Seattle Sheraton Hotel's pathetic 7th Avenue urbanism

Sheraton to put a 'garden walk' on 7th

Proposed

 

Image courtesy of Gustafson Guthrie Nichol 

(Enlarge photo in link above.)
 

Existing:

 

Image courtesy Daily Journal of Commerce
 

•••

Patrick Doherty in Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce is Trying not to be a cynic about the Sheraton facade fix.

To my mind, there is no more naturally interesting phenomenon as one walks down a city street than interacting - both visually and physically - with a variety of shops, cafes, and other establishments that organically inhabit street-level tenant spaces over the years.

Patrick is dead-on correct and there is not much more to say: the correct, reasonable urbanistic solution is to open up the blank wall with storefronts.

Yet what motivates the very competent architect and owner to do the more difficult and less profitable thing? Doherty's solution is the obvious, cheaper and more sustainable thing to do. The Sheraton would make money with shop-fronts, not just spend money. Any ideas why these smart people are doing such a stupid thing? It boggles. There is no practical reason not to. The blank wall can be punctured with shops — there is primarily storage behind it. So nothing which requires major changes. (Opening a blank wall requires attention but is not a significant structural change.)

I don't get it. Seriously.The City's own rules require (except when not required) to make street-grade level spaces open and transparent.The architect and owner are very well-traveled people and have been to Paris, London, even Seattle and know what makes for walkable urbanism. (For god's sake, they own hotels whose profits are based to a large degree on walkability.) Nor do I get the politics — is the Sheraton group dittoheads and against walkable urbanism because Rush Limbaugh thinks that walking is communistic? So why the resistance? When the law (ostensibly) requires transparency and it's profitable?