SEATTLE | Two developers bid for tower project

mSeattle · #1 Posted: **Dec 24, 2006, 4:10 AM**

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Two developers bid for tower project
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/297086_tower23.html

P-I STAFF

Two local developers have submitted proposals for a new tower that would replace the King County Administration Building at Fifth Avenue and James Street.

Wright Runstad & Co. and the Sabey Corp. responded to the county's solicitation of interest in and ideas for the site.

"At first glance, both proposals seem to be serious," said Sandeep Kaushik, spokesman for County Executive Ron Sims. He said it was too soon to release details.

In announcing the plan in October, Sims said that including private development would allow the county to replace the ugly, inefficient building with new space at no cost to taxpayers. He said the project would not be feasible unless Seattle increased the allowable height on the site to accommodate a 44-story tower.

kalmia · #2 Posted: **Dec 24, 2006, 4:19 AM**

what does the current building look like?

Google Image search gave me http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtlin/17573687/

kalmia · #3 Posted: **Dec 24, 2006, 4:22 AM**

from Wikipedia:

According to the Seattle Times, "County and city officials agree on at least one thing: the dubious aesthetics of the Administration Building, a squat, fortresslike building with diagonal lines". Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis stated "I think everybody acknowledges it may be the ugliest building in downtown Seattle"

It was also voted the ugliest government building in the country in the '70s, shortly after it was built.

mSeattle · #4 Posted: **Dec 24, 2006, 6:33 AM**

^ It only needs a little glitter.

Urban Zombie® · #5 Posted: **Dec 24, 2006, 10:50 AM**

I'm still waiting for a new tallest...especially considering all of the other places that are getting them these days.

Dream'n · #6 Posted: **Dec 24, 2006, 12:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mSeattle

^ It only needs a little glitter.

And a bow

mSeattle · #7 Posted: **Dec 25, 2006, 4:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntonAusTirol

I'm still waiting for a new tallest...especially considering all of the other places that are getting them these days.

Yea, we all would love to see that. Heck, a couple of 800's wouldn't be bad.

Urban Zombie® · #8 Posted: **Dec 25, 2006, 6:10 AM**

I think another 700 would probably be next up when you think about it--a few years back we had the 500+ IDX, then the 600 ft WAMU...it looks like we're building new office towers in order of ascending height.

mSeattle · #9 Posted: **Dec 25, 2006, 6:23 PM**

That would be ok too, as long as they are either south of Columbia or north of Washington Mutual #1.

A 44 floor office building could be in the mid-upper 600' range. That would help ease the extreme height gap immediately south of Columbia.

northface · #10 Posted: **Dec 26, 2006, 6:27 AM**

there was a visual of this site with what a tower would look like. it would def look good!

Hans Gruber · #11 Posted: **Dec 27, 2006, 11:04 PM**

You do realize that the Hall building pictured above is the old King County Jail. The new jail is the building to the left of the picture with th ugly catwalk connecting the two buildings.

For lifetime Seattle residents and longtime criminals, you already know this. However, for the recent Seattle transplants 20 years or less, this is probably new info. The new jail was built in 1984 I think, plus or minus 2 years.

Greg Nickles is not politically correct. Seattle has the tree huggers and the tree hackers, State Supreme Court judges who illegally cut trees for better views. Nickles is probably the best thing that has happened to Seattle since the early 80's when Martin Selig built the Columbia Tower. Nickles wants to allow developers to build pretty much whatever they want for a price.

If you look at the Columbia Tower from sea level it easily stands at 1000ft instead of the 920 and change it truly measures. I remember watching the Columbia Tower being built in 1982-1983. I was a kid and convinced my dad to drive by it on the way to every Mariners game. Originally, the building was supposed to stand at 1000FT even I believe. Boeing or Sea Tac lopped a foot off each floor claiming the Columbia Tower would be an aircraft hazard.

Anyway, I think it would serve the publics best interest to but a building height limit at 1500ft. Obviously, a public forum would be a must to avoid ugly buildings ever breaking ground in the first place.

If Bellevue can spend $30 million on a building and $70+ million on renovations, Seattle should certainly be able to spend $200 million to build a worthy City Hall. Better make the new building 60 floors and lease some of the space.

mSeattle · #12 Posted: **Dec 28, 2006, 9:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

Seattle should certainly be able to spend $200 million to build a worthy City Hall.

^You mean King County and a King County admin. building? Nickels already got the city hall built...

secondson · #13 Posted: **Dec 29, 2006, 1:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntonAusTirol

I'm still waiting for a new tallest...especially considering all of the other places that are getting them these days.

Be glad you don't live in Cincinnati. We can only drool over the thoughts of anything taller than Carew Tower, which is only 574' and has been the city's tallest for the past 76 years!

VillageIdiot · #14 Posted: **Dec 29, 2006, 4:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans Gruber

You do realize that the Hall building pictured above is the old King County Jail. The new jail is the building to the left of the picture with th ugly catwalk connecting the two buildings.

For lifetime Seattle residents and longtime criminals, you already know this. However, for the recent Seattle transplants 20 years or less, this is probably new info. The new jail was built in 1984 I think, plus or minus 2 years.

Greg Nickles is not politically correct. Seattle has the tree huggers and the tree hackers, State Supreme Court judges who illegally cut trees for better views. Nickles is probably the best thing that has happened to Seattle since the early 80's when Martin Selig built the Columbia Tower. Nickles wants to allow developers to build pretty much whatever they want for a price.

If you look at the Columbia Tower from sea level it easily stands at 1000ft instead of the 920 and change it truly measures. I remember watching the Columbia Tower being built in 1982-1983. I was a kid and convinced my dad to drive by it on the way to every Mariners game. Originally, the building was supposed to stand at 1000FT even I believe. Boeing or Sea Tac lopped a foot off each floor claiming the Columbia Tower would be an aircraft hazard.

Anyway, I think it would serve the publics best interest to but a building height limit at 1500ft. Obviously, a public forum would be a must to avoid ugly buildings ever breaking ground in the first place.

If Bellevue can spend $30 million on a building and $70+ million on renovations, Seattle should certainly be able to spend $200 million to build a worthy City Hall. Better make the new building 60 floors and lease some of the space.

The original height was to be 1,005 feet and the FAA is the one who nixed the height. I doubt that downtown Seattle could build anything over 1,000 feet. The flight pattern into Sea-Tac goes directly over downtown.

Urban Zombie® · #15 Posted: **Dec 30, 2006, 4:18 AM**

^It can as long as the site's elevation is relatively low--allegedly there are still a few spots left which would be prime for building a 1,000 footer.

Aleks · #16 Posted: **Mar 2, 2007, 6:48 AM**

i think seattle need glasier buildings and we also need a 1000 footer or else we'll be left behind by other cities whith smaller populations but tall buildings