Exposed!

Now that the rainy season has arrived full on, perhaps it’s timely to expose certain downtown buildings and their owners for a socially reprehensible offense to pedestrians. I am referring here to the growing prevalence of fake canopies.

Over the last year a number of older buildings around the downtown core have been retrofitted with projecting canopies constructed of glass and steel. Some are simple and serviceable, others are quite elegant. Some have been accomplished as a part of Metro Transit’s commendable efforts toward making downtown a better place to use transit. All of these improvements are welcome in a climate that demands cover over the sidewalk during the winter and sunlight in the summer.

However, the objectives of this general endeavor are apparently not universally shared. Whether done by individual merchants or property owners, we are seeing constructions of steel ribs and struts that extend out over the sidewalks but in fact contain no glass or other materials to provide actual cover. It’s quite the mean-spirited trick: What looks like cover is, in fact, open to the sky and, therefore, rainfall.

I have experienced at least three of these architectural cheats. One is over the entrance to Belltown Court on Second Avenue. Although a small canopy, I have seen more than one parent waiting to send a child off on a school bus while waiting under this false cover and getting soaked in the process.

More egregious is the one Third, just north of the Century Square building, which has recently had a handsome canopy added to its west- and south-facing sides. The offending canopy is actually a quite elaborate and costly structure but it offers no glass panels.

American Apparel:Thumbing its nose at shoppers.

The third one I have experienced is at the American Apparel store on 6th Avenue. This structure is really a sign disguised as a canopy, which should not be allowed at all. Here is a prime street in the retail core with a national brand business thumbing its nose at shoppers. How completely rude is that?

I’m sure there are other examples, which I leave to respondents to point out.

I fear that perhaps the city’s land use code does not mention the requirement of glass (or other solid covering) in its definition of canopies – a loophole that should be corrected immediately. If glass is indeed a requirement, then these parties should be sent notices of a city code violation with the associated penalties.

Now, for those who will undoubtedly send me some sharp retorts about how transients or teenagers will gather under these projections and businesses would have to pay more for cleaning, security, blah, blah, blah — save your breath (or typing fingers). Throughout downtown there are scores of glass and steel canopies, generous in width, high enough not to block storefronts and low enough to offer shelter that are not havens for antisocial or criminal behavior. To not provide canopies in this climate and latitude along primary pedestrian streets is either being lazy or insulting.

Besides, why would we ever take the view that, because of a few miscreants, 95 percent of the population must suffer?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • Jim Sullivan

    Thanks for publicizing this Mark. But what’s the building owner’s incentive for the fake (or true) canopies? Are they provided in exchange for some benefit offered by the city, or are they required by the city for new or significant remodel construction?

  • N Rimmer

    I completely agree with the last sentence of your article, however we as a society all to often take that view and allow the masses to suffer because of the few miscreants on many fronts. Gun rights come to mind as the most egregious example of this. Because of a few highly publicized cases of criminals using firearms to murder police officers, we now have state representatives trying to legislate what types of firearms law abiding citizens can own. We as a society need to start focusing on problematic people not inanimate objects.

  • JoshMahar

    Oh man, thank you so much for publicizing this. It has been a huge pet peeve of mine since the Third Ave one was built a few years back. Regardless of the miscreant problem, if you are going to build an awning why would you build it if it doesn’t even preform its function!!

    If this is actually a zoning oversight I’m embarrassed for DPD that it wasn’t fixed after the first time it happened.

  • GAnderson

    Good points.
    If the SMC does actually require canopies at certain locations, then I would argue that here are some definitions which should negate any impression of a “loophole”. All include the word “covering” for which your article points out does not exist:

    As defined in the SMC itself:
    SMC 15.02.042
    G. “Canopy” means a protective covering located at an entrance to a building.
    E. “Awning” means a protective covering attached to the wall of a building.

    As defined on Dictionary.com:
    Canopy: 2. an overhanging projection or covering, as a long canvas awning stretching from the doorway of a building to a curb.

  • Finish Tag

    Downtown zoning requires “overhead weather protection” not “canopies” and your examples certainly don’t protect from weather above.

    I know on Third Avenue there were rumors of a custom glass delay for the canopy by the 1,2,3,4,70 etc bus stop.

    Has anyone called DPD?