugly building around for sentimental reasons. That building is butt-ugly and deserves to go.
Good! Policy makers should stop being so meddlesome and mind their own business. If the property owner wants to sell his property, that's his right to do so. You can't force someone to keep a Denny's running; this isn't a socialist commune.
You know. As happy as I was to see it get the landmark status... I can't blame the owner.
I only liked this place because it was a Denny's-- not the architecture. There are several similarly designed buildings around the area and the design really isn't my cup of tea.
Don't get me wrong, though, I could use some time of not hearing about condos. It's just... the man needs to make money and without it being a Denny's, it's just one more ugly, boarded up building. I would like it to not sit vacant for too long. We don't want Ballard to start looking like downtown Toledo.
Denny's actually has little to nothing to do with this recent development. They would actually love to move back in at this location. They were a tenant who was just forced out by the landowner. Not to pick on you, Charles, but this headline isn't really correct.
JDavin: the Landmarks Board isn't that heavy-handed. The next step is to try to figure out a solution to keeping the building AND making it economically viable. Part of the landmarking process allows for landowners to be reimbursed in ways to offset the financial losses from not being able to follow through on their original plans. Also, there's nothing to keep the current owner from selling.
There's this prevailing myth that private property is inviolable and sacred in this country, which is not enitrely true. Zoning, codes, for example, and, yes, sometimes even the "public good" are taken into account. Property doesn't exist in a private vacuum; what one owner does affects numerous other people, especially in dense urban environments.
Tom, you're right and I should have corrected that. I wrote that when I was tired and not thinking clearly.
Personally I think the building is ugly, but that doesn't mean I think we should tear it down. It seems that the natural "flow" of public perception on any building evolves from
"Ohhh, new and spiffy" (~0-20 years)
"Yuck, ugly and run down" (~20-70 years)
"Classic and stylish" (~older than 70 years)
You can argue about those relative time spans, but keep in mind that during the 1950s and 1960s people thought that the turn of the century buildings that we (I) now adore, were eye-sores, and many were torn down. Now we want to do the same to the buildings they constructed.
Think about how ugly classic Euro cities would be if they tore down buildings every 50 years and built new (of course the longevity of the construction methods is another issue entirely).
Good point Eco Geek. I know this is the case, but damn if I don't see those dutch style buildings as current Thai places all too often.
But, again, to each their own.