Comments on: Summit Condos

By: miws

miws — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:05:21 +0000

According to King County Parcel Viewer, this was a conversion. The building was originally constructed in 1968.

Though not pretty, hopefully being from that era the original construction is of decent quality.

And yep, another dumbass developer claiming bankruptcy!

Here’s the link to the properties Parcel Viewer page:

http://tinyurl.com/24hgrw2

By: William

William — Wed, 05 May 2010 20:55:41 +0000

This building was a lot better when it was painted dark brown and you didn’t notice it so much. Apparently they never sold any of the units even at auction because it’s now rentals based on the fact that there’s a “now leasing” sign in front now.

By: BeLikeMoses

BeLikeMoses — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 05:13:32 +0000

After climbing to the summit of this pile, I wanted to cry out,
“Let my people go, Pharaoh!”

Btw, remember kiddies, all of these buildings had to go through
a design review board full of wonderful residents, well-wishers,
landscape architects, architects, designers, and really smart
folks, before the developers could get their MUP.
Wow. Cream of the crop. Best of the best.
Defenders of the Faith of Cheap Ass Condos.

By: Mud Baby

Mud Baby — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 19:09:21 +0000

Maybe naming the rubber-band project “Belt On Hill” would stimulate sales. Just sayin’…

By: old timer

old timer — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:20:57 +0000

When I did a Google ‘Street View” of this address, I got a picture of another, older building. Summit Tower.
It looks as if this was another apartment converted to condos project.
Interesting.

By: craig threlkeld

craig threlkeld — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:06:45 +0000

I am truly ignorant of the answer to this question, hopefully someone in the construction industry will be able to set me straight: do the contractors of unadorned boxes like these actually spend money on an architect, or do they just go to a structural engineer and have them shoe-horn into them as many units as possible? I don’t know anyone in the architectural industry, but presume, as in the culinary field, not everyone who ties on an apron is going to become Thomas Keller. America has far more hamburger flippers than real cooks. I suspect the architectural profession reflects that as well.

By: Mikey

Mikey — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:01:15 +0000

I think I saw these condos on an in flight magazine. The y were sandwiched between that cubic zirconium cuff links that I’m now wearing and a giant stuffed unicorn. I would have gotten in on this “Deal of a Lifetime!!!” but I kept waiting them to throw in the collectible Lord of the Rings steak knives.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:29:56 +0000

Hey, I live in San Francisco and this looks like Beverly Hills compared to the lego shacks people buy here…cheapshit starting at $1.5 million!

By: David

David — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:49:03 +0000

The poor neighbourhood, as well as the poor person who resides in the green home next to the “cardboard” box monstrosity. The developer must have been inspired by the box his/her tulip table cam in. What an obvious demonstration of cost cutting measures by the developer in order to produce a structure that frankly wouldn’t be fit to find shelter within during a rain storm. Summit indeed, more like a gateway to architectural Hell that fails miserably to blend in harmoniously with the neighbourhood’s aesthetic tradition. The least that the developer and their boring architect could have done would have been to add decent landscaping to the place as well as a better looking and more inviting entry to said overgrown suburban nightmare. What’s up with the colour choice, they must have had a sale on ugly beige that day. No wonder the developer couldn’t sell and had to go to auction. Ugggggggggggggh. These condo’s so need a colour change of perhaps a deep forest green or dark basil.

By: Luddite

Luddite — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:31:06 +0000

I’m with you Jeff. The first thing I thought is “OMG, the poor neighbors”! Imagine that crap building next to your own house.